Please amend the last two parameter-pairs from

| data45      = {{#if:{{{website|}}}|[{{{website}}} {{{website_title|Website}}}]}}
| class45     = url
| data46      = {{#if:{{{production_website|}}}|[{{{production_website}}} Production website]}}
| class46     = url

to

| data45      = {{#if:{{{website|}}}|{{{website}}}}}
| class45     = url
| data46      = {{#if:{{{production_website|}}}|{{nowrap|Production website:}} {{{production_website}}}}}
| class46     = url

for better accessibility and printability of these external links (so a printed copy of the page will have an actual URL rather than just the text "Website" or "Production website"). — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made your changes to Template:Infobox television/sandbox. I've also made a few changes of my own for consideration: if you are not using titles for the URLs it may be better to use the label function of the infobox. Please see my edit summaries to the sandbox and also Template:Infobox television/testcases, and give me your comments. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why there is no longer a preview of the Infobox? AnimatedZebra (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? If you don't enter any parameters you end up with an empty box. 117Avenue (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the {{Infobox Sydney New Year's Eve}} page, there is a preview up top. AnimatedZebra (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the user who removed it said, we've got proper documentation. 117Avenue (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been an unofficial policy because of WP:CRYSTAL for some time not to add announced cast members to the infobox until they actually appear in the opening credits of an episode of the show. This has caused problems in the past--sometimes they end up simply being recurring and not listed in the opening credits (this happened once on CSI: Miami) and other times they quit after only a few episodes and so were listed as "Special Guest Star" (as happened last year on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit). Lately, though, I've been seeing problems with editors edit warring over this and insisting that merely being announced and filming an episode is sufficient to be listed in the starring portion of the infobox. As such, I propose the documentation for this infobox be edited for the "starring" guideline as follows:

"The show's star or stars. Separate multiple entries with line breaks in original credit order followed by order he/she joined the show (<br />). New cast members should not be listed here until they appear in the credits of at least one aired episode for current shows or one unaired episode for DVD and other releases."

Thoughts or objections? 74.130.135.208 (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Alana de la Garza (Connie Rubirosa) is a prime example of an Actor/Actress added onto a "Starring" list - prior to appearing in an episode. Infact, she was added into the 'Starring' list of the Law & Order: LA section in January 2011, 5 months prior to appearing on the show in June. Barring that, it isn't Crystal, if it is definately going to happen. More than 6 episodes have already been filmed, New cast interviews, photo's, storylines have been developed, Hundreds of reliable sources, stating that these two actors actresses will be on the show. This is no difference from removing all information for the upcoming season -- because it's in the future. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because de la Garza was added to an infobox doesn't mean she should have been. And it is WP:CRYSTAL because you have no way to know it is definitely the case until you see it in the opening credits, no matter how many sources you have. Dozens of sources "confirmed" that Megalyn Echikunwoke and Evan Ellingson would be joining the cast of CSI: Miami at the beginning of season 7. Instead, the producers chose to list Megalyn and Evan both as a guest star despite calling them part of the cast. Megalyn was finally added to the opening credits mid-season but Evan was never added to the opening credits. The editors who edit warred over this were violating WP:CRYSTAL because they had no way to know whether Megalyn and Evan would appear in the opening credits, just like you have no way to know until tonight whether the two new actors on SVU will appear in the opening credits, no matter how many sources from NBC you quote. They just don't necessarily indicate that they will appear in the opening credits.

FYI, MelbourneStar is the prime editor who has been edit warring over this at Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takes two to tango, and tonight's episode will feature Giddish, the next episode will feature Pino. And, Pino and Giddish have already had their cast photo taken [1]. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, all completely irrelevant. There were cast photos of Megalyn even though she wasn't in the opening credits for some time. And just because they're in the episode doesn't necessarily mean they will be in the opening credits. I'm sure I don't have to point out that Michelle Hurd, Stephanie March, Diane Neal, and Adam Beach were all listed as guest stars before they were listed in the opening credits, just like Megalyn. Cast photos exist featuring Dean Winters but he was never in the opening credits.

You can't predict who's going to be in the opening credits based on who's considered cast since different studio have different definitions of who's cast and who's not. The classic example is Star Trek: The Original Series: only William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley were ever listed in the opening credits, despite six other actors and actresses being called "cast members" who even appeared in promotional photos. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For other interested editor's information, besides Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, the other two articles this has been an issue at this year were Two and a Half Men and CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't agree that the credits should be the only criteria for appears in the list. However, I think there should be more than just some pictures with them. I would argue that to comply with policy (WP:RS) we need a reliable source stating who is starring. This could be a published list of stars or the opening credits. However, I have not expertise and am just stating my view. Eomund (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with you the opening credits shouldn't be the only criteria, even though it's often the most reliable. Some shows, such as Everwood, Jack & Bobby, Sabrina: The Teenage Witch, and My Wife and Kids has other stars that were listed as "Also Starring" and appeared before the guest stars of the episode during the first act. There also needs to be a definite reason for them to be listed as starring in the infobox; if we started listing all recurring characters, some shows, like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, would have an extremely long infobox. And, per this RFC, they shouldn't be listed in the infobox before they are cast members, i.e. just after they have been announced, as network announcements have, in the past, been notoriously unreliable and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak support - WP:Crystal is pretty clear, WP should not include information about events until they happen. For example, the WP:NFF guideline for films dictates that films cannot have articles until production has started. Turning to the question of stars in a TV show, what is the "bright line" when a star is actually in a show? I can see two litmus tests: (1) when an episode is filmed, including the star; and (2) when the episode is broadcast. The latter "broadcast" criterion is better for a couple of reasons: (a) many filmed shows never make it to the air; and (b) we are not talking about an entire Film or TV series: we are talking about a single actor appearing in an infobox: that is a statement of fact, and really needs to have concrete evidence of a broadcast. For instance, a TV series could start filming, and then change actors before broadcast. This proposal is compliant with the spirit of WP:Crystal. Before the broadcast happens, there is no problem with including information about prospective actors in the body of the article where context can be given (e.g. "actor ABC has filmed 3 episodes, due to air ..."). On the other hand, the other criterion (1) is not to bad ... the important thing is to pick one and stick with it. Text of RfC changed ... no time now to reevaluate. --Noleander (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Very well reasoned and thought out comments. Thank you. The reason I'm not in favor of including actors when they have filmed episodes is because studios are inconsistent about how they deal with certain events, such as an announced cast member being dropped from the cast after only a few episodes. For example, Jerry Orbach was to be a cast member of Law & Order: Trial by Jury but only filmed two episodes before he died; he was included in the opening credits of the two episodes he appeared in. Paula Patton, on the other hand, quit Law & Order: Special Victims Unit after filming only a few episodes and, as a result, never appeared in the opening credits. In this case, it appears that how the studio personally felt about the actor at the time motivated whether they were in the opening credits or not, not whether a press release had been given about them joining the cast. Plus, all of the instances I noted above where announced cast members filmed episodes but still weren't included in the opening episodes. As such, it's really unpredictable until the episode airs. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: per Eomund's suggestion above, I'm modifying my original proposal. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2: "The show's star or stars as listed in a reliable source such as the opening credits. Separate multiple entries with line breaks in original credit order followed by order he/she joined the show (<br />). New cast members should not be listed here until they appear as starring in at least one aired episode for current shows or one unaired episode for DVD and other releases."

IP: If you are intending to amend your original RfC, this "mid course" change may cause confusion. Several editors above have already replied to the original suggestion, so the Support/Oppose !votes above become ambiguous, or even wrong. If you've changed your mind about the RfC, the best course of action would be to retract this RfC, and start another one. Since you are the originator, and I'm the only supporter (so far) I see no problem with just closing this RfC (see WP:RFC) and then starting a new one with your new proposal. --Noleander (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed my mind about the RfC; I've just changed the wording slightly to reflect the fact that opening credits are not always the only source of a show's starring cast. The only oppose vote so far is going to oppose it no matter what I say because they sincerely believe that new cast should be added as soon as they're announced, and I assumed the slight change in wording would not be objected to by you. It's all in reference to the comments by Eomund above, and I see collaboration on an acceptable version to be one valid use of RfC. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you should not change the text of an RfC after other editors start responding. An editor might respond "Support" to the original RfC, then you change the text, and if that editor does not notice, their "Support" may either (1) become nonsense and make the editor look like a fool; or (2) not reflect their intentions, which is worse than being foolish. You only time you can safely change the wording in an RfC is if there are only 1 or 2 editors that have responded and they are all cooperating in the text change. --Noleander (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think you're being a bit unreasonable and bureaucratic here. I'm not a newbie so this isn't my first time at the rodeo. The modified text does not significantly change the original proposal to the point it invalidates or makes "look silly" either your support or MelbourneStar's oppose. The two of you, along with the editor this change is in response to, are the only editors who have responded to the RFC. The proposed modified text is placed within the discussion so as it is clear which comments came before the modified version, and it is clearly identified as a modified version, with the original also displayed. I honestly see no reason to close this RFC simply to reopen it because the text was changed slightly to be clearer and avoid certain possible problems in the future, and I can find nothing a WP:RFC that says it is necessary to close a RFC if the text changes. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk page conventions in WP are clear: it is inappropriate to post a comment in a Talk page, and then after other editors have responded below the comment, to change the original comment. In rare situations, you can amend the original comment by striking-through the original text, and perhaps inserting new text in a special font, such as bold. In this case, you also had the option to add supplemental text into the original RfC post (as a sort of postscript) but chose instead to replace the text. That is contrary to WP Talk page conventions. I'll retract my "support" comment above since I don't have time to reevaluate the new RfC text. --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

....if that's what you must do, I suppose you must, but it's completely unreasonable. If you used the time you've spent giving these comments and, instead, look at what's actually changed, you'd see that all that's changed is, instead of using "credits" for the basis of the attribute, it now says "a reliable source such as the opening credits". Your comment claims you don't have time to reevaluate, but you've just spent all this time lecturing over a slight change that makes absolutely no difference to anything you said when a two minute read would have shown you as much. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would be useful information. Unless you've seen previews for them, or spent time and possibly money to watch the first episodes, you would not necessarily get any inkling that, as some examples, Merlin (TV series) and Terra Nova (TV series) are heavily geared toward teens, as opposed to either kids or adults (sometimes farcically so, like the teen sister in Terra Nova's pilot being more interested in flirting with the cute military grunt than in finding her missing brother who is probably being eaten by dinosaurs; but of course that's just my POV). Contrast Camelot (TV series), which is nothing like Merlin, but a adult-themed period piece along the lines of The Tudors (TV series) and Spartacus: Blood and Sand. I'm not talking about ratings by some censorship body saying what is "appropriate" for what age group, I'm talking about authorial, directorial, editorial, and marketing intent. This can generally be gleaned from entertainment industry publications and reviews as sources. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that can be written in the lead, I don't see how this is appropriate for the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to "glean" it from "from entertainment industry publications and reviews" that would be OR &/or synthesis. Besides, often the creators of a show state it is one thing when many viewers and critics categorise it otherwise. For instance, many shows that are clearly fantasy, involving magic and the supernatural, are described straight-facedly by their networks simply as "dramas". And some shows like Doctor Who, ostensibly a children's show, have a large adult audience. Trying to boil all that down into a single label would often be impossible and contentious. Barsoomian (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]