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.

What is the best way to represent the production or air frequency of a show? Some are daily, some are ~weekly (where "weekly" can mean anywhere between 52 to 13 shows per year), some are adhoc / irregular, and they sometimes change over the lifetime of a show... is there some way to show these details using the template? Should we consider a "frequency" attribute or something? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That information is better presented in prose. Gonnym (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi template editors,

Would it be possible to add module options? As not all TV show or program titles are in English.

Template:Infobox person (data64 to data69) is a good example that allow editors to add up to 6 different modules.

If possible, please add after data51. It would be appreciated by many editors. Thank you. Flipchip73 (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't add random empty parameters. What parameters are you missing? Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking to have an option to add miscellaneous module(s). For example, South Korean TV show and program editors usually will include Template:Infobox Korean name at the end of the main infobox. If the width of the main infobox (ie template:Infobox television) changes, the Template:Infobox Korean name would not change in width as both are not linked. Flipchip73 (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you wanting to add the native name of a South Korean show? If so, use |native_name=. Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter |native_name= only shows the native name, wherelse the Template:Infobox Korean name allows editors to include Hangul, Hanja, MR and RR. The template is shown or displayed at the bottom of the main infobox. Flipchip73 (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox, and the article in general, should not translate the name of the show into each language in the world, or even each language the show was broadcast at. It should list two names - the English name and a native name, if not in English. Gonnym (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym,

Nevermind, adding 12 lines of code seems quite difficult for you, I will stick to the template:infobox to work with. It is painful to use, but less troublesome with typing. I'm not angry with you, just that I'm unable to convince you. Have a good day and thank you for your time. Flipchip73 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flipchip73, I found Those Who Cross the Line which was coded with a manual infobox to replicate {{Infobox television}}. Please to not do this. If there is a project consensus to change the infobox in any way, the changes would obviously not be reflected in this article. I changed the article to use the approved infobox. Please to the same in other articles that have a cloned infobox. I also removed all the collapsed info per MOS:COLLAPSE. Please follow the WP:MOS. MB 17:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the standard |module=, which is found in many infoboxes and can be used to embed child infoboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I've reverted. Establish consensus for the change. Clearly there wasn't one here yet. Gonnym (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those Who Cross the Line is great example of a what not to do. Gonnym (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is controversial or harmful about having a |module= parameter so that people can embed child infoboxes as needed? This parameter is used uncontroversially in many infoboxes. Template editors should not revert other template editors' harmless changes without a good reason. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure mean, template editors that see an ongoing discussion which has no consensus should not boldy edit it anyways. {{Infobox television}} will not need any nested infoboxes like some other infoboxes do. A |module= parameter is also a open invitation for editors to add any garbage they want. A need should arise before a change is done. So far the need for a native title is already handled by |native_name=. Gonnym (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a parameter called "IMDb-id" to this template so that it can be linked to its corresponding page in IMDb website. Mohammad ebz (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely inappropriate as it is not a reliable source at all. IMDb can only considered as an External link at the bottom of an article which is {{IMDb title}} — YoungForever^(talk) 07:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does it have to do with the accuracy of the information source ?, it is just an external link; If so, Wikipedia is also unreliable. The IMDb website is a center for movie and series information and is improved by its users almost like a wiki.

I suggested it only because the breadth and popularity of the IMDb website on the Internet is great and it is better to put it in the information box. (I have nothing to do with the accuracy and precision of the information contained in IMDb) Mohammad ebz (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most external links other than the websites were removed from the infobox years ago. Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, imdb and tv.com were removed as parameters in 2009, based on the "film" infobox also removing external links. The discussion is in the archive here: [1]. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there still a worthwhile reason to include these in the infobox? I don't see the benefit to featuring any sort of website in the infobox when the External links section is perfectly sufficient for them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I'd be inclined to lean towards keeping them. Most of the "Arts and culture" infoboxes use it (although "film" does not). Also, the resulting maintenance category to remove it would be significant - it would probably need a bot to clean up. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum to the above, I was looking up the discussion relative to removing other external links (imdb and tv.com) which was done in 2009. In the discussion, it was mentioned that film was also removing external links, to include website. However, the discussion seemed to lean to leave the website as tv series sites tended to offer more than film sites (which were deemed to be little more than an advertisement offering little value). The discussion is here: [2] ButlerBlog (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more recent discussion which basically had consensus that wasn't acted upon. Gonnym (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that looks like consensus. I've probably shifted from "weak keep" to "neutral" anyway. However, I doubt there are many editors that follow this level of detail in TV; most people seem to focus on the article level, so it's probably hard to get input for a broader consensus. In an unofficial survey, I believe it goes unused on most sites and on the sites that use it, it seems generally to be duplicated in the External Links. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I completely forgot I brought this up previously. Yeah, these definitely should be removed per that last discussion and me bringing it up again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my opinion is only a "weak keep". So I'm definitely not married to keeping them. And on the "remove" side of the equation, there are a lot of instances of the infobox where this value is empty anyway. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of removing these completely and moving any link to the EL section. Regarding ButlerBlog concern of needing a bot, we already have those and this specific move is pretty straightforward. Gonnym (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep them as they are on the Infobox because they are part of the summary aspects and I don't think general readers of articles would scroll to the bottom of an article to find the website. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)But most other infoboxes don't include website parameters, and I think readers fare pretty well finding this. The question I have is, what makes a series' website something that needs to be accessed in the infobox? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand the comment "most other infoboxes don't include website". It is a standard parameter on most infoboxes, such as biographies, schools, parks, museums, sports teams, universities, companies, and so on. The website is usually in the infobox and repeated in the EL section. The benefit is that the infobox is for "key infomation" that can be seen "at a glance", i.e. a quick summary. In most other infoboxes, it is considered something that fits this criteria and belongs in the infobox. I haven't seen any real reason given here for removal except that it "could just go in the EL section". That's not really a statement about its importance. MB 23:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't listed other "media" infoboxes. Film and music infobox do not include website parameters, as well as the TV project's own other infobox, season and episode. Sure, it can be common for the types of entities you've listed, but it really isn't common for media to have a website parameter in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely support some sort of suggestion or guidance towards not using this as I don't think most "official websites" are genuinely "key information" for a series. I don't know if we need to force every article to stop using it if it is going to be a significant amount of work, but avoiding it moving forward / having something to point to for future updates would be good. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also something that has potential for abuse. Not that I've seen any, but it is possible for someone to make the url a fansite or some-such that is not necessarily "official". ButlerBlog (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I say remove the parameter. To me personally, a bare link to another website screams unprofessional. Especially for Wikipedia where WP:BARELINKS are discouraged. Readers go to Wikipedia to learn about a topic, not to be sent to a company's website where they can buy the product. Official websites should go in the external links section, using the "official website" template. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this. I want to say there is soft consensus to remove these. Any further objections? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not by me. Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so how do we go about removing these parameters? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two options. Either we remove completely or we move them to external links section (with a bot). Since it's impossible to know if the website is an official website, if moved, I'd say we shouldn't move them into a {{Official website}} template. Gonnym (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We likely should move them to the EL section (though I have a feeling if they are in the infobox, they are also down there already), but we can't know that for sure, and we shouldn't lose data if that's true. So I'd say we move them there, not in the {{Official website}} template. Can we set up a tracker category to see how many articles we'll be dealing with that currently use the parameters? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to purpose limiting the number of different genres listed in the infobox to five. This can be a soft limit that allows for exception, but I think that it would be good to at least have a suggested limit because I often see infoboxes get overfilled with an excessive amount of genres that aren't really defining to the show, but one source describes it as such, so it can't just be removed as unsourced. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a good limit would be, but guidance about it actually being "defining" may help as one source suggesting a genre that is not generally supported shouldn't be enough to include it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@adamstom97 I definitely support adding guidance that the genres must be defining, but I think 5 is great for a soft limit. It's very rare that a show really has more than 5 defining genres (not counting genres that are redundant with each other). JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the documentation says the following:

Do not link to a language article, e.g., [[English language|English]], per WP:OVERLINK.

It's obvious enough why this should apply to languages like English or Spanish, but the guidelines at WP:OVERLINK are clear that links should only be avoided for major examples of languages (i.e. ones with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar). That doesn't apply to less well-known languages, like Newar or Egyptian Arabic. Should that point be clarified in the documentation, or are there any reasons to not link in any circumstances? I'm only asking because an editor editors appear to have undertaken the task of unlinking all instances of this field from articles, so it will be good to have some consensus here. – Uanfala (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be conflicting guidance, the above is wrong. Local guidance should not override project guidance either, so the above should just be removed or changed to something like: Link to a language article, e.g., [[Phuthi language|Phuthi]], only when appropriate per WP:OVERLINK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may decide that in a particular context there are good reasons not to follow some rule from the MoS, and that's OK: the MoS is not a policy but a guideline, and so allows for exceptions of that kind. However, that doesn't appear to have been the case: from the template documentation, and from what I see in the archives, this appears to have been understood as a straightforward application of WP:OVERLINK.

It turns out that if the infobox detects any links in the |language= parameter, it will place the article in Category:Pages using infobox television with incorrectly formatted values (a large category with over 8,000 pages at the moment), so that editors doing cleanup will eventually unlink the language. This can be remedied by just removing language = args.language, from Module:Infobox television. The template documentation can then be updated to match the advice of the MoS. Still, let's leave a day or two so we can hear from others? – Uanfala (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK says not to link to "major" languages, so I don't see the issue if you're linking per WP:OVERLINK. I've been editing TV articles for 10-15 years and I don't generally remove links to minor languages because that's what OVERLINK says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieLegend (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation could be adjusted slightly if editors aren't familiar with OVERLINK (or choose to go there) to state: Do not link major language articles, e.g., [[English language|English]], per WP:OVERLINK. That still satisfies what has been done, but more clearly allows for minor languages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I was the editor whose actions sparked this discussion and I was trying to clean out the tracking category, Category:Pages using infobox television with incorrectly formatted values, that currently has 8,682 entries in it, all of which are language links. When I looked through the template edit history and discussion I was hoping I would find a good consensus to back up these edits. The documentation was changed from use a link to do not use a link per WP:OVERLINK in June 2012 with a small discussion at Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 5#Language_section. WP:OVERLINK at the time of this template change said what is says now about avoiding linking major languages, while now there are some examples of major languages. If changes are made to the documentation about language, it should also be used for the country field, that also states not to use a link, but is not including in the tracking category.

I have a concern about what constitutes a major language, since on my talk page, User:Uanfala, objected to my removal of Bengali, which is one of the ten most spoken languages in the world. Going back through my own edits these are the languages I am going to add back if the documentation is changed: Nigerian Pidgin, Burmese language, Wyandot language, Mohawk language, Marathi language, Nepali language, Cebuano language, Waray language, Sinhala language, Dari, Pashto, Taiwanese Hokkien, Southern Min, Catalan language, Afrikaans, and Galician language. Aspects (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above, Aspects. That clears things up a fair bit. I was lurking on this as I have been working on maintenance categories as well (although not this one) but was hesitant to comment until more info was available. I'd like to see @Gonnym: bring an opinion as I believe they are involved in working on defining what the maintenance categories pick up? ButlerBlog (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the guidance changes, the module will reflect that. So just ping me whenever this ends with what the outcome is. Gonnym (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the above, the module can remove the check completely, or be modified to check if a language is on a "don't link" list. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some editors are putting the seasons for executive producers and producers parameters on the Infobox. Is there a general consensus to put the seasons for executive producers and producers parameters on the Infobox? — YoungForever^(talk) 18:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there was a specific past discussion, but generally we don't include those extraneous details because they are better left for prose with context. Otherwise, it tends to invite that type of stuff for every person in the infobox, including cast members.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, too. Personally, I do not add the seasons on executive producers and producers parameters. We don't do them for starring cast members. So, why should executive producers and producers parameters be any different? — YoungForever^(talk) 19:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't be different. It's the same reason we don't add film lists to the actor portrayal list of a character infobox. It's just a great way to clutter the infobox with information that is better left to prose content if it's relevant. I have seen it with studios or TV channels when a series changes ownership or broadcast location, but really it shouldn't be there either. It should written in prose to be able to explain why there was a change in the first place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors add the seasons on executive producers and producers parameters because they do not clearly say Years or seasons should not be included. on there. Some editors see that as a loophole when it did not say that. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support stating it explicitly. Too much extraneous data in the infobox tends to make them cluttered and untidy. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think so as well to include that on both parameters on the template. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If something like "Years or seasons should not be included" should be the default for all parameters, then it should be added to the text above the table, which already covers other general guides. Gonnym (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone make a bot to remove the "name" parameter for all shows in Category:Pages using infobox television with unnecessary name parameter? Per the category's description, "Articles that use Infobox television with a |name= parameter which matches the PAGENAMEBASE value. Usages should be removed as the infobox already performs this task automatically." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask the dumb question, in my "before" duty as a botop, but... why is this a thing? Why do we care? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Template_talk:Infobox_television/Archive_12#Name_parameter_category for the answer I got to this question. MB 17:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely disagree with Gonnym, but most of those reasons sound like reasons to do the reverse, actually, and check whether the |name= field doesn't match the page name. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Primefac. It doesn't matter if the infobox has a name. Most infoboxes have a name field and it can be confusing to editors to not see a name. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also would agree - we could reverse the category. However, I did submit a bot request for myself. I know of at least three users who have been working on this category manually (including me), two of whom are using AWB (including me). Since it is primarily just a minor edit, it's probably better to run it as a bot so that editors following various pages can ignore it. I had been considering submitting it as a bot request before, but hadn't done so until this question motivated me to submit it. I'm already enabled for AWB and have been running a simple regex on this category manually. To do it as a bot, I would just have to get the bot account enabled for AWB and then approved as a bot (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ButlerBlogBot) ButlerBlog (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting in this discussion my view that |name= is a standard infobox parameter and removing it here will lead to more confusion. The fact that there can be some many different names (e.g. image=, image_name=, image name=, photo=, Photo=, static_image_name=, etc.) for equivalent fields is a tremendous waste of time for editors who work in multiple topics. We should move towards more standardization, not less. MB 14:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please show where and what confusion this would cause. Gonnym (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clear up some things here. There is already a category that checks if the name does not match - that is regardless of this one. As I've stated, most vandalism target the most easy target, which is the name, removing it gives them one less visible win. This is also a parameter which suffers from pointless fixes - page moves, MoS style changes, etc, need to update the field. The fact that a lot of other infoboxes have a pointless parameter does not mean we need to keep doing this. {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox television episode}} have received major behind-the-scenes updates over the past year+ which included streamlining stuff, making things more automatic and allowing for things to be discovered and fixed. Editors need to stop clinging to the old days and let computers do the automatic stuff. To note, over 10k pages have already been cleared from the category since November with no issues so far. Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I am less concerned about OTHERSTUFF and more concerned that there is consensus, given that it's a prerequisite for my bot. If there is no significant opposition to this move away from "the norm" (i.e. is MB the only holdout?) then that's fine, I'm just attempting to do my due diligence.

Also, in case you're wondering, I might disagree with the task but I will generally not stand in the way if I'm in the minority. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, I would add that of the users I know who are working on the category, we've already removed it from about ~12k entries so far. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please show where and what confusion this would cause - That was explained. It's a standard parameter in infoboxes and not seeing it causes confusion. I've seen a few infoboxes where |show_name= has been restored because editors thought it was missing.

Editors need to stop clinging to the old days and let computers do the automatic stuff. - Normally I'd agree but people are not computers and sometimes you just have to let them have it as they want it, at least that's been my experience in programming for 47 years. It's not limited to computers either, it extends to a lot of fields. From personal experience I can say that I get really frustrated when the automation in my car does something that I specifically didn't want to do. There's also a few examples in Wikipedia where this isn't the case. I had several infoboxes that automatically generated coordinate strings based on simple inputs but Wikpedia decided that wasn't the thing to do and now all coordinate strings have to be entered manually. It affected a lot of infoboxes, not just mine.

To note, over 10k pages have already been cleared from the category since November with no issues so far. - As I've said, I've seen a lot of infoboxes where |show_name= has been restored. If we remove this parameter I expect to see te same thing. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have the category on watchlist so I can say with a very firm certainty that if the parameter has been restored, it was less than 10 times (in over 10k pages). I also have all the other maintenance categories on my watchlist, and even there almost no page has returned. Additionally, while it might be standard in infoboxes, even in the television area we have |title= for the episode template, |season_name= for the season template and while we have |name= here, until very recently, it was |show_name=. If the television editors managed to handle this myriad of parameter names, I'm sure they can manage this. Also worth noting, that from my experience editors copy what they see, and if they (eventually) don't see the parameter in use, they just won't use it. Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with Gonnym that from personal experience editors copy what they see on another article as opposed to going to the template docs. This is evident from working through the maintenance categories in television. If a parameter is removed from use and we get the maintenance category cleared, the likelihood of it being used in the future would likely be minimal, if at all. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can say with a very firm certainty that if the parameter has been restored, it was less than 10 times - Maybe you're not looking at the right category. I check Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters almost every day, sometimes 2 or 3 times, and I can guarantee that |show_name= has been returned many more than 10 times since we changed it.

If a parameter is removed from use and we get the maintenance category cleared, the likelihood of it being used in the future would likely be minimal, if at all. - That's totally incorrect given my experience over the past years. |show_name= has been returned a lot of times, |imdb_id= was removed several years ago but it keeps getting added, completely invalid fields are often added and I've seen runs where very old versions of the infobox are added. Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters often has 5-10 entries to fix every day. Add that up over a year and it's quite a lot. I know that somebody else is clearing the cat as well, so there are additional entries to those that I've had to repair. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]