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.

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 (✉) 4:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: (Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you, I've been busy) Well the series are part distinct but not fully they all focus on public services in the city of Chicago they just focus in on the specific areas such as the fire department, police department, medical, and legal. The Wikipedia page about spin-offs even clearly states in the lead paragraph

which is exactly what the Chicago shows do. For example Justice: It's a television show derived from Fire and P.D. that focuses in particular in more detail on the legal system from the original work (which is the Fire and Police department.) so in that sense you could even call Justice a spin-off of Fire and P.D. together if you take into effect the "one or more" part with what I just explained. It also gives examples as a particular topic, character, or event meaning that a spin-off does not have to be a character it can be a particular topic which is are the Chicago shows. Also while we're on the topic of this is "Chronology" the best title for this section of the info-box (I think it would be for the preceded by and succeeded by but it doesn't fit "related shows"). TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:08, 26 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]

On a handful of TV articles I read or edit, many staff members, who are usually writers on the series, are listed under the executive producer or producer categories with those titles in parenthesis or with a divider in place which makes the lists more cluttered. I'm proposing these to acknowledge more of the creative contributions to the series, but mainly to reduce said clutter.

In television, especially television under the Writers Guild of America, these producer credits are defined ranks for full time creatives on the series (usually writers, and sometimes directors), and while they can change season to season, so do executive producers and producers. In TV, the ranking goes: co-producer -> producer -> supervising producer -> co-executive producer (entitled rank-ups end here)-> executive producer. Staff is entitled to rank up one every season, which can result in people listed under Producer being removed or modified when the next year they rank up to Supervising Producer. It doesn't seem right to add a person to the defined parameter only to remove them later, so I think it's best to include all the full time producer credits on a series. --Tv's emory (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be against this. The infobox is long enough as it is. Those that are being listed in another section with parenthesis should be removed because they aren't executive producers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bignole. Since, as you pointed out, these people are generally writers on the series, they are listed elsewhere in the article, so it isn't like we are excluding them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tv's emory makes a valid point which I have thought as well. It does not make sense to only list executive producers and producers. Producers do indeed move up to supervising producers and co-executive producers. And they are not always listed elsewhere. I would not add co-producers. Perhaps the infobox should be limited to executive producers, co-executive producers and supervising producers, the three top ranks. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The genre parameter is redundant since the genre is already mentioned in the lead section of the article. Furthermore, listing genres is very subjective unlike the other fields. Take a look at Infobox Film, which doesn't have a genre parameter. -- Wrath X (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and infobox perform similar functions, i.e. they summarise key features of the page's subject. Being in the lead doesn't mean that we don't include it in the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I previously proposed removing the genre parameter as it was typically a cruft magnet for children to add every descriptor they felt their favorite series embodied. "Comedy, drama, dramedy, black comedy, surreal, fart humor" etc. I'm still not a huge fan of the parameter, but since we've added requirements in the instructions that genre must be sourced and limited to a set # of descriptors, I'm slightly less inclined to remove it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really quickly, I've reported an an issue at Phabricator about Wikipedia's Visual Editor, because it seems to be stripping whitespace from film infoboxes by default like here, which results in parameter being pulled out of alignment.

Do we have any type of community preference for how the infobox parameters are aligned? I know some people (like myself) prefer this:

| director        = Sally Roe
| cinematographer = John Doe
| editor          = Dave McBoatface

Whereas some of us prefer this style:

| director = Sally Roe
| cinematographer = John Doe
| editor = Dave McBoatface

Since this varies from article to article, I assumed it was kind of a local consensus matter. If that's the case, then it's kind of annoying that Visual Editor is stripping out the whitespace by default. I'm not technically proficient, but from what I can tell of the Phabricator responses, if this is something we don't care for, we'd need to change some aspect of the template markup to instruct Visual Editor to prefer option A, or to prefer option B, or maybe there's another option to tell Visual Editor not to screw with the parameter alignment at all? Technical whizzes welcome. (Also, if you notice that this message also appears at Template:Infobox film, that's because it's happening with that template as well.) Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't have a preference either way. Generally I probably gravitate towards option B (non-uniform whitespace) just for simplicity and ease of creating, but I don't have anything against option A, or users who come through and adjust articles with option B to option A. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the code that forces block formatting per the instructions given at the link that Cyphoidbomb provided. *stifles the urge to rant about how much Visual Editor sucks* --AussieLegend (✉) 19:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aussie, that'll at least quell some of my frustration. To Favre1fan93's note, I think we're all mixed on how the markup should be formatted. I prefer the bulkier, but neater markupt, but I think we generally agree that if something's been one way forever, it shouldn't be changed by the frickin' Visual Editor. I have a cross-post of this at Infobox film. If anyone cares to comment on how it should be remedied, that'd be nice. Thanks all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it there as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 (talk · contribs) just brought up a good point on ANI about the issues we have about episode counts in the infobox, where we get silly edit wars because of good-intentioned users changing the number of episodes before they come to air (and especially on the soap articles this is the major issue with this template). The heading is called num_episodes/"No. of episodes", but I feel it should be "No. of episodes aired" so that the field is fully transparent. Are there any objections or concerns about this proposal? Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully Support the heading change. It should be a help to avoid edit warring. MarnetteD|Talk 22:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as common sense. Thanks for taking this discussion to the right place.4meter4 (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: sensible idea -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: This wording would not work for web series released on Netflix, Hulu, etc, that do not "air" episodes. Would also be a problem for series that are cancelled and have their remaining episodes released online. - Brojam (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The streaming services "drop" all eps of a series on the same date. They are then available for "airing" for any of their customers. Thus, there are no problems with the proposed wording. Having said that it is also possible to create a different field to handle streaming service programming - perhaps "number of episodes released" is one possible wording for it. MarnetteD|Talk 03:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, just like you can use num_seasons or num_series to produce "No. of seasons" or "No. of series" respectively for the relevant region (series used in UK, seasons used in U.S. and others) -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD, not all online series; The Grand Tour (TV series) is "dropped" weekly. —Sladen (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose For soaps where the episode count is difficult to track you can always throw in an As of date: e.g. 325 as of November 28, 2017. Other shows have weekly bumps so it is not a big deal to update those on the day it airs or releases. The contention is that people want to fill in the total number of episodes planned like they do with the series finale date. I would suggest an embedded note in the infobox reminding the editor not to put in the total numbers or bump the episode count until it has aired or released in its first main run. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as this doesn't fit with the purpose of limiting the number in the first place. The reason we don't increase the number until after the episode airs is because we need proof that it exists, which we could technically get before it is aired. So changing the name to specify that only episodes aired should be counted changes the nature of the parametre, and I'm pretty sure that is something people will want to discuss, with all the facts in hand, before we go ahead and do it. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – the "aired" vs. "released" concern is a red herring... we already adjust the wording of various other TV templates to use "aired" or "released" as appropriate for those sticklers who just cannot handle using "aired" in a less restrictive sense. There's no reason we couldn't similarly adjust the wording to present "No. of episodes aired" or "No. of episodes released" as appropriate. Or, you know, "No. of episodes available" —Joeyconnick (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The field has never been strictly just for the number of episodes aired/released. We don't list episodes before they air primarily because of WP:CRYSTAL, plenty of episodes have been pulled from the schedule but that doesn't mean that unaired episodes can't be listed in certain circumstances. In fact we made changes about 3 years ago so that the instructions now say "An inline citation is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired, such as in the case of a show being cancelled." One article that uses the field in this way is The Playboy Club, which was cancelled after 3 episodes had aired but 7 had been produced. Back in 2010 the instructions had said "The number of episodes produced (a reliable source is required if greater than the number aired)". --AussieLegend (✉) 12:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, AussieLegend, shouldn't The Playboy Club actually list "7 (4 unaired)" (i.e. for 7 total episodes produced) rather than "3 (4 unaired)"?! I find the latter way of handling this confusing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should, and it did the last time thatI edited the article in February 2016.[1] This edit changed it inappropriately. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - With respect to the previous comments, I don't believe that listing the upcoming episodes (with the reference noting such) is actually the opposite of WP:CRYSTAL. Also the very fact that some episodes of series have been produced but never aired is of encyclopedic value (such as the unaired Wonder Woman, Bruce Wayne and Aquaman pilots, amongst many, many others). The only reason I would consider changing my vote is if there was an effective way to note this within the infobox, which is in fact the most distilled form of the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I've misread what you're saying but you seem to support the inclusion of upcoming episodes or episodes that wer produced but not aired. If this change were to proceed then it would not be possible to list these in the infobox at all. The field would completely change meaning from what it is now and many articles would be incorrect. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per AussieLegend. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – It has been standard practice to only list the number of episodes that have aired in the infobox for a long time. Additional information can be mentioned in other parts of the article, such as in the series overview table or in prose. For web series, we can simply have a |released=y parameter, which would change it from "No. of episodes aired" to "No. of episodes released". nyuszika7h (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not telling the whole story. It has also been standard practice for just as long to list all of the episodes for cancelled programs where we have a reliable source that confirms the production of episodes that weren't aired before cancellation. Again, I point to The Playboy Club as an example. This field is actually "Number of episodes produced", and always has been, but we don't include "produced" in the label or code. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No need for a different label and alternate parameter for released series, etc.; it just complicates things. Just add a hidden note next to the episode count; <!--Only increment as a new episode premieres, per the documentation of the template!--> has always worked for me. No need to fix what isn't broken. -- Alex^TW 10:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this the case? It is a violation of clarity, as it implies that all the people listed are presenting the show at once. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is similar for non-reality series, with cast members. We don't list in the infobox the seasons they were a part of the series. The infobox is meant to give a general overview of the article. Specific info regarding when a presenter was a part of a show can be clarified in the body of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can Planned by be added as parameter? Or can we continue using "Created by" and "Developed by"? The South Korean infobox has it and a lot of articles (TV series articles) use it. Manly, a planner is a production manager that oversees the production company and help it plan the work. He is not part of the production company or it is an entire different company that help plan everything before the production company start shooting. So far people have been using "Created by" and "Developed by" since there is no "Planned by". May question is, which is the correct parameter for this? CherryPie94 (talk)

The website parameter is still acting funky. I know this has been discussed before (see archive 10) but can this still be fixed? To recap: when the website parameter is included in the infobox with no URL, it appears like this (with no Website header) but when you remove website param or manually enter the URL, it appears correctly with the Website header. Should we simply be removing the website parameter then and just let Wikidata do the work? Which brings me to my second question: what do we do with dead links for official websites (24's is currently a dead link). Do we remove them completely or try to archive them? The problem here, in my opinion, archive links can be fairly long (and ugly looking) for the infobox, and usually there's thousands of captures, so what decides what date we use. So, can we hide the parameter for shows where their official website is dead? Might be best to leave the archived link in the external links section and maybe just use a link like this for an example. I've been wanting to do an external link clean-up on the articles in my watchlist, but I want to know what the protocol here is first. Thanks guys. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you can hide the website (set website=hide). I would add that it appears that the website url can distort the infobox badly - [2] (the width is over twice the normal size in my browser), once you set website=hide, this is how it appears - [3]. Perhaps it should be defaulted to hide. Hzh (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be that no actual url was displayed. Instead, just "Website" and "Production website" were display. That was changed with this edit. Given the number of excessively long urls I think the previous situation was better. The url may not have been visible in print but what use is "drama.ch7.com/detail/14011/%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%99_%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%B1%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%9C%E0%B8%B2.html#ad-image-0" in a printed document? --AussieLegend (✉) 21:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just undo that edit by Codename Lisa? It appears to be causing unnecessary problems. Hzh (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]