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.

So there are over 14,000 pages that are using the 4 deprecated params (Category:Pages using infobox television with alias parameters). Is there some reason that these params need to be deprecated?? Why not just support both? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These parameters are not deprecated. I must have added Category:Deprecated parameters in error when I created the cat, which was created to track uses of the aliases. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Zackmann08, @User:AussieLegend: I think the alias category should be deleted entirely. It's essentially a (hidden) badge of shame for using perfectly valid parameter names. Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdrnpndr: no objection here. I agree entirely. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The category is a maintenance category created in order to identify articles using aliases instead of the correct parameters, primarily targeting articles that have been incorrectly converted from using {{Infobox film}}, not as a "badge of shame", whatever that's supposed to mean. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: setting aside the "badge of shame" comment (which I took as a joke), I'm curious to what end the category was created? Is the hope to convert all these pages over? What is the harm in having the aliases? Just curious. :-) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV articles are a constant battle. Every day I have to clean out Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. Today is a good day, but normally there are 3-10 pages per day (it varies considerably). The alias category helps with that. Normally there's not a problem with aliases, but the fewer aliases we have, the easier it is to maintain Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. However, if we're seeing a trend with strange parameters, there might be a case to add an alias. That's the quick and dirty explanation. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: I'm certainly not advocating adding MORE aliases but with 14,096 pages using these aliases I say just let them be.... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been noticing for a while now, if I access an article on the mobile site using this infobox, the title above the image does not display. However, film articles do display the title. For comparison, see Spider-Man: Homecoming versus Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Comparing the code for the two infoboxes (this and Infobox film), the only difference I can see is this uses | aboveclass = summary navbox-title and the film infobox uses | aboveclass = summary. That's the only thing I can think of that is preventing this from happening, and such most likely be changed if that is the case. AlexTheWhovian, would you know any more about this given your work on templates? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it may be the case. I removed navbox-title in the sandbox for {{Infobox television}}, to match {{Infobox film}}, and per the testcases displayed in the mobile format for this template, it does seem to be the issue. However, looking at the testcases in the desktop format, it removes the styling of the header. In the mobile format, it appears that none of the subheaders (e.g. Production, Release) display either, where {{Infobox television}} uses these, but {{Infobox film}} does not. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

interesting. I see that too. At this time, I don't suggest we adjust, because we shouldn't remove that heading styling. Maybe this is a WP:VPT question? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an infobox using a class intended for navboxes ? Please remember that classes are not just pretty colors, they have semantics. Navboxes are removed from the mobile view, so it shouldn't be surprising that these titles are removed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ: Disregarding style and colors, are there any classes that would produce the same results for the headings that are not the navbox variety? I'm don't know anything about CSS options available, so any help would be appreciated. It does also seem like Alex created a work around in the sandbox with these edits to keep the style as is, but with the correct class. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, in general, we don't define classes for purely visual style and/or for templates that in most page views are NOT used. We just use inline styling (as bad as that is, but there is no other alternative right now). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ and AlexTheWhovian: Okay. I was able to get it to work by making these adjustments in the sandbox. Alex, can you edit the live version to make these changes so articles in mobile view will start to be displayed as their desktop counterparts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The changes also have to be made to {{Infobox television season}} and {{Infobox television episode}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the servers have to update or not, but for checking, the AoS article still does not display correctly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does for me (screenshot). I did just purge the page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, good for me now too. I wasn't purging correctly on my device. I'm going to adjust for the season template, and do a template request for the episode one to make the same changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! And thanks for the fix at {{Arrowverse crossover episodes list}}; I forgot we'd been using custom infoboxes. I did try to implement the hidden section, but it didn't seem to work. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see num_series and "number of series" used. I keep stopping at that. Shouldn't it be "number of seasons"? Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The parameters "num_seasons" and "num_series" both exist. Per the description: "The number of seasons (US) or series (UK) produced. Use one or the other, not both." -- Alex^TW 16:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the word "series" is typically used in the UK to mean what US English speakers call "season". In the US, the word "series" typically means the entire run of a show. Hooray for multiple Englishes! – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and your patience- I should have read farther in the instructions, of course, sorry! Schissel | Sound the Note! 00:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]