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.

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]

@Favre1fan93 That one is a gibberish test. It looks like it generates the white space even if there is no string of four numbers (read: year). That should be rare in context. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going through with pushing this into template code. If there are any issues, let me know here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:49, 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]

In this case, I believe it is. The only difference is that BBC Studios in its country of origin and Disney is handling it everywhere else. TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think it's warranted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should the {{Film date}} template, with the parameter |TV=yes set up, be used for television films for the |first_aired= parameter in Infobox television? And, if so, shouldn't the template docs make mention of this? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always in favor of automation. I just don't think that using that template in its current non-Lua state, is a good idea. Also, not a fan of 19(!) unnamed parameters, bundled in with named parameters. So that would be a no from me. Gonnym (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then the alternatives would be:

1. To change the {{Infobox television}} template itself to somehow differentiate TV films from regular TV series premieres in that parameter (or by use of a different parameter?), or
2. To "fix" the code of the {{Film date}} parameter (which, FTR, is widely used by WP:FILM).

Doesn't necessarily matter to me which route we go with, but one or the other should happen IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might be widely used, but it is still sub-par. Anyways, I'm just one voice and don't have any final say here, so no need to convince me. For what it's worth (and I think I stated this in the past somewhere), the current setup of having this template handle TV films is also bad (the only difference would be |network= missing from the film template). Gonnym (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bring up yet another parameter for discussion of removal, but the "distributor" parameter causes quite a bit of confusion. Although the docs say "original", this quite often becomes a catch-all for "every" distributor. I have seen instances where this becomes a list of every distributor including syndication (although, of course, I can't find and example when I need one). It also has led to what is essentially an edit war across numerous articles (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass edits to TV pages changing the distributor in infobox) over whether this can/should include international distribution, what distributors should be used, and what should be or shouldn't be in this parameter. I would say in some instances, it is difficult to determine (and/or to find a source). With classic TV, the credits display the syndication distributor, which is not the "original". So, is it a useful parameter or should it be removed? If kept, do we expand/loosen the docs to be more than "original" or do we tighten it to say "original, and well/clearly sourced otherwise leave it out"? Or should it even suggest that this needs to be covered in the body for inclusion in the infobox (which really, every parameter, being a summary of the article, should be)? ButlerBlog (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to tighten the definition of what the parameter includes than loosening it, because the latter will only bring more edit wars and cluttered infoboxes, while the former will simplify everything. —El Millo (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel if the show originally aired on a network (CBS, ABC, NBC, etc) then the distributor field should not be used. I am not really sure when "distributor" would be used, the document really don't explain its use other than "use only original distributor". Maybe this works for modern TV shows (like streaming, cable channels), but when you are trying to find the original distributor for a show in the 50s, 60s, 70s, it's not so clear-cut. IMO, "network" is best used for this (and content in the infobox should be sourced in the article, and what network it aired on is usually sourced or easily verifiable). Mike Allen 13:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be filled in at all if it isn't sourced. It should be the name of the original distributor, that means original in the country of origin for the initial release of the series or show. The name used is the one used by the distributor at that time. The network is generally the original distributor unless it is originally a syndication release. IMDb seem to be using that convention when it lists the original distributors. I would be OK with removing the attribute completely because it is seldom sourced, contentious in use and has little value for TV stuff unlike its use in films. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the parameter "distributor" is necessary, why? Because it refers to the company that distributes and sells the program or its format, either for domestic syndication (in the case of programs produced in the United States), for the sale of broadcasting rights internationally, or for the sale of the rights to the format for an international version. That is what the use of this parameter is for. --Luis1944MX (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, LUis1944MX, is that for older shows, distributors sometimes change. The current docs for the template indicate the "original" distributor. As MikeAllen pointed out, this often is difficult to determine, and difficult to provide a source. I think his suggestion that for network programming, it makes sense to exclude the original distributor would clear up confusion or improper use (where "current" distributors are listed for "classic" shows, which is not the "original"). I would also lean towards, if it's not discussed (and sourced) in the article, exlcude it. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97, AussieLegend, Favre1fan93, MB, Magitroopa, and Some Dude From North Carolina: Seeking input (if they have any) from users who have been active in previous parameter format/inclusion/documentation discussions. @Gonnym:: any thoughts on this as the main editor of this template? ButlerBlog (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find the infobox bloated. Additionally, reading these key/value pairs on sites like IMDb is much better than infoboxes on Wikipedia. With that in mind, I'm always in favor of removing the more technical fields which most readers don't care about. Is who distributed a TV series important? Yes. Is it important in the infobox? No. Just as casting director or stunt director or any one of many other credits that aren't in the infobox.

Taking an article which was used as an example in the noticeboard link above - Hogan's Heroes. The infobox lists 3 distributors, yet none of them are even mentioned once in the article. Ok, so that article was not a FA so it's fine it isn't perfect. How about the WP:FA House which lists NBCUniversal Television Distribution but again does not mention it, and the same for Wizards of Waverly Place.

This shows me that although the the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (MOS:INFOBOX), with this field it tends to fail a lot. Somewhat related, it would seem also that there isn't a category tree for this like there is for Category:Television series by studio (which is for the production studio). Gonnym (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gonnym's assessment that, while it is important, maybe it isn't for TV series infoboxes. Though the parameter would still be needed for TV film use I believe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting Gonnym's comments, I can't think of a single instance where I have seen it mentioned in the article content, which, based on MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, is what led me to suggest the possibility of removal as an unnecessary param. With other parameters we have removed, it was usually due to their misuse in some way, which I think is the case here. And of course, were it to be removed, just because it's not an infobox param doesn't mean the article content can't mention it, right? Leaving it to something like the "Release" section opens up the possibility for covering changes in the distributor, which based on the docs, we don't currently do in the infobox. As MikeAllen pointed out, a more relevant parameter is "network". The possible exception to that may be from the early days of television when some shows were syndicated in first run, for example Death Valley Days. But even then, the production company is the more important item and is easy to source - distributor, not so much. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there have been discussions about removing this parameter from Infobox film as well. I support both removals. This is trivia that is often unsourced, it would very rarely be included in articles if it wasn't in the infobox. It is often unclear who the distributor is as it is rarely included in sources, and it is usually a non-noteworthy company division related to the production companies or the networks/streaming services which are already covered and more important. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems the trend is towards removal? @Gonnym: would it make sense to update the docs to reflect something like "do not use if network is used" (or something that would suggest criteria for its non-use) and then begin to remove it per docs? That may give a sense of what level of uproar it would cause. (Thinking back to when we started removing "name" as optional) Or is it better to do a more formal RfC and move towards simply removing it altogether? ButlerBlog (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think adding a note is needed. If someone adds a distributor to a parameter called "network" they obviously know that is incorrect and just don't care. Those two words mean completely different things. Regarding an RfC, that's on you. I detest those. The code in the /sandbox version is already ready, so whenever whoever decides, I can move it. Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone adds a distributor to a parameter called "network" they obviously know that is incorrect and just don't care. Sorry, I may have been unclear. I was referring to MikeAllen's suggestion that if there is a (valid) value for the "network" parameter (i.e. CBS, Netflix, etc), then the "distributor" parameter isn't really necessary. My suggestion to revise the docs was primarily so we could have a reason to remove it in these instances kind of as a trial balloon. I just want to avoid removing it and then having a dozen editors flying off the handle saying "I wasn't aware or I would have commented". Or am I just being too non-committal on something that we should just move forward on? ButlerBlog (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make sure even more people see this, leave a message at the TV WikiProject. If after a week or so consensus stays the same as above, then that's enough in my opinion. Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say remove the distributor parameter because it is pretty much unnecessary when the network parameter is already being used at least for TV series articles, I am not sure about TV films though. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since we might be making adjustments with |distributor= above, figured I'd hop on the train since this has been in the back of my mind. I think |preceded_by= and |followed_by= should be deleted. Every time I've come across them, they seem to be used incorrectly. This is mainly on animated series, where I've seen it done where if a new series comes out on the character (say Spider-Man), but it's a completely brand new take on the character, these parameters are used. This work should be done with navboxes. The only one that I think should remain and is relevant and helpful is |related=. Editors can add links to any truly connected series or franchises here (Young Sheldon and The Big Bang Theory, The Conners and Roseanne, linking to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series for the MCU TV shows along with any that have direct spin offs like The Punisher and Daredevil or WandaVision and Agatha: Coven of Chaos. I think this will remove headache and allow editors to truly zero in on the relevant links and help remove the ones more easily if they don't have proper connection. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about the same thing for a long time. Navigation templates have become the standard over the years as a means to handle these links, and anything that needs even extra text to it, can be handled either in the lead, a see also section, or somewhere else. I personally would also get rid of |related= with the same rational. Navigation templates and sections do it better. Gonnym (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel there can be merit to |related=, but am fully aware of other options to handle such information if consensus is to remove that too. WP:FILM did away with their chronology stuff in the infobox years ago, and Wikipedia in general has also done away with the chronology templates. So at the very least those two parameters directly related to that should go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see day-to-day, there is a lot of misuse of these. I agree that nav templates do it much better. I would support removal of preceded/followed_by. I can support either way on "related" - I guess it depends on who asks ;-) ButlerBlog (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support removing |preceded_by=, |followed_by=, and |related=. I think all of these are rife with misuse and they are all well covered by navboxes. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]