![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Adult Swim is premiering new episodes of its shows on the internet the friday before they air on television. Should there be a distinction in the infobox between TV airings and internet airings, or should the first airing on any medium take precedence?
I thought the infobox looked ugly, so I edited it. Extraordinary Machine 04:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Added the Episode list parameter. Change this to a PIPED link (ie in [[]]) to the page which lists the episode chronology, like eg List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. So: Episode chronology -- Alfakim -- talk 16:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I added the Image parameter. Change this to [[Image:Example.jpg|300px]] to put an image at the top of your infobox (like a screenshot of the episode). Remember to add the |300px or you'll ruin your page. -- Alfakim -- talk 22:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I have an idea. Some shows waver in between supernatural and natural content, and it's not always clear if something supernatural has just occurred. This happens in shows like The X-Files or Lost. It doesn't happen so much in a sit-com like Friends. But I think it would be helpful for viewers and people interested if those who know the stories behind the episode mark a show (one that would be relevant) with a symbol if something supernatural has occurred in the episode. Might be a bit of a spoiler, but then if someone is looking up information on an episode, there are going to be spoilers anyhow and I think that an article on a show should be comprehenisive and I think a clear label like this will clearly help people understand what is going on in the show. What do you all think? I know answers may take awhile (sometimes months, I'll watch the page). ( Narkstraws 05:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC))
I changed US airdate to Airdate since not all the series air in the US first. -- Tone 18:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Babylon 5 episode | |
"Midnight on the firing line" | |
![]() Wikipedia's example image, on a white background | |
Episode No. | Season 1 Episode 1 |
---|---|
Guest star(s) | {{{Guests}}} |
Writer(s) | {{{Writer}}} |
Director | {{{Director}}} |
Production No. | 103 |
Airdate | 26 January, 1994 |
Episode chronology | |
Previous | Next |
" Babylon 5: The Gathering" | " Soul Hunter" |
List of Babylon 5 episodes |
I was thinking of changing the navbox part of the episode box. But i'm not real sure yet if i actually like it. Still I'm also not 100% satisfied with the way it is now. Does anyone else have good ideas on how to do the Prev/Next/Index thing ? The DJ 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello folks. Have there any precedent TFDs concerning deleting templates created for individual shows in favour of this one. I ask, becasue Template:Infobox Fawlty Towers has been created for Fawlty Towers, which doesn't seem to do anything that this template doesn't do. The JPS talk to me 19:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The default colour is still the tag as before, however an optional parameter has been added so the background can be changed. Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 11:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a note that this tag shouldnt be removed as it is used succesfully in hundreds of articles. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 08:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to do this, then please explain where it is neccessary and then implement it per my suggestion, using templates to store the colour values, so instead of colour = black you use colour = prison break colour. Just because you implemented this and set it up of a few series, doesn't make it worthwhile or necessary. ed g2s • talk 12:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit war over this template - if you need to arrive to some sort of consensus about what should be used, you may want to consider leaving a message in the village pump. If it continues, protection of the template until the some sort of consensus is reached may be used. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 20:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to gather some concensus on the background colouring tag, now first of let me point out that it modifies the appearance in no way unless it is called and retains the default gray unless called.
Secondly some projects like the Stargate Wikiproject have there own colours (see: Template:SGColor) which is used in articles related to Stargate, also some articles use navigation templates with a primary colour on all pages related to the subject (IE: The O.C. or Veronica Mars) -- The colour chosen to be used has already been selected by participants actively editing those pages and thus if it has proven to cause no harm why would it in the infobox.
Thirdly if you can see the gray navbar fine why would you not be able to see black, blue or green etc? Wikipedia pages generally use an assortment of colours and so this cannot be really a basis for argument.
Fourth, Wikipedia is not paper, we do not have to worry about ink. Fifth, Wikipedia should be aesthetically pleasing as well (thus why we use the nice monobook skin vs. default?) Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 19:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
No, applying colour to inline text when it is not necessary is Bad. What looks good on the monobook skin may not look good another skin, or visually impaired users who have their browsers set up with a specified colours for suitable contrast. Furthermore the reason we use a skin at all is to give pages a consistent look. If we start colouring pages by topic just for aesthetic reasons, we'll end up looking like myspace. This may be acceptable on users pages, but the article space is supposed to look professional. ed g2s • talk 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. Please don't implement series-by-series coloring; it's not as useful as people seem to think for identification (since only those who work on a series are going to know what the colors mean), and it just ends up looking crappy in some skins and setups. This isn't useful in 100% of cases, and has the possibility to damage readability in a percentage of cases. Just no. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and as for the bolded votes,
voting is useless and divisive. -
A Man In Bl♟ck (
conspire |
past ops)
03:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Voting is useless and divisive, and your vote count seems to discount me, Combination, and ed g2s. Get support for the colors, then add them to the template. Revert with vandalism-reversion tools and I will block you, and recommend that your AWB/VP/whatever access be stripped. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 07:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Support Tag serves a purpose, removing causes disruption. Insanity13 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I'm with A Man In Bl♟ck on this too. I definitely don't want tons of colors at wiki. Before the argument is repeated in a response to me, I fully understand that others are doing this, but that doesn't make it correct in doing so. I would tell users who are using various colors the same thing. Colors should be standard and any customizations should be on the user side only. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 23:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
One assumes that if you navigate between that if you are browsing episodes of a given show, you will already be expecting the same show, without a colour bar to confirm it. If you navigate between shows, you will not recognise which show you are looking at by seeing the colour.
This is why the colors aren't useful.
What looks good on the monobook skin may not look good another skin, or visually impaired users who have their browsers set up with a specified colours for suitable contrast. Furthermore the reason we use a skin at all is to give pages a consistent look. If we start colouring pages by topic just for aesthetic reasons, we'll end up looking like myspace.
This is why the color are harmful.
Colors are harmful and not useful. Adding them to this template is a net negative. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 12:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW by my count its currently 6-3 in favor of the color option. -- Argash | talk | contribs 12:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
One assumes that if you navigate between that if you are browsing episodes of a given show, you will already be expecting the same show, without a colour bar to confirm it. If you navigate between shows, you will not recognise which show you are looking at by seeing the colour.
This is why the colors aren't useful.
What looks good on the monobook skin may not look good another skin, or visually impaired users who have their browsers set up with a specified colours for suitable contrast. Furthermore the reason we use a skin at all is to give pages a consistent look. If we start colouring pages by topic just for aesthetic reasons, we'll end up looking like myspace.
This is why the color are harmful.
These points remain unaddressed.
It has been argued that such-and-such Wikiproject is unwilling to use this unified template without a color variable. I can understand the difficulty of getting people to adopy a unified infobox (being a bit of a template wonk at times myself); can you point me to an example of this reticence? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 13:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you'd write more, to address these answers. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 13:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been keeping up with the stargate project much myself lately I just know they make use of it, couldn't point you to a specific discussion though. I'm leading up the charge for the Entourage project and I want to make use of colors there I can tell you that. I did just dig up another template that is almost an exact copy and does have the color option so if your going to piss in moan about it I guess we'll just switch over to that template. -- Argash | talk | contribs 13:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Formatting issues:
Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases. If you absolutely must specify a font size, use a relative size, that is,
font-size: 80%
; not an absolute size, for example,font-size: 8pt
. It is also almost never a good idea to use other style changes, such as font family or color.Typically, the usage of custom font styles will
- reduce consistency - the text will no longer look uniform with typical text;
- reduce usability - it will likely be impossible for people with custom stylesheets (for accessibility reasons, for example) to override it, and it might clash with a different skin as well as bother people with color blindness;
- increase arguments - there is the possibility of other Wikipedians disagreeing with choice of font style and starting a debate about it for aesthetic purposes.
For such reasons, it is typically not good practice to apply inline CSS for font attributes in articles.
Something to not dismiss lightly. Thanks/ wangi 13:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
By my count currently 6 support backgrounds and 3 oppose, hence a majority support, thus i will readd it later today if there are no more opinions to be cast as the talk seems to have died now. MatthewFenton ( talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I support the background color option. It adds some color to the page where it's lacking and can have meaning to the TV show it's for. In the case of Veronica Mars, which I frequently edit, the color used is one of the two colors from the school that the main characters went to in the first and second season of the show. Having the same color on the character pages and episode pages make it known that the page has to do with the show it corresponds to. It also makes those parts noticeable, like the character name and episode name on those pages. It makes the pages more interesting to look at rather than ones without a background. HuskersRule 10:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Augh. MF added hard-coded color tags to all of the television project infoboxes, apparently on the suggestion of an anon. This happened on July 23, and seems to have gone completely unnoticed save for the motly single-topic editors who make articles for single episodes of television shows. This singularly bad idea (just look at Prison Break) isn't limited to episode articles. I think a full topic RFC may be in order. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 11:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Faris b 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
(Note: For those intrested backgrounds have been avilable on Infobox Album for sometime now (Ed 2gs also edited this template a few times) [2])
Regarding "{{ Infobox Celebrity}}" -- I implemented bakground colouring mainly for femenine and masculine colours (pink for girls, blue for boys.. you get the picture) now this has been implemented on some pages and recentley i have discoverd a better way to implement this without hardcoding hex values into each bio.. this can be done via advanced template markup and gender.. the same can be done for infobox celebrity.
Now.. Regarding this template.. you may wish to see here it uses advanced markup to store each shows colour and is called like: {Show Colours|Veronica Mars}.. the same should also be impletedmented on template charcter as well.. this avoids hardcoding hex values all over the place and also offers ease and stores the value in one place. MatthewFenton ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It's been three days now.. seems like nobody is interested, so what happens now :-\? MatthewFenton ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
So..? Is it safe to readd the opt. var now? (PS: Note that there are lots of infoboxes using background colouring, 2 articles which are FA have used a background colour tag this week!) MatthewFenton ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, when I say "nothing, I guess" I am implying it shouldn't be re-added. There is no consensus to add it, nor is there any great reason to do so. The sun will still shine tomorrow without background colours... Thanks/ wangi 09:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Beacause I'm a polite sort of guy. Ta/ wangi 09:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Due to the recent number of TfD's on the "redundant" Episode boxes, I have gone trough the cat and build a list of infoboxes that should be considered for deletion or merging into this one. Note that there are quite a few with colored bars in it, which might blow open the discussion above, but I can't see how we can avoid that. Please read the collected information on the page and see if you can help weed out the rest. If anyone has ideas on setting guidelines for inclusion of information from the fictional universe into the Infoboxes, then that surely will be helpful as well. TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the results of the banning of colors in this template is resulting in quite a few forked templates having been created. I want to unfork these templates back into this central template. However I suspect I might get some opposition from people who will simply not like to lose their color. I have 2 ways to tackle this:
Personally (and i have some supporters for that) I would prefer to add color to this template.
Both will guarantee consistent color usage troughout the specific shows. The latter option will also make it considerably difficult to understand how to use this option to prevent every single fanboy of creating colored templates on their pages, yet simple enough for the more experienced editor. An example is shown in my sandbox. The parameter "Series" (in this case SG) is used to detect if Template:SGColor is present. And then uses colors from that template for the header background and header text. The implementation looks like this:
style="{{#ifexist:Template:{{{Series}}} colors|color: {{{{{Series}}} colors|headertext}};|}} background: {{#ifexist:Template:{{{Series}}} colors|{{{{{Series}}} colors|header}}|#DEDEE2}};"
When converting the infoboxes, I think I will only add color templates for shows with either their own wikiproject, or a very obvious "show" color (Simpons). That are my ideas, I welcome any feedback. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Not again. This is just going back to having a hojillion different colors, most of them ugly as sin, because somebody decides green on red is "obvious" for this series of that. Let's not do that again. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 04:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfork the templates if you must, but "people .. will simply not like to lose their color" still isn't a good reason to use them. ed g2s • talk 10:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I just realized there is a third alternative. Someone TfDs all the colored infoboxes that are in place now, and gets them deleted, before I do my work. However I cannot do this, since I don't support such a TfD. TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there should be an option to set the color. This would make it possible to unfork a lot of templates and if people chose an ugly color then take it up with those people. -- Maitch 17:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, have a basic unanimous consensus to add the colour param. and so I will do so later on today, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_18#Template:Colored_infoboxes_of_television_episodes. If anyone wishes to remove it then they will require a consensus to do so, i.e. no edit warring, but the apparent consensus there is add the param. here so the forks may be deleted, eventually. thanks/ Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"have a basic unanimous consensus to add the colour param" - do you even know what unanimous means! There are still clearly many objections. ed g2s • talk 15:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Like I said before. I don't give a frell, but if you ( User:ed_g2s) change it here, have the guts to change it on {{ Infobox television}} as well. Also this is gonna be a pointless discussion as long as the same people are involved. Take it to the Village Pump, and invite all the contributors of all the TV related wikiprojects to join the discussion. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
"Director" should be "Director(s)". There are episodes with more than one director and it looks strange to write "Director" and the list two names. It is the exact same thing as "Writer(s)". If people wants this template to be the standard episode template, then this is one those many changes that needs to be done. -- Maitch 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I know that it is not common, but I still feel that an infobox should be correct for all cases. -- Maitch 17:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if "(s)" is just extraneous text then you won't mind if I change it to "Writer". -- Maitch 18:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose we remove this field, firstly because often they are non-verifiable information and thus are primarily un-cited, failing WP:ATT, secondly they're often nothing more then trivial little codes that could more then likely not be cited within the articles prose. An argument for this field is that the field is often useful for those episodes aired out of order (even though in reality the numbers aren't the production codes..), thus I also propose we make an optional addition to the Episode no. field titled "Produced", e.g.
Season 01
Episode 01
Produced 05
Anybody got any opinions? Matthew 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking into merging {{ Infobox UK Television Episode}} and {{ Infobox British Television episode}} into this template. As such we need to find a way to do Series vs. Season. I could add a "Series no" option that if present will automatically replace {{{Season}}}, or I can add a {{{UK}}}==yes option that only uses different wording in the include, but will still use {{{Season}}} as an option name. Also one of these templates has {{{Producer}}} as an option, which I think i'd like to add.
And then of course there is something else, which is {{{Season list}}}. This will be used to merge back the various templates that use some sort of Season list, instead of the Prev/Next system. See User:TheDJ/SandboxTemplate2 and User:TheDJ/Sandbox for what it would look like. Opinions please ? -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Can we make "writer" optional? For instance, when the same person(s) are responsible for writing all episodes? I did this with "Director" already, and surprisingly, nobody objected or reverted it, but I thought that I'd ask about this one, since I think it would be a bit more controversial.. :: ZJH ( T C E) 03:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
How about an IMDb link on in this box?
The fact that the television series and film infoboxes already have these links is even a matter of debate lately, let's not add them to episode infoboxes before we have reached more concensus on that. And my personal opinion is that for episode articles both sources are usually quite unreliable when it comes to plot info, trivia etc. I have a reasonable amount of trust in imdb's credentials listing, but that's about it. (and gaming credentials are excluded from that statement :D )-- TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi I'm trying to write a new template infobox for a tv series set of articles (Eva) and I really am not sure how to do that; could somebody walk me through the basics of setting this up? Please contact on my user talk page. -- Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 02:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted this addition per my rationale in the edit summary, please discuss here if you disagree. Matthew 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why there isn't a field for ratings infomation. Viewers (In Millions), Viewers 18-49, Rank for the week, ect.? Jamie jca 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Next to the fact that a rating can be different per country, note that unlike for a movie release, a television rating can change per episode, network and rerun. As such it's impossible to note correctly in the article as a fact and to do so might even be considered "unencyclopedic". A description like:
"An animated show targeted at young children (+/- 7 and older), with little to no bad language. Although originally targeted at a young audience it has also garnered a large group of adulescent and adult enthousiastic followers of the show The show is often rated as TV-Y7 in the USA" for instance is usually a better idea. Be sure to add your source when adding the information.
Basically, the point is that TV ratings are pointless facts unless they are put into context with other shows, multiple years, different countries etc. This is usually done better in prose than in an infobox. Also, with the current advent of TIVO, IPTV and illegal downloads, the correctness of the ratings is proven skewed. It is known that some shows that attract an early 20s audience are so incorrect (think Jericho) that companies are scrambling to find more reliable methods to judge popularity over the traditional method. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have changed "Original airdate" to "First broadcast": it is better, more professional English. "Air" in this context is used as colloquial slang for "broadcast", in a limited number of countries. And I see no reason why we should choose regional slang terms over international formal ones unless there's a specific reason to do so. EuroSong talk 05:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"First broadcast" is no more better or professional than "Original airdate", simply it's how you would like it worded. Matthew 16:05, 21 August 2007 (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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Adult Swim is premiering new episodes of its shows on the internet the friday before they air on television. Should there be a distinction in the infobox between TV airings and internet airings, or should the first airing on any medium take precedence?
I thought the infobox looked ugly, so I edited it. Extraordinary Machine 04:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Added the Episode list parameter. Change this to a PIPED link (ie in [[]]) to the page which lists the episode chronology, like eg List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. So: Episode chronology -- Alfakim -- talk 16:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I added the Image parameter. Change this to [[Image:Example.jpg|300px]] to put an image at the top of your infobox (like a screenshot of the episode). Remember to add the |300px or you'll ruin your page. -- Alfakim -- talk 22:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I have an idea. Some shows waver in between supernatural and natural content, and it's not always clear if something supernatural has just occurred. This happens in shows like The X-Files or Lost. It doesn't happen so much in a sit-com like Friends. But I think it would be helpful for viewers and people interested if those who know the stories behind the episode mark a show (one that would be relevant) with a symbol if something supernatural has occurred in the episode. Might be a bit of a spoiler, but then if someone is looking up information on an episode, there are going to be spoilers anyhow and I think that an article on a show should be comprehenisive and I think a clear label like this will clearly help people understand what is going on in the show. What do you all think? I know answers may take awhile (sometimes months, I'll watch the page). ( Narkstraws 05:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC))
I changed US airdate to Airdate since not all the series air in the US first. -- Tone 18:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Babylon 5 episode | |
"Midnight on the firing line" | |
![]() Wikipedia's example image, on a white background | |
Episode No. | Season 1 Episode 1 |
---|---|
Guest star(s) | {{{Guests}}} |
Writer(s) | {{{Writer}}} |
Director | {{{Director}}} |
Production No. | 103 |
Airdate | 26 January, 1994 |
Episode chronology | |
Previous | Next |
" Babylon 5: The Gathering" | " Soul Hunter" |
List of Babylon 5 episodes |
I was thinking of changing the navbox part of the episode box. But i'm not real sure yet if i actually like it. Still I'm also not 100% satisfied with the way it is now. Does anyone else have good ideas on how to do the Prev/Next/Index thing ? The DJ 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello folks. Have there any precedent TFDs concerning deleting templates created for individual shows in favour of this one. I ask, becasue Template:Infobox Fawlty Towers has been created for Fawlty Towers, which doesn't seem to do anything that this template doesn't do. The JPS talk to me 19:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The default colour is still the tag as before, however an optional parameter has been added so the background can be changed. Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 11:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a note that this tag shouldnt be removed as it is used succesfully in hundreds of articles. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 08:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to do this, then please explain where it is neccessary and then implement it per my suggestion, using templates to store the colour values, so instead of colour = black you use colour = prison break colour. Just because you implemented this and set it up of a few series, doesn't make it worthwhile or necessary. ed g2s • talk 12:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit war over this template - if you need to arrive to some sort of consensus about what should be used, you may want to consider leaving a message in the village pump. If it continues, protection of the template until the some sort of consensus is reached may be used. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 20:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to gather some concensus on the background colouring tag, now first of let me point out that it modifies the appearance in no way unless it is called and retains the default gray unless called.
Secondly some projects like the Stargate Wikiproject have there own colours (see: Template:SGColor) which is used in articles related to Stargate, also some articles use navigation templates with a primary colour on all pages related to the subject (IE: The O.C. or Veronica Mars) -- The colour chosen to be used has already been selected by participants actively editing those pages and thus if it has proven to cause no harm why would it in the infobox.
Thirdly if you can see the gray navbar fine why would you not be able to see black, blue or green etc? Wikipedia pages generally use an assortment of colours and so this cannot be really a basis for argument.
Fourth, Wikipedia is not paper, we do not have to worry about ink. Fifth, Wikipedia should be aesthetically pleasing as well (thus why we use the nice monobook skin vs. default?) Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 19:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
No, applying colour to inline text when it is not necessary is Bad. What looks good on the monobook skin may not look good another skin, or visually impaired users who have their browsers set up with a specified colours for suitable contrast. Furthermore the reason we use a skin at all is to give pages a consistent look. If we start colouring pages by topic just for aesthetic reasons, we'll end up looking like myspace. This may be acceptable on users pages, but the article space is supposed to look professional. ed g2s • talk 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. Please don't implement series-by-series coloring; it's not as useful as people seem to think for identification (since only those who work on a series are going to know what the colors mean), and it just ends up looking crappy in some skins and setups. This isn't useful in 100% of cases, and has the possibility to damage readability in a percentage of cases. Just no. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and as for the bolded votes,
voting is useless and divisive. -
A Man In Bl♟ck (
conspire |
past ops)
03:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Voting is useless and divisive, and your vote count seems to discount me, Combination, and ed g2s. Get support for the colors, then add them to the template. Revert with vandalism-reversion tools and I will block you, and recommend that your AWB/VP/whatever access be stripped. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 07:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Support Tag serves a purpose, removing causes disruption. Insanity13 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I'm with A Man In Bl♟ck on this too. I definitely don't want tons of colors at wiki. Before the argument is repeated in a response to me, I fully understand that others are doing this, but that doesn't make it correct in doing so. I would tell users who are using various colors the same thing. Colors should be standard and any customizations should be on the user side only. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 23:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
One assumes that if you navigate between that if you are browsing episodes of a given show, you will already be expecting the same show, without a colour bar to confirm it. If you navigate between shows, you will not recognise which show you are looking at by seeing the colour.
This is why the colors aren't useful.
What looks good on the monobook skin may not look good another skin, or visually impaired users who have their browsers set up with a specified colours for suitable contrast. Furthermore the reason we use a skin at all is to give pages a consistent look. If we start colouring pages by topic just for aesthetic reasons, we'll end up looking like myspace.
This is why the color are harmful.
Colors are harmful and not useful. Adding them to this template is a net negative. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 12:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW by my count its currently 6-3 in favor of the color option. -- Argash | talk | contribs 12:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
One assumes that if you navigate between that if you are browsing episodes of a given show, you will already be expecting the same show, without a colour bar to confirm it. If you navigate between shows, you will not recognise which show you are looking at by seeing the colour.
This is why the colors aren't useful.
What looks good on the monobook skin may not look good another skin, or visually impaired users who have their browsers set up with a specified colours for suitable contrast. Furthermore the reason we use a skin at all is to give pages a consistent look. If we start colouring pages by topic just for aesthetic reasons, we'll end up looking like myspace.
This is why the color are harmful.
These points remain unaddressed.
It has been argued that such-and-such Wikiproject is unwilling to use this unified template without a color variable. I can understand the difficulty of getting people to adopy a unified infobox (being a bit of a template wonk at times myself); can you point me to an example of this reticence? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 13:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you'd write more, to address these answers. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 13:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been keeping up with the stargate project much myself lately I just know they make use of it, couldn't point you to a specific discussion though. I'm leading up the charge for the Entourage project and I want to make use of colors there I can tell you that. I did just dig up another template that is almost an exact copy and does have the color option so if your going to piss in moan about it I guess we'll just switch over to that template. -- Argash | talk | contribs 13:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Formatting issues:
Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases. If you absolutely must specify a font size, use a relative size, that is,
font-size: 80%
; not an absolute size, for example,font-size: 8pt
. It is also almost never a good idea to use other style changes, such as font family or color.Typically, the usage of custom font styles will
- reduce consistency - the text will no longer look uniform with typical text;
- reduce usability - it will likely be impossible for people with custom stylesheets (for accessibility reasons, for example) to override it, and it might clash with a different skin as well as bother people with color blindness;
- increase arguments - there is the possibility of other Wikipedians disagreeing with choice of font style and starting a debate about it for aesthetic purposes.
For such reasons, it is typically not good practice to apply inline CSS for font attributes in articles.
Something to not dismiss lightly. Thanks/ wangi 13:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
By my count currently 6 support backgrounds and 3 oppose, hence a majority support, thus i will readd it later today if there are no more opinions to be cast as the talk seems to have died now. MatthewFenton ( talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I support the background color option. It adds some color to the page where it's lacking and can have meaning to the TV show it's for. In the case of Veronica Mars, which I frequently edit, the color used is one of the two colors from the school that the main characters went to in the first and second season of the show. Having the same color on the character pages and episode pages make it known that the page has to do with the show it corresponds to. It also makes those parts noticeable, like the character name and episode name on those pages. It makes the pages more interesting to look at rather than ones without a background. HuskersRule 10:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Augh. MF added hard-coded color tags to all of the television project infoboxes, apparently on the suggestion of an anon. This happened on July 23, and seems to have gone completely unnoticed save for the motly single-topic editors who make articles for single episodes of television shows. This singularly bad idea (just look at Prison Break) isn't limited to episode articles. I think a full topic RFC may be in order. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 11:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Faris b 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
(Note: For those intrested backgrounds have been avilable on Infobox Album for sometime now (Ed 2gs also edited this template a few times) [2])
Regarding "{{ Infobox Celebrity}}" -- I implemented bakground colouring mainly for femenine and masculine colours (pink for girls, blue for boys.. you get the picture) now this has been implemented on some pages and recentley i have discoverd a better way to implement this without hardcoding hex values into each bio.. this can be done via advanced template markup and gender.. the same can be done for infobox celebrity.
Now.. Regarding this template.. you may wish to see here it uses advanced markup to store each shows colour and is called like: {Show Colours|Veronica Mars}.. the same should also be impletedmented on template charcter as well.. this avoids hardcoding hex values all over the place and also offers ease and stores the value in one place. MatthewFenton ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It's been three days now.. seems like nobody is interested, so what happens now :-\? MatthewFenton ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
So..? Is it safe to readd the opt. var now? (PS: Note that there are lots of infoboxes using background colouring, 2 articles which are FA have used a background colour tag this week!) MatthewFenton ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, when I say "nothing, I guess" I am implying it shouldn't be re-added. There is no consensus to add it, nor is there any great reason to do so. The sun will still shine tomorrow without background colours... Thanks/ wangi 09:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Beacause I'm a polite sort of guy. Ta/ wangi 09:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Due to the recent number of TfD's on the "redundant" Episode boxes, I have gone trough the cat and build a list of infoboxes that should be considered for deletion or merging into this one. Note that there are quite a few with colored bars in it, which might blow open the discussion above, but I can't see how we can avoid that. Please read the collected information on the page and see if you can help weed out the rest. If anyone has ideas on setting guidelines for inclusion of information from the fictional universe into the Infoboxes, then that surely will be helpful as well. TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the results of the banning of colors in this template is resulting in quite a few forked templates having been created. I want to unfork these templates back into this central template. However I suspect I might get some opposition from people who will simply not like to lose their color. I have 2 ways to tackle this:
Personally (and i have some supporters for that) I would prefer to add color to this template.
Both will guarantee consistent color usage troughout the specific shows. The latter option will also make it considerably difficult to understand how to use this option to prevent every single fanboy of creating colored templates on their pages, yet simple enough for the more experienced editor. An example is shown in my sandbox. The parameter "Series" (in this case SG) is used to detect if Template:SGColor is present. And then uses colors from that template for the header background and header text. The implementation looks like this:
style="{{#ifexist:Template:{{{Series}}} colors|color: {{{{{Series}}} colors|headertext}};|}} background: {{#ifexist:Template:{{{Series}}} colors|{{{{{Series}}} colors|header}}|#DEDEE2}};"
When converting the infoboxes, I think I will only add color templates for shows with either their own wikiproject, or a very obvious "show" color (Simpons). That are my ideas, I welcome any feedback. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Not again. This is just going back to having a hojillion different colors, most of them ugly as sin, because somebody decides green on red is "obvious" for this series of that. Let's not do that again. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 04:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfork the templates if you must, but "people .. will simply not like to lose their color" still isn't a good reason to use them. ed g2s • talk 10:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I just realized there is a third alternative. Someone TfDs all the colored infoboxes that are in place now, and gets them deleted, before I do my work. However I cannot do this, since I don't support such a TfD. TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there should be an option to set the color. This would make it possible to unfork a lot of templates and if people chose an ugly color then take it up with those people. -- Maitch 17:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, have a basic unanimous consensus to add the colour param. and so I will do so later on today, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_18#Template:Colored_infoboxes_of_television_episodes. If anyone wishes to remove it then they will require a consensus to do so, i.e. no edit warring, but the apparent consensus there is add the param. here so the forks may be deleted, eventually. thanks/ Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"have a basic unanimous consensus to add the colour param" - do you even know what unanimous means! There are still clearly many objections. ed g2s • talk 15:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Like I said before. I don't give a frell, but if you ( User:ed_g2s) change it here, have the guts to change it on {{ Infobox television}} as well. Also this is gonna be a pointless discussion as long as the same people are involved. Take it to the Village Pump, and invite all the contributors of all the TV related wikiprojects to join the discussion. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
"Director" should be "Director(s)". There are episodes with more than one director and it looks strange to write "Director" and the list two names. It is the exact same thing as "Writer(s)". If people wants this template to be the standard episode template, then this is one those many changes that needs to be done. -- Maitch 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I know that it is not common, but I still feel that an infobox should be correct for all cases. -- Maitch 17:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if "(s)" is just extraneous text then you won't mind if I change it to "Writer". -- Maitch 18:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose we remove this field, firstly because often they are non-verifiable information and thus are primarily un-cited, failing WP:ATT, secondly they're often nothing more then trivial little codes that could more then likely not be cited within the articles prose. An argument for this field is that the field is often useful for those episodes aired out of order (even though in reality the numbers aren't the production codes..), thus I also propose we make an optional addition to the Episode no. field titled "Produced", e.g.
Season 01
Episode 01
Produced 05
Anybody got any opinions? Matthew 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking into merging {{ Infobox UK Television Episode}} and {{ Infobox British Television episode}} into this template. As such we need to find a way to do Series vs. Season. I could add a "Series no" option that if present will automatically replace {{{Season}}}, or I can add a {{{UK}}}==yes option that only uses different wording in the include, but will still use {{{Season}}} as an option name. Also one of these templates has {{{Producer}}} as an option, which I think i'd like to add.
And then of course there is something else, which is {{{Season list}}}. This will be used to merge back the various templates that use some sort of Season list, instead of the Prev/Next system. See User:TheDJ/SandboxTemplate2 and User:TheDJ/Sandbox for what it would look like. Opinions please ? -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Can we make "writer" optional? For instance, when the same person(s) are responsible for writing all episodes? I did this with "Director" already, and surprisingly, nobody objected or reverted it, but I thought that I'd ask about this one, since I think it would be a bit more controversial.. :: ZJH ( T C E) 03:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
How about an IMDb link on in this box?
The fact that the television series and film infoboxes already have these links is even a matter of debate lately, let's not add them to episode infoboxes before we have reached more concensus on that. And my personal opinion is that for episode articles both sources are usually quite unreliable when it comes to plot info, trivia etc. I have a reasonable amount of trust in imdb's credentials listing, but that's about it. (and gaming credentials are excluded from that statement :D )-- TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi I'm trying to write a new template infobox for a tv series set of articles (Eva) and I really am not sure how to do that; could somebody walk me through the basics of setting this up? Please contact on my user talk page. -- Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 02:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted this addition per my rationale in the edit summary, please discuss here if you disagree. Matthew 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why there isn't a field for ratings infomation. Viewers (In Millions), Viewers 18-49, Rank for the week, ect.? Jamie jca 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Next to the fact that a rating can be different per country, note that unlike for a movie release, a television rating can change per episode, network and rerun. As such it's impossible to note correctly in the article as a fact and to do so might even be considered "unencyclopedic". A description like:
"An animated show targeted at young children (+/- 7 and older), with little to no bad language. Although originally targeted at a young audience it has also garnered a large group of adulescent and adult enthousiastic followers of the show The show is often rated as TV-Y7 in the USA" for instance is usually a better idea. Be sure to add your source when adding the information.
Basically, the point is that TV ratings are pointless facts unless they are put into context with other shows, multiple years, different countries etc. This is usually done better in prose than in an infobox. Also, with the current advent of TIVO, IPTV and illegal downloads, the correctness of the ratings is proven skewed. It is known that some shows that attract an early 20s audience are so incorrect (think Jericho) that companies are scrambling to find more reliable methods to judge popularity over the traditional method. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have changed "Original airdate" to "First broadcast": it is better, more professional English. "Air" in this context is used as colloquial slang for "broadcast", in a limited number of countries. And I see no reason why we should choose regional slang terms over international formal ones unless there's a specific reason to do so. EuroSong talk 05:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"First broadcast" is no more better or professional than "Original airdate", simply it's how you would like it worded. Matthew 16:05, 21 August 2007 (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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |