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 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

That's it, we're gonna handle this format parameter once and for all! (I say, hoping naively that my sheer enthusiasm will lead to wide community interest and a permanent resolution!)

FACT: Template:Infobox television has a format parameter, and nobody seems to know how/if it should be used, or why it's still there. The lack of proper explanation is harming television articles, because well-intentioned editors, many of whom are children, have no idea what to put in these fields, so they guess. "Hmm, [[Booger humor]] sounds about right." Or editors will look at other articles to see what a "proper" usage of format is. But of course, there is no proper usage, because format was replaced by genre long ago.

BACKGROUND:

Jan 2005: The template as it was originally created. Format is there. All is quiet.

Dec 2005: Jeff Q proposes that format be changed to genre because "format" is ambiguous. Jeff Q is a sage man!

Feb 2006: Discordance changed format to genre but then changed it part-way back anticipating collateral damage.

Feb 2007: A time when format doesn't exist, having been replaced with genre

Mar 2007: Format returns inexplicably.

Sep 2007: KyuuA4 says format implies medium, such as Live Action, Broadway Play or Animation. The ambiguity continues!

Mar 2009: TheDJ explains that format is deprecated, having been replaced by genre. AnmaFinotera proposes its removal.

Mar 2010: Other editors are still confused. AnmaFinotera again proposes its removal.

SOLUTIONS:

PROPOSAL A: Listen to Jeff Q and AnmaFinotera! Cut the format parameter. What type of fallout will occur? Is there an easy way to fix it? Anyone talented enough to write a bot that can delete the parameter and its contents from every page that uses the parameter? Or can we generate a list and team up to do it manually?

PROPOSAL B: Change the description of the format parameter from "The format of the show" to something like, "Do not use. This parameter was replaced by genre." Then, we suppress format from displaying on any pages that use infobox television. This will allow us time to remove the errant data, without confusing casual readers. Then, we re-word genre with clear examples, so that children know "booger humor" doesn't belong there, but "sitcom" or "drama" does.

PROPOSAL C: Keep both genre and format, but clearly differentiate the two. Genre=comedy, drama, thriller, news. Format=animated series, sitcom, soap opera, magazine. (Or whatever.)

Whatever we decide, we need a solution that improves clarity, to help cut down on the extra work and confusion. We've ignored Jeff Q and AnmaFinotera for too long! Thank you for your time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter for Genre already exists. So, it would be redundant to utilize Format to include Genre. Just to pull out some examples:

• The Walking Dead (TV series)

Format used to denote the story telling style, to distinguish episodic vs non-episodic style (questionable)

• Full House

Format used to denote "genre" (incorrect)

• Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Format used to denote "genre" (incorrect)

• The West Wing

Format used to denote "genre" (incorrect)

• The Cosby Show

Format parameter not used at all

• The Lucy Show

Format parameter not used at all

• Breaking Bad

Format used to denote the story telling style, to distinguish episodic vs non-episodic style (questionable)

• Lost (TV series)

Format parameter not used at all

Conclusion. Eliminate the Format parameter, as many articles use it to label Genre. A number of series do not even use the Format parameter at all, and they can go along well without it. Therefore, Format parameter is not particularly needed. By elimination, that will force articles to properly use the Genre parameter; and thus, any confusion on its use would be eliminated. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I didn't know about this discussion (including previous) before, but interestingly enough, just about a week before this section was started, I had added a link for format in the parameter's explanation. And, yes, there should be a better explanation given ("Proposal C"), but the link certainly does help. Whenever I see an infobox using format for genre, I correct it. But, most show's infoboxes don't need to use the Format parameter at all. It should only be used for shows where the format is out of the ordinary. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your input. From what I can tell of the edit history and of the discussion history, "Genre" was created to replace the ambiguous "Format", so from my perspective, anybody who uses "format" to mean "genre" is using the field "correctly" (or more accurately, they're using a deprecated/abandoned field "correctly"). There is sufficient overlap between the two categories to suggest that they are the same thing, and I think we might be trying to ret-con what the fields mean (Which is fine, if we all agree to back Proposal C). Is "soap opera" a genre or a format? Is news a genre or a format? Is live-action a genre or a format? It seems to me that if we were to treat entertainment like animals, there should be some clear taxonomic hierarchy a la: Kingdom=Entertainment, Phylum=Television/Movie/Radio/Porn, Class=Serial/Special/Feature, Order=Daily/Weekly/Annual, Family=Sitcom/News/Reality, Genus=Live Action/Animated, Species=Slapstick/Magazine/Human interest, or something along those lines. But we only have two categories, and they both seem to mean the same thing as far as the community knows. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was going to refer to the List of genres article, but after taking another look I saw that a lot of what's listed as genre were actually formats. So, I have restructured the section, putting the genres under their respective formats. And instead of answering each of your questions here, you can see the answers by going to List of genres#Film and television genres. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That list looks a lot better! May I ask if you have a preference about what to do with the format parameter? Proposal A, B, or C? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "format" parameter at Template:Infobox television appears to be a deprecated parameter, having been replaced by genre long ago over concerns that "format" is an ambiguous terminology that creates confusion. The parameter has not been officially retired or deleted, so the confusion persists. There are three proposals on the table so far: A) Delete the format parameter from the template once and for all. B) Leave the parameter, but clearly mark it as obsolete in the template description. C) Re-define what "format" means for those who edit television articles. For context, history and scope the main discussion is here. 20:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support C. I'd rather that it be properly described. It could be used for animated/live action, serial drama, etc. I don't have a problem with it being discouraged or even deprecated, but it does seem to have some potential for usefulness (which is currently not being met, apparently). I'm sympathetic to the point of view that it's more trouble than its worth (due to being confused with genre), but I think we should try option C first before we deprecate it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I can see how it causes confusion. To me format implies either NTSC or PAL, or it could be used to denote whether a particular program is serialized or stand alone. It's just too confusing and I agree that it should be retired. Wickedlizzie (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Wickedlizzie's reasoning. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support also per Wickedlizzie's reasoning. – Recollected • 06:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support C and oppose all others: I don't see how, for example, it is supposed to be indicated that a show is an animated series without this parameter. The genre parameter is completely different in that it covers drama, comedy, etc. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Genre parameter currently points here for examples. Animation is listed as a genre, with various subgenre. Doesn't mean it couldn't change, but that's currently how we're set up. RottenTomatoes lists the genre for the film Rugrats in Paris as Animation, Kids & Family. Metacritic lists the genre for the TV series Phineas and Ferb as Comedy, Animation, Kids. Our reliable sources aren't even making a distinction for "format". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page you linked to actually mentions "formats" as well. In any case, the "series" part definitely doesn't fall under the genre parameter. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is there any specific order in which the judges of a show need to be listed? --MSalmon (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should follow the casting order, since judges technically are the "stars" of the series. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with livelikemusic. –anemoneprojectors– 23:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credit order means the order that they first appeared so that is what we should follow --MSalmon (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just quote the Attributes section: "Cast [members] are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show." (and yes the judges on a competition show are the starring cast) When you think about it, most every list on WP is in chronological order. This one is no different. Now, as far as the order of those that started at the same time, I think it should be in the order that the names appear in the intro. If the names aren't shown on screen it should be in alphabetical order by last name. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder if there is some way to prevent the unsightly display of "Original language(s)" as:

Original language
(s)

This occurs in IE; not sure about other browsers. Example article exhibiting the problem: Inside Claridge's.

This particular one seems to wrap because it is the longest, but it would be as well to treat all the entries ending "(s)" the same, I think. 86.176.208.198 (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is browser dependent, but I added some nowrap to this line, which should fix it for you. Frietjes (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neat, thanks! 86.176.208.198 (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The website_title parameter should treat blank values just like non-existent ones. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A production_website_title parameter should be added. (No, I haven't discussed this, but I highly doubt it would be controversial.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

|website_title= is understandable because there are a lot of articles that use "Official website" as the title but what is the alternative to "Production website"? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Distributor website", perhaps (assuming an actual production website doesn't exist) - or if going by the documentation, "Network website" (assuming an actual full-fledged website does exist). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to include the distributor's website? The production company makes the show and the network airs it so I can see justification for both of these, but what benefit is there having a distributor's website. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if no production website exists? (For that matter, what if no main website exists?) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then we don't need to list anything, just like every other parameter in every infobox when we don't have content for it. What does the distributor's website give us? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does the production website give? Why not simply remove that parameter altogether? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The production website can provide additional production information about a series that is often difficult to find at other sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my response below. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my reply to a comment another user left above, the parameters production_website and production_website_title should be renamed to website_2 and website_2_title respectively (the naming should be consistent with the format used by show_name and show_name_2, after all). Aliases should obviously be used to avoid breaking existing usage. For consistency, the default title should also be changed to: "Secondary website"

The reasoning for this is that the documentation page states that the former parameter should be used for the following: "A secondary official website"

Again, I doubt such changes would be controversial - particularly with the use of aliases as well as that comment by the other user mentioned above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request that needs discussion and consensus. The template is transcluded to over 28,000 articles and renaming the parameters would necessitate changing every use of the "production_website" parameter. The present parameter is unambiguously titled while the purpose of "website_2" is ambiguous for those who don't bother checking the instructions - how many times have we seen |location= used incorrectly. To be brutally honest, I don't see a need for "website_title" at all as it's almost always used for "Offical website" when that's the default use for the field. I really don't see a need to include a "distributor website", which seems to be the prime reason for inclusion of "production_website_title". --AussieLegend (✉) 09:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to oppose this, I will have little choice but to remove both parameters from the documentation entirely as their use is documented incorrectly. Also, you're ignoring what I wrote above and you don't seem to understand the concept of aliases. Seriously, get a WP:CLUE. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are these links worthwhile as they often disappear when a show stops being made. Many are already in external links and do not work. Even the wayback machine does not store all pages as I have found when looking at web pages over 10 years old.REVUpminster (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should consider proposing that Wikipedia remove all external links while you're at it? Oh, and don't forget those online references - those links can break too, of course! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogmaticeclectic, "I will have little choice but to remove both parameters from the documentation" seems like a threat and "Seriously, get a WP:CLUE." is uncivil at best. There is no justifiable reason for removing valid parameters from the documentation, to do so would be considered disruptive editing.

@REVUpminster, It's very common across Wikipedia to include an official link in the infobox as well as in the external links section, but I can see where you're coming from.

As a further, general comment, the claim that "the naming should be consistent with the format used by show_name and show_name_2" is flawed. "Show_name" unambiguously identifies the purpose of the field as being the name of the show. "Show_name_2" indicates a second name for the show. "Website_2" does not speciy the purpose of the site. Following from this, "the documentation page states that the former parameter should be used for the following: "A secondary official website" is deceptive. It actually says "A secondary official website (usually hosted by the network or production company)." That, along with the parameter name, clearly indicates it for the production company's website. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one being deceptive: "usually hosted by the network or production company" is not the same thing as "hosted by the production company". By the way, since the Wikipedia community apparently considers pretty much any editing to potentially be WP:DE, I don't particularly care about that, and since your responses ignore my previous comments I don't particularly care about applying WP:CIVIL in this case either. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "along with the parameter name" it indicates the field is used for the production website. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, you haven't provided valid reasoning as to why the production website is more important than that of the network or distributor. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it was more important than that of the network so I don't need to justify something I haven't said. I have noted that the production company makes the program ut I can't see why the distributor's website is relevant.[1] How many websites do we need to include? Do we start adding individual TV station websites? We have to draw a line somewhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, what I want is for the infobox to have parameters for two official websites of whatever type happen to exist for a particular show. What is your problem with that? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't add parameters every time somebody wants one unless there's reasonable justification for them and an expectation of usefulness. You haven't provided justification. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are four types of official websites for a show that I'm aware of: main, network, production, and distributor. The first of these is obviously more important than the others, but I don't see why, of the latter three, any one is more important than the others. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "main" and "network" websites are usually the same thing and hosted by the network that first airs the program. As I've indicated above, the production website (when available) often gives additional production information that usually isn't available elsewhere. The distributor's website though, well you've got me there. I assume there was a reason that you wanted to include it. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence is absolutely wrong. Many, many shows have entire websites about them, as well as subpages at the network's website. As for production and distributor websites, they often provide the same type of information, but production websites don't always exist, hence my request! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the production_website parameter be renamed to website_2? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• Support as nominator: "There are four types of official websites for a show that I'm aware of: main, network, production, and distributor. The first of these is obviously more important than the others, but I don't see why, of the latter three, any one is more important than the others." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose conditionally My first reaction was "this will just confuse the children who edit the kids' TV articles." The "website" parameter is already vague and results in junk websites. Most folk who dabble with infobox edits probably never read the descriptions at Template:Infobox television, either. Doubling up the vagueness with "website_2" seems to invite more questionable websites. Something more like "official_website_2" would make more sense to me. Also, what would the impact of this change be? Would we have to manually rename this field on every article that uses it? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Would we have to manually rename this field on every article that uses it?" Aliases... in any case, though, I would conditionally support this proposal if the existing website parameter were renamed accordingly as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my comments above. "Website_2" is too vague and, as Cyphoidbomb and I have both said, people often don't read template instructions so we need to at least try to make parameter names unambiguous. I agree with Cyphoidbomb that "website" is already vague. We should really add an alias called official_website to the template and deprecate website. That would leave us with official_website and production_website, neither of which are vague in their purpose. We really don't need website_title and production_website_title. The nominator has not demonstrated how "main" and "network" websites are different to each other, nor has he demonstrated "distributor" websites that provide the same information as production websites, so I don't see why we need to justify modifying the template to provide extra functionality that will likely never be widely used. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cyphoidbomb, It'll just cause confusion. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• @User:AussieLegend: "Many, many shows have entire websites about them, as well as subpages at the network's website." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've said this but can you provide an example? Presently, in the vast majority of articles we use the network's website, which is consistent. Why should we use your example instead? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]