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]

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]

That sounds reasonable to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this recommendation to the parameter's explanation in the template doc. — Goszei (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

|teleplay= should be an alias of |screenplay= and, if used, would replace the "Screenplay by" text with "Teleplay by" text. This is useful for television films or specials that may use episode credit of "Story by" and "Teleplay by". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support this, we already allow this for the writing credit template that is sometimes used in episode tables. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this version of the sandbox to the live template. It implements two changes: the Teleplay/Screenplay change as discussed above, as well as the support of the parameter |num_specials= to change "No. of episodes" to "No. of specials" in instances where "specials" is a more proper terminology than "episodes". Both have been checked in testcases. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. Please update the template documentation as necessary. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 07:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see this template does not generate a short description. I like the code at {{Infobox film/short description}}... The main thing I think would have to be added is something to differentiate series/program/programme. Any thoughts on what might be useful? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About half of the articles using this template do not have a short description, so a generic one would be useful. Something generic like "Television program or series" would probably work as a placeholder, and people could use the short description tool to improve the descriptions as needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would adding the year be useful as well, Jonesey95? Then we could have automated ones, say, "1992 American television program or series". Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. We would need code to pull year ranges from "Original release" when they are present. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Are there any other SD templates that extract the year from a {{Start date}} or {{End date}}? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but I don't know which one(s). You could browse through Category:Templates that generate short descriptions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jonesey95: I made some progress: Template:Infobox television/Short description. I also have a test version at Template:Infobox television/Short description/test to generate the code as text and six nine examples at User:Sammi Brie/sandbox2. If these are viable, the code below would be added to the front of the template. It passes through some of the infobox params, much like Infobox film. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{main other|{{Infobox television/Short description|released={{{released|}}}|first_aired={{{first_aired|}}}|country={{{country|}}}}}}}

@Jonesey95: I understand you're busy, so I want you to see this. I believe I've accounted for all possible inputs. Could you or someone else check my code before I push it to the template? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: you have some sort of additional white space in your last example in your sandbox. Otherwise I think your examples look correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what the opinion is on international distributors in the Infobox? The question came up over at Doctor Who after the BBC struck a deal with Disney to distribute the series worldwide outside of the UK and Northern Ireland. I've found a number of series that list international distributors in the field (The Rookie, Magnum P.I., The Walking Dead, Designated Survivor, and I'm sure there's more that I weren't able to find), but the specific question was whether these are "original distributors" as the instruction reads? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just reiterate again that I think we should simply remove/deprecate the |distributor= parameter from Infobox television (see several topics above this one, up-page) – it's relatively minor info that doesn't need to be included in the infobox (summary of info), and it's a magnet for bad and disruptive editing (as this most recent topic here shows). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The advice on the template is correct. Wikipedia isn't a directory or database. Articles shouldn't include an exhaustive list of every distribution, in every region, at every time. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a show isn't being released concurrently outside its original country through other means, then we shouldn't be listed international distributors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]