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.

|released= is a synonym for |first_aired= but if a template has |released=some date followed by |first_aired= (with no entry), then nothing is displayed. MB 15:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is as intended. |first_aired= has precedence over |released=. There is never a reason to have both in the template, and this silent error is working as intended. --Gonnym (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation says "use either but not both". If you use just |released=some date followed by |first_aired= (with no entry), then nothing is displayed even though the editor thinks they are using just one because they have only given a value to one. Templates should not do this without at least generating a warning. MB 19:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, as an experienced T.E., do you have any comment on this? MB 23:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to use {{if empty}}, removing the oddities of having a blank-but-in-the-template parameter messing up the values. Primefac (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: I understand your reasoning for reverting back to company(s), but I think there are better solutions available. A quick Google leads me to believe that "company(ies)" is a technically correct and accepted, if inelegant, option. "Company(s)", however, appears to be fundamentally wrong. Alternatively, we could simply change it to "companies" since it would not be incorrect grammar when a list of companies only contains one entry. Your thoughts? -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 14:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the reversion to "company(s)". It's just grammatically wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this was previously discussed recently here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. Whilst I agree that company(ies) might "look odd", it's better than company(s), which is fundamentally wrong. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 15:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before in the linked discussion (which I completely forgot about), a plural parameter is something I can support. I can also support having this label always plural. --Gonnym (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To circle around to my comment from the last go-round, why not just add a new parameter that switches the function? It would require manually updating existing transclusions, but would technically solve the problem of "ugly vs accurate". Primefac (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, would that require the editor to choose between using |company= and |companies= or would it automatically update if more than one list entry is detected? -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 15:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having |company= and |companies= change the text in the label is the "easy" way to do it. In theory we could set up a {{str find}} that could (in theory) check for the common indicators of multiple companies (e.g. <br>, commas, etc) in order to switch the label.Primefac (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC) (for the record, I don't really care what's done, I just know that often I end up coding these things, so the simpler we can go, the happier I generally am)[reply]

If there is some good system that can catch the many ways editors add multiple entries (templates, breaks, commas, etc) then that could be used for the entire template. --Gonnym (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lua, really... and writing a Lua module for one parameter is kind of silly. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a nice template, {{detect singular}}, that does this. See {{infobox settlement}} for usage. Here's the usage in that template: {{#if:{{detect singular|{{{area_code|}}}}}||{{Main other|[[Category:Pages using infobox settlement with possible area code list]]}}}}}} – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to tick all of our boxes - one parameter, but dynamic display of the label to match. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the desire for two separate parameters, I think if what Jonesey95 suggested of using a single parameter to adjust the label, we should use that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

/sandbox has been modified with {{detect singular}} for all plural labels. Please take a look and see if this isn't breaking anything. --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I did a far-from-thorough test on a live article using /sandbox and everything seemed to worked properly. If we can guarantee that nothing is broken, I don't see why this solution couldn't be used more widely. Nice work, Gonnym (and Jonesey95, Primefac for the suggestions). ---- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 10:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's in the testcases also looks fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the template instructions, there is no |music= parameter indicated, but the template does contain one. If used, it renders "Music by" in the infobox as shown here, whereas if you use |composer=, it renders "Composer" as shown here. Is this by design? If |music= is supposed to be an alias of |composer=, (or vice versa), then shouldn't they both render the same way? And if they're supposed to be used differently, it would seem we need to add |music= to the template instructions and clarify what it's for. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess (without having looked at the code or its history) the template was changed/updated but the /doc was not. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this too. The documentation was correct back in 2015 when there was a |theme_music_composer= displayed just before |opening_theme= and |composer= was displayed a little farther down. Then there was a merger with {{Infobox television film}} which caused this. |music= sounds to me like it should be an alias for |composer=. If theme_music_composer is used, it displays with the "Music by" label instead of the old "Theme music composer" label that is still in the documentation. (The two can both be specified without any warning message).

I think theme_music_composer should probably be restored to the way it was before the merger, and music/composer be combined instead (with a warning if both are used). Frietjes, Jonesey95, or Primefac? MB 01:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the network parameter be renamed or redescribed? I see on e.g. Soccer Saturday and QI a number of networks listed, not just the original location of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.7.102 (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an obvious parameter to have, considering most shows have at least one showrunner, so is there some reason why this template can't have a basic showrunner parameter? Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 19:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because showrunners are executive producers, which is where they are typically already listed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Sometimes I really do ask bad questions. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a bad question. I even had to re-educate myself, because initially I thought we had that parameter but then I remembered that these are producers of a show and they are listed in (sometimes multiple areas) of the infobox, just not specifically one called "Showrunner", as that's not a specific credit that you see on a show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The starring section, should this only be used for the actual main cast? Or also for one episode people (Guest-role) who happened to get main-on-end billing for the one episode they were in? Not looking for a discussion, just an honest question. --Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is for series regulars of a show. There have been exceptions, like Amber Benson who was a recurring guests for seasons on Buffy and literally got her "series regular" credit in the episode that they killed her off. So, special guest stars are not actual "stars" of the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. So, it does not apply to one-episode people (guest-role) even if they received main-on-end billing? Just to be 100% sure.--Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does the episode say? Is it just listing names. Does it say "Special guest star" or "guest star"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, episode is done. Few actors (starting with the 2 main characters) are mentioned then it changes over to the credit list. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the show doesn't distinguish main cast from guest stars, then you go by reliable sources. If no reliable source indicates that said actor is a "main character" (i.e., series regular), then they don't go in the infobox. Like I said, they could be a series regular for 1 episode, but that's a contract thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information and your help :) Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bignole: This user is most likely trying to gather information in regards to WandaVision. There has already been a lengthy discussion on that series talk page how to handle starring roles given its unique use of credits (essentially credits for a feature film, not a "normal" television series). What you've stated Bignole has not contradicted anything that's been discussed there and I feel I need to state that for you Scenarioschrijver20, as we are following what the credits state in the 2 (out of 9) episodes that have released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: Actually it was not about that, however, I see where you were coming from. But it was an actual matter of curiosity. I, however, do feel the need to mention that what was said most certainly does contradict some of the stuff said in the discussion. But as was said, let's wait until the final episode and then see how to credit certain people. Also a request, kindly put further responses to this on my talk page as to not clutter this talk page. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change:

| class50 = url | data50 = {{#if: {{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} | [{{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} {{#if: {{{website_title|}}} | {{{website_title}}}|Website}}] }}

To:

| class50 = url | data50 = {{#if: {{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} | [{{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} {{#if: {{{website_title|}}} | {{{website_title}}}|website}}] }}

The word website after the website title shouldn’t be capitalized per MOS:CAPS

Ponydepression (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]