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

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

There are some contradictory instructions for some of the important parameters in this infobox. These are (with emphasis added for clarity):

This causes a problem at TV series such as The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series). The series is American but first aired in Canada so Teletoon is a foreign broadcaster and therefore should not be in the |channel= field. Instead this should be Cartoon Network. Similarly, because |first_aired= and |last_aired= specify the "original channel", the US dates should be used in those fields. Including "Canada" in |first_run= per the instructions is misleading as the average reader would expect to see Canadian information, given Canada's location in the middle of the section and since that is where it first aired. The instructions either need to be rewritten, or the parameter relocated so that it's clear that the data is local and the foreign location is just a note. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How I'm reading this, all of this information should relate to the channel that corresponds to its country of origin. But, if this information does not correspond to where it was first broadcast (in Tom and Jerry's case), then we should use the parameters as such. What if we change as so: keep "channel" or "network", "first_aired" and "last_aired" as is, and change instructions for "first_run" to include country, channel and it's air dates, or default to the country of origin if not used. I'm expecting the output to be something like: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly what I was thinking of but it solves the problem and probably in a better way than what I was thinking. I'd be tempted to add fields for the foreign country dates so editors don't have to manually format the field. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When you presented this, it seemed logical to me. And yes, I just did a rough mock up, so I do believe a few new parameters may be needed. I'm seeing possibly three additional? If leaving |first_run=, then add one for the country's channel, and then one each for the start and end dates. And do note that the order they appear in the infobox will have to be adjusted to be clear as well (as I did in my mock up). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to call the new parameters. Adding _foreign to existing names seems rather simple and makes the intent of the parameters obvious, so we'd end up with first_aired_foreign, last_aired_foreign, channel_foreign and network_foreign. If we use your suggestion, network_foreign would simply be an alias for channel_foreign and used only for consistency with current parameters. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about all the parameters as follows: |channel= or |network=, |first_aired=, |last_aired=, |first_run=, |first_run_channel= (or network. either or, or both), |first_run_first_aired= and |first_run_last_aired=. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'd work too. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one else has commented, but I don't see why there would be any objections. Can you make these changes? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: Do you feel we can implement this? Are you able to do so? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no opposition, I'll have a look. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just pinging @Bignole: as an active WP:TV editor whose input is worth seeking. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds logical to me. I don't find this issue all that much to have a real opinion about it. What you've written up Favre seems appropriate. I'm ok with it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta hand it to Favre for some clear mockups there. I hope my silence was considered implicit acceptance. The only note I have is that we please, please, please provide clear instructions in the docs. I will chase each of you 'round the moons of Nibia to get some clarity to the Infobox parameters! And I'm sorry I didn't participate in this discussion sooner. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I will chase each of you 'round the moons of Nibia" Yeah, look where that got Khan. ;) --AussieLegend (✉) 06:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not fail like Khan! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also arrived late. These discussions need listed in more places. I'm a WPTV troller and this should've been pinged there somehow. If my plate was less full, I would create a global Television issues area somewhere. — Wyliepedia 10:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CAWylie: Aussie made a post about this on the project talk page back at the end of April: here - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahso! Apologies for my dropped ball (or full plate). — Wyliepedia 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We have not acted on anything, so if you'd still like to weigh in, please do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about a {{Film date}}-type addition, used with a film's |release parameter? I.e.: {{Film date|2014|6|24|Canada}} returns:

That way, it shows where it first aired while retaining the original (normal) airing country's format (first run, last aired, channel)? Or Favre1fan93's previous suggestion. I'm sleepy, thus flexible. (EDIT: Or add a date to the second blue box's Canada up top? So it would say "First shown in: Canada (March 1, 2014)" as suggested.) — Wyliepedia 16:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:AussieLegend, User:Favre1fan93, User:Bignole, User:Cyphoidbomb, and User:CAWylie: can we finally deal with this at some point? Personally, I would simply drop the first_run parameter altogether, since such a fact can simply be noted outside the infobox instead, and the alternative addition of several parameters serves merely to clutter up the template from my point of view. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For my response, may I just point you to the last column of Template:Infobox_television#TemplateData, which clearly lists most of the template's parameters as optional. Translation: remove what is bothersome and/or unnecessary, thereby removing your "clutter", which doesn't show if empty. — Wyliepedia 09:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:CAWylie, here's some better reasoning: why are we elevating the status of a show in another country to the level of the infobox in the first place? Why is the fact that the show first aired somewhere else so important that it is afforded any spot(s) at all there? Note that this is an airing which could easily even be in a different language - are we going to have Wikipedians scouring sources with translators just to fill in some infobox field(s)? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because today's writers generally cannot generate one original thought and must use another country's ideas? Or a network cannot afford to produce their own series so they must mine others? Or simply the production schedule is stacked so other countries get it first? Finally, please stop pinging names. Some editors can comprehend properly worded responses. — Wyliepedia 21:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was hoping to get some clarification on the Company parameter, and propose we modify the explanatory text in this template accordingly. Currently the Company parameter reads: "The names of the production companies." Nice and vague. I noticed this edit, which added Titmouse to the company parameter (Titmouse is credited in the series with "Animation Production Services"). Is the purpose of the Company parameter to list all of the companies that may have contributed to the production, (ex: the literal "production", or manifestation, of the animation) or only the companies that funded the production as a producer might do? I see this all the time in animation articles, where a project somehow becomes a co-production because Company A financed it, and Company B did the animation, and it's never really been made clear what qualifies something as a co-production. The side-effect of this, is that often series becomes pegged as a multinational project (ex: "XYZ series is an American/Canadian production), which is sort of accurate, but not for the reasons we think. Some American cars have Japanese engines, for example. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I would go with the company that is paying the bill. For example, The CW often does a lot of business in Canada because it is cheaper, but their shows are not Canadian shows. It's about location and finance. I wouldn't call Casino Royale a Moroccan film because it was filmed there. Where the money is spent should not be a determining factor, because you're going to look for the cheapest option.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; animation tends to be outsourced to multiple companies, and really only the main studio that is doing the pre-production and has their vanity logo on the show should be listed. The other studios are considered subcontractors. Only Nickelodeon Animation Studios should be listed in the infobox; Titmouse as subcontractor should be mentioned in the prose. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this edit at the MOS, I thought it wise to drop by here to take a look at the parameter instructions for last_aired. I think they need to be clarified, because in common usage, and per WikiProject Television consensus, the last_aired value typically represents a cancellation, and we have for a long time been requiring that cancellations be sourced, either in the article prose, or in the infobox. Kids' shows don't get a lot of press about cancellation, instead they just don't get picked up and quietly fizzle into obscurity. I propose a simple change to the prose, my additions are in bold:

The first airdate of the show's last episode on its original channel or network. Use "present" if the show is ongoing, renewed, or if its fate has not been announced, and {{end date}} if the show is ended. Only insert a finale date after it has happened. Since the end date represents a cancellation, it must be supported by properly sourced prose in the article body, or by an inline reference to a reliable source.

Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to clarify, because I think I may be misreading it, are you proposing that if a kid's show is cancelled, but they have not made a formal announcement about it then we leave the article as "present" for an extended period of time (if it's an obscure show, no one may make note of the cancellation)?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey B, cancellations for network shows are typically sourced or verifiable because there are published announcements in trades that a series has been cancelled or has otherwise run its course. That makes it easy to determine what the series' last episode is. Kids' shows don't get this treatment. Either a pickup is announced at the next upfront or not, but there's rarely any attention drawn to the fact that the plug has been pulled on the series. Fanboy, Robot & Monster, Secret Mountain Fort Awesome, are some examples. This leaves a lot of kids shows in limbo and perpetually listed as "present", because we can't determine what the series' last episode is if there's no announced cancellation. So either the community decides that a series has ended when it does not appear in the upfront (which seems like OR) or we could go with The Futon Critic's determination that series with no activity in 12 months are considered cancelled, but that is a determination they have fabricated, and has been argued as original research. (see this prior conversation). So, my feeling is that either we change how we use the last_aired parameter, we clarify the instructions, or we reevaluate how we treat kids series. And if I'm wrong about any of this, let me know, because I've been rejecting unsourced series end dates for a while now with no correction from the community. And in the case of Fanboy and Robot & Monster, there's some indication that Nickelodeon is about to burn off the last few episodes, so "present" has technically been correct, even if absurd. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I think better clarification is necessary, regardless. As far as how it needs to be clarified, my opinion is that if a show had not aired in 12 months (barring news that it is just on extended hiatus, ala Hells on Wheels), then we put the date of the last episode. We can clarify in prose (and it can be stated that it is mandated that we do) that the series was never officially announced as over, but that a new episode has not aired since date X. Otherwise, you'd end up with a series that ended 3 years ago and still saying "Present" because no one bothered to officially say it was cancelled.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that consensus favored the "perpetual Present". I even included that clarification in the FAQ, "even if the series stopped airing new episodes 5 years ago, leave it 'present'." If that doesn't actually reflect consensus, then we need to address that, because that's what I've been enforcing. (Awkwaaard!) I personally find it problematic that we maintain perpetual Present because it seems silly to think that a show off the air for three years still has a shot to continue. I actually thought it was cool that FutonCritic was calling these series dead so that the kids could source something finally. I do, however, understand the WP:OR considerations. If a series doesn't get picked up, I don't fundamentally have a problem with changing "present" to the last airdate as long as we are not saying that the series has been cancelled, rather that it has not been picked up (which is basically the same thing, except "not picked up" is easier to source than "cancelled" is.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to more people weighing in on it. My feeling is that after a certain point we need to just identify a date. Prose can be used to clarify that we're not the ones saying that it was cancelled, but merely that was the last time the series had a new episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled has a different meaning than not picked up or not renewed. Cancelled is 20 ordered but less than that aired. If 20 are ordered and 20 aired the series has ended as planned and has not been cancelled but has also not been renewed. I think the default should be if we have a referenced series order and the shows ends at the end of the order we put that end date in the last_aired parameter unless we have a reference that supports either renewal or cancellation. The presumption should be the show is ended as planned unless we have sources that say otherwise. Leaving a perpetual "present" in last aired should not happen. In any event I think 1 year with no activity is sufficient to say "He's dead, Jim" and let it go. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can we indicate that the programme is not currently airing but that we don't know its last date? See Buying Naked. No evidence on the channel's website, so not currently running. But leaving "last aired" blank, or entering "unknown" both come up with "Currently airing". What's the equivalent of "Date of death missing"? Or perhaps this article just needs to be nuked as its only source is the Daily Mail. PamD 07:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Googling shows that the show was still/again airing in June 2014 so not relevant now - but as a general question, there must be some cases where someone is writing about a historic show that hasn't been aired for decades but they don't have the exact date - there should surely be some option to get an output other than an exact end date or "currently airing". PamD 08:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd read the article talk page I'd have spotted that the reason I couldn't find it on the tlc website is that the URL redirects to www.uk.tlc.com when viewed from the UK. But the "date of cessation missing" issue remains. PamD 09:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buying Naked's first season just ended by American TV standards. It may take months for any renewal news and is therefore considered "present". I don't know what happened to the |status= parameter, but that was used to show if it was currently airing or not (to editors, not the public). Perhaps that can be returned or possibly even a category to show such statuses (again, even if hidden)? — Wyliepedia 10:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of two parameters that can easily be confused with each other has led to repeated discussion here. I propose that:

• the genre parameter should only contain entries from the "Literary genres" section of List of genres;
• the format parameter should only contain entries from the "Film and television genres" section of the same list, with the exception of the entries in the "Live-action scripted" subsection since they largely duplicate the literary genres.

This seems largely consistent with existing usage (in some cases the usage seems to be reversed, but it seems that literary genres should take precedence in this regard). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these parameters were discussed late last year (see this discussion) and a link to List of genres#Film and television genres was added to the instructions for genre. Format was linked to Television program#Formats. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AussieLegend: First, the discussion that you linked to shows a clear lack of consensus. Second, there has been subsequent discussion of this issue at this very page since then, which indicates that the discussion you linked to should be afforded even less weight in determining consensus regarding this issue. Third, the current lists that are linked to are not mutually exclusive, causing confusion; the lists in my proposal would be. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the removal of Genre. It is largely interpretive and problematic. Kids think that a cartoon in which someone dies de facto makes it a "black comedy", or that comedies that employ dramatic elements are "dramadies". The Template:Infobox film doesn't contain a genre parameter. Assuming that we're not all on board to remove the genre parameter, I would propose we do all of the following: A) Limit the genre to a shorter list of options than the example list. Microgenre should be discouraged the way that the Music wikiprojects limit ridiculous microgenres (post-punk rockabilly/grunge fusion). B) Limit Format to a set list of options such as "magazine news show", "miniseries", "animation", "reality TV", "taped", "filmed" or whatever "Format" is intended to mean. I have never quite understood the intention of this parameter, which is why I originally proposed its removal. C) Require in docs that genre must be sourced in infobox, or in the article prose. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyphoidbomb, as sources do indeed exist for genres, option C is the obvious choice. That doesn't resolve the core issue of the confusion between the two parameters, though. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Cyphoidbomb: Regarding the recent clarification, you haven't proposed what the "set list of options" in option B should be! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Cyphoidbomb: Could you please comment regarding my original proposal? It seems to be much more straightforward than yours... statements like "whatever 'Format' is intended to mean" don't exactly inspire confidence, after all. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to inspire your confidence, and it seems to me that we first have to define the intended purpose of the parameters, or their suitability for inclusion, before we decide on a list of examples. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been "format" that has been abused, because nobody really knew what it meant. A look through discussions here and at WT:TV shows that many parameters have caused grief over the years: first_aired, last_aired, first_run, starring, num_episodes, num_seasons, preceded_by and followed_by just to name a few. "Status" was removed because it was causing problems and now we have editors suggesting it be returned. If we get rid of all of the parameters that are abused, we may as well get rid of the infobox. It's far better to insist on sourced content. The Futon Critic has generally been found to be a good source for genre. Format though has problems. There was an RfC last year proposing removal of format, but the outcome was generally inconclusive.[1] If we were to get rid of a parameter, format really is the one to get rid of and I don't see why we'd want to point genre in a television infobox to "Literary genres" instead of "Film and television genres". --AussieLegend (✉) 23:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AussieLegend: Regarding your last point, it's because "Film and television genres" should really be "Film and television formats" on that page, since that's what is actually in the section for the most part. In fact, I was about to boldly make that change before I decided to come here first. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the section should be formats since the article is about genres, so only genres should be listed. At the moment the present version is "Film and television genres and formats" but the formats should be removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AussieLegend: How about splitting the page, then? In any case, the point here is that I want the documentation for the format parameter to refer to that particular list regardless of what it's called. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formats shouldn't be linked to a genres page. That muddies the waters and only makes things worse. Linking it to Television program#Formats makes more sense until a formats page is created. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AussieLegend: Sigh... do you agree that linking the parameters to the lists in question - regardless of what they're called and where they're located - is a good idea or not? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there's no need to sigh. I do that every time you clutter up my notifications by unnecessarily tagging me every time you reply, but I don't sigh visibly so please do me the same courtesy. As for your question, I believe that the current linking is appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll judge for myself whether to visibly sigh or not, thank you very much. Would you care to (finally) elaborate upon your opinion regarding the current linking, or are you waiting until this discussion becomes so long that it goes right off the screen? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dogmatic, I'm not sure if anybody told you this when you were topic banned from Microsoft articles, but nobody at Wikipedia is required to answer questions to your satisfaction. In fact, we're not required to answer you at all. We assume good faith of the n00bz, but we are also human, so when a presumably intelligent and articulate person such as yourself continues to ask baited and impatient questions, or demonstrates a frequent inability to contribute constructively without vilifying others, or is prone to passive-aggressive templating, or drawing members into needlessly tedious and condescending arguments, at some point it ain't worth talking to you. Wikipedia is not therapy so whatever your deal is, figure it out with a professional, figure it out on your own, or at least make believe you are capable of playing nicely in the sandbox with the other children in public. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, User:Cyphoidbomb, all contributors are required to participate in discussion in good faith. Indeed, not acknowledging this fact directly was explicitly stated to be one of the reasons for at least one of my sanctions - which are very much irrelevant to the topic of discussion here, by the way, and so I would appreciate it if you did not bring them up again in such discussions. User:AussieLegend has purposely avoided the actual topic of this discussion in order to promote that user's own agenda here; such a course of action is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia policy, and vicious, unjustified personal attacks against me of the type you just posted don't change these simple facts. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are required to act in good faith but they aren't required to participate at all. When your posts are inflammatory, starting them with "Sigh" and making bad faith accusations that others are avoiding the point of the discussion, editors are not inclined to participate at all. However, just to clear things up for you, as I see it, the points of this discussion are:
1. You want to "clearly" define TV genres by pointing editors to a section in an article that deals with literary genres instead of TV genres. I've already said I disagree with this and that "I don't see why we'd want to point genre in a television infobox to 'Literary genres' instead of 'Film and television genres'".
2. You want to "clearly" define TV formats by pointing editors to a section in an article that deals with film and television genres instead of an article that deals with television formats. I've said I disagree with this as well and that "Formats shouldn't be linked to a genres page" because "That muddies the waters and only makes things worse".
I really don't see what need there is for me to elaborate on that. Your proposals don't make sense. It's like pointing cat to dog and fish to cat. You really need to explain why you think your proposals make any sense at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so your opinion is simply that the names of the lists should correspond to the names of the parameters before we can even discuss changing the links to point to those lists. Fair enough, although I don't see why we should wait - nor why you couldn't have simply said that right away. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The format parameter was the first of the two parameters to be created. In 2005, a user proposed that format be changed to genre, because format is ambiguous. The lack of clarity about what format means, has existed ever since, although a user once explained that format refers to the medium of the show: Live Action, Broadway Play, Animation, etc. But is that actually the case? Is Soap Opera a format or a genre? Is tape a format? Is Reality TV a format? There was a time when the format parameter was not in the template, but it mysteriously appeared again, and has been improperly explained for almost a decade. The format parameter is rarely used today and even some of our reliable sources (Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic) lump format and genre together under "genre" for example here, where the genre for SpongeBob is "Comedy, Animation, Kids". So I propose all of the following:

1. Remove the format parameter from the infobox finally.
2. Create a list of acceptable genres at WP:TVFAQ, which we can derive from the existing list. This list will exclude unnecessary microgenre like "gross out humor". Although, if we insist that genres be reliably sourced, we may not need the list at all, because the genres will come from a reliable source, and will presumably be limited in number, and will probably not include microgenre.
3. Adjust the Template:Infobox television documentation to include a link to the sample list, to explain our new requirements for sourcing, and to establish a limit to how many genres can be added (lest we encourage clutter like we did here.)

If this doesn't seem appealing, I think the smart thing is to start over and open a RfC with the various options. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, Does anyone know what in the code defines the colour of the template? For example Breaking Bad has a green top, while Firefly has a gold top, but both use infobox television. Thanks for your help. The Free Editor Anyone Can Cite (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't know this. It must be something in the template doing that. Anyone else? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The Free Editor Anyone Can Cite The color for Breaking Bad is coming from "bgcolor = #177245" in the template. Not sure about Firefly, though. I thought maybe that was a default color because it is a Featured Article, but I checked other FAs and that doesn't seem to be the case. Sorry for the Yahoo! Answer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's the parameter |bgcolour=, which uses web colors in hex code format. — Wyliepedia 01:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a certain little-known subpage of this template, Template:Infobox television/colour - I discovered it myself via the template code after making some observations much like those the OP mentioned. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone tries to use their newfound toy, I encourage them to read Colour template's talkpage and the guidelines established there. Most regular TV editors save colours for episode tables and the branched seasonal articles for discernment. Only established well-known series with regular colours, i.e. BB's green, should get them on their main pages, which is probably one reason it is not listed as a parameter. — Wyliepedia 04:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus to stick with the default colours in infoboxes and |bgcolour= is deprecated. One of the reasons that Template:Infobox television/colour exists is that some TV series had well established colours and there were a limited number of exceptions made so that these series could continue to use colours. The series listed in Template:Infobox television/colour should be the only series using colour in the infobox. Editors need to establish consensus to add colour, in which case the series will be added to Template:Infobox television/colour. Colour shouldn't be manually added to infoboxes using the parameters which are deliberately NOT documented for this reason. Category:Television articles that use colour in the infobox is used to track articles using colour in the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to disable the field, as people know about bgcolor and are adding it anyway. The template code could be changed to only allow colour on named pages, else default to standard colours. The horse has bolted and is half-way down the street. - X201 (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you. I've just removed it from 88 articles in which it shouldn't have been used. I'm not sure about Buffy the Animated Series. Since Buffy the Vampire Slayer is one of the exemptions, I've left it in that article. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the Buffy article as well. given the relative emptiness of the category, I say we remove it. it's clearly not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

now boldy removed from the template as well. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Frietjes, you left the category code in the template - not to mention the category itself. Both should be deleted. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say leave it there for a week to see if anyone tries to use the old parameters, then delete it. but, I would not object to deleting the tracking category immediately either. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't delete the tracking category just yet. You'll still get people adding the field for a while, then other users will copy the template as a basis for a new article and leave the defunct field in. Over on WP:VG we still get people adding feilds that were killed off four years ago. Hence the massive clean-up we're currently undertaking. - X201 (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:X201: AFAIK, it isn't permitted to have Wikipedia categories which are (intended to be) empty. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogmaticeclectic: sounds like you should send {{empty category}} to tfd, and have all the categories transcluding it deleted. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Frietjes, I think you misunderstood what I meant. When the parameter existed in the template, the tag you pointed out was applicable to it, since there were indeed pages that were validly included in the category. Now that the parameter is gone, however, there cannot be any pages that are correctly in the category - any pages there are now mistakenly there, and mistakes are not a valid reason to keep the category despite User:X201's opinion on this matter - and so the tag should be removed and the category deleted. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the category now is to identify articles that incorrectly include the parameters. This is one of the functions of maintenance/tracking categories. X201's rationale for category retention seems valid. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that rationale is not valid. If the category can only be used incorrectly now it should be left as a red link so that its use can easily be identified as such. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. Categories that don't exist shouldn't be linked to at all. If it's redlinked, there's no way to maintain the category. At the moment it exists in Category:Tracking categories, so there's some oversight even away from this template. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This category should not exist any longer! Why should there be a "way to maintain" a category that should not even exist? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the past 20 minutes I've used this category that you think should not exist to identify two more articles that shouldn't use the parameters yet were. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Empty tracking categories are allowed, its empty article categories that aren't. The point of a tracking and maintenance category is to be there at all times so that it's subject can be tracked. - X201 (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we go around creating categories for every infobox parameter someone comes up with in an article? How about having each and every infobox automatically place articles that have any extraneous parameter(s) in their infoboxes into a certain category? (Actually, come to think of it, that latter suggestion doesn't sound half-bad, unlike the current situation...) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...place articles that have any extraneous parameter(s) in their infoboxes into a certain category?" Actually, that's the next phase of the clean-up of the video game infobox, after all of the defunct old fields are removed we're going to remove field names that have been invented by users. - X201 (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We create categories as they are necessary, not just in case. Clearly, this one is still necessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi would like to know if you can add a parameter that says "slogan", There are many dramas and series that have slogans, such as "Do you believe in them... I do not believe in men?". I do not know if you understand what I'm saying, but I think this parameter would be good, or already exists?.--Damián (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term you are going for is "tagline"? The problem using these for a main series infobox is that these may change from season to season, if they evolve. I've only used them in seasonal infoboxes that have posters with them listed. I'm unsure of the usage for telenovelas. — Wyliepedia 11:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A telenovela motto never changes, because they are soap operas and have seasons, so carry a motto soap operas, for example see the title of this article infobox. No where to put the theme of the soap opera, and the main title is not good.--Damián (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use taglines. That would be equivalent to trivia. We don't put "Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water" for the infobox of Jaws 2. If it's a subtitle, that's one thing, but not taglines. They are marketing gimmicks used to sell a product, and we're not here to sell a product. If there is discussion about a show's tagline(s), then you would include that in the body of the article with the reliable sources. We don't need to clutter the infobox with what is ultimately meaningless trivia about a show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no trivia on wikipedia in Spanish and Portuguese used the slogans, I'm trying to say is as a subtitle or so, they are just slogans that have several soap operas, which are not trivia or advertising methods. It's more or less like a subtitle, which have some telenovelas, are short phrases and I think would put them in the best templates.--Damián (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a subtitle, and there's a slogan/tagline. Subtitles are exactly that, part of the title, and thus it would be in the name of the show (whether in the article name, or the lead). If it's tagline, then it is a marketing gimmick, and thus not appropriate for the infobox or the lead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you keep saying that this is advertising ?, I see you know nothing about telenovelas. This is not advertising, but I see you do not understand.--Damián (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of the slogan if it imparts no actual information about the show? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see this article, The original title is "Marido en alquiler" but the motto of the telenovela is "Señor no, ¡Señora!" Then the other motto is where the title goes, slogans are part of the titles but they should go elsewhere parameter. But hey if they want so be it.--Damián (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to figure out what "Señor no, ¡Señora!" has to do with Marido en alquiler, not that I wish to have it explained to me. — Wyliepedia 10:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the motto of the telenovela, I think you'd understand if you saw soap operas, now at wikipedia Spanish, Portuguese and French use this parameter. And do not think this is the case of a method of advertising or something. The truth is that I can not explain it, because I see that you know nothing about soap operas, but is something like a subtitle title to part of the soap opera.--Damián (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say that we don't know about soap operas, because we do. I was around a long time before the internet, in the days when the local area had only two TV stations and you were pretty much forced to watch soap operas for entertainment. However, I can't get my head around this motto thing that seems to be unique to telenovelas. Is it something that appears on screen, or is it something that is spoken, similar to "Like sands through the hourglass, these are the days of our lives"? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, was somewhat exaggerated to say that do not know, but I say anyone who watches soap operas will know what I mean. For example the soap opera El color de la pasión, or slogan is subtitled "Directo al corazón", The motto appears in the same logo of the novel, then why can not use the theme of the soap opera in the template ?.--Damián (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Damián, that if you're having a difficult time explaining why the slogan is noteworthy, it's probably going to be difficult convincing the community that the slogan is worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Perhaps the slogan can be included in the prose? I see some precedent at Alien (film). That film's tagline "In space no one can hear you scream" is known the world over. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a fundamental language problem here. I did some cleanup at Marido en alquiler and some problems were immediately obvious. Damián doesn't seem to understand the purpose of the |preceded_by=, |followed_by= or |related= parameters,[2] despite an attempt to explain on his talk page.[3] He still seems to think scheduling is relevant and has even told me that telenovelas are not TV series.[4][5] One of the issues was the massive violation of WP:REDNOT, which I fixed.[6] I later tagged the entire cast section for cleanup,[7] which resulted in the WP:REDNOT violations being restored.[8] Until such time as we can get somebody to converse in Damián's own language, I don't think we're going to resolve the motto problem.

Oy. Thank you for trying to help Aussie. I do feel like the language issue is the crux of the problem. Not trying to fault Damián, but I think that will solve a lot of these issues, and make these telenovela articles much better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, best forget the subject, it does not interest me.--Damián (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to open an RFC about the genre/format parameters. Here are the current options on the table:

• Option 1 - Change nothing.
• Option 2 - Cut both the Genre and Format parameters.
• Option 3 - Delete Format parameter. Leave everything else the way it is.
• Option 4 - Delete Format parameter. Require genre to be reliably sourced. Limit the number of genre to 4. (Optional: Create a list of acceptable general genre at WP:TVFAQ to exclude niche genres.) Adjust infobox documentation accordingly.
• Option 5 - Genre parameter should only contain entries from the "Literary genres" section of List of genres; the Format parameter should only contain entries from the "Film and television genres" section of the same list, with the exception of the entries in the "Live-action scripted" subsection since they largely duplicate the literary genres. ("Film and television genres" may be changed to "Film and television formats" and split in this case.)

Anybody want to add other options before I open the RFC? I can't remember exactly what the other preferences were for handling this, and I ain't about to sift through that brain-hurting text wall again. I'll wait 24 hours or so to get some other options. In the interest of keeping this section short, please limit your response to a simple option proposal. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added Dogmaticeclectic's original proposal. Feel free to fine tune the wording above if the proposal has evolved any. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a minor addition to that option. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Format and Genre parameters of Template:Infobox television have long been confusing and previous attempts to clear up the confusion have not been successful.

The format parameter was the first of the two parameters to be created for the infobox. In 2005, a user proposed that format be changed to genre, on the basis that format is ambiguous. The lack of clarity about what format means, has existed ever since. A user once explained that format refers to the medium of the show: Live Action, Broadway Play, Animation, etc. But is that actually the case? Is Soap Opera a format or a genre? Is tape a format? Is Reality TV a format? Police procedural? Magazine news program? And does the average editor understand the difference? There was a time when the format parameter was removed from the template, but it re-appeared, and has been in place for a decade. The format parameter is not commonly used today. The template docs cryptically explain it as "the format of the show". Our reliable sources (ex: Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic) tend to lump format and genre together under "genre" for example here, where the genre for SpongeBob is "Comedy, Animation, Kids".

• Option 1 - Change nothing.
• Option 2 - Delete both the Genre and Format parameters. Template:Infobox film, for example, does not contain a genre parameter.
• Option 3 - Delete Format parameter. Leave everything else the way it is. Whatever the format is, will likely be explained in the lead or article body anyway.
• Option 4 - Delete Format parameter. Require Genre parameter to be reliably sourced. Limit the number of genre to 4. (Optional: Create a list of acceptable general genre at WP:TVFAQ to exclude niche genres.)
• Option 5 - Genre parameter should only contain entries from the "Literary genres" section of List of genres; the Format parameter should only contain entries from the "Film and television genres" section of the same list, with the exception of the entries in the "Live-action scripted" subsection since they largely duplicate the literary genres. ("Film and television genres" may be changed to "Film and television formats" and split in this case.)

Thank you for your input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• Option 4 - Clearly something needs to be done, so option 1 should not even be considered. Format has always been problematic as nobody actually knows what it is supposed to be. Genres are widely used in the article lead and by WP:RS so I don't see any benefit with option 2. Unfortunately, a lot of articles contain genres that are clearly WP:OR so they need to be both defined and sourced. That eliminates option 3 because we can't leave things the way that they are. A discussion above highlighted the fact that List of genres contains some formats. Formats should not be in an article about genres. Instead the formats need to be removed and possibly added to Television program#Formats. It makes no sense to link TV infoboxes to literary genres when there is a specific "Film and television genres" section in List of genres. That gets rid of option 5. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 - According to my research, Genre was created to replace Format but it just didn't stick. Satisfactorily defining what a format is seems problematic, since there appears to be a lot of bleed-over between formats and genres. On the list at Television_program#Formats, comedy appears to be presented as a format, not as a genre. Police procedural is listed as a format, but also as a genre at List of genres#Film and television genres. In common usage, Format and Genre are basically the same thing, so unless there is a clear way to differentiate the two (for example, if format were to describe the physical attributes of the series: animation, live-action, single-camera) then that might make sense, but it's probably not our place to be redefining these concepts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 - Per my colleagues above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 - The above explanations by both AussieLegend and Cyphoidbomb point out the difficulties with the variable definition of format, and said it much better than I ever could. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 5; but if option 4 is chosen do not limit the number of genres to 4, as it's an arbitrary number and no reasoning has been put forward for using that particular number in this case - in other words, it's an example of WP:CREEP and thus violates WP:NOTBURO (and may possibly be ignored per WP:IAR because of that). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are supposed to summarise important points in the article, similar to the lead, and should not overwhelm articles by their presence, just as the length of the lead is supposed to be limited. It's standard practice to limit the number of individual entries in parameters so as not to overwhelm the article. This is one of the reasons that the instruction for the |writer= parameter say "Do not use if the show has many (5+) writers". If a parameter has too many entries, it's better to address it in the prose with a single link to the section in the infobox. We tend to ignore this principle only in the list of stars. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there's another parameter with a similar restriction I suppose it makes a bit more sense, but can we have some consistency here? Can we have either 5 here or 4 there? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number I chose is somewhat arbitrary--I'm not married to it. Sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes tend to use 2 or 3. I thought 4 would allow for some flexibility. My go-to example for genre idiocy is here, where 15 attributes are more than enough. 4 or 5 seem reasonable to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it seems I misread something... the numbers are actually 4 in both cases, since the other one says not to use it for 5. Just ignore that particular aspect of what I stated above then (although I'm still unsure about the limitation in principle)... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 - Unfortunately, that seems to be the best of those. I say "unfortunately" because the best thing would be to have a clear definition (with a list) of what a format is. Then the parameter could be kept. But, I guess that's not possible. As Cyphoidbomb pointed out, the closest thing we have is Television_program#Formats, and that's not clear and lacks references. This is somewhat similar to what is found in music (albums and artists) articles. There's a genre parameter, but some editors want a "style" parameter added, and since there's not one, it sometimes causes conflict because some want to add styles to the genre parameter, while others want to keep them out. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, with or without the format parameter there can be problems either way. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment: Genre should be limited to 2 at most, the main genre. The film articles only use the main genre, video games use the main genre(s). The inclusion of some genres is very liberal. According to House (TV series) is a dramedy, a medical drama, and a mystery. Having some humour doesn't make it a dramedy or a comedy, medical drama covers the show aptly, and mystery? Similarly Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a supernatural drama, a horror, action, and fantasy show. Supernatural drama covers the majority of the show, horror would probably be ok as well although i question if it wouldn't fall under Supernatural drama. In fact, the article on supernatural drama states that the show is marketed as supernatural drama and only incorporates elements of horror. And action? Having some fight scenes doesn't make it a primarily action-oriented show. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DWB: Infobox film doesn't have a Genre parameter. (Unless I'm missing it) If we're going to allow for the combination of formats and genres in the Genre parameter, I think it'll be difficult to limit it to two, since many of our sources typically ascribe 3-4 descriptions (a la comedy, animation, kids) or similar. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film infobox does not cover the genre parameter Cyphoid, but WP:FILMLEAD does, where it states: "the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." I agree with Dark, that it should be limited to two genres at most, as he pointed out that one or can cover the multiple facets of a show. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]