This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
Hi, I'm proposing the addition of |native_name=
to the infobox for consistency with
Template:Infobox film. Currently the way people indicate a series' native name is to paste the native script into the infobox like at
Devathai (2013 TV series) where the Tamil script is pasted on the line below the show's title, but a better way to embrace this (and I think we should embrace it) is to create a unique parameter that allows us to display the name, but perhaps in a less prominent way. See
Premam, where the Malayalam script appears underneath the image. The film infobox uses
Template:Infobox name module. I think that module has a bunch of different options to it. Other templates use {{lang-ta|தேவதை}} to render
Tamil: தேவதை. What do you think?
As for why I think the data is worth including, my reasons are three-fold: 1) It promotes accessibility to the English Wikipedia. People searching for a show in their mother tongue will have the option to read an article here. 2) It makes it easier for Wikipedians to find other references if we have the native script at hand. There are reliable published sources written in a variety of languages. 3) WP:NOINDICSCRIPT prevents the inclusion of Indic scripts in an article's lead, and readers want to put this information somewhere. The infobox seems like the quickest and simplest way to deal with this. The native language is going to get added anyway, so it makes sense to figure out a way to accommodate it. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 06:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@ AussieLegend, Geraldo Perez, Favre1fan93, AlexTheWhovian, Adamstom.97, Bignole, EvergreenFir, and AngusWOOF: Any thoughts on this? Sorry for the obnoxious ping, but I didn't want to barrel ahead without getting some more feedback. If we decide to proceed, is there anyone locally who can make the change? Aussie? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 03:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
|native_name=
which I have not objection to, just this cannot be a way around the RfC that relates to Indian articles.
Geraldo Perez (
talk) 04:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)|native_name=
. If you scroll through the name module template instructions, the sample Infobox is Crouching Tiger. I don't know if that means Crouching Tiger has not yet been changed to use the correct template, or if the community decided to go a different route.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 00:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Are there any objections to this? If not, may we proceed? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Since there have been no objections, Aussie, is there any chance you could monkey with the template to make this happen? I know that Template:Infobox film employs the {{ Infobox name module}} template in this field. I don't know nuthin' about this technical stuff, so I don't know if {{Infobox name module|ta|தேவதை}} is better (it's certainly longer) or if {{lang-ta|தேவதை}} is better. Also, if you don't have time, no probs, I can go to The Pump. Don't mean to unfairly dump it on you. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 08:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
|native_name=
to the sandbox. Please
test to ensure that it has the desired effect. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 03:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The value of the parameter show_name_2 should be italicized to be consistent with show_name. Mdrnpndr ( talk) 20:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Your edit on the television infobox [3] is causing problems in cases like this and this where information about the second title is in parenthesis. Is there a way around this? Could you revert it if there isn't? Grapesoda22 ( talk) 06:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
So there are over 14,000 pages that are using the 4 deprecated params ( Category:Pages using infobox television with alias parameters). Is there some reason that these params need to be deprecated?? Why not just support both? -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 23:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@ User:Zackmann08, @ User:AussieLegend: I think the alias category should be deleted entirely. It's essentially a (hidden) badge of shame for using perfectly valid parameter names. Mdrnpndr ( talk) 14:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I've been noticing for a while now, if I access an article on the mobile site using this infobox, the title above the image does not display. However, film articles do display the title. For comparison, see
Spider-Man: Homecoming versus
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Comparing the code for the two infoboxes (this and Infobox film), the only difference I can see is this uses | aboveclass = summary navbox-title
and the film infobox uses | aboveclass = summary
. That's the only thing I can think of that is preventing this from happening, and such most likely be changed if that is the case.
AlexTheWhovian, would you know any more about this given your work on templates? -
Favre1fan93 (
talk) 00:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
navbox-title
in the sandbox for {{
Infobox television}}, to match {{
Infobox film}}, and per the
testcases displayed in the mobile format for this template, it does seem to be the issue. However, looking at the
testcases in the desktop format, it removes the styling of the header. In the mobile format, it appears that none of the subheaders (e.g. Production, Release) display either, where {{
Infobox television}} uses these, but {{
Infobox film}} does not.
Alex|The|Whovian
? 02:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I see num_series and "number of series" used. I keep stopping at that. Shouldn't it be "number of seasons"? Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and your patience- I should have read farther in the instructions, of course, sorry! Schissel | Sound the Note! 00:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Someone can explain to me why in the parameter only the link is seen, but not the text "website".-- Philip J Fry Talk to me 00:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
In response to a message left on my talk page per an edit to Family Guy regarding aspect ratios that, "The picture_format field should be 'the video or film format in which the show is or was originally recorded or broadcast'. Aspect ratios are not a video format." I vehemently disagree, the field is "picture format", not "video format", and there aren't any clear guidelines about what to include and what to exclude. The vast precedent is to include aspect ratio in the technical specs as nearly all shows have that information in their specs. Guideline should be updated to address this. -- Shivertimbers433 ( talk) 19:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
the picture_format
field should be "the video or film format in which the show is or was originally recorded or broadcast".
Also as I wrote,
aspect ratios are not a format, they are simply the ratio between width and height of an image. A TV program originally recorded with a 4:3 aspect ratio can be broadcast with a 16:9 ratio by adding side borders. Videos recorded in any format are not locked to a specific
display aspect ratios, with limited exceptions like
720p, which specifies a 16:9 aspect ratio as part of the format. Examples of appropriate formats are listed in the template instructions - Black and white, Film, 405-line, NTSC ( 480i), PAL ( 576i), SECAM ( 576i), HDTV 720p, HDTV 1080i. Do not use " SDTV" as it is ambiguous.1080i, for example, is a video format that "assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9" but the aspect ratio is not part of the format. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a parameter named something like "Co-exec_producers" in case exec. producers and co-execs are credited separately? JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 11:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Why no imdb parameter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.33.162 ( talk) 19:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Since the staff writer, story editor, co-producer, producer, supervising producer, and co-executive producer titles are just experienced writing staff whose title often changes per season, the producer title serves no relevance in the template. Also, it might be worth considering adding a "produced by" credit, as it refers to the person operating physical production facilities. If adding the "produced by" credit in the template is not an option, could we at least do rid with the 'producer' title all together? Thanks. ATC . Talk 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I would like to know what can be done about this, there are telenovelas and series that always change their opening theme a clear example is El Señor de los Cielos and Señora Acero that in each season their main song are changed. Is it correct to mention this in the infobox?-- Philip J Fry : Talk 04:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey all, in
this edit I boldly added descriptions for |preceded_by=
and |followed_by=
, but then reverted myself because I think I screwed up. My additions were:
|preceded_by= <!-- To indicate placement in narrative continuity, not time slot. Ex: Star Trek: Voyager was preceded_by Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. -->
|followed_by= <!-- To indicate placement in narrative continuity, not time slot. Ex: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was followed_by Star Trek: Voyager. -->
Is that what they're for? To indicate narrative chronology? Or are they just to indicate production chronology? So if Star Trek: Enterprise is a prequel to the 1966 series, we don't care about that, we only care that it was produced after Voyager, thus Enterprise would be |preceded_by=Star Trek: Voyager
. Is that correct? I think we need some kind of short explanation for the people who copy/paste the template into new articles. Thanks,
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 14:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
You messed up the template by extending the website, because a lot of these shows' websites feature long URLs and ruin the page structures. Please change it back. — Jman98 00:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
|website=
parameter. I then removed these parameters, so that it would pull straight from Wikidata, and then it wraps properly. It just doesn't wrap when the URL is declared through the parameter. --
Alex
TW 05:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Can someone look at Father Brown (2013 TV series) to fix the stretched infobox. It worked and looked beter when it said BBC website and you just clicked on it. REVUpminster ( talk) 08:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to the instructions for the list of episodes parameter: "Do not link to sections within the article."
The reason is spelled out at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE which says not to link to article sections in the infobox because the table of contents already covers that need. The only links allowed are to other articles. Binksternet ( talk) 02:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
|list_episodes=#Episodes
. --
Alex
TW 02:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Following previous discussions ( such as this one) that went nowhere, is there any way that the Production company(s) template label can use logic to work out if more than one company is listed in the parameter (for example by detecting a "|" character), and accordingly change its label to "companies"? — Hugh 01:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The fetching-website-from-wikidata code seems to be broken. If there are multiple URLs at wikidata, then the code concatenates (joins together) all the URLs:
Ideally either only the first URL should be displayed, or all the URLs should be displayed separately as a list. — Sladen ( talk) 07:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
{{
official website}}
template to display different URLs on enwiki vs. svwiki). —
Sladen (
talk) 18:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Please update how this parameter should be used. Only confusions are created, as it is not indicated that bold letters are not used.-- Philip J Fry : Talk 20:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone think that the "related" category under "chronological" in this Infobox should be changed to include spin-offs of spin-offs? Specifically for example: Chicago Justice is a spin-off of Chicago P.D. which is a spin-off of Chicago Fire however because Chicago Justice is not a direct spin-off of Chicago Fire the current explanation of this category disallows it being included in Chicago Fire's Infobox. TheDoctorWho ( talk) 02:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Another example of this is NCIS and NCIS: LA the characters in LA were not in the parent show until the back door pilot but I always consider LA a spin-off of NCIS.- But it's not actually a spin-off. It's simply a program created under the NCIS banner. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
In media, a spin-off (or spinoff) is a radio program, television program, video game, film, or any narrative work, derived from one or more already existing works, that focuses, in particular, in more detail on one aspect of that original work (e.g. a particular topic, character, or an event).
On a handful of TV articles I read or edit, many staff members, who are usually writers on the series, are listed under the executive producer or producer categories with those titles in parenthesis or with a divider in place which makes the lists more cluttered. I'm proposing these to acknowledge more of the creative contributions to the series, but mainly to reduce said clutter.
In television, especially television under the Writers Guild of America, these producer credits are defined ranks for full time creatives on the series (usually writers, and sometimes directors), and while they can change season to season, so do executive producers and producers. In TV, the ranking goes: co-producer -> producer -> supervising producer -> co-executive producer (entitled rank-ups end here)-> executive producer. Staff is entitled to rank up one every season, which can result in people listed under Producer being removed or modified when the next year they rank up to Supervising Producer. It doesn't seem right to add a person to the defined parameter only to remove them later, so I think it's best to include all the full time producer credits on a series. -- Tv's emory ( talk) 21:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Tv's emory makes a valid point which I have thought as well. It does not make sense to only list executive producers and producers. Producers do indeed move up to supervising producers and co-executive producers. And they are not always listed elsewhere. I would not add co-producers. Perhaps the infobox should be limited to executive producers, co-executive producers and supervising producers, the three top ranks. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 05:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The genre parameter is redundant since the genre is already mentioned in the lead section of the article. Furthermore, listing genres is very subjective unlike the other fields. Take a look at Infobox Film, which doesn't have a genre parameter. -- Wrath X ( talk) 05:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Really quickly, I've reported an an issue at Phabricator about Wikipedia's Visual Editor, because it seems to be stripping whitespace from film infoboxes by default like here, which results in parameter being pulled out of alignment.
Do we have any type of community preference for how the infobox parameters are aligned? I know some people (like myself) prefer this:
| director = Sally Roe | cinematographer = John Doe | editor = Dave McBoatface
Whereas some of us prefer this style:
| director = Sally Roe | cinematographer = John Doe | editor = Dave McBoatface
Since this varies from article to article, I assumed it was kind of a local consensus matter. If that's the case, then it's kind of annoying that Visual Editor is stripping out the whitespace by default. I'm not technically proficient, but from what I can tell of the Phabricator responses, if this is something we don't care for, we'd need to change some aspect of the template markup to instruct Visual Editor to prefer option A, or to prefer option B, or maybe there's another option to tell Visual Editor not to screw with the parameter alignment at all? Technical whizzes welcome. (Also, if you notice that this message also appears at Template:Infobox film, that's because it's happening with that template as well.) Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is this the case? It is a violation of clarity, as it implies that all the people listed are presenting the show at once. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
4meter4 ( talk · contribs) just brought up a good point on ANI about the issues we have about episode counts in the infobox, where we get silly edit wars because of good-intentioned users changing the number of episodes before they come to air (and especially on the soap articles this is the major issue with this template). The heading is called num_episodes/"No. of episodes", but I feel it should be "No. of episodes aired" so that the field is fully transparent. Are there any objections or concerns about this proposal? Nate • ( chatter) 22:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
|released=y
parameter, which would change it from "No. of episodes aired" to "No. of episodes released".
nyuszika7h (
talk) 10:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)<!--Only increment as a new episode premieres, per the documentation of the template!-->
has always worked for me. No need to fix what isn't broken. --
Alex
TW 10:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Can Planned by be added as parameter? Or can we continue using "Created by" and "Developed by"? The South Korean infobox has it and a lot of articles (TV series articles) use it. Manly, a planner is a production manager that oversees the production company and help it plan the work. He is not part of the production company or it is an entire different company that help plan everything before the production company start shooting. So far people have been using "Created by" and "Developed by" since there is no "Planned by". May question is, which is the correct parameter for this? CherryPie94 ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CherryPie94 ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The website parameter is still acting funky. I know this has been discussed before (see archive 10) but can this still be fixed? To recap: when the website parameter is included in the infobox with no URL, it appears like this (with no Website header) but when you remove website param or manually enter the URL, it appears correctly with the Website header. Should we simply be removing the website parameter then and just let Wikidata do the work? Which brings me to my second question: what do we do with dead links for official websites (24's is currently a dead link). Do we remove them completely or try to archive them? The problem here, in my opinion, archive links can be fairly long (and ugly looking) for the infobox, and usually there's thousands of captures, so what decides what date we use. So, can we hide the parameter for shows where their official website is dead? Might be best to leave the archived link in the external links section and maybe just use a link like this for an example. I've been wanting to do an external link clean-up on the articles in my watchlist, but I want to know what the protocol here is first. Thanks guys. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 15:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
|website=hide
no longer works. Instead, "[hide Website]" is displayed. I've fixed the header problem but not the |website=hide
issue. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 14:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Please see [12]
Hello, there seems to be an issue with inserting a website URL for
this page. I tried using the {{url|...}}
template (in the form | website={{url|itv.com/prizeisland}}
, but it displayed square brackets either side when previewed, and showed the link next to the word 'website'. Is this an error with syntax or the template?
As it goes, the link should have been removed from this particular page anyway—I just thought I would bring it here in case it was causing errors elsewhere. – Sb 2001 17:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC) PS: I think this is different from the case presented previously. I have never encountered this problem anywhere else.
|website=
http://www.itv.com/prizeisland
seems to work fine.
[13] --
AussieLegend (
✉) 18:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
topic says it all. Simply noted for others that may run across it. Ahwiv ( talk) 22:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I have come across different articles that list the narrator using the actor's name while others the character's name. Which one of this is acceptable. I have read the guidelines and I found that specific section not really specifying the correct way of formatting.
Thank you in advance. Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 13:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Co-Producers and Co-Executive Producers are high ranking members of a TV Show's crew and often lead the direction of the show as well as make decisions about the show's story line. It has been disputed by many that Co-Executive Producers do not belong in the Executive Producer list and that Co-Producers do not belong in the Producer list. If Co-Executive Producers have a higher ranking that Producers, shouldn't they have a spot in the info box? Shouldn't Co-Producers get recognition for their hard work on a TV Series? Is there anyway we could possibly start adding Co-Executive Producers to the Executive Producer list or that we could make a separate Co-Executive Producer section? ( Editor.ww.wentz ( talk) 21:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC))
For reference’s here’s the Producer’s Guild guidelines on positions including Co-Executive Producer. Larrybob ( talk) 14:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Many shows, such as talk shows and game shows, have voiceover talent that is more commonly referred to as an "announcer" than a narrator. For instance, Jim Thornton's article refers to him as the "announcer" of Wheel of Fortune, and the text of that article refers to all of its voiceover talent as "announcers". Is there a way that the "narrator" field can be modified to use "announcer" instead in instances where that is the more common term? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Is there an exception to the rule 'Years and seasons should not be included for TV presenters For example: A show that is fronted by one presenter has had more than one presenter during it's lifetime (A presenter has stepped down and a new host replace him/her or the show has been revived but with a new host ) an example of this is Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? (UK version) which recently had a week long revival for it's 20th Anniversary with Jeremy Clarkson hosting since it's Original host Chris Tarrant stepped down in 2013 (when the show was subsequently axed). So can I add which version each one hosted to avoid confusion amongst people? Also is there a reason that years should not be included
Hello! I was hoping we could add 2 categories to the Infoboxes on television and movies? I'm requesting that below or above Cinematography - we add ...
Production Design
Costume Design
Both are important elements to the overall look of the show or movie. A lot of production and costume designers have extensive wiki pages, so it would be great to include everyone on the Project page infobox. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Smashinga (
talk •
contribs) 14:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone modify this template so it can also cover programming blocks? JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 11:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, should we be listing series that have had a few years gap and have come back as a revived format. For example Dancing on Ice finished in 2014 but then returned in 2018, so should we list the start and end dates separately? MSalmon ( talk) 20:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add to the top:
{{redirect|T:ITV|the ITV navbox|Template:ITV}}
or the template namespace equivalent. Because this template lists T:ITV as a shortcut while {{ ITV}} is its own template. — 67.14.236.193 ( talk) 06:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done: - Shortcuts are added to the documentation as indicated by MSGJ and there is already a shortcut at the top of the documentation subpage. There is therefore no need for a shortcut in the template itself. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
Hi, I'm proposing the addition of |native_name=
to the infobox for consistency with
Template:Infobox film. Currently the way people indicate a series' native name is to paste the native script into the infobox like at
Devathai (2013 TV series) where the Tamil script is pasted on the line below the show's title, but a better way to embrace this (and I think we should embrace it) is to create a unique parameter that allows us to display the name, but perhaps in a less prominent way. See
Premam, where the Malayalam script appears underneath the image. The film infobox uses
Template:Infobox name module. I think that module has a bunch of different options to it. Other templates use {{lang-ta|தேவதை}} to render
Tamil: தேவதை. What do you think?
As for why I think the data is worth including, my reasons are three-fold: 1) It promotes accessibility to the English Wikipedia. People searching for a show in their mother tongue will have the option to read an article here. 2) It makes it easier for Wikipedians to find other references if we have the native script at hand. There are reliable published sources written in a variety of languages. 3) WP:NOINDICSCRIPT prevents the inclusion of Indic scripts in an article's lead, and readers want to put this information somewhere. The infobox seems like the quickest and simplest way to deal with this. The native language is going to get added anyway, so it makes sense to figure out a way to accommodate it. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 06:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@ AussieLegend, Geraldo Perez, Favre1fan93, AlexTheWhovian, Adamstom.97, Bignole, EvergreenFir, and AngusWOOF: Any thoughts on this? Sorry for the obnoxious ping, but I didn't want to barrel ahead without getting some more feedback. If we decide to proceed, is there anyone locally who can make the change? Aussie? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 03:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
|native_name=
which I have not objection to, just this cannot be a way around the RfC that relates to Indian articles.
Geraldo Perez (
talk) 04:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)|native_name=
. If you scroll through the name module template instructions, the sample Infobox is Crouching Tiger. I don't know if that means Crouching Tiger has not yet been changed to use the correct template, or if the community decided to go a different route.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 00:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Are there any objections to this? If not, may we proceed? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Since there have been no objections, Aussie, is there any chance you could monkey with the template to make this happen? I know that Template:Infobox film employs the {{ Infobox name module}} template in this field. I don't know nuthin' about this technical stuff, so I don't know if {{Infobox name module|ta|தேவதை}} is better (it's certainly longer) or if {{lang-ta|தேவதை}} is better. Also, if you don't have time, no probs, I can go to The Pump. Don't mean to unfairly dump it on you. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 08:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
|native_name=
to the sandbox. Please
test to ensure that it has the desired effect. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 03:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The value of the parameter show_name_2 should be italicized to be consistent with show_name. Mdrnpndr ( talk) 20:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Your edit on the television infobox [3] is causing problems in cases like this and this where information about the second title is in parenthesis. Is there a way around this? Could you revert it if there isn't? Grapesoda22 ( talk) 06:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
So there are over 14,000 pages that are using the 4 deprecated params ( Category:Pages using infobox television with alias parameters). Is there some reason that these params need to be deprecated?? Why not just support both? -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 23:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@ User:Zackmann08, @ User:AussieLegend: I think the alias category should be deleted entirely. It's essentially a (hidden) badge of shame for using perfectly valid parameter names. Mdrnpndr ( talk) 14:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I've been noticing for a while now, if I access an article on the mobile site using this infobox, the title above the image does not display. However, film articles do display the title. For comparison, see
Spider-Man: Homecoming versus
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Comparing the code for the two infoboxes (this and Infobox film), the only difference I can see is this uses | aboveclass = summary navbox-title
and the film infobox uses | aboveclass = summary
. That's the only thing I can think of that is preventing this from happening, and such most likely be changed if that is the case.
AlexTheWhovian, would you know any more about this given your work on templates? -
Favre1fan93 (
talk) 00:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
navbox-title
in the sandbox for {{
Infobox television}}, to match {{
Infobox film}}, and per the
testcases displayed in the mobile format for this template, it does seem to be the issue. However, looking at the
testcases in the desktop format, it removes the styling of the header. In the mobile format, it appears that none of the subheaders (e.g. Production, Release) display either, where {{
Infobox television}} uses these, but {{
Infobox film}} does not.
Alex|The|Whovian
? 02:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I see num_series and "number of series" used. I keep stopping at that. Shouldn't it be "number of seasons"? Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and your patience- I should have read farther in the instructions, of course, sorry! Schissel | Sound the Note! 00:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Someone can explain to me why in the parameter only the link is seen, but not the text "website".-- Philip J Fry Talk to me 00:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
In response to a message left on my talk page per an edit to Family Guy regarding aspect ratios that, "The picture_format field should be 'the video or film format in which the show is or was originally recorded or broadcast'. Aspect ratios are not a video format." I vehemently disagree, the field is "picture format", not "video format", and there aren't any clear guidelines about what to include and what to exclude. The vast precedent is to include aspect ratio in the technical specs as nearly all shows have that information in their specs. Guideline should be updated to address this. -- Shivertimbers433 ( talk) 19:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
the picture_format
field should be "the video or film format in which the show is or was originally recorded or broadcast".
Also as I wrote,
aspect ratios are not a format, they are simply the ratio between width and height of an image. A TV program originally recorded with a 4:3 aspect ratio can be broadcast with a 16:9 ratio by adding side borders. Videos recorded in any format are not locked to a specific
display aspect ratios, with limited exceptions like
720p, which specifies a 16:9 aspect ratio as part of the format. Examples of appropriate formats are listed in the template instructions - Black and white, Film, 405-line, NTSC ( 480i), PAL ( 576i), SECAM ( 576i), HDTV 720p, HDTV 1080i. Do not use " SDTV" as it is ambiguous.1080i, for example, is a video format that "assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9" but the aspect ratio is not part of the format. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a parameter named something like "Co-exec_producers" in case exec. producers and co-execs are credited separately? JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 11:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Why no imdb parameter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.33.162 ( talk) 19:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Since the staff writer, story editor, co-producer, producer, supervising producer, and co-executive producer titles are just experienced writing staff whose title often changes per season, the producer title serves no relevance in the template. Also, it might be worth considering adding a "produced by" credit, as it refers to the person operating physical production facilities. If adding the "produced by" credit in the template is not an option, could we at least do rid with the 'producer' title all together? Thanks. ATC . Talk 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I would like to know what can be done about this, there are telenovelas and series that always change their opening theme a clear example is El Señor de los Cielos and Señora Acero that in each season their main song are changed. Is it correct to mention this in the infobox?-- Philip J Fry : Talk 04:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey all, in
this edit I boldly added descriptions for |preceded_by=
and |followed_by=
, but then reverted myself because I think I screwed up. My additions were:
|preceded_by= <!-- To indicate placement in narrative continuity, not time slot. Ex: Star Trek: Voyager was preceded_by Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. -->
|followed_by= <!-- To indicate placement in narrative continuity, not time slot. Ex: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was followed_by Star Trek: Voyager. -->
Is that what they're for? To indicate narrative chronology? Or are they just to indicate production chronology? So if Star Trek: Enterprise is a prequel to the 1966 series, we don't care about that, we only care that it was produced after Voyager, thus Enterprise would be |preceded_by=Star Trek: Voyager
. Is that correct? I think we need some kind of short explanation for the people who copy/paste the template into new articles. Thanks,
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 14:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
You messed up the template by extending the website, because a lot of these shows' websites feature long URLs and ruin the page structures. Please change it back. — Jman98 00:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
|website=
parameter. I then removed these parameters, so that it would pull straight from Wikidata, and then it wraps properly. It just doesn't wrap when the URL is declared through the parameter. --
Alex
TW 05:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Can someone look at Father Brown (2013 TV series) to fix the stretched infobox. It worked and looked beter when it said BBC website and you just clicked on it. REVUpminster ( talk) 08:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to the instructions for the list of episodes parameter: "Do not link to sections within the article."
The reason is spelled out at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE which says not to link to article sections in the infobox because the table of contents already covers that need. The only links allowed are to other articles. Binksternet ( talk) 02:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
|list_episodes=#Episodes
. --
Alex
TW 02:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Following previous discussions ( such as this one) that went nowhere, is there any way that the Production company(s) template label can use logic to work out if more than one company is listed in the parameter (for example by detecting a "|" character), and accordingly change its label to "companies"? — Hugh 01:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The fetching-website-from-wikidata code seems to be broken. If there are multiple URLs at wikidata, then the code concatenates (joins together) all the URLs:
Ideally either only the first URL should be displayed, or all the URLs should be displayed separately as a list. — Sladen ( talk) 07:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
{{
official website}}
template to display different URLs on enwiki vs. svwiki). —
Sladen (
talk) 18:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Please update how this parameter should be used. Only confusions are created, as it is not indicated that bold letters are not used.-- Philip J Fry : Talk 20:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone think that the "related" category under "chronological" in this Infobox should be changed to include spin-offs of spin-offs? Specifically for example: Chicago Justice is a spin-off of Chicago P.D. which is a spin-off of Chicago Fire however because Chicago Justice is not a direct spin-off of Chicago Fire the current explanation of this category disallows it being included in Chicago Fire's Infobox. TheDoctorWho ( talk) 02:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Another example of this is NCIS and NCIS: LA the characters in LA were not in the parent show until the back door pilot but I always consider LA a spin-off of NCIS.- But it's not actually a spin-off. It's simply a program created under the NCIS banner. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
In media, a spin-off (or spinoff) is a radio program, television program, video game, film, or any narrative work, derived from one or more already existing works, that focuses, in particular, in more detail on one aspect of that original work (e.g. a particular topic, character, or an event).
On a handful of TV articles I read or edit, many staff members, who are usually writers on the series, are listed under the executive producer or producer categories with those titles in parenthesis or with a divider in place which makes the lists more cluttered. I'm proposing these to acknowledge more of the creative contributions to the series, but mainly to reduce said clutter.
In television, especially television under the Writers Guild of America, these producer credits are defined ranks for full time creatives on the series (usually writers, and sometimes directors), and while they can change season to season, so do executive producers and producers. In TV, the ranking goes: co-producer -> producer -> supervising producer -> co-executive producer (entitled rank-ups end here)-> executive producer. Staff is entitled to rank up one every season, which can result in people listed under Producer being removed or modified when the next year they rank up to Supervising Producer. It doesn't seem right to add a person to the defined parameter only to remove them later, so I think it's best to include all the full time producer credits on a series. -- Tv's emory ( talk) 21:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Tv's emory makes a valid point which I have thought as well. It does not make sense to only list executive producers and producers. Producers do indeed move up to supervising producers and co-executive producers. And they are not always listed elsewhere. I would not add co-producers. Perhaps the infobox should be limited to executive producers, co-executive producers and supervising producers, the three top ranks. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 05:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The genre parameter is redundant since the genre is already mentioned in the lead section of the article. Furthermore, listing genres is very subjective unlike the other fields. Take a look at Infobox Film, which doesn't have a genre parameter. -- Wrath X ( talk) 05:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Really quickly, I've reported an an issue at Phabricator about Wikipedia's Visual Editor, because it seems to be stripping whitespace from film infoboxes by default like here, which results in parameter being pulled out of alignment.
Do we have any type of community preference for how the infobox parameters are aligned? I know some people (like myself) prefer this:
| director = Sally Roe | cinematographer = John Doe | editor = Dave McBoatface
Whereas some of us prefer this style:
| director = Sally Roe | cinematographer = John Doe | editor = Dave McBoatface
Since this varies from article to article, I assumed it was kind of a local consensus matter. If that's the case, then it's kind of annoying that Visual Editor is stripping out the whitespace by default. I'm not technically proficient, but from what I can tell of the Phabricator responses, if this is something we don't care for, we'd need to change some aspect of the template markup to instruct Visual Editor to prefer option A, or to prefer option B, or maybe there's another option to tell Visual Editor not to screw with the parameter alignment at all? Technical whizzes welcome. (Also, if you notice that this message also appears at Template:Infobox film, that's because it's happening with that template as well.) Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is this the case? It is a violation of clarity, as it implies that all the people listed are presenting the show at once. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
4meter4 ( talk · contribs) just brought up a good point on ANI about the issues we have about episode counts in the infobox, where we get silly edit wars because of good-intentioned users changing the number of episodes before they come to air (and especially on the soap articles this is the major issue with this template). The heading is called num_episodes/"No. of episodes", but I feel it should be "No. of episodes aired" so that the field is fully transparent. Are there any objections or concerns about this proposal? Nate • ( chatter) 22:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
|released=y
parameter, which would change it from "No. of episodes aired" to "No. of episodes released".
nyuszika7h (
talk) 10:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)<!--Only increment as a new episode premieres, per the documentation of the template!-->
has always worked for me. No need to fix what isn't broken. --
Alex
TW 10:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Can Planned by be added as parameter? Or can we continue using "Created by" and "Developed by"? The South Korean infobox has it and a lot of articles (TV series articles) use it. Manly, a planner is a production manager that oversees the production company and help it plan the work. He is not part of the production company or it is an entire different company that help plan everything before the production company start shooting. So far people have been using "Created by" and "Developed by" since there is no "Planned by". May question is, which is the correct parameter for this? CherryPie94 ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CherryPie94 ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The website parameter is still acting funky. I know this has been discussed before (see archive 10) but can this still be fixed? To recap: when the website parameter is included in the infobox with no URL, it appears like this (with no Website header) but when you remove website param or manually enter the URL, it appears correctly with the Website header. Should we simply be removing the website parameter then and just let Wikidata do the work? Which brings me to my second question: what do we do with dead links for official websites (24's is currently a dead link). Do we remove them completely or try to archive them? The problem here, in my opinion, archive links can be fairly long (and ugly looking) for the infobox, and usually there's thousands of captures, so what decides what date we use. So, can we hide the parameter for shows where their official website is dead? Might be best to leave the archived link in the external links section and maybe just use a link like this for an example. I've been wanting to do an external link clean-up on the articles in my watchlist, but I want to know what the protocol here is first. Thanks guys. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 15:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
|website=hide
no longer works. Instead, "[hide Website]" is displayed. I've fixed the header problem but not the |website=hide
issue. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 14:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Please see [12]
Hello, there seems to be an issue with inserting a website URL for
this page. I tried using the {{url|...}}
template (in the form | website={{url|itv.com/prizeisland}}
, but it displayed square brackets either side when previewed, and showed the link next to the word 'website'. Is this an error with syntax or the template?
As it goes, the link should have been removed from this particular page anyway—I just thought I would bring it here in case it was causing errors elsewhere. – Sb 2001 17:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC) PS: I think this is different from the case presented previously. I have never encountered this problem anywhere else.
|website=
http://www.itv.com/prizeisland
seems to work fine.
[13] --
AussieLegend (
✉) 18:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
topic says it all. Simply noted for others that may run across it. Ahwiv ( talk) 22:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I have come across different articles that list the narrator using the actor's name while others the character's name. Which one of this is acceptable. I have read the guidelines and I found that specific section not really specifying the correct way of formatting.
Thank you in advance. Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 13:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Co-Producers and Co-Executive Producers are high ranking members of a TV Show's crew and often lead the direction of the show as well as make decisions about the show's story line. It has been disputed by many that Co-Executive Producers do not belong in the Executive Producer list and that Co-Producers do not belong in the Producer list. If Co-Executive Producers have a higher ranking that Producers, shouldn't they have a spot in the info box? Shouldn't Co-Producers get recognition for their hard work on a TV Series? Is there anyway we could possibly start adding Co-Executive Producers to the Executive Producer list or that we could make a separate Co-Executive Producer section? ( Editor.ww.wentz ( talk) 21:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC))
For reference’s here’s the Producer’s Guild guidelines on positions including Co-Executive Producer. Larrybob ( talk) 14:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Many shows, such as talk shows and game shows, have voiceover talent that is more commonly referred to as an "announcer" than a narrator. For instance, Jim Thornton's article refers to him as the "announcer" of Wheel of Fortune, and the text of that article refers to all of its voiceover talent as "announcers". Is there a way that the "narrator" field can be modified to use "announcer" instead in instances where that is the more common term? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Is there an exception to the rule 'Years and seasons should not be included for TV presenters For example: A show that is fronted by one presenter has had more than one presenter during it's lifetime (A presenter has stepped down and a new host replace him/her or the show has been revived but with a new host ) an example of this is Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? (UK version) which recently had a week long revival for it's 20th Anniversary with Jeremy Clarkson hosting since it's Original host Chris Tarrant stepped down in 2013 (when the show was subsequently axed). So can I add which version each one hosted to avoid confusion amongst people? Also is there a reason that years should not be included
Hello! I was hoping we could add 2 categories to the Infoboxes on television and movies? I'm requesting that below or above Cinematography - we add ...
Production Design
Costume Design
Both are important elements to the overall look of the show or movie. A lot of production and costume designers have extensive wiki pages, so it would be great to include everyone on the Project page infobox. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Smashinga (
talk •
contribs) 14:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone modify this template so it can also cover programming blocks? JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 11:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, should we be listing series that have had a few years gap and have come back as a revived format. For example Dancing on Ice finished in 2014 but then returned in 2018, so should we list the start and end dates separately? MSalmon ( talk) 20:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add to the top:
{{redirect|T:ITV|the ITV navbox|Template:ITV}}
or the template namespace equivalent. Because this template lists T:ITV as a shortcut while {{ ITV}} is its own template. — 67.14.236.193 ( talk) 06:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done: - Shortcuts are added to the documentation as indicated by MSGJ and there is already a shortcut at the top of the documentation subpage. There is therefore no need for a shortcut in the template itself. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)