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, 15

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

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]

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]

I'd like to propose a change to this (which is different, and unrelated to what Cyphoidbomb was suggesting above). First, the parameter as it appears in the infobox should be changed from Original channel to Original network. Network is the more appropriate term as we use it. Here is an example to clarify my point: Shows air on the network, which is broadcast to viewers across various channels. WNBC is a channel that airs the NBC network. This wording still works with cable as well. Second, I think we should add a third alias to this parameter called |streaming_service= (or something similar), which would also change the parameter appearance to Original streaming service. With the ever growing number of shows releasing on Netflix and Amazon, "network" or "channel" really isn't the best term for either of those. If these proposals get support, a similar change would have to happen for the season infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of problems do you envision if |Original streaming service= is used in conjunction with any of the other labels? My (potentially irrational?) fear is that |Original streaming service= will be used whenever any show is released digitally, and we will constantly have to fix that. I do like the idea of changing "Original channel" to "Original network" but leaving it to be a blanket term for channel, network or streaming service. There are US television channels that are not really "networks", but we all know what is meant by that. Similarly, Netflix isn't a network or a channel, but I think we'll understand what is meant. Alternatively, we could try to brainstorm on a better label. "Original service"? Naw. "Original venue"? Naw... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be a problem, if it was coded so that if both were used by chance, only the |channel= / |network= parameter would be shown. And what do you mean by what I'm bolding here: "I do like the idea of changing "Original channel" to "Original network" but leaving it to be a blanket term for channel, network or streaming service."? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, I sure could have been clearer... Right now if we use |network=, the label in the infobox displays as "Original channel". I was proposing that we change the label to "Original network", because I believe that in common parlance, "network" is generally understood to be any delivery mechanism, be it a local TV channel, a proper air/cable network, or a streaming service.

"What network is it on?"

"Netflix or Amazon. I can't remember."

We would just have to clarify in the template docs that |network= is meant to include all original broadcast services. As for the other aspect of your comment, even if coded in the way described, while the infobox would not display anything weirdly, we'd still all be tasked to remove |streaming_service= any time anybody added it erroneously, because we are all good, conscientious editors, infobox clutter pisses us off, and we're all a little OCD. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I'm still on the side that I don't think it would be an issue adding a streaming service param, but would welcome more input. But it would definitely help the cause (or be in the right direction) if "Original channel" changed to "Original network", as the example you gave does help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend and Bignole: Any thoughts on this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I think we should have another parameter, but I definitely agree with changing it to "Network".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That's fine. @Cyphoidbomb: can you update the template here to Original network? I'll make the change at the season infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently posted the following question on Template talk:Episode list but since I didn't get a reply there so I'll try here: If a particular program doesn't strictly have a name, and is only refered to as something such as Episode 1, is it still appropriate for it to be included in quotes as "Episode 1" in the Title parameter, or should the RTitle parameter be used instead? The tempate documentation doesn't outright explain which is best in this situation or similar. -- User:Whats new?^(talk) 03:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case use the RTitle parameter. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have "image_upright", shall we remove "image_size"? I am viewing the image at 400px or scale factor multiplied by 400px. Everybody has preference. --George Ho (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I'm not too sure every user knows that they have the ability to change their preferred image viewing size in their preferences. I wasn't even aware of this until AussieLegend made the adjustment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I wanted to get some clarification from the community, as I've noticed Spin Boy 11 making good-faith edits like these [1][2][3]. It would seem to me that |company= is intended to indicate the company that funded/organized the production of the series in question, not the sub-contractors hired to perform the manual labor. Is this correct? The Simpsons, for instance, doesn't include the South Korean studio in |company=. Based on my experience, |company= and |country= are somewhat related. If we included Hong Ying Animation in |company= for Secret Mountain Fort Awesome that would likely inspire editors to change the infobox and lead to reflect an American–Chinese co-production, which, although it is somewhat accurate, is confusing since Hong Ying presumably didn't fund the series. (I don't know for sure, because the content was unsourced and Spin Boy didn't explain.) Would appreciate some input here, please. Naturally, the animation house should be mentioned somewhere in Production, I just don't think it belongs in |company=. The docs could also be tweaked to reflect the intended usage. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed previously and yes, you are correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what Aussie Legend and a tag-teaming editor claim, the RfC absolutely said reliable sourcing is required for runtime.

Here are the exact words by the closing admin: "The point at issue was, narrowly, are we allowed to use running time figures measured by individual editors directly. The answer is an unambiguous "no"< for the same reason that we would not allow such sources for the height of an actor or the size of a building. --Guy (Help!) 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC) --Tenebrae (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The exact words by the closing admin do not say that citations are absolutely needed. In fact, the closer clarified this very point when he said The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time.[4] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this RfC's admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR.

In the closing admin's words: "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".

He reiterated it on this page under "Thank you, and a question": "A reliable third party source is required."

In other words, we follow WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything added to Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source but not everything has to be cited. You don't seem to be able to differentiate between sourcing and citing, or to be able to understand the closer's clarification, which I see no point in repeating. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The heading "Chronology" doesn't make sense when titles of "Related shows" are included (rather than "Preceded by" and/or "Followed by"). Can this heading be changed to "Related" (or something similar) which more accurately covers all three categories of related titles? —sroc 💬 17:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uses of this template use {{dts}} in the first_aired parameter, especially if the series has premiered and concluded in the same year, so that the dates appear as "May 7 – July 16, 2015" (for example). However, this is the incorrect usage of this template, per its documentation, and the documentation of this particular template clearly states that {{Start date}} should be used, so that the dates correctly appear as "May 7, 2015 – July 16, 2015" (for example). I have made edits in the sandbox to collect all the templates that use {{dts}} into a maintenance category (as of yet not created), checking for the presence of class="sortkey", which is only present in {{dts}}. If approved, I intend to do the same for {{Infobox television season}} (not protected). Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it was a typo, but your changes to the sandbox would put the articles into Category:Category:Articles incorrectly using Template:Infobox television with dts, which is not a valid name for a category. I'm only talking about the repeated "Category", not the inclusion of "Template:", although that may be an issue. I can see the issue with using {{dts}} but we need an alternative. "May 7, 2015 – July 16, 2015" is not appropriate according to WP:DATERANGE, which says that "May 7 – July 16, 2015" is the correct format (see "between specific dates in different months"). --AussieLegend (✉) 15:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]