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

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 - 17 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]

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with Madchester's edits here. The lack of a specific prohibition on the use of flags does not mean that using them is automatically appropriate. It usually isn't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of removing flags from infoboxes. I used to add them when I first started, but I soon changed my mind and now see them as unnecessary decoration. I'll admit that MOS:FLAG is a bit ambiguous, but it still seems to discourage usage here. {{Infobox Television film}} was edited to discourage flags, by an admin who seems to make a lot of edits to flag related articles! And there has been no objections since. {{Infobox film}} was also edited to discourage flags after this discussion. I think we should follow suit and clarify the documentation here. Sarilox (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The flags puts an undue weight on a specific parameter in the infobox that isn't any more important than other facts. Removing the flags will not remove any information so there is no loss. Rettetast (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be some clarification in the attributes section as to the exact role of a "creative director" on a TV series? The Wikipedia entry on the subject gives the impression that the position in the TV industry, as opposed to other areas such as advertising, is to do with production design, which conflicts with the the template's description: "the show's writer or writers".

What distinguishes a creative director from an ordinary scriptwriter? Is a creative director a "lead writer" of sorts, explaining why it is advised that the field is not used if there are more than five writers? IMDb lists "creative consultant" in its glossary of terms here, which is perhaps not synonymous but seems to agree with Wikipedia's description of a creative director as being someone involved in more than just scriptwriting work.

Are there any prominent TV series pages on Wikipedia using this parameter, or any popular shows on which a crewmember could be fairly described as the "creative director" for that programme? SuperMarioMan (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any article that uses this parameter; I've never used it. It appears from this edit that the creative director entry was simply copied from the writer entry with only the parameter name being changed. I just changed it so that it's as self-referential as most of the other descriptions. I realise that this may not be very helpful in defining the job, but at least it's not so obviously wrong. The article for creative director definitely needs to be expanded to better cover the role in television. Sarilox (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to request the move of this infobox to Template:Infobox television, because that is the correct capitalization per WP:IBX, but then I realized that the name is quite wrong – this infobox is for television series, not television in general. So I think that the name should be either Template:Infobox television show or Template:Infobox TV show. Has anyone any objections against this change? Svick (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that at the very least it should be moved to Template:Infobox television. The only potential caveat would be if there is some WP:ENGVAR surrounding the use of the word "show". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I object to the second. Television itself is fine to me, and I don't see any reason to move it to some other longer name. There is nothing "television in general" so its not as if it is confusing. It is for any television show (not just series), and there are no other uses for something similar. Its clear and doesn't cause issues for different variants of English. Moving it to Template:Infobox television to fix the casing, however, is fine. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Collectonian. However, if the case is fixed here it should be fixed for all the other television infoboxes that currently use the same capitalization. Category:Television infobox templates. - Sarilox (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I requested the move of this template, Template:Infobox Television episode and Template:Infobox Television film to their lowercase versions (without any other changes). I think that other infoboxes whose names are “Infobox Television *” (eg. Template:Infobox Television Survivor) should be moved to “Infobox *” (without the word “Television”), but that would probably require further discussion, but not here. Svick (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The external links in the infobox should be deprecated. The purpose for the infobox is to give a brief overview of the subject at hand. Providing a links to the official site not only does not help that attempt but they also distract the reader from reading our content. This has been proposed before, and seemed to be agreed upon, but no action has taken since. I think now is as good of time as any. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone out there? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many Infoboxes seem to contain the parameter. It fails to offend me, harm me, my browser, or my computer. I'm not sure how how a reader, abstracted from myself as an editor, could feel otherwise. I've not noticed a reader complaint on a Talk page about it, for example. I'm not seeing a problem. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the film project has deprecated it and since there is some overlap between the two, both projects (and infoboxes) should be on the same page. The purpose of an infobox is to give a quick overview of the subject at hand and providing an external link with (often limited, but not always) limited information does not help in that endeavor. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as noted above and for the same reasons it was removed from films, I feel it should be removed. It really goes against the idea of external links by highlighting any external link in the infobox. There is already an appropriate EL section at the bottom of the article for the official link where it belongs. The infobox is for an overview of the article, and the EL section needs no such overview. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the infobox is to describe a single television series. How, therefore, could the infobox ever legitimately have a num_series other than 1? I've seen it used a few times, but in each of those cases it was actually used to refer to the number of seasons for which the series aired. But since there is already a num_seasons and num_seasons outputs the correct text in the box "No. of seasons" rather than "No. of series", if there is no legitimate usage, num_series should be removed and all references be corrected to num_seasons. If that's too much work, then at least the text generated by num_series should be corrected to the intended semantic meaning. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all television series (that may not be the right term) are produced the same way as American ones usually are – by seasons. E.g. Doctor Who: its infobox claims that is has 30 series and I'm pretty sure that they are not seasons (at least the old ones). Svick (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took it that they are synonymous and one or the other should be used: One is British usage, is all. At least that's how I read the docs. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In UK English, a season is called a series. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, num_series is the UK/European equivalent of num_seasons. In the US, television programs air in seasons, while in the UK programmes are in series. The option ensures the correct terminology is used, as seasons is really only used in the US. Its use is legitimate. For example, Meerkat Manor aired for four series. If it is being misused, such as with the Doctor Who example, then it should be corrected. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest two lines:

announcer=

host=

Though in-house announcers are less common now from the 1950s through the 1970s many tv shows had a permanent announcer. Several modern shows, particularly game shows and talk shows, still have these positions today along with Saturday Night Live which has had Don Pardo since the 1970s. "Presenter" is a term used in British television. "Host" is more common in North America. Both options should be available. Fred the happy man (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed recently and consensus agreed that Presenter is all encompassing enough for all three. It should be viewable in the archives...which should really have a search....-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem I have with this is that no one who speaks American English would ever say that someone "presents" or "narrates" a TV show -- those terms simply don't exist in this country. I've seen it said many times that Wikipedia shouldn't default to American terms, but defaulting to British/Australian ones doesn't make a whole lot more sense. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presenter makes no sense for a North American show that isn't a documentary series or news program (and even for news programs the term used in North America is "anchor" not presenter). See Late Show with David Letterman where Letterman is listed as the "presenter" making the show sound like something completely different and the band leader is listed as the "star" while the announcer is the "narrator" making the show sound like a drama. In the North American context this makes no sense. No one is suggesting removing existing fields but adding fields would give people more choice as far as nomenclature and be able to select terms for a particular program that make sense. Fred the happy man (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to add a field that combines "opentheme" and "endtheme" for shows where the same music is used for both? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of some recent edit-warring on Human Target (TV series), I'll just ask it here for the record. |first_aired=, is this the date the the show first aired on television, on global – world level, or is this the date that the show first aired in the country the show is made in? Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 15:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always considered it to be the first airing in the country the show originated, unless there is a significant difference (like several months). BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the difference between it being a month a week or a day? How long before it's acceptable to use the global first time it aired to public? _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally first aired in the country of origin. If it aired significantly earlier in another country first, this should be noted in the prose. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perhaps make a note of it in the documentation. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we add an "also starring" tab for this. I think it would be useful for shows like Oz and The Office (US version). 75.42.83.46 (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, infoboxes are supposed to provide a brief overview of the series. Such information can be covered easily and best in the actual article. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 07:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Bovineboy. The infobox already has the appropriate field for the actual stars of the series. "Also starrings" should be noted in the prose, where relevant and noteworthy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been accused by another editor of having "ownership issues" (though they have not made a case why this is anything other than an ad hominem), therefore, I am bringing this question here for community consensus to hopefully avoid an edit war.

The guidelines for the related field currently read: "Related TV shows, i.e. remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc." I have noticed editors interpreting this in the widest possible lattitude, i.e. any possible show that has the loosest connection. I have been trying to interpret it in a fairly conservative manner: the show being listed must be a spin off of the show in question, be an adaptation, remake, or foreign version of the show in in question, and/or must have crossed over with the show or had one or more characters appear on both shows. I would argue that anything beyond this could be construed as WP:OR if there is not a third party source directly saying the two are somehow related.

Now, the shows in question are Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (SVU) and Law & Order: Criminal Intent (CI). Both are spin-offs of Law & Order; there is no question about that. However, there has been quite a bit of controversy it seems as to whether or not they are related to each other or not. A case could be made they are indirectly related because they are both Law & Order spinoffs (though a case could be made that would be WP:OR.

Consider the following:

1. SVU and CI have never crossed over with each other. A main character from SVU has never appeared on CI, and vice versa. The closest is that certain minor medical examiner and psychologist characters who originated on the original series have made appearances in both shows.
2. CI is not a spin off of SVU. CI is a spin-off of the original Law & Order. CI may have come chronologically after SVU, but its plot is in no way derived from SVU's.
3. CI and SVU are not adaptations of each other.
4. CI and SVU have no direct relationship other than sharing a franchise name that would make one believe without speculation they were related. Law & Order: UK also shares the name of the franchise, but has not established that it is related to the American shows at all (it is an adaptation that uses scripts from the original series and adapts them to a British audience, so it is only related to the original series loosely).

Based on this information, I have removed SVU from the CI infobox and CI from the SVU infobox. An editor seems to disagree with this decision but really will not say why other than to make an ad hominem, say it's not OR without elaboration, and say I'm interpreting it too rigidly. I have really had no explanation of their thought process in the matter yet. So I'm asking: what do you think? Redfarmer (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to limit "related" to what amounts to a parent-child connection. The other editor wants to include siblings. I agree with the other editor. L&O:SVU and L&O:CI are related shows.

As for L&O:UK, that is more akin to a cousin, and therefore debatable.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 00:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily parent-child. I would definitely say that Homicide: Life on the Street is related to both the mothership and SVU though it was created by a different person. It is related to the original by its crossovers and to SVU by John Munch, who was a regular on both series. Though there is not a parent-child relationship, I say all three are related. Redfarmer (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can the following fields be added so that information related to US late night talk shows can be displayed in fashion that makes sense?

|announcer= |musical director= |band=

Currently the info box in The Late Show with David Letterman, for instance, lists Letterman as the show's "presenter" (which makes the show sound like a news program or documentary series) and Paul Shaffer as the "star" because there is no place in the current template to list the musical director/band leader and the band. Because there is no line for announcer the show is listed as having Alan Kalter as the "narrator" which implies the program is a drama rather than a talk show. Similar oddities exist wherever the current template is used for US talk shows. Fred the happy man (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]