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

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]

(outdent)I have been working through Category:Pages using infobox television with nonstandard dates and have it down to two articles and three problems in total now. Candid Camera looks like it has seven different versions according to the infobox, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series was reverted with this edit, [1], and Parks and Recreation had the word Special added back into the field with this edit, [2]. Aspects (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The MCU page is one of many franchise or film series pages that are incorrectly using the TV or Film infoboxes and abusing the parameters. I'll (sadly) add the 6th and 7th parameters and fix the Candid Camera one. Parks and Rec is ok for now. Maybe it's worth investigating if other pages have something similar and then add a parameter that allows editing the label, so instead of "Release <date> (special)" it would be "Special <date>". Gonnym (talk) 19:16, 30 November 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]

This isn't Commons so we can't really help you here. You should have that discussion there. Gonnym (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest has introduced a new permanent slogan "United by Music". It might be better to add a subheader theme parameter like in Template:Infobox song contest shown in Eurovision Song Contest 2024. Smthngnw (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But why do we need the slogan? Gonnym (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To maintain the consistency of slogan presentation format for television and song contest infoboxes. Smthngnw (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But, to state again, why do we need the slogan in the television infobox? Seems perfectly well suited to the song contest one, as that seems as far as I can tell the only real applicable use for it. No other television programming would have "theme" so this would be catering to a super small subset of articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't even think it has any sort of value in Eurovision Song Contest 2024 either. What does "United by Music" even mean? That's just a stupid marketing term someone there thought of. It's the same contest each year. Gonnym (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The slogans for the ESC had been a significant part of the shows like the logo in terms of representation, broadcasting and marketing. Since the introduction of the permanent slogan from now on the whole show keeps the same slogan. I don't see a problem in keeping the consistency between an annual contest page and the main page when they both have a permanent theme. Smthngnw (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a marketing gimic. It has no actual value. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't logos also used for marketing gimic? If absolutely anything is related with promoting, it should be prohibited to demonstrate it as a part of the show? Smthngnw (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logos also identify the subject of the article. You'll notice we also don't place the images of all logos in articles if they aren't relevant and usually have only one. I didn't say it's prohibited. If you and others think it's relevant information to the article, then add it. It's certainly not key facts that appear in the article per MOS:INFOBOX. That said, if you get consensus here to add it, then who am I to say no. I'm just voicing my opposition. Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate my stance. Fine for the song contest infobox as it fits in that scope, not so much for the television one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found out that the related box got removed accidentally on the table. I just noticed since it just disappeared with no consensus. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was a mistake made in this change by Gonnym, "Related" was changed to header60 but {{{related|}}} is still at data51. If that is changed to data61 it should fix the display error for the Related header. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Should be fixed now. Gonnym (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This template presently uses terminology associated with linear broadcasting, which makes certain applications in the streaming era feel a bit incorrect. Is Disney+ or Netflix a television network? No, it is not, it is a streaming service. Is it a broadcaster? To an extent, and in certain countries, they sort of are. But either way, the use of "network" in this context feels outdated and not reflective of the current multi-platform nature of television programming. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your proposal. Replace with what? Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was opening this thought for discussion for what would be best appropriate. I would prefer to find a consensus first. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing can be trivially solved by substituting via a new parameter like "streaming premiere = yes", which would replace "Network:" to "Streaming service:". Or another option is to simply change the label to "Premiered on:". But the problem is that the template itself is called "Television" and probably something should be done with that too, considering that it is been used for web series for quite a long. Solidest (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no idea if this is possible, but could do something like if network is set to a streaming service, then automatically change network to streaming service, so don't need to manually add that parameter Indagate (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the easiest is to add |streaming= which if used instead of |network= will change the label to "Streaming service". Gonnym (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one parameter that suppresses the display of another and creates the presence of parameters hidden in the code is always a messy solution tho. Solidest (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite easy to do for a single service listed, but also not really optimal, because you will have to specify in the code a full list of all possible names and make the code heavier if (1) several services are listed at once, (2) service changes the name that requires regular code updates (but the list could be maintained in the separate sub-template), (3) clean different spelling variations - such as refs, year ranges or other notices. For simple cases when there is only 1 wikilinked service listed the solution will look like this:

{{#switch:{{lc:{{delink|{{{network|}}}}}}}|netflix|hbo max|max|hulu|...hundred of others...=Streaming service|#default=Network}} Solidest (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This all feels unnecessary. Readers understand what a "network" is, whether you are watching it on linear broadcast, cable, or through streaming. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Favre1fan93 that this is a solution looking for a problem. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be opposed to having a list that we need to maintain. Gonnym (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for me on both counts. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Premiered on" option is the best option. It's neutral, and makes sense ("premiered on NBC"/"premiered on Max"/"all episodes premiered on Netflix on (date)"). ViperSnake151  Talk  00:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I'd love to discuss and hopefully add the field 'Casting Director' to the television Infobox so that the 55,000+ pages on television series and films can be updated to include this job role which is a pivotal role in all productions. It would be great to add it to any infobox that deals with tv and film but also theatre too. Often a role that is overlooked, but is a core department and if we can list cinematographers, we can also list casting directors. Someone like Nina Gold is a huge casting director known for casting some of the biggest productions in TV & film. Yes she has her own page, but it would be even nicer to be able to edit and add her on all the individual pages that she has worked on. Is something like this doable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.244.8 (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't list all production roles in the infobox otherwise it gets exhaustive. In many instances the crew that is listed in infoboxes is not cited elsewhere in the article (which generally should be done) and casting directors, unfortunately, are definitely less notable in that regards and would probably be even harder to reliably source. If there is a reason to note the casting director, it can be done in article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would echo what Favre1fan93 said: If there is a reason to note the casting director, it can be done in article. Too often, editors (both experienced and inexperienced) focus on infobox parameters rather than article content, trying to fill in as many params as possible like they are completing a collection. Often, I see that take priority over actually putting it into the article. Infoboxes should reflect what is in the article, and that can be extrapolated to mean the article content is what is most important. If there's not a parameter in an infobox, fine; focus on the article content then. Yes she has her own page, but it would be even nicer to be able to edit and add her on all the individual pages that she has worked on. Is something like this doable? So the answer to your question should now be obvious. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is first air date release now? Shouldn’t release only be for streaming and not aired on television? It should be original air date right? 120.28.248.11 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even before the latest changes its text said "Original release" so no, it isn't a new thing. And personally I don't find any compelling reason to change it. Gonnym (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gonnym. Was going to state the same thing. The parameter label never stated "aired" previous, though users can still used the |first_aired= and |last_aired= parameters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder it used to be original release if it's on the first aired date. why is it only release now which is the same as a streaming series released which is also called released on the infobox? 216.247.18.33 (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be called "Original release" for all situations. It's now been changed to "Release" since it's now under a header called "Original release". If you have a suggestion for a better name feel free to propose it. Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bug in the infobox with |alt_name= which I fixed here. The infobox will now place the value of the text in italics if it is singular. When it is plural it won't, as lists can cause lint errors. These will need italics to be manually added.

Additionally, if the value has disambiguation (such as Another name (1999)), the template will handle it so only the text outside the parenthesis is in italics.

I'm working on a tracking category for the plural cases so those can be fixed.

Testcases can be found here. Please let me know if you see anything that needs to be fixed.

I'll update the live code in a few days if no issues are reported. Gonnym (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An issue that probably will arise and will need fixing, is that if an alt title already uses italics, it will now have 4 ' and will be in bold with an extra one on each side. Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tracking category can be added to the |plural= section of the Pluralize template transclusion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll probably add a tracking category to find plural usages that need fixed. Those are done over at Module:Infobox television as the logic gets more complicated than template syntax can handle. I just need to think how best to catch entries of a list (still hoping to find some template or module out there that will save me writing that code:) ) Gonnym (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, code written to handle plurals without italics and singular with italics. Will make this code live this week. Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Seasonal shows Like Bigg Boss , It is best to add slogan of the season as the image caption in infobox television. For Long time it used to be like that, but yesterday one of the member removed slogan from all edition of Bigg Boss in multiple languages. I Request all Members to propose their suggestions below. Alen Hermen (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add a bit information to this. This discussion was supposed to be held at Template talk:Infobox television season and not here as it concerns that infobox. Regarding the actual issue, the slogan was used inside |caption= resulting in information that is not relevant to the image at all (a standard Bigg Boss logo). This has also MOS:ACCESSABILITY issues as we're setting screen readers to give incorrect information to their users. I am the editor that removed this usage which was used on exactly 10 articles. Gonnym (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The slogan strikes me as off topic. At best it's irrelevant, and at worst it's WP:PROMO. If the slogan has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it can be covered in the body of the article itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym's point about accessability makes a lot of sense. I see no reason to include it as a separate parameter, and it would be ripe for abuse were it included. I'd be a hard "oppose" if this came up for official discussion/comment. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question regarding {{infobox television}}, seeking input from experienced television editors and template editors. Suppose a show is co-produced (i.e. funded) by an American company like CW, but it's entirely produced/filmed in Canada. When it airs simultaneously in Canada and the US on different networks and (possibly) different air dates, what's the appropriate protocol for listing the |network= and |first_aired=/|last_aired= values? Should we use |network= and |network2=, or would it make more sense to use a plainlist for the multiple networks (considering it's essentially simultaneous, not a reboot or network change)? ButlerBlog (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the show is a co-production then use plainlist. If it was just produced in Canada that doesn't mean anything. Arrowverse shows were filmed in Canada but they are only American. Gonnym (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gonnym. That confirms what I was thinking. Here's another one that's related: Children Ruin Everything. In this case, Roku and the CW appear to just be international distribution. My presumption on this one is that it should just be CTV as they are the original network in the country of production (Canada). The others are just picking it up for international distribution. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the show so no idea. I found in the last few months of fixing networks and dates that this is one of worst cases of unverified information in articles, because sometimes it even has a source which makes it seem valid and it still isn't. Children Ruin Everything specifically mentions only Canada in the lead and in the infobox, so that seems to mean that it is only CTV. In any rate, the lead, infobox, body and categories should all match. Gonnym (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

<thumbs up icon here> Thanks! ButlerBlog (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has come up previously in the archives, however, it is often related to Co-EP listing on narrative TV shows that often use the credit for writers (who are also listed elsewhere). In documentary TV series, the Co-Executive Producer is most always used to denote the showrunner. Therefore, it seems fair to include that as a separate credit available in the info box. The co-executive producers are more creatively involved and responsible for the series on all levels than producers. The omission therefore overlooks a key role in these types of productions. 2600:4040:912F:B200:99B1:B552:3710:54CE (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion - and one that I do not share. If it's a "key" role, then discuss it in the article's prose - specifically, the "Production" section, where it can be given proper context. If you're concerned about the exclusion of "key" information, then add it to the article - there's nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from making sure it's covered. But it doesn't need to be in the infobox. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This formatting can just make infoboxes look messy. Why do we need multiple dividing perimeters? It creates clutter and it will confuse readers. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way would this change on Futurama be messy? It's giving more clarification to the series' run, as the show was cancelled multiple times. The way it is now because of your revert gives the sentiment the series was never cancelled, similar to Family Guy. Just because you "seriously hate" the changes does not mean Chimatronx or I were being "disruptive". Nyescum (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally thought the new format was a great change that tidied up the infobox for shows with complicated network histories, rather than having a list of networks with dates in parentheses, and made the release date parameter much more useful for those shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could the headings for those be changed though, with heads like “first network”, “original release”, “second network”, “second release”, “third release”, etc. Would that make things less confusing? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not confusing though. Gonnym (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How? It's literally terms “network” and “release” repeated over and over again. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data is read top bottom left right. So it's not “network” and “release” repeated over and over again, but it's "network" and the network name, then "release" and the date range. Then repeat. When read like this it's very clear that for a show like Futurama, it was first released on Fox between March 28, 1999 – August 10, 2003, then released on Comedy Central between March 23, 2008 – September 4, 2013, then on Hulu between July 24, 2023 – present. I still don't see what is confusing about this. Gonnym (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can there be some form of rename for them to give more context for readers? Just having them say “network” and “release” on repeat can confuse some readers, so if a certain show was cancelled and revived several times, why not for them, “original network”, “original release”, “second network”, “second release”, etc. Shows that lasted for one run can keep the “network” and “release” formatting. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you get consensus for that change it can happen. I personally feel that saying "second network" when it's obvious its the second is redundant. It's also probably (as it should) be explained in the article itself. Gonnym (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting @MrScorch6200: in this discussion as he was the one who thought that this change was necessary. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]