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.

Is there any interest in nowrapping the phrase (List of episodes), diff? 117Avenue (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no opinions about this, I'll request it being done. 117Avenue (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please nowrap ([[{{{list_episodes}}}|List of episodes]]). Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. — Edokter (talk) — 00:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the documentation for this a while ago because it was the commonly accepted and standard way to do (giving the episode number of the episodes that have been released, not the ones produced or ordered etc.). Because of the way deals with Canadian shows and their networks are made Deliriousandlost finds that it should be the number of ordered episodes, in short (if I understood it correctly. Read Deliriousandlost's statement) they are legally obligated to air the ordered episodes within a certain timeframe, they cannot not air them. Is there any consensus that Canadian shows should show the number of ordered episodes instead of the number of released episodes? Personally I find that mixing this will only cause more confusion. Other than that if there's support for this I'll be happy to update the template documentation to give Canadian shows (maybe others as well?) an exemption/different guideline for episode count, so that it's at the very least clear. Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O so you did read my note to you last time i saw you doing this. Personally i find it absurd that the content of articles is mixed between how many are ordered and how many are broadcast and there is not always anything more than a digit. The infobox doesn't say "No. of episodes Broadcast To Date" but rather just "No. of episodes". I personally find it confusing to look at an article and see 13 episodes for the first season and the infobox says 10. If i wasn't more aware of the absurd construct and presentation i would instantly assume at least one of those numbers is wrong if not both of them. Episodes exist before they are broadcast. Broadcasting them makes them publicly available but it doesn't suddenly make them exist. That episode of House that is on at 8pm ET still existed at 6.49pm ET. But that is with shows in general. As to the Canadian television industry, things function really different from the way they do in the USA. Bignole, if you read this know that the only reason Aquaman ever was seen by you and will be on the Smallville complete series is because it got Canadian tax credits and had to be broadcast somewhere in Canada. Aquaman was shown on YTV and was made available to Americans on iTunes. If not for that mandatory broadcast it might still be unseen by yourself. The documentation for this used to address episodes produced. That was fine. People that edit American shows took that to be produced=broadcast. Canadian and British shows tend to be entirely produced before they get to broadcast and changing episode orders is just something that doesn't happen once financing is secured and production started. All 8 episodes of King have been made (7 broadcast as of writing this) and all 4 episodes of Vera were done before it came on itv. Scott & Bailey premiered last night on itv (no article here yet) and all 6 episodes of it are done. This notion that episode orders change and episodes might not be shown is a very American thing that doesn't really apply to most every where else either by common practice or stricter reasons. The closest to that idea of unaired episodes of late in Canada was with Shattered, a show that just wasn't popular at all. It premiered 1 September 2010 and by 24 February 2011 even the pilot episode made in 2008 had been broadcast. 14 episodes in 5 months is more frequent than some American shows are broadcast.
In short, as Xeworlebi wrote the documentation change a few months ago can work for US shows though it is confusing; things don't really work that way most everywhere else and if anything the USA should be the exception to count by broadcast rather than order/commission/production. Else why do we bother noting that ITV commissioned another 13 episodes of Law & Order UK in October last or that FRINGE was given a 22 episode order for its fourth season if all that matters is episodes broadcast. In an 18 episode show like Chase it gets really awkward when you have sources certifying 18 eps but only have info on 17 of them. I prefer to at that point put in something like a "TBA" for the title of ep 18 just to show that it is not missing in error. I find it aids in minimising confusion but do note that such is not the popular practice. As for Endgame, the show Xeworlebi and i are disagreeïng on, the titles and broadcast dates for all 13 eps are available but so far i have only listed 11 of them because Showcase did a very, very rare thing in pulling last week's episode for a repeat almost at the last minute. That episode is on tonight and the others bumped back a week.
OK, so it wasn't that short. Sorry. But what of my writing is ever really that short? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw your note, I take it the last time I tried to have this discussion with you and suggest you take this here to gain consensus for your different approach and your requested exemptions first, you didn't just ignore me but 'missed it'.

The reason why it was changed was because there are almost never reliable sources giving the correct number of produced episodes, this created many confusing discrepancies between articles, this one showed broadcasted, that one showed produced, another one showed ordered number. It was changed for consistency, and it was already done that way long before I made the change, which I did because there were some who needed it to be set in stone before they accept common practice, and no-one objected to the proposed change. Point being, consistency is good for a reason, since Canadian shows release there episode just like U.S. shows, updating those as they are released is more correct then going produced/ordered/etc. for the U.S. shows, which can turn out plainly incorrect. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why the number of episodes produced (that is, exist), shouldn't be used (for ended series'). 117Avenue (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate, you mean give number of episodes released until the show is over (ended or canceled) and then use the number of produced, or use produced while the show's still going? Your use of brackets is confusing. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The former. Only give the number of aired episodes for series' that are still active. Otherwise conflicts of references, and arguments arise. But this discussion is on ended series'. 117Avenue (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of reference are created when 18 episodes are ordered and made but only 13 get broadcast. The way most people would write that is the show has 13 episodes and there are 5 episodes of the show that were not broadcast. So is that 8/13 or 13/18 that were broadcast? Yeah, not confusing at all. All of those series overview tables which list the commissioned episodes for current and fothcoming series yet only include scheduled episodes in the following list. If there are 18 episodes how misleading is it to have a blank space? It actually is most easy to understand when a blank entry is displayed rather than omitting mention of it outside of a tally. This version of List Of White Collar episodes ([1]) shows the third season to have 16 episodes but the list ends with the 10th episode and there is no explanation for the other 6. Xeworlebi, if i recall correctly you are not a fan of "TBA" because that means someone literally said they will say later. By saying there are 16 episodes and giving the info for only the first 10 that would rather strongly imply that we will be told later regarding the rest. Then there is the point i think you make about not using this as a tv guide. By counting only the broadcast episodes rather than those commissioned or made you actually enable use of Wikipedia as a tv guide to help people keep track of how much of their favourite show has been broadcast by featuring exactly that information in the infobox. That there will be 16 episodes is far more appropriate for the scope of the site than that only 5 episodes have been broadcast as of last night. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Please documented the common standard values for this field. --Javaweb (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

I would like to know too, I have seen many different uses of this field. Personally, I'd like this field removed, because I don't think it's necessary. 117Avenue (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MegastarLV claims that the |status=returning series is for shows that are currently airing, interpreting as it's 'returning' for more episodes (tomorrow). Although returning series has in my experience always used to indicate that the show is actually returning from something, from going away; hiatus, cancelation, etc. And this seems to be the most logical meaning of the word returning, you have to actually go somewhere else to be able to return. From the looks of this users' contributions, MegastarLV has changed this on dozens of articles. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It apparently does indeed mean the former, maybe the latter as well, but it's confusing and it's not a very clear meaning, and I'm not really aware of anywhere outside of the US that uses this term. I would prefer to change to something with a more obvious and clear meaning that can be easily understood by a broader audience. --Dorsal Axe 15:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the words in the phrase. In particular i bring your attention to "series". Series don't return week after week or day after day in the case of The Price Is Right. Episodes return weekly or daily. If a series is in the schedule then it "is" and it is not "returning". If it will be back in 5 months then that would be a returning series. If it is neither in the current schedule nor even an anticipated return date then it is not returning. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MegastarLV's edits caught my attention on the 60 Minutes article which I believe doesn't really qualify as a "Returning" series as it is a news magazine and airs news episodes on a near regular basis and really doesn't go into a traditional hiatus like a sitcom or drama series. Same goes for The Daily Show. Truth be told, this parameter has always been something of an annoyance as there is no clear definition of what should be listed in it. For one, no one can decide if "Ended" or "Cancelled" is appropriate for a show that is no longer airing. I think it rather redundant to list a show as "Currently airing" when the preceding dates aired parameter gives that information. I personally think the entire parameter should go as it is too subjective and too many silly problems like this arise. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see it go too, since there is no standard. 117Avenue (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a very clear standard needs to be proposed here or we need to work to get rid of the parameter altogether. The whole point of an infobox is to have information available that is standardized and clear. Any thoughts? Pinkadelica^♣ 22:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think it's useful and using some standard terms like "returning", "on hiatus", "cancelled" would be helpful to the reader, while retaining the flexibility to use whatever words are appropriate to describe a current situation like "Future series unconfirmed", ""Mid season break", who knows. A lot more "silly problems" arise when there is apparent only a choice between "continuing" or "finished", say, but things are truly up in the air and partisans of the show insist it must be "continuing" until proven otherwise. See my comments at the end of the next topic, which are related to this and how "status" judgements are being forced into the "last-aired" parameter. The "status" is the perfect place to clarify these issues.Barsoomian (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem - there is NO consensus for what the parameter should state which is what I am attempting to achieve here. If one cannot be reached, yeah, I believe the parameter should be deleted as is it too open to interpretation and is basically being changed at individual editor's discretion and personal preference which is what started this conversation to begin. There's no need to say a show like 60 Minutes or The Daily Show is a "Returning" series. They're news shows that are topical in nature and do not have typical seasons. We also have folks changing "Cancelled" to "Ended" because they simply prefer that wording. Sorry, but I find that to be "silly" to say the very least. Wikipedia is not tv.com or TV Guide, and it really is not our responsibility to keep readers up to date to the very minute of a particular show's status. If anything, that content should be detailed in the text of the article that way it can be properly sourced and reliable. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to cancel the field in the infobox itself. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deleting the "Status" parameter as it is too open to interpretation and redundant. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation of this template needs to have more examples:

• A series that is in production but not yet aired
• A weekly series that is in its first year
• A series on hiatus
• A series that has been canceled
• A series that is now in syndication but no new episodes have been shot
• Others ???
  --Javaweb (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

I Concur that the "status" parameter should be removed. It was boldly added way back in 2007, without any sort of discussion--that I can find. What is its use? Over a year ago, it was noticed that this parameter receives inconsistent input, because there simply isn't a clear list of terms to fill it. Ongoing, returning, ended, canceled, on hiatus, airing, in production, completed, etc. None of these terms really adds anything to the reader's understanding of the article. If anything, the inconsistency this parameter's vagueness inherently encourages only serves to confuse a reader who may see "returning" on an article and "in production" on another. If a reader wishes to know the "status" of a television show, it seems to me that the article body is the best place to find that information. Placing the "status" in the infobox is an attempt to simplify a less-than-simple amount of information.  Chickenmonkey  23:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the definition of cancelled? There's controversy with that term. 117Avenue (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation (also known colloquially as axing) refers to the termination of a program by the network, typically (but not always) because of low viewership and/or bad, critical reviews. That seems like a pretty cut and clear definition right there. Pinkadelica^♣ 05:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Javaweb, I don't get your post....could you clarify why we need to list examples of text that can go in the status parameter? Pinkadelica^♣ 05:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The doc for "last aired" says :

last_aired: The original air date of the show's last episode. Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and {{end date}} if the show is ended. Only insert a finale date after it has happened.

The problem is shows that just stop. They aren't cancelled, but they aren't renewed. People associated with the show may talk it up but nothing is officially announced, and there is no sign of any new production. It can be pretty obvious that the show is an ex-show, but some people insist it's just pining for the fjords. So I've filled in the "last aired" date for a show after the final episode of the final season aired, and nothing except hopeful hot air about any future shows. But I keep getting reverted by people who insist it's "current" until someone officially says it's not. This is silly. If all the shows produced have been aired, and there is no announcement of a new production, then it's time to fill in the "last aired" date. If it does pull a revival, then that's the time to make it "current" again. Is this reasonable? Barsoomian (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was there some announcement on it being the last season? If not, I would keep "present" until there's confirmation, it's not that uncommon the shows are picked up for another season after the finale of the previous, especially when the seasons are short and end before the usual "it's announce new shows and renewals week". _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In one particular case, (Primeval) they're scrambling around trying to find another network or some sugar daddy, or talking about making a movie. So they will never admit it's the "last season". Though most of the plotlines are resolved. When a show is airing, it's clearly "present". When it goes off the air, unless there is a positive indication it will return it shouldn't be "present" any more. I marked "status = Future series unconfirmed" while any claim that it's "present" is pure wishful thinking. If the continuing status can't be confirmed and all produced shows have aired, the default should be "ended". If no one goes on the record to say "It's dead", are we supposed to keep it "present" for a week? A month? 20 years? after all Doctor Who was revived after a few decades "hiatus". If it comes back from the dead, fine, update it then, no harm done. Barsoomian (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want to assume a show has been cancelled but yet you have great objection to assuming a show will be broadcast as has been announced. Reconcile your own conflict with assuming and then go from there.
Your position with regards to changing the status of a show that gets revived (a quick edit) is exactly the same as i believe i have said a few times now to you or someone regarding wanting to omit scheduled future broadcasts because the show could get cancelled tomorrow with no provocation.
The article on Primeval indicates that the partnership with BBCA and the German broadcaster was for 2 series. Those two series are complete. It shouldn't be hard to find the confirmation the scheme was only for an additional 2 series. If that is incorrect then the article needs to have some editing done to it and you are wrong to assume it is dead short of a different notice that there will be no more. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both cases involve wishful thinking being treated and worse, documented, as facts. There is no inconsistency needing "reconciliation", and why you seek to analyse me in that manner I don't know. As for Primeval, all the shows contracted for have been made and broadcast, so I have no idea what point you think you are making. Barsoomian (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe there is wishful thinking involved in a broadcaster following their published schedule and you feel to tell me that my very simple statement regarding Primeval makes no sense to you then all i can think of to quote is, "I defie the Pope and all his lawes. If God spare my lyfe ere many yeares, I wyl cause a boye that dryueth þe plough, shall knowe more of the scripture then thou doest." Call the scripture here the scheduling of television programmes. You clearly accept that ITV said they are only arranging a deal for two additional series. You clearly reject ITV's publication of their broadcast schedule. So you believe ITV was telling the truth then and is lying now. How convenient as each of your beliefs regarding the reliability of the various statements support every position you wish to advance. Ended is what it is with Primeval; anything else is the wishful thinking you claim to abhor but seem to embrace. Future Series Unconfirmed would be about as much a lie as The Show Was Still On ITV And You Just Missed It would be because it has been confirmed that there will be no further series. Why we are discussing this here when there are claims in the article of documents from ITV which verify the show is now dead is another of those mysteries. Choosing to declare it as Present at this time would be the worst of the options for it outright contradicts the introduction of the article.
"Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and {{end date}} if the show is ended". Primeval is neither ongoing nor renewed so use end date. It really is simple. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite beginning with a series of irrelevant personal attacks and misrepresentations, you actually end up endorsing my position. Unfortunately your incoherency and continuous smug point scoring makes it unlikely to have any impact. But thanks anywayBarsoomian (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing i am certain of is that you have the most inconsistent position here and that i utterly disagree with you. Don't you dare thank me.
There is also this magic option to leave the |last_aired= blank. It turns it into a single date rather than a date span.
What i see here though is you complaining that people are disputing the end of Primeval and you refuse to provide sources and instead are complaining that people want some proof and are reverting things. You should have added in the references rather than come here and essentially complain. I am absolutely against your idea to put in "Future series unconfirmed" because it is original research, speculation, wishful thinking, and completely contradictory to the primary sources. I don't agree with you at all. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your input. Complete nonsense and uncivil, but that seems your style. Barsoomian (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to miss my point that all of this comes from the complete nonsense you display in refusing to add in a reference. I refuse to add in such reference because that would be 'doing your work for you' and i do believe you could do it yourself rather than have come here and complained about the fields in the template not being used in a way that you like and your edits being reverted because there is no evidence being supplied to substantiate the claims made in your said edits. Your entire argument is nonsense and bickering. So someone calls you out on it and your defense is to call them stupid. Brilliant. It actually just goes to prove my point. None of this at all need have been brought here in the first place. "People are reverting my editors with the bizarre reasoning "the series can only be finished if ITV or Watch confirm it"." Guess what, ITV has confirmed it. Perhaps you could add in the reference rather than call that person's request for a reference bizarre. Problem would have been solved long, long ago, on the specific article's page. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Refusing to add a reference"? A reference to prove that something doesn't exist? I've already noted that is in general impossible. And I haven't called anyone stupid here, so you are simply lying now. Barsoomian (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have noted that yes, but it is complete nonsense, or are all the references for every show that has ended imaginary? Please check a random show article that ended/canceled, it will have a reference stating so. You know what, I'll give you some articles just in case: Veronica Mars, Angel, Alias, Deadwood, Hellcats, going to stop now as one could list pretty much every article on an ended show. The show exists, the cancelation happened (if that's the case), no-one is asking you to reference something that doesn't exist, quite the opposite actually. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to justify something I didn't do. I haven't tried to label the show as "ended" or "cancelled"; just not "present". As for "the show exists", WTF? You keep using words like "dead", "exist", "cancelled"; none of these labels have been suggested or are in dispute. The problem is the word PRESENT. And all the TV shows you listed were major shows on major US networks, they have a pretty much standard time of announcing their renewals, or otherwise. None of that applies to a show like Primeval. And you continue to IGNORE THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU. You're showing no good faith. Barsoomian (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't looked at the given articles, half of them were only announced after the finale aired, most of them were oddball cancelations. And here are some British shows, Survivors, Fern, Zen, Outcasts, Campus (some in talks for future things, but all announced), but there is no different standard for British shows. BTW, this section is called "last aired", I'm commenting on that, you're constantly trying to deviate to the status field for some reason. A show exists for eternity, even after it gets canceled it still exists, you need a source to say it is canceled, ended or whatever horrible word you haven't said, which all boils down to input of the last air date which should only be done when the show is confirmed to be dead (oh no! yes dead, canceled, ended, axed, canned, finished, terminated, concluded, whatever, don't get hung up on the semantics, all the same thing and irrelevant to the point). I have answered your question half a dozen times now, you need a source for ending, you don't have one? then it stays out. Stop obsessing about the status field which I am not commenting on, instead focus on your reason for actually starting this, now ridiculous, thread. No good faith? I disagree with, answer your repeated questions repeatedly, what do you think good faith means? Agreeing with you? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep putting words in my mouth: I NEVER SAID IT WAS CANCELLED/DID NOT EXIST. Really, stop PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I only am insisting that it is not "PRESENT" -- which some people would leave in "last aired" forever. Including I must assume you, since, for the seventh time, you have ignored my question of how long it should remain after it's off the air if there is no official cancellation or renewal. You have never answered that question, so please cite where you have "answered your question half a dozen times now". Your examples prove not a damn thing except you aren't familiar with the show that triggered this discussion. Barsoomian (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please get this in your head: when you declare a last date you effectively say it is over, while you keep insisting you never said the show is over you keep insisting on declaring a final date. It is the same thing. You can keep insisting this but it makes no sense, on one hand you claim the show is done, on the other you claim you never said that. And stop requesting I answer your question, I have already done so multiple times now, and from your last comment you make it clear you know the answer, I won't be quoting myself, but here once more: no source = no dice. The show which triggered this discussion is not relevant, if you want to have a discussion about that show do it at that articles talk page, you came here, I assume, to get a wider, more global, input on the matter, not that specific case. And I'm telling you here in general that if you do not have a source that states the show is over you can not put an end date in the infobox. It really is that simple. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People are reverting my editors with the bizarre reasoning "the series can only be finished if ITV or Watch confirm it". It's not in their interests to do that, when ITV has yet to air their run. If a show is 1) Not on the air and 2) Not in production and 3) Not with any announced deal for future production; in what sense can it be said to be "present"? I think that requiring "present" to be verified is not out of line. Possibilities can be mentioned in the article, but until they're confirmed, it's irresponsible to declare the show is "present". Barsoomian (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Future series unconfirmed" seems like a reasonable middle-way for Primeval in my opinion. "Ended" would be too soon, while "present" would indicate that new episodes are on the way. According to all sources I've seen (there are probably a few in the article) the deal was for two seasons/series. The makers of the show have been very stubborn to keep the show alive in the past, so I can understand those who want to keep it at "present" until the shows ending is official, but I think that for the reasons I mentioned above both "present" and "ended" would be a little misleading. Choosing between the two "present" would be the best choice for now. Jiiimbooh (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Best choice for now" How long is "for now" ? "Present" means it's, well, present, which it isn't. Ended is what it is. Neither state is irrevocable, we're not talking about whether a person is dead. The state of the show changed when the last produced show was broadcast: now all shows made have been aired, there is nothing in production and nothing but (slowly fading) hope for any future series. (Series 4 on ITV was tedious and got low ratings, they seem to have blown it with that.) It seems we're pandering to fans (which despite appearances, includes me) who seem to believe that writing "present" in Wikipedia somehow makes it more likely to continue. We should be describing the actual VERIFIABLE facts, which are that it's NOT "present" and that label shouldn't be used until new production is verified. Reversing the onus, to insist we must wait until one of the parties declares "it's cancelled" is foolish, they have no obligation or need to make such a pronouncement, they can continue saying "discussions are underway" for literally years. They have been talking about a "new series" in 2013. Are we supposed to leave it as "present" until then, or another possibility replaces it? I don't see what the problem is in writing "ended" now and if a month, a year, or ten years later it's revived, then it becomes "present" again. After all, this statement has been reversed about 6 times in the last 4 days already, though not in response to any actual new information. Barsoomian (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's because people disagree with your view on what "Ended" implicates (and that you have reverted every time). You insist on verifiable facts before they can say it is not over yet, yet to say it is over you don't have to provide any? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 06:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you want me to prove that there isn't an invisible rabbit behind you? It's verifiable that the series finale has aired. ("Primeval Season 5 Episode 6 of 6... Last in the series...Tue 28 Jun). So now, after that date, it has indeed "ended". Is your position that a show is assumed to continue forever, to be eternally present in its Wikipedia article, if the producers fail to make any statement otherwise? I think we could draw guidance from the WP:NFF guideline: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". That puts the onus on the proponent of creating a film article to show that it has, in reality, started production. We don't have to be quite so strict here, but do you really want to reverse the onus for future TV shows? If you're going to comment, please say why you think "present" is valid, after the show is off the air and out of production, and why it shouldn't simply reflect the status now, rather than what some people wish it was or imagine it will be. Barsoomian (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I want you to prove the show has ended, just like you would have to prove someone is dead before you can say so, you can't go around saying "hey, I haven't heard anything from him in some time, he must be dead". Yes, you need a source that indicates production has started, jut like you would need one to say it has ended. Note that I'm not commenting on any specific case, only general implications of it, if you have sources for this particular case bring them up at the appropriate place, article's talk page. But you know what, I'll comment on this specific case, the source states that it is the last of the series, which there have been five of now, as this is a UK show and series are seasons. I don't even see a single comment about this on the article's talk page. On that last request, I've already answered that in my first reply to you, renewal does regularly come after the season finale and before the production starts for the next one. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"prove the show has ended, just like you would have to prove someone is dead". I hope you don't actually believe that makes sense. For one thing, a dead person usually leaves a dead body. A show that no one has committed to just has -- nothing. Sorry, no corpus delicti. You're asking me to prove your invisible rabbit doesn't exist. "renewal does regularly come after the season finale and before the production starts". Which is hardly a guarantee, and is a very long shot for this show. Anyway, if and when it's renewed, it becomes "present" THEN. What the problem with that? You keep dodging the question I've asked a couple of times: How long does this zombie state of "present" have to be maintained after the show has gone off the air? Or are you happy to let fans just keep pretending it's alive forever? I don't so much insist on stating the show has "ended" but it seems the only alternative is "present", which is quite obviously not true. (And before you talk about "verifiability", tell me why "present" doesn't have to be verified.) Barsoomian (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: I've just noticed that you keep saying I want to mark the show as "ended". No, I want to set the "last aired date" as the date the last (first run) show aired, and not as "present". That isn't saying the show has "ended". "Ended" might go in the "status" field when that's more clear. The status is currently undetermined, though I doubt it's coming back. Barsoomian (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this must change now, it has only been three days. That it is highly unlikely that the show would be picked up for another series is just your opinion. You know what happens when someone goes missing? It's assumed they're alive, until they're declared dead by a judge they're considered alive. You don't need a body for the declared dead part. If this show is done there will be an announcement, a statement from the network, show creator, a mention in an interview, etc. sets get taken down, actors, writers, etc. get new jobs, … Shows don't just disappear, but you might have to wait more than three days. Something remains in its state until it changes, you need a source for change, not for retaining a current state. There's absolutely no rush to declare it as dead. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The day the last episode that currently exists aired, the state changed. It's no longer "present". The word "present" refers to NOW. Not what might happen in the future. Is there another meaning of that word that I am unaware of? And "If this show is done there will be an announcement"? Really? How do you know that? Why would they? And I'm getting annoyed with you continually using that emotive equation of a show not being renewed and "death", talking about "missing people". Next you'll be saying it's like drowning a kitten. I am objecting to the word "present". That's the issue. It isn't "present" in any sense that I can understand. The show finished shooting months ago. It finished airing last week. And for the (fifth?) time HOW LONG DO WE WAIT? If three days is too short, how long do we have to keep this bogus "present" label? If we followed this "It's happening unless they say it's not" rule for upcoming movies, we'd be full steam ahead for a million full fledged articles on films in development hell. Barsoomian (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me try to state this again, clearly. The reason I started this here on the template page is these fields are in the template:

| last_aired           = 
| status               = 

The "last aired" date doesn't mean "the last one, forever, it will never ever come back, it's dead Jim", it should mean "the last one before now". As "last night", "last week" were not the final night and week, ever. The "status" field can clarify and describe things like "returning", "cancelled", "uncertain" ... whatever. The convention arose of using "present" for a show that was on daily or weekly while it was running. But when the season has finished, the "last aired" date can be noted as it will certainly be that for several months at least. If this convention was followed, any show could have its last date set at the end of each season with no implication that it had been cancelled and the ensuing outrage. And there would not be dozens of shows "present" that in fact are on hiatus, or even, actually cancelled but no one wants to admit it in public. Barsoomian (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it again I think Barsoomian is correct. The planned episodes have all been aired. No deals about any future series. To the best of our knowledge the show is ended. Jiiimbooh (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barsoomian's idea is so wacky wonky nonsense absurd incorrect screwed-up that i honestly think this is a big joke. So according to this idea about having a perpetual |last_aired= Combat Hospital would have 13 episodes but have a broadcast history of 21 June - 28 June 2011. That is bullshit. Anyone looking at that would think the show was cancelled. Next week it would have 13 episodes and a broadcast history of 21 June - 5 July 2011. And the week after that it would be 13 episodes and 21 June - 12 July 2011. If you append a "Currently broadcast" to that most people would assume one of the two bits of data is wrong. Those that understand the cryptic message being conveyed would also realise you are treating the data as a tv guide rather than an encyclopædic summation. I'm not even going to ask if you are pranking us. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to be a little bit civil. You're putting words in my mouth I never said. Stop doing that. AS I SAID, "Present" is fine for the "last aired" date of a show that's in the midst of its season. The word "cancelled" is in your own mind, where you got that from I don't want to know. Barsoomian (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again. You wrote, "The "last aired" date doesn't mean "the last one, forever, it will never ever come back, it's dead Jim", it should mean "the last one before now". As "last night", "last week" were not the final night and week, ever."[2] That would be you explaining your idea and that which i consider plain wonky because you are describing a perpetual last aired date. I don't care if a show is in the middle of a season or cancelled (o my that evil word) your idea to put up a last aired date in the infobox would imply that the show is cancelled to the casual reader. And infoboxes are to be summations of the article for quick reference. It is the worst of ideas that can be made to sound good because it is fundamentally misrepresenting and just really confusing. Hence i do believe it has to be a joke.
The last aired date field be blank, "present", or the end date of the show and nothing else. The status of the show removed from the template. That is what i would support.
If a show comes back a decade later like Doctor Who then it is easy to change the decade later but to leave it as "Future series unconfirmed" from 1989 through 2004 would have been totally insane. Yet that is what i believe you are suggesting be done with Primeval as compromise since people don't like you putting that it is ended and you refuse to add reference for the ending of the show. And from that we get all of this. Just add in the reference and be done with it. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"a last aired date in the infobox would imply that the show is cancelled" No, it doesn't. If that were the meaning, it should be labelled "date of finale". Are you really claiming ignorance of the meaning of the word "last" as, e.g., "In the last episode, Batman was about to be cut in half"? Do you think "My God, what a terrible way to end the series!" or "I wonder how he'll get out of that in the next episode?" As for "Future series unconfirmed", that's the current status of Primeval, I can't think of a more accurate description until something is announced. And "people don't like you putting that it is ended". Well, you're confused again. I did not do that. You just quoted what I did actually write: "Future series unconfirmed". No one knows for sure. One thing we do know is that it isn't on the air at "present", so that label was incorrect. Barsoomian (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "Original run", if it has an end date then yes that means it's over. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If ITV says they are willing to do 2 more series and those 2 more series are now done the presumptive is that the show is done not that it is unconfirmed. Short of ITV saying, "You know what, those were a smashing success so we're going to make more and please disregard our previous comments" their previous declaration of '2 more series to end it' is confirmation that it is ended. That would be the reference you would want for the end of the show and thus correctly declaring the last aired date in the original run. That is what you refuse and instead put in "Future series unconfirmed" when ITV has previously confirmed there will be no future series. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, go ahead and make it so and see what happens. I won't revert that. Though I don't think it's actually verifiable, it's what most people think is the situation. I've given up trying to work out why you spit at me and in the next breath advocate going even further than I did. Barsoomian (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe shows should be viewed as "present", until it can be confirmed that they are no longer present. Wikipedia operates on verifiability. In the particular case of Primeval, "future series unconfirmed" is the complete opposite of "verifiable". It was verifiable that the show was on the air; the onus is on the editor who wishes to change the status quo to prove why it should be changed, by using sources. If it is verifiable that the show is not "present", verify it, and there is no problem. Otherwise, it should not be changed.  Chickenmonkey  05:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: It's verifiable that the status of the show changed on June 28, it is no longer "present". E.g., ("Primeval Season 5 Episode 6 of 6... Last in the series...Tue 28 Jun). "Unconfirmed" is just stating the lack of verifiable information regarding future series, so you are correct. If you do have verifiable information, feel free to update it. Barsoomian (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Look at this episode guide, from that same website. Look at the episode descriptions of each final episode of each season; they all say "last in the series". Did Primeval end after every season? Of course not. I believe this is a case of the UK using different terminology than the United States; they usually use "series" where the US usually uses "season". I'm sure you know this; you just weren't aware that is what the website was doing. In regards to "unconfirmed", we do not document the lack of verifiable information; we document verifiable information.  Chickenmonkey  06:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we can't verify that the show is returning either, so we can't put anything under status. We can't put "end date" or "present" under last aired, because both options would be unverified. It has to all be blank, possibly for years to come. Jiiimbooh (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. In that particular article's case, it already said "10 February 2007 – Present". Then, an editor made an unverified edit to remove "Present". As is the case with all unverified edits, the article should be returned to the state it was in prior to the unverified edit. However, the "status" parameter should then be rendered blank, due to the "unknown" status of the show. This is another reason why I believe the status parameter is in need of removal; it's open to too much ambiguity. Anyway, after the article is returned to its pre-unverified edit state (whether "status" is blanked, or not), those parameters should then only be edited when a verifiable change can be made.  Chickenmonkey  06:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Unverified"? The date and the fact that the last show produced had been aired on 28 June was in the list of episodes in the same article. The infobox summarises that, the links are in the main and subsidiary articles. And in the comment I made just above. I don't know what your problem is in writing "unknown" as the status, and how one is supposed to interpret a blank as that, or anything. It just looks incomplete. Since that parameter does exist, it should be used sensibly. But I'm not terribly concerned about the status as long as the show isn't indicated to be "present" without any verification. Barsoomian (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "last_aired" parameter isn't used to indicate the most recent episode to have aired. I understand that you feel the word "last" should be used in the manner of "last week" or "last month", but that isn't how it is being used in that parameter. "Last_aired" is used to indicate when the final episode has aired. If the final episode has not aired, it is to read "Present". The link that you have provided only verifies that the last episode of season 5 has aired, not the final episode of the show. The problem with writing "unknown" in the "status" parameter, is that it is not verifiable. By its nature, something that is "unknown" cannot be verified; we only document verified information. It is fine to leave the "status" parameter blank. Now, I suggest any further discussion on Primeval be taken to that article's discussion page, as that is the proper place to discuss that particular article. It is especially pertinent to discuss these things there, since these things are (presumably) the reason Primeval is currently protected from editing; that makes getting this matter resolved of ever higher priority, so when the article is unprotected the article's improvement can continue.  Chickenmonkey  07:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this here because this interpretation of "last aired" seems, well, foolish to me. It is not simply what is appropriate for one show as I have seen variations of this elsewhere. And 'If the final episode has not aired, it is to read "Present" ' is insane. A show is not on the air, It is not in production. How can it be said to be "present"? How on earth did a default of a show being deemed to be on the air eternally until proven otherwise arise? I can't think of a polite way to describe this, it's simply counter to any logic. The renewal of a TV show is a very uncertain outcome. For Wikipedia to declare that a show is permanently on the air without any actual programs being broadcast or produced, as seems to be the case, is foolish and leads to misleading "facts" stated here. If this is indeed a policy, where is it stated, and who determined this and how can I get the issue considered it logically and get a definition of "last aired" that is congruent with the meaning of the words? As for Primeval, well if writing the date the last episode aired in the "last aired" slot is going to give people aneurysms, having me accused of killing a show prematurely instead of just reporting a fact, well, the only other option is leave it blank. Because "present" is certainly both wrong in the real world and unverifiable in Wikispeak. Barsoomian (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from uncivil hyperbole. You're advocating that every infobox, in every article, on every current show, be edited at the end of every season? If this isn't what you're advocating, please tell what it is. Most shows aren't perpetually "in production", so your interpretation would have those shows be considered what? Not current? A show is "on the air", until it is either verifiably canceled or verifiably out of production, by choice. Having a show's run listed as "Date - Present" is its last known verifiable state. Once there is another verifiable state (such as canceled), then the article is changed to reflect that. You seem to believe verifiable proof of a show's cancelation (or end) is something that is hard to come by; this is rarely the case. In the case of "last aired", the word last has a definition that is congruent with this parameter's current use of it: "Final, ultimate, coming after all others of its kind." Last also has the meaning you wish to adjoin to it here: "Most recent, latest, last so far." Both definitions, and uses, are accurate; for this parameter, however, the first use is being employed. I honestly don't understand your objection to this.  Chickenmonkey  09:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current convention is insane. Is it uncivil to insult a convention? I apologise to the convention, I hope it can forgive me. It seems it's open season to insult me here, so I'm sorry if I am not turning the other cheek as much as I should. Anyway, the infobox parameter "num_episode" is normally updated for every single episode aired, so updating last_aired once a year doesn't seem a great burden. And again "A show is "on the air", until it is either verifiably canceled or verifiably out of production". This is ******* (since I will avoid incivilty). The "on air" status of a show can be VERIFIED quite easily by recourse to any number of reliable program guides, not least the broadcaster or producer itself. If the show is not on the current schedule, it's not on the air. Are you seriously telling me this is not verifiable? How did it happen that the onus for upcoming TV shows ("prove it's NOT going to happen") is exactly the opposite of that for upcoming movies ("confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography" WP:NFF)? "You seem to believe verifiable proof of a show's cancelation (or end) is something that is hard to come by; this is rarely the case." Great! Tell me how to come by this information for Primeval. How long do we wait? A month? A year? /// "Last also has the meaning you wish to adjoin to it here: "Most recent, latest, last so far." Both definitions, and uses, are accurate; for this parameter, however, the first use is being employed." Excellent. That's what obviously should be used for "last_aired" : The date of the "most recent" episode. While we're looking at definitions, may I reiterate that my original issue was that "present" is misleading (not to mention, completely, and verifiably, untrue) for a show not on the air, especially one with no real prospect for renewal. How do you justify that, since it seems you do fully support that convention?Barsoomian (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not insulted you; in fact, I feel I have been quite patient with you. You appear to be becoming defensive. That is not an optimal position to take, when having a discussion. Just calm down; a pleasant discourse is better for everyone. An "upcoming" television show's production does need to be verified, before "first_aired" can be filled in; the first episode must have already aired, before that parameter should be filled. Once a show is already on the air, however, verifiable information is needed to fill the "last_aired" parameter; the show's final episode has to have aired (and it must be verifiable that it is the show's final episode). This interpretation of "last_aired" is correct; your interpretation of "last_aired" is also correct. Currently, however, the first interpretation is the one in use. This is the current convention; if you feel this current convention is incorrect, you are welcome to see if consensus on this issue has changed. A show having "no real prospect for renewal" is original research, unless that opinion can be attributed to a reliable source. It appears that you are also contending that a television show, while not in production, should be considered as "ended". The reason I say it appears that way, is because you link to WP:NFF. If this is something you are contending, I would remind you of WP:CRYSTAL. Essentially, you appear to be contending that a show should be considered over, until it is confirmed to be back in production. This is predicting the future. It is also predicting the future to consider an upcoming television show as "present" when it has yet to air; however, it is not predicting the future to consider a show that is already on the air to be on the air, until it has verfiably ended. That is to say, a show must remain in its most recent verifiable state, until a change of that state can be verified. The end of a season/series does not qualify as the end of a show. As for Primeval, this information does not yet exist for that particular show. Wikipedia is a work in progress; be patient. If a show is canceled, there is likely to be information to verify this, soon. As I said, in rare cases, this information may take a longer amount of time. There is no rush.  Chickenmonkey  18:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you insulted me. Others have here, with impunity. Just look above. I'm not whining about it, but it sets a tone. Moving on: "It appears that you are also contending that a television show, while not in production, should be considered as "ended"." No, I never said that either. One more time: What I am saying that any assertion that it is continuing (i.e., a new season at some time in the future) requires verification, same as any future event. I cannot understand how you can say this is "Crystal". It's the assumption that a new season will be made, with no evidence, that is crystal balling. But this is not actually the point I started with, though important. I was and am concerned with the word "present" being used when a show is not present. "until a change of that state can be verified". Exactly. The state of being "present" changed when the last episode of the season was broadcast (and in this case, no renewal has been made). Both these facts are verifiable. It DOES NOT mean that the show is ended. A definition of "present as "not ended" is wrong. It's misleading and unhelpful to put "present" in the infobox when the show isn't on the air and in some cases, hasn't been renewed. Your faith that definitive information will be forthcoming on Primeval is based on what? Assuming that is crystal balling. Assuming the the show will be renewed, is even more crystal balling and/or original research. I've asked others here and been ignored: How long is this state of grace allowed to last? I was abused for changing it immediately. So, a week? A month? Six months? How long does does "nothing" happen before it's allowed to admit that a show is not "present"? And just again, as this keeps getting misinterpreted: Not stating it's cancelled, merely that it's not "present". Barsoomian (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From various previous discussions on this page it becomes clear that there is a request to remove the |status= parameter due to its everlasting ambiguous options like ended vs canceled, and the lack of standardization for it. I think it is best to have a !vote here in a separate section and get the ball rolling. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per the aforementioned ambiguous options and lack of standardization, as well as my above comments on the subject, which I will elaborate upon--and restate--if further discussion dictates such.  Chickenmonkey  08:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (Retain the parameter). Add some suggested common options to the doc if that's a problem. Barsoomian (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, agree with the above opinions. I find it quite unnecessary. If it says "present" for last air date, then obviously it's still airing, if it has an end date, then obviously the series is over/ended/canceled/whatever. I don't see the point of including stuff such as "returning series", "currently airing", "on hiatus", etc. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because stuffing that status information into the ""last_aired" parameter, which should be simply a date, has created a whole other can of worms. If "status" is deleted, people will just put even more text into "last_aired". Barsoomian (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as the parameter is redundant and, as Xeworlebi stated, the lack of standardization for it use. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, unnecessary information, no standard, has lost meaning. 117Avenue (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]