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 Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

OK, so I'm being a bold newbie to this area. I noticed that a couple of shows didn't have infoboxes, or didn't have them fully filled out, so I added them. That led me to have to research what I should put into some of these fields, which in turn led me to record my observations back into the documentation and update the example to match observed common style.

It occurs to me that consistency could be aided by using strongly stylized values, with the template turning them into common presentations. (imdb_id and tv_com_id are good examples of what I mean.)

For instance:

Parameter	Comments
format	Automatically link. Note that a red link will be a hint that you haven't picked a good value.
camera	Automatically link. Perhaps automatically expand to some canonical values.
picture_format	Automatically link
audio_format	Automatically link
country	use ISO 3166 country codes; automatically generate flag template references
language	use ISO 639 language codes; automatically generate appropriate link
preceded_by	It'd be nice to standardize the formatting here, but I suspect too complex.

I tried to add these myself but was immediately reverted. Is it alright to add these? "Presented by" and "Narrated by" aren't really appropriate terms for those types of programs. I think that addition would greatly benefit the template. Snowpeck (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Presented by" sounds like a prefectly appropriate term to me. _TalkIslander 13:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Hosts are referred to as hosts in game and talk/variety, not as presenters. I think the terms need to be added, as I have had a similar problem lately editing a couple of articles. Nicholasm79 (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think we need these options, particularly for announcer. Narrated by does not work well for announcer, as they are different things. Hosted by would also be an appropriate field, though its not as bad with presented by. Collectonian (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The network field shows as "Original network" which makes me wonder how to deal with shows like Jeopardy!, which has aired on multiple networks during its 40 year run. Right now, the networks are listed with years, but is that the appropriate way? Do we need a premiere network, then other network field? Collectonian (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar question. If a show is gonna switch networks, do you add the new network as soon as it is announced or once the show starts airing on the new network? TJ Spyke 12:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the consensus regarding the use of the television infobox? Is it intended to represent only the current or most recent iteration of a television program, or is descretion permitted to allow it to show significant figures from a program's past? On the present version of the infobox for the television sitcom 8 Simple Rules, John Ritter is listed among the cast, even though he was not with the cast for its final season. The infobox for Family Feud similarly lists all the hosts of the show and gives their years; however, it leaves off details for the show's directors, producers, announcers, etc. Is it proper to list the hosts of the multiple versions of a game show, but not its several announcers? How should directors/producers be handled? (Listing directors and producers for all versions leads to bloat, but listing only the most recent directors/producers of a long-running show may give undue weight to staff members who have been with a show for a relatively short amount of time, perhaps as short as only one episode, such as a series finale.) Robert K S (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, an Infobox is more a short summary of the current state of the show, hence would show the current director and producer and such information. Notable former members might be better described in prose within the article itself. However, if a program has had, say, 10 directors I don't see why it would be relevent to describe each one, unless there is a specific reason to.Fritter (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right for current shows, but for "historic" shows, that might be different. In these cases you usually go with the "important" cast members troughout the history of the show or you direct people to a subsection in the page with a link. John was a primary cast member and the episodes were "viewed" from his characters perspective until his death. When I visit that page I personally (as having watched that series) would expect his name to be in that section of the Infobox. There are no rules, it is an editorial decision basically. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the name to "Infobox Television show" as "Infobox Television" is vague. (Is "Infobox Television" about a make of television, a television channel, television network, ...?) The descriptions of the parameters in the documentation also keep referring to the... show. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of the core template should be as concise as possible, and the "show" part really isn't needed. There are also several redirects (such as Infobox TV) that point to this template. Moving should not be done unless there is consensus. — Edokter • Talk • 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sorry if I was too "bold" in effort to simplify this template's code by using {{Infobox}}. Would people please indicate what's amiss with this version (the one preceding the reversion) so I can then amend it to the consensus' satisfaction. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the problem I found was that the template's stylistic formatting was altered. The alterations made the infobox stick out and not flow with the article in my opinion. Note that I've got no problem with simplifying the code itself. Matthew (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. What is it, then, you don't like about the version linked above, so that I may amend and then reinstate it? Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the issues I encountered were: font-size was too small (infobox is already set to 90%) and linespacing was too tight. It also seemd to needlessly line-wrap each field name, making the lack of line-spacing even more noticable. — Edokter • Talk • 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My big question is mostly... WHY ? I mean, I'm all for standardizing templates and what not (hell, I deleted a couple of dozen of infoboxes in favor of the then new {{Infobox Television episode}}), but aren't we going a little bit far if we start using one central infobox template ? I mean, that will become boring as hell real soon. The Infobox that was there was good and it worked. If you want to start a new kind of Infobox then I can see the use in {{Infobox}}, but here, I just don't see why you would use it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think using one central infobox template means infoboxes will become boring as hell real soon. {{Infobox}} is more of a central infobox "core" or "skeleton", like Navbox/core. So, like Navbox, Infobox should be easier for people to set up and modify without feeling a growing need for a computer programming degree. Infobox Television (show) isn't such an oddball infobox that it can't be more straightforwardly defined using {{Infobox}} -- at least, that's how it seems to me. Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:Flags#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate , this template should not use a flag Gnevin (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- This is also currently being discussed at Talk:Doctor_Who#Flag in infobox. TheProf - T / C 11:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has also in the past been discussed above (here). As the template guidelines have included the use of flags for a long, long time, they should not be removed until there is consensus to remove. Once there is consensus, by all means change it, but not before. _TalkIslander 13:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the discussion that has already occurred over at Talk:Doctor Who is actually quite useful, albeit in the wrong place, so I've copied it to below:

---

All TV show articles have flags in their infoboxes. I don't see why this one should'nt! WP:Flag in not totally clear on flags in infoboxes. Thanks TheProf - T / C 17:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Television specifically shows an example flag in its specification. In the absence of a compelling reason NOT to have one, I suggest we go with the flow and keep it. If the argument prevails the other way, of course, those proposing it would be free to update that template & go round every single television programme removing the flags. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a compelling reason NOT to have one how about policy ? Wikipedia:Flags#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate, clear . Now just because other articles have it doesn't mean this article should be wrong . What does having a flag here add and no all TV shows/movies have them ,they are being removed slowly see South Park Gnevin (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is not clear. And the fact that Template:Infobox Television has one in its example is a good reason to keep it! As for the South Park article. In the infobox, [[United States]] should be changed to {{USA}}! I would do it right now, however, i feel it may lead to an edit war. Which i don't want to happen on any article! TheProf - T / C 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When policy is unclear, as it is here, consensus should prevail, and I propose we give sufficient time for a consensus to develop. This is, remember, a featured article, and it became one with the flag IIRC. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and its logical corollary are never good reasons for making decisions. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is clear , Don't decorate!. I've removed the flag in Template:Infobox Television it was wrong . Just because other articles have flags doesn't mean they are correct . Please discuss the merits of the flag as applies here Gnevin (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's still in the template. How about you fight it out on the template's talk page and come back when you've got a leg to stand on? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a little unfair. The policy is unclear as to what constitues decoration and what does not. However, from a purely practical point of view, it's arguably more constructive to challenge the policy where it is stated than to go round the entire encyclopedia applying a personal interpretation. I found that out when I practised law. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't decorate" is highly interpretive language, and its explanation is vague and badly phrased to the point of being almost useless in the original policy. Moreover the presence of the flag in the template would seem to both contradict one user's interpretation (operative word) that the flag is decoration and give considerable support to the majority position that the flag is appropriate. I would agree with the users who contend the policy should be challenged in its own context rather than in any given application. Moreover I would further the argument of the majority that the presence of the flag on the template constitutes use within WP:Flag guidelines. Your interpretation of the policy is that the flag is decoration. The majority interpretation is that it is not. Consensus is well established, and around these parts, majority rules. --Drmargi (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Before this gets too heated, a few points. One, Wikipedia doesn't operate by the idea of "majority rules", which is quite different from consensus. Second, WP:FLAG isn't a policy; it began as an essay and has since become a guideline under the Manual of Style. (To quote, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article.") Third, inclusion in the template does not reflect consensus about the use of flags. It is just a line of code in the template, and as very few editors actually get involved in the design of templates it cannot really be taken as consensus for anything. (There was a discussion on the template talk page about the use of flags back in January. Opinions were split, and no consensus appears to have developed.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very borderline personal and incivil . I've yet too hear what the flag adds to the article.I've yet to told what this adds here .Why do we need the flag here? '

Don't decorate and it's important points here Flag and other icons are commonly misused as decoration. Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information, and is often simply distracting (example). Wikipedia generally strongly eschews the use of images for decorative purposes, preferring those that provide additional essential information or needed illustrationGnevin (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

_TalkIslander 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was discussed a year ago when the guideline was an essay ,it's not a guideline and a lot clearer. Their was consensus , I took the lack of objections to indicate consensus,Template guidelines still need to follow policy Gnevin (talk)

You're right, template guidelines do need to follow policy. However, there is no policy regarding the use of flags, only another guideline, and it appears that the majority of editors (which does not necessarily show a concencus, but is a good indication that there may be one) are in favour of keeping flags in the templates. _TalkIslander 13:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This majority is where? Gnevin (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the above discussion for a start. _TalkIslander 13:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the fact that most television infoboxes on Wikipedia contain a flag - they would not if the majority disputed their use. _TalkIslander 13:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a logical fallacy , it was standard pratice to include the flag , the guidelines have now changed and so should the standard pratice,please stop inventing majorities and incorrectly citing "well template {{usa}} exists so I must be right" and perhaps discuss why and what the flags add ? Gnevin (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it somewhat irritating that you type "This is all very borderline personal and incivil..." above, yet your above post is hardly the height of civility. Please keep to your own standards. I am not inventing majorities - you are still failing to acknowledge that in the discussion above, you are anti-flags whilst all other participants are either neutral or pro-flags. Like I said, we do not yet have consensus on the issue (something which is needed before you jump in and change a long-term standard), but it would appear that there is, if not a majority, a non-minority that disagrees with you. _TalkIslander 13:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note: I've posted a message to the main project page to point out this discussion, since this talk page tends to get little traffic. Collectonian (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've now added {{USA}} to the infobox in the South Park article. If the current consensus here changes, i will gladly remove it again. Thank you TheProf - T / C 13:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem I see with flag usage is undue weight. The show's country of origin is easy to write with letters like we do in the rest of the template. Why should this part of the infobox have an eye-catching flag. This information is definitely not more important than than other information. Flag usage also causes problems when flags changes. What flag do we use then. If there are any good reasons for flag usage besides they have bin there a long time, and they doesn't hurt anyone I would like to hear them. Rettetast (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think having the flags help the reader. I've been involved with Degrassi: The Next Generation and its season sub-pages. Having a flag helps readers realise that the show is broadcast in the U.S. and Canada, as without the flags, CTV and The N especially, could be stations anywhere in the world. As for having it in the "Country of origin" part, that doesn't make a difference either way to me. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that argument when the country name isn't repeated just after the flag and there is no room to do so. Anyone that has a good argument for using a flag in "Country of origin""? Rettetast (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags seem fine in the infobox. It's not much different than using other types of icons, and from an "at-a-glance" approach, it does help one quickly identify the country. It's not much different from how Template:Infobox Disney ride uses icons. [[Template:Infobox animanga}} has been using flags for a while, and we even came up with a clever way to deal with multiple country listings via a hide/show switch. I know the flag thing can get a bit crazy, but I'm not sure it's really an issue here. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]