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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As I requested in the previous subject here, the Announcer field should be added to this template. This change will not add another line to any template, as currently the individuals are placed in the template, but just under an incorrect field name (Narrator). I've waited a week for comments with a friendly reminder 3 days ago with no comments so I'm requesting this be added.
I've made the changes to the sandbox here (from label16 onwards)-> https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=664540252 Gonnym ( talk) 09:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done You need to gain consensus to add this parameter. Lack of discussion in only 7 days cannot be taken as consensus to add a parameter to a template that is used in nearly 35,000 articles. This discussion doesn't appear to have been publicised. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Does anybody wish to discuss the proposed addition? Alakzi ( talk) 14:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
An announcer is a presenter who makes "announcements" in an audio medium or a physical location. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I might be shooting myself in the leg, but since I'm not here for any personal gain, just to sort out the inconsistency in articles on the same subject, I want to raise a few more issues which I've noticed going over more articles. The "Announcer" role is mainly used in two TV formats - the game show and the late night talk show. Note: I've compiled a list of the pages I've checked with the results sorted for easy reading here. For the talk show format, the announcer is currently listed under 'narrator", for example The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Late Night with Conan O'Brien and "starring", for example Conan (talk show), Jimmy Kimmel Live! and The Late Late Show with James Corden, with Conan's infobox entry also serving as a Side-Kick, Kimmel's entry getting "(announcer)" after the name and Corden's entry being also a band leader. Which leads me to the next two issues - Bands/Band leader and Side-kicks. Most articles already have the band information added under "Starring", some have only the band leader, others have the band leader and the band name. In Kimmel's case the entry gets "(band)" after the name. Two articles did not add the band information to the infobox ( Tonight Starring Steve Allen and The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, even-though its listed in the article). Side-kicks are listed in Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Kimmel Live! and Conan (talk show), where again, Kimmel's entry gets a "(sidekick)" added and Conan's entry was also the announcer.
My question is then, do we (A) list side-kicks, announcers and bands under "starring", (B) list each entry under a new relevant field ("Sidekick", "Announcer" and "Band") or (C) remove side-kick, announcers and band information from the infobox (which will probably require some sort of RfC to change so many articles. (D) for completeness I'll add this option of leaving everything as is, but I don't see how this is a valid option as listing announcers under narrators misrepresents the role and the inconsistency across the articles with some having the information added, others don't and others add a note stating what the role is, just looks bad. My opinion is option B would best serve the articles with precise field names (so a reader won't have to guess who is the band leader, who the announcer is or who the sidekick is and without having to read the whole article, which is what infoboxes are for) as the information is already added and it seems the working-consensus is inclusion. -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Should years be included for anything (besides air dates). I am referring to production companies, locations, networks, original channel ect. or is it just the cast/presenters we do not include it for? -- JohnGormleyJG ( ✉) 16:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
A question of mere curiosity on my part - should num_seasons still be included in an article when a series has had only one season before being cancelled? Given the fact that in this case, the series in question doesn't really have "seasons", it just has the episodes that aired. (For example, Firefly was cancelled after one season, and has 14 episodes; there isn't really any reference of "Firefly (season 1)", just "Firefly".) Alex| The| Whovian 07:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Should num_episodes only be implemented when a new episode airs? Every TV series I've ever edited, this has always been the case, but now I'm editing another series where the editor believes that it should be updated to the count the complete series of eight episodes before it's started airing. Alex| The| Whovian 11:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the sources previously provided are sufficient in the specific case of Humans: I refer readers to the discussion at Talk:Humans (TV series) so I may focus on the general point here.
Yes, WP:PRIMARY/ MOS:PLOT does explicitly address the issue of plot summaries. It is also very clear that secondary sources are to be preferred and primary sources are only to be used "to a lesser extent" (WP:PRIMARY), noting even with plot summaries that "editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible" (MOS:PLOT). It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that it privileges secondary sources; it is not designed for first-hand reports. Individual template documentation cannot ignore Wikipedia policy ( WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). I also note that an infobox is a "quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout" ( WP:INFOBOX) or "that summarizes key features of the page's subject." ( WP:IBT) And it should be short ("The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose"). If the main text talks about 8 episodes, the infobox should talk about 8 episodes. The point of an infobox is not to contain different interpretations to the text. Personally, a counter incrementing as each episode broadcasts does not seem to me to be what an online encyclopaedia based on secondary sources should be focusing on. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
May I suggest an approach that would certainly please me as a user of the information in the Infobox? Why not have two values in the Infobox, one that states the number of episodes in the series and one that states the number of episodes shown to date? In the example of Humans, it could then be indicated that there are 8 episodes ordered for the current series (or season, in American parlance) and that as of today, 5 of those episodes have aired? The number of episodes aired could be incremented each time a new episode was shown (presumably in the first market where it was appearing). That would certainly be helpful to me. When I look at the current Infobox, it seems to be implying that there are only 5 episodes in the series (season). Next week, when I look, it will say 6. If I'm recording the series and waiting to watch it in one go when I have the whole series, I won't know that I have the whole thing until such time as the number stops incrementing in the Wikipedia page. Even then, I can't be sure since it may just have been pre-empted for some reason with further episodes yet to come. It would be far more useful to me to know that there are, say, 8 episodes in the series and 5 have already aired. Of course the proposed numbers would have to be identified and distinguished so the label is open to discussion. I suggest something like "Episodes projected for current series" and "Episodes aired to date", although something concise that was going to be understood correctly would be better.
198.84.215.251 ( talk) 14:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be on-going debate on this issue, so it must be brought up — should years be included on infoboxes for reality competitions, such as: The Voice, The X Factor and American Idol, or should they be excluded? livelikemusic my talk page! 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series, so if you want that changed you need to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, not here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:TVCAST is about cast and characters lists in article body, not infoboxes. No one responded to my last post. So, what about subheadings of "Present" and "Past"? -- Musdan77 ( talk) 20:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
write all articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued. That precludes use of headings like "Past". -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 20:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, it occurs to me that |voices=
is pretty broad in its description:
"Any voice artists used in the show" is cruftbait. By comparison, the |starring=
is more restrictive by nature, since "starring" is typically a special credit given by producers and is not the same as "appearing in". I assume that |voices=
is to be used in lieu of |starring=
. If that is correct, should |voices=
be clarified to only include starring voice acting roles? If my assumption is not correct, is there any other way to clarify this?
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 19:35, 2 August 2015 (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 "Announcer(s)", "Band", "Sidekick" and "Correspondents" fields be added to Infobox television to sort out the inconsistency with such entries already added to the infoboxes of late-night talk show related articles? -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Currently in the infoboxes of articles about late-night talk shows you can find people who were Announcers and Sidekicks and even the show Bands listed under various fields as there is no dedicated field for them. Announcers can be found under "Narrator" (example: The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson) and "Starring" (example: Jimmy Kimmel Live!); Sidekicks under "Starring" (example: Late Night with Conan O'Brien); Bands under "Starring" ( The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon); and Correspondents under "Starring" as well (example: The Daily Show). In addition, since there is no official place for them in the template, some articles have this information in the infobox, while others omit all or some of it (examples: Chelsea Lately not listing Chuy Bravo as a sidekick and Tonight Starring Steve Allen not listing Skitch Henderson as the band leader). As the current situation is that of an inconsistency, any result of the RfC will have to come to an outcome. Note: I'm not entirely sure how the module system works, but perhaps making this a module would solve any fears of "clutter" in the infobox. -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Please !vote for one of the options and avoid any threaded discussion in the supporting sections.
|Starring=
is already frequently misused, with people incorrectly believing that starring is the same as appearing in. We shouldn't be manufacturing starring roles by adding Band, Sidekick, Correspondents, etc. to this parameter.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 17:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Replying to AussieLegend. 1. There actually was an attempt at a discussion here, which you choose to ignore. 2. You don't get to dictate the scope of the RfC. 3. You still haven't addressed the issue. -- Gonnym ( talk) 08:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Replying to Cyphoidbomb. I think creating a separate infobox is a bad idea, however, if that's the alternative compromise, I'll go along with it as its better than removing the information all together. -- Gonnym ( talk) 09:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
User_talk:Tony1#Script_fixes_on_Mr._Robinson_.28TV_series.29 Tony (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I am unsure about the proper usage of the creative_director parameter in the context of a television series. I have never seen someone credited as creative director in a television series. The explanation in the documentation links to
Creative director, where it says in the Film section "The creative director in the film industry is referred to as the
production designer", and the linked page makes it clear that the production designer is the same thing in film and television. I would conclude from that that the parameter can be used for the production designer. However, I was explained
given the opinion that putting the production designer is an incorrect use of the parameter.
Can the template documentation be changed to point out the correct use unambiguously, (or to clearly state not to use this parameter)? – Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings all! I am here to start a dialogue with the Wikipedia community about including an additional line item below the Original Channel line which could be called Subscription Streaming Location(s). Here there would be a list of subscription streaming services (usually just one or two) where the show has been sold (either to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus, etc.). Ideally these would have external-facing hyperlinks to the pages where these shows actually live on those websites.
Just for some context, it's worth noting that the subscription streaming ecosystem and it’s interaction with the traditional cable and broadcast businesses is a matter of great discussion and interest in the entertainment community. For instance, Breaking Bad (Sony Pictures TV) was sold to Netflix, and many industry insiders believe that the show’s presence on Netflix helped it become such a significant hit for AMC ( http://www.ew.com/article/2013/09/23/breaking-bad-creator-netflix-emmys). Now, when these streaming deals happen, they are often front page news items in entertainment periodicals ( http://deadline.com/2014/08/the-blacklist-netflix-deal-2-million-825836/). For these reasons, I believe including SVOD information in a more prominent location on these pages is warranted, and I would welcome any feedback or discussion about this issue. In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I work in the entertainment industry for NBCUniversal, so I am unable according to Wikipedia's policies to make any changes to these pages myself. Thanks in advance! JeffreyReale ( talk) 22:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, is there any value to renaming |channel=
and |network=
to |original_channel=
and |original_network=
? Kids seem to think this field is for every network the series ever aired on. Ex:
here. Thoughts?
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 21:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
channel
and network
are actually the same parameter. channel
is an alias for network
. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 13:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
|original_network=
that maybe it would propagate to new articles and prevent future muckups. :.(
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 20:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)I'm not sure if I understand the difference between |related=
and |preceded_by=
/|followed_by=
and I don't think the instructions for the latter pair help to explain. A spin-off seems like it could both go in |related=
as well as in |followed_by=
. Any thoughts?
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 20:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
|followed_by=
at
Dirty Jobs, you can't call the two series related. Let's not get started on the whole
Chicago Fire/
Chicago P.D./
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit or
Law & Order franchise/
Homicide: Life on the Street situations. In short, yes, sometimes related can be preceded/followed by but not always. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 20:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Still confused! - AussieLegend, Favre1fan93, et al, I gotta say, even with everybody's kind attempts to explain, I still don't understand the purpose of the fields. I'm looking at some Philippines TV articles, like here, where people are misusing it to indicate either:
|followed_by=
Laverne & Shirley. Happy Days aired at 8pm and Laverne & Shirley aired at 8:30.or
|followed_by=
Happy Days in the 8pm slot.So I'm not alone in being confused. In 2007 there was some talk about deleting these. In the discussion someone notes that these are used a lot by reality shows and such like Big Brother. That sort of makes sense to me if we're considering each season of the show to be a different show. (Assuming that's accurate.) But otherwise, we need some clear explanation for the correct way to use these fields. In the example provided by Dark Cocoa Frosting, I don't see how Melrose Place follows 90210. Simply because they may take place in the same fictional universe but Melrose isn't a proper spin-off? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a change to this (which is different, and unrelated to what Cyphoidbomb was suggesting above). First, the parameter as it appears in the infobox should be changed from Original channel to Original network. Network is the more appropriate term as we use it. Here is an example to clarify my point: Shows air on the network, which is broadcast to viewers across various channels.
WNBC is a channel that airs the
NBC network. This wording still works with cable as well. Second, I think we should add a third alias to this parameter called |streaming_service=
(or something similar), which would also change the parameter appearance to Original streaming service. With the ever growing number of shows releasing on Netflix and Amazon, "network" or "channel" really isn't the best term for either of those. If these proposals get support, a similar change would have to happen for the season infobox. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk) 16:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
|Original streaming service=
is used in conjunction with any of the other labels? My (potentially irrational?) fear is that |Original streaming service=
will be used whenever any show is released digitally, and we will constantly have to fix that. I do like the idea of changing "Original channel" to "Original network" but leaving it to be a blanket term for channel, network or streaming service. There are US television channels that are not really "networks", but we all know what is meant by that. Similarly, Netflix isn't a network or a channel, but I think we'll understand what is meant. Alternatively, we could try to brainstorm on a better label. "Original service"? Naw. "Original venue"? Naw...
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 18:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
|channel=
/ |network=
parameter would be shown. And what do you mean by what I'm bolding here: "I do like the idea of changing "Original channel" to "Original network" but leaving it to be a blanket term for channel, network or streaming service."? -
Favre1fan93 (
talk) 17:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
|network=
, the label in the infobox displays as "Original channel". I was proposing that we change the label to "Original network", because I believe that in common parlance, "network" is generally understood to be any delivery mechanism, be it a local TV channel, a proper air/cable network, or a streaming service.
|network=
is meant to include all original broadcast services. As for the other aspect of your comment, even if coded in the way described, while the infobox would not display anything weirdly, we'd still all be tasked to remove |streaming_service=
any time anybody added it erroneously, because we are all good, conscientious editors, infobox clutter pisses us off, and we're all a little OCD.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 17:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@ AussieLegend and Bignole: Any thoughts on this? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I recently posted the following question on Template talk:Episode list but since I didn't get a reply there so I'll try here: If a particular program doesn't strictly have a name, and is only refered to as something such as Episode 1, is it still appropriate for it to be included in quotes as "Episode 1" in the Title parameter, or should the RTitle parameter be used instead? The tempate documentation doesn't outright explain which is best in this situation or similar. -- User:Whats new? (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that we have "image_upright", shall we remove "image_size"? I am viewing the image at 400px or scale factor multiplied by 400px. Everybody has preference. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, I wanted to get some clarification from the community, as I've noticed
Spin Boy 11 making good-faith edits like these
[7]
[8]
[9]. It would seem to me that |company=
is intended to indicate the company that funded/organized the production of the series in question, not the sub-contractors hired to perform the manual labor. Is this correct?
The Simpsons, for instance, doesn't include the South Korean studio in |company=
. Based on my experience, |company=
and |country=
are somewhat related. If we included
Hong Ying Animation in |company=
for
Secret Mountain Fort Awesome that would likely inspire editors to change the infobox and lead to reflect an American–Chinese co-production, which, although it is somewhat accurate, is confusing since Hong Ying presumably didn't fund the series. (I don't know for sure, because the content was unsourced and Spin Boy didn't explain.) Would appreciate some input here, please. Naturally, the animation house should be mentioned somewhere in Production, I just don't think it belongs in |company=
. The docs could also be tweaked to reflect the intended usage. Thanks,
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 17:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The heading "Chronology" doesn't make sense when titles of "Related shows" are included (rather than "Preceded by" and/or "Followed by"). Can this heading be changed to "Related" (or something similar) which more accurately covers all three categories of related titles? — sroc 💬 17:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Contrary to what Aussie Legend and a tag-teaming editor claim, the RfC absolutely said reliable sourcing is required for runtime.
Here are the exact words by the closing admin: "The point at issue was, narrowly, are we allowed to use running time figures measured by individual editors directly. The answer is an unambiguous "no"< for the same reason that we would not allow such sources for the height of an actor or the size of a building. --Guy (Help!) 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC) -- Tenebrae ( talk) 15:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
exact words by the closing admindo not say that citations are absolutely needed. In fact, the closer clarified this very point when he said
The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time.[10] -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind.[11] It says nothing about the need to cite every runtime in every article, as you are well aware. This seems to be an additional requirement that you are forcing, despite what WP:V requires, and this has been questioned by another admin at WP:AN3. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Runtimes must be sourced. AussieLegend knows this as he was part of the RfC. If AussieLegend is adding runtimes from personal observation, that is original research and forbidden by policy. AussieLegend also knows this. WP:NOR is canonical policy, not a guideline. If AussieLegend wants to ignore policy, then he will be blocked. The simple solution is to find a reliable source for the runtime, and cite it. Adding it without a source is not only a violation of policy, it is also disruptive, because AussieLegend knows that adding unsourced runtimes does not enjoy wither [either] consensus or the support of policy. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Please consider adding a science advisor entry to the infobox. Thank you. JeanLucMargot ( talk) 18:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The documentation of |released=
/|first_aired=
explains how to treat aired "preview" episodes, but does not explain how to include on-demand episodes. It seems that often a later broadcast is given preference because of the historical naming of these parameters, however, to the reader this all displays as "Original release" which does not discriminate between broadcast and on-demand. (As a technical remark, actually, the |released=
parameter is just an alias for the |first_aired=
and if both are present, the latter has priority.) However, nowadays what used to be traditional broadcast networks also provide the same content on-demand before and/or after the broadcast which leads to mixed release schedules, e.g., a first on-demand release with later broadcast.
Also the |last_aired=
parameter needs an update in naming or explanation for mixed release schedules. As two recent examples, all
Public Morals episodes were released on-demand by September 5, yet the "Original release" dates state October 20 as the time the last episode was finally broadcast, taking the "last_aired" parameter literally.
Wicked City "aired" an episode on November 10 for the last time, yet here the "Original release" states December 30 which is when the last episode was released on-demand in the United States, not taking the "last_aired" parameter literally.
I understand that the strict distinction between on-demand release dates and broadcast periods used to be meaningful at a time when there was only Netflix and traditional broadcasters, but nowadays it just leads to confusion and complication. I also understand that the current parameter names must be kept for backward compatibility, but they all luckily display the same as "Original release". All of this could be made easy by taking whatever release date comes first for the first and for last episodes as "Original release" span. This is one easy rule that fits pure on-demand, pure broadcast, and mixed release schedules, and only requires an update to the documentation. – Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 15:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Multiple uses of this template use {{
dts}} in the first_aired
parameter, especially if the series has premiered and concluded in the same year, so that the dates appear as "May 7 – July 16, 2015" (for example). However, this is the incorrect usage of this template, per its documentation, and the documentation of this particular template clearly states that {{
Start date}} should be used, so that the dates correctly appear as "May 7, 2015 – July 16, 2015" (for example). I have made edits in the sandbox to collect all the templates that use {{
dts}} into a maintenance category (as of yet not created), checking for the presence of class="sortkey"
, which is only present in {{
dts}}. If approved, I intend to do the same for {{
Infobox television season}} (not protected).
Alex|The|Whovian
? 13:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
Start date|2500|5|7}}
, which (per above) the year 2500 wouldn't appear and May 7 would be the output, but it would mess up the hidden metadata.
Alex|The|Whovian
? 00:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)So, does anyone have any further ideas on how to implement the correct date range? If not, should the edits in the sandbox be implemented into the live version? Alex|The|Whovian ? 00:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I noticed one page used no_seasons / no_episodes instead of num_seasons / num_episodes. I fixed it but am worried this might happen on other pages. Is there any way we can alias these so any pages calling on these NO inputs will give the info to the NUM inputs? Or can some bot detect when non-existant fields are called upon for this template and tag them for investigation and correction? 184.145.18.50 ( talk) 18:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
{{{num_seasons|}}}
with {{{num_seasons|{{{no_seasons|}}}}}}
, replace {{{num_series|}}}
with |{{{num_series|{{{no_series|}}}}}}
, and replace {{{num_episodes|}}}
with {{{num_episodes|{{{no_episodes|}}}}}}
.
Alex|The|Whovian
? 00:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I need your help. Every time I try to create an infobox television template, I see a screwed up infobox template.
Superman | |
---|---|
Created by |
|
Starring | Christopher Reeve |
Theme music composer | John Williams |
Country of origin | United States |
Original language | English |
Production | |
Running time | 120 minutes |
Production company | DC Comics |
Original release | |
Release | 1978 1979 | –
Could you please get that template fixed so that there won't be any more problems? AdamDeanHall ( talk) 22:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
style="/* invalid control char */"
in the header rows.
Alex|The|Whovian
? 03:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Not entirely sure why background colours would introduce a HTML comment into the style tag. I'd support the deletion of colours - there's no need for them. Alex|The|Whovian ? 08:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax asked on my talk page if it is possible to have the infobox automatically grab the url for the official website from wikidata. many infoboxes now support this, for example, see the website section in {{ infobox telescope}}. I can add a similar feature here if there are no objections. Frietjes ( talk) 14:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
website = {{official website}}
and the connection is setup.* {{official website}}
in the External links portion of the article you are working on and the article will now pull the data from Wikidata. You can then delete the oldstyle
crufty link from the External links section.{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)|website=
shouldn't exist in the infobox. If a website doesn't appear when website
is missing, adding {{
official website}} shouldn't make one appear, as it just tries to pull the same non-existent url from Wikidata. The naming of urls has been the subject of discussion and it was decided not to make the label "Official website". Instead, the status quo reigned and if you want to use a custom label, then you need to include |website_title=Official website
. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 04:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
—Preceding
undated comment added 19:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Hi
AussieLegend. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. If you go to an infobox that can be populated by WikiData, in most cases you just put in {{
official website}}
and WikiData will take it from there, if WikiData has an official website Property on the article's Wikidata item (the link to the Wikidata item can be quickly found on the left hand set of links on the English Wikipedia). If Wikidata lacks the official website property in the article's Wikidata item then you can easily add it. Then everything is happy.
The way Frietjes has set up the infobox television, the only way to pull up the Wikidata official website property from the article's Wikidata item is to remove the website =
parameter from the infobox television. This is not the case in infobox person.
Now, on infobox people the system goes with the majority of infoboxes where you can pull from Wikidata by putting website =
and Wikidata will take it from there if the official website property is populated on the article's Wikidata item.
{{
official website}}
Check out infobox person by going to Donald Trump and doing some test edits, previewing each one, and then canceling when you are done:
Be sure to Preview after each edit, and be sure to cancel your last edit. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
06:58, 30 March 2016 (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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As I requested in the previous subject here, the Announcer field should be added to this template. This change will not add another line to any template, as currently the individuals are placed in the template, but just under an incorrect field name (Narrator). I've waited a week for comments with a friendly reminder 3 days ago with no comments so I'm requesting this be added.
I've made the changes to the sandbox here (from label16 onwards)-> https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=664540252 Gonnym ( talk) 09:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done You need to gain consensus to add this parameter. Lack of discussion in only 7 days cannot be taken as consensus to add a parameter to a template that is used in nearly 35,000 articles. This discussion doesn't appear to have been publicised. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Does anybody wish to discuss the proposed addition? Alakzi ( talk) 14:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
An announcer is a presenter who makes "announcements" in an audio medium or a physical location. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I might be shooting myself in the leg, but since I'm not here for any personal gain, just to sort out the inconsistency in articles on the same subject, I want to raise a few more issues which I've noticed going over more articles. The "Announcer" role is mainly used in two TV formats - the game show and the late night talk show. Note: I've compiled a list of the pages I've checked with the results sorted for easy reading here. For the talk show format, the announcer is currently listed under 'narrator", for example The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Late Night with Conan O'Brien and "starring", for example Conan (talk show), Jimmy Kimmel Live! and The Late Late Show with James Corden, with Conan's infobox entry also serving as a Side-Kick, Kimmel's entry getting "(announcer)" after the name and Corden's entry being also a band leader. Which leads me to the next two issues - Bands/Band leader and Side-kicks. Most articles already have the band information added under "Starring", some have only the band leader, others have the band leader and the band name. In Kimmel's case the entry gets "(band)" after the name. Two articles did not add the band information to the infobox ( Tonight Starring Steve Allen and The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, even-though its listed in the article). Side-kicks are listed in Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Kimmel Live! and Conan (talk show), where again, Kimmel's entry gets a "(sidekick)" added and Conan's entry was also the announcer.
My question is then, do we (A) list side-kicks, announcers and bands under "starring", (B) list each entry under a new relevant field ("Sidekick", "Announcer" and "Band") or (C) remove side-kick, announcers and band information from the infobox (which will probably require some sort of RfC to change so many articles. (D) for completeness I'll add this option of leaving everything as is, but I don't see how this is a valid option as listing announcers under narrators misrepresents the role and the inconsistency across the articles with some having the information added, others don't and others add a note stating what the role is, just looks bad. My opinion is option B would best serve the articles with precise field names (so a reader won't have to guess who is the band leader, who the announcer is or who the sidekick is and without having to read the whole article, which is what infoboxes are for) as the information is already added and it seems the working-consensus is inclusion. -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Should years be included for anything (besides air dates). I am referring to production companies, locations, networks, original channel ect. or is it just the cast/presenters we do not include it for? -- JohnGormleyJG ( ✉) 16:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
A question of mere curiosity on my part - should num_seasons still be included in an article when a series has had only one season before being cancelled? Given the fact that in this case, the series in question doesn't really have "seasons", it just has the episodes that aired. (For example, Firefly was cancelled after one season, and has 14 episodes; there isn't really any reference of "Firefly (season 1)", just "Firefly".) Alex| The| Whovian 07:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Should num_episodes only be implemented when a new episode airs? Every TV series I've ever edited, this has always been the case, but now I'm editing another series where the editor believes that it should be updated to the count the complete series of eight episodes before it's started airing. Alex| The| Whovian 11:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the sources previously provided are sufficient in the specific case of Humans: I refer readers to the discussion at Talk:Humans (TV series) so I may focus on the general point here.
Yes, WP:PRIMARY/ MOS:PLOT does explicitly address the issue of plot summaries. It is also very clear that secondary sources are to be preferred and primary sources are only to be used "to a lesser extent" (WP:PRIMARY), noting even with plot summaries that "editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible" (MOS:PLOT). It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that it privileges secondary sources; it is not designed for first-hand reports. Individual template documentation cannot ignore Wikipedia policy ( WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). I also note that an infobox is a "quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout" ( WP:INFOBOX) or "that summarizes key features of the page's subject." ( WP:IBT) And it should be short ("The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose"). If the main text talks about 8 episodes, the infobox should talk about 8 episodes. The point of an infobox is not to contain different interpretations to the text. Personally, a counter incrementing as each episode broadcasts does not seem to me to be what an online encyclopaedia based on secondary sources should be focusing on. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
May I suggest an approach that would certainly please me as a user of the information in the Infobox? Why not have two values in the Infobox, one that states the number of episodes in the series and one that states the number of episodes shown to date? In the example of Humans, it could then be indicated that there are 8 episodes ordered for the current series (or season, in American parlance) and that as of today, 5 of those episodes have aired? The number of episodes aired could be incremented each time a new episode was shown (presumably in the first market where it was appearing). That would certainly be helpful to me. When I look at the current Infobox, it seems to be implying that there are only 5 episodes in the series (season). Next week, when I look, it will say 6. If I'm recording the series and waiting to watch it in one go when I have the whole series, I won't know that I have the whole thing until such time as the number stops incrementing in the Wikipedia page. Even then, I can't be sure since it may just have been pre-empted for some reason with further episodes yet to come. It would be far more useful to me to know that there are, say, 8 episodes in the series and 5 have already aired. Of course the proposed numbers would have to be identified and distinguished so the label is open to discussion. I suggest something like "Episodes projected for current series" and "Episodes aired to date", although something concise that was going to be understood correctly would be better.
198.84.215.251 ( talk) 14:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be on-going debate on this issue, so it must be brought up — should years be included on infoboxes for reality competitions, such as: The Voice, The X Factor and American Idol, or should they be excluded? livelikemusic my talk page! 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series, so if you want that changed you need to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, not here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:TVCAST is about cast and characters lists in article body, not infoboxes. No one responded to my last post. So, what about subheadings of "Present" and "Past"? -- Musdan77 ( talk) 20:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
write all articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued. That precludes use of headings like "Past". -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 20:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, it occurs to me that |voices=
is pretty broad in its description:
"Any voice artists used in the show" is cruftbait. By comparison, the |starring=
is more restrictive by nature, since "starring" is typically a special credit given by producers and is not the same as "appearing in". I assume that |voices=
is to be used in lieu of |starring=
. If that is correct, should |voices=
be clarified to only include starring voice acting roles? If my assumption is not correct, is there any other way to clarify this?
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 19:35, 2 August 2015 (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 "Announcer(s)", "Band", "Sidekick" and "Correspondents" fields be added to Infobox television to sort out the inconsistency with such entries already added to the infoboxes of late-night talk show related articles? -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Currently in the infoboxes of articles about late-night talk shows you can find people who were Announcers and Sidekicks and even the show Bands listed under various fields as there is no dedicated field for them. Announcers can be found under "Narrator" (example: The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson) and "Starring" (example: Jimmy Kimmel Live!); Sidekicks under "Starring" (example: Late Night with Conan O'Brien); Bands under "Starring" ( The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon); and Correspondents under "Starring" as well (example: The Daily Show). In addition, since there is no official place for them in the template, some articles have this information in the infobox, while others omit all or some of it (examples: Chelsea Lately not listing Chuy Bravo as a sidekick and Tonight Starring Steve Allen not listing Skitch Henderson as the band leader). As the current situation is that of an inconsistency, any result of the RfC will have to come to an outcome. Note: I'm not entirely sure how the module system works, but perhaps making this a module would solve any fears of "clutter" in the infobox. -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Please !vote for one of the options and avoid any threaded discussion in the supporting sections.
|Starring=
is already frequently misused, with people incorrectly believing that starring is the same as appearing in. We shouldn't be manufacturing starring roles by adding Band, Sidekick, Correspondents, etc. to this parameter.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 17:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Replying to AussieLegend. 1. There actually was an attempt at a discussion here, which you choose to ignore. 2. You don't get to dictate the scope of the RfC. 3. You still haven't addressed the issue. -- Gonnym ( talk) 08:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Replying to Cyphoidbomb. I think creating a separate infobox is a bad idea, however, if that's the alternative compromise, I'll go along with it as its better than removing the information all together. -- Gonnym ( talk) 09:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
User_talk:Tony1#Script_fixes_on_Mr._Robinson_.28TV_series.29 Tony (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I am unsure about the proper usage of the creative_director parameter in the context of a television series. I have never seen someone credited as creative director in a television series. The explanation in the documentation links to
Creative director, where it says in the Film section "The creative director in the film industry is referred to as the
production designer", and the linked page makes it clear that the production designer is the same thing in film and television. I would conclude from that that the parameter can be used for the production designer. However, I was explained
given the opinion that putting the production designer is an incorrect use of the parameter.
Can the template documentation be changed to point out the correct use unambiguously, (or to clearly state not to use this parameter)? – Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings all! I am here to start a dialogue with the Wikipedia community about including an additional line item below the Original Channel line which could be called Subscription Streaming Location(s). Here there would be a list of subscription streaming services (usually just one or two) where the show has been sold (either to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus, etc.). Ideally these would have external-facing hyperlinks to the pages where these shows actually live on those websites.
Just for some context, it's worth noting that the subscription streaming ecosystem and it’s interaction with the traditional cable and broadcast businesses is a matter of great discussion and interest in the entertainment community. For instance, Breaking Bad (Sony Pictures TV) was sold to Netflix, and many industry insiders believe that the show’s presence on Netflix helped it become such a significant hit for AMC ( http://www.ew.com/article/2013/09/23/breaking-bad-creator-netflix-emmys). Now, when these streaming deals happen, they are often front page news items in entertainment periodicals ( http://deadline.com/2014/08/the-blacklist-netflix-deal-2-million-825836/). For these reasons, I believe including SVOD information in a more prominent location on these pages is warranted, and I would welcome any feedback or discussion about this issue. In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I work in the entertainment industry for NBCUniversal, so I am unable according to Wikipedia's policies to make any changes to these pages myself. Thanks in advance! JeffreyReale ( talk) 22:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, is there any value to renaming |channel=
and |network=
to |original_channel=
and |original_network=
? Kids seem to think this field is for every network the series ever aired on. Ex:
here. Thoughts?
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 21:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
channel
and network
are actually the same parameter. channel
is an alias for network
. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 13:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
|original_network=
that maybe it would propagate to new articles and prevent future muckups. :.(
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 20:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)I'm not sure if I understand the difference between |related=
and |preceded_by=
/|followed_by=
and I don't think the instructions for the latter pair help to explain. A spin-off seems like it could both go in |related=
as well as in |followed_by=
. Any thoughts?
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 20:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
|followed_by=
at
Dirty Jobs, you can't call the two series related. Let's not get started on the whole
Chicago Fire/
Chicago P.D./
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit or
Law & Order franchise/
Homicide: Life on the Street situations. In short, yes, sometimes related can be preceded/followed by but not always. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 20:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Still confused! - AussieLegend, Favre1fan93, et al, I gotta say, even with everybody's kind attempts to explain, I still don't understand the purpose of the fields. I'm looking at some Philippines TV articles, like here, where people are misusing it to indicate either:
|followed_by=
Laverne & Shirley. Happy Days aired at 8pm and Laverne & Shirley aired at 8:30.or
|followed_by=
Happy Days in the 8pm slot.So I'm not alone in being confused. In 2007 there was some talk about deleting these. In the discussion someone notes that these are used a lot by reality shows and such like Big Brother. That sort of makes sense to me if we're considering each season of the show to be a different show. (Assuming that's accurate.) But otherwise, we need some clear explanation for the correct way to use these fields. In the example provided by Dark Cocoa Frosting, I don't see how Melrose Place follows 90210. Simply because they may take place in the same fictional universe but Melrose isn't a proper spin-off? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a change to this (which is different, and unrelated to what Cyphoidbomb was suggesting above). First, the parameter as it appears in the infobox should be changed from Original channel to Original network. Network is the more appropriate term as we use it. Here is an example to clarify my point: Shows air on the network, which is broadcast to viewers across various channels.
WNBC is a channel that airs the
NBC network. This wording still works with cable as well. Second, I think we should add a third alias to this parameter called |streaming_service=
(or something similar), which would also change the parameter appearance to Original streaming service. With the ever growing number of shows releasing on Netflix and Amazon, "network" or "channel" really isn't the best term for either of those. If these proposals get support, a similar change would have to happen for the season infobox. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk) 16:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
|Original streaming service=
is used in conjunction with any of the other labels? My (potentially irrational?) fear is that |Original streaming service=
will be used whenever any show is released digitally, and we will constantly have to fix that. I do like the idea of changing "Original channel" to "Original network" but leaving it to be a blanket term for channel, network or streaming service. There are US television channels that are not really "networks", but we all know what is meant by that. Similarly, Netflix isn't a network or a channel, but I think we'll understand what is meant. Alternatively, we could try to brainstorm on a better label. "Original service"? Naw. "Original venue"? Naw...
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 18:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
|channel=
/ |network=
parameter would be shown. And what do you mean by what I'm bolding here: "I do like the idea of changing "Original channel" to "Original network" but leaving it to be a blanket term for channel, network or streaming service."? -
Favre1fan93 (
talk) 17:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
|network=
, the label in the infobox displays as "Original channel". I was proposing that we change the label to "Original network", because I believe that in common parlance, "network" is generally understood to be any delivery mechanism, be it a local TV channel, a proper air/cable network, or a streaming service.
|network=
is meant to include all original broadcast services. As for the other aspect of your comment, even if coded in the way described, while the infobox would not display anything weirdly, we'd still all be tasked to remove |streaming_service=
any time anybody added it erroneously, because we are all good, conscientious editors, infobox clutter pisses us off, and we're all a little OCD.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 17:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@ AussieLegend and Bignole: Any thoughts on this? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I recently posted the following question on Template talk:Episode list but since I didn't get a reply there so I'll try here: If a particular program doesn't strictly have a name, and is only refered to as something such as Episode 1, is it still appropriate for it to be included in quotes as "Episode 1" in the Title parameter, or should the RTitle parameter be used instead? The tempate documentation doesn't outright explain which is best in this situation or similar. -- User:Whats new? (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that we have "image_upright", shall we remove "image_size"? I am viewing the image at 400px or scale factor multiplied by 400px. Everybody has preference. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, I wanted to get some clarification from the community, as I've noticed
Spin Boy 11 making good-faith edits like these
[7]
[8]
[9]. It would seem to me that |company=
is intended to indicate the company that funded/organized the production of the series in question, not the sub-contractors hired to perform the manual labor. Is this correct?
The Simpsons, for instance, doesn't include the South Korean studio in |company=
. Based on my experience, |company=
and |country=
are somewhat related. If we included
Hong Ying Animation in |company=
for
Secret Mountain Fort Awesome that would likely inspire editors to change the infobox and lead to reflect an American–Chinese co-production, which, although it is somewhat accurate, is confusing since Hong Ying presumably didn't fund the series. (I don't know for sure, because the content was unsourced and Spin Boy didn't explain.) Would appreciate some input here, please. Naturally, the animation house should be mentioned somewhere in Production, I just don't think it belongs in |company=
. The docs could also be tweaked to reflect the intended usage. Thanks,
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 17:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The heading "Chronology" doesn't make sense when titles of "Related shows" are included (rather than "Preceded by" and/or "Followed by"). Can this heading be changed to "Related" (or something similar) which more accurately covers all three categories of related titles? — sroc 💬 17:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Contrary to what Aussie Legend and a tag-teaming editor claim, the RfC absolutely said reliable sourcing is required for runtime.
Here are the exact words by the closing admin: "The point at issue was, narrowly, are we allowed to use running time figures measured by individual editors directly. The answer is an unambiguous "no"< for the same reason that we would not allow such sources for the height of an actor or the size of a building. --Guy (Help!) 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC) -- Tenebrae ( talk) 15:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
exact words by the closing admindo not say that citations are absolutely needed. In fact, the closer clarified this very point when he said
The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time.[10] -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind.[11] It says nothing about the need to cite every runtime in every article, as you are well aware. This seems to be an additional requirement that you are forcing, despite what WP:V requires, and this has been questioned by another admin at WP:AN3. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Runtimes must be sourced. AussieLegend knows this as he was part of the RfC. If AussieLegend is adding runtimes from personal observation, that is original research and forbidden by policy. AussieLegend also knows this. WP:NOR is canonical policy, not a guideline. If AussieLegend wants to ignore policy, then he will be blocked. The simple solution is to find a reliable source for the runtime, and cite it. Adding it without a source is not only a violation of policy, it is also disruptive, because AussieLegend knows that adding unsourced runtimes does not enjoy wither [either] consensus or the support of policy. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Please consider adding a science advisor entry to the infobox. Thank you. JeanLucMargot ( talk) 18:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The documentation of |released=
/|first_aired=
explains how to treat aired "preview" episodes, but does not explain how to include on-demand episodes. It seems that often a later broadcast is given preference because of the historical naming of these parameters, however, to the reader this all displays as "Original release" which does not discriminate between broadcast and on-demand. (As a technical remark, actually, the |released=
parameter is just an alias for the |first_aired=
and if both are present, the latter has priority.) However, nowadays what used to be traditional broadcast networks also provide the same content on-demand before and/or after the broadcast which leads to mixed release schedules, e.g., a first on-demand release with later broadcast.
Also the |last_aired=
parameter needs an update in naming or explanation for mixed release schedules. As two recent examples, all
Public Morals episodes were released on-demand by September 5, yet the "Original release" dates state October 20 as the time the last episode was finally broadcast, taking the "last_aired" parameter literally.
Wicked City "aired" an episode on November 10 for the last time, yet here the "Original release" states December 30 which is when the last episode was released on-demand in the United States, not taking the "last_aired" parameter literally.
I understand that the strict distinction between on-demand release dates and broadcast periods used to be meaningful at a time when there was only Netflix and traditional broadcasters, but nowadays it just leads to confusion and complication. I also understand that the current parameter names must be kept for backward compatibility, but they all luckily display the same as "Original release". All of this could be made easy by taking whatever release date comes first for the first and for last episodes as "Original release" span. This is one easy rule that fits pure on-demand, pure broadcast, and mixed release schedules, and only requires an update to the documentation. – Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 15:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Multiple uses of this template use {{
dts}} in the first_aired
parameter, especially if the series has premiered and concluded in the same year, so that the dates appear as "May 7 – July 16, 2015" (for example). However, this is the incorrect usage of this template, per its documentation, and the documentation of this particular template clearly states that {{
Start date}} should be used, so that the dates correctly appear as "May 7, 2015 – July 16, 2015" (for example). I have made edits in the sandbox to collect all the templates that use {{
dts}} into a maintenance category (as of yet not created), checking for the presence of class="sortkey"
, which is only present in {{
dts}}. If approved, I intend to do the same for {{
Infobox television season}} (not protected).
Alex|The|Whovian
? 13:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
Start date|2500|5|7}}
, which (per above) the year 2500 wouldn't appear and May 7 would be the output, but it would mess up the hidden metadata.
Alex|The|Whovian
? 00:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)So, does anyone have any further ideas on how to implement the correct date range? If not, should the edits in the sandbox be implemented into the live version? Alex|The|Whovian ? 00:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I noticed one page used no_seasons / no_episodes instead of num_seasons / num_episodes. I fixed it but am worried this might happen on other pages. Is there any way we can alias these so any pages calling on these NO inputs will give the info to the NUM inputs? Or can some bot detect when non-existant fields are called upon for this template and tag them for investigation and correction? 184.145.18.50 ( talk) 18:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
{{{num_seasons|}}}
with {{{num_seasons|{{{no_seasons|}}}}}}
, replace {{{num_series|}}}
with |{{{num_series|{{{no_series|}}}}}}
, and replace {{{num_episodes|}}}
with {{{num_episodes|{{{no_episodes|}}}}}}
.
Alex|The|Whovian
? 00:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I need your help. Every time I try to create an infobox television template, I see a screwed up infobox template.
Superman | |
---|---|
Created by |
|
Starring | Christopher Reeve |
Theme music composer | John Williams |
Country of origin | United States |
Original language | English |
Production | |
Running time | 120 minutes |
Production company | DC Comics |
Original release | |
Release | 1978 1979 | –
Could you please get that template fixed so that there won't be any more problems? AdamDeanHall ( talk) 22:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
style="/* invalid control char */"
in the header rows.
Alex|The|Whovian
? 03:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Not entirely sure why background colours would introduce a HTML comment into the style tag. I'd support the deletion of colours - there's no need for them. Alex|The|Whovian ? 08:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax asked on my talk page if it is possible to have the infobox automatically grab the url for the official website from wikidata. many infoboxes now support this, for example, see the website section in {{ infobox telescope}}. I can add a similar feature here if there are no objections. Frietjes ( talk) 14:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
website = {{official website}}
and the connection is setup.* {{official website}}
in the External links portion of the article you are working on and the article will now pull the data from Wikidata. You can then delete the oldstyle
crufty link from the External links section.{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)|website=
shouldn't exist in the infobox. If a website doesn't appear when website
is missing, adding {{
official website}} shouldn't make one appear, as it just tries to pull the same non-existent url from Wikidata. The naming of urls has been the subject of discussion and it was decided not to make the label "Official website". Instead, the status quo reigned and if you want to use a custom label, then you need to include |website_title=Official website
. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 04:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
—Preceding
undated comment added 19:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Hi
AussieLegend. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. If you go to an infobox that can be populated by WikiData, in most cases you just put in {{
official website}}
and WikiData will take it from there, if WikiData has an official website Property on the article's Wikidata item (the link to the Wikidata item can be quickly found on the left hand set of links on the English Wikipedia). If Wikidata lacks the official website property in the article's Wikidata item then you can easily add it. Then everything is happy.
The way Frietjes has set up the infobox television, the only way to pull up the Wikidata official website property from the article's Wikidata item is to remove the website =
parameter from the infobox television. This is not the case in infobox person.
Now, on infobox people the system goes with the majority of infoboxes where you can pull from Wikidata by putting website =
and Wikidata will take it from there if the official website property is populated on the article's Wikidata item.
{{
official website}}
Check out infobox person by going to Donald Trump and doing some test edits, previewing each one, and then canceling when you are done:
Be sure to Preview after each edit, and be sure to cancel your last edit. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
06:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)