Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
Inpops (talk | contribs)
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=150}}
{{permprot}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=template |1=
{{TelevisionWikiProject
{{WikiProject Infoboxes}}
|class=template
{{WikiProject Television}}
|type=template}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|bot=MiszaBot|age=30|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 12
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Template talk:Infobox television/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{permanently protected}}
{{archives|search=yes}}
{{oldtfdfull|date= 2018 December 17 |result=Do not merge |disc=Template:Infobox television}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
| target = Template talk:Infobox television/Archive index
| mask = Template talk:Infobox television/Archive <#>
| leading_zeros = 0
| indexhere = yes
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archive = Template talk:Infobox television/Archive %(counter)d
|algo = old(150d)
|counter = 14
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|minthreadsleft = 7
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
}}

__TOC__

== Replace "network"? ==

This template presently uses terminology associated with [[linear broadcasting]], which makes certain applications in the [[Streaming wars|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 [[Online Streaming Act|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 But either way, the use of "network" in this context feels outdated and not reflective of the current multi-platform nature of television programming. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;">[[User:ViperSnake151|<span style="color:#8f5902;">ViperSnake151</span>]] [[User_talk:ViperSnake151|<span style="color:#fff; background:#fcaf3e;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</span>]] </span> 01:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

:So what is your proposal. Replace with what? [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 09:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
::I was opening this thought for discussion for what would be best appropriate. I would prefer to find a consensus first. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;">[[User:ViperSnake151|<span style="color:#8f5902;">ViperSnake151</span>]] [[User_talk:ViperSnake151|<span style="color:#fff; background:#fcaf3e;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</span>]] </span> 04:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Solidest|Solidest]] ([[User talk:Solidest|talk]]) 16:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
::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 [[User:Indagate|Indagate]] ([[User talk:Indagate|talk]]) 17:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Probably the easiest is to add {{para|streaming}} which if used instead of {{para|network}} will change the label to "Streaming service". [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 18:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:::: 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. [[User:Solidest|Solidest]] ([[User talk:Solidest|talk]]) 19:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:::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:
:::<code><nowiki>{{#switch:{{lc:{{delink|{{{network|}}}}}}}|netflix|hbo max|max|hulu|...hundred of others...=Streaming service|#default=Network}}</nowiki></code> [[User:Solidest|Solidest]] ([[User talk:Solidest|talk]]) 19:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
::::This all feels unnecessary. Readers understand what a "network" is, whether you are watching it on linear broadcast, cable, or through streaming. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 21:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::Agree with {{u|Favre1fan93}} that this is a solution looking for a problem. —[[User:Joeyconnick|Joeyconnick]] ([[User talk:Joeyconnick|talk]]) 00:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
::::I'd be opposed to having a list that we need to maintain. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 11:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::Ditto for me on both counts. [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 13:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::: 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)"). <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;">[[User:ViperSnake151|<span style="color:#8f5902;">ViperSnake151</span>]] [[User_talk:ViperSnake151|<span style="color:#fff; background:#fcaf3e;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</span>]] </span> 00:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

== First air date is now release on infobox ==

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? [[Special:Contributions/120.28.248.11|120.28.248.11]] ([[User talk:120.28.248.11|talk]]) 01:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 06:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
:Agree with Gonnym. Was going to state the same thing. The parameter label never stated "aired" previous, though users can still used the {{para|first_aired}} and {{para|last_aired}} parameters. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 17:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
::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? [[Special:Contributions/216.247.18.33|216.247.18.33]] ([[User talk:216.247.18.33|talk]]) 02:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 11:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

== alt_name bugfix ==

There was a bug in the infobox with {{para|alt_name}} which I fixed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_television%2Fsandbox&diff=1197496317&oldid=1181036810 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 <code>Another name (1999)</code>), 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 [[Template:Infobox_television/testcases#Alt_name|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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 19:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

:An issue that probably will arise and will need fixing, is that if an alt title already uses italics, it will now have 4 <code>'</code> and will be in bold with an extra one on each side. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 12:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
::A tracking category can be added to the {{para|plural}} section of the Pluralize template transclusion. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
:::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:) ) [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
::::OK, code written to handle plurals without italics and singular with italics. Will make this code live this week. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 11:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

== Slogan (For Seasonal Shows) As Image Caption In Infobox Television ==

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. [[User:Alen Hermen|Alen Hermen]] ([[User talk:Alen Hermen|talk]]) 08:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

: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 {{para|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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 11:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Shooterwalker|Shooterwalker]] ([[User talk:Shooterwalker|talk]]) 16:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 16:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

== Network/dates question ==

Here's a question regarding {{tl|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 {{para|network}} and {{para|first_aired}}/{{para|last_aired}} values? Should we use {{para|network}} and {{para|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)? [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 17:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 18:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 13:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
::::<thumbs up icon here> Thanks! [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 13:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

== Co-Executive Producer listing in info box ==

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. [[Special:Contributions/2600:4040:912F:B200:99B1:B552:3710:54CE|2600:4040:912F:B200:99B1:B552:3710:54CE]] ([[User talk:2600:4040:912F:B200:99B1:B552:3710:54CE|talk]]) 18:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


: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. [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 19:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
== Last aired ==


== Multiple network and release perimeters ==
The doc for "last aired" says :
<blockquote>last_aired: The original air date of the show's last episode. Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and <nowiki>{{end date}}</nowiki> if the show is ended. Only insert a finale date after it has happened.</blockquote>


This formatting can just make infoboxes look messy. Why do we need multiple dividing perimeters? It creates clutter and it will confuse readers. [[User:BaldiBasicsFan|BaldiBasicsFan]] ([[User talk:BaldiBasicsFan|talk]]) 00:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The problem is shows that just stop. They aren't cancelled, but they aren't renewed. People associated with the show may talk it up but nothing is officially announced, and there is no sign of any new production. It can be pretty obvious that the show is an ex-show, but some people insist it's just pining for the fjords. So I've filled in the "last aired" date for a show after the final episode of the final season aired, and nothing except hopeful hot air about any future shows. But I keep getting reverted by people who insist it's "current" until someone officially says it's not. This is silly. If all the shows produced have been aired, and there is no announcement of a new production, then it's time to fill in the "last aired" date. If it does pull a revival, then that's the time to make it "current" again. Is this reasonable? [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 15:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:Was there some announcement on it being the last season? If not, I would keep "present" until there's confirmation, it's not that uncommon the shows are picked up for another season after the finale of the previous, especially when the seasons are short and end before the usual "it's announce new shows and renewals week".&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Palatino;">[[User:Xeworlebi|'''<big><big><sub>X</sub></big></big>'''eworlebi]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Xeworlebi|talk]])</sup></span> 15:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


:In what way would [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Futurama&oldid=1189095518 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Futurama&diff=prev&oldid=1208620120 because of your revert] gives the sentiment the series was never cancelled, similar to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=1208619791 Family Guy]. Just because you "seriously hate" the changes does not mean Chimatronx or I were being "disruptive". [[User:Nyescum|Nyescum]] ([[User talk:Nyescum|talk]]) 03:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:: In one particular case, ([[Primeval]]) they're scrambling around trying to find another network or some sugar daddy, or talking about making a movie. So they will never admit it's the "last season". Though most of the plotlines are resolved. When a show is airing, it's clearly "present". When it goes off the air, unless there is a positive indication it will return it shouldn't be "present" any more. I marked "status = Future series unconfirmed" while any claim that it's "present" is pure wishful thinking. If the continuing status can't be confirmed and all produced shows have aired, the default should be "ended". If no one goes on the record to say "It's dead", are we supposed to keep it "present" for a week? A month? 20 years? after all Doctor Who was revived after a few decades "hiatus". If it comes back from the dead, fine, update it then, no harm done. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 16:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
::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. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 04:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:::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? [[User:BaldiBasicsFan|BaldiBasicsFan]] ([[User talk:BaldiBasicsFan|talk]]) 05:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
::::It's not confusing though. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 06:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::How? It's literally terms “network” and “release” repeated over and over again. [[User:BaldiBasicsFan|BaldiBasicsFan]] ([[User talk:BaldiBasicsFan|talk]]) 18:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::Data is read top bottom left right. So it's not {{tq|“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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 18:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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. [[User:BaldiBasicsFan|BaldiBasicsFan]] ([[User talk:BaldiBasicsFan|talk]]) 20:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 21:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Getting {{ping|MrScorch6200}} in this discussion as he was the one who thought that this change was necessary. [[User:BaldiBasicsFan|BaldiBasicsFan]] ([[User talk:BaldiBasicsFan|talk]]) 22:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::A minor caution: if the first network is left out, as in [[Template:Infobox_television/testcases#Without_first_release_date_or_network|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. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 00:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::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 @[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]]). [[User:MrScorch6200|'''Scorch''']] ([[User talk:MrScorch6200|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/MrScorch6200|ctrb]]) 16:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::An infobox is a table, which means you are basically reading
:::::::::::{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Parameter !! Value
|-
| Network || 1999–present
|}
:::::::::::The infobox is never meant to have both the parameter name and its data on the same side. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 17:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::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. [[User:MrScorch6200|'''Scorch''']] ([[User talk:MrScorch6200|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/MrScorch6200|ctrb]]) 19:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Interesting idea you have. [[User:BaldiBasicsFan|BaldiBasicsFan]] ([[User talk:BaldiBasicsFan|talk]]) 05:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It is [[WP:COMMONSENSE|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". — [[User:YoungForever|<span style="color: #E63E62;font-family:Georgia;">'''Young'''</span><span style="color: #414A4C;font-family:Georgia;">'''Forever'''</span>]][[User talk: YoungForever|<sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)</sup>]] 01:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::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". [[User:BaldiBasicsFan|BaldiBasicsFan]] ([[User talk:BaldiBasicsFan|talk]]) 01:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. <span style="box-shadow:2px 2px 6px #999">[[User:Dr Greg|<b style="color:#FFF8C0;background:#494">&nbsp;Dr&nbsp;Greg&nbsp;</b>]][[User talk:Dr Greg|<span style="color:#494;background:#FFF8C0">&nbsp;<small>talk</small>&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 02:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::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. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 10:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't see anything wrong with current format. — [[User:YoungForever|<span style="color: #E63E62;font-family:Georgia;">'''Young'''</span><span style="color: #414A4C;font-family:Georgia;">'''Forever'''</span>]][[User talk: YoungForever|<sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)</sup>]] 03:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I do agree with what Greg suggested. Why do some users see multiples as not a problem is beyond me. And besides, is [[WP:WINARS|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? [[User:BaldiBasicsFan|BaldiBasicsFan]] ([[User talk:BaldiBasicsFan|talk]]) 05:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::This is a bizarre comment. We shouldn't attempt to improve the infobox display because Wikipedia is full of lies? - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 08:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::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. [[User:MrScorch6200|'''Scorch''']] ([[User talk:MrScorch6200|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/MrScorch6200|ctrb]]) 16:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::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… [[User:BaldiBasicsFan|BaldiBasicsFan]] ([[User talk:BaldiBasicsFan|talk]]) 04:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


{{re|Dr Greg|Bilorv}} See [[Template:Infobox_television/testcases#Multiple_release_dates|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. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 17:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
:::You want to assume a show has been cancelled but yet you have great objection to assuming a show will be broadcast as has been announced. Reconcile your own conflict with assuming and then go from there.<br/>Your position with regards to changing the status of a show that gets revived (a quick edit) is exactly the same as i believe i have said a few times now to you or someone regarding wanting to omit scheduled future broadcasts because the show could get cancelled tomorrow with no provocation.<br/>The article on Primeval indicates that the partnership with BBCA and the German broadcaster was for 2 series. Those two series are complete. It shouldn't be hard to find the confirmation the scheme was only for an additional 2 series. If that is incorrect then the article needs to have some editing done to it and you are wrong to assume it is dead short of a different notice that there will be no more. <font face="Georgia">[[User:Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">delirious</font>]] &amp; [[Special:Contributions/Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">lost</font>]] ☯ [[User Talk:Deliriousandlost|<sup><font color="purple">~hugs~</font></sup>]]</font> 17:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


:Yes, that's exactly what I meant, and I like it. <span style="box-shadow:2px 2px 6px #999">[[User:Dr Greg|<b style="color:#FFF8C0;background:#494">&nbsp;Dr&nbsp;Greg&nbsp;</b>]][[User talk:Dr Greg|<span style="color:#494;background:#FFF8C0">&nbsp;<small>talk</small>&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 17:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
::::Both cases involve wishful thinking being treated and worse, documented, as facts. There is no inconsistency needing "reconciliation", and why you seek to analyse me in that manner I don't know. As for Primeval, all the shows contracted for have been made and broadcast, so I have no idea what point you think you are making. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 17:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:I think this is significantly clearer—thanks for the mock-up! — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 17:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
::I haven't been as active at the moment, but I'll see about reworking the code when I have the chance. {{u|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. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:BaldiBasicsFan|BaldiBasicsFan]] ([[User talk:BaldiBasicsFan|talk]]) 00:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
::::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]] <span style="box-shadow:2px 2px 6px #999">[[User:Dr Greg|<b style="color:#FFF8C0;background:#494">&nbsp;Dr&nbsp;Greg&nbsp;</b>]][[User talk:Dr Greg|<span style="color:#494;background:#FFF8C0">&nbsp;<small>talk</small>&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 01:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:BaldiBasicsFan|BaldiBasicsFan]] ([[User talk:BaldiBasicsFan|talk]]) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::There is currently no consensus for that as the current format naming is of no issue. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 18:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::We can wait to hear what others think though, if they support or oppose. [[User:BaldiBasicsFan|BaldiBasicsFan]] ([[User talk:BaldiBasicsFan|talk]]) 22:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::Code updated to account for Dr Greg's new test case. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 16:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, I was looking at the {{tl|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. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 19:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I don't really like the last changes by @[[User:Favre1fan93|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. <span style="box-shadow:2px 2px 6px #999">[[User:Dr Greg|<b style="color:#FFF8C0;background:#494">&nbsp;Dr&nbsp;Greg&nbsp;</b>]][[User talk:Dr Greg|<span style="color:#494;background:#FFF8C0">&nbsp;<small>talk</small>&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 22:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 11:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks for that explanation; I understand and accept the point you are making. I suppose, then, in these circumstances, you could put both {{param|release_date1}} and {{param|release_date2}} in the same cell, although the coding to achieve that might be more difficult, and maybe not worth the effort. <span style="box-shadow:2px 2px 6px #999">[[User:Dr Greg|<b style="color:#FFF8C0;background:#494">&nbsp;Dr&nbsp;Greg&nbsp;</b>]][[User talk:Dr Greg|<span style="color:#494;background:#FFF8C0">&nbsp;<small>talk</small>&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 12:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:I support {{noping|Favre1fan93}}'s testcase version. — [[User:YoungForever|<span style="color: #E63E62;font-family:Georgia;">'''Young'''</span><span style="color: #414A4C;font-family:Georgia;">'''Forever'''</span>]][[User talk: YoungForever|<sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)</sup>]] 03:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


{{re|Gonnym}} the problem I felt with doing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_television%2Fsandbox&diff=1211023827&oldid=1210665141 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. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 19:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::If you believe there is wishful thinking involved in a broadcaster following their published schedule and you feel to tell me that my very simple statement regarding Primeval makes no sense to you then all i can think of to quote is, "I defie the Pope and all his lawes. If God spare my lyfe ere many yeares, I wyl cause a boye that dryueth þe plough, shall knowe more of the scripture then thou doest." Call the scripture here the scheduling of television programmes. You clearly accept that ITV said they are only arranging a deal for two additional series. You clearly reject ITV's publication of their broadcast schedule. So you believe ITV was telling the truth then and is lying now. How convenient as each of your beliefs regarding the reliability of the various statements support every position you wish to advance. Ended is what it is with Primeval; anything else is the wishful thinking you claim to abhor but seem to embrace. Future Series Unconfirmed would be about as much a lie as The Show Was Still On ITV And You Just Missed It would be because it has been confirmed that there will be no further series. Why we are discussing this here when there are claims in the article of documents from ITV which verify the show is now dead is another of those mysteries. Choosing to declare it as Present at this time would be the worst of the options for it outright contradicts the introduction of the article.<br/> "Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and <nowiki>{{end date}}</nowiki> if the show is ended". Primeval is neither ongoing nor renewed so use end date. It really is simple. <font face="Georgia">[[User:Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">delirious</font>]] &amp; [[Special:Contributions/Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">lost</font>]] ☯ [[User Talk:Deliriousandlost|<sup><font color="purple">~hugs~</font></sup>]]</font> 18:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Despite beginning with a series of irrelevant personal attacks and misrepresentations, you actually end up endorsing my position. Unfortunately your incoherency and continuous smug point scoring makes it unlikely to have any impact. But thanks anyway[[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 03:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The only thing i am certain of is that you have the most inconsistent position here and that i utterly disagree with you. Don't you dare thank me.<br/>There is also this magic option to leave the '''|last_aired=''' blank. It turns it into a single date rather than a date span. <br/>What i see here though is you complaining that people are disputing the end of Primeval and you refuse to provide sources and instead are complaining that people want some proof and are reverting things. You should have added in the references rather than come here and essentially complain. I am absolutely against your idea to put in "Future series unconfirmed" because it is original research, speculation, wishful thinking, and completely contradictory to the primary sources. I don't agree with you at all. <font face="Georgia">[[User:Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">delirious</font>]] &amp; [[Special:Contributions/Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">lost</font>]] ☯ [[User Talk:Deliriousandlost|<sup><font color="purple">~hugs~</font></sup>]]</font> 07:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: Thanks again for your input. Complete nonsense and uncivil, but that seems your style. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 07:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::You seem to miss my point that all of this comes from the complete nonsense you display in refusing to add in a reference. I refuse to add in such reference because that would be 'doing your work for you' and i do believe you could do it yourself rather than have come here and complained about the fields in the template not being used in a way that you like and your edits being reverted because there is no evidence being supplied to substantiate the claims made in your said edits. Your entire argument is nonsense and bickering. So someone calls you out on it and your defense is to call them stupid. Brilliant. It actually just goes to prove my point. None of this at all need have been brought here in the first place. "''People are reverting my editors with the bizarre reasoning "the series can only be finished if ITV or Watch confirm it".''" Guess what, ITV has confirmed it. Perhaps you could add in the reference rather than call that person's request for a reference bizarre. Problem would have been solved long, long ago, on the specific article's page. <font face="Georgia">[[User:Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">delirious</font>]] &amp; [[Special:Contributions/Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">lost</font>]] ☯ [[User Talk:Deliriousandlost|<sup><font color="purple">~hugs~</font></sup>]]</font> 09:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: "Refusing to add a reference"? A reference to prove that something doesn't exist? I've already noted that is in general impossible. And I haven't called anyone stupid here, so you are simply lying now. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::You have noted that yes, but it is complete nonsense, or are all the references for every show that has ended imaginary? Please check a random show article that ended/canceled, it will have a reference stating so. You know what, I'll give you some articles just in case: ''[[Veronica Mars]]'', ''[[Angel (TV series)|Angel]]'', ''[[Alias (TV series)|Alias]]'', ''[[Deadwood (TV series)|Deadwood]]'', ''[[Hellcats]]'', going to stop now as one could list pretty much every article on an ended show. The show exists, the cancelation happened (if that's the case), no-one is asking you to reference something that doesn't exist, quite the opposite actually.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Palatino;">[[User:Xeworlebi|'''<big><big><sub>X</sub></big></big>'''eworlebi]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Xeworlebi|talk]])</sup></span> 18:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::: I don't need to justify something I didn't do. I haven't tried to label the show as "ended" or "cancelled"; just not "present". As for "the show exists", WTF? You keep using words like "dead", "exist", "cancelled"; none of these labels have been suggested or are in dispute. The problem is the word PRESENT. And all the TV shows you listed were major shows on major US networks, they have a pretty much standard time of announcing their renewals, or otherwise. None of that applies to a show like [[Primeval]]. And you continue to IGNORE THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU. You're showing no good faith. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 19:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You clearly haven't looked at the given articles, half of them were only announced after the finale aired, most of them were oddball cancelations. And here are some British shows, ''[[Survivors (2008 TV series)|Survivors]]'', ''[[Fern (TV series)|Fern]]'', ''[[Zen (TV series)|Zen]]'', ''[[Outcasts (TV series)|Outcasts]]'', ''[[Campus (TV series)|Campus]]'' (some in talks for future things, but all announced), but there is no different standard for British shows. BTW, this section is called "last aired", I'm commenting on that, you're constantly trying to deviate to the status field for some reason. A show exists for eternity, even after it gets canceled it still exists, you need a source to say it is canceled, ended or whatever horrible word you haven't said, which all boils down to input of the last air date which should only be done when the show is confirmed to be dead (oh no! yes dead, canceled, ended, axed, canned, finished, terminated, concluded, whatever, don't get hung up on the semantics, all the same thing and irrelevant to the point). I have answered your question half a dozen times now, you need a source for ending, you don't have one? then it stays out. Stop obsessing about the status field which I am not commenting on, instead focus on your reason for actually starting this, now ridiculous, thread. No good faith? I disagree with, answer your repeated questions repeatedly, what do you think good faith means? Agreeing with you?&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Palatino;">[[User:Xeworlebi|'''<big><big><sub>X</sub></big></big>'''eworlebi]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Xeworlebi|talk]])</sup></span> 19:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: You keep putting words in my mouth: I NEVER SAID IT WAS CANCELLED/DID NOT EXIST. Really, stop PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I only am insisting that it is not "PRESENT" -- which some people would leave in "last aired" forever. Including I must assume you, since, for the seventh time, you have ignored my question of how long it should remain after it's off the air if there is no official cancellation or renewal. You have never answered that question, so please cite where you have "answered your question half a dozen times now". Your examples prove not a damn thing except you aren't familiar with the show that triggered this discussion. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 04:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


:Maybe @[[User:Izno|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? [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 08:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Please get this in your head: when you declare a last date you effectively say it is over, while you keep insisting you never said the show is over you keep insisting on declaring a final date. ''It is the same thing''. You can keep insisting this but it makes no sense, on one hand you claim the show is done, on the other you claim you never said that. And stop requesting I answer your question, I have already done so multiple times now, and from your last comment you make it clear you know the answer, I won't be quoting myself, but here once more: no source = no dice. The show which triggered this discussion is not relevant, if you want to have a discussion about that show do it at that articles talk page, you came here, I assume, to get a wider, more global, input on the matter, not that specific case. And I'm telling you here in general that if you do not have a source that states the show is over you can not put an end date in the infobox. It really is that simple.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Palatino;">[[User:Xeworlebi|'''<big><big><sub>X</sub></big></big>'''eworlebi]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Xeworlebi|talk]])</sup></span> 08:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
::I know {{tlx|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. <span style="box-shadow:2px 2px 6px #999">[[User:Dr Greg|<b style="color:#FFF8C0;background:#494">&nbsp;Dr&nbsp;Greg&nbsp;</b>]][[User talk:Dr Greg|<span style="color:#494;background:#FFF8C0">&nbsp;<small>talk</small>&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 17:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah, just checked. You can add the class to the row of interest and then target it with e.g. <code>.ib-tv-netrelease.infobox-data</code>. 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. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Izno|Izno]] can you look at what I did wrong with the css? I can't make it a full width line. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 11:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've adjusted the CSS. There is probably a bit more work to play around with. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 17:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Izno|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? [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You can add "another" line with <code>.ib-tv-network-release .infobox-label</code>. The two borders won't be contiguous. If you want the lines to be connected, then you need to set <code>border-collapse: collapse</code> 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. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Does adding the border-collapse cause any accessibility issues or is that fine to use? [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 20:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::No. It just decides whether each table cell has its own border or if two neighboring cells share a border. [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/border-collapse 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.) [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 22:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks for all the help Izno! @[[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] @[[User:Dr Greg|Dr Greg]] is this style what you wanted? [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 06:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 12:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Looks good to me. Thanks. <span style="box-shadow:2px 2px 6px #999">[[User:Dr Greg|<b style="color:#FFF8C0;background:#494">&nbsp;Dr&nbsp;Greg&nbsp;</b>]][[User talk:Dr Greg|<span style="color:#494;background:#FFF8C0">&nbsp;<small>talk</small>&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 12:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} 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. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 01:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


:CSS isn't my strong side so if anyone can fix it, feel free to try. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 06:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
People are reverting my editors with the bizarre reasoning "the series can only be finished if ITV or Watch confirm it". It's not in their interests to do that, when ITV has yet to air their run. If a show is 1) Not on the air and 2) Not in production and 3) Not with any announced deal for future production; in what sense can it be said to be "present"? I think that requiring "present" to be [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verified]] is not out of line. Possibilities can be mentioned in the article, but until they're confirmed, it's irresponsible to declare the show is "present". [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 18:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


::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. [[User:BaldiBasicsFan|BaldiBasicsFan]] ([[User talk:BaldiBasicsFan|talk]]) 19:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:"Future series unconfirmed" seems like a reasonable middle-way for Primeval in my opinion. "Ended" would be too soon, while "present" would indicate that new episodes are on the way. According to all sources I've seen (there are probably a few in the article) the deal was for two seasons/series. The makers of the show have been very stubborn to keep the show alive in the past, so I can understand those who want to keep it at "present" until the shows ending is official, but I think that for the reasons I mentioned above both "present" and "ended" would be a little misleading. <strike>Choosing between the two "present" would be the best choice for now.</strike> [[User:Jiiimbooh|Jiiimbooh]] ([[User talk:Jiiimbooh|talk]]) 16:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
::{{ping|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 {{para|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. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 19:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:: "Best choice for now" How long is "for now" ? "Present" means it's, well, present, which it isn't. Ended is what it is. Neither state is irrevocable, we're not talking about whether a person is dead. The state of the show changed when the last produced show was broadcast: now all shows made have been aired, there is nothing in production and nothing but (slowly fading) hope for any future series. (Series 4 on ITV was tedious and got low ratings, they seem to have blown it with that.) It seems we're pandering to fans (which despite appearances, includes me) who seem to believe that writing "present" in Wikipedia somehow makes it more likely to continue. We should be describing the actual '''VERIFIABLE''' facts, which are that it's NOT "present" and that label shouldn't be used until new production is verified. Reversing the onus, to insist we must wait until one of the parties declares "it's cancelled" is foolish, they have no obligation or need to make such a pronouncement, they can continue saying "discussions are underway" for literally years. They have been talking about a "new series" in 2013. Are we supposed to leave it as "present" until then, or another possibility replaces it? I don't see what the problem is in writing "ended" now and if a month, a year, or ten years later it's revived, then it becomes "present" again. After all, this statement has been reversed about 6 times in the last 4 days already, though not in response to any actual new information. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 03:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 20:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Yeah, no rush, thanks! - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 22:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
::Made a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_television/styles.css&diff=prev&oldid=1212700675 few] adjustments, take a look at [[Template:Infobox television/testcases#Multiple release dates]] (you may need to clear your cache). Thoughts? -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 04:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::The margins between label names (see country of origin and language) is huge at the moment. Is this fixable? [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 06:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_television/styles.css&diff=prev&oldid=1212714869 Done], too much excessive padding on the cells themselves. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 06:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank you {{u|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. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 18:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_television/styles.css&diff=prev&oldid=1212858720 Done], further padding added to the side of the table as a whole. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 22:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Looks good, good work Alex. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 07:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 19:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


I think we can proceed with implementing this unless there are any further objections. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 16:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Maybe that's because people disagree with your view on what "Ended" implicates (and that you have reverted every time). You insist on verifiable facts before they can say it is not over yet, yet to say it is over you don't have to provide any?&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Palatino;">[[User:Xeworlebi|'''<big><big><sub>X</sub></big></big>'''eworlebi]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Xeworlebi|talk]])</sup></span> 06:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


:{{done}} -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 11:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
:::: So you want me to prove that there isn't an [http://godlessandblack.blogspot.com/2011/06/big-white-rabbit.html invisible rabbit] behind you? It's verifiable that the series finale has aired. ([http://tvguide.co.uk/detail.asp?id=96568135 "Primeval Season 5 Episode 6 of 6... Last in the series...Tue 28 Jun]). So now, after that date, it has indeed "ended". Is your position that a show is assumed to continue forever, to be eternally '''present''' in its Wikipedia article, if the producers fail to make any statement otherwise? I think we could draw guidance from the [[WP:NFF]] guideline: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". That puts the onus on the proponent of creating a film article to show that it has, in reality, started production. We don't have to be quite so strict here, but do you really want to reverse the onus for future TV shows? If you're going to comment, please say why you think "present" is valid, after the show is off the air and out of production, and why it shouldn't simply reflect the status now, rather than what some people wish it was or imagine it will be. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 13:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


== First aired ==
:::::No I want you to prove the show has ended, just like you would have to prove someone is dead before you can say so, you can't go around saying "hey, I haven't heard anything from him in some time, he must be dead". Yes, you need a source that indicates production has started, jut like you would need one to say it has ended. Note that I'm not commenting on any specific case, only general implications of it, if you have sources for this particular case bring them up at the appropriate place, article's talk page. But you know what, I'll comment on this specific case, the source states that it is the last of the series, which there have been five of now, as this is a UK show and series are seasons. I don't even see a single comment about this on the article's talk page. On that last request, I've already answered that in my first reply to you, renewal does regularly come after the season finale and before the production starts for the next one.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Palatino;">[[User:Xeworlebi|'''<big><big><sub>X</sub></big></big>'''eworlebi]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Xeworlebi|talk]])</sup></span> 13:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::"prove the show has ended, just like you would have to prove someone is dead". I hope you don't actually believe that makes sense. For one thing, a dead person usually leaves a dead body. A show that no one has committed to just has -- nothing. Sorry, no corpus delicti. You're asking me to prove your invisible rabbit doesn't exist. "renewal does regularly come after the season finale and before the production starts". Which is hardly a guarantee, and is a very long shot for this show. Anyway, if and when it's renewed, it becomes "present" THEN. What the problem with that? You keep dodging the question I've asked a couple of times: How long does this zombie state of "present" have to be maintained after the show has gone off the air? Or are you happy to let fans just keep pretending it's alive forever? I don't so much insist on stating the show has "ended" but it seems the only alternative is "present", which is quite obviously not true. (And before you talk about "verifiability", tell me why "present" doesn't have to be verified.) [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 16:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Postscript: I've just noticed that you keep saying I want to mark the show as "ended". No, I want to set the "last aired date" as the date the last (first run) show aired, and not as "present". That isn't saying the show has "ended". "Ended" might go in the "status" field when that's more clear. The status is currently undetermined, though I doubt it's coming back. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 07:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


The parameter for first aired states "{{tq|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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 08:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not sure why this must change now, it has only been ''three days''. That it is highly unlikely that the show would be picked up for another series is just your opinion. You know what happens when someone goes missing? It's assumed they're alive, until they're declared dead by a judge they're considered alive. You don't need a body for the declared dead part. If this show is done there will be an announcement, a statement from the network, show creator, a mention in an interview, etc. sets get taken down, actors, writers, etc. get new jobs, … Shows don't just disappear, but you might have to wait more than ''three days''. Something remains in its state until it changes, you need a source for change, not for retaining a current state. There's absolutely no rush to declare it as dead.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Palatino;">[[User:Xeworlebi|'''<big><big><sub>X</sub></big></big>'''eworlebi]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Xeworlebi|talk]])</sup></span> 16:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::The day the last episode that currently exists aired, the state changed. It's no longer "present". The word "present" refers to NOW. Not what might happen in the future. Is there another meaning of that word that I am unaware of? And "If this show is done there will be an announcement"? Really? How do you know that? Why would they? And I'm getting annoyed with you continually using that emotive equation of a show not being renewed and "death", talking about "missing people". Next you'll be saying it's like drowning a kitten. I am objecting to the word "present". That's the issue. It isn't "present" in any sense that I can understand. The show '''finished''' shooting months ago. It '''finished''' airing last week. And for the (fifth?) time HOW LONG DO WE WAIT? If three days is too short, how long do we have to keep this bogus "present" label? If we followed this "It's happening unless they say it's not" rule for upcoming movies, we'd be full steam ahead for a million full fledged articles on films in development hell. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 17:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


: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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 08:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
*Let me try to state this again, clearly. The reason I started this here on the template page is these fields are in the template:
::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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 08:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
| last_aired =
| status =


== Why episodes aired instead of episodes scheduled? ==
The "last aired" date doesn't mean "the last one, forever, it will never ever come back, it's dead Jim", it should mean "the last one before now". As "last night", "last week" were not the final night and week, ever. The "status" field can clarify and describe things like "returning", "cancelled", "uncertain" ... whatever. The convention arose of using "present" for a show that was on daily or weekly while it was running. But when the season has finished, the "last aired" date can be noted as it will certainly be that for several months at least. If this convention was followed, any show could have its last date set at the end of each season with no implication that it had been cancelled and the ensuing outrage. And there would not be dozens of shows "present" that in fact are on hiatus, or even, actually cancelled but no one wants to admit it in public. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 18:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


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.)
:Thinking about it again I think Barsoomian is correct. The planned episodes have all been aired. No deals about any future series. To the best of our knowledge the show is ended. [[User:Jiiimbooh|Jiiimbooh]] ([[User talk:Jiiimbooh|talk]]) 05:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


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”? [[User:GaryFx|GaryFx]] ([[User talk:GaryFx|talk]]) 14:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
::Barsoomian's idea is so wacky wonky nonsense absurd incorrect screwed-up that i honestly think this is a big joke. So according to this idea about having a perpetual '''|last_aired=''' Combat Hospital would have 13 episodes but have a broadcast history of 21 June - 28 June 2011. That is bullshit. Anyone looking at that would think the show was cancelled. Next week it would have 13 episodes and a broadcast history of 21 June - 5 July 2011. And the week after that it would be 13 episodes and 21 June - 12 July 2011. If you append a "Currently broadcast" to that most people would assume one of the two bits of data is wrong. Those that understand the cryptic message being conveyed would also realise you are treating the data as a tv guide rather than an encyclopædic summation. I'm not even going to ask if you are pranking us. <font face="Georgia">[[User:Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">delirious</font>]] &amp; [[Special:Contributions/Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">lost</font>]] ☯ [[User Talk:Deliriousandlost|<sup><font color="purple">~hugs~</font></sup>]]</font> 07:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
::: Try to be a little bit civil. You're putting words in my mouth I never said. Stop doing that. AS I SAID, "Present" is fine for the "last aired" date of a show that's in the midst of its season. The word "cancelled" is in your own mind, where you got that from I don't want to know. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 07:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
:"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. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 15:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
::But doesn’t that mean you can never tell from the infobox whether it’s the number aired or the number produced? [[User:GaryFx|GaryFx]] ([[User talk:GaryFx|talk]]) 20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Let's try this again. You wrote, "''The "last aired" date doesn't mean "the last one, forever, it will never ever come back, it's dead Jim", it should mean "the last one before now". As "last night", "last week" were not the final night and week, ever.''"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_television&diff=437270036&oldid=437263677] That would be you explaining your idea and that which i consider plain wonky because you are describing a perpetual last aired date. I don't care if a show is in the middle of a season or cancelled (o my that evil word) your idea to put up a last aired date in the infobox would imply that the show is cancelled to the casual reader. And infoboxes are to be summations of the article for quick reference. It is the worst of ideas that can be made to sound good because it is fundamentally misrepresenting and just really confusing. Hence i do believe it has to be a joke.<br/>The last aired date field be blank, "present", or the end date of the show and nothing else. The status of the show removed from the template. That is what i would support.<br/>If a show comes back a decade later like Doctor Who then it is easy to change the decade later but to leave it as "Future series unconfirmed" from 1989 through 2004 would have been totally insane. Yet that is what i believe you are suggesting be done with Primeval as compromise since people don't like you putting that it is ended and you refuse to add reference for the ending of the show. And from that we get all of this. Just add in the reference and be done with it. <font face="Georgia">[[User:Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">delirious</font>]] &amp; [[Special:Contributions/Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">lost</font>]] ☯ [[User Talk:Deliriousandlost|<sup><font color="purple">~hugs~</font></sup>]]</font> 09:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
::::: "a last aired date in the infobox would imply that the show is cancelled" No, it doesn't. If that were the meaning, it should be labelled "date of finale". Are you really claiming ignorance of the meaning of the word "last" as, e.g., "In the last episode, Batman was about to be cut in half"? Do you think "My God, what a terrible way to end the series!" or "I wonder how he'll get out of that in the '''next''' episode?" As for "Future series unconfirmed", that's the current status of Primeval, I can't think of a more accurate description until something is announced. And "people don't like you putting that it is ended". Well, you're confused again. I did not do that. You just quoted what I did actually write: "Future series unconfirmed". No one knows for sure. One thing we do know is that it isn't on the air at "present", so that label was incorrect. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::It's called "Original run", if it has an end date then yes that means it's over.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Palatino;">[[User:Xeworlebi|'''<big><big><sub>X</sub></big></big>'''eworlebi]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Xeworlebi|talk]])</sup></span> 18:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::If ITV says they are willing to do 2 more series and those 2 more series are now done the presumptive is that the show is done not that it is unconfirmed. Short of ITV saying, "You know what, those were a smashing success so we're going to make more and please disregard our previous comments" their previous declaration of '2 more series to end it' is confirmation that it is ended. That would be the reference you would want for the end of the show and thus correctly declaring the last aired date in the original run. That is what you refuse and instead put in "Future series unconfirmed" when ITV has previously confirmed there will be no future series. <font face="Georgia">[[User:Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">delirious</font>]] &amp; [[Special:Contributions/Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">lost</font>]] ☯ [[User Talk:Deliriousandlost|<sup><font color="purple">~hugs~</font></sup>]]</font> 03:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Fine, go ahead and make it so and see what happens. I won't revert that. Though I don't think it's actually verifiable, it's what most people think is the situation. I've given up trying to work out why you spit at me and in the next breath advocate going even further than I did. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 04:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::It is going further, but in the other direction, and with a reference. That is all you ever needed to do. Anyone else could have done it too. Instead we get all of this because you don't want to include a reference. I am not asking your permission to do something. I am suggesting a course of action for you to take to resolve the fighting about Primeval. Though i suppose if you are one of those who believe there will be more series produced there is no happy resolution at this time. <font face="Georgia">[[User:Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">delirious</font>]] &amp; [[Special:Contributions/Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">lost</font>]] ☯ [[User Talk:Deliriousandlost|<sup><font color="purple">~hugs~</font></sup>]]</font> 08:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


== first_aired with no last_aired issues ==
I believe shows should be viewed as "present", until it can be confirmed that they are no longer present. Wikipedia operates on [[WP:V|verifiability]]. In the particular case of ''[[Primeval]]'', "future series unconfirmed" is the complete opposite of "verifiable". It was verifiable that the show was on the air; the onus is on the editor who wishes to change the status quo to prove why it should be changed, by using sources. If it is verifiable that the show is not "present", verify it, and there is no problem. Otherwise, it should not be changed. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 05:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
: Here you go: It's verifiable that the status of the show changed on June 28, it is no longer "present". E.g., ([http://tvguide.co.uk/detail.asp?id=96568135 "Primeval Season 5 Episode 6 of 6... Last in the series...Tue 28 Jun]). "Unconfirmed" is just stating the lack of verifiable information regarding future series, so you are correct. If you do have verifiable information, feel free to update it. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 05:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


Currently we don't track pages that have a {{para|first_aired}} value but no {{para|last_aired}} value. The infobox documentation says to use {{para|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.
:: Actually, no. Look at [http://www.tvguide.co.uk/episodeguide.asp?title=Primeval this episode guide], from that same website. Look at the episode descriptions of each final episode of each season; they all say "last in the series". Did ''Primeval'' end after every season? Of course not. I believe this is a case of the UK using different terminology than the United States; they usually use "series" where the US usually uses "season". I'm sure you know this; you just weren't aware that is what the website was doing. In regards to "unconfirmed", we do not document the lack of verifiable information; we document verifiable information. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 06:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


One-off programs, specials and television films usually use {{para|first_aired}} so they will be incorrectly added to the category. Instead, these programs should use {{para|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.
:::The problem is that we can't verify that the show is returning either, so we can't put anything under status. We can't put "end date" or "present" under last aired, because both options would be unverified. It has to all be blank, possibly for years to come. [[User:Jiiimbooh|Jiiimbooh]] ([[User talk:Jiiimbooh|talk]]) 06:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


Thoughts appreciated. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 18:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::: I disagree. In that particular article's case, it already said "10 February 2007 – Present". Then, an editor made an unverified edit to remove "Present". As is the case with all unverified edits, the article should be returned to the state it was in prior to the unverified edit. However, the "status" parameter should then be rendered blank, due to the "unknown" status of the show. This is another reason why I believe the status parameter is in need of removal; it's open to too much ambiguity. Anyway, after the article is returned to its pre-unverified edit state (whether "status" is blanked, or not), those parameters should then only be edited when a verifiable change can be made. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 06:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::"Unverified"? The date and the fact that the last show produced had been aired on 28 June was in the list of episodes in the same article. The infobox summarises that, the links are in the main and subsidiary articles. And in the comment I made just above. I don't know what your problem is in writing "unknown" as the status, and how one is supposed to interpret a blank as that, or anything. It just looks incomplete. Since that parameter does exist, it should be used sensibly. But I'm not terribly concerned about the status as long as the show isn't indicated to be "present" without any verification. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 07:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


:That sounds good. I know the docs say (or said?) that {{para|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. [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::: The "last_aired" parameter isn't used to indicate the most recent episode to have aired. I understand that you feel the word "last" should be used in the manner of "last week" or "last month", but that isn't how it is being used in that parameter. "Last_aired" is used to indicate when the final episode has aired. If the final episode has not aired, it is to read "Present". The link that you have provided only verifies that the last episode of season 5 has aired, not the final episode of the show. The problem with writing "unknown" in the "status" parameter, is that it is not verifiable. By its nature, something that is "unknown" cannot be verified; we only document verified information. It is fine to leave the "status" parameter blank. Now, I suggest any further discussion on ''Primeval'' be taken to that article's discussion page, as that is the proper place to discuss that particular article. It is especially pertinent to discuss these things there, since these things are (presumably) the reason ''[[Primeval]]'' is currently protected from editing; that makes getting this matter resolved of ever higher priority, so when the article is unprotected the article's improvement can continue. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 07:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
::Ok, so I've updated the validation code as follows:
::::::: I raised this here because this interpretation of "last aired" seems, well, foolish to me. It is not simply what is appropriate for one show as I have seen variations of this elsewhere. And 'If the final episode has not aired, it is to read "Present" ' is insane. A show is not on the air, It is not in production. How can it be said to be "present"? How on earth did a default of a show being deemed to be on the air eternally until proven otherwise arise? I can't think of a polite way to describe this, it's simply counter to any logic. The renewal of a TV show is a very uncertain outcome. For Wikipedia to declare that a show is permanently on the air without any actual programs being broadcast or produced, as seems to be the case, is foolish and leads to misleading "facts" stated here. If this is indeed a policy, where is it stated, and who determined this and how can I get the issue considered it logically and get a definition of "last aired" that is congruent with the meaning of the words? As for Primeval, well if writing the date the last episode aired in the "last aired" slot is going to give people aneurysms, having me accused of killing a show prematurely instead of just reporting a fact, well, the only other option is leave it blank. Because "present" is certainly both wrong in the real world and unverifiable in Wikispeak. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 08:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
::* Usage of {{para|first_aired}} without {{para|last_aired}}. As before, if it is still ongoing use {{para|last_aired|present}}
::* Usage of {{para|last_aired}} without {{para|first_aired}}.
::* Usage of {{para|first_aired}} and {{para|released}}.
::* Usage of {{para|last_aired}} and {{para|released}}.
::* No {{para|first_aired}} or {{para|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 {{para|released}} instead of {{para|first_aired}} (as the output label is "Release" regardless). [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 09:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


== Using footnotes in the infobox ==
:::::::: Please refrain from uncivil hyperbole. You're advocating that every infobox, in every article, on every current show, be edited at the end of every season? If this isn't what you're advocating, please tell what it is. Most shows aren't perpetually "in production", so your interpretation would have those shows be considered what? Not current? A show is "on the air", until it is either verifiably canceled or verifiably out of production, by choice. Having a show's run listed as "''Date'' - Present" is its last known verifiable state. Once there is another verifiable state (such as canceled), then the article is changed to reflect that. You seem to believe verifiable proof of a show's cancelation (or end) is something that is hard to come by; this is rarely the case. In the case of "last aired", the word [[wikt:last|last]] has a definition that is congruent with this parameter's current use of it: "Final, ultimate, coming after all others of its kind." Last also has the meaning you wish to adjoin to it here: "Most recent, latest, last so far." Both definitions, and uses, are accurate; for this parameter, however, the first use is being employed. I honestly don't understand your objection to this. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 09:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: The current convention is insane. Is it uncivil to insult a convention? I apologise to the convention, I hope it can forgive me. It seems it's open season to insult me here, so I'm sorry if I am not turning the other cheek as much as I should. Anyway, the infobox parameter "num_episode" is normally updated for every single episode aired, so updating last_aired once a year doesn't seem a great burden. And again "A show is "on the air", until it is either verifiably canceled or verifiably out of production". This is ******* (since I will avoid incivilty). The "on air" status of a show can be VERIFIED quite easily by recourse to any number of reliable program guides, not least the broadcaster or producer itself. If the show is not on the current schedule, it's not on the air. Are you seriously telling me this is not verifiable? How did it happen that the onus for upcoming TV shows ("prove it's NOT going to happen") is exactly the opposite of that for upcoming movies ("confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography" [[WP:NFF]])? "You seem to believe verifiable proof of a show's cancelation (or end) is something that is hard to come by; this is rarely the case." Great! Tell me how to come by this information for [[Primeval]]. How long do we wait? A month? A year? /// "Last also has the meaning you wish to adjoin to it here: "Most recent, latest, last so far." Both definitions, and uses, are accurate; for this parameter, however, the first use is being employed." Excellent. That's what obviously should be used for "last_aired" : The date of the "most recent" episode. While we're looking at definitions, may I reiterate that my original issue was that "present" is misleading (not to mention, completely, and verifiably, untrue) for a show not on the air, especially one with no real prospect for renewal. How do you justify that, since it seems you do fully support that convention?[[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 12:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


I see the documentation is silent on the use of footnotes. Should we encourage the use of footnotes for certain cases? Here is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Sheldon&diff=prev&oldid=1213420807 an example] where I think footnotes could be useful.
{{outdent|:::::::::}}I have not insulted you; in fact, I feel I have been quite patient with you. You appear to be becoming defensive. That is not an optimal position to take, when having a discussion. Just [[WP:COOL|calm down]]; a pleasant discourse is better for everyone. An "upcoming" television show's production does need to be verified, before "first_aired" can be filled in; the first episode must have already aired, before that parameter should be filled. Once a show is already on the air, however, verifiable information is needed to fill the "last_aired" parameter; the show's final episode has to have aired (and it must be verifiable that it is the show's final episode). This interpretation of "last_aired" is correct; your interpretation of "last_aired" is also correct. Currently, however, the first interpretation is the one in use. This is the current convention; if you feel this current convention is incorrect, you are welcome to see if [[WP:CCC|consensus on this issue has changed]]. A show having "no real prospect for renewal" is [[WP:OR|original research]], unless that opinion can be attributed to a reliable source. It appears that you are also contending that a television show, while not in production, should be considered as "ended". The reason I say it appears that way, is because you link to [[WP:NFF]]. If this is something you are contending, I would remind you of [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. Essentially, you appear to be contending that a show should be considered over, until it is confirmed to be back in production. This is predicting the future. It is also predicting the future to consider an upcoming television show as "present" when it has yet to air; however, it is not predicting the future to consider a show that is already on the air to be on the air, until it has verfiably ended. That is to say, a show must remain in its most recent verifiable state, until a change of that state can be verified. The end of a season/series does not qualify as the end of a show. As for ''Primeval'', this information does not yet exist for that particular show. [[WP:WIP|Wikipedia is a work in progress]]; be patient. If a show is canceled, there is likely to be information to verify this, soon. As I said, in rare cases, this information may take a longer amount of time. [[WP:DEADLINE|There is no rush]]. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 18:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
#The end date of a television series has been publicly announced
: I didn't say you insulted me. Others have here, with impunity. Just look above. I'm not whining about it, but it sets a tone. Moving on: "It appears that you are also contending that a television show, while not in production, should be considered as "ended"." No, I never said that either. One more time: What I am saying that any assertion that it is continuing (i.e., a new season at some time in the future) requires verification, same as any future event. I cannot understand how you can say this is "Crystal". It's the assumption that a new season will be made, with no evidence, that is crystal balling. But this is not actually the point I started with, though important. I was and am concerned with the word "present" being used when a show is not present. "until a change of that state can be verified". Exactly. The state of being "present" changed when the last episode of the season was broadcast (and in this case, no renewal has been made). Both these facts are verifiable. It DOES NOT mean that the show is ended. A definition of "present as "not ended" is wrong. It's misleading and unhelpful to put "present" in the infobox when the show isn't on the air and in some cases, hasn't been renewed. Your faith that definitive information will be forthcoming on Primeval is based on what? Assuming that is crystal balling. Assuming the the show will be renewed, is even more crystal balling and/or original research. I've asked others here and been ignored: How long is this state of grace allowed to last? I was abused for changing it immediately. So, a week? A month? Six months? How long does does "nothing" happen before it's allowed to admit that a show is not "present"? And just again, as this keeps getting misinterpreted: Not stating it's cancelled, merely that it's not "present". [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 04:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Up the Walls|Up the Walls]] ([[User talk:Up the Walls|talk]]) 00:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


:No. The [[WP:INFOBOX]] is pretty clear that {{tq|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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 07:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:: The assertion is not that a show is continuing. That's where I think we are losing each other. In an article which currently says "Present", the most recent verifiable state is "Present". The end of a season/series does not render a show "not present". To change an article that already says "Present" to include a "last_aired" date is assuming the show will not be renewed, only because it has yet to be renewed (or canceled, or any other change of state). No verification is needed to leave an article in its already verified state; the verification is needed to change its state. There is no assumption that a new season will be made; it is only the leaving of an article in its most recent verifiable state. You seem to be saying you feel, once a season/series has ended, then that is reason enough to remove "Present". That isn't reason enough to remove "Present", because the removal of "Present" implies that the show has ended. That doesn't mean that you are removing present because you consider the show to have ended; it only means that including a "Last_aired" date implies that the show has ended. This is the current use of the "Last_aired" parameter. I understand that you disagree with that interpretation of the "Last_aired" parameter, but that is the case. My faith that definitive information will be forthcoming on Primeval is based on history; when shows are canceled (or end), it is usually verifiable. The duration of this "state of grace" is irrelevant. Again, Wikipedia does not have a deadline; it is a work in progress. Articles should only be edited when such an edit can be verified, whenever that may occur. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 05:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::: "The assertion is not that a show is continuing." Yes, it is. That's what the English word "present" implies. "The end of a season/series does not render a show "not present""????? How can it not? ". To change an article that already says "Present" to include a "last_aired" date is assuming the show will not be renewed," No, it isn't. It's stating the date the show as last aired, exactly as one would expect "last_aired" to reflect. "You seem to be saying you feel, once a season/series has ended, then that is reason enough to remove "Present". " Correct. "the removal of "Present" implies that the show has ended." No, it doesn't -- as I've said at least 20 times in previous posts. Anyway, at least you haven't insulted me like the others who disagreed with me. But I hope you won't be offended if I conclude by saying: This is wrong and it's bad for Wikipedia as it makes articles report as "fact" things that are demonstrably, verifiably, untrue. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 06:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
:::That's actually a pretty good idea. Let me think about how to properly phrase it. [[User:Up the Walls|Up the Walls]] ([[User talk:Up the Walls|talk]]) 07:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


== Adding "anticipated" to template ==
:::: You acknowledge the current consensus on the use of "Last_aired", correct? That current consensus is that "Last_aired" is being used to represent the date of the final episode, not the most recent episode. Again, both interpretations are correct, but only one of them can be employed; currently, the one you disagree with is being used. With this consensus in mind, the end of a season/series does not render a show "not present" because the final episode of a season/series is not necessarily the final episode of the show. The word "Present" merely implies that the show is ongoing, which it is, until it has verifiably ended. With that, the "Last_aired" parameter is not being employed to state "the date the show last aired"; it is being employed to state the date the final episode aired. Bearing that in mind, again, filling the "Last_aired" parameter, with a date, is implying that the show has ended. I realize that you disagree with this--and have stated so multiple times; your disagreement, however, does not change the fact that this is the case. I honestly don't understand how leaving an article in its most recent verifiable state is bad for Wikipedia. If you feel consensus has changed on this, there are avenues by which one can determine that. As consensus stands, currently, your interpretation of the "Last_aired" parameter and the use of the word "Present" within this infobox is against consensus. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 06:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
::::: Why is it bad? I've said that a dozen times too. Because you are labelling a show "present" when it's not present, it's off the air. This novel definition was created [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_television/Archive_9#Last_aired in 2009] and has been religiously applied ever since. This date parameter is not being used as a date at all, but as the status of a show (those that have not been verifiably cancelled). Every show that is not cancelled is "present". Thus defeating the point of having a date parameter since it hardly ever is used as a date. By the way, like everyone else, you keep ignoring my question of how long a show is to continue as "present" in the absence of either formal renewal or cancellation. You just laugh it off as if that was an impossible situation. You insist that it must be announced at some time, but only have "faith" to back this up. You won't even answer it hypothetically. Why not? [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 07:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::On their own '''{{para|last_aired}}''' and '''{{para|first_aired}}''' each result in the infobox saying that it is a single date. When used in combination the infobox calls it '''Original Run''', which is the opposite of the second run syndication at 7;30 Monday-Friday of How I Met Your Mother on the FOX station i get. That said i don't know of any show that makes use of the '''{{para|last_aired}}''' to the exclusion of a '''{{para|first_aired}}''' date though i suppose it is possibly found on some articles of the oldest television programmes. The original run of a programme does not end each week with the newest episode. It also doesn't end with each season or series. The Listener's first season was shown in Morocco beginning on 1 March 2009. It was on CTV starting on 3 June 2009 and NBC on 4 June 2009. It was renewed in 2009 for a second season. There were no new episodes broadcast in 2010. The show was still not cancelled or unconfirmed. The second season premiered in Canada on 8 February 2011. There is 23 months 1 week gap between the premieres of the first and second seasons. All that time it was still "2009-present". What you are most recently advocating is that the original run be changed at the end of each season to indicate the original run is over and when the next season premiere comes along change the original run back to read "present". If a show is known to have more episodes coming and often until there is some indication beyond mere speculation that there will be no more the original run is not yet over. The 12th season of Degrassi has already been confirmed but they are still working on season 11 and the most recent broadcast of a new episode was the season 10 finale. The 5th season of Flashpoint has been confirmed but the fourth season has yet to be broadcast anywhere (CBS and their wonky lies being dismissed cause it is s3 they are showing) yet the show says "2008-present" and will continue to once the fourth season is shown. Because the original runs of these shows are known to not be completed. "last_aired" as a parametre in the infobox is a convenient, short term that conveys the intended content. If it were to be "end_date" would you be here saying that the end date is each week with each new episode or the end date is with each season until the next starts. No matter what it is actually called in the template it is intended to be the first date of broadcast of the final episode of the show. <font face="Georgia">[[User:Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">delirious</font>]] &amp; [[Special:Contributions/Deliriousandlost|<font color="#ff69b4">lost</font>]] ☯ [[User Talk:Deliriousandlost|<sup><font color="purple">~hugs~</font></sup>]]</font> 08:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::What you are most recently advocating is that the original run be changed at the end of each season to indicate the original run is over" No, I'm not. But I'm used to you making up crap, declaring I said it and then calling me names. So we'll leave it at that. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 13:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


Although [[Wikipedia:CRYSTAL|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:
:::::: {{edit conflict}} I understand that you have stated why you feel it is bad. However, the simple fact that you have stated that you feel it is bad doesn't automatically make it bad. I have explained to you how current consensus interprets "Present" and how that interpretation is not in line with your interpretation. This "novel definition", having been "religiously applied" for two years, represents [[WP:SILENCE|assumed consensus, due to silence]]. Not only was this consensus reached through discussion, but it has also stood the test of time--even being reaffirmed, in later discussion: [[Template_talk:Infobox_television/Archive_12#Dates_in_infobox|Here]]. However, as I have already said, if you feel [[WP:CCC|consensus has changed]], there are ways to determine that; simply stating "This is bad" or "This is not being used correctly" is not a way to determine if consensus has changed. As for your question, I did not ignore it or laugh it off. The duration of time is irrelevant. Again, Wikipedia does not have a deadline; it is a work in progress. Articles should only be edited when such an edit can be verified, whenever that may occur. I used "faith" because that's the term you applied to it. Hypothetically, in the extremely rare case of a show's renewal/cancellation never being verifiable; that would be handled on a case-by-case basis. Has it ever happened? Has a show ever gone off the air or been renewed without that somehow being verifiable? This feels like a [[straw man]] argument, because this hypothetical situation is such a rare occurrence. One rare situation I can think of, off-hand, is ''[[Futurama]]''; it was never "canceled", but it was simply allowed to go out of production. How do I know that? Because a reliable source reported on it; that's what happens. When a show ends, the overwhelmingly usual result is someone saying something about it. I've answered your question, both directly and hypothetically. I don't see where this discussion has any further to go. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, fine. Any arguments I make supported by facts or logic are simply my "feelings" and will be discounted. I get that.
:::::::"When a show ends, the overwhelmingly usual result is someone saying something about it." Well, duh. Obviously it isn't an issue for the shows that are formally cancelled. But I also know that it isn't true for the particular show "Primeval". "Has a show ever gone off the air or been renewed without that somehow being verifiable?" It's easy to verify that the show has gone off the air, but apparently that isn't enough, I have to verify that someone says that it is "cancelled". And as "the duration of time is irrelevant", so, if Impossible Pictures doesn't issue a statement saying the show is cancelled (they won't, not for years at least) , then "Primeval" is absolutely required to be "Present" forever. How appropriate for a show about time travel. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 13:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


* '''<code>num_episodes_anticipated</code>:''' to display next to the <code>num_episodes</code> as such: X (out of an anticipated Y ) {{pad|1.0em}} <small>if x < y — should not be displayed if x ≥ y</small>
:::::::: I disagree with the position that your arguments have been supported by facts and/or logic, but that isn't the point. If you want to argue that consensus has changed on the interpretation of this infobox's parameters, perhaps [[Wikipedia:CON#Consensus-building_by_soliciting_outside_opinions|you can explore these avenues]] for determining that. Current consensus, however, does not support your arguments. In regard to ''Primeval'', that show aired its series 5 finale '''six''' days ago. Be patient. If that show is canceled, someone is most likely to say something, soon. It doesn't have to be Impossible Pictures; it only has to be a reliable source reporting that the show has been canceled (or renewed). To use the ''Futurama'' example, again, [[Zap2it]] reported that the show had been allowed to go out of production. All that's needed is a reliable source. Again, to be clear, current consensus does not recognize the most recently aired episode as "Last_aired"; current consensus recognizes the final episode as "Last_aired". So, to fill in "Last_aired", a reliable source is needed to verify that the most recent episode is, in fact, the final episode. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
* '''<code>num_seasons_anticipated</code>:''' to display next to the <code>num_seasons</code> as such: X (out of an anticipated Y) {{pad|1.0em}} <small>if x < y — should not be displayed if x ≥ y</small>
::::::::: "reliable source is needed to verify that the most recent episode is, in fact, the final episode"? True, but irrelevant. We are not talking about the "final" episode, but the "last aired" one. If the date was meant to be the date of the finale, why isn't it "Final(e) date"? The date of the last aired episode is a simple unambiguous fact, which you are insisting cannot be stated unless and until some unnamed person at some undetermined time in the future declares they are not going to do something. The state of "present" when it is not on the air requires a definition of the word "present" that is unique to this template and unexpected to any speaker of English. You may sadly be correct that consensus, amongst the self-selected group that decides this, agrees with these absurdities. I reject your assertion that it has any relation to logic. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 09:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
* '''<code>anticipated_end_date</code>:''' to display as (anticipated series finale date) {{pad|1.0em}} <small>Applicable only if <code>end_date=present</code>, should not be displayed otherwise</small>
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. [[User:Up the Walls|Up the Walls]] ([[User talk:Up the Walls|talk]]) 17:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


: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. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 21:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::: We are, indeed, talking about the "final" episode. It is not my problem, if you refuse to accept this. I could easily say, "If the date was meant to be the date of the most recent episode, why isn't it 'Most_recent'?" I don't have to say that, however, because it's irrational. You're choosing to only accept your point of view. I've acknowledged that your interpretation could also be accurate, which is why it's understandable that you would come here looking for clarity; however, I have offered clarity, and all you've offered is confrontation. You've made your opinion on current consensus known, and you're aware of how you could determine if consensus has changed; instead of either accepting consensus or attempting to see if consensus has changed, you've decided to continue simply arguing your [[WP:POINT|point]]. Sometimes consensus doesn't agree with you; it's okay. If you can't accept that, just continue improving Wikipedia in some other fashion or perhaps taking a break from Wikipedia would be an option. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 21:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Up the Walls|Up the Walls]] ([[User talk:Up the Walls|talk]]) 21:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::: You still fail to justify the definitions you insist on, it's a [http://www.wordspy.com/words/HumptyDumptylanguage.asp Humpty Dumpty definition]. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 02:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Many things that are announced do not happen. We report what has happened. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 16:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Up the Walls|Up the Walls]] ([[User talk:Up the Walls|talk]]) 17:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::But again, you can do that with the existing parameters. A separate param isn't needed to say "anticipated". - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 18:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::How would we accomplish that with existing parameters? [[User:Up the Walls|Up the Walls]] ([[User talk:Up the Walls|talk]]) 18:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Episodes: 5 / 10
:::::::Episodes: 5 (released) 10 (expected)
:::::::Episodes: 10[ref]
:::::::etc.
:::::::There are many options. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 07:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::None of adam's options are appropriate or correct and as I said above, {{em|if}} this style is good for one series it's good for all series. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 08:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::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. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 10:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 13:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 13:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


== Proposal to remove the "country" parameter ==
{{outdent|:::::::::::}}No, it isn't.
# "Last_aired", according to consensus, represents the final episode.
# "Present", according to consensus, is used when a show has not aired its final episode.
# Removing "Present" and filling "Last_aired", according to consensus, signifies that a show has ended.
It's quite easy. Please, either accept consensus, or take the next step to determine if it has changed. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 02:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
:: It's '''exactly''' [http://www.wordspy.com/words/HumptyDumptylanguage.asp that]. If "Last aired" is a date, it means the the show has ended Except when it's "present" when it then means "Not cancelled". That's perfectly clear. My confusion arises because I was using the meaning of the words as defined in a dictionary. How foolish of me. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 04:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


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. [[User:U-Mos|U-Mos]] ([[User talk:U-Mos|talk]]) 12:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::: I'm stepping away from this conversation. Have a nice day. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 04:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


: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. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 12:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
* Here we have a consequence of this idiotic definition: [[The Adventures of Dudley the Dragon]]. The last show was made in 1999. Yet its infobox states "Original run: 1993 –present". I might have tried to fix this, but I've been told here over and over that there is no time limit on "present" and that you have to prove a show has been cancelled before you can write the "last aired" date. So this show must therefore be present, 12 years after it ceased production. But the important thing is that your definitions are all self consistent, no matter what happens in the real world. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 04:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
::Agreed. Having multiple original networks does not necessarily mean there are multiple countries of origin; ''Doctor Who'' is solely owned by the BBC ([https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-disney-plus-deal-explained/] [https://www.themarysue.com/does-disney-own-doctor-who-explained/]), 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. [[User:Irltoad|Irltoad]] ([[User talk:Irltoad|talk]]) 13:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::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? [[User:U-Mos|U-Mos]] ([[User talk:U-Mos|talk]]) 13:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::::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 {{endash}} 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 [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Request for comment: original network/country of origin in infoboxes|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. [[User:Irltoad|Irltoad]] ([[User talk:Irltoad|talk]]) 13:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::::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 {{tq|The show's country of origin|q=y}}; should we reword it to something like {{tq|The country in which the show originated with its first season|q=y}}? -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 22:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::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"). [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 23:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's fair, that's why I added the consideration of {{tq|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? -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 01:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 05:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 08:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doctor_Who&diff=prev&oldid=1213966789 th][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doctor_Who_(2023_specials)&diff=prev&oldid=1213966937 ese] would probably be something to factor into this discussion as well. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 07:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:U-Mos|U-Mos]] ([[User talk:U-Mos|talk]]) 08:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'd support removing it at the season template and keeping it at the parent template, and redefining what the latter is intended for. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 08:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I would also support this. It feels like a good compromise between giving clarity and information, while reducing confusion and disputes [[User:Irltoad|Irltoad]] ([[User talk:Irltoad|talk]]) 08:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::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. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 14:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


I've requested the parameter be removed at [[Template talk:Infobox television season#Template-protected edit request on 24 March 2024]]. [[User:U-Mos|U-Mos]] ([[User talk:U-Mos|talk]]) 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:: A short Google search returned this "[http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/428028241.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+05%2C+1999&author=Greg+Quill&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Thrills+%27n%27+chills+TV+%3B+Graham+Greene+stars+in+mystery+movie+made+for+The+New+VR.&pqatl=google He was equally at home as Mr Crabby Tree in the now cancelled hit children's TV series The Adventures Of Dudley The Dragon.]", which is a reliable source confirming that ''The Adventures of Dudley the Dragon'' had been canceled. We shouldn't base our policies on the fact that one may be able to find a poorly sourced article. Wikipedia is a work in progress; as such, it contains a great many poorly sourced articles. If you want to "fix" that article, or any other poorly sourced article, that's great; just make sure you "fix" it with sourced information. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 04:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Don't patronise me with lectures about how to use sourced information. That isn't the issue. If you are going to fault my edits on those grounds, be specific. Your source is behind a paywall, so it's not accessible anyway to assess its reliability. I'm not going to put myself out to fix problems that your policy has created. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 06:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


== Disagreement about present or end date on last_aired parameter ==
:::: I'm not patronizing you. You pointed at a poorly sourced article and expected that to mean--what exactly? I'm only saying, as I said previously: if a show is canceled, a reliable source will likely say something about it. At least one reliable source has noted that ''The Adventures of Dudley the Dragon'' was canceled. The fact that our article on ''The Adventures of Dudley the Dragon'' hasn't been edited to include verifiable information is beside the matter; verifiable information exists. As it pertains to that source, the fact that it is [[WP:PAYWALL|behind a paywall]] does not affect its reliability. The only problem here is that ''The Adventures of Dudley the Dragon'' hasn't been edited properly, and that has nothing to do with your argument. It's not "[my] policy"; it's just consensus. Nobody is asking you to put yourself out. Editing Wikipedia is not compulsory; you do not have to participate, if doing so puts you out. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 06:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
::::: "I'm not patronizing you". You just took the opportunity to lecture me about reliable sources because you thought I'd never heard of the concept? Sorry for misinterpreting your helpful pointers. And it is your policy. You support it, you enforce it. (No, not "yours" exclusively, obviously, and unfortunately.) The state of the Dudley article demonstrates what happens when your policy of "default present" is applied: instead of the last aired date being applied from the simple known facts at the time it happens, it must be left to some nebulous future time when a random mention is made in a random newspaper. And if no reporter happens to mention it in passing, if no one is paying attention, it will continue to display the obviously incorrect "fact" that the show is "present" indefinitely. Anyway, since you apparently have access to this particular news item, you can verify its reliability and update the article in conformance with your policy. I can't. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 07:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


:::::: I apologize if you feel slighted, at all. It seems discussion with you often ends with you accusing other editors of insulting you in some way. I don't wish to unintentionally insult you, anymore. That is the end of this discussion, for me--again. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Me and another [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paper9oll 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 [[Talk:Flex X Cop#Present or End date on Infobox|discussion]] and also [[Talk:Extraordinary Attorney Woo#Infobox last_aired date for Season 2|this]]. Can someone help? <span style="background:#FFBE98;border:1px solid black">[[User:98Tigerius|<span style="color:#FFF8E7"><b>98</b></span>]][[User talk:98Tigerius|<span style="color:#FFF8E7"><b>𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂</b></span>]]</span> 23:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::: Again the "it's all in your mind" response, ignoring the point. So you'll let [[The Adventures of Dudley the Dragon]] rot. Fine, who cares? I'll fix it then, feel free to revert it. You must think it's so clever to disparage someone in the form of an apology. Try addressing the subject rather than what you imagine are my personal failings and a lot of time would be saved. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 09:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


== Adding animation services attribute ==
:::::::: You know what? No. I'm not going to ignore that comment. I'm not disparaging you. I don't understand how you could possibly think I am. It's consensus. I won't link to it, though, because then you'll find some way to say I'm insulting you. You understand what consensus is; you understand how consensus works; so what's the problem? If consensus agreed with you, I would support that. The only reason I joined this discussion, to begin with, is because I was trying to help you, because you seemed to not understand. I see now that you do understand; it's just that you don't care. As long as consensus on this matter disagrees with you, you're going to argue the point. So have fun. I'm finished letting you [[WP:BAIT|bait me]]. Have a nice day. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 09:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: Baiting you? Let's expand that acronym you hurl at me: "Disruptive, agenda-driven or disturbed editors may egg you on" How pleasant of you. I'm not looking for an argument, I was looking for a discussion of the issues. Your response to any question starts and ends with "It's consensus". That doesn't tell me why. You say "If you disagree, change the consensus". But if I try to do that, by discussing the issue, pointing out cases where the "consensus " policy has lead to absurd outcomes, you just assert that I don't understand the concept of consensus, or tell me what a reliable source is, or to look both ways when crossing the road. All quite useful knowledge, to be sure. None of which address the basic question I started with weeks ago, which you simply refuse to address: what does the English word "present" mean and how on earth can it be redefined to the exact opposite of its normal meaning? Let me guess: it's because that's the consensus. And to question that is a sign of a disturbed mind. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 17:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


I suggest adding an attribute for animation services for animated shows, as opposed to adding non-standard parameters to do that. [[User:Raymondsze|Raymondsze]] ([[User talk:Raymondsze|talk]]) 01:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::: "That doesn't tell me why" - I attempted to tell you why, but apparently I was not clear enough: Others do not have an issue with this (hence, it is consensus). I did not say that you do not understand consensus; I particularly said that you do understand consensus. I have also said, multiple times, that the English word "present" is not being misused here. It simply is not being misused. There are multiple ways of determining if consensus has changed. Maybe others will agree with you; that's the point of something like an [[WP:RFC|RFC]], to get more editors involved. If more editors are brought in, perhaps they will agree with you. That is fine. Continuing this discussion, between you and me, is not productive, but I did not want to leave it on the terms I left it on, last night. I hope you find someway to get past this, whether that means further discussion with someone else or accepting that consensus does not always agree with you. I, however, have wasted too much time on this. <span style="font-size:smaller;">[[User:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background:#F83;color:Black;">&nbsp;Chicken</b>]][[User talk:Chickenmonkey|<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey&nbsp;</b>]]</span> 18:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Again, you say only that "it's consensus". No examination of the logic. You know how unlikely it is that anyone not a habitué of this page will take an interest. It's the people who made and support the policy who should explain it. Also when the issue did arise elsewhere, when you forced [[Primeval]] to conform to this ruling, you accused me of forum shopping. And while I can see you are now trying to be polite, if you don't want to argue the logic, please just don't respond at all. It's not like I force you to participate. Your homilies about what consensus means and how I should just accept it are not achieving anything and to repeat them over and over, mixed in with various links implying that I'm a "disruptive, agenda-driven or disturbed editor" is counter-productive. [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] ([[User talk:Barsoomian|talk]]) 03:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


: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. [[User:DA39A3|DA39A3]] ([[User talk:DA39A3|talk]]) 16:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
== Removal of website parameter ==


== Alternatives to writer and director parameters ==
I don't think a URL is crucial information, and therefore, shouldn't be part of the main infobox. Isn't that what the external links section is for? I don't think it's any more notable for inclusion than the "reviews" parameter for albums/singles that was deprecated a while ago. [[User:Lachlanusername|Lachlanusername]] ([[User talk:Lachlanusername|talk]]) 07:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


From [[Talk:The Penguin (TV series)#Illogical and inconsistent arguments|this discussion]], it seems there is some disagreement over when to include the <code>writer</code> and <code>director</code> parameters. I want to propose something different: omitting those parameters for TV series and adding a <code>showrunner</code> parameter. This could go at the top of the production section, before <code>executive_producer</code>. I also propose omitting <code>creative_director</code> 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.
== Status=Under Production ==


Paraphrasing my rationale from {{diff2|1217606849|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:
Why isn't there a parameter to not that a show is now Under Production? I want to adjust the infobox at ''[[The Firm (2012 TV series)]]''.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|BIO]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:FOUR]]) </small> 18:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
* [[Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 12#Showrunner parameter|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).
* [[Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 14#Showrunner History in Key Info Box|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 [https://directories.wga.org/project/834752/the-office/ WGA directory] lists them.
— [[User:RunningTiger123|RunningTiger123]] ([[User talk:RunningTiger123|talk]]) 01:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


: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 {{tl|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 {{tl|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 <code>(S1)</code>, <code>(Season 1)</code>, <code><nowiki><small>(season 1-season 10)</small></nowiki></code> after the names, or just list with no context, both of which are IMO unhelpful or bad syntax.
== Website display text ==
:The only valid usage as you've noted, is for television films or one-off programs. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 07:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
::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. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 09:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
:::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). [[User:U-Mos|U-Mos]] ([[User talk:U-Mos|talk]]) 10:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
:::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 (2004 TV series)|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. [[User:RunningTiger123|RunningTiger123]] ([[User talk:RunningTiger123|talk]]) 17:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
::::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. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 17:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:RunningTiger123|RunningTiger123]] ([[User talk:RunningTiger123|talk]]) 18:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::Sure, I understand/overlooked that point about those sole creators then also being credited elsewhere. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 18:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::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 {{para|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. [[User:Trailblazer101|Trailblazer101]] ([[User talk:Trailblazer101|talk]]) 00:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
: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. — [[User:YoungForever|<span style="color: #E63E62;font-family:Georgia;">'''Young'''</span><span style="color: #414A4C;font-family:Georgia;">'''Forever'''</span>]][[User talk: YoungForever|<sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)</sup>]] 19:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
::Just for clarification, this is not about removing these parameter, rather updating the documentation for when and how they are used. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 19:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Based on RunningTiger123's proposal and other editors' comments, it seemed to read that way. — [[User:YoungForever|<span style="color: #E63E62;font-family:Georgia;">'''Young'''</span><span style="color: #414A4C;font-family:Georgia;">'''Forever'''</span>]][[User talk: YoungForever|<sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)</sup>]] 19:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
::::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: {{para|writer}} and {{para|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 {{para|showrunner}} parameter. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 22:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
: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 [https://deadline.com/2021/11/chicago-fire-ep-andrea-newman-upped-co-showrunner-nbc-derek-haas-1234872364/], [https://tvline.com/news/fbi-international-showrunner-season-3-matt-olmstead-cbs-1235054675/], [https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/greys-anatomy-station-19-showrunner-krista-vernoff-exit-1235502571/], [https://deadline.com/2021/10/chicago-pd-gwen-sigan-upped-showrunner-nbc-series-universal-tv-overall-deal-1234859101/], [https://tvline.com/news/the-handmaids-tale-showrunner-change-final-season-6-bruce-miller-1234952526/], [https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/peter-lenkov-fired-cbs-magnum-pi-macgyver-1234700376/], [https://deadline.com/2023/10/john-shiban-showrunner-nbcs-law-and-order-organized-crime-1235578708/], [https://tvline.com/news/good-omens-season-3-renewal-douglas-mackinnon-showrunner-leaving-1235064809/], and [https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/avatar-the-last-airbender-showrunner-albert-kim-steps-down-netflix-1235960758/]. 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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Nicholas0|Nicholas0]] ([[User talk:Nicholas0|talk]]) 07:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::Regardless, this discussion has evolved beyond the scope of the original discussion to talk about the writer, director, and potential showrunner params in general. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 07:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
: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? [[User:RunningTiger123|RunningTiger123]] ([[User talk:RunningTiger123|talk]]) 01:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
::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 [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television|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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 04:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:RunningTiger123|RunningTiger123]] ([[User talk:RunningTiger123|talk]]) 11:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 03:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've also notified the season infobox talk about this discussion. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|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 {{ping|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? [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 03:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::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? - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 08:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::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]]? [[User:RunningTiger123|RunningTiger123]] ([[User talk:RunningTiger123|talk]]) 14:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 03:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with all that's been done since I've last been active and the plan moving forward. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::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:Line_of_Duty#Line_of_Duty_showrunner_in_infobox|talk page section about it]], and I'd appreciate comments from anyone who has an opinion. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 19:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::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. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I assume that these two sources from the BBC: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/line-of-duty-5/mercurio] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2020/line-of-duty-filming-wraps] 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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 02:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::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. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 20:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 04:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


== Edit request 20 April 2024 ==
{{edit protected|answered=yes}}
Please amend the last two parameter-pairs from
<pre>| data45 = {{#if:{{{website|}}}|[{{{website}}} {{{website_title|Website}}}]}}
| class45 = url
| data46 = {{#if:{{{production_website|}}}|[{{{production_website}}} Production website]}}
| class46 = url</pre>
to
<pre>| data45 = {{#if:{{{website|}}}|{{{website}}}}}
| class45 = url
| data46 = {{#if:{{{production_website|}}}|{{nowrap|Production website:}} {{{production_website}}}}}
| class46 = url</pre>
for better accessibility and printability of these external links (so a printed copy of the page will have an actual URL rather than just the text "Website" or "Production website"). — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[:en:User:OwenBlacker|OwenBlacker]]</span> ([[:en:User talk:OwenBlacker|Talk]])</span> 09:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
:I've made your changes to [[Template:Infobox television/sandbox]]. I've also made a few changes of my own for consideration: if you are not using titles for the URLs it may be better to use the label function of the infobox. Please see my edit summaries to the sandbox and also [[Template:Infobox television/testcases]], and give me your comments. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 18:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


{{Edit template-protected|answered=yes}}
== Infobox preview? ==


'''Description of suggested change:'''
Is there a reason why there is no longer a preview of the Infobox? [[User:AnimatedZebra|AnimatedZebra]] ([[User talk:AnimatedZebra|talk]]) 14:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Add a "showrunner" parameter to the Infobox and renumber the subsequent parameters. This has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_television/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1219836372 added to the sandbox] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_television/testcases&diff=prev&oldid=1219836808#Showrunner tested] and appears to have worked. The two just need synced. It's too much text to go into {{tl|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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 04:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
: What do you mean? If you don't enter any parameters you end up with an empty box. [[User:117Avenue|117Avenue]] ([[User talk:117Avenue|talk]]) 00:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
:: On the {{tl|Infobox Sydney New Year's Eve}} page, there is a preview up top. [[User: AnimatedZebra|AnimatedZebra ]] ([[User talk: AnimatedZebra |talk]]) 07:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
: {{Done}} [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 17:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
:: Documentation has been updated. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 18:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
: As the user who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_television&diff=277174223&oldid=273052288 removed it] said, we've got proper documentation. [[User:117Avenue|117Avenue]] ([[User talk:117Avenue|talk]]) 05:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Shouldn't showrunner be plural with a "s" when they are multiple showrunners as just not the showrunner as in singular as in adding {{tl|Pluralize from text|{{{showrunner|}}}|plural=s}}? Like executive producer is plural when there are multiple executive producers and not plural when there is only one executive producer. — [[User:YoungForever|<span style="color: #E63E62;font-family:Georgia;">'''Young'''</span><span style="color: #414A4C;font-family:Georgia;">'''Forever'''</span>]][[User talk: YoungForever|<sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)</sup>]] 17:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:TheDoctorWho Public|TheDoctorWho Public]] ([[User talk:TheDoctorWho Public|talk]]) 19:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::There probably needs to be a separate discussion to review all the places that need plural criteria so we can be consistent. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 19:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::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? — [[User:YoungForever|<span style="color: #E63E62;font-family:Georgia;">'''Young'''</span><span style="color: #414A4C;font-family:Georgia;">'''Forever'''</span>]][[User talk: YoungForever|<sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)</sup>]] 19:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Showrunner for singular and Showrunners for plural would be consistent for how they are used. — [[User:YoungForever|<span style="color: #E63E62;font-family:Georgia;">'''Young'''</span><span style="color: #414A4C;font-family:Georgia;">'''Forever'''</span>]][[User talk: YoungForever|<sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)</sup>]] 03:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I've made the request both here and on the season infobox. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 03:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


===Additional edit===
== New cast members in the television infobox ==
{{Edit template-protected|answered=yes}}
{{rfc|policy|tech|rfcid=A10EAA8}}
Per the above discussion, showrunner needs to be pluralized if there are multiple on the series.
It's been an unofficial policy because of [[WP:CRYSTAL]] for some time not to add announced cast members to the infobox until they actually appear in the opening credits of an episode of the show. This has caused problems in the past--sometimes they end up simply being recurring and not listed in the opening credits (this happened once on [[CSI: Miami]]) and other times they quit after only a few episodes and so were listed as "Special Guest Star" (as happened last year on [[Law & Order: Special Victims Unit]]). Lately, though, I've been seeing problems with editors edit warring over this and insisting that merely being announced and filming an episode is sufficient to be listed in the starring portion of the infobox. As such, I propose the documentation for this infobox be edited for the "starring" guideline as follows:


Changing {{code|1=label7 = Showrunner}} to {{code|1=label7 = Showrunner<nowiki>{{Pluralize from text|{{{showrunner|}}}|plural=s}}</nowiki>}} will take care of it automatically (minus the nowiki tags if looking at this in source editor).
:"The show's star or stars. Separate multiple entries with line breaks in original credit order followed by order he/she joined the show (<nowiki><br />)</nowiki>. New cast members should not be listed here until they appear in the credits of at least one aired episode for current shows or one unaired episode for DVD and other releases."


Here's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_television/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1220150718 the sandbox edit] and the corresponding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_television/testcases&oldid=1220151161#Plural testcase edit] where it worked. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 03:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Thoughts or objections? [[Special:Contributions/74.130.135.208|74.130.135.208]] ([[User talk:74.130.135.208|talk]]) 01:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Oppose''' - [[Alana de la Garza]] ([[Connie Rubirosa]]) is a prime example of an Actor/Actress added onto a "Starring" list - ''prior'' to appearing in an episode. Infact, she was added into the 'Starring' list of the [[Law & Order: LA]] section in January 2011, 5 months prior to appearing on the show in June. Barring that, it isn't Crystal, if it is ''definately'' going to happen. More than 6 episodes have already been filmed, New cast interviews, photo's, storylines have been developed, ''Hundreds'' of ''reliable'' sources, stating that these two actors actresses will be on the show. This is '''no difference''' from removing all information for the upcoming season -- because it's in the future. -- [[User:MelbourneStar|MelbourneStar☆]] <sup>[[User_talk:MelbourneStar|(talk to me)]]</sup> 06:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Just because de la Garza was added to an infobox doesn't mean she ''should'' have been. And it is [[WP:CRYSTAL]] because you have no way to know it is definitely the case until you see it in the opening credits, no matter how many sources you have. Dozens of sources "confirmed" that [[Megalyn Echikunwoke]] and [[Evan Ellingson]] would be joining the cast of [[CSI: Miami]] at the beginning of season 7. Instead, the producers chose to list Megalyn and Evan both as a guest star despite calling them part of the cast. Megalyn was finally added to the opening credits mid-season but Evan was never added to the opening credits. The editors who edit warred over this were violating [[WP:CRYSTAL]] because they had no way to know whether Megalyn and Evan would appear in the opening credits, just like you have no way to know until tonight whether the two new actors on SVU will appear in the opening credits, no matter how many sources from NBC you quote. They just don't necessarily indicate that they will appear in the opening credits.


:{{complete2}}. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>04:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)</small>
::::FYI, MelbourneStar is the prime editor who has been edit warring over this at [[Law & Order: Special Victims Unit]]. [[Special:Contributions/74.130.135.208|74.130.135.208]] ([[User talk:74.130.135.208|talk]]) 10:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::Takes two to tango, and tonight's episode will feature Giddish, the next episode will feature Pino. And, Pino and Giddish have already had their cast photo taken [http://allthingslawandorder.blogspot.com/2011/09/law-order-svu-cast-photo-season-13.html]. -- [[User:MelbourneStar|MelbourneStar☆]] <sup>[[User_talk:MelbourneStar|(talk to me)]]</sup> 10:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::Once again, all completely irrelevant. There were cast photos of Megalyn even though she wasn't in the opening credits for some time. And just because they're in the episode doesn't necessarily mean they will be in the opening credits. I'm sure I don't have to point out that [[Michelle Hurd]], [[Stephanie March]], [[Diane Neal]], and [[Adam Beach]] were all listed as guest stars ''before'' they were listed in the opening credits, just like Megalyn. Cast photos exist featuring [[Dean Winters]] but he was ''never'' in the opening credits.


== Separating release dates by networks in different countries ==
::::::[[WP:CRYSTAL|You can't predict who's going to be in the opening credits]] based on who's considered cast since different studio have different definitions of who's cast and who's not. The classic example is [[Star Trek: The Original Series]]: only [[William Shatner]], [[Leonard Nimoy]], and [[DeForest Kelley]] were ever listed in the opening credits, despite six other actors and actresses being called "cast members" who even appeared in promotional photos. [[Special:Contributions/74.130.135.208|74.130.135.208]] ([[User talk:74.130.135.208|talk]]) 11:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


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. [[User:Inpops|Inpops]] ([[User talk:Inpops|talk]]) 20:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' For other interested editor's information, besides [[Law & Order: Special Victims Unit]], the other two articles this has been an issue at this year were [[Two and a Half Men]] and [[CSI: Crime Scene Investigation]]. [[Special:Contributions/74.130.135.208|74.130.135.208]] ([[User talk:74.130.135.208|talk]]) 11:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


: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. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' I don't agree that the credits should be the only criteria for appears in the list. However, I think there should be more than just some pictures with them. I would argue that to comply with policy ([[WP:RS]]) we need a reliable source stating who is starring. This could be a published list of stars or the opening credits. However, I have not expertise and am just stating my view. [[User:Eomund|Eomund]] ([[User talk:Eomund|talk]]) 03:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
: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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 03:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
::I definitely agree with you the opening credits shouldn't be the only criteria, even though it's often the most reliable. Some shows, such as [[Everwood]], [[Jack & Bobby]], [[Sabrina: The Teenage Witch]], and [[My Wife and Kids]] has other stars that were listed as "Also Starring" and appeared before the guest stars of the episode during the first act. There also needs to be a definite reason for them to be listed as starring in the infobox; if we started listing all recurring characters, some shows, like [[Star Trek: Deep Space Nine]], would have an extremely long infobox. And, per this RFC, they shouldn't be listed in the infobox ''before'' they are cast members, i.e. just after they have been announced, as network announcements have, in the past, been notoriously unreliable and [[WP:CRYSTAL|Wikipedia is not a crystal ball]]. [[Special:Contributions/74.130.135.208|74.130.135.208]] ([[User talk:74.130.135.208|talk]]) 11:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1184872332&oldid=1182467691&title=Torchwood&diffonly=1 this]). [[User:Inpops|Inpops]] ([[User talk:Inpops|talk]]) 17:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - [[WP:Crystal]] is pretty clear, WP should not include information about events until they happen. For example, the [[WP:NFF]] guideline for films dictates that films cannot have articles until production has started. Turning to the question of stars in a TV show, what is the "bright line" when a star is actually in a show? I can see two litmus tests: (1) when an episode is filmed, including the star; and (2) when the episode is broadcast. The latter "broadcast" criterion is better for a couple of reasons: (a) many filmed shows never make it to the air; and (b) we are not talking about an entire Film or TV series: we are talking about a single actor appearing in an infobox: that is a statement of fact, and really needs to have concrete evidence of a broadcast. For instance, a TV series could start filming, and then change actors before broadcast. This proposal is compliant with the spirit of [[WP:Crystal]]. Before the broadcast happens, there is no problem with including information about prospective actors in the ''body'' of the article where context can be given (actor ABC has filmed 3 episodes, due to air ..."). --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 14:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Inpops|Inpops]] ([[User talk:Inpops|talk]]) 18:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 07:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|"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+. [[User:Inpops|Inpops]] ([[User talk:Inpops|talk]]) 18:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 22:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:Inpops|Inpops]] ([[User talk:Inpops|talk]]) 11:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::[[WP:OTHERCONTENT|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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 21:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::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 {{[[Template:Start and end dates|Start and end dates]]}} with parentheses next to it. [[User:Inpops|Inpops]] ([[User talk:Inpops|talk]]) 18:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 09:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{tq|"various mixed and incorrect usages editors create to fix problems that don't exist."}}
::::::::::::That sounds just like what is happening here with these attempts to separate releases by network. [[User:Inpops|Inpops]] ([[User talk:Inpops|talk]]) 17:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I noticed that Infobox actually had a few issues. It used small text which is a violation of [[MOS:SMALLTEXT]], {{tq|"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, {{tq|"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. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 22:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 21:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Inpops|Inpops]] ([[User talk:Inpops|talk]]) 18:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::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. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 21:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Inpops|Inpops]] ([[User talk:Inpops|talk]]) 18:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It absolutely can be, yes. A show can ''also'' be co-produced between two networks in ''different'' countries. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 22:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:20, 23 May 2024

Replace "network"?

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]

First air date is now release on infobox

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]

alt_name bugfix

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]

Slogan (For Seasonal Shows) As Image Caption In Infobox Television

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]

Network/dates question

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]

Co-Executive Producer listing in info box

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]

Multiple network and release perimeters

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]

First aired

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]

Why episodes aired instead of episodes scheduled?

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]

first_aired with no last_aired issues

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]

Using footnotes in the infobox

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]

Adding "anticipated" to template

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]

Proposal to remove the "country" parameter

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]

Disagreement about present or end date on last_aired parameter

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]

Adding animation services attribute

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]

Alternatives to writer and director parameters

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]

Edit request 20 April 2024

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]

Separating release dates by networks in different countries

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]
"various mixed and incorrect usages editors create to fix problems that don't exist."
That sounds just like what is happening here with these attempts to separate releases by network. Inpops (talk) 17:20, 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]

Leave a Reply