Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Adding TV Tome links instead?

On the removal of the IMDb link by Ed g2s: How about adding in TV Tome links instead? (Should have checked Ed g2s's talk page first; it's already been asked...) --Christopherlin 06:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and to repeat what I said there, the parameters would need to be added to all the pages before the template is edited. ed g2s • talk 11:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: ratings

Major changes, such as the addition of several fields to an infobox, need to be proposed and discussed on the talk page first before they are implemented; there needs to be a consensus. I would say that ratings information is relevant, but adding it to the infoboxes may not be the best idea because (1) not all shows are shown in the same region, and (2) not all shows are rated. It would probably be best to add a single rating category, that can be edited accordingly for each article. --FuriousFreddy 14:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. --Ryanasaurus0077 14:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The best thing to do, if you want to include all the certificates on whatever articles you have, is to make a new infobox (call it "infobox television 3"; there's already a "2") and use that one. This one is implemented on a number of pages, and not all of those shows would even have the ratings to enter into the boxes. --FuriousFreddy 14:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Redid for easier copy and paste

Redid the code for easier copy & paste. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:56, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

Looks bad in Opera

This template looks bad in Opera. Can this be fixed? See Veronica Mars for an example. The "vertical-align: top" doesn't seem to work.

Spaces between years and en dash

The convention in Wikipedia is to put spaces between an en dash when writing a range of dates. Otherwise, sometimes dates are more difficult to read, e.g.:

• 1999-10-08–1999-10-22

--surueña 21:40:56, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Bad formatting

Is it just my computer, or does this template sit on the right of the screen and really mess with the formatting of the page? It forces all the text down to the bottom of the screen instead of sitting nicely on the left like the Moviebox. Can we fix this? Premeditated Chaos 07:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Capitalize 'Television'?

For consistency with other infoboxes, should 'Television' be capitalized: Infobox Television? Or is it too late to make that change? --Jeremy Butler 12:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have created a Template:Infobox Television page and redirected it to Infobox television. I tested it and it seems to work.--Max E|C 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Writers, Directors?

Should we add writers and directors? --Jeremy Butler 12:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm against this, because some shows have such large teams that change soo often, it's undoable. Besides it clutters the infobox too much as well The DJ 01:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No. of episodes

No. of episodes is a bit tricky for shows that are still on the air. Is it presumed that the number will be incremented each week as the program is broadcast? --Jeremy Butler 01:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be updated all the time. Most shows will announce how many episodes they have for the season anyway. Just put something like "50 as of November 2005" or something. That's fine till the season is over. Increment that if you want. K1Bond007 02:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Inserting Images

Is there a special way of inserting images into the template for each programme that I'm simply just not getting? I'm trying to add this ident image Image:BBCnationwideident1981.jpg to the infobox for Nationwide (TV series) but it won't go, not with the Image prefix there, the image prefix removed or with these [[ ]] added around the image link. I've added a copy of the infobox to my test page User:Wikiwoohoo/My Test Page. I'd be very grateful if somebody could take a look and tell me where I've gone wrong. Thanks! :) Wikiwoohoo 19:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You need the brackets on this template. So in this case:

{{infobox television |
  | name = Nationwide
  | image = [[Image:BBCnationwideident1981.jpg]]

Hope that helps. K1Bond007 19:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Text is spaced out?

It seems like the text is vertically spaced out too much in the infobox, thus making it taller than it should be. I don't have the requisite skills to fix this though; anyone else? --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Format" should be "Genre"

I noticed at Firefly (TV series) that someone made the not-unexpected mistake of interpreting the ambiguous term "format" as medium format; e.g., "DVD". That is a logical use of the term "format" in the context of television shows, however useless it might be for this specific context. An even more logical interpretation would be "NTSC" or "PAL". Only third on the list would be genre. I recommend that we change this variable name to the unambiguous term "genre" before the template usage increases beyond the current 655 articles. If no one offers a compelling reason otherwise, I'll commit the effort in the near future to fix the articles simultaneously with the change. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Country II

Does the "Country" refer to the home country, or should I put in all Countries where it is actively being broadcast? Example: Degrassi: The Next Generation is first broadcast in Canada, and then a few weeks later, the episodes appear in the US.----Max 00:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Country of origin. So, for instance, 24 is the United States while something like The Saint is the United Kingdom. K1Bond007 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. What about shows that are run by a domestic company, but take place elsewhere, like Survivor?--Max 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's still a U.S. show. K1Bond007 20:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Max E|C

Infobox 2.0, with ratings

Carbon Copied Reality Show

{{{image}}}
Format	Reality
Running time	54 minutes
Rating	TV-MA
Creator(s)	Heywood Jayblhome
Starring	Washed up B celebrities
Country	USA
Network	FOX
Original run	January 16th, 2006 – January 16th, 2006
No. of episodes	1

I took a stab at creating another infobox. It's to the right. Tips, compalints, Comments? Pacific Coast Highway|^{Spam me!}

Okay, I took the time to "unfork" the template as a message suggested. I added the ratings part to the main template as a "hidden structure". To apply the ratings, just use templates. For , apply {{TV-14}}. The process is the same for all ratings. |Pacific Coast Highway|^{Leave a message ($.25)}

Optional Fields

Here's the deal. A while ago User:Netoholic decided to make some of the fields non-optional. I reverted because I believed it made the template less flexible and less pleasing to look at. He reverted back because he had also changed some table settings and I had screwed them up. Not feeling particularly strong about the topic, and not wanting to start an edit war, I decided to leave it alone. However, what does the community feel about this? I support optional fields, because it allows people to get something down as a starting point, and fill in the information later. This is other infoboxes I have encountered work (Template:Infobox Software, Template:Infobox Network, Template:Infobox programming language, etc) and I believe it should function like those. Input your thoughts though.--Max Talk (add) • Contributions 00:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) 04:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

All but the most basic, universal, and obvious fields optional. Anything made non-optional should be discussed here first and agreed upon before the change is made. Turnstep 00:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"next unaired episode" row

I'd like to see a "next unaired episode" row in the infobox. It could be an optional entry. - Bevo 17:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that information would be just a tad too dynamic for a encylopedia infobox The DJ 01:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

US-centricism

Can we change "Network" to something like "Broadcast on" or "Originally broadcast on"? Morwen - Talk 12:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Network/channel" for now, but it might not look right. violet/riga (t) 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Rating

The rating looks very bad, I'm afraid. Not only is it horribly US-centric but it uses meta-templates too, which should be avoided where possible. violet/riga (t) 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fine. If you really feel you want to kill it, fine, do so. I give up, I'm done. Before anything's going away, then let's get a consensus (of more than 1 person) going first. Until then, I'll revert. Pacific Coast Highway|^{Leave a message ($.25)} 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I think the reason for removing it is greater than the reason for keeping it in, and your "majority of one" equally applies to yourself. We should abide by the Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates policy. Further, it doesn't matter that it's optional as the fact that a US rating is shown on programmes shown throughout the world is just simply wrong. violet/riga (t) 09:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, If it's a policy, I have no problem abiding by it. However, you "international" rationale seems a bit hypocritical. A show originating in the U.S. airing on FOX, could air on some other network in the U.K., and yet have no mention in the box, a la The Simpsons. Pacific Coast Highway|^{Leave a message ($.25)} 14:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the "network" bit now, which is different. violet/riga (t) 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not have a US rating? It applies to the program, and I think it's relevant. However, I would suggest adding a Canadian rating and (at least for Canadian programming like This Hour Has 22 Minutes), or creating a different infobox for Canadian television. Fagstein 02:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You do realise this infobox is used for television programs from places outside North America, right? Morwen - Talk 12:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the same thing should apply to other countries. How about, instead of "US rating", we give ratings in as many countries as give them? Fagstein 18:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that these ratings images in the template do not look right and should be removed. Multiple countries can be added, but the image should not be included. If there are no objections, I would like to remove them from where they have been included thusfar. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, at this point, I don't care as to what even happens at this point. I'm sure you all can work this out. Pacific Coast Highway|^{Leave a message ($.25)} 23:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made the rating field options as just putting it in messed up over 1000 articles that use this template. Documentation also updated. -- Jbattersby 16:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Running time

I've removed the recent addition to the "Running time" section that read (approx. per episode). In general, we should keep the values empty to allow for full flexibility for each article. In this particular case, I did a small random sampling and found that over half of the existing articles using this template already had some sort of "per episode" wording, which lead to a bad-looking infobox. Even if such a change should be made (and I don't think it should), it is up to the person making the change to not only get consensus, but to make sure that they are willing to make sure every affected article that uses the infobox is changed as well. Turnstep 00:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but only half-ly. I think something like "Running time (avg.)" would be a good idea since NO show has exactly the same time for all it's episodes but they usually follow an approximate time (The Simpsons 22m, Desperate Housewives 45m etc.) unless it was cancelled after one or something! - ^R_H^e_o^d_t 16:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats what i was trying to acheive, I didnt like the way id done it and was considering reverting myself at the time, but i think we should consider adding it to the heading of the field, perhaps not approx per episode, but definately running time approx. nothing is ever going to have exact times and many articles ive seen write out approx and per episode approx when it should really be part of the template. Discordance 13:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Narrated by

Removing the "narrated by" since not all shows have a narration. If the general consensus is for it can always be readded. Sfufan2005 00:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been put back and is an eyesore for unnarrated shows, so I've made it into an optional field. - Someguy0830 (Talk) 07:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Similar template being used

Template:Infobox Television Soap Opera

Since Tvtonightokc (Talk | contribs) added this new template, there should be some discussion. I don't see any need to have an entirely seperate template to deal with those specific shows. They'll just get switched to this template. All the extra fields on it can be put as optional features in this one or are unnecessary. - Someguy0830 (Talk) 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, template forking should be avoided. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 13:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Any extra fields can be added as optional here these templetes should be deleted. Im quite confused about the first-run template's purpose and its usage instructions Discordance 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Another fork appears to be Wikipedia:WikiProject_British_TV_shows/infobox. I agree that more than one aren't needed, and suggest that articles currently using either of these two templates are converted to using the infobox television, and the templates are put into the VfD process. Mike Peel 13:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

One value that the soap opera infoboxes has is "alternate titles," which can be useful to see what a show is named in another country. I wanted to do that for Eight is Enough, to add Huit, ça suffit! (France) to the alternate titles box, but saw that the television infobox doesn't have that. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Two new optional fields: website and camera

• website - Appears as the first of any optional external links included in the infobox; as noted in the documentation, it is the website that the originating network or production company maintains for the show.
• camera - Allows the infobox to note whether the show is shot with either one or multiple cameras. Besides the links embedded in the previous sentence, you can read about why this is interesting in articles such as this from Variety or by noting that several Creative Arts Emmys are organized around the single- vs. multi-camera distinction.

— 69.3.70.8 09:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Questions

Why is this page protected, and would anyone mind of I (or whatever person is abusing their administrator privelages) makes "creator" an optional field? - Diceman 13:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's protected because some users kept trying to add things that had already been decided to be unneccessary for the template. As for making creator optional, everything has a creator. Find the creator and add him/her. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Some sockpuppets of the same user. creator probably should be optional. I've had this page unprotected as full protection was hardly justified in the first place semi-protect would have dealt with the sock-puppets, anyway after two weeks hopefully that user has got bored and forgotten by now. Discordance 13:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Since it's unprotected, I went ahead and made creator optional. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. - Diceman 14:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Theme Music

How about adding an optional "Theme Music" row ?

I think it is information that is intersting, and it's not something people seem to add to the articles. Perhaps having it in the infobox will remind people to add this information ? The DJ 01:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

People will not notice unless they come here or someone adds the option to all the templates. I don't think including it is necessary. It's really something that the article should note separately. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Peoplewill notice theme music or composer. People do intensely remember and enjoy the theme music for television shows. Accordingly, I added the category 'theme composer.'Dogru144 13:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Additions

I'm looking trough a lot of templates atm, and this is were I'm gonna make notes of information that other templates use that do not currently fit this box.

• Hosted by (for news, gameshows and reality shows)
• Starring does not fit gameshows and reality shows either. Contestents is better but too unimportant for an Infobox in my eyes.
• Animated by: for animated TV series
• Channel vs. Network (Network is truly a US concept)
• Spin-offs
• Audio format (mono, stereo, surround)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:47, April 30, 2006 (UTC).

You can just add them as optional fields is you want. Channel and network are included in one field. There's no need to break them apart. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of picture format... "The video format in which the show airs" perhaps that should be "in which the show was recorded" ?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:34, May 31, 2006 (UTC).

Probably. Sign your comments. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tweaks

I’ve added Audio format, and replaced Content rating(s) with new instructions that hopefully will make everyone happy. I’ve also started the parameter change from “format” to “genre”. My temporary solution is to have them both optional, so whichever is used will display. Once all the instances that use “format” have been changed to “genre”, the optional parameters can be deleted, and the main “genre” parameter can be uncommented.
I’m not great with template syntax, so if I’ve broken anything, just fix it. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Both the "format/genre" and "ratings" arguments have been discussed at length. Format is meant to prevent confusion. Ratings differ between countries so they aren't included, plus they can change through various episodes. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, that’s ridiculous. How does using “format” avoid confusion? Format can mean a lot of things, but genre clearly means the type of show. Heck, it even outputs under the title “Genre”, so why shouldn’t the parameter have the same name as the output? I only see one mention of this on the page, and there are no listed objetions.
As for ratings, the main objections before were the use of images and meta-templates, which I mentioned in the instructions as to be avoided. I know ratings vary by region - so put in the ratings from each region. That’s what video game pages have. I see no reason why this pertinent information shouldn’t be included. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It was actually just the title of the field that I was refering to, but you're right, that doesn't make sense now that I think about it. It's more of a matter of changing the variable. This is used on way too many pages to change it now, and making an if statement just to convert it is a waste. If you went through every instance of the template with AWB and simply changed the name of the variable, that would work, but there's really no need to. As for ratings, like I said, they can vary between episodes: case in point, List of The Venture Bros. episodes. That information won't be accurate unless you print every single one, which would just get overly verbose on some pages. Better for it to be added elsewhere, as that page I linked to does. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand with Someguy0830 on this one. Please use a tool to actually make all the replacements, or leave it as it is. Otherwise no one will do it. And ratings are episode specific. Troughout reruns a re-rating can occur, and the rating is country specific. It's better to place this information under the "international broadcasting" information that most popular shows have, in that case. But people need to understand that unlike most other information, wikipedia should not be used as their primary source for a rating. Something like "Due to the many scenes with bad-mouthing among the characters the show usually carries a TV-14 L rating in the US." might be appropriate in the introduction of an article. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Added tag "first_run"

This tag has been added for TV shows which have an original broadcaster, yet are not shown by them first. (usage: first_run = <show>) Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 13:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Then that wouldn't be its original broadcaster. It'd be a company that the show was produced in association with. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I will explain with a show like Battlestar Galactica, its original network is Sci-Fi. It was co-funded with Skyone in Season 1. However it was shown on Sky One months before Sci-Fi so its first run is Sky One and its original channel is Sci-Fi as it was produced by them. PS: Please dont remove it without finishing discussion first as it is in use. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 19:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On how many pages? One? How many possible uses could this have? Another thing is that acquiring the rights to the show is an entirely separate matter from what you intend the use of this field to be. Also, the reverse of discussion is true. Just adding things will also get your changes reverted fairly quickly. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact is it has a use, o.k? By the way they didnt just aquire rights they co-funded. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case they would be one of the original network's, now wouldn't they? Your argument just fell apart. It's an original network so your variable doesn't apply. Infoboxes such as this are not meant to cater to a single page. Either find a widespread use for it or don't bother adding it. Also, calling someone's revert for valid reasons vandalism when you've broken the 3RR rule by doing it is a pretty stupid thing to do. I don't really care so I'm not going to report it, but you need to remember the difference between vandalism and good faith. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no where for me to change the message so it uses a default, and if you give me time to do more research im sure more shows can be added and i never said they where the original network thats why i added first_run as Sky one showed it first yet are not the original network. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 20:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If Sky One is one of the backers of the project and the first to show it, then it is the original network. Teen Titans, for example, was produced by both the WB and Cartoon Network, yet aired on Cartoon Network first. Your option will never apply, because no show, anywhere, will ever air on a network that didn't have some part in its creation. It doesn't apply to Battlestar Galactica and it won't apply anywhere else. How is this not clear?

I should also point out that Sky One is in another country, which have different trends and release patterns for their shows. If this were in the same county, it would make sense, but it doesn't apply when different networks adhere to different schedules. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, it's just saying what network it aired on first. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • typa-typa)} 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither do i, It has a use and thats all that matters. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 22:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well. I suppose I can't win this alone. Honestly, I don't see the point, since it's remotely used at best and is noted in the first paragraph of articles anyway. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ho ho, i'm not giving in on this one just yet. In my eyes this clutters the infobox with useless information. It's very show specific information, there is no reason this HAS to be in the infobox, you can just as well add it to the article in general. Before you know it, we have all kinds of production related "Trivia" in the Infobox. The thing needs to be clear, consistent and present a nice OVERVIEW of important show information. Specifically not ALL show information. I HIGHLY oppose of this entry - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And on the revert war: "(restore my version, first run is a tag for broadcasters who make a show and are the original broadcaster but it is shown elsewhere first (ie: bsg) [ps: i wasnt aware i had to ask permision to edit))" Templates are not articles, and discussing "non-trivial" things on talk pages is always appreciated by all editors. The fact that you got yourself in a revert war shows me that you are not a long time wikipedia contributor, so some slack is in order, but please be careful editing templates which usage range into the order of thousands of pages. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggest adding amg_id tag

Template:Infobox film adds the useful tag "amg_id" which allows an automatic link to the allmovie.com site in addition to IMDb; see Spider-Man 2 for an example. I would suggest adding this tag to Television, since many shows will also have a page at that site; for example see Sex and the City or Stargate SG-1. This feature also allows Wikipedia to be slightly less reliant on a single Amazon.com-owned source for movie/TV references. --Notmicro 04:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's already got tv.com and imdb. That's enough. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea. Again, Infoboxes are not supposed to contain all possible information about the show. Having three external links in the infobox is already a lot, maybe even too much. Adding additional links just for the sake of not having to rely on one company seems overkill. Put it in External links (and even then i'm against it. 2 profile sites are more then enough. there are hundreds out there we can't add them all. Wikipedia is NOT a link guide). - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What he said. Three is bordering on too much, and we only include those specific links because they are the most recognizable ones. I never even heard of amg before this. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggest we create some way of housing ALL links available to other sites. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia, right? Maybe not in the Infoboxes, maybe somewhere else, but we should porbbaly link to at least 3 more sites with tv show information. 06:03, 03 September 2006 (UTC-5)

Either we remove tv.com and tmdb or add tvguide.com and allmovie.com and anyone else who has a site that has some official information about all shows. One could argue that they are all equally relevant, so why should we choose to only drive traffic to some that are no better than the others, and certainly no more informative than Wikipedia itself?– Peuclid 15:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We dont need to add any extra links, imdb and tv.com already cover what most people link them for, adding an extra two would be over-linkage. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

First run?

What is this entry for? —Centrx→talk • 20:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Read talk page. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal of design

Background colouring of the title (For an example see:[1]) -- If there are no objections i may add this. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually considering it the background doesnt have to be mandatory and thus can either be there or not be there, i shall make the changes to show an example. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Starring

I'm seeing instances where someone not only lists the cast in the starring section, but includes the character names as well, making it seem a bit crowded. Where can I find a policy about use of this section?x 02:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There's not one really. Suffice it to say that such verbosity does not belong in an infobox. Cut it where you see it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Most articles i have seen just list the actors only and i believe this is the std so if you see them in an article remove charcter names. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture format, US-centrism

The formats listed at present are only US digital standards. I'm going to add PAL, SECAM, and NTSC to the formats, because the vast majority of television programs released to date have used one of these specific television systems. 480i, for example, is not the same thing as NTSC, as it implies a digital format, whereas only the NTSC III standard is defined as such. And PAL (aka 576i), the most common television standard worldwide, isn't listed at all. Fawlty Towers, for example, was videotaped in PAL on two-inch Quadruplex videotape; it's more logical to describe this as PAL than 576i, as it was a purely analog recording, though a combination of both, such as PAL (576i) might be acceptable, though it still omits frame rate, which differs between NTSC and PAL/SECAM, and is a matter of choice in HDTV. The use of the term SDTV should be avoided, as there are two common, incompatible SDTV formats in present use (NTSC and PAL/SECAM) and there have been other formats, such as the British 405-line system and the French 819-line.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 08:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I performed a disambiguation link repair on the above comment. Please revert if found to be inappropriate. Alan Canon 23:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Language

I've just added an optional language field. I find it strange that for so long this had country, but no language field, and the film one, had language, but no country field. - ^Рэд_хот 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool . thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 14:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

TV Guide field

I'd like to propose that we add a field for linking to the show's page at TV Guide. The format would be the same as for IMDB and tv.com. They have a page for every show I can think of and the information looks very complete. SnappingTurtle 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we need a 4th link :\? Can it not go in an external links section? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're anywhere near the point where there are too many external link fields. Actually, we could accomodate several more, but they just needed to be more concisely listed. The current style has them in bold with a fill empty line between each. I'd like to suggest that we tighten up the list and unbold it, but allow for several more TV sites. SnappingTurtle 19:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Three is already too much. Wikipedia isn't a TV Guide nor a link repository. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A TV Guide link would be at least as useful as the existing imdb and tv.com links. I believe many people prefer TV Guide, which is why I'd rather add it, along with JumpTheShark, and any other site that lists tvshows and offer discussions about them. On the other hand, as others have stated, perhaps this isn't the place for the entire list of external links, in which case the two non-official links should be removed. One of these two things should happen, but status quo doesn't seem right. – Peuclid 15:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think any argument against TV Guide would also apply to IMDB and TV.Com. They all have good information and either they should all be added or all taken out. tomkincaid 15:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you being serious :-\? Why would we add a link for every website, lets get some common sense here. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My point (which as I read it wasn't very clear) is that it is entirely subjective to choose which site is the "definitive" source of information about all shows. The official link makes perfect sense since that's clearly the right link for a given show. The choice of tv.com versus tvguide.com versus any other site on the web would be biased regardless of which site is shown. I'd personally rather see tvguide.com there than tv.com, but that's just as subjective as the person that chose tv.com. So, I'd argue that the tv.com link shouldn't be there unless one is willing to argue (as I tried above in jest) that they all should be there.Peuclid 18:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

About Executive Producers and just plain Producers

Some TV shows credit both a Producer and an Executive Producer. Shouldn't there also be a regular "producer" optional variable on this template? Dl2000 23:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs)

Appropriate place for List of episodes link?

What does everyone think about having a 'List of episodes' link in the infobox? I noticed on some that they link the number of episodes to the list of episodes, ie num_episodes = [[List of My Name Is Earl episodes|27]]. Is that what should be done, or should there be a place just for the list of episodes? Joltman 11:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No one responded yet, but I was playing around with it a little. Here's what I came up with as a demo in my user space (I only put a little info in so it wouldn't show up too big here):

For instructions on use, see Template talk:Infobox Television
Genre	Sitcom
Running time	21 minutes
Starring	Jason Lee
Country of origin	United States
No. of episodes	27 (List of episodes)

I made a list_episodes variable which is optional. What does everyone think? Joltman 18:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there, or could we implement, a SOP for using this implementation as a standard? I realize it's a new option, and a lot of articles out there aren't using simply because they haven't been updated, but could the usage of this be implemented into the WikiProject Television SOP? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. SOP? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Stardard Operating Procedure. Sorry, I just mean a standardized way of doing things. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Help please

Could someone help me with the Pilot (Part 1) (Lois and Clark episode) Television Infobox. I've tried but it wont show all the information I've put. Thank you. Think outside the box 18:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got the wrong infobox (-: (see Template:Infobox Television episode.) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I've got it working now. Thanks! Think outside the box 18:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Head Writer

Some shows have head writers, such as Damon Lindelof for "Lost." Should we make a spce on the template for this? --theDemonHog 03:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been eight days. Does anyone want to reply? --theDemonHog 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably not enough series with head/chief writers to make a new infobox parameter useful. Also, if a series has had numerous head writers that would clutter the infobox (see the Writers, Directors? comment earlier on this talk page). Also, an enduring chief writer may also be a series developer or creator. For example, Lindelof is already in the Lost infobox as a series creator. But he should at least be credited as head writer within the article text. Dl2000 14:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Shows with multiple IMDb pages

Some programs, like Doctor Who, have multiple IMDb pages. (Doctor Who (1963–1989) at IMDb, Doctor Who (1996) at IMDb, Doctor Who (2005–?) at IMDb). Is there a way to create multiple IMDb links in the infobox? If there isn't, could there be? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

standardized image usage?

this was the best place i could think to post this but essentially I'm wondering if we should standardise the type of image used for the infobox to the shows official title card when ever possible. For example Entourage and Jericho are perfect examples of what the standard should be while Boy Meets World and Lost are examples of what should not be used. My reasoning for this is the title card is much more descriptive and recognisable than a random screen shot. Additionally it would somewhat standardize the image size used. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  18:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, i need to get around to changing the Lost image soemtime (-: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced the images for Lost and Heroes. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  20:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Woah, woah, calm down. It hasn't even been two days yet, you should wait at least 10 days before reaching a consensus. Born Acorn 20:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Boy Meets World is an excellent example of what should not be used, because it is just a random screenshot. However, Lost is a good example of what can be displayed. It is a beautiful collage of the main cast released by the network. A new viewer to Lost will think that it is a nice picture of the cast, whereas they would think a title card is redundant because the name of the television show is given in the article name. So I think that it is depends on the television show to use sceenshot of title card or promotional poster (case-by-case basis). --theDemonHog 03:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous/next shows?

What does everyone think about adding previous and next shows to the infobox? This would be for something like the Star Trek series, where Deep Space Nine would have The Next Generation as the previous show and Voyager as the next. This is similar to the way the film and album infoboxes work. Here's an example:

For instructions on use, see Template talk:Infobox Television
Genre	Science fiction
Running time	About 42 min. per episode
Starring	See cast
Country of origin	United States
Preceded by	Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994)
Followed by	Star Trek: Voyager (1995-2001)

Any opinions?Joltman 12:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --theDemonHog 06:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Practical?

I've only got a very little bit of experience with MediaWiki templates, so I don't know how practical those all are, but most of them seem possible. Thoughts?

Jordan Brown 03:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Documentation of code to use in values

It seems to me that if a particular code style is desired for a particular value, the documentation should show the <nowiki> code rather than the as-formatted code, to make it easy to copy-and-paste into your article. language and first_aired show examples of this. I already did this to preceded_by; it seems like it's also appropriate in camera, picture_format, and audio_format. audio_format especially draws my attention, since it seems to want "[[Monaural]] sound" but "[[Surround sound]]". (I didn't do it, because picture_format looked like it would just get gross.)

Note that my standardization comments above might reduce the need for code examples.

Thoughts?

Jordan Brown 03:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge Template:Telenovela into this template?

Like the section header says. Telenovela appears to fill the same ecological niche as this template. Thoughts? I suggest discussing it over on Template talk:Telenovela. Jordan Brown 08:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reimplement in modular form?

Over in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Infoboxes on articles covering multiple media I've proposed reimplementing this template on top of a modular framework based on the one used in WP:ANIME, and have done some experiments. The intent would be to have a way to support articles that need to have infoboxes covering several "releases" - The Addams Family and Dragnet (series) come immediately to mind. One eventual goal of such a restructuring would be commonality with the anime template set, Template:Infobox Film, Template:Infobox Radio Show, and probably others.

Comments would be appreciated.

Jordan Brown 08:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide an example please? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox animanga}}

He means like that. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, just found an example. My opinion is this: That is way to excessively long, remember an infobox isn't limited to one transclusion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. I dislike the anime box, though I will admit its usefulness in regards to its subject. I prefer the divided setup we have now. The anime/manga series tend to be more closely related than regular television. The current divided setup is more appropriate for mediums that don't often intertwine. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's definitely room for the anamanga box to be more efficient. But I do see what you're getting at, in that the series should be closely related to share an infobox. Maybe some kind of mini box could be used for different article sections, if there are not separate articles for each part. -- Ned Scott 08:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Or, another idea: the main topic/ part of the series/ article gets a normal infobox module, then additions get modules that are trimmed down to more basic info and don't list as much stuff. -- Ned Scott 08:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(indentation reset)

Sorry for not giving an example here. Over in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television I'd talked about the proof-of-concept that I've done at User:Jordan Brown/Dragnet (series) and its transcluded templates. (Please discuss that implementation at User:Jordan Brown/Infobox media and User talk:Jordan Brown/Infobox media.)

There are any number of stylistic questions - color schemes, exact layout, et cetera. I don't have any real opinions on those and so at the moment in my proof of concept they're the same as the animanga scheme. My goals here are:

• Answer the question of what to do for works like Dragnet (series) and The Addams Family where there have been numerous "releases".
• Reduce duplication between the various templates.
• Improve consistency between the various templates.

From a stylistic point of view, it would be perfectly fine with me if Template:Infobox Television yielded exactly the same presentation that it does today... but its components were usable in a common way to support multi-release works and were sharable with Template: Infobox Film and others. (Of course, to the extent that the various existing templates yield different presentation, one of the goals would be to move to a common presentation. I don't have any strong opinions on what that presentation would look like.)

Jordan Brown 17:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm in favor of this. I don't think there are enough articles that require these kinds of "crossmedia boxes". What I do see is a general duplication of elements shared by all these templates. I'm not sure however if that can be solved easily. I also think that it's undesirable to make all these different media infoboxes tooo uniform. It would make wikipedia a bit boring I fear. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but there's a lot of things we might not have considered yet. I still think it would be interesting just to throw up a big brain storm of different styles for infoboxes. Even if we don't exactly do a modular form there may still be some interesting ideas we can get from our "sister" project infoboxes. -- Ned Scott 20:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the film box is basically the same as this. As for Jordan's setup, that's the animanga styled infobox, just colored differently. What would be useful, though somewhat unused, would be an incarnations or versions field, identifying if a particular series has several broken apart versions. Alternatively, a Television series infobox could be designed for such purposes, somewhat akin to the channel infobox. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many articles would use a "cross-media" infobox. Note that I haven't looked at all that many TV articles, and found two. However, if we did it right, single-media articles wouldn't see any coding change at all - Template:Infobox Television would invoke the modular framework internally. As for "boring", well, one man's "boring" is another man's "consistent". If there's a desire for stylistic differences, perhaps we could make one framework that could be invoked with different options to yield different colors and whatnot. (Perhaps via CSS?)

Surely there are ways that we can reduce duplication. At a minimum we could establish conventions for things like country-of-origin, but we should be able to build templates that are used for various common cases like "put this label and this value if the value is non-empty".

Note that both Dragnet and The Addams Family have not just multiple serieses but releases in multiple media (TV, film, video games, radio) and so a simple extension to Infobox Television might not be sufficient.

Jordan Brown 19:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Does the template auto-category?

Does the template automatically add categories, like for genre, when it's entered into the infobox? JQF • Talk • Contribs 02:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but it would be possible. -- Ned Scott 02:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be a pain to code, though. Categories names are specific, and genre is often used for multiple entries. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it wouldn't really be a good idea for genres. There might be other types of categories that the infobox could add that are easier. I have nothing specific in mind, just thinking out loud. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure seems like a good idea, even if it means some reorganization of the categories. Perhaps the template could put the article into a genre category, and humans could optionally put it into a more specific one. What does MediaWiki do if a page is in both a category and one of its subcategories? Perhaps the genre entry should be expanded to be more specific.

In case it isn't obvious from my previous comments, I almost always think it's a good idea to standardize and automate "usual practice".

Jordan Brown 21:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The only feasable way to implement this would be to make an auto-formatting, auto-catting template series like {{action}}, {{drama}}, etc. Besides, even then the cat type varies. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of something along the line of

! Genre
| {{{format|{{{genre}}}}}}[[Category:Television Genre {{{genre}}}]]
|-

That is, have a series of standard-format category names with the standardized genre names embedded in them. It'd require reorging existing categories, but the result would seem to be a win. Jordan Brown 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That would work, but you'd have to resort a bunch of categories and replace all the non-embedded usages. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether this would be a good idea, if there were a genre or other category field, for cross-genre works, editors would still be able to add categories to the article itself, as they do now, so this may not be a significant objection. Avt tor 17:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing external links

I propose that we remove the IMDb, TV.com and possibly the Official website link from this infobox, external links are generally being duplicated in the infobox and the External links section - project wide all external links are kept in their own section ("External links") and so it does seem extraneous to list external links in the infobox when they do generally belong at the bottom of the page. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, for consistency with similar infoboxes (Film, for instance, has IMDb and others). If there are a duplicate links, then just remove them! All of the external links for mature articles should be inline citations anyway. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I kind of like the links in the infobox, because it provides a simple and consistent way to get this information. OTOH, I sometimes automatically ignore infoboxes and so have trouble finding the information. Regardless, it's worth noting that WP:TV and WP:FILM disagree on convention; WP:TV#External links says to put them only in the infobox, but a response to a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#External links and IMDb says that the WP:FILM convention is to put them in both places. Jordan Brown 04:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

An infobox usually is a duplication of the article content, since it's an "at-a-glance" tool. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean that as such the links should be duplicated as well ? cause i think they should. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 05:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The way it's done now seems fine with me. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a really stong feeling on whether or not to duplicate the information. It does seem like WP:TV and WP:FILM should have the same convention, whichever way it is. Jordan Brown 21:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I like having the external links in the info boxes as long as it is not duplicated. But, I think some of them need to have other sites that are good links as well. How would a user do this on an info box? --RobinDagos (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If the links are kept in the infobox, can we add one for the wiki at TVIV? Modeled after Wikipedia, it's generlaly much cleaner and more navigable than the heavily commercialized TV.com currently included. --Thomas B 22:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC) (suggestion somewhat off topic, moved to new section below) --Thomas B 22:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of seasons?

Surely there should be field to enter the number of seasons the series ran for? Joe King 19:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm failing to see the usefulness to this, it also adds more Americanization, generally it's stated in an article how many seasons OR series the show has had, and it generally is usually on the LOE as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Fenton.--NeilEvans 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of seasons seems just as relevant as number of episodes. Although, we could probably just note it in the episode number parameter to make it simple, such as "52 episodes (2 seasons)" or something like that. It would not bother me to add a number of seasons parameter. -- Ned Scott 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is just as relevant as number of episodes. If it does get added, then a field should be added for number of series as well as number of seasons, so the correct field can be used for British TV Series.--NeilEvans 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Neil's above comment. I think it could be a useful addition, and it's something that the British version has. Actually, if relevant fields (channel, etc) were added to this then we can lose the British fork. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This template already displays channel anyway. I feel the british template is redundant anyway, as the info provided by that template are covered in this one.--NeilEvans 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So it does! I thought it just said 'network'. Well, I guess if we add the series field then we can start merging them. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In the code it says network, but it displays on the page as channel. The British one really just needs to be redirected to this one.--NeilEvans 22:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A redirect now would mess up some articles, surely? The JPS^{talk to me} 22:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional arguments

Recently i noticed someone made all arguments of the template optional. They i'm not hellbend against it, i do think it's a shame. There is nothing wrong in having a few required arguments to force people to fill in some of the stuff. Where there other reasons that attributed to this change ? TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sort a whim thing, really. Seemed nice to have consistent code throughout. Plus, if nothing else, it keeps the fields from appearing blank, which I find worse than their simple disappearance. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I came up with an interesting idea for Template:Episode list a while back that makes it possible to require any option that is listed but left blank. Easy enough to do, yes, but remove the option and it is no longer required, thus no blank space will show. This way you can leave blanks when you want to (to encourage people to fill it out) but still only have the options that are needed for that specific page. Maybe we can do that here? -- Ned Scott 05:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite certain what you mean by that. I know that "episode list" can ignore most fields if not included, but I don't see how that would be incorporated here. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, lets say you want someone to fill out "Narrated by" because you don't know who did, but that someone did. If you do:

{{Infobox television

| name = Name

| image =

| format = Animated television series

|narrated =

| tv_com_id = 3417

}}

It would then make a blank space for "Narrated by", thus encouraging others to fill out that section. It doesn't matter if the parameter has text or not, it will render a field for it. If you don't want the field, then exclude the parameter from the template and no box is generated. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically it's a step up from normal "#if" statements, because you can still trigger the field without having text. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. That sounds good. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea Ned. i think that could be used here.... TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit

On the main page, I edited the syntax so that it says "genre" instead of format, mostly because the template uses the input of genre, not format. Also genre is the more common term for the... genre... of the show. Format is confusing. Some other talk page mentions need to be altered as well, I suspect. -Elizabennet | talk 03:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Slots nominated for removal

Currently, this infobox has far too many slots - it is unwieldy and very confusing to readers, and is very off-putting to new editors. I feel that the following slots should be removed because they're unnecessary (the information could be better included in a different 'production' category on the page). I'm using the {{Infobox Film}} and {{Infobox Novel}} as the example of a good infobox, by the way. -Elizabennet | talk 03:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1. camera, picture format, audio format, opening theme, ending theme, and related shows should be deleted entirely, in my opinion. The information would be better suited for elsewhere in the article.
2. First run should be removed because it is the same information as in first aired.
3. preceded_by and followed_by should be removed because they very rarely apply. They're not needed in a universal infobox.
4. num_series should say something about the number of seasons (possibly as well as the number of series) - wikipedia is meant to represent all english speakers, and in the U.S., we call them 'seasons' instead of 'series'. I think that 'season' is the more common term for it, but I could easily be wrong - Brits, do you use season and series interchangeably?

These sound like good ideas to me. Getting really detailed like format and .. audio format... is not the level of detail for an "at-a-glance" infobox. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Second. I don't mind. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Unwieldy is the correct description i guess, perhaps we should specify some "Default set" of options somewhere that shows should have and hide the rest a bit better. Some people seem to make it their mission to fill in every single field of a template, whereas that is not the intention the optional parameters.

• Personally i think camera and picture format are important production cinemetographic aspects that should stay.
• Themes and audio format, I don't really care about (even though i think i once added the themes myself)
• First run in is (i think) for when a show is run first in a country in which it was not produced and was needed to merge the UK infobox into this one. In my eyes it's useless info.
• preceded_by and followed_by are used for MANY gameshow seasons. The Apprentice, American Idol, The Amazing Race, that type of show.
• num_series (again from the UK template merge) specifies the total number of seasons the show ran. And NO, not the whole world says seasons, in the UK they say series (because it's often not really a seasonal broadcast schedule).

I agree that the template seems to have gone out of control a bit perhaps. I'm sure it can be condensed a bit, the problem is that every single removal can be a bit complicated, because to do it right you have to merge all that information back into the article again (and i do think that should be done). There is a trick to check which pages use which options, by inserting non visible wikilinks to specially created pages. By checking those pages "What links here" page, you can then see which articles use which options. My personal cleanup lists:

Delete list:

• theme_music_composer
• opentheme
• endtheme
• first_run
• related
• language

Rename:

• num_series -> num_seasons

Condense (put on one output line):

• location and country
• num_episodes, num_seasons

TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 04:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My response is leave it as it is, if the field is not relevant to the article, leave it blank. If Americans want a "seasons" field then just add it. In the UK "season" is never used, whereas "series" is always used.--NeilEvans 21:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the template to get an idea about the amount of usage of certain params. I started with uses of Location param, uses of first_run param. This should help us determin how useful these options actually are/can be. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Location is used in 19 articles, first run in 10 articles. So they could be easily eliminated if we want to. Also location is ambigious (location of what? production/setting?). first_run is equally bad defined and underused. Wouldn't it be better to simply include this information in the article ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

First run is there to make an article factual and avoid an edit war, would be better if we had some sort of "auxiliary field" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I still say that can be detailed in the article. first shown in != country of origin (which it explicitly is called) If needed comments can be added to the infobox to prevent people readding "first_run" countries there. Similar for location. My problem with Auxillary fields is that you never know what's gonna be in it and as such hard to check wether what people use if for is proper stuff for an Infobox. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Proper stuff" is a persons definition, you say "first shown in != country of origin", others say "country made in != country of origin" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Location" is there to avoid edit wars, because "country of origin" only refers to copyright and distribution, not production. I think location is intuitive, easy to define, and easy to verify factually. Location is not needed where it is the same as country of origin, which is why it occurs less often, but also why it's very relevant when it is used. Avt tor 23:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think only "theme_music_composer" should go and perhaps "endtheme" too, since often it's same or it's not even heard. I think the "opentheme" field is good, specially is the song is well-known. About the series/seasons field, I think the field is good and sorry, but as neither American or British, I have no personal preference for the name. Either num_series or num_seasons is good to me, or we can even got the nitpicking way with num_series_or_seasons. --Andromeda 13:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that maybe the problem is not as much the amount of information in the Infobox, but more the way it's presented to the user. So I was toying around a bit and perhaps we should consider something like:

Battlestar Galactica
250px| Title screen to Battlestar Galactica.
Genre	Science Fiction Drama
Creator(s)	Ronald D. Moore
Starring	See Cast and characters
Opening theme	Gayatri by Richard Gibbs
Country of origin	United States
No. of episodes	49 (series to date), 10 (webisodes)
Production
Location	Canada
Picture format	NTSC (480i) 1080i HDTV
Running time	approx. 42 min.
Broadcast
Original channel	Sky One Sci Fi Channel
First shown in	United Kingdom
Original run	October 18, 2004 – present
Chronology
Preceded by	Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)
Links
Official website
IMDb profile
TV.com summary

--TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks very cool to me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As nobody has replied, would you be interested in implementing your new design DJ? Matthew 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Strike my last, you've already done it, excellent work! Matthew 16:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I only saw your new comment a couple of mins ago :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should loose the external links in the infobox. I can't see why they can't just be in an "External links" section. --Maitch 19:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well they can, but so can all the information in the infobox be somewhere else in the article... Personally i like having the links available with a quick click on a visible place. But I can't say it's one of the problem areas atm with this template. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The "theme composer", "opening theme" and "closing theme" is what bugs me the most. "Opening theme" maybe, as you could incorporate the composer into that easily by including both the song title and the composer/artist. But how are these three in here without an original series music composer slot? Anyway, there are a bunch of useless categories to this right now. Many of them seem to be catered to a certain genre (in which case, it'd be easier to have a "|Misc =" slot as with Template: Infobox Album. It should be dealt with soon. Pele Merengue 02:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Channel logos

What does anyone think about having small channel logo templates next to the channel name in infoboxes, similar to the country name with flag icon?

Such as, {{BBC Three}}

Logo's can't be used like that. They're only fair use in the article they describe. It's the same reason we did away with ratings images. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically the US ones are public domain (not sure about other countries), but the channel logos are fair use. No getting around that. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{The internet • runs on Rainbows!}} 16:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Awards?

Should/Could there be a place for awards the show has won, similar to Template:Infobox Actor? I was just about to add awards for a show to the infobox only to notice there's no place for it. --AMK1211 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and added it myself. :) And before anyone says anything, I put the Academy Awards in there just in case in the future they decide to start honoring television... like the Golden Globes, which was originally just for movies but now honors TV as well. --AMK1211 02:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it, useless clutter imo, just like I stated at the actor infobox. This infobox doesn't need to be made excessively long. They should be stated in prose. Matthew 09:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up. The Oscars don't award television (the future is the future. Now is now!). The Tony are THEATER awards and so are the Laurence Olivier Awards. César don't award TV, and neither do the Goya or Filmfare. --Andromeda 09:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Template name

I guess it's probably because there are (too many) exceptions, but any reason why this infobox not named "Television series"...?  ("Television" alone seems a little vague...)  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Smaller names are better until it becomes a problem. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Smaller names also more ambiguous and/or less helpful, especially to those not regularly editing code. Regards, David (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

...Just been reminded that there's {{Infobox Television episode}}, so {{Infobox Television series}} would seem logical...?  David (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Num episodes..

It had been bothering me for sometime that the number of episodes was floating a few px below where it should be.. I couldn't see what was up.. it turns out there was a rogue line break, haha! Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Format vs. Genre

It's confusing to have the infobox say "Genre" but you have to put the information under the header "Format" when you go to edit the box. I don't want to mess anything up so I won't do it myself, but I highly recommend that the coding be changed to the word "genre" too. 23skidoo 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, format or genre will now both work when called. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is. They're two distinct items. Format implies the type of "medium" - such as Live Action, Broadway Play, or Animation. Genre describes story types such as "Romance", "Action", "Comedy", etc. KyuuA4 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Flags

What's everybody's opinion on these flags that are popping up all over the place? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

/me thinks they take up way too much space and deserve to be deleted :X .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 19:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment took up considerably more space than a 20px flag. Does that mean it deserves to be deleted? And what about the many much larger images used in Wikipedia? Would these then take up way too much space? An infobox is intended to be a summary of the information - flags can convey nationality of a program more effectively than text, and makes the infobox less plain. Flags could be overused, but not in this case since there is only one item (country of origin) for which a flag is appropriate. Dl2000 23:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see flags being used to indicate nationalities of people in the infobox. Is that appropriate here? And should we enforce that a flag can only appear in the country of origin? Tinlinkin 07:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think indicating people's nationality by using flags is a bit over the top. Perhaps that's something we indeed should advice against. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, I believe it is a little over the top to have flags next to people's names unless the subject is one where the country is part of the issue (eg: Miss Universe), but I don't see a problem when talking about a flag next to it's country (in infoboxes anyway) when the number of countries listed in that infobox is minimal. Category:Flag templates were designed to show a country with its flag in a simplified manner that is not obtrusive. Since they were created, to my knowledge they have never been TfD nominated. Although a few countries do share the same flag, many don't, and many people when looking at information pick up clues in images faster than in text. Since in infobox summarizes key information in many articles, it seems reasonable that a single flag would not be such a horrid thing to see if someone is looking at key information and a Country of Origin is one of these factors. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The essay WP:FLAG makes some good arguments against the proliferation of flags, especially in bios --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Well, to continue this, I would note that the essay is now part of the manual of style and can be seen at WP:MOSFLAG. As one of its suggestions is to avoid using flags in biographical infoboxes to indicate country of birth and death, because of the overemphasis on nationality that using such an icon produces, and the fact that such use adds precisely zero information to the article, can I propose we carry that advice over to this template? --John (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Director vs Creator?

Can we have a Director parameter? I figured that perhaps there is currently no Director paramter because many US series have multiple directors - I'm thinking of Lost, Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood etc etc, though they do have a Creator. In contrast, most UK tv shows don't have a Creator as such - or if they do, the creators are the director and/or principal actor(s). Most UK shows only have one Director per series. Of course there are exceptions, and I'm not suggesting that we scrap the Creator parameter, or edit it to read "Creator / Director". Rather, I think both parameters should be available. Gram123 11:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A director is usually episode specific information. I guess that's why it's not in the Infobox right now. But I'm not sure how much this has been discussed. - --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Gram123 makes good points. Although it would be episode specific for US shows (a list in that field should be discouraged in those cases), most British shows only have a handful or less. One Foot had Belbin and Gernon, Joking Apart just Spiers, etc. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert template

OK the template needs to be reverted as the Heroes page uses black as the background colour and the text is also black so disappears.--NeilEvans 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that means the Heroes template needs fixing, or the idea of how the colours are implemented need fixing. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Colour param

I have started using the {{Television colour}} template here as well, to further unify the colour usage in Television Infoboxes. This should deprecate bg_colour param at one time, but I didn't feel like doing that just yet, simply because we will have to edit quite a few usage cases anyways. I thought we'd better set up a list soon of what needs to go, and what needs to change, so we can do it in one run. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally believe we should only use colours that suitably go with black text (like the present contained within TV-colour), to avoid "over-usage", if the text has to be modified then I personally believe the colour isn't going to be very suitable (i.e. white text on black). Matthew 19:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems the same hack is in use by todays Featured Article Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Perhaps that's where Heroes got the idea in the first place. Anyways, what should we do ? I tried adding a "textcolor" option or something similar to the colour template, but it makes the usage even more obscure. I didn't really like it so far. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea, that was me *puts on embarrassed face*. What we need to do is change it to a more subtle pastel colour, or remove the colour call from there until a consensus is reached for that page. Anyway, look at Buffy now, I've converted it to a pastel colour (useful). Matthew 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the colour in the Buffy page as it was chosen to be used in all articles related to the Buffyverse. It should remain that way until consensus is made as to what to do with the parameter.--NeilEvans 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you pulled that it was chosen to be used on all Buffy articles, if you look at the history's of both Buffy and Angel you will see it was me, Matthew, who implemented them, then you will apologise to the Matthew. HAND. Matthew 20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Presenter/s

Looking at this I see that there is no presenter bit, there is starring but presenter sounds better. Such as BBC News programmes it says 'Starring Fiona Bruce', but she presents it not stars in it, is there anyway to add this. AxG ۝۝۝҈ ^►talk_►guests 11:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Chronology header

It seems that since recent changes, the chronology doesn work properly. How come, on Scooby-Doo, Where are You! I cannot see the followed_by = The New Scooby-Doo Movies (1972–1974) any more ? Dunwich 12:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. I'll try and fix that. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A fixed version is now at User:TheDJ/SandboxTemplate2. It fixes a chronlogy header logic error, and a channel vs. network logic error. If an administrator can please make that edit. Also, can the admin add the {{protected template}} header to the noinclude part of the template, and also protect {{television colour}}, because that one is a potential CSS hack to this template ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think semi-protection would be best for TV-col to enable it to be edited as and when needed, etc. Matthew 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-10 11:11Z

There is now an error with the template. The Chronology header is now permanently visible, even when it is not used (for example The O.C.). Also, since the template is now fully protected, I am unable to fix the issue. Can someone please fix the issue immediately. Stickeylabel 11:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the issue and added the code to my sandbox (see User:Stickeylabel/SandboxTemplate). The updated code allows the Chronology header to only appear when needed. Can an admin please update the template with the code provided as soon as possible. Thanks. Stickeylabel 11:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your code seems to leave an extra "}}" in the page, please look through it. feydey 15:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, now it NEVER shows. Damn template values suck. I'm a tad out of ideas personally. anyone else ? Stupid difference between a value not being present, and a value being empty. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I believed I've fixed it.. it appears fixed, at least.. Matthew 16:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? The above Scooby-Doo, Where are You! shows nothing of it's Chronology header now. I previewed both pages with my new SandboxTemplate2, and i think i fixed it by #if'ing all the values in the #expr --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Purge - Cache is out of date. Matthew 16:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but isn't the #if pipe trick what we had intially ? That's what i tried to fix for the Scooby Doo page --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

{{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{#if:{{{preceded_by|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}}|1|0}} or {{#if:{{{followed_by|}}}|1|0}} or {{#if:{{{related|}}}|1|0}} }} | 1 |

I was thinking this would work. 16:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Required field visiblity "problem"

I don't yet understand the programming aspect behind creating templates (using "if" statements and triple brackets), so I am pointing this out here so someone else will know to fix it. The template page describes the Show Name as the only required field. If true, the template with only that field filled should look like the first but instead it currently looks like the second. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 21:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

First

Second
Broadcast
Original channel	{{{channel}}}
Links

Should be fixed now. See the 3rd example to the right --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Third

Infobox Links

Discussion proceeded at the WikiProject Television talk section.

I have removed the IMDb profile and TV.com summary sections from Infobox Television. Please do not revert until this issue is resolved. The reasoning is that the infobox should not favour IMDb and TV.com as credible souces. This also violates WP:SPAM, as it not only anti-competitive by supporting these two commercial entities over others who provide a similar service, it also unneedlessly links to them twice, once in the infobox as well as once in the external links section. I propose that these links should only appear in the external links section. There is now reason for these external links to appear in the infobox. Please discuss below. Stickeylabel 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now also reformatted the Website section, to as can be see here. Stickeylabel 12:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Discuss this, then do', the present format has a hard-consensus and thusly should be discussed first and such a highly used infobox. At present while I don't like the addition of IMDb/TV.com links outside an EL section they personally don't bother me much and so I don't favour any opinion for or against. Matthew

While I agree with your basic principals, having the links there is just too damn handy. I work on soo many articles like this on a technical level (lot of template work and stuff), I can't go buy episode guides for all those series. In 90% of the cases where I need to fixup something, imdb or tv.com helps me out. And having a quick and consistent linkpoint is just saving me hours on the days I fix one of the series related pages. Unless someone shows me a better/more reliable source for 99% of the series we have here, I see no point in removing these two. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say we should remove them. They belong to the external links section and makes the template bigger than necessary. --Maitch 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I like them and object to their removal. Perhaps the discussion should be taking place in a more visible arena, such as the project? The JPS^{talk to me} 15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should probably be brought to the TV project, both sites are indeed useful (I also edit both as well..), the problem I've always seen with them is that it opens the door to: "TV.com and IMDb are there, why can't my site be there as well!?" (There's an example on this talk page I believe). As I stated I don't strongly favour the removal or keeping of the links, if I had to choose though I'd more then likely be swayed to keep them, these days, as The DJ states "having the links there is just too damn handy". Matthew

I do agree with TheDJ that in some cases "having the links there is just too damn handy", however that personal opinion does not justify their usage. These two links are highly anti-competitive. The amount of traffic that all television show articles receive is large, and linking to commercial entities in infoboxes is just advertising in my opinion. Why should these two commercial websites receive high amounts of traffic via wikipedia, as opposed to other similar services? I do believe they are handy, that is why I support them being placed in the external links section at the bottom of articles, however, there still is no justification for their existance in the main infobox. Please remember that these third party websites are not 100% credible sources, they allow for user input, nor are they official. The official site linkage in the infobox is justified however, as it contains first party official information. I also agree with Maitch, in that it "makes the template bigger than necessary.Stickeylabel 02:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the links as far as "spam" is concerned, but I would think that such links would be better placed in the external links section of the article. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion proceeded at the WikiProject Television talk section.

last_aired

last_aired is described in the comments as "The last day the show aired. Use Present if it is ongoing". My understanding is that "aired" means the same as "broadcast". In these days of cable, almost any popular show is being shown daily somewhere in the world, so almost everything should say "Present". So far so good, but the template then generates the text: Original run: first_aired - last_aired. This seems to contradict the definition (except for programmes that were never repeated). Which is right? Notinasnaid 13:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

First, first original broadcast. Last, first airdate of the last original episode to be broadcast. Matthew 13:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So, is the description incorrect? It might be good to fix it, as I have done some highly unproductive editing as a result, and others may do the same. Notinasnaid 13:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Starring/Former stars

I think a few things here: The infobox should say who's currently on the show, their tenure and "key character", if it can be kept to one. People who were previously on the show should, like Template:Musical Artist (talk · links · edit) be in a seperate segment. They should not show when they left the show or their applicable characters, as this info should be in the article itself. If nobody says no, then I'll change this in a couple of days. If you disagree with this, please say it here AND on my talk page and explain your reasons for this. Ta.
--linca^linca 12:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fiction is written in the present, no distinction should be made between characters and former characters as the creative work exists. Matthew 13:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Per matthew for one, for another, wherever this is an issue, in most cases it's easier just to have a [[ |See below]] or something link to the relative section. Shows like Lost these days have such large casts that are so complicated, that there is no point in detailing all that information in the infobox. You see the large difference between a band/artist and a TV show, is that one details persons by definition, and the other uses persons to create the work. The cast is not the work itself, a band IS the work itself. As such the factor who plays in the tv series is just not such key an element as who is the artist/part of the band. It's important of course, but there is so much elements to a television show, if we were to detail it all in the infobox, the infobox would be taller then most of the articles they would be put on I fear. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Then, in that case, should it then be frowned upon to indicate years of tenure on the Infobox (in particular, what drew my attention was South Park's list looks cluttered because of cast members passing away or leaving the show and their years of tenure look grubby, to me. As I don't usually dwell in the TV stuff, I wanted a second opinion to make sure turfing the years would be ok.

--linca^linca 05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Having run into this issue recently, I'd like to thank you for this discussion and add that the fact that fiction is in present tense is a perfect gage for including all stars in cases where the information does not make the list excessively long. Agreed in cases of Lost or ER, but for shorter lists, it is appropriate for all actors to be listed. IrishLass (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Time of Air

Not sure if this is included, should we also have the argument of current air time and channel for the Television Series e.g. House on FOX at Tuesdays 9/8c Gurudatt 14:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think we should. Mostly because wikipedia is not a TV guide, but also because encylopedicly speaking, it's just not that important when the show is being described. Note however that the Channel already is included in the Infobox. (Original channel in the Broadcast section). This is mostly because the Channel can have significant influence on the prodcution team, and often decides when a show will end and that sort of stuff. Another reason i think it's bad to add that info, is because then people will start adding this kind of broadcast information for every international broadcaster, and every scheduled rerun as well. It's just not that useful from an article perspective. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, times are subject to change. Matthew 14:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Colors

Can someone tell me why Veronica Mars has a different background color? Somethingvacant 02:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it's listed in {{Television colour}}, although if it should actually keep that colour can be a matter of debate. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of colors, does anything think it would be better to have an actual color template for the status of the show like many other templates for things? For example:

currently_running	Currently running shows
remake	Shows that are a remake of either a classic television program, or a foreign one
off_the_air	Past shows that are no longer running (not due to premature cancellation) ex. Friends
cancelled	Shows that are off the air due to (premature) cancellation ex. Firefly

I'm sure there could be others, too, but this would add some consistency to the pages, where it seems as though there is none. For a template so pervasive, it just seems weird to have group consensus determine colors based on an individual program. -- Shiori (talk · contribs) 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea seems nice written down, but in actual usage I don't think it would work properly. There *are* shows that make really good use of colours, e.g. The Simpsons. My opinion is that colour, used correctly, truly does increase the quality of the article. Matthew 19:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons color (while burning my eyes) does have purpose, as it's distributes across all Simpsons content. Other things, though (like the three+ colors for Star Trek; why not one?), and just general shows could do better with a color scheme, I think. -- Shiori (talk · contribs) 19:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who added the Star Trek ones.... but they are a bit "icky". Matthew 19:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the Power Rangers series have an associated color or not. Mythdon (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Size

Would anyone mind limiting the image size to something like 220px, like in most other infoboxes? I've seen some ZOMG HUGE pictures making the template excessively wide. (I'd do this myself, but a. I wanted a consensus first, and b. implementing it like other templates would require editing every page with an image to remove the image sizing code. Meh. -- Shiori (talk · contribs) 18:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would. 250px has long been the accepted practice. "Silence equals consent" (WP:CONSENSUS), and I'm not sure what other infoboxes use 220px, but all I've seen use 250px or 300px. Matthew 18:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, though 300px seems a little large. -- Shiori (talk · contribs) 19:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree 300px in an infobox may be too large. If there's no objections you should downsize it on the respective pages, be bold. Matthew 19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommend adding TVIV link to links section.

I recommend we add a link to the wiki at TVIV. Modeled after Wikipedia, it's generally much cleaner and more navigable than the heavily commercialized and high bandwidth TV.com currently included. --Thomas B 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

TVIV... ? I see so much empty information there (people seem to create "template" pages for no reason?) TV.com is notable, but is TVIV? Matthew 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Composer

I added "Composer" to the infobox, because the only thing listed for music was "opening theme", "ending theme" and "theme music composer", but not all shows are restricted to this. Take Smallville for example. The theme music is "Save Me" by Remy Zero, but Mark Snow is the composer for the score that accompanies the episodes during their 42 minute runs. "Theme music composer" wouldn't fit him, because his music changes each episode. So I added a "Composer(s)" section to allow for the insertion of individuals that may not provide the theme for a show, but do other music scoring.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Some shows have official websites from both the network and the production company

For current shows, particularly one's heading for sydnication, there may be more than one "official" website (e.g. Scrubs (TV series)) . I'd suggest adding two additional parameters, such as "network_website" and "production_website"; for backwards compatibility, they could be in addition to "website" although I suspect that the latter is usually the same as "network_website".

Before I may this change, I am looking for better ideas as to the names of these parameters as well as opinions as to whether these new parameters belong in the links section of the infobox or integrated into the broadcast and production sections. Of course, if you think the whole idea is a bad one, waiting before I do it means there's an opportunity to point that out too... 67.101.7.136 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Is this widespread enough to warrant a field in the infobox? The JPS^{talk to me} 01:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. I wouldn't say "some," but in fact "most" shows have a network page and a production page. --linca^linca 03:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it is increasingly common. An alternative approach could be to allow multiple values in the website field with the option to change the displayed text. REALJimBob (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's an optional one up. Rename it if you wish. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I hope its okay, but I reverted your addition. Something is wrong in the code and it was showing up really wonky on article pages (showing [{{{production_website}}} Production website]) and I don't know enough about that kind of code to fix it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also Known As

Some shows have different names in different countries, such as Strange Days at Blake Holsey High being the same as Black Hole High, Ocean Girl being the same as Ocean Odyssey, Don't Blame Me being the same as Don't Blame it on the Koalas and Don't Blame the Koalas etc. etc. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a parameter that can state other names by which a show is broadcast? I'd add it myself, but have absolutley no idea how to, and would probably just break the whole thing... TheIslander 00:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No response from anyone, so I went ahead and added it myself. Fairly sure I got it right - if there's a problem, please let me know. _TheIslander 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture Format

I have a problem with the fact that the picture format is showing both HD and SD formats on many places this template is being used. A prime example is The Office (US TV series). The show is produced in 1080i for HD, which should definitely be listed, but it also lists 480i SD. Although the show is down-converted, the show isn't and has never been produced in 480i. If the show is broadcast at all on an analog station, of course it's being converted to 480i... I'm guessing the intent of this field was to be the NATIVE picture format. The only case I could see listing both formats is in a show like The King of Queens, where the format changed during the show's run. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Banner color change?

Is is possible to change the color of the banner (from blue to something else)? I don't mean changing the default color on this template, but is it possible to change the banner color when used on articles? MITB LS 17:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is - use the parameter '| bgcolour = white', replacing 'white' with whatever you want ;). _TheIslander 18:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The parameter "bgcolour" will eventually be removed as it was deprecated in favour of {{Television colour}}. Matthew 18:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Writer parameter?

I notice we now have a director parameter for use in, mainly British, shows where there was only one director. Could one also be added for the writer? I'm thinking of British shows which often had only one writer like, say, Press Gang or One Foot in the Grave as well as serials such as The Singing Detective or The Quatermass Experiment. Joe King 12:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there needs to be a writers parameter. While many series do have multiple writers, for shows where there is only one writer, and for miniseries (which mostly use the tv infobox), a writers section is really needed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Format not Appearing

Looking at the template, there is the "Format" attribute following the "Genre" attribute. However, when applied such as Ōban Star-Racers, the attribute is not appearing. KyuuA4 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. KyuuA4 05:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It still wasn't appearing at some articles (eg. The High Life (TV series)). I've amended the bracketing to fix this. --Old Raw 08:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Type of program image that should be used

Just asking for an opinion on what the image for the infobox should be. I have been having a discussion with another user (Stickeylabel) and if the right image to use is a screen capture of the intertitle (title card) for the show or a proper logo of the show which is often found in press releases and on official websites. What are your views on what should be used? --Lakeyboy 07:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The title screen should be used unless you have good reason not to (this has long been the standard now). A show can also have several different "variations" of an "official" logo. Matthew 08:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Long been the standard? I believe there is no standard and that it is just what people have adopted to. I have found no word on Wikipedia saying that we should have to use title cards instead of proper logos for television programs. --Lakeyboy 11:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Lakeboy :). I agree with Mathew, in that consistancy should be adheared to. There are few examples of popular television program articles that use non-intertitled infoboxes. The main examples of logos in use, is for television programs that have not aired yet or are not widely known. It would be best to follow the coherent standard that has been followed for years, in order to acheive consistancty with regard to the manual of style. I hope this does not become a long debate, as that would detract from individuals time, of which could be used for more productive purposes. Stickeylabel 11:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lets end this debate. I will now support intertitles being the norm even though I personally prefer logos in their place but I will still upload and use logos until intertitle screen caps can be sourced. --Lakeyboy 05:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Auto thumbnail size?

I've noticed that Template:Infobox film automatically sets thumbnails at 200px for consistency in the size of the posters. Could the same feature be added to this template? Brad 12:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend 245px Jamie jca (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

season number

In the "seasons" section of the infobox, it is unclear if the number should reflect how many seasons have been completed--something along the lines of how many episodes that have aired, as is done for that section--or, if that section is supposed to include a season that may be in current production. I think this should be clarified on the template page, as it isn't consistent along television show articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Rating

TV Rating option has been added with the variable "rated". You can enter "rating = TV-MA LSV" in your templetes, or if you want it fancy, you can use an image, but it needs to be restricted to 50x50 pixels.

Example:
[[Image:TVMA-LSV.gif|50px]]
Final Product:


The gif itself is 100x96 pixels, but you can tell the page to slice it in half by using "50px" or half of the width of the original image as the number.

--Mr Congeniality (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, not all television shows are rated the same thing in every country. This seems like it would promote a bias to a particular country.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to add other country ratings as well, as long as it's 50x50 in an image. Example: TV-MA (USA)<br />14+ (Canada)<br />16+ (Any Country You Want)

Result:
TV-MA (USA)
14+ (Canada)
16+ (Any Country You Want)

There is absolutely nothing bias about this.
--Mr Congeniality (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be a little indiscriminate to list every rating a show receives from all the countries it is broadcast. It's the same reason why the Film Community doesn't list film ratings--er, some people try, but the project itself actually says otherwise--because without context the ratings are only letters and numbers. Why does one show get a TV 14 rating and another gets a TV-MA?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The ratings are however factual and not self-determined, but determined by the network that airs them. Parental guideline ratings should remain on the page to keep a history of how the show was used as such. Mr Congeniality (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The network determines them, but again, by what measures. What makes Smallville's rating different from say Gilmore Girls, or whatever other show on that network? Indiscriminate information has nothing to do with whether or not it is factual, but whether or not it is relevant. Ratings insist meaning, but without context the meaning is lost and the numbers/letters are irrelevant.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't problematic, basically the ratings are there to mark how the network looked at their show, which is non-bias (to the viewer, of course), and documented by the viewer, blah blah blah. Information that is biased is posted on Wikipedia, but usually it's only because it's biased by someone else. Like for example, if Clinton started talking all kinds of mad crap about Monica Lewenski, it would end up as quoted in his biography page on Wikipedia. So that's what it basically is, kind of like a quote from a person who has biased something/someone. I don't think we should really have to worry about this, my only objective here is only to better the quality, not lower it. Maybe we should replace the images with just the letters and have them link to the this page. Or somehow work it out so they understand why that is there.

Mr Congeniality (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't separate the comments by page break lines. You are missing the point, which is the point that is made on the film community. It's the same thing as film ratings. Without context, these are nothing but letters. It's really something that should have been brought up at WP:TV, since it's something that affects the entire community. It doesn't matter if CBS rates CSI as "TV-MA", unless we know why they are rating it that. Ratings are indiscriminate collections of information. Unless there is some controversy surrounding the ratings, they are inconsequential to the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I have made several image files with "D", "S", "L", or "V" at the bottom. D = Dialoge, L=Language, V=Violence. If it doesn't work out that way well enough, then you can just put "TV-14 for Dialoge, Language, Sex, and Violence." Would that work good enough?

Mr Congeniality (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is not context. It's a generic category. A show can be "TV-14" for language, and another show be "TV-MA" for language as well. There is no context to adhere to the letters. That's why film ratings are generally not included in film articles. Only in special circumstances are they, like when a series of films which have generally received PG ratings suddenly receives an R. If you added all the countries in the box with ratings, you could easily have more than half a dozen ratings, which mean absolutely nothing. The US could rate a show stronger based on language and violence, whereas the same show in Australia could be rated much more leniently. Without context it means nothing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Having these kind of ratings in the template is neither necessary, useful, nor desirable. Ratings are arbitrarily decided by the network airing the show, and a show can have multiple ratings if its in syndication. Which one is more "factual" and which ones are more correct? We also can't just say a show is TV-14 for X, Y, Z because not all networks give that information and the main networks that actually use ratings are the broadcast ones. Most cable networks, that I've seen, do not do the ratings thing at all, but still rely on a simple warning screen for possible content problems. Having ratings would be a purely US-centric thing, which is not appropriate as this is NOT the US Wikipedia, but the English one. Feel free to read the entire similar discussion on MPAA ratings at the Film project (with the result being a big no for good reason). AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Renamed channels

What should be used for "Original channel" if the channel has changed name since the show started (for instance, shows on what is now ITV1 that started before 2001)? "ITV (now called ITV1)"? "ITV1 (then called ITV)"? "ITV/ITV1"? (ITV refers to more than that one channel.) — 82.36.30.34 (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd follow Smallville (TV series), which was originally on the WB, but moved to the CW.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you use "ITV1" an editor who specialises in ITV articles will make shouty comments at you. Personally, I just stick to what the channel was known as when the programme was first broadcast and, if necessary, pipe the link (e.g. [[Five (channel)|Channel 5]] for a programme that started in 1997). The WB/CW example is slightly different as the name changed as the result of a merger rather than just a rebrand. Brad (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Show resuming after a hiatus

I noticed that there's one case the current template doesn't account for—when a program goes off the air for a short time and is resumed. I'm thinking specifically of This Week in Baseball.

I was about to add the infobox to that article, but ran into a problem. The series ran originally from 1977 through 1998 in first-run syndication. It was mothballed in 1999, but relaunched for the 2000 season by Fox. This isn't a case like Wild Kingdom, which was revived about 15 years after its first run ended... when Fox revived TWIB, it used the original opening and closing theme music (and still does), and used an animated version of the original host (who had died in 1996), using his actual voice, to open and close the show through 2001.

How would the infobox handle a case like that? — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say missing a year is too much detail for the infobox, but it should be mentioned in the article itself. If there was a big gap of many years then it might be considered two different shows with two separate articles (or distinct sections within one article with separate infoboxes). Halsteadk (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Original air date(s) for single episode

Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible to modify the template so that if "last_aired" isn't specified, the dash before it will not be shown. Currently if a TV show was a one-off, you either have the choice of making "first_aired" and "last_aired" the same (so it will say "31 December 2007 - 31 December 2007") or omitting the last_aired (it will say "31 December 2007 -"). Both look a bit odd! Halsteadk (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Also "Original run" sounds a bit strange for a single episode so if last_aired isn't specified then the title of the field is changed to "Original airing" (best I could come up with - better suggestions welcome!). AlexJ (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks. Halsteadk (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What about "Original runtime". Does that sound good. Mythdon (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To me original runtime sounds more like the length of the episode (1 hour etc.) in it's original form. AlexJ (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Easy infobox color change

I believe there should be an easy way to change infobox color, by having a | infobox color = color | in it. Does that sound good or does that create skittles. Mythdon (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be some sort of uniformity across all the articles, rather than allowing any old colour to be chosen. If colours would be different perhaps they should relate to the format (although tricky to do within the template as this field is just free-text) or whether it is a historic, current or future show. Halsteadk (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by uniformity. Mythdon (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does invoking the variable "bgcolour" allow for the circumvention of this infobox's standardization? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know, but check if it is okay with other users if the "bgcolor" variable can stay. Mythdon (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ohh and if you want to know why "bgcolor" changes the infobox color, that is because somebody had to have added that in the infobox to allow for color changing. Mythdon (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Television other cats?

Are they info boxes for TV news anchors/reporters? I haven't been able to locate one so far. And probably doesn't exist, since, Larry King is under infobox actor. Do let me know if there are infoboxes for this cat.--PremKudva^Talk 11:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay to use Template:Infobox actor television ...oops no, I just read that it is not to be used for news anchors, journalists.--PremKudva^Talk 11:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

First aired vs. premiered?

A question has arisen at Lucy, the Daughter of the Devil over which date to put in the line for first_aired. The show was premiered on October 30, 2005, but the series actually started on September 9, 2007. Which date should we put? The other problem is the text for this field changes. The line in the edit window says "first_aired", which points to 2005. But when viewed normally, it says "original run", which points more towards 2007-present. Maybe we can add an optional line for premiere date? Torc2 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Judge?

What is the relevance of the judge value? NorthernThunder (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Many contest shows have (celebrity) judges. — Edokter • Talk • 17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Game and Variety/Talk Shows need Host and Announcer Options

I tried to add these myself but was immediately reverted. Is it alright to add these? "Presented by" and "Narrated by" aren't really appropriate terms for those types of programs. I think that addition would greatly benefit the template. Snowpeck (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Presented by" sounds like a prefectly appropriate term to me. _TalkIslander 13:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Hosts are referred to as hosts in game and talk/variety, not as presenters. I think the terms need to be added, as I have had a similar problem lately editing a couple of articles. Nicholasm79 (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I think we need these options, particularly for announcer. Narrated by does not work well for announcer, as they are different things. Hosted by would also be an appropriate field, though its not as bad with presented by. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Network

The network field shows as "Original network" which makes me wonder how to deal with shows like Jeopardy!, which has aired on multiple networks during its 40 year run. Right now, the networks are listed with years, but is that the appropriate way? Do we need a premiere network, then other network field? AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a similar question. If a show is gonna switch networks, do you add the new network as soon as it is announced or once the show starts airing on the new network? TJ Spyke 12:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes in cast/crew?

What is the consensus regarding the use of the television infobox? Is it intended to represent only the current or most recent iteration of a television program, or is descretion permitted to allow it to show significant figures from a program's past? On the present version of the infobox for the television sitcom 8 Simple Rules, John Ritter is listed among the cast, even though he was not with the cast for its final season. The infobox for Family Feud similarly lists all the hosts of the show and gives their years; however, it leaves off details for the show's directors, producers, announcers, etc. Is it proper to list the hosts of the multiple versions of a game show, but not its several announcers? How should directors/producers be handled? (Listing directors and producers for all versions leads to bloat, but listing only the most recent directors/producers of a long-running show may give undue weight to staff members who have been with a show for a relatively short amount of time, perhaps as short as only one episode, such as a series finale.) Robert K S (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, an Infobox is more a short summary of the current state of the show, hence would show the current director and producer and such information. Notable former members might be better described in prose within the article itself. However, if a program has had, say, 10 directors I don't see why it would be relevent to describe each one, unless there is a specific reason to.Fritter (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right for current shows, but for "historic" shows, that might be different. In these cases you usually go with the "important" cast members troughout the history of the show or you direct people to a subsection in the page with a link. John was a primary cast member and the episodes were "viewed" from his characters perspective until his death. When I visit that page I personally (as having watched that series) would expect his name to be in that section of the Infobox. There are no rules, it is an editorial decision basically. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Template name

I changed the name to "Infobox Television show" as "Infobox Television" is vague. (Is "Infobox Television" about a make of television, a television channel, television network, ...?) The descriptions of the parameters in the documentation also keep referring to the... show. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming of the core template should be as concise as possible, and the "show" part really isn't needed. There are also several redirects (such as Infobox TV) that point to this template. Moving should not be done unless there is consensus. — Edokter • Talk • 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Some consensus please

Okay, I'm sorry if I was too "bold" in effort to simplify this template's code by using {{Infobox}}. Would people please indicate what's amiss with this version (the one preceding the reversion) so I can then amend it to the consensus' satisfaction. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the problem I found was that the template's stylistic formatting was altered. The alterations made the infobox stick out and not flow with the article in my opinion. Note that I've got no problem with simplifying the code itself. Matthew (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood. What is it, then, you don't like about the version linked above, so that I may amend and then reinstate it? Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the issues I encountered were: font-size was too small (infobox is already set to 90%) and linespacing was too tight. It also seemd to needlessly line-wrap each field name, making the lack of line-spacing even more noticable. — Edokter • Talk • 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My big question is mostly... WHY ? I mean, I'm all for standardizing templates and what not (hell, I deleted a couple of dozen of infoboxes in favor of the then new {{Infobox Television episode}}), but aren't we going a little bit far if we start using one central infobox template ? I mean, that will become boring as hell real soon. The Infobox that was there was good and it worked. If you want to start a new kind of Infobox then I can see the use in {{Infobox}}, but here, I just don't see why you would use it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think using one central infobox template means infoboxes will become boring as hell real soon. {{Infobox}} is more of a central infobox "core" or "skeleton", like Navbox/core. So, like Navbox, Infobox should be easier for people to set up and modify without feeling a growing need for a computer programming degree. Infobox Television (show) isn't such an oddball infobox that it can't be more straightforwardly defined using {{Infobox}} -- at least, that's how it seems to me. Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)