Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Proposal: Add "native_name" parameter

Hi, I'm proposing the addition of |native_name= to the infobox for consistency with Template:Infobox film. Currently the way people indicate a series' native name is to paste the native script into the infobox like at Devathai (2013 TV series) where the Tamil script is pasted on the line below the show's title, but a better way to embrace this (and I think we should embrace it) is to create a unique parameter that allows us to display the name, but perhaps in a less prominent way. See Premam, where the Malayalam script appears underneath the image. The film infobox uses Template:Infobox name module. I think that module has a bunch of different options to it. Other templates use {{langx|ta|தேவதை}} to render Tamil: தேவதை. What do you think?

As for why I think the data is worth including, my reasons are three-fold: 1) It promotes accessibility to the English Wikipedia. People searching for a show in their mother tongue will have the option to read an article here. 2) It makes it easier for Wikipedians to find other references if we have the native script at hand. There are reliable published sources written in a variety of languages. 3) WP:NOINDICSCRIPT prevents the inclusion of Indic scripts in an article's lead, and readers want to put this information somewhere. The infobox seems like the quickest and simplest way to deal with this. The native language is going to get added anyway, so it makes sense to figure out a way to accommodate it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a very good idea to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Support this idea as well. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me too. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend, Geraldo Perez, Favre1fan93, AlexTheWhovian, Adamstom.97, Bignole, EvergreenFir, and AngusWOOF: Any thoughts on this? Sorry for the obnoxious ping, but I didn't want to barrel ahead without getting some more feedback. If we decide to proceed, is there anyone locally who can make the change? Aussie? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any opposition after 9 days so I don't see a problem incorporating it, but I will wait for the others to reply just in case. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I too see no issue with this. Alex|The|Whovian? 04:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOINDICSCRIPT applies to wiki project India only and only for titles using Indicscripts and RfC intent seems to be ownership of which variation of script is correct for a title. Conclusion is to use IPA. Logically if an Indicscript version of the title doesn't go in the lead it shouldn't go in the infobox for the same reasons. Stuff in the infobox should reflect what is in the article proper and if a wiki project India guideline say it shouldn't go in the lead of article in that projects purview it shouldn't go in the infobox of those same articles either. This is separable from the the issue of having |native_name= which I have not objection to, just this cannot be a way around the RfC that relates to Indian articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I also don't have a problem with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I also think this is a good idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fine. It also depends on how complicated the translation is. Some infoboxes as with Korea or China have their own section as with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: - It's interesting you'd bring up Crouching Tiger. The film infobox wants us to use the feature-rich {{Infobox name module}} in |native_name=. If you scroll through the name module template instructions, the sample Infobox is Crouching Tiger. I don't know if that means Crouching Tiger has not yet been changed to use the correct template, or if the community decided to go a different route. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Are there any objections to this? If not, may we proceed? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, Aussie, is there any chance you could monkey with the template to make this happen? I know that Template:Infobox film employs the {{Infobox name module}} template in this field. I don't know nuthin' about this technical stuff, so I don't know if {{Infobox name module|ta|தேவதை}} is better (it's certainly longer) or if {{langx|ta|தேவதை}} is better. Also, if you don't have time, no probs, I can go to The Pump. Don't mean to unfairly dump it on you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Per Cyphoidbomb's VPT request, I've added |native_name= to the sandbox. Please test to ensure that it has the desired effect. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi JJMC89, I tested it here but don't see the result. I don't see that you updated the template here but I see your edits at testcases. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Dammit. Mistyped your name. Sorry! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: I only added it to the sandbox, not the live template. If the testcases look good, I can sync it to the template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Ah. Looks good to me! [1][2]. Thanks for the assist! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Happy to help! Synced and documented. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Italicized show_name

The value of the parameter show_name_2 should be italicized to be consistent with show_name. Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This should do it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done — xaosflux Talk 04:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Xaosflux

Your edit on the television infobox [3] is causing problems in cases like this and this where information about the second title is in parenthesis. Is there a way around this? Could you revert it if there isn't? Grapesoda22 (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22: I undid the edit. @Mdrnpndr: & @MSGJ:, please review. — xaosflux Talk 15:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Xaosflux, we are not generally supposed to make allowances for parameter misuse. Please restore the edit without delay. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Grapesoda22 does this explanation satisfy your concern? — xaosflux Talk 16:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux:Yes it does. Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 Done Restored to version from last edit request. — xaosflux Talk 22:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Deprecated params...

So there are over 14,000 pages that are using the 4 deprecated params (Category:Pages using infobox television with alias parameters). Is there some reason that these params need to be deprecated?? Why not just support both? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

These parameters are not deprecated. I must have added Category:Deprecated parameters in error when I created the cat, which was created to track uses of the aliases. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@User:Zackmann08, @User:AussieLegend: I think the alias category should be deleted entirely. It's essentially a (hidden) badge of shame for using perfectly valid parameter names. Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mdrnpndr: no objection here. I agree entirely. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The category is a maintenance category created in order to identify articles using aliases instead of the correct parameters, primarily targeting articles that have been incorrectly converted from using {{Infobox film}}, not as a "badge of shame", whatever that's supposed to mean. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: setting aside the "badge of shame" comment (which I took as a joke), I'm curious to what end the category was created? Is the hope to convert all these pages over? What is the harm in having the aliases? Just curious. :-) --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
TV articles are a constant battle. Every day I have to clean out Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. Today is a good day, but normally there are 3-10 pages per day (it varies considerably). The alias category helps with that. Normally there's not a problem with aliases, but the fewer aliases we have, the easier it is to maintain Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. However, if we're seeing a trend with strange parameters, there might be a case to add an alias. That's the quick and dirty explanation. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: I'm certainly not advocating adding MORE aliases but with 14,096 pages using these aliases I say just let them be.... --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox title on mobile

I've been noticing for a while now, if I access an article on the mobile site using this infobox, the title above the image does not display. However, film articles do display the title. For comparison, see Spider-Man: Homecoming versus Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Comparing the code for the two infoboxes (this and Infobox film), the only difference I can see is this uses | aboveclass = summary navbox-title and the film infobox uses | aboveclass = summary. That's the only thing I can think of that is preventing this from happening, and such most likely be changed if that is the case. AlexTheWhovian, would you know any more about this given your work on templates? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems it may be the case. I removed navbox-title in the sandbox for {{Infobox television}}, to match {{Infobox film}}, and per the testcases displayed in the mobile format for this template, it does seem to be the issue. However, looking at the testcases in the desktop format, it removes the styling of the header. In the mobile format, it appears that none of the subheaders (e.g. Production, Release) display either, where {{Infobox television}} uses these, but {{Infobox film}} does not. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
interesting. I see that too. At this time, I don't suggest we adjust, because we shouldn't remove that heading styling. Maybe this is a WP:VPT question? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Possibly related discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Why is an infobox using a class intended for navboxes ? Please remember that classes are not just pretty colors, they have semantics. Navboxes are removed from the mobile view, so it shouldn't be surprising that these titles are removed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@TheDJ: Disregarding style and colors, are there any classes that would produce the same results for the headings that are not the navbox variety? I'm don't know anything about CSS options available, so any help would be appreciated. It does also seem like Alex created a work around in the sandbox with these edits to keep the style as is, but with the correct class. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No, in general, we don't define classes for purely visual style and/or for templates that in most page views are NOT used. We just use inline styling (as bad as that is, but there is no other alternative right now). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@TheDJ and AlexTheWhovian: Okay. I was able to get it to work by making these adjustments in the sandbox. Alex, can you edit the live version to make these changes so articles in mobile view will start to be displayed as their desktop counterparts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The changes also have to be made to {{Infobox television season}} and {{Infobox television episode}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 Done Alex|The|Whovian? 00:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if the servers have to update or not, but for checking, the AoS article still does not display correctly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Does for me (screenshot). I did just purge the page. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Yup, good for me now too. I wasn't purging correctly on my device. I'm going to adjust for the season template, and do a template request for the episode one to make the same changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Wonderful! And thanks for the fix at {{Arrowverse crossover episodes list}}; I forgot we'd been using custom infoboxes. I did try to implement the hidden section, but it didn't seem to work. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this is a case where British and American English differ???

I see num_series and "number of series" used. I keep stopping at that. Shouldn't it be "number of seasons"? Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The parameters "num_seasons" and "num_series" both exist. Per the description: "The number of seasons (US) or series (UK) produced. Use one or the other, not both." -- AlexTW 16:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the word "series" is typically used in the UK to mean what US English speakers call "season". In the US, the word "series" typically means the entire run of a show. Hooray for multiple Englishes! – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and your patience- I should have read farther in the instructions, of course, sorry! Schissel | Sound the Note! 00:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Website

Someone can explain to me why in the parameter only the link is seen, but not the text "website".--Philip J Fry Talk to me 00:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) made this edit recently, to display infobox URLs when printing. I see the validity in this, but I'm not aware of a guideline or policy that states this, especially given that almost no other URL (references, external links, etc.) in an article would be printable. -- AlexTW 00:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, AlexTheWhovian. I didn't do it because a policy forced me. A good idea needs no justification beyond the fact that it is a good idea. Of course, in this certain case, in accordance to WP:EDITCONSENSUS, this certain edit of mine is taken to have consensus support because this is general practice in Wikipedia. 181,907 articles are already doing this.
But there indeed is a guideline: MOS:WEBADDR.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I would like this problem to be solved, as it is strange to see a loose URL in the infobox, I would prefer to see the text "website" instead.--Philip J Fry Talk to me 10:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Philip J Fry: Can you please show me an example, so I can better understand about what you are talking? —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
As seen here. In the "External links" part of the infobox.--Philip J Fry Talk to me 11:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I can see both the text "website" and the printer-friendly link. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I think what Philip J Fry is referring to is that previously, instead of the actual URL being visible, it said "Website" for the link name. I believe you're referring to the text "website" as the parameter name in the infobox. I just think, TV editors have been accustomed for it to say "Website" as the link name in the infobox, so it comes off as a bit odd-looking; just need to get used to it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
If they are not going to solve this problem, what is the meaning of this?.--Philip J Fry Talk 00:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Aspect ratio

In response to a message left on my talk page per an edit to Family Guy regarding aspect ratios that, "The picture_format field should be 'the video or film format in which the show is or was originally recorded or broadcast'. Aspect ratios are not a video format." I vehemently disagree, the field is "picture format", not "video format", and there aren't any clear guidelines about what to include and what to exclude. The vast precedent is to include aspect ratio in the technical specs as nearly all shows have that information in their specs. Guideline should be updated to address this. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no such precedent and "most" articles do not include aspect ratios. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Just because editors who don't understand formats have done so in some articles doesn't mean that it should be done in all articles. As I wrote on your talk page, the infobox instructions say the picture_format field should be "the video or film format in which the show is or was originally recorded or broadcast". Also as I wrote, aspect ratios are not a format, they are simply the ratio between width and height of an image. A TV program originally recorded with a 4:3 aspect ratio can be broadcast with a 16:9 ratio by adding side borders. Videos recorded in any format are not locked to a specific display aspect ratios, with limited exceptions like 720p, which specifies a 16:9 aspect ratio as part of the format. Examples of appropriate formats are listed in the template instructions - Black and white, Film, 405-line, NTSC (480i), PAL (576i), SECAM (576i), HDTV 720p, HDTV 1080i. Do not use "SDTV" as it is ambiguous. 1080i, for example, is a video format that "assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9" but the aspect ratio is not part of the format. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I had a discussion with Shiver regarding this on Talk:Stranger Things#Tech specs. I agree with AussieLegend and this addition they made to the documentation on the fact that aspect ratios should not be noted (unless there is something unique/notable in regards to the aspect ratio they are using ie The Hateful Eight, despite that being a film). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
This seems more like of an argument over the semantics, everything described above would be better called a broadcast standard or resolution, format can refer to aspect ratio, e.g. Anamorphic format. Among broadcasters, picture format is defined as “two traits: Aspect ratio and screen resolution”. Per WP:NOTFATRAT, it’s useful information, aspect ratio is as relevant of a technical detail of the visual presentation of a show as resolution or broadcast standard, being one of the few pieces of technical information listed on physical media and guides like IMDb.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

New parameter to separately put co-exec. producers from (main) executive producers

Shouldn't there be a parameter named something like "Co-exec_producers" in case exec. producers and co-execs are credited separately? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 11:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Add them under the same parameter with a note that they're co-execs in small text? -- AlexTW 12:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
"Co- exec." shouldn't really be mentioned in the infobox though. That's why they don't have a parameter, and shouldn't be listed in the "Executive producers" parameter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Imdb?

Why no imdb parameter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.33.162 (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Because it's unreliable per WP:RS/IMDb. Plus it generally goes in the external links section, not the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Doing rid with the 'producer' title in the template and possibly adding a 'produced by' credit

Since the staff writer, story editor, co-producer, producer, supervising producer, and co-executive producer titles are just experienced writing staff whose title often changes per season, the producer title serves no relevance in the template. Also, it might be worth considering adding a "produced by" credit, as it refers to the person operating physical production facilities. If adding the "produced by" credit in the template is not an option, could we at least do rid with the 'producer' title all together? Thanks. ATC . Talk 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

the producer is important as he is the one who makes the director's wishes happen. Executive producer usually find the money.REVUpminster (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
In film, that is correct. However, that's not the case in television shows. The showrunner is the executive producer who runs the writer's room and is key to the success of a TV series. Also see here: http://www.producersguild.org/page/coc_ts and here: http://www.producersguild.org/page/coc_ts_2 ATC . Talk 22:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
BTW, the infobox template for films could use also use the "executive producer" title. ATC . Talk 22:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Open theme

I would like to know what can be done about this, there are telenovelas and series that always change their opening theme a clear example is El Señor de los Cielos and Señora Acero that in each season their main song are changed. Is it correct to mention this in the infobox?--Philip J Fry :  Talk  04:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If there are multiple opening themes (I'd say more than 2), I'd suggest putting in the infobox "see below", which links to a subsequent "Music" section of the article, where the changes to the opening theme can be discussed in more detail. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Bold descriptions to preceded_by and followed_by

Hey all, in this edit I boldly added descriptions for |preceded_by= and |followed_by=, but then reverted myself because I think I screwed up. My additions were:

  • |preceded_by= <!-- To indicate placement in narrative continuity, not time slot. Ex: Star Trek: Voyager was preceded_by Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. -->
  • |followed_by= <!-- To indicate placement in narrative continuity, not time slot. Ex: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was followed_by Star Trek: Voyager. -->

Is that what they're for? To indicate narrative chronology? Or are they just to indicate production chronology? So if Star Trek: Enterprise is a prequel to the 1966 series, we don't care about that, we only care that it was produced after Voyager, thus Enterprise would be |preceded_by=Star Trek: Voyager. Is that correct? I think we need some kind of short explanation for the people who copy/paste the template into new articles. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I would assume "real world" chronology, so "production". So basically TOS followed by TNG followed by DS9 followed by Voyager followed by Enterprise (I guess we have to acknowledge it, although it pains me) followed by Discovery. Which seems to be the way it is used in the Star Trek entries (although apparently I forgot the animated series). —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I would also assume real world chronology, not narrative, as that would be WP:INU. However, that can of course be noted in the article with third party sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You messed up the template by extending the website, because a lot of these shows' websites feature long URLs and ruin the page structures. Please change it back. —Jman98 00:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit so that it can be fixed. -- AlexTW 02:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
As explained at WT:TV, the edit simply used existing code from another infobox to enable suppression of the website in the event that the website at Wikidata was no longer valid. It shouldn't have changed formatting at all. The long url "problem" was introduced in May this year in order to ensure that printed versions of articles displayed the url.[4] It's just something we have to live with. This edit to Daredevil (TV series) messed up the infobox there, by formatting the url in a way that it shouldn't be. When a problem is found the solution is not to hack around the problem, but to fix the problem which, as yet, I've been unable to specifically identify. I haven't been able to reproduce this on any of the computers, tablets or phones that I have here. The infobox code has now been updated to enable hiding an incorrect url, as well as fixing some problems introduced in May, such as incorrect display of the "External links" header in various circumstances. It has been tested at a number of articles and has worked in all of the articles where it has been tested. The strange effect that this created at Daredevil doesn't seem to appear any more either. I assume the whole thing was caused by some glitch today as none of the related templates seem to have been modified recently. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is still an issue. The latest update(s) made still stretches the infobox if the URL is too long. Is there a way to fix this? livelikemusic talk! 03:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed that as well. Any edit pertaining to the website needs to be reverted until it's fixed in the sandbox. We can't just have faulty code live. -- AlexTW 03:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
There's no faulty code. What I changed just added the "hide" option. It doesn't adjust formatting AT ALL. The code is straight out of {{Infobox OS version}} and there are no reported errors there. The code was added to that infobox in October 2015,[5] and that was copied from {{Infobox software}} where it had been working successfully since August 2015. There must be something else going on. Can you give some examples of where this formatting is an issue? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
[6] [7] -- AlexTW 05:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
On my computers (I'm looking on several) I'm seeing the url exactly as it should appear. On my Samsung Galaxy tablet I'm seeing different versions depending on what I've got set. If I call up this page and select "desktop" mode then click on one of the two urls, the urls don't wrap as they should. However, if I then click on the "Article" tab, everything is fine. If I switch to "Mobile view" mode, everything is still fine. I've tried various options and it's only when I'm looking at an old version of the page that the url doesn't wrap. Is there a reason you picked old versions of the page? What does the current version look like to you? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The URL not wrapping (and therefore stretching the width of the infobox) is the issue that's being discussed here. I linked the old versions of the articles because those versions are the ones still using the |website= parameter. I then removed these parameters, so that it would pull straight from Wikidata, and then it wraps properly. It just doesn't wrap when the URL is declared through the parameter. -- AlexTW 05:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you check those urls now please? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Issue seems to be fixed. Thanks. -- AlexTW 06:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, everyone.
I am failing to see the alleged problem at this time. AlexTheWhovian, could you please post a screenshot of your examples?
The problem with the code from {{infobox software}} is that it does not format the plain link. The burden of properly formatting it in a printer-friendly link using {{URL}} is on the writer of the article. So, yes, if someone supply a long bare link, it will stretch the infobox. But I see that AussieLegend has already noticed and deployed a fix.
You guys need a policy for the film and television URLs. Bare URL or formatted printer-friendly link?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem appears to have been the result of a number of issues. Prior to this edit in May we disguised urls i.e. website instead of http://www.example.com After the May edit we saw the full url but it was wrapped by Module:URL. As indicated by Codename Lisa the code that I added doesn't use {{URL}} for the bare website parameter but does for the url pulled from Wikidata. This is not a problem on a computer, but is on some mobile devices and even then, only in some modes. To fix this I've deployed {{URL}} so that it works for people with mobile devices. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone look at Father Brown (2013 TV series) to fix the stretched infobox. It worked and looked beter when it said BBC website and you just clicked on it.REVUpminster (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Ps I've looked at some of my watched pages and many, not all, are stretched.REVUpminster (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The page's cache just needed flushing. That's probably why only some of your pages are stretched. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks but what is flushing. The edit shows you deleted the website yet it is still there after deletion??? This is above my pay grade.REVUpminster (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The simplest way is just to open the page for editing and save it. If you have problems, add a space at the end of a line and save that. Father Brown (2013 TV series) still displays a website because the website is now being pulled from Wikidata. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I think there may still be a problem... if you look at this edit, where the parameter is removed and the website is pulling from wikidata, it renders as so but when the parameter was restored, it renders in a separate "External Links" section, which I assume is as intended. So why isn't the External Links separator/section showing up when it's pulling from wikidata? —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't make sense, for a number of reasons. The simple fix is just to remove the empty fields that don't need to be there anyway. Everything is fine then. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Er... Joey is talking about the missing header. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I realise that. Removing the url from the field and leaving the field is pointless. Removing the field and the url results in the infobox displaying as it should. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that the infobox gracefully handle the cases where the parameter is included but empty as many people copy-paste in stock versions of these templates that probably contain many empty parameters. It sounds like it's not handling these cases gracefully, and there's no reason it shouldn't handle an empty parameter the same as the absence of the parameter. Maybe that's nothing to do with the recent change; wasn't trying to point fingers. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you. It's just that removal of the fields is the quickest and immediate fix until the heading issue is resolved. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Then it should be worked on as soon as possible. Temporary fixes being executed until the main issue is fixed is something that you yourself have previously frowned upon when I made an error. -- AlexTW 22:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Some of us do have lives away from Wikipedia Alex. The problem wouldn't exist if we didn't include a ridiculous amount of flexibility. While almost all other infoboxes simply call the website "Website" the TV project insists on being able to call it something else. Not only that we have a second parameter for the production website, which we also insist has to be able to be called something other than "production website", further compounding the issue. This is a rather insignificant issue in any case. The infobox works fine if you use a manual url or remove the fields for the url. It's only when you do something silly like remove the url and leave the field that there is an issue. Of course there are issues with people using other fields improperly that the infobox doesn't like at all. Every day they appear in Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters, a category that seems ignored by most people. Do you ever fix anything from it? I do. These are generally far more significant problems than this, causing data to disappear from the infobox altogether. If you have a problem there is nothing stopping you implementing a fix. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 September 2017

Please add the following to the instructions for the list of episodes parameter: "Do not link to sections within the article."

The reason is spelled out at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE which says not to link to article sections in the infobox because the table of contents already covers that need. The only links allowed are to other articles. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please gain consensus for your edit, as there seems to be consensus within the Television WikiProject to allow |list_episodes=#Episodes. -- AlexTW 02:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Another link to section is where there is an enormous cast list.REVUpminster (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Plural in "production company(s)" label

Following previous discussions (such as this one) that went nowhere, is there any way that the Production company(s) template label can use logic to work out if more than one company is listed in the parameter (for example by detecting a "|" character), and accordingly change its label to "companies"? — Hugh 01:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ouch... I can't believe I hadn't noticed that. Barring logic, it should be listing "Production company/ies". I mean, I realize the slash is discouraged but that would be infinitely better than what's there now. Or even "Production company(ies)" since that is no less grammatical than "Production company(s)". —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Broken website fetching

The fetching-website-from-wikidata code seems to be broken. If there are multiple URLs at wikidata, then the code concatenates (joins together) all the URLs:

Ideally either only the first URL should be displayed, or all the URLs should be displayed separately as a list. —Sladen (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The code isn't broken as it was never intended to pull multiple urls from Wikidata. There shouldn't be multiple urls for TV programs as it serves no purpose. I've fixed this for The Grand Tour. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
AussieLegend. Multiple official websites can often exist in the real world (for example in different languages). Something is not fixed, unless it's fixed in the code. Rushing in and deleting data [8] as a workaround does not help fix other articles, nor does it protect other articles from future disruption when the buggy code concatenates multiple URLs. In this case it just makes it harder to test the fix as working. —Sladen (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Please try to see the big picture and thing of the one encyclopedia not just one article…
As of yet I haven't found a TV program with more than 1 legitimate website. For this program there were 3, http and https versions of the same website and a page for season 1. All were English language websites. {{Infobox television season}} doesn't include a url in the infobox so the season 1 url was pointless, as was having 2 urls for the same website. There is no point implementing a complicated, unnecessary fix to fix something that isn't really broken. When we find a TV program that actually has multiple websites it can be fixed, but that hasn't happened yet. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
(At the risk of further side-track away from the original bug report … wikidata:Q6805278 is used in combination with the {{official website}} template to display different URLs on enwiki vs. svwiki). —Sladen (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

show_name_2

Please update how this parameter should be used. Only confusions are created, as it is not indicated that bold letters are not used.--Philip J Fry :  Talk  20:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It quite clearly shows bold letters being used. — Film Fan 20:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Obviously a conflict is created, since the default use is italic letter.--Philip J Fry :  Talk  20:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The same thing happens using the language templates. Means nothing. — Film Fan 20:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for consensus on changes to this Infobox

Does anyone think that the "related" category under "chronological" in this Infobox should be changed to include spin-offs of spin-offs? Specifically for example: Chicago Justice is a spin-off of Chicago P.D. which is a spin-off of Chicago Fire however because Chicago Justice is not a direct spin-off of Chicago Fire the current explanation of this category disallows it being included in Chicago Fire's Infobox. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'm all for removing the field entirely. Too often it's used improperly and this is going to get worse. A lot of programs that people call spin-offs aren't really spin-offs at all. An example of a true spin-off is Mork & Mindy. Mork was a character that appeared on Happy Days and was so successful that it was decided to give him his own program. What we see today is characters that are introduced into a series specifically for the purpose of introducing an already planned series. This is what happened with Chicago Justice. The characters were introduced in a back-door pilot. Prior to that episode none had been seen so it wasn't an actual spin-off. However, that's not the worst problem with this field. In many cases programs are added because they are on the same network, of the same genre, produced by the same country and, probably the worst of all, because they have had crossover episodes. At one stage Chicago P.D. had Law & Order: Special Victims Unit listed for this reason. I'd much rather see specific fields like "direct spin-offs", "remakes" etc. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I support its removal, but not because of the reasons you said. But because infobox is not a "See also" section and must not turn the "See also" section into a "see again" section. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: Well saying that a back door pilot isn't an actual spin-off doesn't make sense. Many shows may introduce the characters in a parent series then when the characters do well they do a backdoor pilot before pushing it into an actual spin-off. That's what happened with Chicago P.D. and Chicago Med. Other shows don't have them at all bring them in for a back door pilot the push it right out. That's what happened with Justice. Another example of this is NCIS and NCIS: LA the characters in LA were not in the parent show until the back door pilot but I always consider LA a spin-off of NCIS. I do agree that the field should not be used for crossovers. A lot of people consider "in-universe" to be related but that would start getting out of hand because you would start getting shows like Scorpion in MacGyver (2016 TV series)'s infobox because Scorpion had a crossover with NCIS: LA which had a crossover with Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) which had a crossover with MacGyver. I think a direct spin-off field might be okay for some shows but not for all. For example in the Chicago (franchise) Fire is the parent series and Justice is in the franchise but isn't included in Fire's infobox because of the indirect link. I believe that Justice should be included. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
A spin-off occurs when existing characters within a series are given their own series. For example, The Ropers were existing characters in Three's Company before they got their own series. Even Mork was a character, albeit for a short time, in Happy Days before the decision was made to give him his own series. The characters in Chicago Justice didn't appear in Chicago P.D. before the backdoor pilot. The decision was made to create Chicago Justice before the characters were ever introduced into Chicago P.D. They were never Chicago P.D. characters, they were always Chicago Justice characters. It was a separate TV program that simply shared the "Chicago" banner. That's not a spin-off.
Another example of this is NCIS and NCIS: LA the characters in LA were not in the parent show until the back door pilot but I always consider LA a spin-off of NCIS. - But it's not actually a spin-off. It's simply a program created under the NCIS banner. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: Well technically Jon Seda was part of Justice and although the spin-off was an idea before moving him over he was a character long before Justice was an idea and he did switch over to become a main character on Justice. And I don't get saying that technically its not a spin-off that it just shared the "Chicago" banner because as soon as it started it followed tradition of the other shows with crossovers and character appearances in unofficial crossovers. This is unlike the NCIS (franchise) which doesn't have regular crossovers and character appearances however all the series are still very closely related because its all under NCIS just with individual offices spread throughout the nation. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
That Seda was on Chicago P.D. doesn't mean that Chicago Justice is a spin-off. His character wasn't given his own series, he just transferred to that series. This is the same as the character of John Munch who appeared on Homicide: Life on the Street. When that series ended he moved to Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. That doesn't mean that SVU was a spin-off of Homicide: Life on the Street. As for crossovers and character appearances, they don't determine whether a program is a spin-off. The main criteria for spin-offs has always been that existing characters within a series have been given their own series, or a series with similar themes has been created from the original. An example of the latter is Stargate, where the spin-offs have been followed the same theme, that of people travelling through stargates to distant worlds. In Chicago, each of the series are distinct. The only common thread is that they're all in Chicago. Imagine, for example, an episode of Doctor Who introduces a telephone repairman named Dave who walks into the Tardis by mistake. Dave then appears in his own series about repairing telephones. Is that a spin-off? --AussieLegend (✉) 4:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: (Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you, I've been busy) Well the series are part distinct but not fully they all focus on public services in the city of Chicago they just focus in on the specific areas such as the fire department, police department, medical, and legal. The Wikipedia page about spin-offs even clearly states in the lead paragraph

In media, a spin-off (or spinoff) is a radio program, television program, video game, film, or any narrative work, derived from one or more already existing works, that focuses, in particular, in more detail on one aspect of that original work (e.g. a particular topic, character, or an event).

which is exactly what the Chicago shows do. For example Justice: It's a television show derived from Fire and P.D. that focuses in particular in more detail on the legal system from the original work (which is the Fire and Police department.) so in that sense you could even call Justice a spin-off of Fire and P.D. together if you take into effect the "one or more" part with what I just explained. It also gives examples as a particular topic, character, or event meaning that a spin-off does not have to be a character it can be a particular topic which is are the Chicago shows. Also while we're on the topic of this is "Chronology" the best title for this section of the info-box (I think it would be for the preceded by and succeeded by but it doesn't fit "related shows"). TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to add parameters for co-executive producer, supervising producer, and co-producer.

On a handful of TV articles I read or edit, many staff members, who are usually writers on the series, are listed under the executive producer or producer categories with those titles in parenthesis or with a divider in place which makes the lists more cluttered. I'm proposing these to acknowledge more of the creative contributions to the series, but mainly to reduce said clutter.

In television, especially television under the Writers Guild of America, these producer credits are defined ranks for full time creatives on the series (usually writers, and sometimes directors), and while they can change season to season, so do executive producers and producers. In TV, the ranking goes: co-producer -> producer -> supervising producer -> co-executive producer (entitled rank-ups end here)-> executive producer. Staff is entitled to rank up one every season, which can result in people listed under Producer being removed or modified when the next year they rank up to Supervising Producer. It doesn't seem right to add a person to the defined parameter only to remove them later, so I think it's best to include all the full time producer credits on a series. --Tv's emory (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I would be against this. The infobox is long enough as it is. Those that are being listed in another section with parenthesis should be removed because they aren't executive producers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Bignole. Since, as you pointed out, these people are generally writers on the series, they are listed elsewhere in the article, so it isn't like we are excluding them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Tv's emory makes a valid point which I have thought as well. It does not make sense to only list executive producers and producers. Producers do indeed move up to supervising producers and co-executive producers. And they are not always listed elsewhere. I would not add co-producers. Perhaps the infobox should be limited to executive producers, co-executive producers and supervising producers, the three top ranks. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove genre parameter

The genre parameter is redundant since the genre is already mentioned in the lead section of the article. Furthermore, listing genres is very subjective unlike the other fields. Take a look at Infobox Film, which doesn't have a genre parameter. -- Wrath X (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The lead and infobox perform similar functions, i.e. they summarise key features of the page's subject. Being in the lead doesn't mean that we don't include it in the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I previously proposed removing the genre parameter as it was typically a cruft magnet for children to add every descriptor they felt their favorite series embodied. "Comedy, drama, dramedy, black comedy, surreal, fart humor" etc. I'm still not a huge fan of the parameter, but since we've added requirements in the instructions that genre must be sourced and limited to a set # of descriptors, I'm slightly less inclined to remove it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Whitespace consensus?

Really quickly, I've reported an an issue at Phabricator about Wikipedia's Visual Editor, because it seems to be stripping whitespace from film infoboxes by default like here, which results in parameter being pulled out of alignment.

Do we have any type of community preference for how the infobox parameters are aligned? I know some people (like myself) prefer this: 

| director        = Sally Roe
| cinematographer = John Doe
| editor          = Dave McBoatface

Whereas some of us prefer this style: 

| director = Sally Roe
| cinematographer = John Doe
| editor = Dave McBoatface

Since this varies from article to article, I assumed it was kind of a local consensus matter. If that's the case, then it's kind of annoying that Visual Editor is stripping out the whitespace by default. I'm not technically proficient, but from what I can tell of the Phabricator responses, if this is something we don't care for, we'd need to change some aspect of the template markup to instruct Visual Editor to prefer option A, or to prefer option B, or maybe there's another option to tell Visual Editor not to screw with the parameter alignment at all? Technical whizzes welcome. (Also, if you notice that this message also appears at Template:Infobox film, that's because it's happening with that template as well.) Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I personally don't have a preference either way. Generally I probably gravitate towards option B (non-uniform whitespace) just for simplicity and ease of creating, but I don't have anything against option A, or users who come through and adjust articles with option B to option A. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the code that forces block formatting per the instructions given at the link that Cyphoidbomb provided. *stifles the urge to rant about how much Visual Editor sucks* --AussieLegend (✉) 19:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Aussie, that'll at least quell some of my frustration. To Favre1fan93's note, I think we're all mixed on how the markup should be formatted. I prefer the bulkier, but neater markupt, but I think we generally agree that if something's been one way forever, it shouldn't be changed by the frickin' Visual Editor. I have a cross-post of this at Infobox film. If anyone cares to comment on how it should be remedied, that'd be nice. Thanks all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I've fixed it there as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Presenter: " Years or seasons should not be included."

Why is this the case? It is a violation of clarity, as it implies that all the people listed are presenting the show at once. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It is similar for non-reality series, with cast members. We don't list in the infobox the seasons they were a part of the series. The infobox is meant to give a general overview of the article. Specific info regarding when a presenter was a part of a show can be clarified in the body of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No. of episodes + aired?

4meter4 (talk · contribs) just brought up a good point on ANI about the issues we have about episode counts in the infobox, where we get silly edit wars because of good-intentioned users changing the number of episodes before they come to air (and especially on the soap articles this is the major issue with this template). The heading is called num_episodes/"No. of episodes", but I feel it should be "No. of episodes aired" so that the field is fully transparent. Are there any objections or concerns about this proposal? Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The streaming services "drop" all eps of a series on the same date. They are then available for "airing" for any of their customers. Thus, there are no problems with the proposed wording. Having said that it is also possible to create a different field to handle streaming service programming - perhaps "number of episodes released" is one possible wording for it. MarnetteD|Talk 03:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that, just like you can use num_seasons or num_series to produce "No. of seasons" or "No. of series" respectively for the relevant region (series used in UK, seasons used in U.S. and others) -- Whats new?(talk) 03:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
MarnetteD, not all online series; The Grand Tour (TV series) is "dropped" weekly. —Sladen (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose For soaps where the episode count is difficult to track you can always throw in an As of date: e.g. 325 as of November 28, 2017. Other shows have weekly bumps so it is not a big deal to update those on the day it airs or releases. The contention is that people want to fill in the total number of episodes planned like they do with the series finale date. I would suggest an embedded note in the infobox reminding the editor not to put in the total numbers or bump the episode count until it has aired or released in its first main run. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this doesn't fit with the purpose of limiting the number in the first place. The reason we don't increase the number until after the episode airs is because we need proof that it exists, which we could technically get before it is aired. So changing the name to specify that only episodes aired should be counted changes the nature of the parametre, and I'm pretty sure that is something people will want to discuss, with all the facts in hand, before we go ahead and do it. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – the "aired" vs. "released" concern is a red herring... we already adjust the wording of various other TV templates to use "aired" or "released" as appropriate for those sticklers who just cannot handle using "aired" in a less restrictive sense. There's no reason we couldn't similarly adjust the wording to present "No. of episodes aired" or "No. of episodes released" as appropriate. Or, you know, "No. of episodes available" —Joeyconnick (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The field has never been strictly just for the number of episodes aired/released. We don't list episodes before they air primarily because of WP:CRYSTAL, plenty of episodes have been pulled from the schedule but that doesn't mean that unaired episodes can't be listed in certain circumstances. In fact we made changes about 3 years ago so that the instructions now say "An inline citation is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired, such as in the case of a show being cancelled." One article that uses the field in this way is The Playboy Club, which was cancelled after 3 episodes had aired but 7 had been produced. Back in 2010 the instructions had said "The number of episodes produced (a reliable source is required if greater than the number aired)". --AussieLegend (✉) 12:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Wait, AussieLegend, shouldn't The Playboy Club actually list "7 (4 unaired)" (i.e. for 7 total episodes produced) rather than "3 (4 unaired)"?! I find the latter way of handling this confusing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes it should, and it did the last time thatI edited the article in February 2016.[9] This edit changed it inappropriately. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - With respect to the previous comments, I don't believe that listing the upcoming episodes (with the reference noting such) is actually the opposite of WP:CRYSTAL. Also the very fact that some episodes of series have been produced but never aired is of encyclopedic value (such as the unaired Wonder Woman, Bruce Wayne and Aquaman pilots, amongst many, many others). The only reason I would consider changing my vote is if there was an effective way to note this within the infobox, which is in fact the most distilled form of the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I've misread what you're saying but you seem to support the inclusion of upcoming episodes or episodes that wer produced but not aired. If this change were to proceed then it would not be possible to list these in the infobox at all. The field would completely change meaning from what it is now and many articles would be incorrect. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per AussieLegend. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – It has been standard practice to only list the number of episodes that have aired in the infobox for a long time. Additional information can be mentioned in other parts of the article, such as in the series overview table or in prose. For web series, we can simply have a |released=y parameter, which would change it from "No. of episodes aired" to "No. of episodes released". nyuszika7h (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
That's not telling the whole story. It has also been standard practice for just as long to list all of the episodes for cancelled programs where we have a reliable source that confirms the production of episodes that weren't aired before cancellation. Again, I point to The Playboy Club as an example. This field is actually "Number of episodes produced", and always has been, but we don't include "produced" in the label or code. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No need for a different label and alternate parameter for released series, etc.; it just complicates things. Just add a hidden note next to the episode count; <!--Only increment as a new episode premieres, per the documentation of the template!--> has always worked for me. No need to fix what isn't broken. -- AlexTW 10:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Planning

Can Planned by be added as parameter? Or can we continue using "Created by" and "Developed by"? The South Korean infobox has it and a lot of articles (TV series articles) use it. Manly, a planner is a production manager that oversees the production company and help it plan the work. He is not part of the production company or it is an entire different company that help plan everything before the production company start shooting. So far people have been using "Created by" and "Developed by" since there is no "Planned by". May question is, which is the correct parameter for this? CherryPie94 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CherryPie94 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Website parameter

The website parameter is still acting funky. I know this has been discussed before (see archive 10) but can this still be fixed? To recap: when the website parameter is included in the infobox with no URL, it appears like this (with no Website header) but when you remove website param or manually enter the URL, it appears correctly with the Website header. Should we simply be removing the website parameter then and just let Wikidata do the work? Which brings me to my second question: what do we do with dead links for official websites (24's is currently a dead link). Do we remove them completely or try to archive them? The problem here, in my opinion, archive links can be fairly long (and ugly looking) for the infobox, and usually there's thousands of captures, so what decides what date we use. So, can we hide the parameter for shows where their official website is dead? Might be best to leave the archived link in the external links section and maybe just use a link like this for an example. I've been wanting to do an external link clean-up on the articles in my watchlist, but I want to know what the protocol here is first. Thanks guys. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Presumably you can hide the website (set website=hide). I would add that it appears that the website url can distort the infobox badly - [10] (the width is over twice the normal size in my browser), once you set website=hide, this is how it appears - [11]. Perhaps it should be defaulted to hide. Hzh (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
It used to be that no actual url was displayed. Instead, just "Website" and "Production website" were display. That was changed with this edit. Given the number of excessively long urls I think the previous situation was better. The url may not have been visible in print but what use is "drama.ch7.com/detail/14011/%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%99_%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%B1%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%9C%E0%B8%B2.html#ad-image-0" in a printed document? --AussieLegend (✉) 21:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps just undo that edit by Codename Lisa? It appears to be causing unnecessary problems. Hzh (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it needs to be said that Wikipedia is primarily meant to be read online, and something that is meant to be read in print is good only if it doesn't affect how the the work is displayed online. The url displayed should not be allowed to distort the infobox so badly. Hzh (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the previous implementation Aussie mentioned was the better use of what the field was meant for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I also agree that the previous version of the field was better and that the edit should be reverted. - Brojam (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done -- AlexTW 02:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Not quite. Your edit removed the code that ensured the "External links" header still appears when the infobox automatically pulls the website from Wikidata and |website=hide no longer works. Instead, "[hide Website]" is displayed. I've fixed the header problem but not the |website=hide issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Issues with inserting website address

Please see [12]

Hello, there seems to be an issue with inserting a website URL for this page. I tried using the {{url|...}} template (in the form | website={{url|itv.com/prizeisland}}, but it displayed square brackets either side when previewed, and showed the link next to the word 'website'. Is this an error with syntax or the template?

As it goes, the link should have been removed from this particular page anyway—I just thought I would bring it here in case it was causing errors elsewhere. –Sb2001 17:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC) PS: I think this is different from the case presented previously. I have never encountered this problem anywhere else.

|website=http://www.itv.com/prizeisland seems to work fine.[13] --AussieLegend (✉) 18:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Is it that http:// is needed? Otherwise, I am dumbfounded. Thanks for looking into it, though. –Sb2001 18:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

network= parm w/ empty value caused channel= parm to be ignored

topic says it all. Simply noted for others that may run across it. Ahwiv (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Narrator

I have come across different articles that list the narrator using the actor's name while others the character's name. Which one of this is acceptable. I have read the guidelines and I found that specific section not really specifying the correct way of formatting.

Thank you in advance. Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 13:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It should be the actor. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Co-Producers and Co-Executive Producers

Co-Producers and Co-Executive Producers are high ranking members of a TV Show's crew and often lead the direction of the show as well as make decisions about the show's story line. It has been disputed by many that Co-Executive Producers do not belong in the Executive Producer list and that Co-Producers do not belong in the Producer list. If Co-Executive Producers have a higher ranking that Producers, shouldn't they have a spot in the info box? Shouldn't Co-Producers get recognition for their hard work on a TV Series? Is there anyway we could possibly start adding Co-Executive Producers to the Executive Producer list or that we could make a separate Co-Executive Producer section? (Editor.ww.wentz (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC))

Co-Executive producers are more times than not also writers on the series/season, so they get recognition elsewhere. Additionally, as far as I've seen, Co- credited individuals never get higher ranking than non Co- credited individuals. As you said yourself, this has been discussed before and I don't see any new reason or push for their inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Some Executive Producers and Producers also serve as writers while some Co-Executive Producers don't serve as writers. It makes no sense to credit producers but leave out Co-Executive Producers who are clearly rank higher and do more for the show. WGA ranks Co-Executive Producers and Supervising Producers below Executive Producers but above Producers. Refusing to give them credit is like crediting the president and the regular cabinet but leaving out the Vice-President. Starforce13 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not entirely true. If it was "executive producer" then yes, you're correct. "Co-executive" is really more honorary than practical. Tom Welling received "co-executive producer" credit for season 9 of Smallville as part of his new contract. It was honarory, nothing more. It allowed them to pay him more. In season 10, he became an actual executive. That's why he wasn't listed until season 10 in the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

For reference’s here’s the Producer’s Guild guidelines on positions including Co-Executive Producer. Larrybob (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Narrator" field

Many shows, such as talk shows and game shows, have voiceover talent that is more commonly referred to as an "announcer" than a narrator. For instance, Jim Thornton's article refers to him as the "announcer" of Wheel of Fortune, and the text of that article refers to all of its voiceover talent as "announcers". Is there a way that the "narrator" field can be modified to use "announcer" instead in instances where that is the more common term? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Why did this need to be a formal RFC instead instead of an actual discussion? -- AlexTW 05:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Because the last couple times I've brought it up, no one even said a peep. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the only time that you brought this up was 6.5 years ago.[14] You could have just opened a normal discussion after such a long time and, if it went nowhere, then you could have opened an RfC instead of just jumping right into one. Eight previous discussions have failed to reach a consensus to make your desired changes. For the record, the following discussions seem relevant:
I don't think I missed any but it's possible. The last was an RfC that closed with no consensus to change the template. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm in favor of your suggestion and for the same reasoning. Ping me if this ever gets to an actual vote as I've already been through this discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

why should Years and Seasons not be included and are there any exceptions to this?

Hi, Is there an exception to the rule 'Years and seasons should not be included for TV presenters For example: A show that is fronted by one presenter has had more than one presenter during it's lifetime (A presenter has stepped down and a new host replace him/her or the show has been revived but with a new host ) an example of this is Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? (UK version) which recently had a week long revival for it's 20th Anniversary with Jeremy Clarkson hosting since it's Original host Chris Tarrant stepped down in 2013 (when the show was subsequently axed). So can I add which version each one hosted to avoid confusion amongst people? Also is there a reason that years should not be included

This has been discussed at length by multiple editors and the short answer is that there aren't any exceptions. Not everything needs to be jammed into the infobox, which has limited space and is not a replacement for the entire article. If presenters or cast have had certain tenures, this should be discussed in the body of the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

missing categories

Hello! I was hoping we could add 2 categories to the Infoboxes on television and movies? I'm requesting that below or above Cinematography - we add ...

Production Design

Costume Design


Both are important elements to the overall look of the show or movie. A lot of production and costume designers have extensive wiki pages, so it would be great to include everyone on the Project page infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smashinga (talk • contribs) 14:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Programming blocks

Can anyone modify this template so it can also cover programming blocks? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 11:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Start and end dates

Hi, should we be listing series that have had a few years gap and have come back as a revived format. For example Dancing on Ice finished in 2014 but then returned in 2018, so should we list the start and end dates separately? MSalmon (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The start date is the first date that the first ever episode aired. The end date is the first date that the last ever episode aired if the program has ended. If the series is still airing, which includes revived series, then the end date in the infobox is "present". This has previously been discussed and is in the instructions for the infobox. Your most recent edit to the Dancing on Ice infobox was quite correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
What if the show has had a name change i.e. The Million Pound Drop to The £100K Drop MSalmon (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

Please add to the top: 

   {{redirect|T:ITV|the ITV navbox|Template:ITV}}

or the template namespace equivalent. Because this template lists T:ITV as a shortcut while {{ITV}} is its own template. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is generally better to add things like this to the documentation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: - Shortcuts are added to the documentation as indicated by MSGJ and there is already a shortcut at the top of the documentation subpage. There is therefore no need for a shortcut in the template itself. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_television/Archive_10&oldid=1253844647"