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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
For a TV show that is airing on two networks (US and UK) very near to the same time (premiering within a week of each other) is it possible to have more than one official website in the infobox? And if so, what is the string? Entering 2 "website" and "website_title" merely displays the last one entered. Thanks Springhill40 ( talk) 15:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking specifically for articles like those on the Hanna-Barbera programs like Scooby-Doo, Where are You! and the like. A number of TV shows and/or companies have changed hands multiple times over the years; should the "distributor" section of the infobox reflect the original company (in Scooby's case, Taft Broadcasting), the current distributor ( Warner Bros. Television), or the enumerated list of all of the distributors over the years? Would it be better in these cases to simply list the first or last distributor and relegate everything else to prose in the article itself? -- FuriousFreddy ( talk) 18:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey all. The director parameter of this infobox is intended for people who are directing episodes, right? Like, behind the camera (live-action) or overseeing the storyboardng (animation)? That's my interpretation anyway. I keep seeing editors adding supervising directors, art directors, and other people with "director" in their titles to this parameter and I'm wondering if maybe the intention of the parameter isn't presented quite clear enough for these editors. Examples: [1], The Problem Solverz, Secret Mountain Fort Awesome Art directors seem to be more appropriately placed under creative_director. What about these other people with director titles? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
|director=
and |creative_director=
. If we wanted to list "supervising directors" we'd have a parameter called |supervising_director=
but we don't! Note that, unlike |writer=
, which is for "the show's writer or writers" (note use of plural form), "director" is for "the show's director" (singular). I've boldly tightened the wording for this parameter by adding a link. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 16:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
|director=
to be intuitive. Cartoons often cycle through directors during a season. Assuming it's a reasonable number of directors (5 max?) why wouldn't we list them as we would writers?
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Is the purpose of |company=
to list all the various sub-contractors who might have been involved in the literal, physical production of the series, or is it intended to list the main company/companies that funded the venture? For example at
Avatar: The Last Airbender are Nickelodeon Animation Studios, DR Movie, JM Animation, MOI Animation, and a user recently added Titmouse because they produced the opening credit sequence. The scope is vague and needs clarification. And, does that mean under |country=
we'd add United States, Korea, and Canada and adjust the lede accordingly? (i.e., "The Legend of Korra is an American—Korean—Canadian animated television series...) Thanks,
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 19:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Can an entry be added to the template for "Musical director" and/or "house band" which is a feature on many variety/talk shows? Downwoody ( talk) 13:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Why has the "Format" section been removed? Thanks, Fort esc ( talk) 17:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
MOS:ENDASH states:
The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when at least one endpoint of the range includes at least one space.
|
MOS:DATERANGE states:
... |
However, as can be seen at Supermarket Sweep Australia, including only years in the {{ Infobox television}} template formats the date range incorrectly with a spaced en dash between the full years:
This wikicode... | Produces this... |
---|---|
{{Infobox television .. | first_aired = {{start date|1992}} | last_aired = {{end date|1994}} ... }} |
Original run 1992 – 1994 |
This is incorrect. The dates should be formatted without a space where only years are stated (and ideally omitting the century on the end date where they occur in the same century, i.e., 1992–94).
A spaced en dash should still be used where the start and end dates are given in full (and the year can be omitted from the start date where both dates fall in the same year, e.g., 14 February – 30 June 2014). — sroc 💬 19:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Infoboxes are intended to provide quick, at-a-glance information for Wikipedia readers. It is exceedingly unlikely that a Wikipedia reader opening an article on a TV show will be primarily concerned with which country a show happened to air in first, as opposed to the country or countries of production. This is because unlike the latter the former is almost invariably merely circumstantial and so does not affect the actual show in any significant way.
Furthermore, the presence of the parameter causes confusion, especially for novice Wikipedia readers. One might be tempted to ask why the country a show first aired in may be listed in such an infobox while the corresponding airdate may not. It has previously been proposed to add extra parameters in response to this, which sounds ridiculous not only because of the potential for even more confusion but also because it is difficult to imagine a layout for such fields which looks even remotely decent.
Finally, TV show infoboxes are already extremely cluttered. On the other hand, there is a "Broadcast" section listed at WP:TVINTL which is often highly devoid of information because of its very strict requirements for inclusion of foreign airings. Why not simply have this information only in this section and leave these infoboxes for the more important stuff?
Hopefully, these arguments will be met with actual discussion as opposed to the blanket dismissal of similar comments on previous occasions. Mdrnpndr ( talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
channel
or network
as The original channel(s) or network(s) on which the show has appeared. Production doesn't appear anywhere in that. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
channel
and network
. The dictionary definition doesn't define either of these as you state them to be. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 02:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)The original channel or network is defined as being the channel or network that was involved in the production of the show, which is necessarily in the country of origin, which is incorrect because the documentation says that
channel
and network
, which are the relevant parameters, are The original channel(s) or network(s) on which the show has appeared. You're the one who brought up dictionary definitions, which are irrelevant, because dictionary definitions do not apply here. For the purposes of this template, the definition of "original" relates to "appearance" not "production". -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
We were attempting to clean up/expand these parameters a bit back ( Here's the discussion.) Maybe we should get a template editor to go ahead with this?? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there an appropriate parameter to note that the show is currently on Hiatus? I see the old Status parameter has been removed but should it be noted in last aired? Or somewhere else? Or not at all? SPACKlick ( talk) 12:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Present (currently suspended)is just getting around removal of the old
|status=
parameter, which was removed specifically because it wasn't supported. We've had a lot of discussion about what to do with |last_aired=
and the current consensus is that we use "present" while the series is airing. If a series has a
confirmed cancellation date then that is added when the series has (note past tense) ended. In a situation like this, where cancellation is not confirmed and we just have a lot of speculation, "present" stays until 12 months after the last episode aired and then we add a date. At the moment all we have is word that the next two episodes will not air and the third may also not air. That's actually a fairly common occurrence. There is no word on the series as a whole and, most importantly, Clarkson is only suspended at this point. All things taken into account, mention in the prose is all that is needed but |last_aired=
should remain as "present" until there's something that is verifiable. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 15:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)The format parameter is still used by thousands of pages months after it was removed, as can be seen at Category:Articles passing format parameter to Infobox television. Can we get a bot to remove the entire parameter from said pages (including the parameter itself and its values, the latter of which can of course later be manually restored for other parameters if desired)? Mdrnpndr ( talk) 20:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
|status=
because somebody had copied and pasted a flawed copy of a template. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 15:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
After reading what there is in this template's talk-page archive, I can see no consensus has been reached on an issue that's creating confusion because there's no consistant standard or specific direction, and that is: What constitutes "runtime." Some editors feel a program's length is given in common use as a half-hour, an hour, etc. Others say it should be the running time without commercials, since programs are seen not only on commercial TV but also on DVD, etc. without commercials. What's tricky here is that different episodes run different lengths — it's not unusual for The Simpsons to run between 30 (rounding up to a minute) to 60 seconds longer than generally, for instance. And it's difficult to get non-OR, third-party-cited non-commercial running times for specific episodes.
I'd like to propose a name-change to the parameter that may address these issues, in that we'll have a single consistent standard: "timeslot." I Love Lucy and Seinfeld are designed for a half-hour timeslot, regardless of how many minutes of actual programming (which as noted isn't necessarily consistent episode-to-episode). Criminal Minds and The Sopranos are designed for a one-hour timeslot. That's why even on commercial-free cable you'll see non-movie, TV-show program schedules broken up into half-hour and hour timeslots.
For shows originating in non-commercial networks, which may fill an hour slot in, say, the UK, but a 90-minute slot with commercials when rerun in the US, we simply go with the original, first-run timeslot. We can't, after all, account for how every single country cuts (or even speeds up) the time for any single given episode it reruns.
Hopefully, this will begin discussion on finding some consistent language for the runtime / timeslot infobox field. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.Last time I checked, how to use a timer is not specialised knowledge. Everyone with an iphone has one. {{ cite episode}} has
time
and minutes
parameters specifically so times can be included in the citation.
Simple calculations are allowed. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 04:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Your estimation is in error. Mdrnpndr didn't even mention runtimes. He just made some unsupported statement about the definition of status quo and then refused to back it up. Whether "running time is running time" is not relevent to status quo discussions. If citations are required by WP:FILM for running times that's the status quo for WP:FILM. The status quo for WP:TV is that we don't require citations. I note that the |runtime=
parameter of {{
Infobox film}} doesn't require citations and
The Big Lebowski, which is GA, doesn't include a citation for the runtime, so maybe it's not the status quo after all. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 10:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The status quo is that claims in Wikipedia need to be cited for verification- Incorrect. WP:V only requires that
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.It does not require that everything be cited. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
"for new programmes the iplayer has a running time, and for old TV a dvd on it's cover usually has the total running time."So you can provide citations, but you say you're refusing to.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request for comment admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR. Admin: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases". It was reiterated here: "A reliable third party source is required. ... I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get...."
Based on this, the directions for the infobox's runtime parameter need to include this decision, which follows Wikipedia WP:OR policy. This would be, to quote, the admin: "third-party source required." I would ask that the editors who argued against this in the RfC to please abide by the RfC close, the admin reiterations, and Wikipedia OR policy. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
If someone wants to start an RfC to discuss whether inline citation is required in the infobox or not, always assuming that the source of the figure is established from reliable independent sources, then that is a different question(emphasis added) That is why I asked the question on his talk page, but he didn't seem to get what I was asking. For the record, you'll note that his edit summary for the close said
Sadly, this cannot end in anything that will be enforceable. There's certainly nothing in what he has said to justify this edit, which is redundant at best, as sources are supposed to be third party anyway. In reality what he said about it "a different question" is not correct, as you actually asked that question, but it was not supported. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to be more specific about the related
parameter. Many editors are adding articles, and have been for years, that do not fit the parameter instructions that the field is for "remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc". I removed an example of this today.
[6]
First Monday's only link to JAG was that a character from that short-lived series appeared as a recurring character in JAG after First Monday was cancelled. The link to
Hawaii Five-0 is even more tenuous. In 2012, 7 years after JAG ended, Hawaii Five-0 had a crossover with
NCIS: Los Angeles, which was a spin-off from NCIS (TV series) which itself was a spin-off from JAG. I can't explain
Scorpion. The only link seems to be that David James Elliott appeared on Scorpion as a guest star. Unfortunately, this is all too common but I don't think that the resolution is all that difficult. I propose simply changing the label for the parameter from "Related shows" to "Spin-offs or remakes". I believe that "remakes" covers adaptations. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 04:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a new parameter to change the wording of one of the infobox headings. The parameter would change "Broadcast" to "Release". With many series now being distributed on streaming services, "broadcast" is not necessarily the correct term. "Release" is more applicable, because in most cases, these series don't have any chance of "ending" per se and all episodes are released at once. Here is the current code for this heading: | header34 = {{#if:{{{channel|}}}{{{network|}}}{{{picture_format|}}}{{{audio_format|}}}{{{first_run|}}}{{{first_aired|}}}{{{last_aired|}}}|Broadcast}} My proposal would be to have a new parameter release
, which would be a simple "y"/"Y"/"yes" field and it would be a "but-if" case to the previous code (not exactly sure how to do that on here). Here are the layman's terms: If any of the fields under the headings are used, add the "Broadcast" heading, but if release
is flagged, it would be "Release" over "Broadcast". What are other's thoughts on this? -
Favre1fan93 (
talk) 05:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Example ("release" not set) | |
---|---|
Original release | |
Release | January 1, 1901 December 31, 1999 | –
Example ("release" set) | |
---|---|
Original release | |
Release | January 1, 1901 December 31, 1999 | –
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can a template editor please implement the change AussieLegend made to the sandbox in the live template? This should be a non-issue, as it is a help to the template, not really a deterrent. Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Revert this edit by Nnemo, which was made without any discussion, consultation or other attempt to gain consensus for edits to a template used in 32,000 articles. No attempt was made to test these edits in the sandbox. By replacing "No." with "Number" the change has made a generally long infobox longer. Such edits should always be the subject of discussion. See discussions immediately above for examples. AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
<abbr>...</abbr>
to provide a title
for
accessibility purposes.
Alakzi (
talk) 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I don't see any consensus for the recent addition of an extremely ugly abbreviation tooltip. Please remove it immediately. Mdrnpndr ( talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. See previous section. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template was recently nominated for merge with {{ Infobox television film}} and the TfM discussion has now closed with unanimous support for a merge. Please replace the existing infobox code with this version from the sandbox which incorporates these changes to the existing code. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC) AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
01:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace the live code for this template with this version from the sandbox.
In order to merge {{
Infobox television film}} into this template several aliases were added as a temporary measure. These were name
, based on
, narrator
and editing
. As indicated in the
above edit request, I have now run through all articles that used Infobox television film with AWB and have converted them to use this template and its parameters. Subsequently, these aliases no longer serve any purpose and should be removed.
AussieLegend (
✉) 12:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey,
There is currently a revamp discussion going on at Template:Infobox television season. One field that I asked adding was an "Announcer(s)" field. My rationale: Late night talkshows, such as The Tonight Show, have a special place for the announcer. Ed McMahon, for example, is famous as The Tonight Show announcer. Currently these people are already in the infobox, but under a "Narrator" field which is semantically incorrect. An announcer is not a presenter, a host nor a narrator. Clarification, What I'm asking does not add another name to the infobox, as that name is anyways listed, it just lists it under the correct name. This is a similar issue to having a narrator being placed under "Voiced by" or reality show judges being placed under "Starring". -- Gonnym ( talk) 17:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request for comment admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR. Admin: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases". It was reiterated here: "A reliable third party source is required. ... I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get...."
Based on this, the directions for the infobox's runtime parameter need to include this decision, which follows Wikipedia WP:OR policy. This would be, to quote, the admin: "third-party source required." I would ask that the editors who argued against this in the RfC to please abide by the RfC close, the admin reiterations, and Wikipedia OR policy. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:21, 20 March 2015 (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. That RfC has nothing to do with infobox. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes. He stated that "A reliable third party source is required" was in relation to the close, which was about OR. Nothing he said was about the runtime parameter. I can't see why you don't get that. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me as if you are in violent agreement: OR is not allowed. It's fair to clarify this in the infobox /Doc or some similar location, or even to link to a general page wihtin the wikiproject that details how to use the infobox properly. You can fight out the issue fo inline cites between yourselves :-) Guy ( Help!) 22:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Per the above discussion, and with an admin's help, the agreed-upon, compromise wording was "third-party source required," added on March 22. In fact, User:AussieLegend appeared to agree to that when he left it in his edits of April 2 of [7] and going forward.
But then, today, he unilaterally removed that wording [8], and when I pointed this out, he included different phrasing to reflect his own personal position [9] rather than the one we all agreed to. I've restored the agreed-upon version, [10].-- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This was added after a protracted RfC and discussion, at the direction of an admin. [11] However, the RfC outcome was not consensus to add any such text. The RfC was closed procedurally without consensus either way. Nor did an admin direct that the text be added. You wanted it added and when you sought clarification after I opposed inclusion, you asked the admin if it should be added, his response was that it was reasonable. He did not "direct" that it be included. An admin has no more power than any other editor to direct that content be changed. Such changes come about by consensus, as you should be aware. The note is entirely redundant. Per WP:V, all content must be verifiable by reliable independent source required. That note could be added to all parameters but, because it is standard procedure, it is not required in any. Adding it gives unnecessary prominence to that particular parameter, and there is no justification for that. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 01:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
the episodes themselves are emphatically not a reliable sourceis not correct. Favre1fan93 is correct that
more times than not, the runtimes added are not going to be challenged material. This is actually the case and has been for years, until Tenebrae started making a fuss. However, the primary concern here is whether we really need that note in the instructions, and we don't, as it applies to all content any way. If we add it here then we should add it to every parameter in every infobox that is used on Wikipedia. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
What constitutes "runtime.", even though the template instructions explain that it is the
Episode duration. Should not include commercials and should be approximated, e.g. "22–26 minutes" for most half-hour shows.. However, as has been pointed out, this is irrelevant to this discussion, which is all about whether a redundant note should be included in the instructions. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 12:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
No it was not settled in the RfC. The RfC was procedurally closed because your question asked if we could OR to source runtimes and
WP:NOR says we can't. The RfC closer has specifically stated, 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
, yet you have taken the close to mean that we need to add a redundant note to the instructions, which was never part of the close. The clarification of the close also specifically stated The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes
, yet that is exactly what your note implies. You have clearly read far more into the procedural close of the RfC than the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research. Claiming that an admin specifically inserted wording to avoid any confusion over the issue
is, at the very best, misleading. You were the one who added the note and that admin said you were wrong.
[12] He only changed
[13] what you added,
[14] and even that was subsequently changed by someone else,
[15] amking the note even more redundant than it already was. Your claims regarding the outcome of the RfC have been quite ridiculous, including the claim that the RfC didn't go my way. I didn't start the RfC, you did. Your aim was that runtimes be cited but the RfC comments didn't support that and it wasn't an outcome of the RfC, as clearly stated by the closer, so the RfC clearly didn't go your way, yet you are acting as if it had, and fighting to keep a clearly redundant note in the instructions. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 03:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick question on the Directors. Do you list just the main directors or each director that was ever on the show. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG ( ✉) 11:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
are listed Tom Cherones and Andy Ackerman are the main directors. Cherones directed all of seasons 1-5 bar 4 episodes. Ackerman directed all of seasons 6-9 bar 2 episodes. The other 3 listed directed at the most of 3 episodes each. You can see the list of episodes here. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG ( ✉) 11:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Can someone change "theme music composer" to "theme music by" in this infobox. I think that "by" is totally enough (we all know it means the person who composed the theme). Beside, the word "composer" is now mentioned two times in this infobox, could be confusing. Thank you very much. Sportomanokin ( talk) 11:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
theme_music_composer
and your edits do not change that. All you achieved was to introduce errors into the documentation. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 11:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)TV Parental Guidelines - content rating to be mentioned in the infobox television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuveerappan ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 17 June 2015 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
For a TV show that is airing on two networks (US and UK) very near to the same time (premiering within a week of each other) is it possible to have more than one official website in the infobox? And if so, what is the string? Entering 2 "website" and "website_title" merely displays the last one entered. Thanks Springhill40 ( talk) 15:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking specifically for articles like those on the Hanna-Barbera programs like Scooby-Doo, Where are You! and the like. A number of TV shows and/or companies have changed hands multiple times over the years; should the "distributor" section of the infobox reflect the original company (in Scooby's case, Taft Broadcasting), the current distributor ( Warner Bros. Television), or the enumerated list of all of the distributors over the years? Would it be better in these cases to simply list the first or last distributor and relegate everything else to prose in the article itself? -- FuriousFreddy ( talk) 18:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey all. The director parameter of this infobox is intended for people who are directing episodes, right? Like, behind the camera (live-action) or overseeing the storyboardng (animation)? That's my interpretation anyway. I keep seeing editors adding supervising directors, art directors, and other people with "director" in their titles to this parameter and I'm wondering if maybe the intention of the parameter isn't presented quite clear enough for these editors. Examples: [1], The Problem Solverz, Secret Mountain Fort Awesome Art directors seem to be more appropriately placed under creative_director. What about these other people with director titles? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
|director=
and |creative_director=
. If we wanted to list "supervising directors" we'd have a parameter called |supervising_director=
but we don't! Note that, unlike |writer=
, which is for "the show's writer or writers" (note use of plural form), "director" is for "the show's director" (singular). I've boldly tightened the wording for this parameter by adding a link. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 16:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
|director=
to be intuitive. Cartoons often cycle through directors during a season. Assuming it's a reasonable number of directors (5 max?) why wouldn't we list them as we would writers?
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Is the purpose of |company=
to list all the various sub-contractors who might have been involved in the literal, physical production of the series, or is it intended to list the main company/companies that funded the venture? For example at
Avatar: The Last Airbender are Nickelodeon Animation Studios, DR Movie, JM Animation, MOI Animation, and a user recently added Titmouse because they produced the opening credit sequence. The scope is vague and needs clarification. And, does that mean under |country=
we'd add United States, Korea, and Canada and adjust the lede accordingly? (i.e., "The Legend of Korra is an American—Korean—Canadian animated television series...) Thanks,
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 19:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Can an entry be added to the template for "Musical director" and/or "house band" which is a feature on many variety/talk shows? Downwoody ( talk) 13:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Why has the "Format" section been removed? Thanks, Fort esc ( talk) 17:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
MOS:ENDASH states:
The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when at least one endpoint of the range includes at least one space.
|
MOS:DATERANGE states:
... |
However, as can be seen at Supermarket Sweep Australia, including only years in the {{ Infobox television}} template formats the date range incorrectly with a spaced en dash between the full years:
This wikicode... | Produces this... |
---|---|
{{Infobox television .. | first_aired = {{start date|1992}} | last_aired = {{end date|1994}} ... }} |
Original run 1992 – 1994 |
This is incorrect. The dates should be formatted without a space where only years are stated (and ideally omitting the century on the end date where they occur in the same century, i.e., 1992–94).
A spaced en dash should still be used where the start and end dates are given in full (and the year can be omitted from the start date where both dates fall in the same year, e.g., 14 February – 30 June 2014). — sroc 💬 19:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Infoboxes are intended to provide quick, at-a-glance information for Wikipedia readers. It is exceedingly unlikely that a Wikipedia reader opening an article on a TV show will be primarily concerned with which country a show happened to air in first, as opposed to the country or countries of production. This is because unlike the latter the former is almost invariably merely circumstantial and so does not affect the actual show in any significant way.
Furthermore, the presence of the parameter causes confusion, especially for novice Wikipedia readers. One might be tempted to ask why the country a show first aired in may be listed in such an infobox while the corresponding airdate may not. It has previously been proposed to add extra parameters in response to this, which sounds ridiculous not only because of the potential for even more confusion but also because it is difficult to imagine a layout for such fields which looks even remotely decent.
Finally, TV show infoboxes are already extremely cluttered. On the other hand, there is a "Broadcast" section listed at WP:TVINTL which is often highly devoid of information because of its very strict requirements for inclusion of foreign airings. Why not simply have this information only in this section and leave these infoboxes for the more important stuff?
Hopefully, these arguments will be met with actual discussion as opposed to the blanket dismissal of similar comments on previous occasions. Mdrnpndr ( talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
channel
or network
as The original channel(s) or network(s) on which the show has appeared. Production doesn't appear anywhere in that. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
channel
and network
. The dictionary definition doesn't define either of these as you state them to be. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 02:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)The original channel or network is defined as being the channel or network that was involved in the production of the show, which is necessarily in the country of origin, which is incorrect because the documentation says that
channel
and network
, which are the relevant parameters, are The original channel(s) or network(s) on which the show has appeared. You're the one who brought up dictionary definitions, which are irrelevant, because dictionary definitions do not apply here. For the purposes of this template, the definition of "original" relates to "appearance" not "production". -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
We were attempting to clean up/expand these parameters a bit back ( Here's the discussion.) Maybe we should get a template editor to go ahead with this?? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there an appropriate parameter to note that the show is currently on Hiatus? I see the old Status parameter has been removed but should it be noted in last aired? Or somewhere else? Or not at all? SPACKlick ( talk) 12:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Present (currently suspended)is just getting around removal of the old
|status=
parameter, which was removed specifically because it wasn't supported. We've had a lot of discussion about what to do with |last_aired=
and the current consensus is that we use "present" while the series is airing. If a series has a
confirmed cancellation date then that is added when the series has (note past tense) ended. In a situation like this, where cancellation is not confirmed and we just have a lot of speculation, "present" stays until 12 months after the last episode aired and then we add a date. At the moment all we have is word that the next two episodes will not air and the third may also not air. That's actually a fairly common occurrence. There is no word on the series as a whole and, most importantly, Clarkson is only suspended at this point. All things taken into account, mention in the prose is all that is needed but |last_aired=
should remain as "present" until there's something that is verifiable. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 15:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)The format parameter is still used by thousands of pages months after it was removed, as can be seen at Category:Articles passing format parameter to Infobox television. Can we get a bot to remove the entire parameter from said pages (including the parameter itself and its values, the latter of which can of course later be manually restored for other parameters if desired)? Mdrnpndr ( talk) 20:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
|status=
because somebody had copied and pasted a flawed copy of a template. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 15:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
After reading what there is in this template's talk-page archive, I can see no consensus has been reached on an issue that's creating confusion because there's no consistant standard or specific direction, and that is: What constitutes "runtime." Some editors feel a program's length is given in common use as a half-hour, an hour, etc. Others say it should be the running time without commercials, since programs are seen not only on commercial TV but also on DVD, etc. without commercials. What's tricky here is that different episodes run different lengths — it's not unusual for The Simpsons to run between 30 (rounding up to a minute) to 60 seconds longer than generally, for instance. And it's difficult to get non-OR, third-party-cited non-commercial running times for specific episodes.
I'd like to propose a name-change to the parameter that may address these issues, in that we'll have a single consistent standard: "timeslot." I Love Lucy and Seinfeld are designed for a half-hour timeslot, regardless of how many minutes of actual programming (which as noted isn't necessarily consistent episode-to-episode). Criminal Minds and The Sopranos are designed for a one-hour timeslot. That's why even on commercial-free cable you'll see non-movie, TV-show program schedules broken up into half-hour and hour timeslots.
For shows originating in non-commercial networks, which may fill an hour slot in, say, the UK, but a 90-minute slot with commercials when rerun in the US, we simply go with the original, first-run timeslot. We can't, after all, account for how every single country cuts (or even speeds up) the time for any single given episode it reruns.
Hopefully, this will begin discussion on finding some consistent language for the runtime / timeslot infobox field. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.Last time I checked, how to use a timer is not specialised knowledge. Everyone with an iphone has one. {{ cite episode}} has
time
and minutes
parameters specifically so times can be included in the citation.
Simple calculations are allowed. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 04:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Your estimation is in error. Mdrnpndr didn't even mention runtimes. He just made some unsupported statement about the definition of status quo and then refused to back it up. Whether "running time is running time" is not relevent to status quo discussions. If citations are required by WP:FILM for running times that's the status quo for WP:FILM. The status quo for WP:TV is that we don't require citations. I note that the |runtime=
parameter of {{
Infobox film}} doesn't require citations and
The Big Lebowski, which is GA, doesn't include a citation for the runtime, so maybe it's not the status quo after all. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 10:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The status quo is that claims in Wikipedia need to be cited for verification- Incorrect. WP:V only requires that
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.It does not require that everything be cited. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
"for new programmes the iplayer has a running time, and for old TV a dvd on it's cover usually has the total running time."So you can provide citations, but you say you're refusing to.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request for comment admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR. Admin: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases". It was reiterated here: "A reliable third party source is required. ... I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get...."
Based on this, the directions for the infobox's runtime parameter need to include this decision, which follows Wikipedia WP:OR policy. This would be, to quote, the admin: "third-party source required." I would ask that the editors who argued against this in the RfC to please abide by the RfC close, the admin reiterations, and Wikipedia OR policy. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
If someone wants to start an RfC to discuss whether inline citation is required in the infobox or not, always assuming that the source of the figure is established from reliable independent sources, then that is a different question(emphasis added) That is why I asked the question on his talk page, but he didn't seem to get what I was asking. For the record, you'll note that his edit summary for the close said
Sadly, this cannot end in anything that will be enforceable. There's certainly nothing in what he has said to justify this edit, which is redundant at best, as sources are supposed to be third party anyway. In reality what he said about it "a different question" is not correct, as you actually asked that question, but it was not supported. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to be more specific about the related
parameter. Many editors are adding articles, and have been for years, that do not fit the parameter instructions that the field is for "remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc". I removed an example of this today.
[6]
First Monday's only link to JAG was that a character from that short-lived series appeared as a recurring character in JAG after First Monday was cancelled. The link to
Hawaii Five-0 is even more tenuous. In 2012, 7 years after JAG ended, Hawaii Five-0 had a crossover with
NCIS: Los Angeles, which was a spin-off from NCIS (TV series) which itself was a spin-off from JAG. I can't explain
Scorpion. The only link seems to be that David James Elliott appeared on Scorpion as a guest star. Unfortunately, this is all too common but I don't think that the resolution is all that difficult. I propose simply changing the label for the parameter from "Related shows" to "Spin-offs or remakes". I believe that "remakes" covers adaptations. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 04:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a new parameter to change the wording of one of the infobox headings. The parameter would change "Broadcast" to "Release". With many series now being distributed on streaming services, "broadcast" is not necessarily the correct term. "Release" is more applicable, because in most cases, these series don't have any chance of "ending" per se and all episodes are released at once. Here is the current code for this heading: | header34 = {{#if:{{{channel|}}}{{{network|}}}{{{picture_format|}}}{{{audio_format|}}}{{{first_run|}}}{{{first_aired|}}}{{{last_aired|}}}|Broadcast}} My proposal would be to have a new parameter release
, which would be a simple "y"/"Y"/"yes" field and it would be a "but-if" case to the previous code (not exactly sure how to do that on here). Here are the layman's terms: If any of the fields under the headings are used, add the "Broadcast" heading, but if release
is flagged, it would be "Release" over "Broadcast". What are other's thoughts on this? -
Favre1fan93 (
talk) 05:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Example ("release" not set) | |
---|---|
Original release | |
Release | January 1, 1901 December 31, 1999 | –
Example ("release" set) | |
---|---|
Original release | |
Release | January 1, 1901 December 31, 1999 | –
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can a template editor please implement the change AussieLegend made to the sandbox in the live template? This should be a non-issue, as it is a help to the template, not really a deterrent. Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Revert this edit by Nnemo, which was made without any discussion, consultation or other attempt to gain consensus for edits to a template used in 32,000 articles. No attempt was made to test these edits in the sandbox. By replacing "No." with "Number" the change has made a generally long infobox longer. Such edits should always be the subject of discussion. See discussions immediately above for examples. AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
<abbr>...</abbr>
to provide a title
for
accessibility purposes.
Alakzi (
talk) 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I don't see any consensus for the recent addition of an extremely ugly abbreviation tooltip. Please remove it immediately. Mdrnpndr ( talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. See previous section. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template was recently nominated for merge with {{ Infobox television film}} and the TfM discussion has now closed with unanimous support for a merge. Please replace the existing infobox code with this version from the sandbox which incorporates these changes to the existing code. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC) AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
01:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)This
edit request to
Template:Infobox television has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace the live code for this template with this version from the sandbox.
In order to merge {{
Infobox television film}} into this template several aliases were added as a temporary measure. These were name
, based on
, narrator
and editing
. As indicated in the
above edit request, I have now run through all articles that used Infobox television film with AWB and have converted them to use this template and its parameters. Subsequently, these aliases no longer serve any purpose and should be removed.
AussieLegend (
✉) 12:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey,
There is currently a revamp discussion going on at Template:Infobox television season. One field that I asked adding was an "Announcer(s)" field. My rationale: Late night talkshows, such as The Tonight Show, have a special place for the announcer. Ed McMahon, for example, is famous as The Tonight Show announcer. Currently these people are already in the infobox, but under a "Narrator" field which is semantically incorrect. An announcer is not a presenter, a host nor a narrator. Clarification, What I'm asking does not add another name to the infobox, as that name is anyways listed, it just lists it under the correct name. This is a similar issue to having a narrator being placed under "Voiced by" or reality show judges being placed under "Starring". -- Gonnym ( talk) 17:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request for comment admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR. Admin: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases". It was reiterated here: "A reliable third party source is required. ... I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get...."
Based on this, the directions for the infobox's runtime parameter need to include this decision, which follows Wikipedia WP:OR policy. This would be, to quote, the admin: "third-party source required." I would ask that the editors who argued against this in the RfC to please abide by the RfC close, the admin reiterations, and Wikipedia OR policy. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:21, 20 March 2015 (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. That RfC has nothing to do with infobox. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes. He stated that "A reliable third party source is required" was in relation to the close, which was about OR. Nothing he said was about the runtime parameter. I can't see why you don't get that. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me as if you are in violent agreement: OR is not allowed. It's fair to clarify this in the infobox /Doc or some similar location, or even to link to a general page wihtin the wikiproject that details how to use the infobox properly. You can fight out the issue fo inline cites between yourselves :-) Guy ( Help!) 22:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Per the above discussion, and with an admin's help, the agreed-upon, compromise wording was "third-party source required," added on March 22. In fact, User:AussieLegend appeared to agree to that when he left it in his edits of April 2 of [7] and going forward.
But then, today, he unilaterally removed that wording [8], and when I pointed this out, he included different phrasing to reflect his own personal position [9] rather than the one we all agreed to. I've restored the agreed-upon version, [10].-- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This was added after a protracted RfC and discussion, at the direction of an admin. [11] However, the RfC outcome was not consensus to add any such text. The RfC was closed procedurally without consensus either way. Nor did an admin direct that the text be added. You wanted it added and when you sought clarification after I opposed inclusion, you asked the admin if it should be added, his response was that it was reasonable. He did not "direct" that it be included. An admin has no more power than any other editor to direct that content be changed. Such changes come about by consensus, as you should be aware. The note is entirely redundant. Per WP:V, all content must be verifiable by reliable independent source required. That note could be added to all parameters but, because it is standard procedure, it is not required in any. Adding it gives unnecessary prominence to that particular parameter, and there is no justification for that. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 01:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
the episodes themselves are emphatically not a reliable sourceis not correct. Favre1fan93 is correct that
more times than not, the runtimes added are not going to be challenged material. This is actually the case and has been for years, until Tenebrae started making a fuss. However, the primary concern here is whether we really need that note in the instructions, and we don't, as it applies to all content any way. If we add it here then we should add it to every parameter in every infobox that is used on Wikipedia. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
What constitutes "runtime.", even though the template instructions explain that it is the
Episode duration. Should not include commercials and should be approximated, e.g. "22–26 minutes" for most half-hour shows.. However, as has been pointed out, this is irrelevant to this discussion, which is all about whether a redundant note should be included in the instructions. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 12:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
No it was not settled in the RfC. The RfC was procedurally closed because your question asked if we could OR to source runtimes and
WP:NOR says we can't. The RfC closer has specifically stated, 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
, yet you have taken the close to mean that we need to add a redundant note to the instructions, which was never part of the close. The clarification of the close also specifically stated The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes
, yet that is exactly what your note implies. You have clearly read far more into the procedural close of the RfC than the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research. Claiming that an admin specifically inserted wording to avoid any confusion over the issue
is, at the very best, misleading. You were the one who added the note and that admin said you were wrong.
[12] He only changed
[13] what you added,
[14] and even that was subsequently changed by someone else,
[15] amking the note even more redundant than it already was. Your claims regarding the outcome of the RfC have been quite ridiculous, including the claim that the RfC didn't go my way. I didn't start the RfC, you did. Your aim was that runtimes be cited but the RfC comments didn't support that and it wasn't an outcome of the RfC, as clearly stated by the closer, so the RfC clearly didn't go your way, yet you are acting as if it had, and fighting to keep a clearly redundant note in the instructions. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 03:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick question on the Directors. Do you list just the main directors or each director that was ever on the show. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG ( ✉) 11:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
are listed Tom Cherones and Andy Ackerman are the main directors. Cherones directed all of seasons 1-5 bar 4 episodes. Ackerman directed all of seasons 6-9 bar 2 episodes. The other 3 listed directed at the most of 3 episodes each. You can see the list of episodes here. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG ( ✉) 11:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Can someone change "theme music composer" to "theme music by" in this infobox. I think that "by" is totally enough (we all know it means the person who composed the theme). Beside, the word "composer" is now mentioned two times in this infobox, could be confusing. Thank you very much. Sportomanokin ( talk) 11:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
theme_music_composer
and your edits do not change that. All you achieved was to introduce errors into the documentation. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 11:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)TV Parental Guidelines - content rating to be mentioned in the infobox television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuveerappan ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)