Infoboxes
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

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 4 sections are present.

This infobox uses |show_name= with |name= as an alias. This is inconsistent with most infoboxes with |name= being the field normally used. This also causes an issue with the ongoing conversion of television film articles to use this infobox rather than {{infobox film}}. The field is normally overlooked when manually converting, resulting in Category:Pages using infobox television with alias parameters being populated. I am therefore proposing that we deprecate |show_name= in favour of |name=, with |show_name= becoming the alias. This will not affect any existing articles as |show_name= will still work. Articles can be "fixed" on an ad hoc basis unless somebody wants to organise a bot to change all infoboxes. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: more intuitive, consistent and pragmatic. — Bilorv (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: No opposition from me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: @AussieLegend would this change include also |show_name2= to |name2=? --Gonnym (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would have to. (I actually forgot about that one) --AussieLegend (✉) 17:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, support both parameter changes. I would actually prefer the end result to have a bot replace the parameters (User:PrimeBOT is set up to handle such operations) and then remove it from the infobox code. --Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend and Gonnym: Actually, if we're going to make these adjustments, would it be better and potentially clearer to make |name2=, |alt_name=? I think just by looking at the parameter with that name, it is super clear what it should be used for. Right now, |name2= has ambiguity to what it could be used for in the template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems quite appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I just hope that there won't be confusion between it and |alt=. --Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The actual field is |image_alt= but it is interesting that I've found a lot of articles where image_alt has been removed because editors thought it referred to an alternate image, and "alt" when it has been included has been removed because editors thought it referred to an alternative name. I t seems a lot of people don't preview before saving. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for continuity. Helps to clear confusion for new (and long time for that matter) editors. MarnetteD|Talk 17:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 10 days have passed with 5 supporters and no one opposing. I'm going to implement the sandbox changes. --Gonnym (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you make a change like this, please purge the docmentation, so that it updates (I've done that now). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Gonnym: Thanks for doing the hard work on this. I was happy to do it myself but got distracted with other stuff so you diving in and doing it all is really appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem on my part, had some spare time so did some overall cleanup in the process. --Gonnym (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I came across this through other channels, I'll hit the cat with my bot to remove the deprecated params. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• replace with "title=" - works of art don't have "names" they have titles. -- Netoholic @ 02:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support replacing with "title" per Netoholic. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The changes have already been made. "Title" is not appropriate; this is a template, not an article, and the default parameter in infobox code is "name". The aim of deprecating "show_name" was to standardise the infobox with others. "Title" goes completely against this. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair; I misremembered the parameter name in {{Infobox book}}. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having been reverted without explanation at Template:Infobox television/doc by Gonnym and AussieLegend, I am wondering why. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware of why I reverted your changes because I've had to warn you on your talk page (twice) about edit-warring and refusal to discuss your preferred, undiscussed changes. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said that there was an "edit war", despite the fact that one reversion by each of two people does not constitute an edit war under WP:EW. Beyond that, you provided no objection to the edit in se. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made a WP:BOLD edit, it was reverted by Gonnym and then you reverted to your preferred version without even trying to gain consensus for your change. That was edit-warring. I reverted you and you reverted me 3 minutes later, again without even trying to gain consensus for your change. That was more edit warring. My objection was to you edit-warring, which is why I left the summary,"Your edit was opposed, please discuss on the talk page. don't edit-war", which you ignored. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was edit-warring. Did you read WP:EW? It provides that "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." A single reversion hardly constitutes "repeatedly". 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted twice, the second time after I wrote "Your edit was opposed, please discuss on the talk page. don't edit-war". That's clear edit-warring. Yes, I have read WP:EW, I have submitted many reports at WP:AN3 and almost every one has resulted in the reported editor being blocked. Stop fighting and take responsibility for your actions. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to a documentation page of a template, especially one that is highly used as this one, should not happen without discussion. You've also changed a long-standing rule on what not to link without explaining, plainly saying Conforming with MOS guidance what guideline exactly was that? Your edit summaries shouldn't be cryptic. --Gonnym (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why change it to {{tq|most country articles}]? Why, in this instance, would links to some countries be okay, and others not? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant MOS guidance from MOS:OL is as follows:

Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: ...

• The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of:
  • countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian)

So, for example, Japan and Brazil would not be linked, but Bahrain would be. This is already established by a central consensus (which, while long-established, appears to have been discussed on the guideline talk page as recently as November). 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've also changed a long-standing rule I would hardly call it a rule (and all the less so if it is incongruent with the guideline on the subject). ... what guideline exactly was that? MOS:OL, which I discuss further below. But that doesn't explain why you wouldn't have used an edit summary when reverting – why is that? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where that guideline says to link to Bahrain nor did I see in the discussion. I reverted as you've changed the documentation page of a highly used template without any prior discussion. Should I have added a note "oppose undiscussed change"? Probably. Are you expecting a formal apology or something? --Gonnym (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where that guideline says to link to Bahrain nor did I see in the discussion. I didn't include suggest Bahrain was specifically mentioned my the guideline. Rather, it is clear from the guideline that countries "with which most readers will [not] be at least somewhat familiar" are typically linked, as is fitting with MOS:LINK § Principles generally. Do you read the guideline and the spirit thereof differently?

Should I have added a note "oppose undiscussed change"? Probably. Are you expecting a formal apology or something? I am not requesting a formal apology, but a brief "sorry" is typically offered by someone working in good faith to build a consensus in such a circumstance. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Bahrain be linked? It's quite a well known country, as are most countries. What makes Bahrain stand out? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we're linking anything, why not link to Television in Bahrain and the like? I agree that in most cases the country link is unnecessary, but if we made it more relevant with a link to the country's "Television in" article. -- Netoholic @ 11:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP is misinterpreting the text they quoted from WP:OVERLINK. All countries fall under examples of countries, not simply the two (or countries "deemed on the level" of those two) they presented in the example. So their claim that Bahrain would need to be linked is incorrect; it wouldn't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I guess you can consider this a separate proposal to have the infobox link to the "Television in [country]" articles, which would be a novel use and not OVERLINK. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linking simply a country name to "Television in [country]" would be an WP:EGG link. Readers would not know they are being taken to an article about television in that country. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a question about the use of parenthetical details in television infoboxes. When is it appropriate to use them, and when is it not? The template does not specify whether they can be used for director, theme_music_composer, composer, opentheme, endtheme producer, executive_producer, company, distributor, picture_format, or audio_format. I ask because most of these are presented with parenthetical details on the infobox for Dexter's Laboratory, and because there are not restrictions in place for these params, I'm not sure if I should leave these parenthetical details or remove them. Any guidance or clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 18:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to add an "Inspired by" parameter on the template? I noticed some TV series use "Inspired by" instead "Based on" according to their on-screen credits. "Inspired by" isn't the same thing as "Based on", vice versa. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any passed discussions about this. I think this makes sense. |inspired_by= could be a quasi-alias of |based_on= and change the heading name if used. I would say one or the other should definitely be used if implemented. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge caution on this. It is ripe for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. For example I like thinking that Northern Exposure was inspired by Local Hero (film) but that is as OR on my part as it can be :-) IMO it is better suited for prose in the production section of an article. In any event the info would definitely require reliable sourcing. MarnetteD|Talk 18:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I understood the proposal correctly, it would only be in instances where an explicit "Inspired by" credit appears for a series, much like how series include "Based on" credits now. As with anything, sure there will be uses that go against what was intended, but I believe the current thought of adding it is in the right place. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah apologies for missing that. As credited is fine but if any info is available that enhances that listing a mention in the body of the article I think it would enhance a readers understanding. MarnetteD|Talk 19:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: Favre1fan93 is correct. I said according to their on-screen credits which isn't WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YoungForever and MarnetteD: The sandbox is currently adjusted to make this happen. Test cases can be seen here. The first one is just with |based_on=, second is with just the new |inspired_by=, and third is if you use both together, only |based_on= will show up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Since you do a lot of work on the TV templates and have template edit privileges, have you seen this discussion? I believe this is good to be added, and if you agree, could you move the sandbox version here to the live template? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it looks good. Thanks for your work on this Favre1fan93. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added it. Please update the /doc (parameter section and templatedata). --Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've updated the doc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: Thank you for creating the test cases to make it happen. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Thank you for implementing the |inspired_by= to the template. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we all agree that the Narrated parameter should not be used unless someone is actually credited as "narrator" or "narrated by" (e.g. Love Life (American TV series)), and that it should not be used on TV series such as Magnum, P.I. where there is no credited narrator and a "voice-over" narration is provided by one of the series' regular characters?

If so, I propose the Infobox documentation for the Narrated parameter be changed to something like "The show's credited narrator(s) (if applicable). Years or seasons should not be included. (emphaisis mine) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposal as worded. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also support this as well. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no opposition so far. I'll give this another day or two, and if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and update the template documentation as this appears to be a "non-controversial" change/update. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any thoughts about how to deal with webshows on Youtube or streaming shows such as Critical Role that have a cast, but lack "traditional" intro or outro credits that could provide a starring order? Should other title sequences be used, if they exist? Should starring order simply be alphabetized? --Arcaist (contribs • talk) 11:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical seems a good alternative when there is no title/credit sequence. Though if there is a host-like role, perhaps list them first? Critical Role does complicate matters here because they introduced a credit sequence from C1E50. HarmonQuest gets around the problem by just not listing the cast in the infobox – though I don't recall if it has a title sequence or not (should be able to check this evening). Little pob (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with these shows, but the first video I pulled up on Critical Role on YouTube ("Curious Beginnings | Critical Role | Campaign 2, Episode 1") list the cast in the video description so if they usually do that then I would go with that ordering. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a logical solution. Unless someone gets to it first, I'll check the early C1 episode descriptions tonight. Little pob (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checking at random from both before and after Orion left the show (C1 eps 1, 2, 3, 24, 27, 28, 115), there are no show credits listed. So it looks like credits in the YouTube video description is a Campaign Two thing. Little pob (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With TV shows, is the procedure to do the cast order from the first season or to do the cast order from the most recent season? Critical Role is split into campaign 1 & campaign 2, so I guess we could consider those seasons 1 & 2. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You start with the cast order from season 1, episode 1. If that remains the same for the entire season, then come season 2, episode 1, if there are any newly added cast members (regardless of what the season credit order is) you add them to the end of the season 1 list. For example, if season 1 has credits A, B, C, D, E for the entire season, and come season 2, the cast is A, C, D, F, G, H, the order on the main article simply becomes A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone has any feedback on what an "original network" is? How should we list television series that switched main networks during its run?

How should we list the original network for Ang Probinsyano which moved from ABS-CBN to the Kapamilya Channel.

For a brief background, the government did not renew the franchise of ABS-CBN which meant that the network is not operational, and the company owner set up a second network Kapamilya Channel, a pay television network while renewal of the franchise in the congress is still pending. New episodes of the series has been broadcasting in the new channel.

Should we list both channels with years when each of the channel was the main network in the Infobox or just ABS-CBN with a footnote explaining the situation? Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original network is, as implied by the title, the network on which the program originally aired or was released. For programs that moved networks, it is simply a matter of listing the networks in chronological order. Years or seasons are not used in the infobox. Instead, this should be addressed in the prose. If new episodes are still airing on ABS-CBN then there is no need to alter the infobox at all, and the airing of episodes on the new channel in addition to the original should be addressed in the prose. However, if all new episodes are being aired on the new channel only then the infobox code would be:

| network            = {{plainlist|
* [[ABS-CBN]]
* [[Kapamilya Channel]]
}}

--AussieLegend (✉) 06:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of specifying the original network is to avoid having a list of all subsequent networks that episodes may air on, so if there was a second network that had encore airings of episodes we wouldn't want to include that. We also don't want a list of different networks from different countries that have aired the series. But if the series moved to a new network for new episodes at some point during its run, which is what this situation sounds like, then you would add the new network as an additional original network (since it was the original network for certain episodes/seasons of the series). - adamstom97 (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see value in the dates being added to the infobox, but think that it would work better in a situation where we have |network2=, |first_aired2= and |last_aired2=, so that the infobox will show:

Original network: ABS-CBN
Original release: date-date
Original network: Kapamilya Channel
Original release: date-date

This style can actually also work for revival situations like in Twin Peaks. --Gonnym (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. And yes new episodes are airing in the second network. I also agree if the second option could be implemented could be helpful as well.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that there is no need for the second option. By its very nature the infobox is supposed to be brief. Any network/channel changes and relevant dates should be addressed in the prose. Typically people seem to want to jam as much as they can into the infobox and that's not right. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more partially with AussieLegend. Some editors tend to include every secondary networks on the | network which is not acceptable. Typically,

| network            = {{plainlist|
* Original network (year range) or (season range)
* Moved to network (year range) or (season range)
}}

is acceptable as we do this for a lot of TV series. Here are some examples: Lucifer (TV series), The Killing (American TV series), Arrested Development, Unreal (TV series), The Mindy Project, and Search Party (TV series). — YoungForever^(talk) 19:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Aussie and Young, I don't think we need to add a second set of parameters, and can be covered by the formatting Young presented above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that you can't be an agreement with both, as Aussie specicially mentioned he's against using years/seasons. Gonnym (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Different situation, same topic

Found a situation with another show which I guess falls under this topic but is throwing me off only because of the part about not including foreign broadcasters. But with Curious George seasons 1-9 first aired on PBS Kids in the United States from 2006-2015, not a problem. Seasons 10-12 first aired on Family Jr. in Canada from 2018-2020. Followed by season 13 released on Peacock (streaming service) in 2020. Seasons 10-12 never aired on PBS Kids, but the three seasons are included with season 13 on Peacock while seasons 1-9 stream on Hulu. So would Family Jr. be considered a first-run network even though it's in a different country or would it just be PBS and Peacock with the release dates of the latter four seasons in the U.S. being officially released on July 15? TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: You might want to use |first_run= as well. So |network= would be PBS Kids, Family Jr., and Peacock (with appropriate years) and |first_run= would be "Canada (2018-2020)". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of first_run like that would be misleading as the parameter is for "The country or region where the show was first broadcast." As with all content that might confuse readers, it's best to address it in detail in the prose rather than introducing ambiguities into the infobox. The infobox isn't the only part of the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was looking around the archives to see if this issue had been brought up before and [this thread] (and in turn, [this one as well]) seems to be the closest one related to my concerns.

The unfortunate thing is, the more recent thread died out after one reply while the older one did not get any replies. My intent is to revive this issue with this new thread because unlike the situation with "people" and "peoples", "company" and "companys" is a little... strange, so to speak, to look at.

Options brought up in both threads include "Production company(ies)" and "Production company/ies". Personally, I'd like to suggest "Production compan(y/ies)", but I can see why it wouldn't be as ideal as the first two suggestions.

In any case, they're much more comforting to look at than what we have now, which is "Production company(s)".

Thoughts?

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 23:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I implemented on Template:Infobox character was alias parameters for plural which when used makes the label plural. I think that makes the most sense. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that would be preferable to "Production company(ies)" or "Production company/ies" which both look odd to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym and Adamstom.97, thank you both for your responses. Any chance we can implement alias params to the template now? I never thought of that possibility since I'm not strong with wikitables and parameters... Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]