→Website: That is exactly what I warned Andy about |
→Website: rsp |
||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
::::what the .....: [[Stargate SG-1]] :(( {{User:Vilnisr/sig}} 09:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
::::what the .....: [[Stargate SG-1]] :(( {{User:Vilnisr/sig}} 09:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::That is ''exactly'' what I warned Andy about. As a workaround, add <tt>website_title=(something)</tt> to the template to hide the link. <span style="font-family:verdana"> — [[User:Edokter|<b style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</b>]] • [[User_talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">Talk</span>]] — </span> 13:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
:::::That is ''exactly'' what I warned Andy about. As a workaround, add <tt>website_title=(something)</tt> to the template to hide the link. <span style="font-family:verdana"> — [[User:Edokter|<b style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</b>]] • [[User_talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">Talk</span>]] — </span> 13:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::Indeed, this is not practical. Microformat or no microformat, the old way was much better. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User talk:Garion96|(talk)]] 13:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== A suggestion == |
== A suggestion == |
Revision as of 13:16, 18 December 2010
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Television Template‑class | ||||||
|
Index
|
|||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Template:Infobox television season
Discussion moved to Template talk:Infobox television season#Italic titles
|
---|
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
Website
{{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)
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)
- I agree the URL should be exposed but would support MSGJ's approach above. Mhiji (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I've implemented my changes, since there has been no objections. — Edokter • Talk • 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I've implemented my changes, since there has been no objections. — Edokter • Talk • 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- (←) 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Lots of major infoboxes display URLs visually. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please list some examples. There is no way I can help if I don't know what templates you're talking about. — Edokter • Talk • 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox building}}, {{Infobox musical artist}}, {{Infobox company}} - but I don't recall asking you to help me; I've explained what needs to be done, others have proposed minor (and acceptable to me) tweaks, and you and no-one else have objected to it, and made an inferior and flawed change. You've stated that this infobox can't handle it and - wrongly - that "all other major infoboxes" don't, either. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please list some examples. There is no way I can help if I don't know what templates you're talking about. — Edokter • Talk • 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Lots of major infoboxes display URLs visually. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- (←) Yes, I am actually trying to help... I'm just trying to do it right. Your original proposal would not have caused the microformat to be emitted, because simply passing an URL does not trigger the microformat. Now that I have looked at the other templates, I see the the first three instruct to use {{URL}} to list the website (and which optionally hides the URL), but {{infobox company}} does not, so it doens't emit a microformat because {{URL}} is not mentioned in it's documentation). I can incorporate {{URL}} in the template in such a way that let the editors decide wether to expose the URL or not, while not interfering with the microformat. Would that be OK? — Edokter • Talk • 23:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to interrupt... But I'd object to that. (I hope I'm understanding what you're saying correctly - sorry if not...). I don't think we should give editors the option as to whether to expose the URL or not on a case by case basis. We should have consistency across all television articles (either to display the URL or not). It doesn't make sense to me to have some articles which do and some which don't, just based on the personal preference of the editor at the time. This could create unnecessary edit-warring too. But I agree incorporating {{URL}} into the template code would be great - this is far more user friendly as the editor then just has to enter the bare URL and nothing more (just as it is at the moment - nothing would need to be changed on article pages) and the microformat is added too. Mhiji (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Very well, then I would have to take out website_title, because as I understand it, {{URL}} only exposes the "displayed" text as microformat, leaving a bare URL as the only option. What to do with production_website? We can't have two URL in microformat. — Edokter • Talk • 23:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, it would not; and most of the statements which precede your question are false. I have never claimed that the proposed change would caused the microformat to be emitted. - it already is.
{{infobox company}}
emits a microformat, regardless of the use of{{URL}}
. There is no need to incorporate{{URL}}
in this template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)- URL Microformat is only emitted when the URL is wrapped in an .url class, so now your statement is inacurate. Without {{URL}} or a manually added span class="url", there is no microformat. The documentation also states that. So I am still left with what to do with the website_title and the production_website. — Edokter • Talk — 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to interrupt... But I'd object to that. (I hope I'm understanding what you're saying correctly - sorry if not...). I don't think we should give editors the option as to whether to expose the URL or not on a case by case basis. We should have consistency across all television articles (either to display the URL or not). It doesn't make sense to me to have some articles which do and some which don't, just based on the personal preference of the editor at the time. This could create unnecessary edit-warring too. But I agree incorporating {{URL}} into the template code would be great - this is far more user friendly as the editor then just has to enter the bare URL and nothing more (just as it is at the moment - nothing would need to be changed on article pages) and the microformat is added too. Mhiji (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have now incorporated {{URL}} into the template. According to all the documentation I have read with regard to microformats, this should guarantee that the URL is emitted. — Edokter • Talk — 22:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be against removing these from the infobox. Take The West Wing, the exposed URL is ridiculous. Xeworlebi (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I know... I fixed that. I have no idea why it was exposed twice... perhaps too long? — Edokter • Talk — 22:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- what the .....: Stargate SG-1 :(( Vilnisr T | C 09:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I warned Andy about. As a workaround, add website_title=(something) to the template to hide the link. — Edokter • Talk — 13:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, this is not practical. Microformat or no microformat, the old way was much better. Garion96 (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I warned Andy about. As a workaround, add website_title=(something) to the template to hide the link. — Edokter • Talk — 13:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- what the .....: Stargate SG-1 :(( Vilnisr T | C 09:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- I know... I fixed that. I have no idea why it was exposed twice... perhaps too long? — Edokter • Talk — 22:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be against removing these from the infobox. Take The West Wing, the exposed URL is ridiculous. Xeworlebi (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
A suggestion
Discussion moved to Template talk:Infobox television season#DVD release date
|
---|
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) |
Documentation
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)
Italics
{{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)
Done. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Documentation out of date?
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)
- Yeah this should have had been tested before it was massively rolled out. —Mike Allen 04:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
Done The doc's been updated. Mhiji (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Based on, co-executive producers and (s) removal
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)
Seasonal infobox overhaul
I have some proposed changes for {{Infobox television season}}, please see Template talk:Infobox television season#Template overhaul for the proposed template overhaul. Xeworlebi (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)