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.

Currently, the documentation says the following:

Do not link to a language article, e.g., [[English language|English]], per WP:OVERLINK.

It's obvious enough why this should apply to languages like English or Spanish, but the guidelines at WP:OVERLINK are clear that links should only be avoided for major examples of languages (i.e. ones with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar). That doesn't apply to less well-known languages, like Newar or Egyptian Arabic. Should that point be clarified in the documentation, or are there any reasons to not link in any circumstances? I'm only asking because an editor editors appear to have undertaken the task of unlinking all instances of this field from articles, so it will be good to have some consensus here. – Uanfala (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be conflicting guidance, the above is wrong. Local guidance should not override project guidance either, so the above should just be removed or changed to something like: Link to a language article, e.g., [[Phuthi language|Phuthi]], only when appropriate per WP:OVERLINK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may decide that in a particular context there are good reasons not to follow some rule from the MoS, and that's OK: the MoS is not a policy but a guideline, and so allows for exceptions of that kind. However, that doesn't appear to have been the case: from the template documentation, and from what I see in the archives, this appears to have been understood as a straightforward application of WP:OVERLINK.

It turns out that if the infobox detects any links in the |language= parameter, it will place the article in Category:Pages using infobox television with incorrectly formatted values (a large category with over 8,000 pages at the moment), so that editors doing cleanup will eventually unlink the language. This can be remedied by just removing language = args.language, from Module:Infobox television. The template documentation can then be updated to match the advice of the MoS. Still, let's leave a day or two so we can hear from others? – Uanfala (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK says not to link to "major" languages, so I don't see the issue if you're linking per WP:OVERLINK. I've been editing TV articles for 10-15 years and I don't generally remove links to minor languages because that's what OVERLINK says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieLegend (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation could be adjusted slightly if editors aren't familiar with OVERLINK (or choose to go there) to state: Do not link major language articles, e.g., [[English language|English]], per WP:OVERLINK. That still satisfies what has been done, but more clearly allows for minor languages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I was the editor whose actions sparked this discussion and I was trying to clean out the tracking category, Category:Pages using infobox television with incorrectly formatted values, that currently has 8,682 entries in it, all of which are language links. When I looked through the template edit history and discussion I was hoping I would find a good consensus to back up these edits. The documentation was changed from use a link to do not use a link per WP:OVERLINK in June 2012 with a small discussion at Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 5#Language_section. WP:OVERLINK at the time of this template change said what is says now about avoiding linking major languages, while now there are some examples of major languages. If changes are made to the documentation about language, it should also be used for the country field, that also states not to use a link, but is not including in the tracking category.

I have a concern about what constitutes a major language, since on my talk page, User:Uanfala, objected to my removal of Bengali, which is one of the ten most spoken languages in the world. Going back through my own edits these are the languages I am going to add back if the documentation is changed: Nigerian Pidgin, Burmese language, Wyandot language, Mohawk language, Marathi language, Nepali language, Cebuano language, Waray language, Sinhala language, Dari, Pashto, Taiwanese Hokkien, Southern Min, Catalan language, Afrikaans, and Galician language. Aspects (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above, Aspects. That clears things up a fair bit. I was lurking on this as I have been working on maintenance categories as well (although not this one) but was hesitant to comment until more info was available. I'd like to see @Gonnym: bring an opinion as I believe they are involved in working on defining what the maintenance categories pick up? ButlerBlog (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the guidance changes, the module will reflect that. So just ping me whenever this ends with what the outcome is. Gonnym (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the above, the module can remove the check completely, or be modified to check if a language is on a "don't link" list. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the documentation [1] so that the advice for languages and countries matches MOS:OVERLINK. Sticking to this rule isn't an imperative: style guidelines allow for exceptions, especially in contexts (like an infobox) that's different from what people had in mind when devising them. So, feel free to make your approach more restrictive or more permissive if that's going to improve the infobox.

Gonnym, I don't think dedicating a lot of code or effort to this would be worth the trouble: slight over- (or under-)linking isn't going to make a lot of difference to readers. If I were you, I'd simply remove the checks for links, just so that editors working on the maintenance category can focus on what I'd imagine are more consequential errors. When that category is eventually emptied, then maybe at that stage it will make sense to revisit the issue and add more nuanced checks depending on how much interest there will be for the resultant clean-up effort. – Uanfala (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The category for that Category:Pages using infobox television with incorrectly formatted values currently tracks usages of |language=, |website=, |production_website=, and |italic_title=. The last 3 have already been cleared out. So maybe at that stage it will make sense to revisit the issue and add more nuanced checks depending on how much interest there will be for the resultant clean-up effort is apparently now. :) If there is no interest in fine tuning the language (and country which wasn't checked) parameter then I can just remove the tracking. Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Since this last note, |image= and |image_size= were added(?). As far as I can tell, we have cleared out everything from the maintenance category that is not |language=. Is there any further clarification on language? Based on the discussion, it would appear that consensus is for not linking "major" languages, but linking others. I am just not clear on what constitutes "major". There are some that are obvious, but a solid line of demarcation would be good if that's the case. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't know what "major" means. If I get a list of languages that should be delinked or linked I can adjust the category to check based off the list. Gonnym (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such list. "Major" is defined in WP:OL as language most readers are likely to recognize/understand. I would say that includes things like English, Russian, and Chinese but where to draw the line is a judgement call. MB 01:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)I spent way more time on this maintenance category then I should have, but I have removed what I consider to be major languages and got the category down to 633 articles. The major languages I removed (in order from List of languages by total number of speakers were: English, Mandarin/Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, French, Arabic, Bengali, Russian, Portuguese, Urdu, Indonesian, Malay, German, Japanese, Marathi, Telugu, Turkish, Tamil, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Korean, Persian, Italian, Punjabi, Thai, Kannada, and Burmese. Ones not on that list I removed (usually based on the number of articles they were linked in): Malayalam, Dutch, Greek, Norwegian, Finnish, Danish, and Swedish. The ones on the list I did not remove were: Nigerian Pidgin (1-10 left), Tagalog (20-30 left), Swahili (1-10 left), Gujarati (1-10 left), Southern Min/Hokkien/Taiwanese (25-50 left), and Hakka (1-10 left). The only other ones that have more than a few were some Eastern European languages like Albian, Bosnian, Croatian, Macedonian, Serbian, etc. This should be a good start for which languages to include/exclude and I will not feel offended if other editors think I went too far or not far enough.

On a side note, I was also removing some major countries from the country field, so would also come up with a list of that and combine the two into one maintenance category if possible. Aspects (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revisit the code sometime in the next few days and get it to track country links. Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of a few more languages: I removed Hebrew and I left Irish with 20-30 articles left and Welsh with 10-20 articles left. Aspects (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a problem I've run into while editing TV articles over the years as recently as today: first_run, a param with an intended value for the country a program was first aired in, is often confused with premiere dates, "sneak peeks", or pilot episodes produced before a full series has been ordered or officially broadcast. I assume good faith on the air date usage as the param name is not very clear. After all, not every editor has read the doc for every template used. A number of discussions about this param have been held in the past, including this one from 2018 about its removal as a trivial detail, but these discussions did not highlight the erroneous usage for air dates.

Today I'm proposing that this param be renamed to something less vague, such as first_run_country or premiere_country. Basically I think it would be more helpful if the param were renamed to something with the word "country" or some other term that denotes that the param is for nations or territories because it would remove the ambiguity here. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. Clarity is always better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually even doubt that this parameter is even useful. If the premiere country is different than the country of origin, then just mention it in the article, but is it that important that it requires a parameter in the infobox? I personally don't think so. Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The parameter is unnecessary for the infobox. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with its removal too. I am not aware of any instances where this is being used that the info needed to be in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing yet. Most of the time when I see it actually populated, it is incorrect, although mostly I see this incorrect usage as duplicating country of origin, not a date. I see that far more often than I see it populated with a date. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TemplateData shows a total of 1634 usages. The first 10 usages in that list use this parameter for:

• Country that is the same as the |country= - 4
• First date - 4
• Network that is the same as the |network= - 1
• Using correctly - Totally Spies!.

1 out of 10 while a small sample size, is a pretty bad ratio. Gonnym (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a few more random article beyond that first 10, and most are using it for first date, or the same country of origin. Not promising at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming as |first_run_country=. That should avoid the confusion and alert editors who are copying from other articles without looking at the infobox documentation. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should first_run param be removed?

Past discussions have held no consensus on whether the first_run parameter should be kept. Because some of you have commented on my proposal for renaming this parameter with contentions that it should be removed entirely, I'm bringing this up again as a sub-topic to see what the community thinks we should do with it in 2022. Because no consensus has been reached in the past, I propose turning the discussion on its head by asking you all to answer the following: If the first_run param were proposed to be added to the template today, what would be your reasoning for its inclusion? Could you defend its existence if had not already been a part of the template since 2006? Why or why not? I hope the discussion that follows will not devolve into endless tangents about technicalities or some kind of an edit-measuring contest. Please be civil and concise. Thank you. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as has been highlighted above by looking at what articles are actually using the parameter, the results from the small sample set is not encouraging. The intention of the parameter was (seemingly) always unclear for editors as to what it's goal was. And I think at this point, if any series had a truly notable instance of airing first in a country that was not its production country of origin, that can be discussed in the prose of the article. But I feel like some of these articles that are using the parameter correctly, it's a minor trivia point at best saying "Series premiered first in country X, when it was produced in and for country Y that aired after its debut in X." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @AussieLegend Your thoughts? — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree completely with Favre's argument. In the Totally Spies! example, the fact that the show aired in the different market before France, while mentioned, isn't highlighted as an important fact, but casually mentioned. This to me makes it more trivial than a key fact needing to be summarized in the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer your questions: My reasoning would be to include it because rights of first broadcast is a significant attribute. When a 'defining characteristic' to be included in the infobox (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), this could be a show produced primarily for export to an audience of differing nationality and culture than the country of origin. This could also be of significance for co-productions. I probably wouldn't support it if it wasn't already established, though... because I'd want to see a stronger argument (than my own) from whoever was proposing it. General discussion: While I see there is widespread misuse of the parameter, I didn't have to look far to find a bunch of examples where it appears to be used legitimately (Archie's Weird Mysteries, Mythbusters, Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century, Sonic Underground, The Virgin Queen (TV serial), Rolie Polie Olie, The Hoobs, Space Precinct, Ratz (TV series), Police Rescue, Super Duper Sumos, The New Tomorrow, The Why Why Family, Jeopardy (TV series), Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)). In my opinion, a lot of these articles are not well-developed enough for them to positively pass the 'defining characteristic' threshold for the parameter, but I would tend to AGF that the editors of the articles are better informed (and would hope that they flesh out the articles). Ultimately, though, removing the parameter kind of seems like punishing the few editors who have followed the rules because many other editors have misapplied them. We should delete the parameter if it has no foreseeable use, not because some editors are abusing it. Otherwise vandals would dictate Wikipedia policy. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the FA Adventure Time and GAs Degrassi Junior High, Steven Universe and Minute to Win It (American game show) all misuse the parameter. I didn't find any correct applications of the parameter in promoted content. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So looking at your list of 'legitimate' examples, here is a breakdown:

• 8 use a value which is the same as one of the country of origins (which per the documentation is not correct). 2 use US (Archie's Weird Mysteries, MythBusters), 3 use UK (Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century, The Hoobs, Jeopardy (TV series)), 1 France (Sonic Underground), 1 Canada (Ratz (TV series)) and 1 Australia (Police Rescue).
• Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) says that the first season was co-commissioned by Sky Television, making it a British co production, which if then correct, makes this usage also incorrect.
• Rolie Polie Olie, Space Precinct, and The Why Why Family do not even mentioned in the article the first broadcast country so even the basic validation is impossible here.
• The New Tomorrow - seems to be correct, though it is unclear what makes this show a New Zealand show if the original network is an Australian one. Filming something in a country does not make it a show from that country.
• The Virgin Queen (TV serial) and Super Duper Sumos - correct usage.

So out of the 15 examples, 2 are valid correct usages, 5 different degrees of questionable and 8 out-right not. Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? I only saw where the documentation advises Omit if the same country as country of origin [singular]. I didn't notice anything about what to do when there are multiple countries of origin. (It doesn't seem to mention co-productions either.) – Reidgreg (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I think we can agree that the documentation for this param, which reads, "The country or region where the show was first broadcast. Omit if the same country as country of origin above or if the show has only been broadcast in one country or region. Do not link to a corresponding article per WP:OVERLINK", should be revised somehow. It lacks clarity on its usage, and a number of articles are misusing this param for dates or some other reason. If we decide to omit this param from the template, I propose that a footnote be appended to the original broadcast date that would clarify the country of first broadcast if that country were different than the one in the country param. Would any of you oppose this solution if the param were omitted? — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would. If the parameter is removed then adding it after the date isn't removing it. Gonnym (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just proposing a compromise. Using a footnote instead of having a dedicated param is a possible solution. I understand that no single solution can please everybody. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand. Is this footnote for the template documentation or would it appear in the generated infobox? – Reidgreg (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my proposed idea, the footnote would be an Efn template that would be included in a citation after the original airdate in the infobox. My main focus has been that the template documentation should be updated regardless of whether we decide to remove this param or not. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – problematic parameter as outlined above, that doesn't need to be there. I'm of the opinion that, outside of the "airing" and "number of episode/season" parameters", IB Television should be cut back to just those parameters that can be supported by in-show crediting. The "first_run" parameter isn't one of these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – clearly more trouble than any value it might bring. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems that there is consensus to remove the parameter. If no new comments in the next few days, I'll update the template. Gonnym (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now removed. Gonnym (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If | italic_title = no , shouldn't the infobox title itself disable the italics as well as the article title? -2pou (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, the parameter is used to disable the infobox from applying a display title modification. This is needed since sometimes the automatic italicization clashes with the manual one used in the article. If you want to disable the infobox itself from applying italics, then use {{noitalic}}. As an aside, most uses I've seen use that tend to use an incorrect infobox. If the title does not need italics, then is it really a television program? Gonnym (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym The only use case I've come across and can think of is for upcoming shows that may not have a finalized title yet, and the article title uses the most prominent feature/creator in the title before it gets moved when finalized. There are plenty in Draft space, but Untitled Guy Ritchie film (although a film) is an example in main space.-2pou (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move "Distributor" to the Release section. It's much more relevant there. —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 18:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please gain a consensus for this change. Since this infobox can be use (infrequently) for television films, in those instances, the distributor field would be most relevant in its current location, and it does still work for normal televisions series and programming. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For current series, I think the rule of only adding episodes to the "no. of episodes" field after they have aired is a bit odd. It is extremely rare nowadays that once a season has begun, they don't fulfil the number of episodes announced for that season. So, to make it simpler and less confusing, I suggest we list all episodes of any current season, once the first episode has aired. This would also apply to Template:Infobox television season and anything similar. I can't count the number of times I've briefly checked the Wiki infobox of a show I'm watching to see how many episodes left, only to be totally befuddled for a minute, and I can't be alone in that. Thanks. Jenny Jankel (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's because we're an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and generally is only concerned with what "has happened" (i.e. can be verified), not what "will happen" (i.e. cannot be verified). Although not explicitly stated, it's kind of related to WP:NOTTVGUIDE. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but for current seasons, the number of episodes doesn't change during the season. Wikipedia is certainly not only concerned with what has happened. And WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply here, because we're not talking about speculation or unverified rumors. We're talking about officially scheduled episodes of an already begun season. And WP:NOTTVGUIDE is a different policy entirely. I guess it goes without saying that my proposal is to include the number of episodes in a current season only when verifiably sourced, just like anything on Wikipedia. The list of episodes within the article includes upcoming episodes, so no reason why the infobox couldn't, too. Jenny Jankel (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but for current seasons, the number of episodes doesn't change during the season - see COVID-19, networks pulling episodes that are sensitive to recent tragedies (at least in America), etc. That's why we don't update number until they've aired, because a lot can happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't re-reply because I did not feel it necessary to repeat myself. But since this question has come up yet again and this may end up being referred back to, let me add a couple of explanations. And WP:NOTTVGUIDE is a different policy entirely - sorry if you interpreted my point other than what was intended. I specifically said "related to" - meaning that for reasons similar to why we do not list upcoming TV schedules is why we do not include the number of episodes that have not aired; which leads back to And WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply here, because we're not talking about speculation or unverified rumors - Sorry but yes, it absolutely does apply. When we talk about number of episodes, as far as the infobox is concerned, only those episodes that exist matter. When a series or season is ordered and reported, none of those episodes exist at that time. Until they exist, we don't count them because anything can happen between when the source says "so-and-so ordered 10 episodes of such-and-such." Contracts can be broken and ordered episodes never completed for any number of reasons - it does happen. The fact that we're not a crystal ball means that we don't know 26 episodes ordered for a new season will actually come to fruition. Encyclopedias are records of history - what has happened - not what will happen. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will also point out that the only time Legends of Tomorrow had a consistent season length (where consecutive seasons run the exact same) was seasons 5 and 6, with 15, and even then season 5 is kicked off by the Crisis ender and therefore is split as 1/14 here on Wikipedia, meaning if it's not clarified before the season begins we would not be able to add the new season's number of episodes when it would begin anyway, so there's no point in putting such kind of total CreecregofLife (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I've asked about before, but discussions have yet to yield a concrete consensus. Should parenthetical details, such as seasons, specific episodes, years, or job titles (e.g. "line producer", "associate producer", "supervising director") be included for credits in the infobox, or should it be kept to names only? The template doc doesn't say one way or the other, which has had me wondering whether to remove these details or keep them. I'd really like to know what you all think. Thank you. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be nice to have the docs be as explicit as possible. Personally, my preference is "no" - primarily because what's in the infobox should be supported by the article. Or, to put it another way, the infobox is summarizing what's in the article (or what should be in the article), so too much detail is just clutter. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Names only. A person in Georgia (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment on part of what you wrote, which isn't the question, but it's worth emphasizing. (e.g. "line producer", "associate producer", "supervising director") none of those jobs are supported by the template and should never be added. |producer= is only for the individuals who are the actual producers (and are credited as such). Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What he said – none of those should even be included anyway. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and that's how I've always tried to handle it when adding infoboxes. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd source Exec Prod credits

Follow-up to the above that only EP credits are within scope of the infobox. What about EP credits offered via crowd funding campaigns (Kickstarter, Indiegogo, etc) that are distinctly credited as EPs but with an added qualifier? Case in point; The Legend of Vox Machina has 9 "Crowd Funding Exec. Producer" credits—listed separate from the other EP credits—for the first 10 episodes of season 1 – none of those producers move to the regular EP credits list for the last 2 eps. As best I can tell from production updates (as a backer at a lower tier); those 9 had no production role outside of their sizeable financial investment via the Kickstarter. Local consensus of 2 from March 2022 was to remove, but felt it best to check here as to to the intent of the infobox as one of the Crowd Funding Exec. Producer's names has been readded (since removed and pointed to the talk discussion in edit summary). Little pob (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it seems on IMDb the credits are distinct. So following from our guidelines - |executive_producer= is only for individuals with that specific role. Not "associate producers" and not "Crowd Funding Exec. Producer". If Critical Role wanted someone to get that credit, they would have handed that out. However, EP credits comes with other benefits and rights which I assume, they did not want to hand out. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy response! Little pob (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that the indobox lists episodes aired, but not the expected (announced) total. Rather than saying 10, shouldn't we say 10 of 26 (when we have reliable sources for the total number of episodes)? Focusing on the current rather than total episodes seems rather unencyclopedic, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that would be focusing on a crystal ball. They may expect 26, but that isn't a guarantee. The show could be cancelled before they film 26, or there could be a reason that a particular episode does not air. You're conflating being an encyclopedia (which is about history and you cannot report historic information in a future tense...) and not treating the page like a current events article. The infobox is supposed to summarize the article into essential information. If you want to report that a studio ordered 26 episodes, that can be listed in the body of the article, but it shouldn't be in the infobox because it isn't a reflection of the actual status of the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the template documentation specifically states to increment the number of episodes as they air, so you’d be defying that. Considering we have recent example of episodes being moved from one season to another due to production shutdowns it’s kind of confusing why this would be asked. In addition, such tactics would logically therefore extend to the number of seasons, wouldn’t it? Disney Channel shows have gotten second seasons before they even premiere, so how does it make sense to list 2 seasons and every episode that might not even exist yet. When Glee was renewed for seasons 5 and 6, Cory Monteith hadn’t even died yet. Those two seasons were the ones that went sub-22 episodes, but reliable sources immediately following renewal probably went “The season is expected to contain 22 episodes” CreecregofLife (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been value is incremented when new episodes air. There were past discussions about it before and there are absolutely no consensus to change that at all because expected/planned number of episodes would fall under WP:NOTCRYSTAL. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly a proposal yet – it's more of a taking a "temperature of the room". But I am wondering – is there support for removing |distributor= from {{Infobox television}} once and for all?

There are at least a couple of issues with it:

1. The "distributor" is often not explicitly listed in the credits when a show first aired and I personally think we should mostly get away from including parameters in this IB that aren't explicitly from a TV show's credits.
2. We get far, far too many edits like this from editors that don't read the template docs (i.e. that the distributor at the time the show first aired should be listed in the IB). This parameter is also a magnet for IP vandals, and is basically a 'time sink' even aside from that.

The IB should be a summary of the most important aspects of a TV show – Is the "distributor" really one of these? Or is it something that is fine to cover in prose, but kept out of the IB? FTR, I am definitely in the latter camp. (We recently got rid of the |first_run= parameter for similar reasons – I believe |distributor= should join it in being removed.)

Thoughts? Opinions? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty fair argument, and I could get behind that reasoning. More often than not, I think I see it left blank or omitted. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on the matter, because the articles I'm mainly working on (Marvel and Star Wars Disney+ series) have a clear cut distributor in Disney Platform Distribution, so it is an easy/non-controversial inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But does that need to be in the infobox? Or is including that info in the prose good enough?... I think the real question is, is this info "important" enough to need to be in the IB? I really don't think it is, and it is causing problems with vandalism and ignorance and such, esp. with order TV series (which is maybe what I focus on more than a lot of WP:TV editors). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how pretty much any reader needs to know (or would be interested in) who the distributor is. This isn't like films where it is often a major studio who gets their logo on screen, TV distributors are usually just a generally unknown division of the production company or network. The distributor is also often not mentioned in reliable sources, unlike for films, and is therefore being added to articles without any sources by editors who just happen to know who it is. So yeah, I would support removing the parameter. If the distributor does something noteworthy that gets reliable coverage (such as doing a major distribution deal for the show or something) then they can be mentioned in prose. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: I'm all in favor of ridding templates from unnecessary/controversial parameters (see first_run discussion above), but I don't think this is the right param to remove at this time. Studios often make a program for a network that they are not otherwise affiliated with (Disney/Buena Vista comes to mind), and even in those circumstances, distribution rights can vary significantly from broadcast rights. While I wouldn't be staunchly approving of the addition of this param if it were removed, I still feel that it shows value in certain subjects in which it's relevant. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this info need to be in the infobox? No one is saying that it wouldn't be good to include distribution info in TV articles – but it belongs in the prose, not in the IB. Distributor is much less relevant info than production companies or broadcast networks/streaming companies. This is especially true of older TV shows which are no longer distributed much of anywhere anymore... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that distribution info is less relevant than production/broadcast details, but I disagree that it is "much less relevant". How does the distributor info fare against the template's other params? What relevance do details about the production's budget, camera setup, audio format, or cinematography have to the casual reader? All of these params could be removed, and in the majority of cases, the article would lose nothing of value.

I'd speculate that a good percentage of distributor credits in existing articles come from user-generated sources with fluctuating reliability that aren't suitable for WP (e.g. fan sites or IMDb). With the exception of cinematography, those other params I listed probably are excluded from the credits sequence and are likely sourced from similar websites. You claim that distributor info belongs in the prose, but why is that? I don't see the point in shoehorning in a mention about the distribution company into article bodies when it isn't something that would naturally flow with the existing prose.

Then again, I could be all wrong about this. That last sentence sure tries to defeat the point about distributors being relevant, which is basically what I was claiming in the first sentence. Keep the param or remove it—I don't have a strong or apparently consistent opinion either way—so I'm sticking with weak oppose on this topic. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it Most of the time it isn't mentioned in the article or sourced in the credits. People put in what they know is the distributor without sourcing it generally. Then there is the rash of edits to whatever the current distributor is based on name changes and ownership changes, again usually unsourced and based on what people know. If it matters, it will be discussed in the article, which is rare. If it doesn't matter it won't be in the article and shouldn't be in the infobox either. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it - The info is unsourced 95% of the time and relatively useless for an historical record about a series. Moreover, it's the source of thousands of (useless) edits by obsessives who want to make Wikipedia a TV guide. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time Distributor means series copyright owner. I suggest two areas called as current distributor and former distributor because in the defunct Television companies. For example: Saban Entertainment makes things difficult to associate with valid rights holders. Extormophie Exolus (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example I want to change all Distributor: Saban Entertainment areas with Disney Platform Distribution and trying make more Digital Tracking for former Fox Kids International properties but I can't Extormophie Exolus (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Template:Infobox television Lua errors on uncreated pages. — Bilorv (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC) — Bilorv (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into example Only Murders in the Building as of today. The infobox says there are 19 episodes but the Episodes section says there are 20. Which is correct? Both CANNOT be correct. Either the figure in the episodes section should say 19 or the infobox should say "No. of episodes aired" not "No. of episodes". Besides an episode exists if it is not aired. It needs changing one way or the other Sirhissofloxley (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The episodes parameter does effectively mean "No. of episodes aired", so they can both be correct. That is so standard now, and only an issue while series are airing, that I don't think a name change is required, but I wouldn't be against it if others saw value in that change. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the template documentation, the image_upright parameter in this template is set to 1.13 by default. This appears to be intended for articles that use title cards in the infobox (like Stranger Things or Game of Thrones) or logos (like Better Call Saul), but it unnecessarily widens the image in ones that use upright posters, like Squid Game or Chernobyl (miniseries). In my opinion, image_upright should be set to 1 in these cases, which matches the default image size in other media infoboxes like for films or books. Is there consensus for adding a rule (or recommendation) to this effect to the documentation? — Goszei (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]