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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Hey all, it occurs to me that |voices= is pretty broad in its description:

Any voice artists used in the show. Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}}. Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show. Years and/or seasons should not be included.

"Any voice artists used in the show" is cruftbait. By comparison, the |starring= is more restrictive by nature, since "starring" is typically a special credit given by producers and is not the same as "appearing in". I assume that |voices= is to be used in lieu of |starring=. If that is correct, should |voices= be clarified to only include starring voice acting roles? If my assumption is not correct, is there any other way to clarify this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure about the proper usage of the creative_director parameter in the context of a television series. I have never seen someone credited as creative director in a television series. The explanation in the documentation links to Creative director, where it says in the Film section "The creative director in the film industry is referred to as the production designer", and the linked page makes it clear that the production designer is the same thing in film and television. I would conclude from that that the parameter can be used for the production designer. However, I was explained given the opinion that putting the production designer is an incorrect use of the parameter.

Can the template documentation be changed to point out the correct use unambiguously, (or to clearly state not to use this parameter)? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation on my talk page is definitely not fact, merely my opinion from what I've seen in my experience editing TV articles; just to clarify. However, my feeling is that since "creative director" is not something someone receives credit for, at least in the hundreds of TV series I've seen (and I'm quite versed in TV credits), so it should simply be changed to "production_designer" if that what the intention of the parameter is. It's also odd that the parameter appears so high in the infobox (again, if it's meant to be production designer). It would make sense for it to appear in the Production-specific area of the infobox along with all the other crew roles. Also, since we're at the idea of clarifying/changing parameters, editor (per the template) not being used for film editors is rarely followed, and the idea of it only being used for news shows seems quite odd. I don't see the rationale for it; it just seems arbitrary. Editors receive on-screen credit for TV series, so I don't see why it also can't include film editors. I've brought this up before, but the I believe the part "Leave blank if same as country of origin above" for location should be removed. It again, is rarely followed (I can point to several GAs/FAs that use it), seems arbitrary and doesn't make much sense. Production location is notable and if often discussed in the article, and limiting it to only shows that film outside their country make its use null and void for like 90% of TV articles (American TV, specifically). Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is creative director the same as creative consultant as credited in tv series Department S and Randall & Hopkirk (deceased)? In theses programmes it was Cyril Frankel, an experienced film director, who did the first episode to set the tone for the rest of the series.REVUpminster (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Tony1#Script_fixes_on_Mr._Robinson_.28TV_series.29 Tony (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand the difference between |related= and |preceded_by=/|followed_by= and I don't think the instructions for the latter pair help to explain. A spin-off seems like it could both go in |related= as well as in |followed_by=. Any thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to answer is to use shows I watch that utilize this (and hopefully it will then translate to you). Agent Carter (TV series) is a related show to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., because both deal with S.H.I.E.L.D. in the Marvel Cinematic Universe; the creation of it as the SSR in Carter, and the present day happenings in Agents. Now with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., there is currently a pilot order for a new series called Most Wanted, which is a direct spin off to Agents. So if that proceeds to series, Most Wanted would be used in the followed by parameter, while Carter stays in the related parameter. Does that make sense? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NCIS: New Orleans and NCIS: Los Angeles both used NCIS episodes as backdoor pilots and the characters have crossed over on a few occasions. Based on the instructions, both NCIS: New Orleans and NCIS: Los Angeles are related to NCIS, but not each other. All are airing at the same time so none should be in preceded_by or followed_by. On the other hand, The Suite Life on Deck followed The Suite Life of Zack & Cody using most of the main characters so both series are related. Then there is Somebody's Gotta Do It, which is on a different network using the same host and the original concept that was presented to the Discovery Channel for Dirty Jobs. However, while you can probably add Somebody's Gotta Do It to |followed_by= at Dirty Jobs, you can't call the two series related. Let's not get started on the whole Chicago Fire/Chicago P.D./Law & Order: Special Victims Unit or Law & Order franchise/Homicide: Life on the Street situations. In short, yes, sometimes related can be preceded/followed by but not always. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-offs certainly start after the parent series starts, but only sometimes do they have temporal overlap, and other times they overlap but end before the parent. If you consider the series as a whole and not just the starting time, a clear temporal succession can not always be established. Check Cheers with The Tortellis vs. Frasier.

Unfortunately it is a mess, e.g., Beverly Hills, 90210 is "followed" by Melrose Place (which started later and ended earlier), or Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul (which are merely related and not preceded/followed).

I would also value a clearer definition. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still confused! - AussieLegend, Favre1fan93, et al, I gotta say, even with everybody's kind attempts to explain, I still don't understand the purpose of the fields. I'm looking at some Philippines TV articles, like here, where people are misusing it to indicate either:

Happy Days was |followed_by= Laverne & Shirley. Happy Days aired at 8pm and Laverne & Shirley aired at 8:30.

or

After the 8pm show Temperatures Rising was cancelled, it was |followed_by= Happy Days in the 8pm slot.

So I'm not alone in being confused. In 2007 there was some talk about deleting these. In the discussion someone notes that these are used a lot by reality shows and such like Big Brother. That sort of makes sense to me if we're considering each season of the show to be a different show. (Assuming that's accurate.) But otherwise, we need some clear explanation for the correct way to use these fields. In the example provided by Dark Cocoa Frosting, I don't see how Melrose Place follows 90210. Simply because they may take place in the same fictional universe but Melrose isn't a proper spin-off? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings all! I am here to start a dialogue with the Wikipedia community about including an additional line item below the Original Channel line which could be called Subscription Streaming Location(s). Here there would be a list of subscription streaming services (usually just one or two) where the show has been sold (either to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus, etc.). Ideally these would have external-facing hyperlinks to the pages where these shows actually live on those websites.

Just for some context, it's worth noting that the subscription streaming ecosystem and it’s interaction with the traditional cable and broadcast businesses is a matter of great discussion and interest in the entertainment community. For instance, Breaking Bad (Sony Pictures TV) was sold to Netflix, and many industry insiders believe that the show’s presence on Netflix helped it become such a significant hit for AMC (http://www.ew.com/article/2013/09/23/breaking-bad-creator-netflix-emmys). Now, when these streaming deals happen, they are often front page news items in entertainment periodicals (http://deadline.com/2014/08/the-blacklist-netflix-deal-2-million-825836/). For these reasons, I believe including SVOD information in a more prominent location on these pages is warranted, and I would welcome any feedback or discussion about this issue. In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I work in the entertainment industry for NBCUniversal, so I am unable according to Wikipedia's policies to make any changes to these pages myself. Thanks in advance! JeffreyReale (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This info isn't suitable for the infobox, given that it is not the "original" / "first" airing location, per the examples you provided. This field is similar to home media release, which are not given in this, or the season article infoboxes. However, the info is definitely suitable for certain articles, and can be mentioned in the article's "Broadcast" or "Home media" sections or even the reception section. And thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest regarding this subject, for everyone going forward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Favre1fan93, nice to meet you! I do see your point from an article structure perspective, but I think that this information is way too important (from both a consumer and industry perspective) to bury in the home video section. Also these deals often have an exclusivity and high-profile nature that is not really comparable to home video releases. Wouldn't you agree that it's more useful to the Wikipedia user to see at a glance where the show is available? Maybe there could be a separate part of the infobox at the bottom under production website that would indicate where the show has been sold in the subscription streaming space. Would that address your concern? I think there is some room here to make these pages much more helpful to people researching TV shows. Thanks for the discussion; let me know what your thoughts are. JeffreyReale (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, is there any value to renaming |channel= and |network= to |original_channel= and |original_network=? Kids seem to think this field is for every network the series ever aired on. Ex: here. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The label in the infobox already says "Original channel" so if they're ignoring that fairly obvious point, then I doubt that changing the parameter name, with all the associated effort, is going to change things. By the way, channel and network are actually the same parameter. channel is an alias for network. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sadly, I figured this... My thinking was that if we replaced the default in the template with |original_network= that maybe it would propagate to new articles and prevent future muckups. :.( Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]