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.

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]

Quick question: A show like Oggy and the Cockroaches is a French series. What should the Broadcast section look like? Should it still only contain a prose description of the English-speaking nations that aired the series, or should it contain the French-speaking countries only? My instinct is English-only, but I thought I'd pass it by the community first. Thanx. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyphoidbomb, in my view, it is quite clear that both should be included. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As seen here, for instance, the "first_aired" and "last_aired" parameters of this infobox create a spaced en dash, which is contrary to WP:DASH. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date ranges in the infobox are supposed to be complete (e.g. 11 November 2013) so use of a spaced en dash is appropriate, per MOS:ENDASH. The use in The Panel (Australian TV series) is incorrect. In such cases, which are the exception rather than the rule, it's necessary to manually format the date range. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently discovered via an old USA Today article that the entire first season of Cow and Chicken premiered in Europe before it did in the US. I take it that means something should be added to the "first_run" param, but what? The documentation says, "The country where the show was first broadcast." Europe is, unfortunately, many countries, and I don't feel that listing all of them would be the best solution. Should it just say "Europe", or something else? Also, wouldn't this mean I have to change the "first_aired" date to the European one instead of the American one? Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paper Luigi, would it be possible to simply try to find out the specific country the show first aired in? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source only states, "The network ordered 13 episodes of the show, which have already aired in Europe on TCN, and Feiss is working on 13 more." Although its headquarters is in the United Kingdom, Cartoon Network (Europe) broadcasts not only in Europe, but also in the Middle East and Africa. According to my research, it was the sole European Cartoon Network around at the time, and even more countries received its feed then than now. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 19:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paper Luigi, my opinion is as follows in light of the additional information you provided: "first_run" should indeed state "Europe" (with the source you mentioned referenced somewhere in the text of the article), the infobox documentation should be updated to reflect this, and "first_aired" should remain unchanged per the infobox documentation. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dogmaticeclectic. I've made the changes to the Cow and Chicken article and I feel as though your opinion is correct. I don't know how I would go about changing the infobox documentation though. Does consensus need to be reached? Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Paper Luigi: WP:BOLD Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Paper Luigi: No problem. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace the lines

| label1      = Also known as

and

| label35     = Original channel

with

| label1      = {{nowrap|Also known as}}

and

| label35     = Original channel

to prevent the seemingly unnecessary linewrap of, respectively, "as" and "channel". 213.246.118.248 (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support only if span style="white-space:nowrap" is used in both cases; oppose otherwise: consistency is important! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please put your requested change in the sandbox and let's see some testcases showing it working correctly and not breaking other stuff. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Technical 13, I don't think that kind of stuff should be requested for such a simple change. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DE, if I wasn't so busy, I would have just done it myself and not have cared much. However, I have a ton of other stuff I need to get done for the immediate foreseeable future, so if someone wants to throw it in the sandbox and see how it's going to look on the testcases page, I'll be happy to apply it to the live template. Alternative is to wait for a TE with more time on their hands and a clearer head than I have or wait for me to have time. Thinking just getting it in the sandbox will be the fastest. Technical 13 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did what's been suggested and also added style="white-space:nowrap;" to a couple of other labels that might wrap awkwardly. 213.246.118.248 (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done in a manner that uses a much smaller footprint and achieves the same result. Due to the the fact that a table is used for these, using   instead of regular spaces on the longest required parameter and any longer, desired, optional parameters is all that was needed to achieve the same result. Technical 13 (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A change has been made to the template which is now causing the hidden menus in infoboxes (like here) bleed into the drop down link. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 213.246.118.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) or DE, please address this issue and create working code and testcases and I'll re-apply this request. Until then, I'm reverting. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are several articles using these parameters? These have been abused lately, and if it's not that being used that much, we can get rid of this. –HTD 08:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how many articles use them but I've seen quite a few. Eliminating parameters is not the resolution to stopping incorrect usage. If we did that we may as well get rid of infoboxes altogether. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know but I'm sick and tired of reverting (LOL). The parameter isn't that important and if it's very few we can just get rid of it.

Also, the documentation doesn't really spell out its proper use. –HTD 19:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not much use. The relationships between different TV series are rarely as simple as "preceding" and "succeeding". Some shows have direct sequels or prequels, some shows are revived under the same name, some shows have spin-offs that air simultaneously with them, some shows have spin-offs that air after their own run has ended, some shows start separately but cross over with other shows at a later date, some shows have combinations of more than one of the above scenarios... it's too complex for an infobox, which should stick to simple, hard, basic facts. This information is best left to the article body and (where suitable) navbox. —Flax5 20:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]