![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Why must you ask editors to leave the "Location" parameter blank if the production location of a program (i.e., where it is or was shot) is the same as its country of origin? This makes absolutely no sense as I interpret the word "location" as referred to in the parameter as the exact facility where the program is recorded, not necessarily the country. Seth Allen Discussion; Contributions 22:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Should be "{{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}}" not "{{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}]", a bracket was switched. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the "first aired" field, it looks like there might be an error with the "Start date" mini-template. It says <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}] -->, when I think it should say <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} --> Notice the difference between a and a }. Can this be fixed to have the right punctuation?
dogman15 ( talk) 08:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the Simple English link
Tate Brandley Stockwell 19:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a
documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage.
117Avenue (
talk)
03:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)I know it states that if a logo image is being used in the infobox that a caption isn't necessary, but to be really clear does that also apply to intertitle images. Just to differentiate between an actual logo, png, svg image like this File:The Legend of Korra logo.png or an actual intertitle/screen capute with the logo in it like this: File:Avatar-TLAlogo.jpg. QuasyBoy (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The following relates to both the "|list_episodes=
" field in this template and the "|episode_list=
" field in {{
Infobox television season}}. Since most episode lists are at "List of <foo> episodes" is there a reason why the content of the "|list_episodes=
" field should not be generated automatically based on the contents of "|show_name=
"? It seems common in season articles these days to fill the "|episode_list=
" field with "[[List of <foo> episodes|List of ''<foo>'' episodes]]" and automation would negate the need to add a piped link. --
AussieLegend (
talk)
09:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need both {{
Infobox television}} and {{
Infobox television season}}? Both templates use common fields although some, like "|list_episodes=
" and "|episode_list=
" serve essentially the same purpose but have different names. Those fields that aren't common could be enabled or disabled as necessary by a "|type=
" field (where type=series or season, defaulting to series since it's used in more articles). {{Infobox television season}}
is only used in 1,640 articles, while this template is used in 23,758 (that seems an interesting statistic given that there are more seasons than TV series) but that many changes are easily handled by a bot. Just a suggestion, but I thought I'd put it up for discussion. --
AussieLegend (
talk)
09:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
There's apparently a consensus on limits for number of writers (5), but why not for any other category? For example, Glee has 6 editors mentioned- I have a hard time believing many people care at all about who edits a show, if not removed completely I'd think not listing if over 3 would be fair. A rule about not listing for producers, Cinematography, directors about similar numbers makes sense too. In some shows lists of cast regulars over the course of the series gets pretty long (Glee's another example there) but at least those are the people everyone actually sees. Even then, we might want to have a concensus on limits (maybe if over 8, only list regulars for more than one season/the entire run/75% of the run/etc; if over 10 list in main article and put a link to that section in the infobox). -- 208.38.59.161 ( talk) 18:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This has recently been edited from Please link to a language to Please don't link.... What is the consensus as I am confused as I did not think you could change a protected page. REVUpminster ( talk) 20:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I work on a lot of television show articles, and I've been seeing some inconsistencies with the color used in various articles. Most use the standard purple with black text but I've noticed on shows for children in particular, some are just in arbitrary colors like hot pink with white text (ie Winx Club for instance). Some of the colors are a bit difficult to read and I'm wondering if we should discuss using the same color throughout the project just for uniformity. I know other infoboxes, such a actor/person and film are fairly standard and can't be changed. Perhaps we should do the same? Thoughts? Pinkadelica ♣ 22:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
bgcolour
and color text
parameters.—
Ryulong (
竜龙)
19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is nothing on this page that even suggests that bgcolour
and colour text
are intended to be used at all, and it seems that editors of kid's cartoon pages will persist in using them for the infobox template. There has been no suggested reason as to why these colors should be used in the infobox, and my attempts to remove them have been reverted on several pages with no explanation. It would just be better to eliminate these parameters entirely.—
Ryulong (
竜龙)
01:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Not done for now. I'd have actioned this except I seem to recall that the people who write
The Simpsons articles are adamant about retaining their own yellow colour. Any chance we could get some input from the TV project or the Village Pump? If it's generally agreed that we no longer need the colouring at all (and I agree that it's arbitrary and pretty pointless in the very best of circumstances) then we can nuke the colour override entirely.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
13:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I am for uniformity and against "I like this special color better than the standard one", particularly for recent TV shows without wikiprojects (!= taskforces). But to implement this, there should be a wider discussion than just on this template page. –
sgeureka
t•
c
08:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I have a compromise. Edit this template, so that it only receives colour deviations from the indefinitely fully protected sub-template. This way, all additions must be discussed first, and we can ensure the program meets the criteria at WP:DEVIATIONS. 117Avenue ( talk) 01:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Would there be any objections to a "|based_on=
" parameter in this template, much like the one at {{
Infobox film}}?
Cliff
Smith
19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought I had read about this issue somewhere before, but I can't find it. Can we have some clarification on the standard procedure or consensus on the use of parenthetical year ranges in infoboxes? When should they be used, and when shouldn't they be? Is (0000–) or (0000—) acceptable? Is < small > acceptable or not? -- Musdan77 ( talk) 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the plural in the parentheses for the parameter "Production company" be written as "Production company(ies)" or some deviant of that? Just a minor concern. Prayerfortheworld ( talk) 20:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that a lot of new editors, and readers, don't understand that runtime
is supposed to be without commercials. (e.g.
this edit) Perhaps a minor change should be made to the template so that " minutes (without commercials)" is automatically appended to the field to avoid any ambiguity, since most people don't seem to bother looking at template instructions? --
AussieLegend (
✉)
06:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this template only allows to add the final air date after its happened. While this fine for shows that stop suddenly, however, for shows that have an announced end date, I think it should be able to be added. I mean it's already added to article itself usually so why not put it in the template too? I think having the article differ from the template in this manner only serves to confuse readers, if only slightly. Therefore, I propose the end date be opened up to announced end dates too. CRRays Head90 | Get Some! 20:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to request an addition to the template. It would be a rating slot so TV shows would have a TV-G, TV-PG, TV-14 Rating Etc. on the info box. §h₳un 9∞76 00:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, do you think we could have a Coaches section for The Voice (both UK and US versions) -- MSalmon ( talk) 11:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that it will greatly benefit Wikipedia if people can instantly see what influenced what just like in the articles of philosophers or programming languages. I also wrote my proposal here and here.-- 80.218.156.126 ( talk) 10:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Back in 2006, there was a brief discussion about having head_writer as a parameter, at a time when there wasn't a writer parameter. It didn't get much discussion back then, but since its easy to find nearly 400 uses of "head writer" in existing articles, and over 170,000 hits for the term on IMDb, I'd like to get feedback from some of the 117 editors interested in this template as to whether you think adding "head writer" would be an good idea. Thanks in advance — 68.165.77.155 ( talk) 11:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
This section needs clarification; Is it as I believe for content editor of news/political programmes such as Panorama and Newsnight or as many seem to think for film editors. If it is film editors surely it should be after director of photography. Comments please. REVUpminster ( talk) 18:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I was thinking that the template should say "Original language(s)," not just "Languages" to be clearer, or to stop readers from thinking that the series/movie got dubbed when it really didn't. That should help.
166.137.100.42 ( talk) 05:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Done, seems straightforward enough.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
12:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
A number of the labels have the optional pluralised "(s)" on the end. It's fairly common practice for these kinds of labels not to be pluralised, leaving the singular form of the label to be applicable if there are multiple entries in the field. Singular should be the default, unless the field would always result in multiple entries, and then the plural form should be used. Labels in question: Creative director(s); Composer(s); Original language(s); Executive producer(s); Producer(s); Editor(s); Location(s); Production company(s). I propose we take all of these back to singular. Any objections? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 16:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm hoping to get some clarification and edification about the use of the fundamentally-flawed "last_aired" field in infoboxes, because its use/misuse is driving me a little nutty. I know there has been debate over this before, (Archive 4 and 5) but I'm not certain what the official position is, and I'm desperately trying to avoid reading the textwalls of rage. As editor Barsoomian pointed out here, shows just end. This appears to be the case with networks such as Nickelodeon, who, unlike NBC, don't typically pen press releases proclaiming "This show is canceled." To make matters worse, since Nickelodeon doesn't seem to really have "seasons", and they tend to trickle new episodes over months or even years ( ex: Fanboy & Chum Chum and Robot and Monster), it becomes even more difficult to point at these shows and say, "definitely cancelled". Compounding the frustration, are the legions of children on both sides of the fence who eagerly add last_air dates to shows they hate, only to be reverted by the kids who still have hope the show will continue to air. Can it be appropriately assumed that if a pickup is not announced at the following year's "Upfront", that the show has been cancelled? And more importantly, should the "last_aired" field be used to indicate the last date a new episode was aired, rather than an "end date" for the series? I feel like a goon every time I revert a "last_aired" submission for shows that demonstrate little indication of returning. Thank you for helping me work through this tough time in my life. :) Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 14:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone please add a "Based on" field to this infobox, perhaps after the "Created by" field? Many television series are based on existing series, films, novels, comics, and so on. For example, the editors of the Sherlock (TV series) article have resorted to a [ makeshift solution] with a bolded note about Arthur Conan Doyle's source material shoehorned into the field intended for the names of the creators, and the editors of Hannibal (TV series) have inaccurately [ given] Thomas Harris creator credit for the TV show, with parentheses explaining the nature of his involvement.
I think that it would be much neater, more informative and more straightforward to add a field specifically for the source material and its author; this would have the added benefit of being consistent with Template:Infobox film, which already has exactly the feature I'm proposing. — Flax5 19:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel the explanation for the location parameter should be edited slightly, by simply removing the part that says "Leave blank if same as country of origin above." This is rarely ever followed (rightly so), so it'd be nice to just see that sentence eliminated. Strictly speaking of American-produced TV, 95% of the time, a show will be shot in the U.S., obviously. Just because an American show is shot in America, doesn't make it's actual shooting location not important. It's important and notable that say, Breaking Bad shoots in New Mexico, or Homeland shoots in North Carolina, and The Walking Dead shoots in Georgia. The only time using the location parameter is unnecessary if it's for like a sitcom that shoots on sets in a warehouse in Los Angeles. Anyway, I just feel that part is dated and rarely followed, thus, should be updated. Thanks. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 20:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
ITV's Endeavour (TV series) is a show written and devised by Russell Lewis. As enumerated in BBC Commissioning, a "deviser" is a standard showrunner role; it is similar to the creator role, though devising is based on another creator's work, similar to the "developer's" role that Ronald D. Moore had on Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). As a standardised role defined by the BBC and also used by ITV, I believe "Devised by" should be added to the infobox. Thanks. 72.244.204.252 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I floated this question by WP:TV. I was curious to find out if there's a rule/guideline that governs the appropriate usage of the genre parameter. I've seen a number of TV show infoboxes with very specific descriptions of the show's humor styles, e.g., "gross-out humor", "slapstick", "off-color humor". Some examples of these: Sanjay and Craig, Fanboy and Chum Chum, Ren and Stimpy. I've also seen a number of shows where very broad, obvious, indisputable genres were used, e.g., "Sitcom", "Adult animation", "Animated sitcom", like for Seinfeld and Family Guy. The Infobox television template points to Television program#Genres for examples, and I don't see categories like "black comedy" or "farce". How detailed should these genre descriptions should be? Obviously we should use sources if we're going to get into nuance, but I also see this being a perpetual source of frustration-- editors battling over their specific interpretation of a show's genre. "No, it's surreal humor!" "Nuh-uh, it's surrealism!" Thanks for your input. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
That's it, we're gonna handle this format parameter once and for all! (I say, hoping naively that my sheer enthusiasm will lead to wide community interest and a permanent resolution!)
FACT: Template:Infobox television has a format parameter, and nobody seems to know how/if it should be used, or why it's still there. The lack of proper explanation is harming television articles, because well-intentioned editors, many of whom are children, have no idea what to put in these fields, so they guess. "Hmm, [[Booger humor]] sounds about right." Or editors will look at other articles to see what a "proper" usage of format is. But of course, there is no proper usage, because format was replaced by genre long ago.
BACKGROUND:
SOLUTIONS:
Whatever we decide, we need a solution that improves clarity, to help cut down on the extra work and confusion. We've ignored Jeff Q and AnmaFinotera for too long! Thank you for your time. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if there is some way to prevent the unsightly display of "Original language(s)" as:
This occurs in IE; not sure about other browsers. Example article exhibiting the problem: Inside Claridge's.
This particular one seems to wrap because it is the longest, but it would be as well to treat all the entries ending "(s)" the same, I think. 86.176.208.198 ( talk) 20:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, is there any specific order in which the judges of a show need to be listed? -- MSalmon ( talk) 15:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The website_title parameter should treat blank values just like non-existent ones. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 06:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Further to my reply to a comment another user left above, the parameters production_website and production_website_title should be renamed to website_2 and website_2_title respectively (the naming should be consistent with the format used by show_name and show_name_2, after all). Aliases should obviously be used to avoid breaking existing usage. For consistency, the default title should also be changed to: "Secondary website"
The reasoning for this is that the documentation page states that the former parameter should be used for the following: "A secondary official website"
Again, I doubt such changes would be controversial - particularly with the use of aliases as well as that comment by the other user mentioned above. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 09:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 09:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
|location=
used incorrectly. To be brutally honest, I don't see a need for "website_title" at all as it's almost always used for "Offical website" when that's the default use for the field. I really don't see a need to include a "distributor website", which seems to be the prime reason for inclusion of "production_website_title". --
AussieLegend (
✉)
09:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A production_website_title parameter should be added. (No, I haven't discussed this, but I highly doubt it would be controversial.) Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 15:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
|website_title=
is understandable because there are a lot of articles that use "Official website" as the title but what is the alternative to "Production website"? --
AussieLegend (
✉)
02:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
As seen here, for instance, the "first_aired" and "last_aired" parameters of this infobox create a spaced en dash, which is contrary to WP:DASH. Toccata quarta ( talk) 11:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the production_website parameter be renamed to website_2? Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
official_website
to the template and deprecate website
. That would leave us with official_website
and production_website
, neither of which are vague in their purpose. We really don't need website_title
and production_website_title
. The nominator has not demonstrated how "main" and "network" websites are different to each other, nor has he demonstrated "distributor" websites that provide the same information as production websites, so I don't see why we need to justify modifying the template to provide extra functionality that will likely never be widely used. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
04:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Quick question: A show like Oggy and the Cockroaches is a French series. What should the Broadcast section look like? Should it still only contain a prose description of the English-speaking nations that aired the series, or should it contain the French-speaking countries only? My instinct is English-only, but I thought I'd pass it by the community first. Thanx. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I recently discovered via an old USA Today article that the entire first season of Cow and Chicken premiered in Europe before it did in the US. I take it that means something should be added to the "first_run" param, but what? The documentation says, "The country where the show was first broadcast." Europe is, unfortunately, many countries, and I don't feel that listing all of them would be the best solution. Should it just say "Europe", or something else? Also, wouldn't this mean I have to change the "first_aired" date to the European one instead of the American one? Paper Luigi T • C 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the website parameter be renamed to official_website and production_website parameter renamed to official_website_2? Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 16:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
|website=
to |official_website=
but |production_website=
should remain as is. Dogmaticeclectic's suggestion is contradictory. He proposes giving one parameter a less ambiguous title, which I agree with, but he then proposes to make the other parameter more ambiguous. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
17:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)@ User:AussieLegend: I would like to clarify my reasoning regarding the second parameter. Let's say a show has a separate website, such as showname.com, as well as a subsection (let's say a major one) at the network's website, such as networkname.com/showname. However, this show's production company happens not to have a website (and let's say the distributor doesn't either).
Currently, what would happen is one of two things. In one scenario - and the one supported by the current parameter name - only the first of the two existing links is provided, which in my opinion does a disservice to Wikipedia readers. In the other scenario, the parameter is used as if it already has the name I proposed and both links are provided. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 17:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
User:AussieLegend, here's another example situation. A show has a website showname.com and a major subsection at a distributor website distributorname.com/showname but no subsection of a production website productioncompanyname.com/showname (nor any subsection of a network website networkname.com/showname). Could you let me know what you recommend should be done in this situation given the current naming - and why? Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 14:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace the lines
| label1 = Also known as
and
| label35 = Original channel
with
| label1 = {{nowrap|Also known as}}
and
| label35 = Original channel
to prevent the seemingly unnecessary linewrap of, respectively, "as" and "channel". 213.246.118.248 ( talk) 11:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
A change has been made to the template which is now causing the hidden menus in infoboxes (like here) bleed into the drop down link. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 09:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The "format" parameter at Template:Infobox television appears to be a deprecated parameter, having been replaced by genre long ago over concerns that "format" is an ambiguous terminology that creates confusion. The parameter has not been officially retired or deleted, so the confusion persists. There are three proposals on the table so far: A) Delete the format parameter from the template once and for all. B) Leave the parameter, but clearly mark it as obsolete in the template description. C) Re-define what "format" means for those who edit television articles. For context, history and scope the main discussion is here. 20:31, 7 October 2013 (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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Why must you ask editors to leave the "Location" parameter blank if the production location of a program (i.e., where it is or was shot) is the same as its country of origin? This makes absolutely no sense as I interpret the word "location" as referred to in the parameter as the exact facility where the program is recorded, not necessarily the country. Seth Allen Discussion; Contributions 22:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Should be "{{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}}" not "{{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}]", a bracket was switched. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the "first aired" field, it looks like there might be an error with the "Start date" mini-template. It says <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}] -->, when I think it should say <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} --> Notice the difference between a and a }. Can this be fixed to have the right punctuation?
dogman15 ( talk) 08:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the Simple English link
Tate Brandley Stockwell 19:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a
documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage.
117Avenue (
talk)
03:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)I know it states that if a logo image is being used in the infobox that a caption isn't necessary, but to be really clear does that also apply to intertitle images. Just to differentiate between an actual logo, png, svg image like this File:The Legend of Korra logo.png or an actual intertitle/screen capute with the logo in it like this: File:Avatar-TLAlogo.jpg. QuasyBoy (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The following relates to both the "|list_episodes=
" field in this template and the "|episode_list=
" field in {{
Infobox television season}}. Since most episode lists are at "List of <foo> episodes" is there a reason why the content of the "|list_episodes=
" field should not be generated automatically based on the contents of "|show_name=
"? It seems common in season articles these days to fill the "|episode_list=
" field with "[[List of <foo> episodes|List of ''<foo>'' episodes]]" and automation would negate the need to add a piped link. --
AussieLegend (
talk)
09:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need both {{
Infobox television}} and {{
Infobox television season}}? Both templates use common fields although some, like "|list_episodes=
" and "|episode_list=
" serve essentially the same purpose but have different names. Those fields that aren't common could be enabled or disabled as necessary by a "|type=
" field (where type=series or season, defaulting to series since it's used in more articles). {{Infobox television season}}
is only used in 1,640 articles, while this template is used in 23,758 (that seems an interesting statistic given that there are more seasons than TV series) but that many changes are easily handled by a bot. Just a suggestion, but I thought I'd put it up for discussion. --
AussieLegend (
talk)
09:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
There's apparently a consensus on limits for number of writers (5), but why not for any other category? For example, Glee has 6 editors mentioned- I have a hard time believing many people care at all about who edits a show, if not removed completely I'd think not listing if over 3 would be fair. A rule about not listing for producers, Cinematography, directors about similar numbers makes sense too. In some shows lists of cast regulars over the course of the series gets pretty long (Glee's another example there) but at least those are the people everyone actually sees. Even then, we might want to have a concensus on limits (maybe if over 8, only list regulars for more than one season/the entire run/75% of the run/etc; if over 10 list in main article and put a link to that section in the infobox). -- 208.38.59.161 ( talk) 18:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This has recently been edited from Please link to a language to Please don't link.... What is the consensus as I am confused as I did not think you could change a protected page. REVUpminster ( talk) 20:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I work on a lot of television show articles, and I've been seeing some inconsistencies with the color used in various articles. Most use the standard purple with black text but I've noticed on shows for children in particular, some are just in arbitrary colors like hot pink with white text (ie Winx Club for instance). Some of the colors are a bit difficult to read and I'm wondering if we should discuss using the same color throughout the project just for uniformity. I know other infoboxes, such a actor/person and film are fairly standard and can't be changed. Perhaps we should do the same? Thoughts? Pinkadelica ♣ 22:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
bgcolour
and color text
parameters.—
Ryulong (
竜龙)
19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is nothing on this page that even suggests that bgcolour
and colour text
are intended to be used at all, and it seems that editors of kid's cartoon pages will persist in using them for the infobox template. There has been no suggested reason as to why these colors should be used in the infobox, and my attempts to remove them have been reverted on several pages with no explanation. It would just be better to eliminate these parameters entirely.—
Ryulong (
竜龙)
01:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Not done for now. I'd have actioned this except I seem to recall that the people who write
The Simpsons articles are adamant about retaining their own yellow colour. Any chance we could get some input from the TV project or the Village Pump? If it's generally agreed that we no longer need the colouring at all (and I agree that it's arbitrary and pretty pointless in the very best of circumstances) then we can nuke the colour override entirely.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
13:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I am for uniformity and against "I like this special color better than the standard one", particularly for recent TV shows without wikiprojects (!= taskforces). But to implement this, there should be a wider discussion than just on this template page. –
sgeureka
t•
c
08:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I have a compromise. Edit this template, so that it only receives colour deviations from the indefinitely fully protected sub-template. This way, all additions must be discussed first, and we can ensure the program meets the criteria at WP:DEVIATIONS. 117Avenue ( talk) 01:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Would there be any objections to a "|based_on=
" parameter in this template, much like the one at {{
Infobox film}}?
Cliff
Smith
19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought I had read about this issue somewhere before, but I can't find it. Can we have some clarification on the standard procedure or consensus on the use of parenthetical year ranges in infoboxes? When should they be used, and when shouldn't they be? Is (0000–) or (0000—) acceptable? Is < small > acceptable or not? -- Musdan77 ( talk) 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the plural in the parentheses for the parameter "Production company" be written as "Production company(ies)" or some deviant of that? Just a minor concern. Prayerfortheworld ( talk) 20:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that a lot of new editors, and readers, don't understand that runtime
is supposed to be without commercials. (e.g.
this edit) Perhaps a minor change should be made to the template so that " minutes (without commercials)" is automatically appended to the field to avoid any ambiguity, since most people don't seem to bother looking at template instructions? --
AussieLegend (
✉)
06:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this template only allows to add the final air date after its happened. While this fine for shows that stop suddenly, however, for shows that have an announced end date, I think it should be able to be added. I mean it's already added to article itself usually so why not put it in the template too? I think having the article differ from the template in this manner only serves to confuse readers, if only slightly. Therefore, I propose the end date be opened up to announced end dates too. CRRays Head90 | Get Some! 20:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to request an addition to the template. It would be a rating slot so TV shows would have a TV-G, TV-PG, TV-14 Rating Etc. on the info box. §h₳un 9∞76 00:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, do you think we could have a Coaches section for The Voice (both UK and US versions) -- MSalmon ( talk) 11:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that it will greatly benefit Wikipedia if people can instantly see what influenced what just like in the articles of philosophers or programming languages. I also wrote my proposal here and here.-- 80.218.156.126 ( talk) 10:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Back in 2006, there was a brief discussion about having head_writer as a parameter, at a time when there wasn't a writer parameter. It didn't get much discussion back then, but since its easy to find nearly 400 uses of "head writer" in existing articles, and over 170,000 hits for the term on IMDb, I'd like to get feedback from some of the 117 editors interested in this template as to whether you think adding "head writer" would be an good idea. Thanks in advance — 68.165.77.155 ( talk) 11:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
This section needs clarification; Is it as I believe for content editor of news/political programmes such as Panorama and Newsnight or as many seem to think for film editors. If it is film editors surely it should be after director of photography. Comments please. REVUpminster ( talk) 18:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I was thinking that the template should say "Original language(s)," not just "Languages" to be clearer, or to stop readers from thinking that the series/movie got dubbed when it really didn't. That should help.
166.137.100.42 ( talk) 05:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Done, seems straightforward enough.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
12:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
A number of the labels have the optional pluralised "(s)" on the end. It's fairly common practice for these kinds of labels not to be pluralised, leaving the singular form of the label to be applicable if there are multiple entries in the field. Singular should be the default, unless the field would always result in multiple entries, and then the plural form should be used. Labels in question: Creative director(s); Composer(s); Original language(s); Executive producer(s); Producer(s); Editor(s); Location(s); Production company(s). I propose we take all of these back to singular. Any objections? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 16:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm hoping to get some clarification and edification about the use of the fundamentally-flawed "last_aired" field in infoboxes, because its use/misuse is driving me a little nutty. I know there has been debate over this before, (Archive 4 and 5) but I'm not certain what the official position is, and I'm desperately trying to avoid reading the textwalls of rage. As editor Barsoomian pointed out here, shows just end. This appears to be the case with networks such as Nickelodeon, who, unlike NBC, don't typically pen press releases proclaiming "This show is canceled." To make matters worse, since Nickelodeon doesn't seem to really have "seasons", and they tend to trickle new episodes over months or even years ( ex: Fanboy & Chum Chum and Robot and Monster), it becomes even more difficult to point at these shows and say, "definitely cancelled". Compounding the frustration, are the legions of children on both sides of the fence who eagerly add last_air dates to shows they hate, only to be reverted by the kids who still have hope the show will continue to air. Can it be appropriately assumed that if a pickup is not announced at the following year's "Upfront", that the show has been cancelled? And more importantly, should the "last_aired" field be used to indicate the last date a new episode was aired, rather than an "end date" for the series? I feel like a goon every time I revert a "last_aired" submission for shows that demonstrate little indication of returning. Thank you for helping me work through this tough time in my life. :) Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 14:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone please add a "Based on" field to this infobox, perhaps after the "Created by" field? Many television series are based on existing series, films, novels, comics, and so on. For example, the editors of the Sherlock (TV series) article have resorted to a [ makeshift solution] with a bolded note about Arthur Conan Doyle's source material shoehorned into the field intended for the names of the creators, and the editors of Hannibal (TV series) have inaccurately [ given] Thomas Harris creator credit for the TV show, with parentheses explaining the nature of his involvement.
I think that it would be much neater, more informative and more straightforward to add a field specifically for the source material and its author; this would have the added benefit of being consistent with Template:Infobox film, which already has exactly the feature I'm proposing. — Flax5 19:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel the explanation for the location parameter should be edited slightly, by simply removing the part that says "Leave blank if same as country of origin above." This is rarely ever followed (rightly so), so it'd be nice to just see that sentence eliminated. Strictly speaking of American-produced TV, 95% of the time, a show will be shot in the U.S., obviously. Just because an American show is shot in America, doesn't make it's actual shooting location not important. It's important and notable that say, Breaking Bad shoots in New Mexico, or Homeland shoots in North Carolina, and The Walking Dead shoots in Georgia. The only time using the location parameter is unnecessary if it's for like a sitcom that shoots on sets in a warehouse in Los Angeles. Anyway, I just feel that part is dated and rarely followed, thus, should be updated. Thanks. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 20:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
ITV's Endeavour (TV series) is a show written and devised by Russell Lewis. As enumerated in BBC Commissioning, a "deviser" is a standard showrunner role; it is similar to the creator role, though devising is based on another creator's work, similar to the "developer's" role that Ronald D. Moore had on Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). As a standardised role defined by the BBC and also used by ITV, I believe "Devised by" should be added to the infobox. Thanks. 72.244.204.252 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I floated this question by WP:TV. I was curious to find out if there's a rule/guideline that governs the appropriate usage of the genre parameter. I've seen a number of TV show infoboxes with very specific descriptions of the show's humor styles, e.g., "gross-out humor", "slapstick", "off-color humor". Some examples of these: Sanjay and Craig, Fanboy and Chum Chum, Ren and Stimpy. I've also seen a number of shows where very broad, obvious, indisputable genres were used, e.g., "Sitcom", "Adult animation", "Animated sitcom", like for Seinfeld and Family Guy. The Infobox television template points to Television program#Genres for examples, and I don't see categories like "black comedy" or "farce". How detailed should these genre descriptions should be? Obviously we should use sources if we're going to get into nuance, but I also see this being a perpetual source of frustration-- editors battling over their specific interpretation of a show's genre. "No, it's surreal humor!" "Nuh-uh, it's surrealism!" Thanks for your input. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
That's it, we're gonna handle this format parameter once and for all! (I say, hoping naively that my sheer enthusiasm will lead to wide community interest and a permanent resolution!)
FACT: Template:Infobox television has a format parameter, and nobody seems to know how/if it should be used, or why it's still there. The lack of proper explanation is harming television articles, because well-intentioned editors, many of whom are children, have no idea what to put in these fields, so they guess. "Hmm, [[Booger humor]] sounds about right." Or editors will look at other articles to see what a "proper" usage of format is. But of course, there is no proper usage, because format was replaced by genre long ago.
BACKGROUND:
SOLUTIONS:
Whatever we decide, we need a solution that improves clarity, to help cut down on the extra work and confusion. We've ignored Jeff Q and AnmaFinotera for too long! Thank you for your time. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if there is some way to prevent the unsightly display of "Original language(s)" as:
This occurs in IE; not sure about other browsers. Example article exhibiting the problem: Inside Claridge's.
This particular one seems to wrap because it is the longest, but it would be as well to treat all the entries ending "(s)" the same, I think. 86.176.208.198 ( talk) 20:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, is there any specific order in which the judges of a show need to be listed? -- MSalmon ( talk) 15:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The website_title parameter should treat blank values just like non-existent ones. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 06:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Further to my reply to a comment another user left above, the parameters production_website and production_website_title should be renamed to website_2 and website_2_title respectively (the naming should be consistent with the format used by show_name and show_name_2, after all). Aliases should obviously be used to avoid breaking existing usage. For consistency, the default title should also be changed to: "Secondary website"
The reasoning for this is that the documentation page states that the former parameter should be used for the following: "A secondary official website"
Again, I doubt such changes would be controversial - particularly with the use of aliases as well as that comment by the other user mentioned above. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 09:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 09:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
|location=
used incorrectly. To be brutally honest, I don't see a need for "website_title" at all as it's almost always used for "Offical website" when that's the default use for the field. I really don't see a need to include a "distributor website", which seems to be the prime reason for inclusion of "production_website_title". --
AussieLegend (
✉)
09:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A production_website_title parameter should be added. (No, I haven't discussed this, but I highly doubt it would be controversial.) Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 15:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
|website_title=
is understandable because there are a lot of articles that use "Official website" as the title but what is the alternative to "Production website"? --
AussieLegend (
✉)
02:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
As seen here, for instance, the "first_aired" and "last_aired" parameters of this infobox create a spaced en dash, which is contrary to WP:DASH. Toccata quarta ( talk) 11:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the production_website parameter be renamed to website_2? Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
official_website
to the template and deprecate website
. That would leave us with official_website
and production_website
, neither of which are vague in their purpose. We really don't need website_title
and production_website_title
. The nominator has not demonstrated how "main" and "network" websites are different to each other, nor has he demonstrated "distributor" websites that provide the same information as production websites, so I don't see why we need to justify modifying the template to provide extra functionality that will likely never be widely used. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
04:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Quick question: A show like Oggy and the Cockroaches is a French series. What should the Broadcast section look like? Should it still only contain a prose description of the English-speaking nations that aired the series, or should it contain the French-speaking countries only? My instinct is English-only, but I thought I'd pass it by the community first. Thanx. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I recently discovered via an old USA Today article that the entire first season of Cow and Chicken premiered in Europe before it did in the US. I take it that means something should be added to the "first_run" param, but what? The documentation says, "The country where the show was first broadcast." Europe is, unfortunately, many countries, and I don't feel that listing all of them would be the best solution. Should it just say "Europe", or something else? Also, wouldn't this mean I have to change the "first_aired" date to the European one instead of the American one? Paper Luigi T • C 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the website parameter be renamed to official_website and production_website parameter renamed to official_website_2? Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 16:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
|website=
to |official_website=
but |production_website=
should remain as is. Dogmaticeclectic's suggestion is contradictory. He proposes giving one parameter a less ambiguous title, which I agree with, but he then proposes to make the other parameter more ambiguous. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
17:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)@ User:AussieLegend: I would like to clarify my reasoning regarding the second parameter. Let's say a show has a separate website, such as showname.com, as well as a subsection (let's say a major one) at the network's website, such as networkname.com/showname. However, this show's production company happens not to have a website (and let's say the distributor doesn't either).
Currently, what would happen is one of two things. In one scenario - and the one supported by the current parameter name - only the first of the two existing links is provided, which in my opinion does a disservice to Wikipedia readers. In the other scenario, the parameter is used as if it already has the name I proposed and both links are provided. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 17:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
User:AussieLegend, here's another example situation. A show has a website showname.com and a major subsection at a distributor website distributorname.com/showname but no subsection of a production website productioncompanyname.com/showname (nor any subsection of a network website networkname.com/showname). Could you let me know what you recommend should be done in this situation given the current naming - and why? Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 14:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace the lines
| label1 = Also known as
and
| label35 = Original channel
with
| label1 = {{nowrap|Also known as}}
and
| label35 = Original channel
to prevent the seemingly unnecessary linewrap of, respectively, "as" and "channel". 213.246.118.248 ( talk) 11:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
A change has been made to the template which is now causing the hidden menus in infoboxes (like here) bleed into the drop down link. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 09:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The "format" parameter at Template:Infobox television appears to be a deprecated parameter, having been replaced by genre long ago over concerns that "format" is an ambiguous terminology that creates confusion. The parameter has not been officially retired or deleted, so the confusion persists. There are three proposals on the table so far: A) Delete the format parameter from the template once and for all. B) Leave the parameter, but clearly mark it as obsolete in the template description. C) Re-define what "format" means for those who edit television articles. For context, history and scope the main discussion is here. 20:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)