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, in this edit I boldly added descriptions for |preceded_by= and |followed_by=, but then reverted myself because I think I screwed up. My additions were:

• |preceded_by= <!-- To indicate placement in narrative continuity, not time slot. Ex: Star Trek: Voyager was preceded_by Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. -->
• |followed_by= <!-- To indicate placement in narrative continuity, not time slot. Ex: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was followed_by Star Trek: Voyager. -->

Is that what they're for? To indicate narrative chronology? Or are they just to indicate production chronology? So if Star Trek: Enterprise is a prequel to the 1966 series, we don't care about that, we only care that it was produced after Voyager, thus Enterprise would be |preceded_by=Star Trek: Voyager. Is that correct? I think we need some kind of short explanation for the people who copy/paste the template into new articles. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume "real world" chronology, so "production". So basically TOS followed by TNG followed by DS9 followed by Voyager followed by Enterprise (I guess we have to acknowledge it, although it pains me) followed by Discovery. Which seems to be the way it is used in the Star Trek entries (although apparently I forgot the animated series). —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also assume real world chronology, not narrative, as that would be WP:INU. However, that can of course be noted in the article with third party sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You messed up the template by extending the website, because a lot of these shows' websites feature long URLs and ruin the page structures. Please change it back. —Jman98 00:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the edit so that it can be fixed. -- Alex^TW 02:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As explained at WT:TV, the edit simply used existing code from another infobox to enable suppression of the website in the event that the website at Wikidata was no longer valid. It shouldn't have changed formatting at all. The long url "problem" was introduced in May this year in order to ensure that printed versions of articles displayed the url.[1] It's just something we have to live with. This edit to Daredevil (TV series) messed up the infobox there, by formatting the url in a way that it shouldn't be. When a problem is found the solution is not to hack around the problem, but to fix the problem which, as yet, I've been unable to specifically identify. I haven't been able to reproduce this on any of the computers, tablets or phones that I have here. The infobox code has now been updated to enable hiding an incorrect url, as well as fixing some problems introduced in May, such as incorrect display of the "External links" header in various circumstances. It has been tested at a number of articles and has worked in all of the articles where it has been tested. The strange effect that this created at Daredevil doesn't seem to appear any more either. I assume the whole thing was caused by some glitch today as none of the related templates seem to have been modified recently. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is still an issue. The latest update(s) made still stretches the infobox if the URL is too long. Is there a way to fix this? livelikemusic talk! 03:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that as well. Any edit pertaining to the website needs to be reverted until it's fixed in the sandbox. We can't just have faulty code live. -- Alex^TW 03:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no faulty code. What I changed just added the "hide" option. It doesn't adjust formatting AT ALL. The code is straight out of {{Infobox OS version}} and there are no reported errors there. The code was added to that infobox in October 2015,[2] and that was copied from {{Infobox software}} where it had been working successfully since August 2015. There must be something else going on. Can you give some examples of where this formatting is an issue? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[3] [4] -- Alex^TW 05:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On my computers (I'm looking on several) I'm seeing the url exactly as it should appear. On my Samsung Galaxy tablet I'm seeing different versions depending on what I've got set. If I call up this page and select "desktop" mode then click on one of the two urls, the urls don't wrap as they should. However, if I then click on the "Article" tab, everything is fine. If I switch to "Mobile view" mode, everything is still fine. I've tried various options and it's only when I'm looking at an old version of the page that the url doesn't wrap. Is there a reason you picked old versions of the page? What does the current version look like to you? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The URL not wrapping (and therefore stretching the width of the infobox) is the issue that's being discussed here. I linked the old versions of the articles because those versions are the ones still using the |website= parameter. I then removed these parameters, so that it would pull straight from Wikidata, and then it wraps properly. It just doesn't wrap when the URL is declared through the parameter. -- Alex^TW 05:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check those urls now please? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issue seems to be fixed. Thanks. -- Alex^TW 06:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone.

I am failing to see the alleged problem at this time. AlexTheWhovian, could you please post a screenshot of your examples?

The problem with the code from {{infobox software}} is that it does not format the plain link. The burden of properly formatting it in a printer-friendly link using {{URL}} is on the writer of the article. So, yes, if someone supply a long bare link, it will stretch the infobox. But I see that AussieLegend has already noticed and deployed a fix.

You guys need a policy for the film and television URLs. Bare URL or formatted printer-friendly link?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem appears to have been the result of a number of issues. Prior to this edit in May we disguised urls i.e. website instead of http://www.example.com After the May edit we saw the full url but it was wrapped by Module:URL. As indicated by Codename Lisa the code that I added doesn't use {{URL}} for the bare website parameter but does for the url pulled from Wikidata. This is not a problem on a computer, but is on some mobile devices and even then, only in some modes. To fix this I've deployed {{URL}} so that it works for people with mobile devices. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone look at Father Brown (2013 TV series) to fix the stretched infobox. It worked and looked beter when it said BBC website and you just clicked on it.REVUpminster (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ps I've looked at some of my watched pages and many, not all, are stretched.REVUpminster (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page's cache just needed flushing. That's probably why only some of your pages are stretched. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but what is flushing. The edit shows you deleted the website yet it is still there after deletion??? This is above my pay grade.REVUpminster (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest way is just to open the page for editing and save it. If you have problems, add a space at the end of a line and save that. Father Brown (2013 TV series) still displays a website because the website is now being pulled from Wikidata. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may still be a problem... if you look at this edit, where the parameter is removed and the website is pulling from wikidata, it renders as so but when the parameter was restored, it renders in a separate "External Links" section, which I assume is as intended. So why isn't the External Links separator/section showing up when it's pulling from wikidata? —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense, for a number of reasons. The simple fix is just to remove the empty fields that don't need to be there anyway. Everything is fine then. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Joey is talking about the missing header. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that. Removing the url from the field and leaving the field is pointless. Removing the field and the url results in the infobox displaying as it should. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the infobox gracefully handle the cases where the parameter is included but empty as many people copy-paste in stock versions of these templates that probably contain many empty parameters. It sounds like it's not handling these cases gracefully, and there's no reason it shouldn't handle an empty parameter the same as the absence of the parameter. Maybe that's nothing to do with the recent change; wasn't trying to point fingers. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you. It's just that removal of the fields is the quickest and immediate fix until the heading issue is resolved. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be worked on as soon as possible. Temporary fixes being executed until the main issue is fixed is something that you yourself have previously frowned upon when I made an error. -- Alex^TW 22:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us do have lives away from Wikipedia Alex. The problem wouldn't exist if we didn't include a ridiculous amount of flexibility. While almost all other infoboxes simply call the website "Website" the TV project insists on being able to call it something else. Not only that we have a second parameter for the production website, which we also insist has to be able to be called something other than "production website", further compounding the issue. This is a rather insignificant issue in any case. The infobox works fine if you use a manual url or remove the fields for the url. It's only when you do something silly like remove the url and leave the field that there is an issue. Of course there are issues with people using other fields improperly that the infobox doesn't like at all. Every day they appear in Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters, a category that seems ignored by most people. Do you ever fix anything from it? I do. These are generally far more significant problems than this, causing data to disappear from the infobox altogether. If you have a problem there is nothing stopping you implementing a fix. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the following to the instructions for the list of episodes parameter: "Do not link to sections within the article."

The reason is spelled out at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE which says not to link to article sections in the infobox because the table of contents already covers that need. The only links allowed are to other articles. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please gain consensus for your edit, as there seems to be consensus within the Television WikiProject to allow |list_episodes=#Episodes. -- Alex^TW 02:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another link to section is where there is an enormous cast list.REVUpminster (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fetching-website-from-wikidata code seems to be broken. If there are multiple URLs at wikidata, then the code concatenates (joins together) all the URLs:

• wikidata:Special:PermanentLink/558818142#Property:P856 (wikidata:Q21980653, The Grand Tour)
• Special:PermanentLink/801534870 (The Grand Tour (TV series))

Ideally either only the first URL should be displayed, or all the URLs should be displayed separately as a list. —Sladen (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The code isn't broken as it was never intended to pull multiple urls from Wikidata. There shouldn't be multiple urls for TV programs as it serves no purpose. I've fixed this for The Grand Tour. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegend. Multiple official websites can often exist in the real world (for example in different languages). Something is not fixed, unless it's fixed in the code. Rushing in and deleting data ^[5] as a workaround does not help fix other articles, nor does it protect other articles from future disruption when the buggy code concatenates multiple URLs. In this case it just makes it harder to test the fix as working. —Sladen (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Please try to see the big picture and thing of the one encyclopedia not just one article…[reply]

As of yet I haven't found a TV program with more than 1 legitimate website. For this program there were 3, http and https versions of the same website and a page for season 1. All were English language websites. {{Infobox television season}} doesn't include a url in the infobox so the season 1 url was pointless, as was having 2 urls for the same website. There is no point implementing a complicated, unnecessary fix to fix something that isn't really broken. When we find a TV program that actually has multiple websites it can be fixed, but that hasn't happened yet. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(At the risk of further side-track away from the original bug report … wikidata:Q6805278 is used in combination with the {{official website}} template to display different URLs on enwiki vs. svwiki). —Sladen (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following previous discussions (such as this one) that went nowhere, is there any way that the Production company(s) template label can use logic to work out if more than one company is listed in the parameter (for example by detecting a "|" character), and accordingly change its label to "companies"? — Hugh 01:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch... I can't believe I hadn't noticed that. Barring logic, it should be listing "Production company/ies". I mean, I realize the slash is discouraged but that would be infinitely better than what's there now. Or even "Production company(ies)" since that is no less grammatical than "Production company(s)". —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think that the "related" category under "chronological" in this Infobox should be changed to include spin-offs of spin-offs? Specifically for example: Chicago Justice is a spin-off of Chicago P.D. which is a spin-off of Chicago Fire however because Chicago Justice is not a direct spin-off of Chicago Fire the current explanation of this category disallows it being included in Chicago Fire's Infobox. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm all for removing the field entirely. Too often it's used improperly and this is going to get worse. A lot of programs that people call spin-offs aren't really spin-offs at all. An example of a true spin-off is Mork & Mindy. Mork was a character that appeared on Happy Days and was so successful that it was decided to give him his own program. What we see today is characters that are introduced into a series specifically for the purpose of introducing an already planned series. This is what happened with Chicago Justice. The characters were introduced in a back-door pilot. Prior to that episode none had been seen so it wasn't an actual spin-off. However, that's not the worst problem with this field. In many cases programs are added because they are on the same network, of the same genre, produced by the same country and, probably the worst of all, because they have had crossover episodes. At one stage Chicago P.D. had Law & Order: Special Victims Unit listed for this reason. I'd much rather see specific fields like "direct spin-offs", "remakes" etc. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support its removal, but not because of the reasons you said. But because infobox is not a "See also" section and must not turn the "See also" section into a "see again" section. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: Well saying that a back door pilot isn't an actual spin-off doesn't make sense. Many shows may introduce the characters in a parent series then when the characters do well they do a backdoor pilot before pushing it into an actual spin-off. That's what happened with Chicago P.D. and Chicago Med. Other shows don't have them at all bring them in for a back door pilot the push it right out. That's what happened with Justice. Another example of this is NCIS and NCIS: LA the characters in LA were not in the parent show until the back door pilot but I always consider LA a spin-off of NCIS. I do agree that the field should not be used for crossovers. A lot of people consider "in-universe" to be related but that would start getting out of hand because you would start getting shows like Scorpion in MacGyver (2016 TV series)'s infobox because Scorpion had a crossover with NCIS: LA which had a crossover with Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) which had a crossover with MacGyver. I think a direct spin-off field might be okay for some shows but not for all. For example in the Chicago (franchise) Fire is the parent series and Justice is in the franchise but isn't included in Fire's infobox because of the indirect link. I believe that Justice should be included. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A spin-off occurs when existing characters within a series are given their own series. For example, The Ropers were existing characters in Three's Company before they got their own series. Even Mork was a character, albeit for a short time, in Happy Days before the decision was made to give him his own series. The characters in Chicago Justice didn't appear in Chicago P.D. before the backdoor pilot. The decision was made to create Chicago Justice before the characters were ever introduced into Chicago P.D. They were never Chicago P.D. characters, they were always Chicago Justice characters. It was a separate TV program that simply shared the "Chicago" banner. That's not a spin-off.

Another example of this is NCIS and NCIS: LA the characters in LA were not in the parent show until the back door pilot but I always consider LA a spin-off of NCIS. - But it's not actually a spin-off. It's simply a program created under the NCIS banner. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: Well technically Jon Seda was part of Justice and although the spin-off was an idea before moving him over he was a character long before Justice was an idea and he did switch over to become a main character on Justice. And I don't get saying that technically its not a spin-off that it just shared the "Chicago" banner because as soon as it started it followed tradition of the other shows with crossovers and character appearances in unofficial crossovers. This is unlike the NCIS (franchise) which doesn't have regular crossovers and character appearances however all the series are still very closely related because its all under NCIS just with individual offices spread throughout the nation. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That Seda was on Chicago P.D. doesn't mean that Chicago Justice is a spin-off. His character wasn't given his own series, he just transferred to that series. This is the same as the character of John Munch who appeared on Homicide: Life on the Street. When that series ended he moved to Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. That doesn't mean that SVU was a spin-off of Homicide: Life on the Street. As for crossovers and character appearances, they don't determine whether a program is a spin-off. The main criteria for spin-offs has always been that existing characters within a series have been given their own series, or a series with similar themes has been created from the original. An example of the latter is Stargate, where the spin-offs have been followed the same theme, that of people travelling through stargates to distant worlds. In Chicago, each of the series are distinct. The only common thread is that they're all in Chicago. Imagine, for example, an episode of Doctor Who introduces a telephone repairman named Dave who walks into the Tardis by mistake. Dave then appears in his own series about repairing telephones. Is that a spin-off? --AussieLegend (✉) 04:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please update how this parameter should be used. Only confusions are created, as it is not indicated that bold letters are not used.--Philip J Fry :  Talk  20:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It quite clearly shows bold letters being used. — Film Fan 20:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a conflict is created, since the default use is italic letter.--Philip J Fry :  Talk  20:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing happens using the language templates. Means nothing. — Film Fan 20:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]