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 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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]

I agree with Redfarmer. Just because they share the same name "Law & Order", doesn't make them related to each other. Like he pointed out, the two have never crossed over and have unrelated characters. SVU has crossed over with the mothership and the character, Don Cragen, who appeared in the first three seasons of Law & Order is now the captain of SVU. Also Jack McCoy has appeared on SVU. I'm not sure if he has appeared on CI. Homicide: Life on the Street's character, John Munch moved to SVU. Trial by Jury has been crossed over more than once with SVU. The character Alex Cabot, who was (and currently is) the ADA had a starring short lived role in Conviction. The infobox shouldn't be used to list every L&O universe shows, that's what the navbox at the bottom of the page is designed to do. —Mike Allen 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two shows from the same franchise are by definition related. If we decide that the number of shows that are related is too long for the infobox, then have a single link to the franchise article, and then the links for any non franchise shows. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 09:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a random note, in addition to the Munch crossover, there were 3-4 crossover episodes between Homicide: Life on the Street and the original Law & Order where a story started on one episode of one show, and concluded on the other. That said, L&O providers one extreme example of just how crazy the related shows can get. Really, I think such relations should be limited to the prose. For the most part, it isn't a major part of the article on the series that needs highlighting in the infobox, which is the boxes purpose. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reference, I take the "Related shows" field as stating programs that were spun-off of a parent series that debuted concurrent with the parent show's run, "Preceeded by" as referencing a spin-off series whose parent show ended before the spin-off began and "Followed by" as being the vice versa of what "Preceeded by" would mean. Tvtonightokc (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkadelica suggested I take this up with the talk page on this subject. I've placed the wording "film" or "videotape" next to the words "multi-camera" or "single-camera" in the camera setup field to refer to what type of camera is used, so as to delineate what recordable product and camera a program is filmed with. She, I'm pretty sure Pinkadelica is a she, suggests using "Film" or "Videotape" should be shown under the "picture_format" field in the Infobox. I think that it should be listed in the camera setup field as it seems more appropriate for that field. This is to reference if it shot on one or the other, since it is easy to tell if a program is shot on film or tape, unless the program is a videotaped product that is filmized, but that is another story. Is there any way the wording in the Infobox's attributes section can be revised to indicate that it is shot on film or tape? Pinkadelica brought up that the wording of the section suggests that it belongs in the picture format section but that attribute reference states, "The video or film format in which the show is or was originally recorded or broadcast (Black-and-white, Film, 405-line, NTSC (480i), PAL (576i), SECAM (576i), HDTV 720p, HDTV 1080i)", implying simply the picture resolution or color format but not what it is shot on, and it does seem more appropriate to have "film" or "videotape" reference to it being shot on one of the two be referenced under camera setup and the picture size/resolution or color format under picture format. Tvtonightokc (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can one add the frame rate of a TV show into the infobox for television? I tried to but i think it wouldnt let me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rb26dett (talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't include "frame rate" in the infoboxes (nor articles) of television series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May it be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N40798 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason it should be. Frame rate is not a critical component nor noteworthy for highlighting. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(editconflict) Why, is it important ? Every country uses a different system, so the framerate is only really useful when you relate it to the recording format. And in recording, you could say it is part of video_format option, but they often use different framerates for different locations. Lastly, it usually is very hard to find a source for what exact framerate a TV series is recorded with. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the does the format parameter mean? --Twinsday 10:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That question has been asked several times in the 2-3 years I've been active with this project, and no one seems to know. Therefore I propose it be removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Format is the "genre" option from older infoboxes that got merged into this one. And after that it was reused for audio/videoformat by some, and now it's just one big mess that needs sorting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Infobox should have a alt parameter that meets the WP:Alternative text for images guideline. Please add one, following the approach taken in {{infobox film}}, which already has the parameter. The following, taken from {{infobox film/doc}}, should also be added to the documentation as part of addressing this request:

Thanks. 68.165.77.192 (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template seems to be set up different to {{infobox film}} as the whole image (complete with formatting) is passed to the template rather than just the name of the image. Therefore the alt text can be specified on each article already. Hope this makes sense. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes I see what you mean. I'll update the doc page for this template to make more people aware of this. Thanks. 68.165.77.192 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting that. The question brings to mind whether we should update this template to use something like what Films use, which seems to be more of the norm. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could add some {{#ifexist logic to detect if the image name has been specified, rather than the entire image. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} I am requesting the addition of host and announcer parameters on the Infobox, I have already added these using the sandbox supplement, however they were not transferred to the parameter source on the main article, and since the source is protected, I cannot add it myself. In the sandbox, the host parameter is listed in the attributes section in the same section as "presenter" for alternate use under the description that the "host" parameter be used for non-UK programs since the term "presenter" is not used in many countries outside the United Kindgom, and especially not used in the U.S. The attributes and parameters also list "announcer" which was added due to the fact that there is a difference between an announcer and a narrator. (Tvtonightokc (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Tvtonightokc (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this request. There is NO consensus for this addition as per the discussion above. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"After reading the posts on the page, there is somewhat of a minimal consensus from the earlier talks/requests that American users who have talked about this do not think that it makes sense to use "presenter" or "narrator" for American programs as "presenter" is not used for American or Canadian programs, host is. "Narrator" makes sense to use for scripted programming that uses a first-person voiceover or a documentary but for programs that use a voiceover that is not for that or for a character, "announcer" is more appropriate. Is it possible to call a new vote on these additions from American Wikipedia users only, those American-born and raised and those living here in the U.S. but born abroad, the majority determines? (Tvtonightokc (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Narrator is perfectly acceptable for either kind of voice over. Announcer is for sporting/gaming events. There needs to be discussion about whether presenter really needs to be changed and the best way to do it. Also one person making the request is not really consensus one way or the other. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that for syntax purposes and owing to the fact that many television theme songs are not composed or written by a single person, that the "theme_music_composer" parameter's label "Theme music composer" be modified to "Theme music composer(s)". (Tvtonightokc (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Tvtonightokc (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]