Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
WikiProject iconTelevision Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Force consistent style?

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.

Flag usage

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.) --Ckatzchatspy 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]

Break 1

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]

If other infoboxes jumped off a cliff would you? Gnevin (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of an argument is that? Not a helpful one, at any rate. The fact that other userboxes use flag icons is not carte-blanche to use it here, however, it's a good way of determining that concensus may well be in favour of their use. TalkIslander 12:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS kind of argument . The fact other info boxes are not following this guideline should not influence on this discussion as most of them where properly developed before the guideline was developed. Gnevin (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you for pointing me to a page that, as an experienced user, I'm well aware of ;). Now, go back to that page yourself, and take a look at the nutshell box. Pay particular attention to the first two points, as well as the latter half of the third point. Also, bear in mind that this essay is primarily used in conjunction with AfXs. Finally, note that it is just that - an essay, not policy, nor a guideline. Now, back to my point - the fact that other infoboxes use flags is not a good reason in itself for flags to be used here. However, it does show that there is a wide range of users who do it, suggesting that there may be concensus. Yes, infobox policies were developed before the flags guidelines, but if concensus was clearly not to use them, use would obviously have discontinued quickly after implementing said guideline. TalkIslander 16:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well award of the limits of Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and what its primarily used for but you asked what kind of argument it was and it said it was an argument against Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS types of arguments. use would obviously have discontinued quickly after implementing said guideline. Not if during the discussion to remove the flags their where people like you saying Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS instead on pointing out what the flags add to the info boxes which words can't ([[Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS],one more for good luck :)) Gnevin (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument at all. This is a "we have a similar situation that doesn't demonstrate the negative effects that lead us to restrict flag use". That situation leads me to believe that we can have a limited use of flags in the infobox without it being an issue. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2

I would have to say that it depends on the article in question. For instance, Doctor Who is very much British - it's where the humour comes from, among other things. Stuff like Deal or no Deal I would say is more ambiguous, and doesn't need a flag. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And just what doesn't "United Kingdom" provide to show that something is overtly British? A flag is unnecessary and is just pure decoration, unless of course you add nationalistic zeal for which there is no place in a supposedly neutral zone like WP. --WebHamster 05:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to read over a reasonable explanation (that does not involve WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) that defends the use of these flags. Text is just as easily identifiable as a flag. I wonder whose idea was it to put flags in the first place. Pacific Coast Highway {Spring • ahead!} 17:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear thats because the only arguement for the flags is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Gnevin (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly! wp:mosflag is quite clear on not using flags to decorate. Consensus or not wp:mos must take first priority. CJ2005B (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not accurate. MOSFLAG is a guideline created by consensus, and consensus can change. That aside I belive this discussion shows that there are consensus that flags aren't important in the infobox and should be removed. Rettetast (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSFLAG is a guideline, not a policy. As such, editors are not required uphold the guideline 'at all costs'. Consesnsus can override a guideline in certain cases. Also, MOSFLAG is woefully quiet regarding the use in infoboxes, but allows use in tables. So it is certainly not a good idea to summerly remove every flag from every infobox. — Edokter • Talk • 20:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see a consensus here to have the flags. CJ2005B (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see concensus not to use the flags either - I don't see concensus either way. Until there is concensus, we continue using them as we have been. Appart from all else, the 'traffic' to this talk page is very low, so we're never going to acheive any sort of concensus without bringing it to a bigger audience. Regardless, I agree 100% with Edokter - buldosing all the flags from the infoboxes helps nothing. TalkIslander 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anywhere higher you can take this? CJ2005B (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. This is primarely a content dispute, and editors are expected to come to an agreement by means of discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 22:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The flag helps the reader by quickly identifying where the program's nationality is located, therefore it serves as an important navigational aid pointing to a practical identification aid among reams of text. From there, readers can orient themselves in the infobox to its other factoids. Readers can often more easily recognise a flag than plain text, and that should work as long as flags don't also start popping up with every other line of the infobox. MOSFLAG also seems to be risking instruction creep with all its thou-shalt-nots; we should consider WP:IAR for this template case. As a bonus, typing in a flag/country name template (e.g. {{USA}}, {{GBR}}, {{CAN}}) uses fewer characters than country name alone. And it makes WP a little bit less bland and boring. Keep flag for Country of origin as per existing template spec. Dl2000 (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you've a problem with the MOS the suggest changes or change if your self at the MOS talk .Flags are not more recognisable if fact they are very much less so than plain text . WP is not a bowl of ice cream it doesn't need sprinkles on it to make it less bland.Gnevin (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break 3

I think people are forgetting why we avoid using flags. We avoid using them because people try to use them everywhere, and things get cluttered and messy very quickly. In my above example of Template:Infobox animanga, flags are only used once. The average anime or manga article doesn't normally use flags in the article itself. We have a situation where flag use is minimal, and thus it's not a problem. So I must ask this before we continue, do we actually have a problem? -- Ned Scott 04:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes per the MOS , Their are issues for the colour blind, the blind, their are contentious flags issues ,historical issues issues for people who find if difficult to distinguish between certain flags at 20 px
Finally their is the nutshell While flag icons and similar images can be useful in Wikipedia articles in some circumstances, there are also problems associated with their misapplication and overuse. Words are clearer. Gnevin (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you cite their overuse - how exactly does one flag in an infobox qualify as overuse? Also, your argument about issues for the colour blind / blind etc. doesn't hold, so long as, for example, {{UK}} is used and not {{flagicon|UK}}, as the former produces both a flag and text, appeasing both parties. TalkIslander 10:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about historical ,political issues? I think i've said all I really can say here, the MOS is their too follow if you wish and you can keep the pretty flags if you wish Gnevin (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about historical and political issues? I fail to see how those are relevant here. TalkIslander 11:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Ned Scott. Yes, their use is minimal (only one per article at least) but I still see no reason why a flag should be there. As Gnevin says, words are clearer. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games btw has decided to remove all flags from infoboxes. Garion96 (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Garion96 was their a discussion about that ? Can you link to it if so ,would love to read it Gnevin (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It must be in the archives of the wikiproject. I couldn't quickly find it. Garion96 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flags , Flags and more Flags Gnevin (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"United Kingdom" is much clearer than "United Kingdom", that I certainly won't deny. However, how is " United Kingdom" any less clear than "United Kingdom"? Especially when in an infobox, where clarity is much better than in straight text, as here. TalkIslander 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it distracts, it looks simplistic, there is no need for them, some flags look almost identical and flags can change so they will not be correct anymore. (all but the last one is my POV of course). Garion96 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily for us, though, these flags are all placed in articles through templates, that aren't subst'ed. Therefore, should a flag change, the template can be updated, and all articles using that template will switch to the new image by themselves. There's the answer to your last point, and you are correct, all your other points are your own (perfectly valid, of course) points of view. Unfortunately, my and other editors points of view conflict with those, hence some consensus needs to be reached. TalkIslander 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect as say for example the flag of the UK changed tomorrow, all the current shows would need to keep current flags where the {{UK}} would be updated to the new flag of the UK . In order for the flags to be correct a massive clean-up job would be needed too set a parm in the template such as {{UK}} Gnevin (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but when flags change, should the older flag be added or should it be the new flag. There have been extremely lame edit wars over that. Or for instance this wonderful edit. Any article on a german tv show from 1933-1945 around? :) Not likely in this infobox though, but for all those reasons I don't see any benefit for flags. Garion96 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

This is getting ridiculous. Those against keeping the flags are never going to see this from the point of view of those for keeping the flags, and those for keeping the flags are never going to see it from the point of view of those against keeping the flags. We need to find a consensus. I suggest the following, to end this once and for all:

  • Below each editor states their support or opposition for the following proposal. It can be accompanied by a brief explanation as to why they think that way, or it can just be a straight support/oppose/neutral.
  • We leave this open for one month. On 2 June we end this debate, a non-involved admin (unless it is very clear cut) is asked to come and review the supports/opposes, and deduce a consensus, hopefully one way or the other.
  • The infobox instructions are changed accordingly, and infoboxes are changed to remove/add flags as necessary.
  • During this month, no flags are either added to or removed from television infoboxes, save of course good-faith edits made by those unaware of these proceedings.

What do people think? If you have any comments or objections to this idea, post it below this comment. If not, post your support/oppose/neutral below the following level 4 header. Please keep WP:CANVASS in mind, though do let as many parties know of this as possible. Perhaps in this way we can finally end this once and for all. TalkIslander 13:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the word's flag-hater's is horribly loaded and POV. I don't know why you'd used such terms when you could of said for keeping the flags and against keeping the flags Gnevin (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appologies, 'twas a genuine mistake. Better now? TalkIslander 14:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have informed both WP:TV and WP:FLAG of this, in an attempt to get as many contributors as possible, to guage the best consensus possible. TalkIslander 14:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just posted a message over at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) - the more people that voice their opinion below, the clearer consensus will become. TalkIslander 12:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some editors that believe that the above injunction to not edit any flags while this discussion is going on, does not apply to them (you know who you are). Therefore, I will have to enforce this injuction is necessary. All parties are once again reminded not to edit the flags in or out, not even to revert in breach of this rule. Non-withstanding the (non-)weight of the issue, the edit warring is disruptive, and is not becoming Wikipedia editors. — Edokter • Talk • 12:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should check the history of the Torchwood article and see who has changed it 4 times since this edict (someone with a worse 3RR record than me). I suggest you revert the article back to the state it was in when you issued the above ruling, ie no flag, otherwise your ruling isn't worth the electrons used to create it. --WebHamster 12:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There, I've done it myself, m'kay? Now perhaps we can stop edit warring, cease the addition/removal of flags, and try and find a consensus. Is that possible? TalkIslander 13:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Please note that since you made the above ruling I did indeed cease reverting, that is until it was necessary to keep to said ruling. May I suggest that any further changes made to the flag template should only be reverted by yourself or Edokter so as to prevent another reoccurence of what happened earlier? --WebHamster 13:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no-one should edit/revert in any way. I'm just as guilty, but now we all stop. — Edokter • Talk • 13:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I lived in the same Utopia that you seem to live in, but in the real world someone will come along and change it, sure as eggs is eggs. My above suggestion was that only you two keep the status quo, nothing more. It will prevent what happened today, or put another way if you don't keep the status quo, then I will... do you really want that? --WebHamster 13:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, though I have to say I'd find it highly amusing to watch you repeatedly replace a flag, if the occassion arose :P. I see no problem with your suggestion, except that there are bound to be cases that both myself and Edokter miss. Having said that, this certainly wouldn't be something immune from 3RR - I won't be engaging in edit wars, merely reverting to the status quo whilst discussions are ongoing. Edoktor, thoughts? TalkIslander 13:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to revert if a good-faith editor comes along and changes it; it is a status-quo either way. Just leave it alone for the time being. — Edokter • Talk • 14:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I've offended. I didn't see any injunctions. I came here from a link that took me straight to the voting section, where I read the points pro and cons and added my own voice. I figured that this would be a good summary of the long discussion I now see above - it all looks kinda petty and personal to me anyway. --Pete (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested for closing admin listed here Gnevin (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, was just about to do that m'self :P TalkIslander 12:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Flags should no longer be used in Television Infoboxes, per WP:FLAG

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus either way. As there appears to be an established protocol that they are used I guess that means no consensus for removing them. That said this is pretty non binding - I would suggest further discussion (as painful as that may seem). You could however start a wider discussion at village pump - more participants might mean clearer consensus on the issue. ViridaeTalk 13:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Flags help to quickly identify the country which a show originates from, much like a programme's logo helps to quickly identify the program. This is useful in a number of ways, but especially when it comes to national variations, such as The Office (UK TV series) and The Office (U.S. TV series) (this particular example does not currently use flags; I feel it would benefit from doing so). So long as they are not overused (i.e. one or two are acceptable), they do not affect the readability of a page, nor do they pose a problem to those that have vision problems so long as, for example, {{UK}} is used in preference to {{flagicon|UK}}. When it comes to infoboxes, WP:FLAG isn't actually particularly clear - at one point is actually acknowledges the use of flags in infoboxes ("The flag icons were created for use in lists and tables (especially of sporting and other statistics), and have subsequently found widespread usage in infoboxes"). It should also be remembered that WP:FLAG is just a guideline, and as such "Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article". There is, in my opinion, nothing in WP:FLAG that specifically bars the use of flags in these television infoboxes, and, as I've stated above, I feel that their use is beneficial, and most certainly doesn't count as decoration. TalkIslander 13:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Flags are just decoration here , providing no additional relevant information and have number issus assocatiated with term as WP:Flag. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games has removed or is the process of removing the flags with no negative effects on the info box or the articles Gnevin (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reference to decisions by other projects is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS kind of argument, and not automatically applicable to this template. Dl2000 (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support See my reasoning in section above. In short, flags here serve no purpose and (can) only cause difficulties. Garion96 (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Flags add useful information and enhance accessibility. The notion of flags-as-decoration has no foundation in reason, and the passion associated with removal seems to be more associated with the letter than the principle of the guideline. I would suggest flags should at the very least be discretionary, and actually enhance the article. --Drmargi (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might not agree with the reasoning, I don't agree with yours. But skip the "no foundation in reason" part please. I also have no passion removing flags from tv infoboxes. Garion96 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Islander sums it up perfectly. Sceptre (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The guideline mentions use of Flags in Infoboxes. Personally I don't like them but people like myself who don't like flags don't have to see them and so leaving those that feel they benefit without being deprived of that perceived benefit. Agathoclea (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Flag icons don't achieve anything the written country name doesn't so are therefore, by definition, superfluous decoration. They don't help the reader any further than a wiki-linked country name, after all what happens when you click on a flag icon... you get a bigger flag, whoop-de-do. Additionally when there is no consensus the correct way to deal with things is to fall back on established guidelines (rather than custom and practice). The WP:FLAG article was reached by consensus over a period of time, whereas the template instruction came about merely as an arbitrary choice by the template's author, i.e. there was no consensus merely a blind following of the instruction. In most cases flag usages has everything to do with nationalism rather than as a need to help and inform. Given that one of the goals of the WP project is to be neutral and to remove systemic bias it's therefore essential that all of us strive to remove any nationalism from articles. Flag icon's recommended use is to aid in quick identification (if there is such a thing for readers who aren't conversant with other contries' flags) in long lists or tables. Given that an infobox is neither a list nor a table, and is most certainly not a long confusing list of country names then the flag usage is contrary to the guideline. --WebHamster 10:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Flags add immediate visual information. Some people would prefer the thousand words instead of a picture, I feel. Wikipedia is a multimedia project and we go beyond words. Graphic elements such as colour-coding, diagrams, text sizes and formats help our readers assimilate the information we provide. --Pete (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - if it were for some government program/channel that might make some sense, but otherwise its just distracting. There is no "quick identification" (aka "picture replaces 1000 words") factor here. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The current use of flags in infoboxes fits very well in to summary point 2 of WP:FLAG. The description further down of using flag icons for national team identification of athletes is a reasonable analogy for the use they are being put to here. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it does not fit summary point 2. An infobox is neither a table nor a list, the nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand, and can be better expressed with text. Aspects (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Using the flag icons has nothing to do with nationalism, but rather a quick way to identify. It is not any more nationalistic to identify a country by using its flag than it is to do so by using its name. The icons are small, and perfect for use in places such as an infobox. As long as they are listed in some standard way (such as alphabetical). Again, use of flag icons here has nothing to do with nationalism, and any argument to the contrary is baseless. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Pete and Nihonjoe. Flags allow readers to quickly skim the infobox and gather information from it. The visual component enables effective communication of content. Even if one does not know what country that flag represents, each image has with it alternative text which identifies the country when hovered over. Fox816 (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: A TV programs (as opposed to something like a bank or a hospital) is often very culture sensitive and nationalistic. So, the country of origin of the program is a very valuable and important information. The use of flag icon in the article quickly draws the attention of the reader to this important piece of information. If the flag is not there, a less experienced reader will have to move around different parts of the article, just to ascertain which country is this program from. For example Sha Na Na (TV series) could use an infobox with a flag. Arman (Talk) 09:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not all flags are obvious. Words are crystal clear. Urzatron (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Flags are decoration here, serving no more than to clutter this infobox—who's purpose is the clear, quick browsing of pertinent information. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A flag takes up less space in an already crowded infobox, and properly formatted, will take the user to that country's article anyway (and provide a pop-up "alt" text that says what flag it is anyway, rendering the "text is better" argument moot). This is a solution in search of a problem. MalikCarr (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Text is still needed - even if the flag is used - note the screenshot below. Agathoclea (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments in #Break 1. -- Ned Scott 21:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my earlier comments. Thanks CJ2005B (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it worked for the video games, and TV ain't all that different. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Most of the Oppose's have the argument that the flagicon is a quick way to identify the country. This is not the case if you do not know what the flagicon is and there are no words to identify the flag. A wikilink to the country provides a quick identification, the country's names in words, and a link to the country. For example, United Kingdom provides a link to the image page that does not link to United Kingdom from what I can tell. I had to go through the Flag of the United Kingdom to then get to the United Kingdom page. With the flagicon it takes three steps to get to the United Kingdom page but with the country name and no flagicon it only takes one step. For examples of what keeping the flagicon to identify the country of origin can lead to: flagicons for the nationality of people involved in the show like on Australian Idol or flagicons for the country of origin of the cable broadcasters like on Degrassi: The Next Generation. In summary, I believe using flagicons in the infobox of television shows to represent the country of origin are being used as decoration and Wikipedia would be better served with wikilinks to the countries' names to represent the country of origin instead. Aspects (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument is exactly why none of us are suggesting that, for example, {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} is used, but instead {{UK}}, which produces this:  United Kingdom. TalkIslander 16:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I used {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} as an example because that I see used a lot on Wikipedia, but after looking at some television shows I see that {{UK}} is used most of the time. But I did find How I Met Your Mother using {{Flagicon|USA}} [[United States]] and Everybody Hates Chris using {{flagicon|USA}}. I also remembered another example of what using flagicons for the country of origin can lead to: production locations like Lipstick Jungle (TV series) does. Aspects (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Flag icons help locate where the country of origin is situated on the infobox, providing a useful navigational aid to help many readers, and serve a function beyond what is merely decorative. Also note that some readers may have problems with sheer walls of text without navigational aids; an extreme example is dyslexia, but lesser reading impairments would certainly exist. Much of the opposition to a reasonable use of flag icons, such as "it's distracting" or "serves no use", has too much of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT factor. However, unless clear future consensus emerges, flags should be limited to just the country of origin field, and always be accompanied by the nation's name; that way, {{AUS}} or {{USA}} can be used, and represents less typing than Australia or United States. The usage of a flag icon and nation name predated the development of WP:FLAG and there is no compelling reason to revoke established practice - avoid WP:CREEP and WP:BURO. Dl2000 (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Protected

Okay, you know the procedure. :) Further discussion below this line please. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Edoktor get to force smaller fonts without discussion here, yet I can't revert them, per WP:BOLD? I have bad eyes, an old glases prescription, and I can't leave my house. I also have a small monitor. It's hard to read the small font on IE after a long day at the comp (not that it's easy on a short one either). This is ridiculous, and not the first time he has done this, as with the Wiki-wide small font size change a few weeks back. I give up here, but I will be taking my complaints to a higher authority if this keeps occuring. Please show some consideration for the disabilities others. I have know problem with the need for broweser consistecncy, but please default to the larger size, not the smaller one. - BillCJ (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest using crtl and plus to increase the font size , instead of changing of this template displays Gnevin (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that works on my system (I tried), but I don't need a larger font if it's standard font size. Even if I change the small font size, then the standard size is too big, and affects format overall. Most infoboxes use standard font size anyway, so why does this one need to be any different? If someone wants a smaller than standard font size, why can't they change their settings? - BillCJ (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Small fonts in templates

Okay, a summary. One editor has added small text to the template and has been reverted. An edit war has thus begun. Arguments include small text in the box include difficulty for those with disabilities, and that it's easier simply to change the screen resolution rather than change the text directly. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem seeing the standard text on my system - its not huge, but I can read it easily enough. My problem is with forcing smaller text sizes (lower than 90% on IE6) on the template. Changing system settings is not a viable solution here. - BillCJ (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally ok with and prefer the larger font. I see no reason to make it smaller. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, some compare links for those wanting to see the difference original and smaller version and proposed larger?. For my view, I think the original is just fine and does not need to be made either smaller nor larger. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The 88% size is perfectly readable, and looks far nicer than the 100% does. Furthermore, it's a common standard in most templates. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain the change from 90% to 88%. Yes, on IE it looks smaller; it now has the same size in IE as in every other browser, where the font size already was the same as you see it now. Font sizes have to be consistent accross browsers, it is essential to be able to build the templates based on this template. 90% is the only value that happnes to render different in IE then other browsers (which is why it should never be used). If a bigger font is preferred, it would have to be bigger in all browsers; not just IE; and we would have to abolish all small fonts on every page/template/styling. And such a change accross the board will need a consensus. With all due respect to BillCJ, but if you have a vision problem, there are other solutions. If you cannot read some elements at standard font size, increase the font. But don't try and force a change in design for your sole benefit. — Edokter • Talk • 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to disagree, but it looks smaller in Firefox as well, and somewhat distorted. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's odd... for me the jump in font-size doesn't happen until 92%. And in what way does it look distorted? — Edokter • Talk • 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a trick of the spacing. Your latest version, compared to the original one Collectonian linked, has an added "line-height:1.5em;", which has the effect of making the lines closer together and making the text seem smaller than it actually is. There's no significant difference in my Firefox. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dimensions of the letters seem off versus the original, like when you resize an image but forget to keep aspect ratio turned on. I can take screenshots if it would help. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Leaving out the line-height causes the lines to be too far apart; which too me makes the font look even smaller. Are you on Windows or Linux? — Edokter • Talk • 10:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Windows. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"Disability" should really not be an argument here. People who can't read small text already have views at their disposal, such as the on-screen magnifying glass, and zooming in, to view small text. Many sites use smaller text as a standard for stuff. It looks fine to me. Danielkitchener1 (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same way. The font sizes are easy enough to override on the end-user's computer anyways. -- Ned Scott 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, since one could easily manipulate font size, as mentioned just above, a change in the temp is unnecessary. Cliff smith (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template should be an {{infobox}} anyway, and should use the default sizes specified in that master template. Can we get this unlocked, please? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox}} is not used as a meta-template in this case. But this template is is using the same font-size as Infobox. — Edokter • Talk • 14:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "should be" as in "in the future". If it were an {{infobox}}, we wouldn't have having this conversation, because we wouldn't have to arbitrarily pick values. Once it's unprotected, I plan to make that happen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Converting to use Infobox is not a trivial task. But there is the sandbox which is not protected. — Edokter • Talk • 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

prod_website is really production_website

Can an admin editor fix it? -Lwc4life (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fix what? prod is short for production, or do you mean fix in the documentation? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course I meant the documentation. Anyone who doesn't click "view source" would not understand why does prod_website fail to work. Lwc4life (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

convert to {{infobox}}

{{editprotected}}

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to do this myself, but as a mere Untermensch I'm not able to thanks to Collectonian's valiant requesting of full protection.

Code dump is at User:Thumperward/tv. Drop-in replacement. The only changes to existing style are as follows:

  1. The title is in the "title" infobox parameter, and thus floats outside the box.
  2. {{{show_name_2}}} is used as an "above" at the top of the box, rather than being a normal parameter.

If these things cause serious distress then I can use the previous markup for those, but I feel that this is making better use of the infobox semantics. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, those were not the only changes. You significantly changed the code, and you changed all instances of No. to Number, making multiple lines wrap needlessly. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I said "only changes to existing style". I'm aware that the code has changed heavily; that's the whole point. Minor wording issues can be trivially corrected afterwards (or would be, were it not for the template being needlessly fullyprot). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is you didn't bother to discuss you. You just waited until the template was unprotected and immediately went through making a ton of changes with no discussion as to whether they were needed, valid, or desired. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That's because I'm a skilled template editor, and know well enough to work without needing my hand held. Procedure is there to keep the project ticking smoothly, not to give random weenies power over other editors. You reverted edits which you didn't even understand, which leads me to believe that I'm not the one who shouldn't be editing in templatespace.
Regardless, I'm not here to argue with procedural nonsense. I'm here to get peer review for the updated code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that Edokter also disagreed with the switch, as it functions the same. This isn't a matter of skill, as making an infobox isn't rocket science. People just disagree with the need to switch. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did Edokter disagree?
Look, there's literally no reason not to switch. The advantages in the new version are obvious:
  1. The code is vastly simpler, easier to follow and maintain.
  2. It ends arguments about default text size, because the size is standardised across every {{infobox}}.
  3. There's a trivial fix to allow {{{show_name}}} to inherit from the article title, which should have stood regardless of the other changes.
There are no advantages to using the current version. Nobody has come up with a single one, other than bickering about process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't necessarely disagree, however, I said it is a major operation. Before this conversion is done, it should be thouroughly tested in the sandbox. Chris, please move your code to the this template's sandbox, so we can all test-drive it. — Edokter • Talk • 11:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being...

{{editprotected}}

Might as well re-do the non-controversial part.

Currently, the template demands a {{{show_name}}} attribute. This shouldn't be necessary if the show's article is located at the same name, so changing: 

! style="font-size:125%; background:{{{bgcolour|{{Television colour|{{{show_name}}}}}}}};
color: {{{color text|{{{colour text|#000}}}}}}; text-align:center;" colspan="2" | ''{{{show_name}}}''

to 

! style="font-size:125%; background:{{{bgcolour|{{Television colour|{{{show_name}}}}}}}};
color: {{{color text|{{{colour text|#000}}}}}}; text-align:center;" colspan="2" | ''{{{show_name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}''

Allows the infobox to exist without any mandatory parameters. This is pretty common across infoboxen now, and doesn't break anything anywhere.


Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eeek! Wrong section. This is the meant to replace the second line of the template. Re-enabling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 12:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I apologise. Sorry. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hosts

Is there any interest in adding a "Host" section to the info box for shows such as news magazines and game shows? There is some debate on talk pages as to whether or not "hosts" should be billed as "stars" of the show. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hosts are generally put in the presenter field. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

More specific and explanable parameters

I think the parameter "Original channel" being used for currently running tv programs is not useful.

I think the parameter should cease use and be replaced by a new parameter called "Original network(s)" as channels refer to frequencies not networks or stations although the community uses the term channel for stations.

Lets not delete the parameter "Original channel" but rather replace it. Also, the "Original network(s)" parameter should only be used for no longer airing tv shows. Also, lets make three new parameters for more specific uses.

  • "Current network(s)" - The current network(s) that broacasts show on its stations
  • "Former network(s)" - The former network(s) that broacasted show on its/there stations
  • "Rerun network(s)" - Like "Original network(s)" should be used for no longer airing television series.

Is that a good idea?

I disagree on ceasing use as a large number of lay people use channels the same way it is used here, as do all the satellite and cable companies. Adding an alias of original network would be find. I disagree on having current/former as its are enough to not be an issue. Big huge no on rerun networks - syndicated series don't need to have every network listed that may have shown an episode or two of a series. The channels a series is rerun on is rarely notable at all, and if it does become notable it will be covered in the prose.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

first aired?

I don't think "first aired" makes sense for programs that haven't even debuted yet. Think there should be some sort of switch to change it to something else for shows that haven't aired yet and are set to debut, like maybe "Premiere date" or something? ViperSnake151 15:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Premier date" isn't really that important; it'd only encourage even more futuritis in articles. The attribute is optional, so it can just be omitted if the show hasn't started. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alignment

Am I imagining things or has a formatting change taken place that now aligns the TV info box on the left hand side of pages rather than on the right and in-line with text? Not sure how to correct this... Sottolacqua (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific article you are seeing this on? It looks normal to me on TV articles I checked. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeo_Drive_(game_show)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Price_Is_Right_(U.S._game_show)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)
Are you using Firefox or IE? This appears to be happening with just Firefox on my current computer.
Sottolacqua (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using Firefox and they are all appearing on the right side for me. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, after doing some hunting I think it has to do with using the Modern skin rather than the default MonoBook. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I meant to ask which skin you were using and if it might have been changed lately :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I switched back to the default skin and all is well. Have a good day Sottolacqua (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who can edit the page...

The explanation for the "writer" parameters says The show's writer or writers. Separate multiple entries with line breaks (<br/>. Don't use if the show has many (5+) writers. The first bracket needs closing. ;) —97198 talk 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, Template:Infobox Television/doc is not fully protected. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh :) Well, thanks. —97198 talk 02:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Original run(For country of origin)
(first aired) - (last aired)
((airing note): To describe airing status and also the network switches. Examples are:
"(Cancelled)" and
"(Ongoing; On UPN (until December 31 2009), Fox (from January 1 2010))")
(airdate aux1) run(Additional airdates. In airdate aux1, you can put something like "British", "South Korean", "Japanese" or "Italian".)
(first aired aux1) - (last aired aux1)
((airing note aux1))
(airdate aux2) run(Same as aux1)
(first aired aux2) - (last aired aux2)
((airing note aux2))
(airdate aux3) run(Same as aux1)
(first aired aux3) - (last aired aux3)
((airing note aux3))
(airdate aux4) run(Same as aux1)
(first aired aux4) - (last aired aux4)
((airing note aux4))
American run(To show the American airdate of non-US TV series. You can ignore it if the show is from the USA.)
(first aired usa) - (last aired usa)
((airing note usa))
Canadian run(Simmilar to USA parameters.)
(first aired can) - (last aired can)
((airing note can): Also the place for the airdates of Canadian-French version if not same dates as of English version.)
British run(Simmilar to USA parameters.)
(first aired uk) - (last aired uk)
((airing note uk))
Australian run(Simmilar to USA parameters.)
(first aired aus) - (last aired aus)
((airing note aus))

If you met a situation like Robotboy (Programme from France. Shown in UK prior to US run.), you can put British airdate on aux1.

  1. Aside from the AKA parameter, how about a separated parameter to show the original title of the programme from non-English-speaking countries, locating right under the showname parameter?
  2. Does the separated parameters of Genre and Format working well?
  3. How about the extra parameters of airdates like what is on the right?

--JSH-alive (talk)(cntrbtns)(mail me) 11:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_television&oldid=229391283

Leave a Reply