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.

After reading what there is in this template's talk-page archive, I can see no consensus has been reached on an issue that's creating confusion because there's no consistant standard or specific direction, and that is: What constitutes "runtime." Some editors feel a program's length is given in common use as a half-hour, an hour, etc. Others say it should be the running time without commercials, since programs are seen not only on commercial TV but also on DVD, etc. without commercials. What's tricky here is that different episodes run different lengths — it's not unusual for The Simpsons to run between 30 (rounding up to a minute) to 60 seconds longer than generally, for instance. And it's difficult to get non-OR, third-party-cited non-commercial running times for specific episodes.

I'd like to propose a name-change to the parameter that may address these issues, in that we'll have a single consistent standard: "timeslot." I Love Lucy and Seinfeld are designed for a half-hour timeslot, regardless of how many minutes of actual programming (which as noted isn't necessarily consistent episode-to-episode). Criminal Minds and The Sopranos are designed for a one-hour timeslot. That's why even on commercial-free cable you'll see non-movie, TV-show program schedules broken up into half-hour and hour timeslots.

For shows originating in non-commercial networks, which may fill an hour slot in, say, the UK, but a 90-minute slot with commercials when rerun in the US, we simply go with the original, first-run timeslot. We can't, after all, account for how every single country cuts (or even speeds up) the time for any single given episode it reruns.

Hopefully, this will begin discussion on finding some consistent language for the runtime / timeslot infobox field. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stick with the actual run time with no regard to timeslot and then, as now, an approximation to allow for local cutting or censorship for a programme being shown at certain times of the day. The BBC make Doctor Who 45 mins and show it in a 45 min slot. They make The Musketeers 59/60 minutes and show it in an hour slot. Also countries have regulations on how many adverts in an hour can be broadcast and even if they can interrupt the programme or be held over to the end of the show. Moving away from an approximation of actual running time would lead to even more anomalies. REVUpminster (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting pitch, Tenebrae. It would certainly resolve issues when editors add ranges like, "22-24 minutes". Is that specificity so important as knowing that a show fits in a 30-minute block? Probably not. The proposed parameter name of "timeslot" I find problematic, because this will no doubt yield "8:00 PM EST" and similar, so I wonder if there's a different name we could use. REV, I'm not sure that I understand your objection, but I'm also not very bright. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern is all the uncited claims, and people edit-wartring to add different runtime numbers -- 50, 52, 54 -- but never with a verifying citation. A timeslot field, by whatever name, is quantifiable and verifiable. I can't trust any of the uncited numbers in the field — no one can. They're uncited, varying, fought-over, OR guesses. And they violate two of our core principles: WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Compare this to WP:FILM, where runtime is meticulously cited.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors don't seem to bother reading infobox instructions so timeslot would be hideously problematic as we'd start seeing things like "8:30 - 9:30 pm". Runtime is unambiguously the run time of the episode and the less problematic of the two. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What precision do we care about? Cartoons are typically described by their 11 minute, 22 minute formats. Do we care that an episode might occasionally be 12 minutes or 24 minutes? And if so, do we allow ranges? And if there is a two parter, would the runtime parameter be changed to 22-44 minutes, or do we only care about the general time format the series was presented in? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We see figures like "22-24 minutes" because episode times are not consistent. Many series change over time too. Since we're talking about the normal episode length, the occasional two-parter shouldn't make a difference, since a two-parter is usually still two episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It still comes down to verifiability. We can verify that a show is a half-hour sitcom or an hour-long drama. That's citable. In most cases we cannot verifiably site "22 minutes" or "53 minutes" or whatever. Whatever our policy about the runtime field, unless the figure there is reliably cited, it should not be there.

My personal feeling remains that someone researching television wants to know if something was a half-hour show or an hour show or a 90-minute show or whatever. Leaving my personal feeling aside, however, we can only put the number of minutes — with or without without commercials — if we can cite it. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to verify the length of an episode by watching it and timing it. That's permissible under WP:PRIMARY. Calling something a "half-hour" when it only runs for 22 minutes is misleading. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not — this is why we're required to cite sources for movie running times. WP:PRIMARY applies to the plot, not to runtimes — stopwatching the time ourselves is original research and disallowed. So again: Without a verifiable source, either for times with commercials or without, we cannot state runtimes. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY says primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Last time I checked, how to use a timer is not specialised knowledge. Everyone with an iphone has one. {{cite episode}} has time and minutes parameters specifically so times can be included in the citation. Simple calculations are allowed. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What can we cite: as an example Midsomer Murders on iplayer is listed at 2hrs but when you watch the actual programme it's running time comes up as 1hr 30mins. The dvd for series 17 lists the four episodes as 360 minutes ie 90 minutes. I don't think you can cite in info boxes so what is the solution. REVUpminster (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading WP:PRIMARY, as any editor of WikiProject Film could tell you. Tell me: Why do you think WikiProject Film requires citations for movies' running time? Descriptive statements of facts refers to the plot of the movie, which is up there on the screen. Stopwatching the running time is original research. It's not a "calculation" but a measurement. Measuring and calculating are two different things: We're allowed to calculate to X number of acres devoted to corn each year totals such-and-such in the 1990s and this percentage more or less in the 2000s. But we're not measuring the corn acreage ourselves. Everyone having access to a stopwatch is irrelevant.

This clearly needs to go to an RfC for broader discussion. I'll start one. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request_for_Comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a neutral notice of RfC to all registered users who have posted at Template talk:Infobox television in 2015, and to members of WikiProject Film, who might not know of the RfC otherwise. Any other party to this RfC wishing to provide neutral notice to other members of the involved WikiProjects should do so. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, members of WP:FILM are not recognised as Wikipedia's experts on use of primary sources. Film has nothing to do with this issue. As I've explained at the RFC, there are big differences between films and TV episodes. A film is an individual production that is designed to be shown from start to finish without interruptions and, as an individual production, has an individual runtime. A TV series consists of many (often 80-100+) episodes that are designed to be broken up with ad breaks and episodes have widely varying runtimes, which is why the instructions for this infobox only require that the figure "should be approximated". Citing an individual film is easy, as film runtimes are widely published. TV episodes are not because they vary so widely. Citing an approximated episode length, which is something that is easily verifiable is unnecessary. Your argument that calculating the runtime is not permitted, but this is not supported by WP:CALC, which gives as examples "adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age". Calculating a person's age is the most applicable here. To calculate a person's age you need a start date and an end date. Calculating runtime requires a start time and an end time - it's no different to calculating a person's age and is actually easier. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Runtime is runtime, and how we handle film runtimes is an example of the status quo.

"Citing an approximated episode length, which is something that is easily verifiable...." How? How exactly is it easily verifiable? Personal observation? "[I]t's no different to calculating a person's age" — and with a person's age, a cite for birth date is required. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"how we handle film runtimes is an example of the status quo" This, and other similar comments made by you, make me wonder whether you really understand "status quo". "How we handle film runtimes" is most definitely not the status quo as it applies to the TV project. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:AussieLegend, it is in fact you who misunderstands the definition of "status quo", or at least the part of that definition that states that it is everywhere and always subordinate to policy. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Where in the definition of status quo does it state that? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... do I really need to add "on Wikipedia" to all my statements of this type? Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An actual answer to the question would be nice, and is necessary to prove your claim which, until that happens, is completely wrong. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, in my estimation, Mdrnpndr is correct. Running time is running time, no matter if it's on film, on stage, or on TV. To say different is like saying that height is something different in articles about humans than it is in articles about animals or cars. Height is height and running time is running time. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your estimation is in error. Mdrnpndr didn't even mention runtimes. He just made some unsupported statement about the definition of status quo and then refused to back it up. Whether "running time is running time" is not relevent to status quo discussions. If citations are required by WP:FILM for running times that's the status quo for WP:FILM. The status quo for WP:TV is that we don't require citations. I note that the |runtime= parameter of {{Infobox film}} doesn't require citations and The Big Lebowski, which is GA, doesn't include a citation for the runtime, so maybe it's not the status quo after all. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now you've stopped even debating in good faith. You know perfectly well that if one particular movie doesn't have a cite for one particular thing, that that means absolutely nothing in terms of [{WP:FILM]] guidelines and MOS, other than that the particular film's runtime requires a citation. A responsible editor acting in good faith would have added a cite-request tag.

The status quo is that claims in Wikipedia need to be cited for verification. You want to be able to put in any running time you, personally, feel is appropriate, without any sourcing for your claim whatsoever. You want to be allowed to do original research. That's not how Wikipedia works. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo is that claims in Wikipedia need to be cited for verification - Incorrect. WP:V only requires that All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. It does not require that everything be cited. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So answer the question: How will you verify running times, if not by citing a source? Measuring it yourself is original research. And if you're not measuring it yourself, why can't you cite a source?--Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered the question, as I indicated above. WP:OR only applies to content being added to Wikipedia. It doesn't apply to content already in Wikipedia that you're verifying is correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a circular argument, and doesn't make sense. First, whether something is WP:OR or not has got nothing to do with whether it's newly added content or existing content. Second, if it's verified, then it's not OR.

And as I've said on another page, I don't even know why you're arguing against providing citations since you yourself said: "for new programmes the iplayer has a running time, and for old TV a dvd on it's cover usually has the total running time." So you can provide citations, but you say you're refusing to.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The format parameter is still used by thousands of pages months after it was removed, as can be seen at Category:Articles passing format parameter to Infobox television. Can we get a bot to remove the entire parameter from said pages (including the parameter itself and its values, the latter of which can of course later be manually restored for other parameters if desired)? Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better maybe to have the bot move the contents of the format parameter to the genre parameter, since the format parameter was often mistakenly used? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, among other reasons because the format parameter was almost invariably uncited, while the genre parameter explicitly requires reliable sourcing. Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small observation, I've been watching Category:Articles passing format parameter to Infobox television for some time and the number of articles in it is increasing. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've personally removed the parameter entirely from quite a few articles, so if that's the case the situation is even worse than it appears at first glance. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A possible reason for the increase, is if a user is creating a new article with the template, they may choose to copy the template from an existing page, as opposed to the blank one here, and just update the info for the new show. So if the old show still has the parameter in it, the new one will as well, even if content is never added to it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to get a bot to do this pronto then. Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of all the 9s. About five in total. AWB might help, but naw, a bot would be nice. How do we get one? Do we have to raise moneys?! How 'bout a bake sale or a car wash! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to make a request at WP:BOTR. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Were there any objections to this? Having a bot delete the format parameter and its contents? I'm happy to make the bot request. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any objections so, since I'm too lazy too and don't trust bots, please make that request. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request has been made. Good idea, Mdrnpndr. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: BRFA filed before I saw the note posted on the Bot requests page questioning the need for a bot. GoingBatty (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well there was light pushback. Nyttend made a valid point that similar to how we shouldn't use AWB for behind-the-scenes cosmetic changes, we probably shouldn't be using bots in this way. Another suggestion was to make an AWB feature request so that it could be repaired more gradually along with beefier changes. Something to think about for the future, as the bot appears to be running. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see a contradiction where there is an argument that "we shouldn't use AWB for behind-the-scenes cosmetic changes" but that's exactly one of the things that AWB's genfixes does. Arguing that the bot will just add extraneous revisions is silly. We have people adding "extraneous revisions" every day in thousands of articles. Nobody seems to care about those, because they're being done manually. One problem we have everywhere on Wikipedia is that people copy and paste infoboxes, errors and all, instead of using a fresh copy and I've found a number of new TV articles that included |status= because somebody had copied and pasted a flawed copy of a template. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...I know. Magioladitis seemed to be saying that it was about economy of edits—if we can incorporate these changes along with other changes, it's more efficient. Anyhow, I don't see a problem with circumventing the problem if we're not in a hurry, but your opinions may vary. :) The good news is that as of my last check of Category:Articles passing format parameter to Infobox television, we were down to 11,601 articles! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: There are now no articles in the category. When you're ready, feel free to request for the category to be deleted and the infobox template to be updated. GoingBatty (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. We can probably keep the category for a short while, just to track for any additions. I found a couple of articles where BattyBot's edits were reverted because of minor errors. I fixed the ones that I found, but may have missed some. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I caught a couple too. Might help us to understand who's adding them. Educational! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BattyBot was the culprit in some.[1][2][3] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @GoingBatty: Out of curiosity, was the bot instructed to remove format parameters with no content? I found that a user added content to a blank, but existing, field here, which caused the article to appear in the tracking category. If there are still blank parameters out there, we're going to keep having this problem. Thoughts? Thank, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: No it wasn't, but that's easily done. GoingBatty (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Much obliged! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems rather ironic. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb:  Done

@AussieLegend: Ha - good catch! I just checked the category and removed the parameter from El Dandy (TV series), which was created a few hours ago. GoingBatty (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fish are really biting today. El Dandy (TV series) is another good catch. The article creator doesn't appear to have copied the infobox from another article, he appears to have used a fresh copy. BUT, it's a copy from prior to this edit. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are intended to provide quick, at-a-glance information for Wikipedia readers. It is exceedingly unlikely that a Wikipedia reader opening an article on a TV show will be primarily concerned with which country a show happened to air in first, as opposed to the country or countries of production. This is because unlike the latter the former is almost invariably merely circumstantial and so does not affect the actual show in any significant way.

Furthermore, the presence of the parameter causes confusion, especially for novice Wikipedia readers. One might be tempted to ask why the country a show first aired in may be listed in such an infobox while the corresponding airdate may not. It has previously been proposed to add extra parameters in response to this, which sounds ridiculous not only because of the potential for even more confusion but also because it is difficult to imagine a layout for such fields which looks even remotely decent.

Finally, TV show infoboxes are already extremely cluttered. On the other hand, there is a "Broadcast" section listed at WP:TVINTL which is often highly devoid of information because of its very strict requirements for inclusion of foreign airings. Why not simply have this information only in this section and leave these infoboxes for the more important stuff?

Hopefully, these arguments will be met with actual discussion as opposed to the blanket dismissal of similar comments on previous occasions. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first_run parameter is necessary because, if the series is first shown in a country that is not the country of origin, dates from that country and not the country of origin are usually shown. It is necessary to identify this to avoid confusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The infobox documentation says that the dates in the infobox must be from the country or countries of origin – regardless of where the show first aired. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what it says at all. The documentation says "original channel or network", which may not be in the country of origin. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original channel or network is defined as being the channel or network that was involved in the production of the show, which is necessarily in the country of origin. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading the instructions for this infobox? The documentation defines channel or network as The original channel(s) or network(s) on which the show has appeared. Production doesn't appear anywhere in that. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the definition of "original channel". It's not written in the documentation but rather taken from common sense, as well as how the parameter is actually used on Wikipedia. Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to this infobox are made based on the documentation, not personal opinion and is how the parameter is supposed to be used. If it is not being used that way it should be corrected. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "personal opinion" – we're basically talking about the dictionary definition of a term here. Your interpretation of the term is bizarre and more importantly not in line with actual practice (which is supposed to be reflected by policy, if you recall, not the other way around). Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ye it is personal opinion. The fields are channel and network. The dictionary definition doesn't define either of these as you state them to be. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with anything? It's the definition of "original" that's at issue here, not "channel" or "network". Mdrnpndr (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dogma, you seem to be going around in circles here and not getting the point at all. You claimed that The original channel or network is defined as being the channel or network that was involved in the production of the show, which is necessarily in the country of origin, which is incorrect because the documentation says that channel and network, which are the relevant parameters, are The original channel(s) or network(s) on which the show has appeared. You're the one who brought up dictionary definitions, which are irrelevant, because dictionary definitions do not apply here. For the purposes of this template, the definition of "original" relates to "appearance" not "production". --AussieLegend (✉) 03:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your talent for manipulating discussion to your advantage is noted (although it's certainly not unique around here – sorry to disappoint). Perhaps this is one of those cases when, as the saying goes, the only winning move is not to play. Unless someone else wants to join in, I'm done here, at least for now. (Well, except to note that I find calling me any names of the type you just did unacceptable and may consider it a personal attack if it happens again.) Mdrnpndr (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What names did I call you? Really, this attitude of always claiming to be the victim when you give more than you get is really unbecoming. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We were attempting to clean up/expand these parameters a bit back (Here's the discussion.) Maybe we should get a template editor to go ahead with this?? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without consensus? I don't think so... Mdrnpndr (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The matter was under discussion for over 3 months with support and no opposition, and the discussion was advertised at WT:TV. Even you didn't disagree. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition (besides my own – I disagreed with it contrary to your assertion), perhaps, but where's the consensus regarding implementation? Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yours was the only dissenting voice, but your proposal was to drop "first_run" and you noted that additional parameters would serve to clutter, so it wasn't a strong opposition. Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop ignoring my questions! I repeat: where's the consensus regarding implementation? Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question, immediately above. How about you answer mine? --AussieLegend (✉) 04:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an appropriate parameter to note that the show is currently on Hiatus? I see the old Status parameter has been removed but should it be noted in last aired? Or somewhere else? Or not at all? SPACKlick (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you define what you mean by "hiatus"? All shows (at least ones 20+ episodes) take breaks throughout the season. It's still "currently airing".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This weekly show has announced that the next three episodes will not be aired, that the remaining episodes of the season are in doubt and that the season finale will probably not be aired. In the current position (3 episode break) it may or may not be worth mentioning but this decision could well come down to no more of the rest of the season will be broadcast, but they intend to return next season or even that the rest of this season and the following season will not be broadcast and they will return in 2017. In any of these cases, is there an appropriate part of the infobox to note that "The show exists, and may have a future but has declared that it will not be currently airing despite being midseason". SPACKlick (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't as far as creating a whole section for it. I would say there are a couple of ways you could present it. First, leave it as "present" until it is confirmed that it is cancelled (or returning), and then put all the prose information down in the broadcast section. That, or you could say "Present (currently suspended)", and then leave all the prose information in the Broadcast section explaining what "suspended" means. I don't think we need a section for it, and I certainly wouldn't say "hiatus". Hiatus means that you're taking an extended break but will return. This sounds like they may be cancelling the show, but won't officially announce that until around May when they know what their scheduling for next season will look like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bignole: - The series in question is Top Gear (2002 TV series). Jeremy Clarkson has been suspended and 2, possibly 3, episodes have been pulled, but there is no confirmation of cancellation of the entire series, just a lot of speculation. Using Present (currently suspended) is just getting around removal of the old |status= parameter, which was removed specifically because it wasn't supported. We've had a lot of discussion about what to do with |last_aired= and the current consensus is that we use "present" while the series is airing. If a series has a confirmed cancellation date then that is added when the series has (note past tense) ended. In a situation like this, where cancellation is not confirmed and we just have a lot of speculation, "present" stays until 12 months after the last episode aired and then we add a date. At the moment all we have is word that the next two episodes will not air and the third may also not air. That's actually a fairly common occurrence. There is no word on the series as a whole and, most importantly, Clarkson is only suspended at this point. All things taken into account, mention in the prose is all that is needed but |last_aired= should remain as "present" until there's something that is verifiable. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request for comment admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR. Admin: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases". It was reiterated here: "A reliable third party source is required. ... I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get...."

Based on this, the directions for the infobox's runtime parameter need to include this decision, which follows Wikipedia WP:OR policy. This would be, to quote, the admin: "third-party source required." I would ask that the editors who argued against this in the RfC to please abide by the RfC close, the admin reiterations, and Wikipedia OR policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained on your talk page, you've misinterpreted the closer's comments. As I explained at WT:TV, you asked two questions:

1. Do we need to cite everything
2. Can we use a stopwatch to time episodes

The closer has ignored the first question and concentrated on the second. This is reinforced by his statement on his talk page: If someone wants to start an RfC to discuss whether inline citation is required in the infobox or not, always assuming that the source of the figure is established from reliable independent sources, then that is a different question (emphasis added) That is why I asked the question on his talk page, but he didn't seem to get what I was asking. For the record, you'll note that his edit summary for the close said Sadly, this cannot end in anything that will be enforceable. There's certainly nothing in what he has said to justify this edit, which is redundant at best, as sources are supposed to be third party anyway. In reality what he said about it "a different question" is not correct, as you actually asked that question, but it was not supported. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be more specific about the related parameter. Many editors are adding articles, and have been for years, that do not fit the parameter instructions that the field is for "remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc". I removed an example of this today.[4] First Monday's only link to JAG was that a character from that short-lived series appeared as a recurring character in JAG after First Monday was cancelled. The link to Hawaii Five-0 is even more tenuous. In 2012, 7 years after JAG ended, Hawaii Five-0 had a crossover with NCIS: Los Angeles, which was a spin-off from NCIS (TV series) which itself was a spin-off from JAG. I can't explain Scorpion. The only link seems to be that David James Elliott appeared on Scorpion as a guest star. Unfortunately, this is all too common but I don't think that the resolution is all that difficult. I propose simply changing the label for the parameter from "Related shows" to "Spin-offs or remakes". I believe that "remakes" covers adaptations. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need to be more specific... frankly I am unclear as to what it means. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally thing the current parameter name is fine and the template instructions are fine. People just need to learn to read. This is probably just a matter of better broadcasting what the field is for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with "Related shows", but if the name has to change what about "Connected series/shows"? Maybe the instructions could be tightened up a bit. Whether that's a spin-off or a remake, it's still a connection. Some shows are not direct spin-offs or remakes, but are connected. For example, although they call it a "spin-off" in the article, Caprica isn't really a spin-off in the sense that we generally use it. It isn't based on something specific within Battlestar Galactica, but the history from that show, it's a prequel. In other words, I don't want people to think that if it isn't like The Flash, where the character originated on Arrow, then it's not supposed to be there. Like the upcoming Vixen will feature the Flash and Arrow, but it will not have started from either show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: You are absolutely, 100% correct. Unfortunately, as this discussion demonstrates, even those who should know better don't read instructions, and if we can't get it right, how can we expect the average editor to do so?

@Bignole: Crossovers make shows connected too. Don't say they don't, because that's what is causing the problem. We need to hit people in the face with something that is obvious. For situations like Caprica, we can cover that in the instructions, which some people read. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I would say that Last Man Standing is not really connected to Cristela, even though they had a crossover episode as a promotional thing. Not a real connection, and not a true relation. That is where the description should be tightened up a bit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions do say "Note that simply sharing crossover episodes does not make series related", but it gets ignored because editors don't bother with the instructions. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shows how much I pay attention to what it already says. :) So, does the description really need to be fixed, or do we need to do a better job of enforcing what it says?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first step is to make the label less ambiguous, which is why I suggested "Spin-offs or remakes", but I'm open to suggestions. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'd be open to changing the field name, but I'm not sure "Spin-offs or remakes" is the best. My feeling, similar to what Big mentioned above with his example, is an instance say with Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter. Carter is not really a "Spin-off or remake" of SHIELD, but it is related and used in the field correctly per the current instructions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion for a better label? --AussieLegend (✉) 01:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related really is the best term in my opinion, because it encompasses the spin-offs and remakes, as well as "sister series" (if you will). So I think it's just a matter of clarifying wording somewhere, maybe creating a tracking category to see which articles use the field, and see if it is being used correctly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Related" has been demonstrated to be a bad term. Editors think crossovers are enough to make a series related. In the case of "Scorpion", David James Elliot's appearance as a character totally unrelated to his JAG character was enough to make it related to JAG. Changing the instructions won't help because people don't read them. It really needs a new label. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm fine with trying to change it. I just want to make sure that a term exists somewhere to still validate series relationships like SHIELD and Carter (that do properly use the field now). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose a new parameter to change the wording of one of the infobox headings. The parameter would change "Broadcast" to "Release". With many series now being distributed on streaming services, "broadcast" is not necessarily the correct term. "Release" is more applicable, because in most cases, these series don't have any chance of "ending" per se and all episodes are released at once. Here is the current code for this heading: | header34 = {{#if:{{{channel|}}}{{{network|}}}{{{picture_format|}}}{{{audio_format|}}}{{{first_run|}}}{{{first_aired|}}}{{{last_aired|}}}|Broadcast}} My proposal would be to have a new parameter release, which would be a simple "y"/"Y"/"yes" field and it would be a "but-if" case to the previous code (not exactly sure how to do that on here). Here are the layman's terms: If any of the fields under the headings are used, add the "Broadcast" heading, but if release is flagged, it would be "Release" over "Broadcast". What are other's thoughts on this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you're aiming at? --AussieLegend (✉) 06:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup that's it! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also for my documentation edit, I had a lapse. Thought genre was format for a second... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But on the inclusion of this, does this make sense to make the change? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can a template editor please implement the change AussieLegend made to the sandbox in the live template? This should be a non-issue, as it is a help to the template, not really a deterrent. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Please update the documentation. Alakzi (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert this edit by Nnemo, which was made without any discussion, consultation or other attempt to gain consensus for edits to a template used in 32,000 articles. No attempt was made to test these edits in the sandbox. By replacing "No." with "Number" the change has made a generally long infobox longer. Such edits should always be the subject of discussion. See discussions immediately above for examples. AussieLegend (✉) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partially undone. I've used <abbr>...</abbr> to provide a title for accessibility purposes. Alakzi (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alakzi: Excellent idea. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, whatever changes were made, can someone please double-check them, as the List of episodes link is displaying all wonky in the infobox, for instance at Little Charmers I see:

Number of episodes: 13

({{#if | 13 | l | L}}}ist of episodes).

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a vestigial phenomenon, coming from an old version of the template. I checked, it has no reason to happen now, ...except failing temporarily to use the up-to-date version of the template. If you see again such bad display, purge the page. To do so, on the page, click on "View history" and then, at the end of the address, replace "history" with "purge". --Nnemo (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nnemo: When does the "l" in "lists" need to be in uppercase? Alakzi (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When there is only the part "(List of episodes)", without number before. Before my edits, the L was always in uppercase. So I wanted to respect the edge cases. But the main issue I that wanted to correct was the cases like "7 (List of episodes)", in which the uppercase L was absurd. --Nnemo (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 21 April 2015

I don't see any consensus for the recent addition of an extremely ugly abbreviation tooltip. Please remove it immediately. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. See previous section. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Redrose64, what exactly are you talking about? I'm requesting a revert of an edit that did not have consensus for it in the first place. Are you unfamiliar with WP:BRD? Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]