Infoboxes
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

Television Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Change:

| class50 = url | data50 = {{#if: {{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} | [{{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} {{#if: {{{website_title|}}} | {{{website_title}}}|Website}}] }}

To:

| class50 = url | data50 = {{#if: {{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} | [{{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} {{#if: {{{website_title|}}} | {{{website_title}}}|website}}] }}

The word website after the website title shouldn’t be capitalized per MOS:CAPS

Ponydepression (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The word "Website" here is used instead of a website title, AFAICT, as shown in the template's documentation. Can you point to an article or test page where "Website" appears after the website title? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice (American TV series) is where I noticed it. Ponydepression (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now and withdraw my request. Thank you. Ponydepression (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That page's infobox was not following the template instructions. It was indeed showing "Website" after some text, but I can't think of a way at the moment to work around editors' errors of this type within the template code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked the archive of the talk page. Just wanting to reclarify- only those listed as 'producer' should be listed in the 'producer' field, and those listed as 'executive producer' should be listed in the 'executive producer field', correct? Nothing should be listed such as 'co-executive producer', 'associate producer', 'line producer', 'supervising producer', etc?

I'm not cleaning these up myself, I was only trying to look for some examples, but wouldn't it be fine to remove some of the people listed in those fields on articles like Hey Arnold! or Rocko's Modern Life if what I said above is correct?... or are there some exceptions based on how some shows have credits and/or local consensus? Magitroopa (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also started a similar discussion regarding Template:Infobox award and how they handle producers at Template talk:Infobox award#Producer parameter- EP?. I would assume both there and here will end up with a similar response... Magitroopa (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in your statement: only those listed as "producer" or "executive producer" for the parameters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per my understanding original network means the main network a certain series is aired, and subsequent broadcasts (reairs, simulcast) are not meant to be included. But I noticed that the usage guideline for the original network field does not explicitly mention this.

The original network(s) on which the show has appeared. Do not add foreign broadcasters here. Use links if articles are available.

— Original network usage guideline for Infobox television

While "foreign broadcasters" typically would exclude most broadcasters which reairs in the material on their own countries/region. It does not explicitly exclude domestic secondary broadcasters which may be reairing the series at a different time period or simulcast the same series.

For example, see ASAP (Philippine TV program), a variety show, which was broadcast in ABS-CBN since its first "episode" in 1995 until 2020, when ABS-CBN stopped broadcast operations, then like most series of ABS-CBN, ASAP was picked up by ABS-CBN's pay channel Kapamilya Channel. However ABS-CBN Corporation subsequently made the show available to Jeepney TV, A2Z, Metro Channel as well, all of which are related to ABS-CBN the company. Then to makes things more muddy, ASAP was also made available by ABS-CBN in TV5, its rival network. The problem is IPs and some users keep including these secondary channels. So I'm requesting to make the usage guideline on original network field less vague.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I know there is a policy for not including seasons starred or years starred with hosts, casts, and/or narrators? While I can somewhat understand the reasoning for casts, could someone explain why the policy is like this for narrators (where they exist) and/or game shows hosts and announcers because it looks more confusing without them? And then regarding the "first run/years aired" section, I'll use an example. Last time I checked the Will & Grace page, it said years aired as "(insert date) 1998 - (insert date) 2019". Can someone explain why it's not "(insert date) 1998 - (insert date) 2006, (insert date) 2017 - (insert date) 2019" or "(insert date 1998 - (insert date 2006; revival (series) (insert date) 2017 - (insert date 2019)? The show wasn't on the air continuously or even fairly regularly between 2006 and 2017, so I have never understood this policy. I know another editor's logic was using Curb Your Enthusiasm and its "distanced" seasons, but isn't that a rarity compared to most shows? Thanks, EPBeatles (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation states Value is incremented when new episodes air. I propose to change that to Value is incremented when new episodes air, or are introduced in previews. Often at the end of an episode there is a preview of the next one, which makes it manifest that a new episode is ready and has already been programmed. --Gciriani (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)unsigned comment added by Gciriani (talk • contribs) 00:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like that would be more confusing for readers, if we show a number that does not match the number of released episodes and also does not match the total number of episodes for the series/season. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I see nothing wrong with as it is now. Previews are just previews, they do not guaranteed that they will air as TV schedules are subject to change when they decided to move things around just few days before after the previews. Value is incremented when new episodes air, or are introduced in previews. would just confused editors and/or readers. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the two responses above, take this example into consideration to understand why: in January 2021 NBC slated it's Chicago Wednesday lineup to begin airing on January 6, with promos released a week before on December 30, if not earlier, two hours before they were pulled from the schedule to air capitol riot news coverage and the air date was bumped to January 13 ([1]). Point is schedules can change on an instant so it's best not to update until it airs. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:CRYSTAL, point 1, which agrees with the above discussion. It is better to wait until the episode has aired. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template docs say for this parameter, "The names of the production company or companies that funded/organized series production. Note: sub-contractors hired to perform production work, e.g. animation houses, special effects studios, post-production facilities etc. should not be included here, as this may create confusion about the nation(s) of origin...."

While it's not clear, I assume that so called "vanity card" production companies for the showrunners and producers should also not be listed in the infobox for this. But the template docs do not actually makes this clear. (Would these fall under the "sub-contractors hired to perform production work"?...)

Should something about this be added to the template docs to clarify this? Because this issue keeps coming up at a variety of articles, where some editors want to add the "vanity card" production companies to the infobox... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, following up – I assume that "vanity card" production companies for the show creators/showrunners should be listed, but other ones should not? Is there some criteria here to help determine inclusion? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For people like me who had never heard the name "vanity card", see Production logo. Can I break the question down into a practical example? Are you asking if e.g Line of Duty should have BBC as well as World Productions? - X201 (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No – some shows include vanity cards/productions logos at the end for Executive Producers, etc. – people who don't necessarily "fund/organize series production", at least not directly, or who are just given a credit for not really doing any real work on the series. IOW, there are definitely cases where not all productions logos listed in the end credits should be included under the company parameter. What I was looking for on practical guidance on figuring out when productions logo "companies" should be listed under company in the IB, and when they shouldn't... As far as I can tell, there isn't any, and we are forced to 100% rely on secondary source coverage to determine whether entities should be listed under company or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a section for announcers? It seems ridiculous to call them narrators.98.13.8.89 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking for the |presenter= parameter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is this bit for? Is it for actual animators of a cartoon, or outsourcers? It doesn’t specifically say what it’s for.Luigitehplumber (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An actual person who animated something, not companies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LTPHarry:@Favre1fan93: Then why is this section almost never used? Wouldn't it be better to reach public consensus proposal on using it as simply "Animation services" for primary outsourcing teams? It seems like it would be of better use than what it was originally set up for, especially when I've never even seen individuals (which would be too many Korean names, frankly) listed under this section?--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: As the main editor of this template, surely you have seen first-hand how severely underused the "Animators" line has been used if at all on Wikipedia articles for Western animation. With a proposal like this, we wouldn't have to use the company section to add a note on outsourcing animation teams which make up a huge majority of the cartoon industry. Instead of having a note on every article like this, we could give the primary animating team(s) their own line and streamline the production section. This would be in similar likes to how the animanga infoboxes have animating studio(s) listed. And yes, I am aware of the production differences between western cartoons and anime.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per documentation, outsourced companies shouldn't even be noted in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“animator - The animator or animators of the show.” Where specifically does it say it can’t be outsourced animation companies (BESIDES Production companies)? On top of that, I thought I explained clearly how a simple change or line addition could easily solve this problem instead of just adding a note onto [Production company A][note]. With WP:CON, this could be fixed with a public consensus vote. Instead, use sourced prose in the article's Production section to explain these details., but why?--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

|animator= refers to the person or persons who animated the content. Per documentation for |company=: The names of the production company or companies that funded/organized series production. Note: sub-contractors hired to perform production work, e.g. animation houses, special effects studios, post-production facilities etc. should not be included here, as this may create confusion about the nation(s) of origin. Instead, use sourced prose in the article's Production section to explain these details. (bolding mine). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the animators line, not production companies.GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]