This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 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

Adding Media franchise in the first part/section of the infobox would quickly point to the spinoffs and more information of the universe if there's any. shelovesneo (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have |related= for that. Gonnym (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: seems that there already exists this type of functionality per the previous comment. If this is a new parameter that needs consideration, please get consensus first. Primefac (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I've come across some uses of the |narrated= where it is used incorrectly as |narrator=. It's not happening a lot, but enough to make me think that the current param is not as intuitively named as one might think. Could we add |narrator= as an equivalent alias of |narrated=? I believe we have that for some such as |opentheme= which is an alias of the correct/preferred |open_theme=. This would make the param more intuitive (IMO) and more similar to others such as |presenter= which is not |presented=, or |developer= which is not |developed= (to name just a few). I don't think it's necessary (or wise) to wholesale change it as it is used across a lot of articles, but use as an equivalent alias would seem to be more intuitive when compared to the other params. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example today... [1] ButlerBlog (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a valid change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created a test case. Seems to be working. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. These really should have been parallel this whole time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Number of episodes" parameter, I request for the criteria to be based on the verifiable number of episodes being released. The current criteria is frequently misleading to readers because the infobox is supposed to summarize the series as a whole. For example, we would not leave out stars if they did not appear in the first one or two episodes. To have only a gradually-increasing number is too dynamic to a fault and implies that maybe the next episode won't happen. This is almost never the case. It is a verifiable data point to state the total number of episodes.

For a series with multiple seasons, added criteria could be something like changing from a one-season episode count to a two-season episode count once the second season premieres. As a reader, I've been occasionally flummoxed by the partway count. For example, watching Hijack (TV series), the parameter said there were four episodes. It took off-Wikipedia research to find that there are seven episodes total. This kind of total framing is more useful to readers than upping the count one by one. I invite other editors to support this change. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the instructions are fine as they are now. The dynamic issue applies only during the initial run of the series, after the series is complete the number will be static. During first run a series article is generally updated fairly quickly with changes. Also number aired is verifiable with contents of an episode list. We shouldn't be adding cast names until they appear in an episode, but that is a separate issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many readers will be reading the series article during the run, though, and that is why the number of episodes is misleading. There is no benefit to taking an incremental approach when the full total number of episodes is known. Why should series that have one episode aired have only Number of episodes = 1 presented in the article? Readers going to the series article during a run will be thrown off. The complete verifiable number of episodes makes more sense during a run and after it. I'd argue that the total number can be there before the run because it's verifiable. The episode count isn't going to change mid-run, barring very rare circumstances. I'm not seeing the case why the incremental approach is better than the complete-total approach. Like I said, watching Hijack then coming here and seeing number of episodes = 4 made me think it was a four-part series, when if it just said 7, I'd know the full scope right away, and that's not a contentious data point. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you noted to support your reasoning has been discussed before. I'm not saying consensus can't change, but we've discussed this before much more than once and the result is always the same. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, WP:CRYSTAL is cited in defense of the current criteria. It does not apply, though, because for infoboxes releasing products like films, we cite a release date in the future. If we applied this infobox's logic that way, we wouldn't be allowed to write any future date on the off-chance that it won't happen. I feel like this whole situation is a case of tradition for the sake of tradition, doing this because it's always been done that way. I highly doubt that there would have been so many discussions about this if the total number of episodes was always reported. It's the pedantry of the incremental approach that triggers repeated discussions. In over 99% of the cases, the number of episodes is already known even before the very first episode is aired. From what I can tell, most exchanges about this are brief, other than one extensive discussion that was more about changing the field's name to include "Aired". I feel like an RFC is necessary to get a broad consensus, especially readers of TV series articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against aligning our approach for this field with the lead and series overview tables (give the full known episode count with sources) but I do think we should differentiate in the infobox between released episode count and currently airing season episode count. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this was brought up because I've never understood why the guidelines were set up this way. It's not beneficial at all and really goes against what the infobox was designed for. I agree with Erik that a RFC is needed to see what actual readers find useful. Mike Allen 02:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in an RFC on this (and a ping if someone does start one!). My initial thought is that it is a waste of time to update an infobox, say, weekly for 24 weeks in a year 1 episode at once when it is more than 99% certain that the full season order will air. There are exceptions—we saw some in the last big writers' strike—and it's decreasing in importance with the trend of releasing a full series instantaneously. But I don't think we can say it's CRYSTALBALL when it's information significant enough to be reported elsewhere in the article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A simple solution is to use Template:Episode counter which displays the count and an "as of" date. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That template is only used on 50 articles in the mainspace, and I would say does not have community wide consensus to use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not any different than putting an "as of" date or other clarifying notation into the param, which does not specifically fall outside of what's in the docs (although it could certainly be argued as being implied). Regardless, I'm just trying to offer a reasonable alternative through discussion. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, yeah, understood. I just wanted to pointed out that that template does not have wide adoption for use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

|animator= is meant to be a person or persons who worked on the show, not an animation company, correct? That's how I've always assumed, along with the documentation wording under |company= Note: sub-contractors hired to perform production work, e.g. animation houses, special effects studios, post-production facilities etc. should not be included here.... If my thinking is correct (or even if it isn't) I'd like to add clarifying wording to the documentation regarding this parameter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Bueller? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From understanding, the |animator= has always been a person or persons who worked on the show, not an animation company. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the documenation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to add to a discussion seemingly concluded nearly a month ago, but if the purpose of the "Animator" parameter is to refer to persons who did animation work on a show, how do we refer to animation studios? There are many articles where animation companies are listed with the "Animator" parameter. I'd think it would make sense to have an "Animation Production" or "Animation Services" parameter, but it would of course need clear definitions in regards to outsourcing and sub-contracting. You could argue they should be listed under "Production Company", but that role usually means something different in TV animation, and in my mind it makes sense for animation studios to be listed separate.

I'm also unsure about what the purpose of the "Animator" parameter is to begin with, especially if it's truly meant to refer to people who did animation work on the show. Unless only a few animators total worked on a project, or listing the main animators who contributed to a series somehow ends up being justified, it seems too low level a credit to include in the infobox in most cases (at least in my opinion).

I'm very new to Wikipedia editing, so perhaps I'm missing something. MuddyYoshi (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per past consensus on the matter, the TV project guidelines (as conveyed in this template's documentation) is to not include animation houses in the infobox. That information should be noted in the article, if appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that the "Distributor" parameter was removed for being useless but the "Picture format" and "Audio format" parameters are even less necessary. Unless an article is about the first TV show in color or first high-definition program, I really don't think it's important information, and most readers probably just skip over this information in general. These parameters just bloat the Infobox and provide unessential information. —theMainLogan (t•c) 12:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those format parameters are very rarely sourced in the article and are an attribute of the network or release method and not of the production itself. Basically useless information for the infobox of a television production and I agree they should be removed. When it is a production "first" it should be highlighted in the article itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind their removal, for the sole reason that if they are used, they are mostly unsourced. And as stated, if any of these aspects are notable for the series, they would hopefully be included and sourced in the body of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above points. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox has been updated to remove these parameters, and you can see in the test cases how it would render versus the current live template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be done to make the change in the template and get a bot to remove them from articles? Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usually just enough days to see there is no opposition to the removal. I'll add a note to the television WP about this just in case. Gonnym (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And once they are removed, it'd be a mere task of asking User:Primefac to run his bot which has a task to remove unsupported parameters. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; just waiting for stuff to get implemented. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The parameters have now been removed. Gonnym (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather late to the party here, but I oppose the removal of these parameters. Picture and, to a lesser extent, audio formats make a large contribution to the aesthetic experience of watching a television program, certainly the aspect ratio has a huge impact. I'd argue this information is just as important as other parameters in this template.

I disagree that these parameters are not a function of the production, at least in part. The production results in material with a certain resolution, aspect ratio, number of sound channels, etc., which are sometimes then modified or constrained by network or release method (downscaling resolution, letterboxing aspect ratio, downmixing audio channels, etc.)

The main thing that gives me pause is that, as mentioned, this information is usually unsourced. I'd think in the majority of cases much of it should be verifiable, though? It's also not generally included in the body of the article, but I think this is a case where the exception at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE may apply: the more technical nature of format information would read unnaturally if integrated into the body's prose in most cases. MarioFanNo1 (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This proves a point I thought about but forgot to write in my proposal about only the most die-hard videophiles and audiophiles taking interest in this kind of information.—theMainLogan (t•c) 02:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is though that the production format may have little to do with the broadcast format the network chooses. The color formats NTSC, PAL and SECAM could be used for the same production depending on the country airing it. And generally for the years they were dominant sort of trite to even mention it as that was the only color formats used in the different countries. Likewise with HD formats 1080i and 720p which can be used for the airing the same production on different networks but could be produced in many different ways, including film, that could be converted to the airing format. What would be useful and interesting is the production format and setup. How aired is a network choice and is an attribute of the network and date aired. In a significant number of series I have looked at the information is just plain wrong and appeared to be added without any consideration or checking, just copied from some other use of the template. Or someone just added the information without checking if it is valid or not. I've tried to correct the 1080i formats listed for ABC, Disney, ESPN, Fox when I find them but that is an example of people not even trying to get it right and just assuming everything recent is 1080i (and maybe now 4K). Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst maybe the photo format isn't necessary for more recent TV series, I think the paramater is important to be kept for older shows which were filmed in that period from between when formats changed from SD to HD formats; if a show is only available in SD or was filmed in HD format earlier than other series from its time, it probably should be in the infobox. Happily888 (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of such a show? Gonnym (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just noticed this now as I forgot to subscribe to this discussion and hadn't been pinged. Some examples of shows where the photo format information is helpful include Takeshi's Castle, Planet Earth, Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, and Bondi Rescue. Happily888 (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Happily888 so I checked those articles:

• Does not mention in prose at all: Takeshi's Castle, Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, Bondi Rescue
• Mentions without any additional explanation: Planet Earth

This shows that either the information is not really important, or that after all these years, editors just used the infobox as an excuse to as an easy way to mention it without giving it any real context. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also - if these formats are notable for the show history then they can be talked about in article instead of being on every infobox. For example: Mister_Rogers'_Neighborhood#Broadcast_history which references: " The series' first season (1968) consisted of 130 episodes, produced in black-and-white. For seasons 2–8 (1969–75), the show produced 65 new color episodes each year. By the end of season 8, this meant there was a library of 455 color episodes which could be repeated indefinitely. Rogers and the rest of the show's cast and crew began suffering burnout from taping 65 episodes a year and in 1975, Rogers made the decision to take a break from the series for a few years. As a consequence, season 9 (1976) consisted of only five episodes." JohnRussell (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: so with the above comments coming in later, is this removal on-hold? Or is it going forward? I know that @Primefac was going to run their bot, and pending that, I had added some regex patterns to my regular script that handles the maintenance categories. I had it running earlier, but put it on hold pending these additional comments. Or is there consensus to move forward with removal? ButlerBlog (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Butlerblog: The parameters have been removed and I don't believe there is, or are heading towards, consensus to restore. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That confirms pretty much what I was thinking. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't off base. I'll keep that additional script in then and move ahead with removing as I maintain other params. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting until the above kerfuffle got sorted. If indeed that is the lone voice of opposition, I can start a bot run. Primefac (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to the party - took the holiday weekend away from WP, and only realized this was happening because the bot ran again Miami Vice, which would indeed qualify under what @Gonnym was referring to (see https://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/09/arts/tv-series-to-be-broadcast-in-stero.html). There are numerous shows which were first or early adopters of their respective formats - including stereo, different flavors of surround sound, and varying video formats. It is noteworthy that the audio format is noted for Miami Vice in particular as it was a highly influential show for an entire era of television, as well as production techniques & shooting styles, usages of music, fashion & cultural influences, etc. Arguably - had a show of lower notoriety been one of the first to incorporate stereo sound - it may not have taken hold as firmly as it did afterwards.

While not directly related to this discussion - I am surprised that Distributor was removed because it was considered useless. Sorry - but that's nonsensical. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox history for Miami Vice shows that "MCA TV" was listed as the distributor, but the article does not mention that at all. If it's notable and important it should be added to the article (with a source). Gonnym (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean specifically for MV (that's reserved for the audio part of this discussion) - but that distro infobox info would be removed in general. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about removal of distributor is at the top of this page. Fairly strong consensus to remove it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally - having information like this mid-series change in video format would be nice to have at-a-glance. Now that information will need to be hunted for in the article. If we are going to start cutting this kind of technical information from the infobox - why stop there? Camera Setup seems to be even more trivial information than distributor, video and audio formats. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

would be nice to have at-a-glance. Now that information will need to be hunted for in the article or as you can see in the article you linked, that information is not found in the article at all. The problem with these parameters is that more often then not they are unsourced and not mentioned even once in the article. Again, if that information is important, add it to the article. And if you place it somewhere logical like in a development or filming section (which that article unshockingly, does not have), then your readers will know where to look for it. Gonnym (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just think "Camera setup" → "Budget" sequentially makes more sense than "Camera setup" → "Running time" → "Production company" → "Budget". "Production company" should probably be at the end of the "Production" section. If you disagree, feel free to explain why. —theMainLogan (t•c) 14:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC) 21:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the budget in the TV infobox only used for TV films? And...how many budgets for TV films are reported on? But to answer, I just don't see the point in moving it around. Mike Allen 21:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The budget parameter is meant to be used for TV films and miniseries. I don't see any reason to move budget though, it isn't meant to be used in the majority of cases and even in the film infobox, the budget is below the production company/distributor parameters. Happily888 (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That Infobox also omits genre information. The two don't have to be the same. —theMainLogan (t•c) 20:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask for comments on a potential change to this infobox. In recent years we have seen a lot of revived television shows such as King of the Hill, Futurama, Reno 911!, etc,. See our own List of television series revivals. Some articles will list an "original release" date range along with a "revival series" date range in the infobox, and many others will simply list a single date range for both the original release and revival run(s) which is labeled as the "original release" per the infobox parameters and the guide on the template page.

I find it imprecise and incorrect to label the two distinct runs of King of the Hill (for example) as one single original release because logic dictates that they are not -- over 10 years have elapsed between the cancellation and revival in that instance. Many of these shows were outright cancelled, not on hiatus, and there was a gap of a number of years in between runs. To label two distinct runs as one "original" release I feel is confusing and misleading because it gives the impression, from the infobox that the majority of readers reference for information, that the show was being produced continuously all of those years.

Yet, on the other hand, there's shows like Family Guy that were cancelled multiple times but renewed quickly thereafter and this type of change may not do those articles any type of justice and would be cumbersome.

I think that we should discuss modifying this infobox to create a parameter that would distinctly list the separate date ranges for original releases and revival releases and under which circumstances. I think that this type of change would promote clarity and uniformity across the encyclopedia especially for those television shows that went years in between runs.

I'm not saying that this is 100% the way to go but I think it's a fair discussion to have and would like to hear other editors' thoughts. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 12:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current method is (in my opinion) bad for a few reasons, those that you mentioned but also code-wise, we are creating incorrect data cells. The "Original release" cell requires a date range value and in the case of Reno 911!, the value "Revival series:" is not a date range. This also applies to "Original network" cell which should have a network value and not a network and date value. These issues can be fixed by adding |first_aired2=, |last_aired2= and |network2= (or other similarly named parameters). See Template:Infobox_television/testcases#Multiple release dates for a mockup. Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym This is a good point and it would easily assist us in clearly delineating different show runs across different networks (as happens often nowadays) while also fixing the data cell issue. The mockup you added looks good and I would definitely support such a change in that use case. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 14:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like it - it would clear up some issues when dealing with reboots. However, I can also see the possibility of abuse/incorrect use with regards to "classic" tv. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I can envision fancruft involving the use of these parameters for listing runs in syndication. While it's easily to manually fix that, finding it is altogether different. (I wouldn't let that affect my "support" !vote for implementation, though; just throwing it out there for advance consideration.) Also, would such a proposal only be for reboots? Or what about where a series airs via multiple delivery mechanisms? For instance, some Disney programming airs using different date ranges such as being aired on Hotstar first and then later on Disney+ (or vice versa). I'm not sure if that's what Scorch is getting at, but I'm not sure how I feel about that one. It's difficult to manage (and validate). ButlerBlog (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Butlerblog I hear your point with fancruft, but nothing stops fancruft editors from doing that now so I don't see that as being a future issue caused by this potential change. Syndicated runs are not new content or reboots/revivals so they should not be listed in this manner in the infobox. The different network parameters proposed above would be for specifying which network the revived series ran on, if different from the original network. For series that are distributed via different venues, I'm going to think on that one and get back to you because that is a very fair point to make here. Although I'm inclined to say that for sake of brevity and clarity that the network who ordered the episodes and those respective airing dates should be used; a situation where an episode may be "pre-released" on another related platform can be specified elsewhere because I would view that as a limited-release. Just my thoughts on that one but we really need more input on that because there's sure to be varying ideas.

Your point makes me think of what criteria would need to be set for using these parameters, like in the case I mentioned above where a show was twice officially cancelled then quickly reordered by the same network. Is that really even a revival or just a marketing stunt by the network? Instances like that would seem too cumbersome and unhelpful to list in this manner but there doesn't seem to be many shows like that anyway, so it might be a minor issue. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 15:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All sounds good - to be clear, I'm on board. I'm just trying to think pre-emptively about potential issues and/or management. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second question, my mockup works for any version that the show changed networks or had gaps in the run. So for a show that started on Hotstar and later moved to Disney+ the parameters in the /sandbox can work. Gonnym (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the mockup. I don't see any problems if it starts on one network and then moves to another (a good example of that would be Longmire (TV series), which started on A&E, but after three seasons, it moved to Netflix for the next three). But my example/question was more of a situation where it's not necessarily a "move" - but rather when it airs across multiple platforms but the run dates are different. An example of what I'm thinking of is Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir. You don't necessarily see it on the main article because we don't have parameters to accomodate it, but on the episode list article List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes, there's a constant process of managing improper use of the originalairdate and altdate values because it "airs" concurrently (albeit with different dates) in France on one network, on Youtube (I think), on Disney Channel, and on Disney+. So there often is a misuse of the date fields. With available parameters for multiple networks and dates, I can see the potential for something like that becoming a problem on the main article as well. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, and/or it's not really all that big of a deal. I'm just trying to think in advance from a management/maintenance perspective. Hope I clarified OK - and if not, it's probably that my ramble isn't really anything all that necessary to be thinking about anyway. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Butlerblog That then seems like a wider, pre-existing issue with uniformity that would need to be resolved elsewhere. What's the current guidelines on which air date to use for programs like that? For me, common sense dictates to use the very first instance of the airing of the program.

For our situation here, we'll have to set criteria for when these parameters should be used and how they should be used, but I specifically had revivals in mind. If there's other potential use cases then that is okay, too. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 17:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a wider, pre-existing issue with uniformity that would need to be resolved elsewhere: Considering that parameter misuse is a contributing factor in discussions regarding removal (such as removal of chronology parameters), it is therefore just as much a valid discussion when choosing to add/modify others. My reason for bringing it up is specifically for the reason that you noted: we'll have to set criteria for when these parameters should be used and how they should be used. I'd agree with your thoughts that it that is should be specifically for revivals. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In general (as I didn't dive into how it airs in Miraculous), use the original country's network only, regardless if it airs on the same day in another country. In episode lists, some editors like to have the original US (or English speaking country) air date also which I don't think clashes with the guidelines (but I didn't check). If the show has several countries then it will probably have more than one valid network in the infobox.

In any rate, the documentation here will need to explain that the usage is for shows moving networks, or gaps in airdates after cancelation and revivals. Gonnym (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Butlerblog I completely agree with your comments here, however we should take a look and see what guidelines there are regarding the issue that you mentioned; I haven't been around for quite a while and I'm not familiar with any. Do you know of any guidelines regarding which air date to use for those types of programs? Scorch (talk | ctrb) 18:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has died down a bit, but there does not seem to be any objection to the overall addition to the infobox. The issue that still needs to be resolved is when we will use the new parameters; under what circumstances should they be used? Other editors here, including myself, have commented that the new parameters should only be used for shows that have been revived by the same/another network and not for shows that air simultaneously on multiple networks. This does not seem to be in dispute.

I did raise the question that there are shows, like Family Guy, that have been cancelled then quickly revived by the same network (even multiple times). I wanted input on if these parameters should still be used in this situation. While I feel that using the parameters in this situation is precise, it also may be viewed as slightly cumbersome and irrelevant for the infobox; it is much more notable to include in the infobox a delineation for shows that went years in between runs across different networks rather than for shows like Family Guy. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 17:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would argue that if a show was canceled but was revived a year or two later, so that there is a gap of a year, then the proposed parameters are valid. So that 2010-2013 and 2015-present are two different ranges. Gonnym (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. I'd like to see what others think before requesting the template be edited so that we can have a stronger consensus. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 00:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with adding new parameters. I guess there are also questions of when to host the revival under one article, like Futurama, and when it should be separate, like The Twilight Zone (1959, 1985 etc.) Article length or number of sources can be a factor as well as the time gap, network etc. But where there is one article covering two different timespans of a series (cancellation, long gap and revival), I support listing the two timespans separately. It is misleading to say "2003–2022" for Reno 911! and its current infobox shows the reality better. — Bilorv (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New parameters added. Will update /documentation and will try and also get some tracking category set up so current usage can be updated with new parameters. Gonnym (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For now here is a search result that editors can work with. Gonnym (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding this mostly because I was dealing with an editor who was working with the page Korean News. That should be using this template, not {{Infobox television channel}}, as it is a TV program, and they were having difficulty embedding {{Infobox Korean name}} for an unrelated reason related to the TV channel template. Pinging Toobigtokale and Gonnym. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What was the problem using the |native_name= parameter this template has? Gonnym (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of it, and they were using the wrong template. (The TV channel infobox doesn't have it and neither do its architecture siblings.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In recent years, Wikimedia Commons has been significantly replenished with files dedicated to various television programs from around the world, however, in various language Wikipedia articles, the corresponding line was not built into the TV show template card. Should the TV show card have a category on Wikimedia Commons, like TV series, TV channels and films? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]