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 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Can we "codify" the standard 250px width used for the intertitle images? Thumperward wants to change all the image sizes in favor of using frameless which would reduce its size everywhere from the currently 250px width. In the process can we adopt the different parameters (|image=, |image size=, |alt=) for the different image properties as done in other infoboxes (film, person, …)? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't reduce the size in all cases: users who have changed their default thumbnail size would have the image scaled appropriately. Using frameless also means that images smaller than 250px are not upscaled (which is undesirable). {{infobox film}} already uses frameless, following the discussion at template talk: infobox film/Archive 17#Default image size. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chris, I see no reason to go against policy (WP:IMGSIZE) on this. If you want the images bigger you can use the image size setting in your preferences, which will change the size of all images using "thumb" and "frameless". -- d'oh! _[talk] 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to mess up the article for everyone without special preferences. There is a clear precedent to use 250px. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is the article "messed up" without the forced image size? The larger image maybe good for users with larger screens but what about users with smaller screens? Also the image size also resizes the infobox from the standard size. Also precedent isn't a good reason to override the policy. -- d'oh! _[talk] 10:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy leaves an opening just for this, the precedent is to use 250px, doing that is perfectly within the policy boundaries, and does not "override" the policy. 220px is smaller than the infobox itself and creates wasted space on both sides, for users with small screens replacing image with white space makes no difference. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frameless seems to be a sensible default to me. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the advantage to having this over this? It just seems silly to me. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They both look the same to me, with the first one matching the box width and the second one just making the box larger? Perhaps your font size is different in your browser? I believe this is the central problem. If you define the infobox width in "em" units and the image in "px" units, then it assumes a particular font size. For example, it looks entirely different on my iPhone. By the way, you can still framless and get something that is 10 percent wider using "frameless|upright=1.1", for example. However, given that the appearance is browser dependent when you start mixing em and px units, tweaking it might make it look different in your browser, but have an undesirable effect in someone else's browser. But, every user has the chance to override the width used by "thumb" and "frameless", not so with hardcoded px units. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try logging out before checking? Logged out, on every one of the randomly chosen PCs that I've checked out of the 120 I have available, the first is consistently smaller than the infobox while the second neatly fits the infobox. Logged in, the frameless version is ridiculously tiny because I have my default at 180px. As I sid to d'oh! on my talk page, there's nothing to be gained by making an infobox image smaller than the minimum width of the infobox. The only exception is when the image is so tall as to make the infobox excessively long. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There also seem to be some confusion about consensus, as per WP:CONLIMITED the current consensus is for "frameless", to go back to "250px" there need to be wide consensus to go against policy, WP:IMGSIZE or a good reason is put forward (which has consensus) as per the policy. Also from now on I am viewing any reverts of "frameless" in articles as vandalism. -- d'oh! _[talk] 08:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only WP:IMGSIZE would say that images can benifit from other sizes but the standard size and that in those cases forcing the size is perfectly acceptable. Oh wait, it does! There is no "going back to 250px" the person changing all of this is you, from the current 250px to frameless. Your stance is quite arrogant. Especially since you're going out of your way editing on articles you have never edited before just to press your preferred view trough. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)There certainly seems to be some confusion so please let me clear it up for you. The template instructions currently say "An image relevant to the show. Should be resized to a width of 300 pixels or below", and have done since 10 March 2007, when the template was first fully documented. "Frameless" is not mentioned anywhere in the instructions, nor does "frameless" appear anywhere in the archives of the talk page, so "frameless" is not the current consensus for this template. Viewing reversion of your changes can not be viewed as vandalism. I think you should read the policy on that. However, bulldozing your edits into the various articles as you have, against opposition by other editors in the absence of any consensus to use frameless, and only frameless, can certainly be seen as edit-warring. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template instructions can not override policy, the instruction says nothing about copyright does that mean I can ignore the copyright policy? No, of cause not. Again the policy clearly says there needs to be a "good reason" when not using "frameless" and "thumb", and both of you hasn't offered one yet. I am not arrogant, I am just sick of my edits to TV show articles getting reverted even when they are within policy and/or received support from other editors, then have to spend time creating arguments for them, when I could be spending that time improving the articles. I don't care which one is used as long as there a clear consensus for one, which is currently "frameless". -- d'oh! _[talk] 09:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMGSIZE says "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so", not "do not ever, under any circumstances define the size of an image". There are no good reasons for making the image size less than the minimum size of the infobox as I explained on my talk page when you brought the discussion there. If you have problems with the instructions here, then you need to gain consensus to change. You can't simply choose to ignore the instructions and then brush off the concerns of those who are doing what the instructions say to do. We work on consensus, not "I'm right and you're wrong because policy says. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one doing the lawyering with this comment, if there is a wide support not to use "frameless", I will have no trouble with it, and by wide support I mean across the whole project not just one or two WikiProjects. Also this revert[1] and the fact you are not addressing the other people's arguments here shows how little you care about other editors ideas or concerns. If its such a "horrible colour" why didn't you change it to a better colour instead of just half reverting it to make a point and creating a problem, which is white text on a light blue background. Finally I am not ignoring the instructions, they say the image should be resized to 300px or less, "frameless" is within that requirement. The fact you both want to only use 250px requires consensus to change the instructions. -- d'oh! _[talk] 10:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is, there is currently no consensus to use only "frameless" in this template. Nothing you have said above changes this. The reversion I made to {{CastleTV}} is not relevant to this discussion. Please stay on-topic. Your changes to "frameless" are predicated on supposed compliance with WP:IMGSIZE, and when you are reverted you warn people not to revert again and state you will view any further reversion of your edits as vandalism. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you clearly are demonstrating an unwillingness to collaborate. I have to agree with Xeworlebi, your stance is quite arrogant. Until such time as this changes, I don't see how we're going to get anywhere. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's fairly simple, currently 250px is used, this has been so for years, which is not a violation of the policy, and is perfectly acceptable. The fact that the policy does not forbid this, but allows it, makes that current consensus on individual wikiprojects and templates trough editing still holds, you want to change this to frameless. That would require a new consensus here, since current practice is within the policy boundaries. Just because a new format becomes the preferred one higher up does not mean that other formats are banned from use on individual wikiprojects and templates. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the best interest of the project and avoiding a large scale war, I am dropping it, but I hope the idea of using "frameless" images in the television infobox is at least looked as a option. -- d'oh! _[talk] 17:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems as though there is no consensus for either option. The entire image size thing with infoboxes will always be a problem so long as we are using "px" units for images and "em" units for the width of the box. The width of the box will depend on the width of the font, and resizing the font resizes the box without resizing the image. That's not to say we should use "px" units for the infobox, since W3 guidelines suggest always using relative rather than absolute units. So long as there are variations in browsers, and people tweaking options, there is no way to please everyone. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the "language" field would it be alright to link to the local variant of English such as American English for an American TV show or Australian English for an Australian TV show (something I'm thinking of doing for the CNNNN and Neighbours articles). Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editrequest}} The template currently links to {{italictitle}}. This is a redirect to {{Italic title}}. Could someone please change this to link to the page directly rather than the redirect? Mhiji (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but this is really rather pointless, per WP:2RD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italic implementation

{{Edit protected}} I would like to request that the way the italic title is implemented be changed. Change {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{{show_name}}}|{{italictitle}}|}} to {{Italic title infobox|{{{italic title|}}}}}, this is used in several other templates and allows forcing italics (for including brackets) and turning it off. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would affect existing uses (if show_name is not equal to PAGENAME. Therefore I think this might need further thought/discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is used at {{Infobox film}}, {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox album}}, all templates which use it. It will finally italicize all the disambiguated TV articles, |italic title=no can disable it, both which are current problems with the way it is setup here. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Per above - needs to be changed to italicize all the disambiguated TV articles. Mhiji (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the infobox has automatic italicization of an article's title text, how does one override that for articles whose titles are not television series (e.g. Fred Figglehorn)? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a function listed above that does it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, like this. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should update the documentation ... Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; it was the documentation on the template's front page that I looked at for the option. Since I didn't see it there, I didn't think to check the talk page to see if it had been discussed and implemented. My apologies. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I'd raise the issue here, rather than at Template talk:Infobox television season because that template has very few people watching it and this is related to an issue recently addressed here. I'm hoping somebody here will be able to come up with a far better fix for this problem. User:Mhiji has added "italic_title" to {{Infobox television season}} resulting in almost all of the title text becoming italicised. For example, List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1) becomes "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)", when the title should be "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)" His method of resolving this is to go to every article that uses {{Infobox television season}} (1,156 articles) and add "|italic_title=no" to the infobox. This seems to be the wrong way to fix the issue and I'm sure there is a far better resolution to the problem he has introduced. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is better brought up at {{Italic title infobox}}, and request that specific markups can be added in that parameter, so that you can place |italic_title=List of ''The Big Bang'' episodes (season 1) and have it auto format that way, or possibly make a season specific way to use |italic_title=list and have it auto-format using the known List of … episodes (season …) title format and |show_name=. No idea if thats even possible. On a side note, {{Infobox television season}} could use a major overhaul. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, it now appears that where a season article is at "List of X episodes (season y)", as is specified at Template:Episode list#Sublists, he's moving the articles to "X (season y)" to fix the problem he's introduced. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this for the shows I watch (Numb3rs, Two Guys and a Girl), but looking at the contributions, he's going all in. I've requested on Mhiji's talk page to stop these moves. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a better suggestion that would be great. User:Xeworlebi's idea sounds good. I don't really see the method as "incredibly inefficient". Of the 1156 articles, only 184 are "list of...". And I've changed all of these already and updated the template doc so don't really see why there's an issue. The majority of these titles are incorrect anyway per WP:TV-NC which states for episode lists should be on a single page, e.g. "List of Knight Rider episodes" or organised by season e.g. (24 (season 3), In Bed with Medinner (series 1)). I've stopped these moves for now but I am just following the policy guidelines... Mhiji (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TV-NC is incredibly outdated and hasn't been updated for a long time, and lacks in quite some things including "List of" pages. Template:Episode list#Sublists states current use for this. So you're just moving 184 articles? I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous, and should simply not be done without any type of discussion. If 16% of the subject articles are named differently that should be an indicator that it isn't a mistake, but done so purposely. Anything that includes a template wide alteration, as this is, we use this template to achieve italics wiki wide, is way more efficient that going true thousands of articles and adjust it manually, that's why we use these templates, and not just place {{Italic title}} on every subject article, that is incredibly inefficient. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 00:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While "only" 184 articles may have been affected now, a look at Mhiji's edit history shows that almost 400 edits were necessary to correct the problem introduced by a single edit to the template. That's not inefficient? As I indicated on my talk page, by default the infobox should display the title in the least troublesome manner. In this case that's using standard formatting for the title, not italicising it. What happens in an article where somebody tries to correct the title? Has that even been checked? When new episode lists are created, users often copy and paste a template from an existing series, rather than using a brand new one. It's not what they should be doing, but they do it anyway. For each new "List of" article that is created, the Mhiji implementation of italic titles is likely to result in an error that somebody will have to fix, an eror that wouldn't be necessary with the correct, or no, implementation. This too is inefficient. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if their is a better way to implement this that would be great. If you have a better ideas please do suggest it. I agree placing {{Italic title}} on every subject article would have been incredibly inefficient. That's why instead of doing that (adding it to 972 articles) I added this to the infobox (in the same way it has been done on many others) and then added |italic_title=no to the 184. I figured that was more efficient. No I'm not moving 184 articles. I didn't say that...? I was moving those in the format "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)" to "The Big Bang Theory (season 1)" per WP:TV-NC. I wasn't going to touch those in the format "List of Knight Rider episodes". I usually follow the policy guidelines rather than go to a template I have never used and look half way down the doc there. Mhiji (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also where did you get "almost 400 edits" from? There were only 184 articles which I added |italic_title=no to. That's 184 edits. Mhiji (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at your edit history. There are a lot more than 184 edits involved in this debacle. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two "debacles" here. One is the problem we've been discussing here and the other is that there is an inconsistency in the way articles have been named. Granted, I have made over 400 edits in the last day or so, but only 184 of them (where I added |italic_title=no) were related to the first "debacle". Mhiji (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And with regards to the naming conventions, if you don't like WP:TV-NC then your welcome to discuss changing it. But for now I'm going to follow the guideline there. Mhiji (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said to you with regard to Template:Episode list#Sublists, which I noticed that you changed to suit your POV. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been following this closely, but it does seem very odd to me that an infobox template would affect the title of an article. It breaks the single responsibility principle and the principle of least astonishment. Its good programming practice to have one function performing a single task, in this case producing and infobox. Having a infobox affect the title is also going to confuse editor when they try to work out what caused the title of an article to change. Simply using {{|Italic title}}{{infobox television| ...}} seems the easiest and most controllable solution.--Salix (talk): 08:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Italic title}} has been added to lots of high profile infoboxes {{Infobox film}}, {{Infobox album}} {{Infobox television}}, {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox newspaper}}, {{Infobox video game}} and others, based upon consensus. Surely this makes much more sense than having to add the template to thousands of articles individually? Mhiji (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Template_talk:Italic_title#List_of_X_episodes with regards to possibly getting a fix for this. Mhiji (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For "Infobox television season" the names are nearly all "Show Name (season/series N)". Add italictitle there. The few (List of..) shouldn't really be using that template and can be treated individually. Agreed? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You may also be interested in the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#Massive_page_moves_on_season_articles_by_Mhiji. Mhiji (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call a fifth of the articles (16%) "a few". _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using this figure of 16%... That's just what you've worked out for the articles which use this template. That does not accurately reflect all of the television season articles on Wikipedia. There are lots television season articles which do not use this template. Also depending on the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#Massive_page_moves_on_season_articles_by_Mhiji, this would mean there would be a lot lot less "List of..." articles. Even if the figure was 16% (I'm sure it's not), this is relatively few compared to the other 84% which are in the form "X (season Y)", for which {{italic title}} would work on. Surely it makes sense to have the default to make the "84%" correct and then sort out the rest? Mhiji (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 16% came from you… (184/1156) and no, 84% and the half ass the rest is not a good way to approach this. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, as I said, that 16% does not represent all articles on Wikipedia. What do you mean by half-ass? I added |italic_title=no to all of the articles affected. Meaning that all of the articles in the form "X (season Y)" were italicised correctly and all of the ones in the form "List of X episodes" were not italicised at all (just as they were before I made any edits). I'd say making all of the articles which use this infobox in the format "X (season Y)" and making it so that all the other were unaffected is very successful, not "half assed".... Mhiji (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded the italic functionality with a conditional parser so it doesn't use italic title if the page name starts "List of". Compare The X-Files (season 2) (italicised) whereas List of Highlander: The Raven episodes is not. Hopefully this compromise fits all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent thanks very much. Mhiji (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew there was a better way. Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please change

[{{{website}}} Official website]

to

{{{website}}}

so that the URL is exposed to the reader, as with other major infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: That would lose the information that the URL is for the official website. An alternative would be the following approach:

|label44 = Official website
|data44  = {{{website|}}}

But making that change would require a consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the URL should be exposed but would support MSGJ's approach above. Mhiji (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However I would prefer just Website rather than having the word official for simplicity and for consistency with other infoboxes. Mhiji (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some URLs are quite lenghty, so we cannot simply display it without breaking the infobox. Here's another suggestion:

[{{{website}}} <span title="{{{website}}}">Official website</span>]

This will explose the URL as a hint. — Edokter • Talk • 15:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Optionally, a website_title parameter could be added:

[{{{website}}} <span title="{{{website}}}">{{{website_title|Official}}} website</span>]

— Edokter • Talk • 15:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented my changes, since there has been no objections. — Edokter • Talk • 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does not expose the URL on the page; nor include it in the emitted microformat. Please find a solution which does so, or make the change I requested. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoover your mouse over the link; you will see the link. As for the microformat... you need to fill me in on that. — Edokter • Talk • 00:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Infobox television season, but as that place is a ghost town I'm posting here. With the ever-increasing releases of television seasons on formats other than DVD, I propose that we change the "DVD release date" and format fields to something more general. Perhaps "disc release date" or "compilation release date". However, such a change will have to be done in a manner that will prevent breaking every single instance of the template, and I have to admit I'm not 100% how to do that. --Dorsal Axe 20:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change the doc to say that |num_episodes= should be the number of episodes released? Currently it says it should be the number of episodes produced. This is in my experience the extreme exception, I've only seen once someone trying to add it with a source. The information of production ending is incredibly scarce, and for the one time I saw a source added, it talked about ending of filming not ending of production. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Since Template:Infobox has now been changed so that it allows italics, could someone change the code to reflect this please rather than using {{Italic title infobox}} (similar to how its been implemented at {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox album}}, {{Infobox newspaper}}, {{Infobox play}} etc etc.)? Mhiji (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To override header-italicisation, rather than "|italic title=no", apparently what's now required is "|italictitle=no". Can someone please tweak the documentation -- or better yet, have the template accept either? Over at Dennis Miller, I just had to go through one exercise to find out why it was being wrongly italicised, and then another to work out why the documented fix wasn't working.

I'd question whether it was any sort of good idea to do this in the first place. "False positives" in which non-TV show-names end up in header italics are, to my mind, much worse than "false negatives" in which TV shows end up in plain text. And are going to be harder to find and fix -- especially if no-one is actually looking for them. Smartiger (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this should have had been tested before it was massively rolled out. —Mike Allen 04:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the Wiki way! :/ Ideally, if someone wise to this issue were to check existing transclusions, that would be a lot more time-effective than having numerous non-template-savvy topical editors banging their heads on a case by case basis... Smartiger (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The doc's been updated. Mhiji (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add the parameters |based_on= and |co-executive_producers=, these are currently tacked on with |creator= and |executive_producer= and can make a mess of info in parentheses in the infobox. Some of the names were changed to omit the (s) at the end some time ago, I would like to see the remaining also removed: Composer(s) → Composed by, Producer(s) → Produced by, Editor(s) → Edited by, Location(s) → Filmed at or Produced at. And if someone can come up with some names without (s) for Creative director(s), Language(s), Executive producer(s), Production company(s). Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]