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 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The description needs to be more specific. For example, if a show is of American origin, but is just filmed in Canada, does that mean both countries are listed or only the US?--Ridge Runner (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's whoever produces the show. Doctor Who could be filmed in the US, but the primary broadcaster and producer is a UK station. Smallville is filmed in Vancouver, Canada, but The CW and Warner Brothers are American studios. It should probably read something like, "The show's country of origin is the country in which its production house is located." or something like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was my interpretation as well, but I'm seeing a lot of US shows that are listed as also Canadian due to being filmed on location.--Ridge Runner (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be. The Dark Knight isn't a Chinese film even though it filmed in China. I think we should come up with a clear definition, and those pages should have the Canadian sticker removed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm just giving it a few days to give anyone else a chance to chime in. What about shows like Stargate? They're permanently filmed (and maybe produced) in Canada, but the corporation that owns them (MGM) is American. I guess one way a person could look at it is the Stargate shows are made at The Bridge Studios in Canada. American movies are also made there, but the movies don't say they're also Canadian - just American.--Ridge Runner (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville is 100% filmed in Vancouver. The only thing done in the US is the SFX work, but the show is still an American show, because it's owned and produced by The CW and Warner Bros. Where they film something doesn't really matter, it's about who is producing the show. If the BBC produced Smallville, but filmed it in Kansas, then it would be a British show. It's just like how the Harry Potter books are UK books, but the films are American films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but all of the Potter films are listed as also being British.--Ridge Runner (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duh...lol. Heyday is a British film company, and since they produced the film alongside Warner Bros. that's probably why it's listed as both American and UK. I forgot about Heyday. The Film Project defines "country of origin" as "Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies" (see Template:Infobox film). That's probably language we could translate over to the TV box.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put in the template Rating, because the parents can know the ratings of the show. --Francisco97 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If parents wanted to know the ratings of a show, they can watch the show as the ratings appear on the TV. In any consequence, a show's ratings have no encyclopedic value unless there is a significance to the rating (like a show receiving controversy because it is more graphic than originally rated, etc.).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if a parent don't know what is the rating of the show and they wanna see. So we can put rating in template? because is for the parents and in shows like American Dad! has in the template "rating". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco97 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a TV guide. If a parent wants to know the rating of a show, then there are other, better venues for them to find such information. Wikipedia is about presenting encyclopedic information about a show. We do not include ratings for TV shows for the same reason that film articles don't include MPAA ratings; because ratings vary from channel to channel. What a show is rated on ABC Family might be the same as what it would be rated on BBC, or CanadaTV. Arbitrary numbers mean little in an article unless you can explain why the show was given such a rating. As such, it would be presented in prose form, and not a template listing everything under the Sun.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto what Bignole said. This is not a TV guide nor a parental advisory. Parents can turn to places like CommonSense.com or the like for that. Ratings, even worse than MPAA, are arbitrary and vary from channel to channel, even within American-television for the same series, and many countries have no such ratings. Nor are such ratings appropriate within the prose, as they are primarily American-centric. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that the film infobox automatically links to languages but not the tv infobox? Someone please make it link automatically. 68.35.208.229 (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some edit warring over at Scrubs (TV series) about what exactly should be going in the "last aired" parameter. Personally, I think the use of "present" should be used for returning or airing series as this conforms to WP:OTHERDATE. The article has been held at "{{end date}}" resulting in "October 2, 2001 -  ()" which doesn't agree with MOS and recently, the use of "{{date}}" has been used, resulting in "October 2, 2001 - 23 June 2024" which is incorrect, implying the show ended. What do other editors think? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last date should not be used at all unless the series has ended. That said, the current instructions do say to use "date" for the last date of currently running series, which makes little sense to me. I think "on-going" or "present" or leaving blank would be better. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The guideline I mentioned states "1996–present...is preferred in infoboxes", so I support using the word "present". BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It should simply state "present" for currently airing television shows. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. "Present" is far less confusing than date and makes far more sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, would everyone agree to this language:

The original airdate of the show's last episode. Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and {{end date}} if the show is ended.

BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per my comments above. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, present is the most logical. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I went ahead and made the change in the documentation. Does it look alright to everyone? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not seem to include WP:ALT for images. Please add it. -- Horkana (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template does not currently include any images as far as I can tell. Images are passed using a full [[File:foo.svg|300px|center|caption|alt=words]] specification, so if the alt is missing, that's up to the page that transcludes the template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion really has to be made again. Last night Madchester (edits) removed all the flags from the episode list, I reverted half of them and wanted to start this discussion later (should have done this weeks ago but I'm way to busy at the moment), but now Darrenhusted (edits) removed them again. The rules are open to interpretation and the last discussion ended without consensus. I was going to ask for a halt on the adding and removal of flags in the infoboxes, but there are none left. I'll jump back in later as my lunch break is over. Hope that then some of you will have already voiced your views on this. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 13:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, again, support the removal of flags from the infobox. Television is one of the few projects still doing so despite it being against WP:MOSFLAGS and no compelling reason to keep them has ever been put forth. Glad do not help identify a country unless you actually know its flag already, while the simple text name is clear, unambiguous, and unmistakable. As a note, Films has already removed flags from their infoboxes with no detrimental affect to the articles nor quality. Madchester and Darrenhusted have simply done what needed to be done - applied the guidelines regarding flags properly. I suggest the infobox and MoS docs be updated according. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, Xeworlebi. Fortunately, the editor uninitiated to the issue (reference to self) had to get no further than the first sentence, "No consensus either way", to understand who's right in the current war (skirmish, hostility, disruption, whatever). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to start a site wide removal without a clear ruling or consensus on the matter. Especially with "WP:MOSFLAG" as edit summary as there is literally nothing that prohibits or even mentions the use of flags in this way in WP:MOSFLAG; It's not a nationality, birth/death location. It's not replacing a missing picture. Not about subnational or supernational flags. Nor has anything to do with historical, political, biographical use or about sportspeople. And the flags are accompanied with the name of the country. The infobox is a table, a list of information, structured for easy and quick overview in which a flag aids by giving a visual cue. It's not prose where an icon disrupts the flow of the text. A flag makes is clearer for quick recognition. It's accompanied by the name of the country, this make it no more unclear, ambiguous or controversial. Not sure what you're saying Aladdin Sane, but there is no war going on and no one is wrong or right on this as there is no ruling on the matter. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 16:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While not specified under the Flags section, a flag is considered an icon and icons should be avoided for pure decoration. What purpose otherwise do flags in the infobox serve? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flags allow readers to quickly skim the infobox and gather information from it. Which to me is the purpose of the infobox, as all the info in the infobox should already be in the article in prose form. The visual component enables effective communication of content. Even if one does not know what country that flag represents, each image is accompanied with the name. So long as they are not overused, they do not affect the readability of a page, nor do they pose a problem to those that have vision problems as long as, the full template ex. {{USA}} ( United States), is used in preference to {{flagicon|USA}} (). Some people, like in the extreme, those with dyslexia, would even benefit from the use of flags alongside the name. As for them the difference between  United States and  United Kingdom is much clearer than United States vs United Kingdom. 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. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 14:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. It only allows those who are extremely knowledable about every flag in world to do that. Remember, this is not the American or British wiki, it is the English wiki with users from around the world. WP:FLAG does strongly discourage such frivilous use, which is why other projects have removed them from their infoboxes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They surely do, they may not for you but for others they do. I just gave the difference between the United States and United Kingdom because they are so alike yet there flags are quite distinguishable. You don't have to know every flag in the world and if you don't know that one in particular, the name is still besides it. Stating that people who don't know every flag in the world are incapable of recognizing, mostly, the flags of the United States and United Kingdom, is kinda insulting. I don't know every countries name (like most people) in the world does that mean that we should remove all the names of the countries in the infobox? And again: There is, in my opinion, nothing in WP:FLAG that specifically bars the use of flags in these television infoboxes. Just because others have removed flags (after they reached consensus, which has not been reached here) doesn't mean that they should not be used here. On the other side the animanga infobox uses flags; InuYasha (a page that you seem to edit on frequently) even has 14 flags in its infobox, none who are accompanied with the name of the country or explained what they are earlier as stated in WP:FLAGS that they should. The Disney ride infobox even uses wheelchair icons and FASTPASS icons. But that doesn't matter, just because others do it doesn't make it so here. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 17:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Animanga is in discussions to remove them as well. From WP:MOSFLAG. "Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox should only be done if the icon has been used previously in the table with an explanation of its purpose", "When icons are added excessively, they clutter the page and become redundant", "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.", "Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information relevant to the article subject nor visual cues or layout that aid the reader. Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration.", "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason: Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things." and on and on and on. The guidelines are clear. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We communicate the majority of our information on wikipedia by text. Sure, we use pictures to convey some ideas that simply cannot be made thru words (ie, the cliche a picture tells a 1000 words), but a flag of a country tells, well, one-word which is better off just expressed as text. If a flag was so superior to text in conveying a country's name, then we would not use the text of a country's name as well - but, i note that we do use the text. Is anyone trying to say that flag beats text? If not, chose. That it allows people to skim an info box is a flimsy argument (and it's based on the more broadly accepted but substantially different idea of flags in long lists). It's practically useless if you don't know the flag or the article is for example discerning between the New Zealand and Australian flags. The argument that it looks good falls down because it's purely subjective - ie, i, for example, think it doesn't look good. --Merbabu (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian's quotes from WP:MOSFLAG are strong evidence that flags should not be used in television infoboxes, unless there's a good reason to emphasize the nationality. For example, it might well be appropriate to use a flag icon in an article about This Week in the Pentagon, a weekly half-hour show produced by the U.S. Dept. of Defense, as that show is very strongly associated with the U.S. as a nation. However, it does not seem appropriate to use a flag icon in (say) The Simpsons. Eubulides (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no compelling reason why the "Country of origin" field in this infobox should be given extra emphasis over other infobox fields, by the addition of a little flag icon. That's a form of undue weight, in my opinion. Flag icons are effective when browsing a large list or table of items that have strong association to nationality (e.g. international sports results). But singular flag icons like this one serve no useful purpose. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]