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

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The template docs say for this parameter, "The names of the production company or companies that funded/organized series production. Note: sub-contractors hired to perform production work, e.g. animation houses, special effects studios, post-production facilities etc. should not be included here, as this may create confusion about the nation(s) of origin...."

While it's not clear, I assume that so called "vanity card" production companies for the showrunners and producers should also not be listed in the infobox for this. But the template docs do not actually makes this clear. (Would these fall under the "sub-contractors hired to perform production work"?...)

Should something about this be added to the template docs to clarify this? Because this issue keeps coming up at a variety of articles, where some editors want to add the "vanity card" production companies to the infobox... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, following up – I assume that "vanity card" production companies for the show creators/showrunners should be listed, but other ones should not? Is there some criteria here to help determine inclusion? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For people like me who had never heard the name "vanity card", see Production logo. Can I break the question down into a practical example? Are you asking if e.g Line of Duty should have BBC as well as World Productions? - X201 (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No – some shows include vanity cards/productions logos at the end for Executive Producers, etc. – people who don't necessarily "fund/organize series production", at least not directly, or who are just given a credit for not really doing any real work on the series. IOW, there are definitely cases where not all productions logos listed in the end credits should be included under the company parameter. What I was looking for on practical guidance on figuring out when productions logo "companies" should be listed under company in the IB, and when they shouldn't... As far as I can tell, there isn't any, and we are forced to 100% rely on secondary source coverage to determine whether entities should be listed under company or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, showrunners (and some EPs) are responsible for managing production, hiring and managing production crew, overseeing editing and post etc, and they usually do that through their companies which makes them qualified as organizing production. So far, I have not come across a film/series that with closing cards credits for companies that didn't produce, fund or organize production. The only exception would be companies that receive production credit as part of their royalties for producing or creating the original concept. But even in such cases, since they're contractually obligated to receive a production credit per WGA guidelines regardless of their direct involvement, we would still need to recognize them as production companies. If we focus only on physical production, then we would be leaning towards VFX, animation houses and post-production facilities which is the opposite of what this parameter should be. Do we have any known case of a show where a company credited in the closing production cards/vanity cards wasn't involved in production, funding, organizing or contractually required to receive production credit due to royalties? — Starforce¹³ 20:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a section for announcers? It seems ridiculous to call them narrators.98.13.8.89 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking for the |presenter= parameter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is this bit for? Is it for actual animators of a cartoon, or outsourcers? It doesn’t specifically say what it’s for.Luigitehplumber (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An actual person who animated something, not companies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LTPHarry:@Favre1fan93: Then why is this section almost never used? Wouldn't it be better to reach public consensus proposal on using it as simply "Animation services" for primary outsourcing teams? It seems like it would be of better use than what it was originally set up for, especially when I've never even seen individuals (which would be too many Korean names, frankly) listed under this section?--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: As the main editor of this template, surely you have seen first-hand how severely underused the "Animators" line has been used if at all on Wikipedia articles for Western animation. With a proposal like this, we wouldn't have to use the company section to add a note on outsourcing animation teams which make up a huge majority of the cartoon industry. Instead of having a note on every article like this, we could give the primary animating team(s) their own line and streamline the production section. This would be in similar likes to how the animanga infoboxes have animating studio(s) listed. And yes, I am aware of the production differences between western cartoons and anime.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per documentation, outsourced companies shouldn't even be noted in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“animator - The animator or animators of the show.” Where specifically does it say it can’t be outsourced animation companies (BESIDES Production companies)? On top of that, I thought I explained clearly how a simple change or line addition could easily solve this problem instead of just adding a note onto [Production company A][note]. With WP:CON, this could be fixed with a public consensus vote. Instead, use sourced prose in the article's Production section to explain these details., but why?--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

|animator= refers to the person or persons who animated the content. Per documentation for |company=: The names of the production company or companies that funded/organized series production. Note: sub-contractors hired to perform production work, e.g. animation houses, special effects studios, post-production facilities etc. should not be included here, as this may create confusion about the nation(s) of origin. Instead, use sourced prose in the article's Production section to explain these details. (bolding mine). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the animators line, not production companies.GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opening a TPER per my post below (WP:TPEBOLD). — Goszei (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a strange CSS interaction on mobile that I believe I have fixed in the sandbox (see diff: [1]). There are no visible changes on desktop mode (see [2]), but in mobile mode, the title and headers become styled and sized as I believe are intended (see [3]). If there aren't objections, I will open a TPER in a about a week. — Goszei (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Primefac (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is some dispute on what the "country of origin" for the Netflix series Trese. I hope, I could have some feedback on how to deal with this issue. I'm under the impression that the country of origin should be the "country of production" (aka. the "nationality" of production companies involved"; rather than the dominant nationality of the cast, the nationality of the director/producers, or the country of origin of the source material.

In Trese's case it is:

• Based on a Filipino comics (Philippines)
• Have a Filipino and Filipino-American cast (Philippines)
• Produced by the Singapore division of the BASE Entertainment (Singapore) - which probably employs Filipino animators (but that is just speculation on my part)

Then I found out that there is no explicit instruction on what "country of origin" should be on the field usage guide unlike the infobox's film counterpart.

It would be helpful if some sort of consensus is reach on how to list the "country of origin" not just for Trese's case.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The proper venue for this discussion is Talk:Trese (TV series). Please do not post the same discussion in multiple places. See WP:TALKFORK. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, I intend this to be the main discussion page. I have posted it here first, since it concerns not just the page but I'm asking for clarification on the "country" field on the infobox itself. The discussion on Talk:Trese (TV series) asks users to refer to this section. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93 as the one who created Category:Pages using infobox television with editor parameter can you shed light on what is needed to be done with this category? It has 10,333 pages in it now, which at a size this large it loses any ability it be helpful. The template or the category also don't explain what needs to be done with it. Gonnym (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]