This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Infoboxes This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles Television This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles

This template presently uses terminology associated with linear broadcasting, which makes certain applications in the streaming era feel a bit incorrect. Is Disney+ or Netflix a television network? No, it is not, it is a streaming service. Is it a broadcaster? To an extent, and in certain countries, they sort of are. But either way, the use of "network" in this context feels outdated and not reflective of the current multi-platform nature of television programming. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your proposal. Replace with what? Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was opening this thought for discussion for what would be best appropriate. I would prefer to find a consensus first. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing can be trivially solved by substituting via a new parameter like "streaming premiere = yes", which would replace "Network:" to "Streaming service:". Or another option is to simply change the label to "Premiered on:". But the problem is that the template itself is called "Television" and probably something should be done with that too, considering that it is been used for web series for quite a long. Solidest (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no idea if this is possible, but could do something like if network is set to a streaming service, then automatically change network to streaming service, so don't need to manually add that parameter Indagate (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the easiest is to add |streaming= which if used instead of |network= will change the label to "Streaming service". Gonnym (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one parameter that suppresses the display of another and creates the presence of parameters hidden in the code is always a messy solution tho. Solidest (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite easy to do for a single service listed, but also not really optimal, because you will have to specify in the code a full list of all possible names and make the code heavier if (1) several services are listed at once, (2) service changes the name that requires regular code updates (but the list could be maintained in the separate sub-template), (3) clean different spelling variations - such as refs, year ranges or other notices. For simple cases when there is only 1 wikilinked service listed the solution will look like this:

{{#switch:{{lc:{{delink|{{{network|}}}}}}}|netflix|hbo max|max|hulu|...hundred of others...=Streaming service|#default=Network}} Solidest (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This all feels unnecessary. Readers understand what a "network" is, whether you are watching it on linear broadcast, cable, or through streaming. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Favre1fan93 that this is a solution looking for a problem. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be opposed to having a list that we need to maintain. Gonnym (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for me on both counts. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Premiered on" option is the best option. It's neutral, and makes sense ("premiered on NBC"/"premiered on Max"/"all episodes premiered on Netflix on (date)"). ViperSnake151  Talk  00:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is first air date release now? Shouldn’t release only be for streaming and not aired on television? It should be original air date right? 120.28.248.11 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even before the latest changes its text said "Original release" so no, it isn't a new thing. And personally I don't find any compelling reason to change it. Gonnym (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gonnym. Was going to state the same thing. The parameter label never stated "aired" previous, though users can still used the |first_aired= and |last_aired= parameters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder it used to be original release if it's on the first aired date. why is it only release now which is the same as a streaming series released which is also called released on the infobox? 216.247.18.33 (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be called "Original release" for all situations. It's now been changed to "Release" since it's now under a header called "Original release". If you have a suggestion for a better name feel free to propose it. Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bug in the infobox with |alt_name= which I fixed here. The infobox will now place the value of the text in italics if it is singular. When it is plural it won't, as lists can cause lint errors. These will need italics to be manually added.

Additionally, if the value has disambiguation (such as Another name (1999)), the template will handle it so only the text outside the parenthesis is in italics.

I'm working on a tracking category for the plural cases so those can be fixed.

Testcases can be found here. Please let me know if you see anything that needs to be fixed.

I'll update the live code in a few days if no issues are reported. Gonnym (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An issue that probably will arise and will need fixing, is that if an alt title already uses italics, it will now have 4 ' and will be in bold with an extra one on each side. Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tracking category can be added to the |plural= section of the Pluralize template transclusion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll probably add a tracking category to find plural usages that need fixed. Those are done over at Module:Infobox television as the logic gets more complicated than template syntax can handle. I just need to think how best to catch entries of a list (still hoping to find some template or module out there that will save me writing that code:) ) Gonnym (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, code written to handle plurals without italics and singular with italics. Will make this code live this week. Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Seasonal shows Like Bigg Boss , It is best to add slogan of the season as the image caption in infobox television. For Long time it used to be like that, but yesterday one of the member removed slogan from all edition of Bigg Boss in multiple languages. I Request all Members to propose their suggestions below. Alen Hermen (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add a bit information to this. This discussion was supposed to be held at Template talk:Infobox television season and not here as it concerns that infobox. Regarding the actual issue, the slogan was used inside |caption= resulting in information that is not relevant to the image at all (a standard Bigg Boss logo). This has also MOS:ACCESSABILITY issues as we're setting screen readers to give incorrect information to their users. I am the editor that removed this usage which was used on exactly 10 articles. Gonnym (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The slogan strikes me as off topic. At best it's irrelevant, and at worst it's WP:PROMO. If the slogan has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it can be covered in the body of the article itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym's point about accessability makes a lot of sense. I see no reason to include it as a separate parameter, and it would be ripe for abuse were it included. I'd be a hard "oppose" if this came up for official discussion/comment. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question regarding {{infobox television}}, seeking input from experienced television editors and template editors. Suppose a show is co-produced (i.e. funded) by an American company like CW, but it's entirely produced/filmed in Canada. When it airs simultaneously in Canada and the US on different networks and (possibly) different air dates, what's the appropriate protocol for listing the |network= and |first_aired=/|last_aired= values? Should we use |network= and |network2=, or would it make more sense to use a plainlist for the multiple networks (considering it's essentially simultaneous, not a reboot or network change)? ButlerBlog (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the show is a co-production then use plainlist. If it was just produced in Canada that doesn't mean anything. Arrowverse shows were filmed in Canada but they are only American. Gonnym (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gonnym. That confirms what I was thinking. Here's another one that's related: Children Ruin Everything. In this case, Roku and the CW appear to just be international distribution. My presumption on this one is that it should just be CTV as they are the original network in the country of production (Canada). The others are just picking it up for international distribution. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the show so no idea. I found in the last few months of fixing networks and dates that this is one of worst cases of unverified information in articles, because sometimes it even has a source which makes it seem valid and it still isn't. Children Ruin Everything specifically mentions only Canada in the lead and in the infobox, so that seems to mean that it is only CTV. In any rate, the lead, infobox, body and categories should all match. Gonnym (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

<thumbs up icon here> Thanks! ButlerBlog (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has come up previously in the archives, however, it is often related to Co-EP listing on narrative TV shows that often use the credit for writers (who are also listed elsewhere). In documentary TV series, the Co-Executive Producer is most always used to denote the showrunner. Therefore, it seems fair to include that as a separate credit available in the info box. The co-executive producers are more creatively involved and responsible for the series on all levels than producers. The omission therefore overlooks a key role in these types of productions. 2600:4040:912F:B200:99B1:B552:3710:54CE (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion - and one that I do not share. If it's a "key" role, then discuss it in the article's prose - specifically, the "Production" section, where it can be given proper context. If you're concerned about the exclusion of "key" information, then add it to the article - there's nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from making sure it's covered. But it doesn't need to be in the infobox. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This formatting can just make infoboxes look messy. Why do we need multiple dividing perimeters? It creates clutter and it will confuse readers. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way would this change on Futurama be messy? It's giving more clarification to the series' run, as the show was cancelled multiple times. The way it is now because of your revert gives the sentiment the series was never cancelled, similar to Family Guy. Just because you "seriously hate" the changes does not mean Chimatronx or I were being "disruptive". Nyescum (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally thought the new format was a great change that tidied up the infobox for shows with complicated network histories, rather than having a list of networks with dates in parentheses, and made the release date parameter much more useful for those shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could the headings for those be changed though, with heads like “first network”, “original release”, “second network”, “second release”, “third release”, etc. Would that make things less confusing? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not confusing though. Gonnym (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How? It's literally terms “network” and “release” repeated over and over again. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data is read top bottom left right. So it's not “network” and “release” repeated over and over again, but it's "network" and the network name, then "release" and the date range. Then repeat. When read like this it's very clear that for a show like Futurama, it was first released on Fox between March 28, 1999 – August 10, 2003, then released on Comedy Central between March 23, 2008 – September 4, 2013, then on Hulu between July 24, 2023 – present. I still don't see what is confusing about this. Gonnym (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can there be some form of rename for them to give more context for readers? Just having them say “network” and “release” on repeat can confuse some readers, so if a certain show was cancelled and revived several times, why not for them, “original network”, “original release”, “second network”, “second release”, etc. Shows that lasted for one run can keep the “network” and “release” formatting. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you get consensus for that change it can happen. I personally feel that saying "second network" when it's obvious its the second is redundant. It's also probably (as it should) be explained in the article itself. Gonnym (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting @MrScorch6200: in this discussion as he was the one who thought that this change was necessary. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A minor caution: if the first network is left out, as in this test case, the infobox still displays properly. Anyone attempting to code the sandbox to show "second network" or similar labels should ensure that that test case displays properly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the change was necessary because it brings much more clarity to when and how a specific series may have aired across revival runs. Revived series are much more common now than years ago and differentiating that a series ran, say, twice on two different networks shouldn't be confusing to a reader but give them more accurate information. Most people almost always look at infoboxes and it's important that the information contained in the infobox is short yet accurate. Stating that a series like Futurama ran from 1999 - present is not accurate. The general consensus was that this change was useful and pretty well-received.

However, I do agree that some may view the change as adding clutter to the infobox. It may be helpful to discuss how we can reformat this section in the infobox to be more visually appealing and group together the information better. It could be as simple as reworking the "network" parameter and somehow including it with the "release" parameter so that, visually, the network appears next to/with the release dates (whether it would look better on the left or right is up for debate) rather than in a different section. This would group together the information and make it easier to quickly digest rather than having to look at two different lines in the infobox for information that is directly related. Someone who does a lot of syntax work should take a look at if this is feasible (perhaps @Gonnym). Scorch (talk | ctrb) 16:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox is a table, which means you are basically reading

Parameter	Value
Network	1999–present

The infobox is never meant to have both the parameter name and its data on the same side. Gonnym (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean specifically is that the network and air date for a single run may both be able to appear together in the same cell of data instead of two separate cells. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 19:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea you have. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is common sense. The "second network" parameter could create problems such as some editors claiming a secondary network (as in just broadcast reruns) as an "original" "second network". — YoungForever^(talk) 01:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is another reason why I do personally believe this formatting can get some rework or get removed from the template entirely. Besides, the formatting can cause editors to add in rebroadcast networks even if this template stays as is, since the table just says "network". BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest a simpler solution? Keep the current layout but insert a horizontal rule just before the 2nd network (and 3rd, etc). Then you get a visual cue that the multiple "network" and "release"s go together in pairs.  Dr Greg  talk  02:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to see a mock-up of this as it could be a big improvement. I think the current format takes some getting used to, but I struggle to formulate a clearer display idea. — Bilorv (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with current format. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with what Greg suggested. Why do some users see multiples as not a problem is beyond me. And besides, is Wikipedia not reliable anyway? Sure this website can serve as a helpful source, but it's still a wiki where anyone can collaborate to keep in mind. This is why having more detail can make us think we are reliable but were not! I maybe just a person who have different beliefs, but just gaining more detail to something is not a good option, and besides, some have said that this wiki is filled with lies, so can we just keep a more simplified direction to make sure that edit wars are less apparent? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bizarre comment. We shouldn't attempt to improve the infobox display because Wikipedia is full of lies? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars are easy to get into when editors simply think that they're right about a certain issue. After years on Wikipedia, I have learned that usually neither editor is wholly correct. Usually, and ideally, there's some middle ground for a good solution. That's how consensus generally works here, and that's why other editors love to chime in. Edit wars are a necessary evil -- that's how we have developed and applied consensus on numerous issues.

The reliability of Wikipedia has no bearing on this change or improvement. We're simply talking about

better-displaying information that we already know to be verifiable, we are not contesting the validity of the information. There's no dispute that Futurama was cancelled and revived. The infobox should display that fact. That information is already included in the article itself and the recent change to the infobox simply made the display of revived series' runs more uniform and clear across the encyclopedia. You're always welcome to restart a discussion on this.

However, I believe that you have a valid point that the current format may appear as cumbersome on some pages. Yet, this is only a very, very small amount of pages that are affected and in the grand scheme of things isn't a huge deal. Still, the format may be able to be improved but I don't think other editors are as pressed about it. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 16:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize about the ramble. It's just that some users have a different mindset compared to me, though I do still believe that the formatting can be improved, as long as consensus is involved. I'm not trying to harass anyone over this, and try being in good faith. But it can be difficult sometimes if what you see as an improvement will be disagreed by others. It's hard to handle with, and since Wikipedia is very popular on the internet, I do believe an improvement has to be made, as long as most users are comfortable with the change. As of now, it may depend when this formatting issue will be improved, which I do hope will happen. Just not right now, but someday it will… BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Greg and Bilorv: See here for an example of horizontal rules added. Should there get support for this, I'm not thrilled with how I coded it in the sandbox, so we'd have to explore that aspect. But this is your visual representation for the time being. I don't hate this and thing this would be helpful myself. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant, and I like it.  Dr Greg  talk  17:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is significantly clearer—thanks for the mock-up! — Bilorv (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been as active at the moment, but I'll see about reworking the code when I have the chance. Gonnym if you have a moment (no rush) and want to see what I did in the sandbox and any thoughts to make that cleaner/better implemented, be my guest. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do support this as an improvement, as shows can get cancelled but revived suddenly all the time. Though maybe to reflect the change, maybe add an "s" next to the original release text so the runs can get differentiated. However, some shows that had been cancelled but revived still happen to air on the same network it was originally on like Family Guy and The Fairly OddParents, so for those shows a different format might be needed for them. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another test case for the sandbox to illustrate this case: Template:Infobox television/testcases#Without second network but with second release date  Dr Greg  talk  01:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I would like to have readers get more context for the "Release" table, like with adding in names like "First run release" and "Second run release". This is to make more of a distinction between an original run and revival run on one original network. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no consensus for that as the current format naming is of no issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can wait to hear what others think though, if they support or oppose. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code updated to account for Dr Greg's new test case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current code is misusing a data cell to add no data at all. That is not valid usage. I'll give it a look this week and see how to add a line without misusing table syntax. Gonnym (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was looking at the {{Infobox}} documentation that uses dashed lines in their example as a way to possibly do this and that used a data cell so tried replicating it here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the last changes by @Favre1fan93 on 27 Feb, because now we have a subsection with no network, which seems confusing: the show apparently just spontaneously released itself without any network. I would prefer it if that change were undone, but instead, when there's a release date with no corresponding network (implying the same network as the last), you just omit the label "Release" from the left-hand column. So you get two (or more) release-date-ranges with a single "Release" label to cover both of them.  Dr Greg  talk  22:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained above, the infobox is a basically a table. A table needs to be accessible to readers using assisted technology. As far as I'm aware (and feel free to correct me with an example), there is no way to have a rowspan inside an infobox, meaning that we can't say "network1 is for both release_date1 and release_date2". That means that we can't do what you are asking for. Gonnym (talk) 11:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that explanation; I understand and accept the point you are making. I suppose, then, in these circumstances, you could put both {{{release_date1}}} and {{{release_date2}}} in the same cell, although the coding to achieve that might be more difficult, and maybe not worth the effort.  Dr Greg  talk  12:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support Favre1fan93's testcase version. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: the problem I felt with doing this, was visually, the hr does not span the entirety of the infobox, which I think is a better visual indication than just under the dates as is happening now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe @Izno might be able to help here. Do you know how to visually create a hr without using an empty data cell to hold no data? Gonnym (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know {{infobox settlement}} has horizontal lines within it: see Template:Infobox settlement/doc#Examples, you might be able to work out how it's done there.  Dr Greg  talk  17:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assign a class to the table cell of interest, then it should just be adding border-bottom in the TemplateStyles for elements with that class. Izno (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just checked. You can add the class to the row of interest and then target it with e.g. .ib-tv-netrelease.infobox-data. I thought about providing a cleaner way for giving specific cells classes when I did the initial TemplateStyles work but that's not available today and you can hack around it even so. Izno (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno can you look at what I did wrong with the css? I can't make it a full width line. Gonnym (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the CSS. There is probably a bit more work to play around with. Izno (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno your edit is something I got to work but it isn't what Favre and Dr Greg asked for. They want a line the full width of the infobox (label and data), not just under the date (data). Is that possible? Gonnym (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can add "another" line with .ib-tv-network-release .infobox-label. The two borders won't be contiguous. If you want the lines to be connected, then you need to set border-collapse: collapse on the whole infobox and then add some marginal padding back for the cells. That's what lines 4 and 12 do in the infobox settlement styles. Izno (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does adding the border-collapse cause any accessibility issues or is that fine to use? Gonnym (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It just decides whether each table cell has its own border or if two neighboring cells share a border. MDN has a pretty simple illustration to understand.

(At some point, we'll get rid of the border collapse and add paddings at the global level, whenever we transition to divs in infoboxes.) Izno (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help Izno! @Favre1fan93 @Dr Greg is this style what you wanted? Gonnym (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above and header sections (the ones colored in purple) have lost their margins and I can't seem to modify that. So unless someone can do it, you'll have to choose between the pros and the cons of this style change. Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks.  Dr Greg  talk  12:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as intended, though I don't know if this change is worth having the above and headers lose their margins. If you look at the first example in the test cases under "Multiple release dates", it does appear that there is more overall padding between each parameter. Personally, I don't think those changes are worth it to implement this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSS isn't my strong side so if anyone can fix it, feel free to try. Gonnym (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, Wikipedia likes having detail, though having the "release" template say the same word multiple times without indication still bothers me, and I do like to have some differentiation, as I had stated before. Again though, consensus is needed so I do need some editors to say their thoughts on this situation. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21: any chance you could possibly have any better luck formatting the CSS for this? Basically the goal is to see what a line delineation between the various |release#= parameters would look like. Izno above guided Gonnym to what classes and such should be looked at to do this, but in doing so, it did alter the existing margins and spacing of the template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a read through this discussion and added it to my watchlist; I can certainly take a look into it, but I may not be able to do anything until the weekend. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no rush, thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the margins is not possible with this approach naively. You can readd them by adding divs to each cell, but that's... a hack. The tradeoff here would not be at issue with a future change to infobox that's... a few years away still. Izno (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few adjustments, take a look at Template:Infobox television/testcases#Multiple release dates (you may need to clear your cache). Thoughts? -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The margins between label names (see country of origin and language) is huge at the moment. Is this fixable? Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, too much excessive padding on the cells themselves. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alex 21! Any hope for some more left margin padding? I think, visually, that's the only thing my eye is feeling is not quite right / feeling a bit cramped with the parameter labels so close to the infobox border. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, further padding added to the side of the table as a whole. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, good work Alex. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree. With the visual elements of the previous styling retained by implementing this new change, I'm fine if we want to proceed with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can proceed with implementing this unless there are any further objections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter for first aired states "The parameter is not restricted to a "premiere" date. In the event a program airs a full "preview" episode on TV in advance of a premiere, that date should be used instead." In the world of streaming, if a series airs a "full preview" episode in theaters should that also be included? Asking in the case of Tulsa King, it "premiered" on Paramount+ on November 13, 2022, but had a "full preview" theatrical release of its first episode on October 29 and 30. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave that answer to other editors, but I'll note that the the lead and episode list do not use that date. So whatever is decided here, the lead, infobox and episode list should all use the same date. Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and if the answer is no I'll add an efn note in the episode table, just wanted to ask before I changed it either way. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this convention on the Masters of the Air page, with someone else griping about it on their talk page. I realize it would be a huge pain to change all the pages to match “episodes scheduled” or planned or whatever. I’d mostly just like to understand why it is this way. And I wonder if there’s a way to change the wording to make it clearer, or perhaps include a link in the template comment for this line pointing to an explanation, to at least reduce some of the frustration by people trying to correct the episode count. (Yes, they should read the comment and not try to change the episode count inappropriately, but it’s so incredibly counterintuitive I can understand people not bothering to read it.)

I’m not familiar with how templates work under the hood. Would it be horrible to change the wording from “No. of episodes” to “Episodes aired”? GaryFx (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No. of episodes" is a neutral term because there are some instances where it is appropriate to note the total number of episodes produced, which may not equal the total that actually aired, for series that were prematurely cancelled. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn’t that mean you can never tell from the infobox whether it’s the number aired or the number produced? GaryFx (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently we don't track pages that have a |first_aired= value but no |last_aired= value. The infobox documentation says to use |last_aired=present if the show is still ongoing. I was thinking of tracking those pages and add them to a tracking category. However, that brings up a different issue which would require a parameter usage change.

One-off programs, specials and television films usually use |first_aired= so they will be incorrectly added to the category. Instead, these programs should use |released=. While the parameter name itself can mean slightly different things, the fact is that the display used by the infobox for both is "Release" so it doesn't really matter. If the parameter name is a problem we can create a new parameter.

Thoughts appreciated. Gonnym (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I know the docs say (or said?) that |released= was streaming, but since we have quite a number of tv films, it may also make sense for that, since a lot of those only have a single date. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I've updated the validation code as follows:

• Usage of |first_aired= without |last_aired=. As before, if it is still ongoing use |last_aired=present
• Usage of |last_aired= without |first_aired=.
• Usage of |first_aired= and |released=.
• Usage of |last_aired= and |released=.
• No |first_aired= or |released=. This is tracked but can still be refined. Currently using the word "Upcoming" as a value will remove it from the tracking category.

TV films, TV plays, specials and other one-off programs should use |released= instead of |first_aired= (as the output label is "Release" regardless). Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the documentation is silent on the use of footnotes. Should we encourage the use of footnotes for certain cases? Here is an example where I think footnotes could be useful.

1. The end date of a television series has been publicly announced
2. The total number of episodes that will be aired for a television series has been publicly announced

I am sure there are other cases in which footnotes could be useful, but these two examples are already on my mind. Up the Walls (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. The WP:INFOBOX is pretty clear that the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article, meaning that the end date and number of episode information should be in the article body (and for those specific examples, probably also in the lead). Since the information is in the body of the article, that is where the reference should be placed. Gonnym (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see now you were talking about regular notes and not references. Well that can depend on the type of note. The two types of notes you added at Young Sheldon violate WP:CRYSTALL so aren't really helpful. Also, they seem to bypass the infobox parameters and create pseudo parameters. If we wanted to have a "number of episodes aired (out of total expected)" we would have a parameter for that, since if it's good for one TV series, it's good for every TV series. Similar to the expected end date. Propose these new parameters here and see if you have consensus to add them. Gonnym (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a pretty good idea. Let me think about how to properly phrase it. Up the Walls (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there are cases in which future plans have been announced and could be included. Examples include when an end date to television series has been announced. I think that to accommodate under such a condition, we should add to the template the following:

• num_episodes_anticipated: to display next to the num_episodes as such: X (out of an anticipated Y )   if x < y — should not be displayed if x ≥ y
• num_seasons_anticipated: to display next to the num_seasons as such: X (out of an anticipated Y)   if x < y — should not be displayed if x ≥ y
• anticipated_end_date: to display as (anticipated series finale date)   Applicable only if end_date=present, should not be displayed otherwise

The guidelines should say that these fields should only be used prior to the series finale, but only if the an end has been announced with an announced end date and number of episodes until the end. Up the Walls (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is unnecessarily complicating things. If there was consensus to include anticipated episode numbers, seasons, or end dates then the existing fields could easily accomodate them. The problem isn't that there is no where to put this information, it's that previous discussions have always ended with consensus not to include it at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of the infobox is to summarize the article and give the reader as much information as possible with only a quick glance. So if an end for a television series has been announced, this information would be (or more accurately should be) in the article, and I would therefore think should also be in the infobox. Up the Walls (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many things that are announced do not happen. We report what has happened. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we report in the articles the announcements that happened. That's why I think if something is announced, we should include in the infobox information from the announcements using the words "anticipated" to indicate that it hasn't happened yet. Up the Walls (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But again, you can do that with the existing parameters. A separate param isn't needed to say "anticipated". - adamstom97 (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would we accomplish that with existing parameters? Up the Walls (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes: 5 / 10

Episodes: 5 (released) 10 (expected)

Episodes: 10[ref]

etc.

There are many options. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of adam's options are appropriate or correct and as I said above, if this style is good for one series it's good for all series. Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think we should do any of these, I think these are all just as appropriate as creating whole new parameters for "anticipated" data. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new parameters after consensus is gained means that we have a standard way of handling this. Using exiting parameters incorrectly is the worst possible option. Gonnym (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting the existing parameters be used incorrectly, I'm suggesting that if there was consensus to include this information at all then we could agree on a way to include it in the existing parameters and update the infobox instructions rather than having to make ridiculous new parameters. To be clear, I don't support either as I think the status quo is fine. I'm just expressing my dislike of these suggested new parameters. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the "country" parameter in this and related infoboxes be removed as ill-fitting to the present reality of television. The field is either surplus to requirements or confusing in an age where transnational co-productions are common. See Talk:The Crown (TV series)/Archive 2, where the lengthy journey towards consensus over its nationality could have been shortened if the necessity of placing something in this field was mitigated (as the article ultimately stabilised to not name a national origin in its opening sentence). And see the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Time to change the infobox "original network" parameters per the closing logos at last, where the consensus to add Disney+ as an original network has necessitated adding the United States as a country of origin, despite no one liking that. See also Neighbours, where the US should technically be added since Amazon came on board last year, but I for one can't bring myself to do it. In essence, the original networks listed can easily guide users to countries of origin for shows old and new, and the "location" parameter shows where a series is actually made. The "country" parameter more and more introduces a false impression of how American (in these cases; other countries may of course apply) a programme is that can be easily avoided. U-Mos (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should keep it, but stick to what it is labelled as, and that is "Country of origin". The Crown was always a UK/US co-production, hence its country of origin was both, but Doctor Who and Neighbours both originated in the UK and Australia, respectively, and thus they should be the only countries listed for each series. Simply because Doctor Who is now produced by a US company, that does not mean it originated in the US; same with Neighbours and other similar examples. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Having multiple original networks does not necessarily mean there are multiple countries of origin; Doctor Who is solely owned by the BBC ([1] [2]), with Disney+ just having licensed rights (including co-production). It is also, as far as we know, primarily if not solely produced in the UK. It is a potentially challenging field to define consistently and could maybe do with having clearer guidelines for what constitutes country of origin, but I think it is valuable. Irltoad (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to consider guideline changes along those lines. Would this filter to season articles/infoboxes also, i.e. would Doctor Who (series 14) still have to list the US, as Disney+ co-originated that specific year of the show? U-Mos (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it would, i.e. DW S14 should not list US as a country of origin despite the D+ co-production. If the co-production deal were a co-ownership deal, then absolutely yes. But it is nuanced and I don't necessarily think that a lack of co-ownership should disqualify a show/season etc. from having multiple countries of origin – it is a combination of various factors which could probably use a broader discussion to identify where the line is. My concern with this is that often details on the extent of co-production are unclear (as has been demonstrated in the DW RFC on original networks, and we probably have more information on the particulars of that deal than for many productions), which could make decision contentious and lengthy. If the guidelines are to be redefined, the aim should be for relative simplicity of decisions based on the amount of information that is typically available. Irltoad (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, what applies for one country parameter should apply for them all. There is, of course, always room for discussion, in which a series may have originated in one country and then become a co-production between countries later on but for a majority of the series. At the moment, the documentation only states The show's country of origin; should we reword it to something like The country in which the show originated with its first season? -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be opposed to that. If a random series had 20 seasons and for its first season was produced in country A, then was renewed in country B for 19 seasons, country B should be mentioned. A country of origin is any country that we also include the article in the categories for (such as "2020s <country> television series"). Gonnym (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, that's why I added the consideration of a series may have originated in one country and then become a co-production between countries later on but for a majority of the series. Is there an alternate wording you'd prefer? -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, we're considering limiting the country of origin parameter to the country that produced the majority of the series (or two in the case of a long-term co-production deal)? If this is the case, let me take the case of Doctor Who for a second: we'd remove the U.S. as a country for the series overall and series 14/15/2023 specials for the time being. Then if the co-production deal continues for another 16 series, it would suddenly become a majority and we'd have to add them to the said 16? Just trying to understand the ultimate proposal here.

I know Doctor Who uses the term "series" currently instead of "season", but for the sake of comprehension, I'm briefly going to use "season" to differentiate from the "series" [as a whole]. Template:Infobox television season has always been separate from Template:Infobox television in terms of data. I.e. we only put the dates that the season aired, not the whole series, or we only put the starring actors for that season and not those from other seasons. Seems simple. So if it's a co-production deal where it "originated" in two countries, shouldn't both still be listed in the season infobox? It sounds like we'd basically be cherry picking the data based on the number of seasons produced even if one season is vastly different from the rest. It'd basically be the equivalent of removing a one-season actor from the infobox of a 20-season series just because they didn't star in the "majority of the series". To be clear: I'm currently indifferent, on the wording and whether or not the U.S. should be listed in Doctor Who's infobox[es], I'm mainly concerned about consistency and hoping to understand better before I support or oppose the changes being proposed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should primarily stick to the main country of origin, no matter the infobox, and then based on local consensus for each article, adjust it as needed, whether it's a country for 19 out of 20 seasons, or the latest season out of 40. The infoboxes, whether it's for the parent article or season, still describe it as the country of origin. The United States is not a country of origin for Doctor Who series 14, it simply has co-production credits; noted that for that season, we can label it with Disney+ and the United States, and yet the lead still details it as "the British science fiction television programme". The Crown, as an example, needed an extensive discussion at to the country of origin, and a clear consensus formed. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I'd be fine with something along those lines. My main concern was just that individual seasons be handled independently of the series as a whole, even if it's just one of many seasons.

Categories such as these would probably be something to factor into this discussion as well. TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This takes me back to the notion of removing the parameter, but at Template:Infobox television season only. It's liable to create confusion/inconsistency there, and adds very little to season articles. U-Mos (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support removing it at the season template and keeping it at the parent template, and redefining what the latter is intended for. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support this. It feels like a good compromise between giving clarity and information, while reducing confusion and disputes Irltoad (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to remove from the season infobox, we already have very limited info there and this doesn't seem to be all that key to understanding a season. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested the parameter be removed at Template talk:Infobox television season#Template-protected edit request on 24 March 2024. U-Mos (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me and another user have different understanding of what last_aired explanation is because some South Korean TV series has renewed but have yet a release date. See this discussion and also this. Can someone help? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 23:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding an attribute for animation services for animated shows, as opposed to adding non-standard parameters to do that. Raymondsze (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A number of articles already include them under "animators" or "production companies" or add an attribute for "animation studio" (see The Legend of Korra). An animation studio is comparable, concise, and materially relevant (Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain?). And it's important information, animation studios do skilled work and it's reflected in the quality of the show. DA39A3 (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From this discussion, it seems there is some disagreement over when to include the writer and director parameters. I want to propose something different: omitting those parameters for TV series and adding a showrunner parameter. This could go at the top of the production section, before executive_producer. I also propose omitting creative_director for similar reasons. The parameters would stay in the template for TV films (to align more closely with theatrical films), but a note in the documentation would specify when they should be used.

Paraphrasing my rationale from my earlier comment: The main creative control on a TV show is usually the showrunner alongside the producers, so maybe those should be the parameters we focus on. Writers and directors are generally either hired in with minimal creative control or are producers/executive producers; in the former case their contributions are less relevant to the infobox, and in the latter case, they would still be listed in the infobox. There have been a few discussions about showrunners before:

• This January 2021 discussion noted that showrunners are typically executive producers, and listing them twice might be redundant. To avoid this, I would suggest not repeating showrunners under the EP or producer sections (this seems to already be the case where producers who are promoted to EPs are only listed as EPs).
• This May 2023 discussion stated that showrunner is not a credited title. To this, I'll remark that while they aren't credited as such in the aired credits, they are clearly defined jobs; for instance, the WGA directory lists them.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've long felt that the way are three-tier level of infobox work is incorrect. A list of writers, directors, editors, etc. (and basically anything other than stars) in the top-level {{Infobox television}} is unhelpful and just creates a random list of mostly unsourced information which typically isn't written in prose in the article. That information is relevant in the lowest-level {{Infobox television episode}}. In a site like IMDb where the data is better presented, there isn't a problem with placing all of the information in the top page, but here we either end up with various (S1), (Season 1), <small>(season 1-season 10)</small> after the names, or just list with no context, both of which are IMO unhelpful or bad syntax.

The only valid usage as you've noted, is for television films or one-off programs. Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support limiting the writer and director params to TV films per the initial reasoning above. I don't feel as strongly about adding the showrunner because it is very rare for that person to not already be listed as an executive producer, but these days it is usually a key fact in an article to point out who the showrunner is and the point of the infobox is to summarise that sort of key information. I don't think we should exclude people from the executive producer list because they are the showrunner, that would be like excluding someone from a film producer list just because they are also the director. I do think it makes sense to add a showrunner param to the TV season infobox, since that can often change from season to season and there is no list of executive producers in that infobox to cover them. While we are on this topic, I would also recommend we either rename the producer param on the TV episode infobox or just remove it. Confusingly, that is technically for the showrunner which I think most people don't realise. It is going to be very unlikely that the showrunner changes from episode to episode so it probably isn't needed at that level anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to adding a showrunner parameter, no to removing writer and director. There are many (i.e. non-American and older) examples where there are no showrunners, and this role should only be stipulated in an infoxbox where it can be sourced to a person or people (as it isn't a credited position). Otherwise, it's appropriate to list producers/writers/directors, especially where they are consistent across series (which isn't limited to TV films). U-Mos (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to keep showrunners listed as EPs – I only mentioned not doing that since it seemed to be a past concern. I also agree that a showrunner parameter would be really useful for season infoboxes and that producers are generally unnecessary for episode infoboxes. Regarding the showrunners also being EPs, I think it's useful to distinguish them in some way; for instance, Carlton Cuse was a co-showrunner on Lost (and is fairly well-known for that), but there's no easy way to tell that currently because several other EPs are listed above him. I guess there could just be a symbol to mark the EPs who were the showrunners but that feels more convoluted and less clear. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support exploring adding a showrunner parameter here and at the season infobox, renaming or outright removing the producer one on the episode infobox to "showrunner(s)", and possibly limiting the use of writer and director. I think at least in a more modern setting, unless there is largely singular force behind a (usually mini)series' writing or directing (say Sam Levinson writing all of Euphoria for writing or Matt Shakman directing all of WandaVision), these parameters are better served by the episode tables. So whatever wording would be appropriate that these parameters are for TV films or maybe 1-2 sole creators on (limited/miniseries?) series, I'd support that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how a single writer/director might fit, but in those cases, we typically cover them elsewhere (for instance, Levinson is the creator, showrunner, and top EP for Euphoria – that seems like enough to clearly note his influence). And we could also end up with awkward cases where we only list a director but no writers, or vice versa, as would be the case with Shakman and WandaVision. That's why I would personally push for removing the writers and directors from TV shows more broadly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand/overlooked that point about those sole creators then also being credited elsewhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also support implementing a showrunner parameter for the infobox and adding rationales for using writer and director. I think there should also be a |head_writer= parameter for instances where that term is used, as it has been used interchangeably with "showrunner" and this fact should be recognized where applicable. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to removing director, writer, and producer parameters for TV series. As for showrunners for TV series, most of the time they are listed as executive producers already which is redundant. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, this is not about removing these parameter, rather updating the documentation for when and how they are used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on RunningTiger123's proposal and other editors' comments, it seemed to read that way. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if that was so, but that is not the case (in the event you'd like to comment further on the matter). The discussion boils down to: |writer= and |director= is proposed to be updated in documentation for use only with TV films and not with TV series, and separately, the creation of a |showrunner= parameter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the addition of a showrunner parameter in both a series and season infobox and limiting when writer/director parameters are used. I don't have too strong of an opinion on how they should limited. Showrunner changes have been given pretty large cover in recent years [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]. This is just from a quick Google search, there's many many more. It's uncommon to see articles stating "X_Exexutive_Producer Steping Down" or "Y_Exexutive_Producer Taking Over." I think it's fair to provide showrunners the weight of a separate parameter due to that. It's information that would support our readers by being quickly accessible. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting the original discussion linked in your original post. The argument was not about long-running TV series with endless amounts of new directors continuously being added. The argument was about limited series and miniseries where there is a set limited number of directors that will never increase and no editing ever needs to be done beyond the first mention of their names. Please do not misrepresent the facts and try to act as though the argument was about open-ended TV series. That is not what this discussion was originally about. Nicholas0 (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, this discussion has evolved beyond the scope of the original discussion to talk about the writer, director, and potential showrunner params in general. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is clearer agreement for a showrunner parameter (both here and in season infoboxes) than for other changes to writers, directors, etc. (at least to me, though I could be biased). Would it be better to add a showrunner parameter on its own, or wait to decide how to update/revise the documentation for other parameters at the same time? RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, at a bare minimum, that there's consensus to add a showrunner parameter based on where the discussion stands right now. I do feel however, that the discussion likely hasn't received wide enough input from other regular television editors and would likely receive pushback if implemented right now. I left notices on WT:TV and WT:MOS/TV to hopefully gain some additional input. I would personally wait another few days to see if anyone else comments before we move forward as it hasn't even been a week since the discussion began. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, and I definitely wasn't trying to close the discussion already, just see if the different parts should be implemented separately (if consensus is reached for each at different times) or all at once. RunningTiger123 (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the amount of infoboxes that would need to be updated, it would probably make sense to implement both at once (if possible) to save time. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also notified the season infobox talk about this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: I believe I actually misread your initial question. If consensus is reached on one part of this proposal and not the other, we should go ahead and move forward with it as we may never reach a consensus on the other portion. That said, and pinging @Favre1fan93: to this part as well, it's been a week since other relevant talk pages were notified of this discussion and there have been no further objections or supports that have arisen from those notices. It's also been nearly two weeks since this discussion first began. Do we want to discuss moving forward with the showrunner parameter? Otherwise, if someone truly believes that more discussion is still required an RFC would be an option? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think enough time has been given for us to move ahead with adding the showrunner param to the series and season infoboxes. The documentation should note that it is only to be used when an actual showrunner can be reliably sourced, editors should not be putting other people in this param that served similar roles.

I think we need further discussion, and potentially an RfC, to confirm the other changes. We need to confirm whether the producer param for episode infoboxes should be renamed to showrunner or outright removed. We also need to confirm what the documentation for writers and directors should be. My recommendation for that is wording about using the fields for: TV films; or series with only one or two writers who are not already included in the creator/showrunner params. I was also wondering what opinions there are on using the writer param for the head writer and using the director param for the supervising director or producing director, people who are typically also executive producers but not necessarily creators or showrunners? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a wider discussion might be needed for some of those changes. Is it worth going all the way to RfC, or should we just have that discussion at a more public page, such as WT:TV? RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only suggested an RFC because I posted a notice of this discussion at WT:TV and it didn't help much. Actually hosting the discussion there could help though. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all that's been done since I've last been active and the plan moving forward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, thoughts on including the showrunner parameter at Line of Duty? I added it and got reverted because it's "americanism", "the credit doesn't actually appear in the series", and because the "term isn't common in the UK." The only semi-reasonable reason the reverting editor had in my opinion is that the showrunner in this case was also the creator, writer, executive producer (series 2-5), and producer (series 1), and already exists in those fields in the Infobox. They feel that it's not useful since they're in those other fields, but I think as long as it's sourced we should consider it's inclusion? There's a talk page section about it, and I'd appreciate comments from anyone who has an opinion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the term isn't used at all in that article, I think you will probably need to get consensus for including it in prose first before adding it to the infobox. A quick Google shows that there are UK sources which call him showrunner so I think you should have a good argument, it would be better if there is an example of members of production using the term to make sure it hasn't been incorrectly assumed by the media. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that these two sources from the BBC: [12] [13] which refer to him as the showrunner should work? It is a primary source, but does avoid the incorrect assumption. While I do agree it should be added to the article as well, that doesn't seem to be the disputing editors primary argument. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 99.9999% of the time we should be following on screen credits for infobox crediting material. This obviously is not an on screen credit so we need to look to outside sourcing to support these titles. So yes, those references should be utilized. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The disputing editor and I essentially reached a stalemate, so I opened up a formal RFC on Talk:Line of Duty if anyone cares to comment there. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Description of suggested change: Add a "showrunner" parameter to the Infobox and renumber the subsequent parameters. This has been added to the sandbox and tested and appears to have worked. The two just need synced. It's too much text to go into {{Text diff}}, but a full view of the edit that needs done is visible in my first link of the sandbox. This was discussed in the section directly above this one and there is a consensus to add the parameter. The other changes proposed will be discussed further and addressed later. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation has been updated. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't showrunner be plural with a "s" when they are multiple showrunners as just not the showrunner as in singular as in adding {{Pluralize from text}}? Like executive producer is plural when there are multiple executive producers and not plural when there is only one executive producer. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually considered this when making the request. The only reason I didn't is because the parameters in the immediate vicinity aren't (creator, developer, writer, director). Series are often created or developed by more than one person and the writer parameter actually says in the instructions that it can old up to five people. Yet we don't see "creators", "developers", or "writers" pluralized in the Infobox. I personally think that it probably should be but I was just aiming for consistency. TheDoctorWho Public (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There probably needs to be a separate discussion to review all the places that need plural criteria so we can be consistent. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly different because their labels are "Created by", "Written by", and etc. If that is the case, shouldn't it be "Showran by" for the label though? — YoungForever^(talk) 19:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, I didn't notice that when getting the request together. I'd definitely prefer "showrunners" rather than "showran by". I'll put in an updated request later tonight if no one beats me to it since I can't edit the template myself. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Showrunner for singular and Showrunners for plural would be consistent for how they are used. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the request both here and on the season infobox. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional edit

Per the above discussion, showrunner needs to be pluralized if there are multiple on the series.

Changing label7 = Showrunner to label7 = Showrunner{{Pluralize from text|{{{showrunner|}}}|plural=s}} will take care of it automatically (minus the nowiki tags if looking at this in source editor).

Here's the sandbox edit and the corresponding testcase edit where it worked. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is something about the current formatting of listing networks and release dates that's bugged me (specifically for shows co-produced between two networks), and it's the fact I sometimes see the additional parameters being used to separate release dates by country, rather than separate the run of the show by networks that are in the same country. This misuse of the formatting appears on Titanic (2012 TV series), Torchwood, Neighbours and Doctor Who. They all have their infoboxes attempt to seperate releases for different areas, with similar attempts on Torchwood: Miracle Day and Dinosaur (TV series). And it gives me this idea: what if we had a specific template for TV shows that would list multiple runs of a show in different countries? We could have this for miniseries and TV seasons, but possibly also general shows that span multiple seasons. Notably, it will also allow this box to better align with Template:Infobox film and Template:Film date. Like User:U-Mos said, transnational co-productions are becoming common, but it feels like this box isn't doing them justice. I look forward to what other users have to say for this problem. I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed before too. Inpops (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no splits based solely on country, multiple networks are only included if the series changes networks or if multiple networks have been determined to be the "original" network for the series. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when a show is co-produced by two countries it has multiple original networks. That's the case with both Doctor Who (2023 specials and onwards; BBC One + Disney+) and Torchwood (series 4/Miracle Day; BBC One + Starz). "Original network" isn't strictly limited to the country of origin. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying that we should not be seperating the networks and releases for these specific shows with the additional parameters when the networks air in different countries. it's kind of confusing, especially on Torchwood where the BBC and Starz air dates for series 4 are similar and the params are for shows that "move" to another network in the same country. It's a similar thing with Neighbours too. Just thought I would let you know (especially when you do edits like this). Inpops (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still failing to see why it's an issue. If there are multiple original networks they should all be listed, regardless of country. Picking and choosing would be unencyclopedic. In the case of Doctor Who some of the dates are the exact same, but it's still considered an independent original network. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an issue because as of now, we only have to list the earliest run on only one of the original networks for a co-produced show and not multiple. There are multiple examples of this. The Clone High article does a good example of how the networks and release dates should be listed. It lists both networks for the first season in the same parameter, it shows the earliest release for that season (in a country of origin), while still listing the revived run. It also used to be like that on Neighbours. Yet we still have multiple attempts to seperate releases by country and we should probably do something about it. Inpops (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the cast of Clone High it appears that the two networks in the different countries had the same air dates. So that would actually be listed properly. This isn't the case with Doctor Who (where D+ didn't released anything prior to 2023) or Torchwood (where Starz didn't air anything ahead of series 4). Listing those networks concurrently would imply that D+ had released Doctor Who since 1963 or that Torchwood aired on Starz in 2008. TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"it appears that the two networks in the different countries had the same air dates."

The show premiered in Canada in November 2002 and in the US in January 2003, so no. Hypothetically for now for Torchwood we could have Starzin the same param as BBC One with "(series 4)" next to it to clarify it only aired the fourth season, and also do something similar with Doctor Who and listing D+. Inpops (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You quite literally only further illustrated my point that the networks across countries should not be co-listed if the dates aren't the same. The Clone High example implies the dates on the two networks had the same dates, and if they don't then it's factually incorrect and they should be separated. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems disingenuous to not to have both the networks in the same param. We already use this formatting for another purpose. Surely there has to be a better way to list these releases than the one you are encouraging. There are also many other examples where only listing the earliest release for one of the networks appear. Inpops (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other content exists, just because one article does it that way doesn't mean they all have to. While there can be somewhat of an argument based on other content, if and only if there's a clear precedent, there's clearly not here as we have named numerous articles that swing both ways. We should definitely work towards a consensus though on how all of the articles that are co-produced between two networks in two countries should be listed, and I stand by my suggestion that they should be listed separately. The current discussion does seem to be slightly leaning that way. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should be listed separately, but not by the way you are encouraging. Like with listing film release dates, they should atleast all be in the same param. Dinosaur does a good job at separating its release dates (white it's infobox might have some other issues) as its networks released all the episodes in one day, and also it's more aligned with film dates. It would be better if we could better integrate that within this infobox, perhaps with a specific template. Similarly we could use {{Start and end dates}} with parentheses next to it. Inpops (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No to any new start date template. We've been working behind the scenes for around 4 years cleaning up after various mixed and incorrect usages editors create to fix problems that don't exist. If a solution can't be done with infobox parameters, it can't be done with inventing new start date templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Infobox actually had a few issues. It used small text which is a violation of MOS:SMALLTEXT, "Avoid using smaller font sizes within page elements that already use a smaller font size, such as most text within infoboxes, navboxes, and references sections." It also listed seasons next to the people which is a violation of the Infobox instructions, "Years or seasons should not be included." I went ahead and removed those. The networks should be split as well for the countries, and appears to be the consensus based on this discussion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a series that is an equal co-production between two series, how do you intend to pick which country is more "important", then? For example, Doctor Who is (as of last year) a British/Ameican co-production, thus Disney and BBC are the original networks. A change in original networks can mean a change of country as well. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically talking about how there are attempts to list multiple broadcasts in different countries, currently it should only be the earliest broadcast for only one of the networks that co-produced for these sort of shows. Inpops (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only "for only one of the networks that co-produced"? How do you determine which one of those co-producers is more "important"? Is this based on any guideline, or is it just personal choice? Again, a change in the original network can mean a change of country; e.g. Doctor Who now has two original networks across, yes, two countries. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this infobox doesn't mention anything about co-productions, before we introduced this formatting that's what it was like on most of these articles. Also a show can be co-produced between two networks in the same country. Inpops (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely can be, yes. A show can also be co-produced between two networks in different countries. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]