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.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

As is evidenced by any series recently released on HD-DVD or Blu-ray, most if not all shows are now filmed in 1080p, and then broadcast in 1080i, 720p, 720i, or standard def, depending more on the local television station or cable system than the actual production itself.
So which format should be listed for current shows? I would suggest 1080p, since that is the native resolution before it is downgraded for local broadcast.
Regardless, the documentation should probably be updated to clarify that we want the format the show was filmed in, not whatever format an editor happens to watch it in. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel like it is a useless number to the average reader. Unless you understand what 1080i, p, etc means, you don't care really. Even so, it is hard to prove, verifiably (excusing what IMDb lists), exactly what the format for the show is. We cannot assume that all shows are 1080p, but not every single one is. Personally, I would like to move toward scrapping the section from the box completely. As I stated, it really does not add anything to understanding the show (which is what the box is for), and we cannot assume that the average reader is going to understand what those numbers actually mean.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem rather trivial. I don't suppose there are many instances where the picture format is actually discussed within the article. I'd be happy to see this field go. Flowerparty^☀ 09:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it the Composer(s) field is meant for if someone wrote the incidental music but not the theme tune, but this isn't at all clear. Where they both appear, like here, the two fields seem to contradict each other. Flowerparty^☀ 09:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because one should read simple "Composer" and the other "Theme by".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't really avoid the potential confusion, though. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to collapse the theme tune info into a single line and maybe remove the composer field - there's way too many fields in this box. Flowerparty^☀ 14:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a major difference between a "Composer" and the person that provides the "Theme music" (speaking of course that they aren't the same person doing both). In most cases, the "theme music", for live action shows, is often taken from a pop culture song, while there is a separate person providing the episode to episode music. I wouldn't be for merging these into one cat, as we had that before and we eventually separated them because the roles are typically distinctly different. Are you referring to "Composer" and "Theme music composer"? If so, then I would be for merging those two. They can easily identify each composer (one for the show and one for the theme) inside the box itself. But, I do agree that we have way too many fields in the box, and quite a few are irrelevant (I have renamed the header so that are discussion, which seems to be drifting to "which fields do we really need", will reflect the talk). We talked above about the picture format, you may recall. If I had to list the cats that I think could go, because they are really useless in helping the reader understand anything about the show, then I would say:
Picture format
audio format
Camera setup
Consulting, Associate, and Supervising producers (I think we only need Executive and regular producers, you rarely hear anything from the other three when it comes to who gets the privilege of discussing the show)
Story edit (seems to be the same job as "Editor")
Slogan (This looks like another name for "tagline", and we generally discourage taglines in the film community, as they don't provide any real information without context...something the infobox cannot provide)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant the theme music composer field. I didn't make that clear, sorry. A merge would be better than having the two separate, I think.

As for the stuff you suggest removing, I'd agree on all counts. I'd go a lot further, in fact. The trouble with this template is people have just added piecemeal to it as they saw fit, resulting in a classic horse designed by committee. If it had been protected from the start I don't believe we'd have half the fields we have now. To me it seems like it would be more sensible to decide which ones are absolutely necessary and then eliminate everything else. What would Ockham do? Flowerparty^☀ 10:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the theme music fields, since this is often a notable song otherwise unrelated to the rest of the music on a show. But I would change the wording used from "Theme music composer" to "Theme by"; it would take one line instead of two and allow for the field to be filled by the theme's performer when they are more notable than the theme's composer. I would also suggest moving this field to just after the fields for the names of the theme songs (instead of just before). —MJBurrage^(T•C) 05:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, currently we have "Theme music composer", "Opening theme", "Ending theme", and "Composer(s)" We really only need two fields: "Composed by" and "Theme by". The "opening" and "ending" theme sections can easily be covered by a single "Theme by" section. All you need to do, if they are different, is:
Opening theme
Ending theme.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line breaks should not be used to differentiate data fields within a table cell, for accessibility reasons. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility? Does not really seem to apply for an infobox, given that you cannot access the different sections in an infobox individually. there is only one "edit" option, so accessibility does not really apply. Unless you know of some other reason. Putting in "Title of song"<br>"Band title" doesn't really create any difficult accessibility.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course accessibility applies to infoboxes. They're rendered as HTML tables, which can be made so that they work in assistive software or, in the manner you propose, do not work. This as nothing to do with "edit" options. See WP:ACCESS for more. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of boxes that utilitize the "br" option, I don't think this issue has been brought up in other projects, especially given film and TV infoboxes where we list "casts" and have half a dozen names. We don't put in "actor1", "actor2", "actor3" as options (which is what your guideline suggests to do), because there is no set number of people that can be placed in the box. This is why we use the "br" option, against the accessibility MOS. This is the same thing. We cannot determine how many viable options for composer will be needed (and we wouldn't put in the option for an excessive amount that would virtually never be filled), thus we use the "br" option that might violate the MOS, but is actually the better choice.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so where are we with cleaning out some of the unnecessary fields?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no distension, I think we can remove Picture format, audio format, Camera setup, Consulting, Associate, and Supervising producers, and finally "slogan". The reasoning is above.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored three of the deleted fields, as they are useful and in use. The three are "picture format" (shows SD, HD etc. - see "Lost"), audio format, and camera setup. (Camera setup is important as it illustrates how the series is created; single-camera productions are very different from multi-camera.) As for "story editor", I haven't restored that one yet, but it is not the same as "editor". (A story editor is usually involved in writing/rewriting the script.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they are "used" by a lot of articles, because most editors (and I'm not saying this is a bad thing) just go to IMDb and start filling out all of our infobox sections with the info that IMDb lists. I don't see how "picture format" is useful, when just about all new TV shows appear in both HD and SD. Even older shows are now being broadcasted in HD format. It's a criteria that lends nothing to the understanding of the show itself. It doesn't tell you have the show is made (as they don't film in "HD", the broadcast in HD and that's only if you happen to get said channel in HD). The same goes for audio format. As for "Camera Setup", I don't no too many shows that don't use multiple cameras at some point while filming. The final one, "story editor", either you edit the series (i.e. cut and paste scenes), or you write/rewrite scripts. The former is called an "editor" and the latter is typically listed under "writer". The actual job of "story editor" is about as important as the job of associate producer as far as encyclopedic articles go. It's a thankless job that doesn't get any press. When you ask to talk to the person that wrote Lost episode 55, you are referring to the people credited as "writer" and not the people that smoothed the script out after it was finally written (the same goes for all those producer categories, you typically talk to Exec. Producers, and regular Producers).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, shows are being shot in high-def, so the field does indicate how it was produced (SD, HD, could include film as well). Audio - older shows were produced in mono, newer ones are in surround. Single- and multi-camera doesn't mean the number of cameras used throughout the shoot, it refers to how the shoot is configured. (For example, a sitcom shot single-camera has to do separate takes on each actor, while a scene shot multi-camera can get these different angles from the same take.) These details do help understand the show, as they give the reader an idea of what to expect technically. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a "bgcolour" parameter?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it's because someone once decided the article about their favourite show wasn't colourful enough, and they figured they could introduce some colour by making the infobox look like the cover of their favourite show's dvd. My question is this: given that there is a bgcolor parameter, why do we also have {{television colour}}? It seems unnecessary - and indeed unwiki - to have the colours for these shows hardcoded into a protected template. Is there a technical reason for this or could we deprecate this colour template and just specify the colours at the individual articles? Flowerparty^☀ 14:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template makes reference numbering non-intuitive. For example, in Meet The Press the first reference in the main article is (currently) #7, as 1 to 6 are in the infobox. Could this be tweaked? Gerardw (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not on this template. Reference numbering is done sequentially based on the position of the reference in the text. Since the infobox is always at the top, references in it will be numbered first. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 17:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the {{{format}}} and {{{genre}}} parameters each for? The descriptions aren't entirely clear, and many or most series (including big-ticket series like Buffy, TOS Trek and The Office) have no {{{genre}}} entry and a {{{format}}} entry which would seem to belong under {{{genre}}} instead. Also, the television-film infobox has differing guidelines for {{{format}}} and no {{{genre}}} parameter. RW Dutton (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre is for the series genre, such as sci-fi, reality show, documentary, etc. Format...I agree, what is that for? That description needs some help. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{{format}}} is presumably along the lines of "serial", "one-off" et cetera. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the technical format. IE. PAL, 1080i, etcetera... — Edokter • Talk • 15:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The technical format would seem to be covered by the {{{picture_format}}} and {{{audio_format}}} entries. I guess that {{{format}}} is either meant to refer to 'format' in the sense described in Television format (presumable example: Dramatic programming) or in the (quite different) sense described in TV program format (example: Big Brother (TV series)). RW Dutton (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that. My bad... — Edokter • Talk • 23:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the infobox now looks dull and, frankly, quite unenthusiastic. The text is spaced close together and there is a lot of extraneous code. If consensus is reached here to redesign the template, I would be more than happy to keep all of the parameters the same and redesigning it through the {{infobox}} template. Suggestions and ideas are appreciated! obentomusubi 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that infoboxes needed to look snazzy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your fetid sarcasm. I simply feel that infoboxes should be aesthetically pleasing... If you could refrain from your snide remarks, that would be greatly appreciated. :) obentomusubi 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, for convenience sake, I believe many infoboxes should be converted to {{infobox}} for standardization to some degree. obentomusubi 01:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcastic, sure, but it wasn't snide as it was a genuine question wrapped in sarcasm. You came here criticizing the aesthetic of the infobox. Infoboxes are just there to convey general information. They are not images used for the purpose of decorating an article. As for this idea that this one is "dull" with "text spaced close together", that seems to be your personal opinion. Frankly, I do not see anything different in this box than I do at Template:Infobox Film, or any of the others. Exactly what makes {{infobox}} so much better a template? Why is that one prettier than this one? If your issue with text spacing, then you are free (I don't own this page) to adjust the text a more presentable spacing size (not really sure what you are referring to by that...is it the font size that bothers you or the spacing between the letters?). Are you proposing that this infobox be deleted in favor of the putting this information over at {{infobox}}, or are you wanting to redesign the whole thing but keep it on this page? If the latter (as I doubt there would be consensus for the former as there are far too many articles using the TV box), could you provide an example of how you would make it look (i.e., maybe a sandbox rendition)?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I apologize since I didn't use a good choice of words. I'll try to make a test at my sandbox to see. obentomusubi 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a sandbox version using {{infobox}}, at Template:Infobox Television/sandbox. As I've intimated to Obento Musubi before on other infobox templates, I firmly disagree with overriding the default styling of that base template in general. But I think this needs discussed at WT:TV rather than just on this template talk regardless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it needs to be discussed there. There is nothing to look at in that box, no actual example to see what I full version of the box could look like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Television/testcases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the banner, and "running time" being moved up to the broadcast title, I don't really see a difference. Personally, I like the banner at the top of the box and I'm ok with the running time being moved up to the new location. Just to know, we're actually going to be removing some sections of the infobox that are basically irrelevant to articles anyway, like "picture format" (doesn't add anything) and some of the various producers (executive producers and regular producers are all that matter, those "associate" and "assistant" are generally not in charge of anything specific that requires one to discuss them in prose later in the article). You can see in the above convo the other things being adjusted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually think the current sandbox is in sync with the template code at this moment; I was just pointing out to Obento Musubi that such a thing already existed at a standardised location. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone recently made changes to remove "unnecessary fields", but this has resulted in these extra brackets on top of every page with this infobox. I tried looking at the code, then gave up. Can someone else fix it? Thanks. SKS2K6 (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Check again. They should be removed now. It happened when I removed some sections but accidentally left a couple of "}}" behind in their place. It should be straight now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]