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 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I would like to propose adding the current season to the infobox in between show name and picture. For example, the current season for the Chicago Blackhawks is very easily accessible on their main article above the logo near the top of the page. Here's why I think this could be useful. I have no idea what season American Idol is on. If I search American Idol on Google click on the Wikipedia page it takes too much time to get the relevant information I want (currently have to scroll all the way down the page and click again). Sure it may seem trivial, but it would make things much more convenient without changing anything dramatically. sorebearmat (^T/_C) 01:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and the current season would seem to be fairly obviously be the one listed in the infobox already. I see no value in having "current" distinct from the overall season count. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a "setting" field, located in the main part of the template, would be wonderful. Many people have been putting the setting of the show in the "Production" section under "Location(s)," with a "(setting)" to differentiate it from the filming location. Rumkles (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen anyone do that and if they are doing it, they should be corrected. That is not an appropriate use of the Location attribute at all, nor is the setting generally a major out-of-universe element worth noting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the use of "(setting)" is not ideal. I first noticed it in the 3rd Rock from the Sun article. Seinfeld currently has only New York City listed under production locations, even though it was mainly filmed in Los Angeles. It shows that someone wanted a place to put the show's setting and, failing to find one, put in the "Location" field, even though it has nothing to do with the production.

With the minutiae of production (i.e. aspect ratios) being listed, it seems as though a major detail like the setting of the series, although part of the fictional world of the show, could be pulled from the body of the article and placed in the template. The setting of shows like Cheers (Boston), ER (Chicago), and WKRP in Cincinnati (self-evident), are integral to the series for the entirety of their run. Rumkles (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The setting is an in-universe detail, however, and the infoboxes are primarily to highlight major real world information. A few series the settings are somewhat integral, but not heavily so and setting can be covered in the prose in those cases, with appropriate sourcing of course. One person wanting a place to put the setting is not really a good reason to change the infobox. Some of those other minute details you mentioned have been discussed for removal (and were even removed for a short time), but consensus disagreed with that and they were restored. I personally think aspect ratios, for example, should go. It is not discussed in the article and for the most part is completely irrelevant and just a random trivia statistic, at best. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If fictional details are unwelcome in the template, I understand. It is unfair for me to pull a detail up to the front of an article just to avoid slogging through the prose to find it, although if someone ever brings it up again, I would still consider myself in favor of this change to the template. Thanks for the response, btw. You're very good at this. Rumkles (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has there ever been discussion about what is appropriate in the 'status' parameter? I did an archive search but came up with nothing. I think a list of examples would be helpful, and would also provide some uniformity among pages. The current description for the parameter is just "The status of the show." I've seen a wide variety of things in that section. Just curious, just a suggestion. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be useful to have a set of status'. I can only think of four that really should be needed: on-going, finished, on hiatus, canceled. What about you? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I think needs to be there, I came here for some help/ideas when expanding some new TV show pages. Recently I have seen people using pre-production, in production, Fall 2010, filming, upcoming series, returning, new series, renewed for second season, ending, in development, etc. I was hoping for some standardization. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Future or Upcoming would probably be good. Unfortunately, I don't think any other media infobox uses such a param, so no idea on how best to proceed, however most of those other than "in production" or "upcoming" should be removed/changed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the first task should be to request a BOT to scan existing uses, and list and count each type? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about BOTs and changing/creating guidelines, (I'm still new here) but that sounds like a good idea to me. It would be nice to know what is used most often (even between 'future' and 'upcoming', which to me seem like the same thing.) Unfortunately, I am not about to change these descriptors without a guideline for me to reference. (For example, when I remove flags in the infobox, my edit summary says something like: as per WP:MOS and Template:Infobox television.) Some of the TV pages are watched by editors who, shall I say, "always know best" and I am not about to start a problem without "backup". --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just ask at WP:BOTREQ, with a link to this discussion. For your latter concern "per consensus on talk page" is often sufficient. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created a bot request here. If you have a chance, please take a look at it and feel free to edit if you think it needs clarification. Thanks! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No bot is required if you just add a tracking category. If you have the list of the various instances that you would like to count, I can set it up for you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, we might not know all the values being used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so a database dump report is probably the best choice. I thought you just want to keep track of instances that are not among a list of known values (e.g., all occurrences other than: on-going, finished, on hiatus, canceled, future, and upcoming). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have created a dump report request here. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Data

The dump report is done, data is here. It is from data as of March 12, so while it does not include the recent flurry of activity with new shows/cancellations, it still gives us a picture of the most common comments in the field.

I have tried to combine similar comments (capitalization, spelling variations or errors, citations and wikilinking) below. While combining comments, I have also ignored any further description (such as New Series returning for second season.) These are the top:

• Ended - 969
• Canceled - 64
• Ongoing - 46
• Returning - 39
• Airing - 27
• Canceled/ended - 19
• New series - 14
• On hiatus - 13
• In production - 11
• Current - 11
• Upcoming - 7
• Finished - 5
• Running - 5
• Completed - 5
• Continuing series - 4

then combining like terms. Here are a few comments on possible decisions: (most popular in bold)

• On-going, Airing, Current, Running, Continuing
• Returning, On hiatus, renewed
• Ended, canceled, completed, finished, aired

Do you feel ended should be distinguished from canceled? Does canceled become ended after the season ends?

After that, I get a little confused. Some editors seem to consider a new series as in production:

• New series, upcoming (?)

Once it begins airing does it become 'Airing', or stay as New Series?

• In production, casting, filming, upcoming (?)

Is there any need for pre-production? (IMO, if it's pre-production, should there even be an article?) Syndicated? (Isn't that basically ended?) I didn't see any other useful suggestions in the one-off comments.

It's funny because my suggestions would not have been what is most popular. From looking at what was most popular (thus less pages will differ), my opinion would be to have on-going, returning, and ended. (and canceled?) I'm still at a loss for the earlier stage stuff. What exactly is a new series?

Other suggestions? Comments appreciated. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Can we agree a definitive list then run a bot to convert similar terms and/or make the template throw an error message if a different term is used? Or shall we just put a list of suggestions in the documentation? 08:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For sure a suggested list in the docs. I'd say, at minimum,: on-going, ended, future series (neither "new" nor "upcoming" seems ideal to me and it covers all the phases until actual premiere), Hiatus (which really isn't the same as returning or renewed). I do think we should differentiate between ended and canceled (one is voluntary/planned/natural life cycle, the other not so much). I think the replacements would probably be best done with AWB or the like, rather than a bot, so they can be checked to be sure which term is really correct. With those done, then I'd be fine with the template throwing an error, but then we'd also need to have a bot (after the first clean up) run through and make sure all the casing is correct. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep them all as adjectives, preferably single-word; so "planned" instead of "future series" and, say, "suspended" instead of "hiatus". I think "ended" vs "cancelled" might cause problems due to a grey area between the two extremes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I changed the template to force a capital.
• Status is odd because, apart from it's only determinable with hindsight Dr Who was apparently "Cancelled" but actually "Suspended" for a decade or so - also a series that is "Airing" may or may not have completed "Production", or it might for a short while be "Cancelled" but have an episode or episodes that is are still in "Production". cWhat status would you puton Itchy and Scratchy? I would have thought the following concepts are what is needed - still scrabbling for suitable words for some of them
  • Proposed/Planned - this can include anything notable that was never made.
  • In production - but not aired
  • Showing/airing/playing/transmitting/uploading - for the first time
  • Off air between seasons (but WP is not a TV guide maybe this is too fine grained?)
  • Finished (apparently) (never mind why)

The other aspect that might be relevant is the release information: DVD/VHS/Blu-Ray/download/VoD ... whatever but that might be better for another template.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Could we have a "theme music" label option not specific to "open" vs. "closing", please? Many shows have just one theme for both opening and closing. 108.1.68.51 (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better option would be to make the opening theme parameter leave off "opening" if no closing theme is listed. Or remove both parameters all together, as the theme songs themselves aren't always notable or even known by name, and for long running series, the theme may change several times during its run (though less common with American series, it seems). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested this in January but nobody took any notice. :( AnemoneProjectors 00:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think removing the word "opening" if no closing theme is specified could work, but please don't remove the parameters because in many cases it is notable and known by name, for example, Doctor Who theme music, EastEnders theme tune, Boss of Me, Superman (Lazlo Bane song), The Simpsons Theme, to name just a few I can think of off the top of my head. If it's not known by name then it simply won't be mentioned. AnemoneProjectors 11:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Infobox television/colour. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you replace the code with the sandbox? The code there is a bit easier in some locations (e.g. not needing all those ifexpr:), uses {{Official website}} for consistent formatting and the option to change the url with CSS and removes old empty categories. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any discussion of the changes made. What testing has been done to ensure it doesn't break stuff? I also see more than just the changes mentioned, like the addition of white-space:nowrap (which seems unneeded). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whitespace thing was already in there, see the diff. Of course, the changes have been tested within Special:ExpandTemplates and worked just fine. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]