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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

{{editrequest}} The template currently links to {{italictitle}}. This is a redirect to {{Italic title}}. Could someone please change this to link to the page directly rather than the redirect? Mhiji (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but this is really rather pointless, per WP:2RD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italic implementation

{{Edit protected}} I would like to request that the way the italic title is implemented be changed. Change {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{{show_name}}}|{{italictitle}}|}} to {{Italic title infobox|{{{italic title|}}}}}, this is used in several other templates and allows forcing italics (for including brackets) and turning it off. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would affect existing uses (if show_name is not equal to PAGENAME. Therefore I think this might need further thought/discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is used at {{Infobox film}}, {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox album}}, all templates which use it. It will finally italicize all the disambiguated TV articles, |italic title=no can disable it, both which are current problems with the way it is setup here. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Per above - needs to be changed to italicize all the disambiguated TV articles. Mhiji (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the infobox has automatic italicization of an article's title text, how does one override that for articles whose titles are not television series (e.g. Fred Figglehorn)? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a function listed above that does it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, like this. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should update the documentation ... Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; it was the documentation on the template's front page that I looked at for the option. Since I didn't see it there, I didn't think to check the talk page to see if it had been discussed and implemented. My apologies. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I'd raise the issue here, rather than at Template talk:Infobox television season because that template has very few people watching it and this is related to an issue recently addressed here. I'm hoping somebody here will be able to come up with a far better fix for this problem. User:Mhiji has added "italic_title" to {{Infobox television season}} resulting in almost all of the title text becoming italicised. For example, List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1) becomes "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)", when the title should be "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)" His method of resolving this is to go to every article that uses {{Infobox television season}} (1,156 articles) and add "|italic_title=no" to the infobox. This seems to be the wrong way to fix the issue and I'm sure there is a far better resolution to the problem he has introduced. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is better brought up at {{Italic title infobox}}, and request that specific markups can be added in that parameter, so that you can place |italic_title=List of ''The Big Bang'' episodes (season 1) and have it auto format that way, or possibly make a season specific way to use |italic_title=list and have it auto-format using the known List of … episodes (season …) title format and |show_name=. No idea if thats even possible. On a side note, {{Infobox television season}} could use a major overhaul. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, it now appears that where a season article is at "List of X episodes (season y)", as is specified at Template:Episode list#Sublists, he's moving the articles to "X (season y)" to fix the problem he's introduced. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this for the shows I watch (Numb3rs, Two Guys and a Girl), but looking at the contributions, he's going all in. I've requested on Mhiji's talk page to stop these moves. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a better suggestion that would be great. User:Xeworlebi's idea sounds good. I don't really see the method as "incredibly inefficient". Of the 1156 articles, only 184 are "list of...". And I've changed all of these already and updated the template doc so don't really see why there's an issue. The majority of these titles are incorrect anyway per WP:TV-NC which states for episode lists should be on a single page, e.g. "List of Knight Rider episodes" or organised by season e.g. (24 (season 3), In Bed with Medinner (series 1)). I've stopped these moves for now but I am just following the policy guidelines... Mhiji (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TV-NC is incredibly outdated and hasn't been updated for a long time, and lacks in quite some things including "List of" pages. Template:Episode list#Sublists states current use for this. So you're just moving 184 articles? I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous, and should simply not be done without any type of discussion. If 16% of the subject articles are named differently that should be an indicator that it isn't a mistake, but done so purposely. Anything that includes a template wide alteration, as this is, we use this template to achieve italics wiki wide, is way more efficient that going true thousands of articles and adjust it manually, that's why we use these templates, and not just place {{Italic title}} on every subject article, that is incredibly inefficient. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 00:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While "only" 184 articles may have been affected now, a look at Mhiji's edit history shows that almost 400 edits were necessary to correct the problem introduced by a single edit to the template. That's not inefficient? As I indicated on my talk page, by default the infobox should display the title in the least troublesome manner. In this case that's using standard formatting for the title, not italicising it. What happens in an article where somebody tries to correct the title? Has that even been checked? When new episode lists are created, users often copy and paste a template from an existing series, rather than using a brand new one. It's not what they should be doing, but they do it anyway. For each new "List of" article that is created, the Mhiji implementation of italic titles is likely to result in an error that somebody will have to fix, an eror that wouldn't be necessary with the correct, or no, implementation. This too is inefficient. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if their is a better way to implement this that would be great. If you have a better ideas please do suggest it. I agree placing {{Italic title}} on every subject article would have been incredibly inefficient. That's why instead of doing that (adding it to 972 articles) I added this to the infobox (in the same way it has been done on many others) and then added |italic_title=no to the 184. I figured that was more efficient. No I'm not moving 184 articles. I didn't say that...? I was moving those in the format "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)" to "The Big Bang Theory (season 1)" per WP:TV-NC. I wasn't going to touch those in the format "List of Knight Rider episodes". I usually follow the policy guidelines rather than go to a template I have never used and look half way down the doc there. Mhiji (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also where did you get "almost 400 edits" from? There were only 184 articles which I added |italic_title=no to. That's 184 edits. Mhiji (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at your edit history. There are a lot more than 184 edits involved in this debacle. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two "debacles" here. One is the problem we've been discussing here and the other is that there is an inconsistency in the way articles have been named. Granted, I have made over 400 edits in the last day or so, but only 184 of them (where I added |italic_title=no) were related to the first "debacle". Mhiji (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And with regards to the naming conventions, if you don't like WP:TV-NC then your welcome to discuss changing it. But for now I'm going to follow the guideline there. Mhiji (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said to you with regard to Template:Episode list#Sublists, which I noticed that you changed to suit your POV. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been following this closely, but it does seem very odd to me that an infobox template would affect the title of an article. It breaks the single responsibility principle and the principle of least astonishment. Its good programming practice to have one function performing a single task, in this case producing and infobox. Having a infobox affect the title is also going to confuse editor when they try to work out what caused the title of an article to change. Simply using {{|Italic title}}{{infobox television| ...}} seems the easiest and most controllable solution.--Salix (talk): 08:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Italic title}} has been added to lots of high profile infoboxes {{Infobox film}}, {{Infobox album}} {{Infobox television}}, {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox newspaper}}, {{Infobox video game}} and others, based upon consensus. Surely this makes much more sense than having to add the template to thousands of articles individually? Mhiji (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Template_talk:Italic_title#List_of_X_episodes with regards to possibly getting a fix for this. Mhiji (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For "Infobox television season" the names are nearly all "Show Name (season/series N)". Add italictitle there. The few (List of..) shouldn't really be using that template and can be treated individually. Agreed? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You may also be interested in the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#Massive_page_moves_on_season_articles_by_Mhiji. Mhiji (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call a fifth of the articles (16%) "a few". _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using this figure of 16%... That's just what you've worked out for the articles which use this template. That does not accurately reflect all of the television season articles on Wikipedia. There are lots television season articles which do not use this template. Also depending on the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#Massive_page_moves_on_season_articles_by_Mhiji, this would mean there would be a lot lot less "List of..." articles. Even if the figure was 16% (I'm sure it's not), this is relatively few compared to the other 84% which are in the form "X (season Y)", for which {{italic title}} would work on. Surely it makes sense to have the default to make the "84%" correct and then sort out the rest? Mhiji (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 16% came from you… (184/1156) and no, 84% and the half ass the rest is not a good way to approach this. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, as I said, that 16% does not represent all articles on Wikipedia. What do you mean by half-ass? I added |italic_title=no to all of the articles affected. Meaning that all of the articles in the form "X (season Y)" were italicised correctly and all of the ones in the form "List of X episodes" were not italicised at all (just as they were before I made any edits). I'd say making all of the articles which use this infobox in the format "X (season Y)" and making it so that all the other were unaffected is very successful, not "half assed".... Mhiji (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded the italic functionality with a conditional parser so it doesn't use italic title if the page name starts "List of". Compare The X-Files (season 2) (italicised) whereas List of Highlander: The Raven episodes is not. Hopefully this compromise fits all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent thanks very much. Mhiji (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew there was a better way. Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please change

[{{{website}}} Official website]

to

{{{website}}}

so that the URL is exposed to the reader, as with other major infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: That would lose the information that the URL is for the official website. An alternative would be the following approach:

|label44 = Official website
|data44  = {{{website|}}}

But making that change would require a consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the URL should be exposed but would support MSGJ's approach above. Mhiji (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However I would prefer just Website rather than having the word official for simplicity and for consistency with other infoboxes. Mhiji (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some URLs are quite lenghty, so we cannot simply display it without breaking the infobox. Here's another suggestion:

[{{{website}}} <span title="{{{website}}}">Official website</span>]

This will explose the URL as a hint. — Edokter • Talk • 15:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Optionally, a website_title parameter could be added:

[{{{website}}} <span title="{{{website}}}">{{{website_title|Official}}} website</span>]

— Edokter • Talk • 15:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented my changes, since there has been no objections. — Edokter • Talk • 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does not expose the URL on the page; nor include it in the emitted microformat. Please find a solution which does so, or make the change I requested. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoover your mouse over the link; you will see the link. As for the microformat... you need to fill me in on that. — Edokter • Talk • 00:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I know what a tooltip is; my point stands. The microformat is explained in this template's documentation. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Microformat fixed. But why does the URL need to be exposed in al is't ugliness? If it is too long, you get unwieldly formatting errors. — Edokter • Talk • 15:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No; you've not fixed the microformat - each now has a URL value like "Production website" or "Official website" rather than a valid URL. URLs are, in this context, data and we shouldn't be hiding data. Calling them "ugly" is a personal value judgement. If the infobox can't display them properly then it should be fixed; other infoboxes seem to manage. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What other infoboxes are you talking about? Remember that this template is first and formost for displaying visual information, machines come second. And on a side note, perhaps the links should be removed all together and moved the the External links section... just like all other major infoboxes? — Edokter • Talk • 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Infobox television season, but as that place is a ghost town I'm posting here. With the ever-increasing releases of television seasons on formats other than DVD, I propose that we change the "DVD release date" and format fields to something more general. Perhaps "disc release date" or "compilation release date". However, such a change will have to be done in a manner that will prevent breaking every single instance of the template, and I have to admit I'm not 100% how to do that. --Dorsal Axe 20:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change the doc to say that |num_episodes= should be the number of episodes released? Currently it says it should be the number of episodes produced. This is in my experience the extreme exception, I've only seen once someone trying to add it with a source. The information of production ending is incredibly scarce, and for the one time I saw a source added, it talked about ending of filming not ending of production. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Since Template:Infobox has now been changed so that it allows italics, could someone change the code to reflect this please rather than using {{Italic title infobox}} (similar to how its been implemented at {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox album}}, {{Infobox newspaper}}, {{Infobox play}} etc etc.)? Mhiji (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To override header-italicisation, rather than "|italic title=no", apparently what's now required is "|italictitle=no". Can someone please tweak the documentation -- or better yet, have the template accept either? Over at Dennis Miller, I just had to go through one exercise to find out why it was being wrongly italicised, and then another to work out why the documented fix wasn't working.

I'd question whether it was any sort of good idea to do this in the first place. "False positives" in which non-TV show-names end up in header italics are, to my mind, much worse than "false negatives" in which TV shows end up in plain text. And are going to be harder to find and fix -- especially if no-one is actually looking for them. Smartiger (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this should have had been tested before it was massively rolled out. —Mike Allen 04:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the Wiki way! :/ Ideally, if someone wise to this issue were to check existing transclusions, that would be a lot more time-effective than having numerous non-template-savvy topical editors banging their heads on a case by case basis... Smartiger (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The doc's been updated. Mhiji (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add the parameters |based_on= and |co-executive_producers=, these are currently tacked on with |creator= and |executive_producer= and can make a mess of info in parentheses in the infobox. Some of the names were changed to omit the (s) at the end some time ago, I would like to see the remaining also removed: Composer(s) → Composed by, Producer(s) → Produced by, Editor(s) → Edited by, Location(s) → Filmed at or Produced at. And if someone can come up with some names without (s) for Creative director(s), Language(s), Executive producer(s), Production company(s). Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]