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.

RfC: Should the Format parameter of Template:Infobox television be deleted?

No Consensus: Four editors supported choice A (retire the parameter) and two supported choice C (keep and redefine). Furthermore, RWDutton and Technical13 generally supported a redefinition of the parameter but had different ideas as to the determination of the new definition. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The "format" parameter at Template:Infobox television appears to be a deprecated parameter, having been replaced by genre long ago over concerns that "format" is an ambiguous terminology that creates confusion. The parameter has not been officially retired or deleted, so the confusion persists. There are three proposals on the table so far: A) Delete the format parameter from the template once and for all. B) Leave the parameter, but clearly mark it as obsolete in the template description. C) Re-define what "format" means for those who edit television articles. For context, history and scope the main discussion is here. 20:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Support C. I'd rather that it be properly described. It could be used for animated/live action, serial drama, etc. I don't have a problem with it being discouraged or even deprecated, but it does seem to have some potential for usefulness (which is currently not being met, apparently). I'm sympathetic to the point of view that it's more trouble than its worth (due to being confused with genre), but I think we should try option C first before we deprecate it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I can see how it causes confusion. To me format implies either NTSC or PAL, or it could be used to denote whether a particular program is serialized or stand alone. It's just too confusing and I agree that it should be retired. Wickedlizzie (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Wickedlizzie's reasoning. – sgeureka t•c 08:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support C and oppose all others: I don't see how, for example, it is supposed to be indicated that a show is an animated series without this parameter. The genre parameter is completely different in that it covers drama, comedy, etc. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Genre parameter currently points here for examples. Animation is listed as a genre, with various subgenre. Doesn't mean it couldn't change, but that's currently how we're set up. RottenTomatoes lists the genre for the film Rugrats in Paris as Animation, Kids & Family. Metacritic lists the genre for the TV series Phineas and Ferb as Comedy, Animation, Kids. Our reliable sources aren't even making a distinction for "format". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia page you linked to actually mentions "formats" as well. In any case, the "series" part definitely doesn't fall under the genre parameter. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partly support C, oppose A and B A category like 'Animation' really describes a medium, not a genre as such; ones like Dramatic programming or the Format categories in the Television drama series infobox don't really fit as genres either. Metacritic just seems to be treating Genre as a dumping ground for categories/tags of various kinds: it and Rotten Tomatoes are RS for facts about shows and their reviews, yes, but they're not the kind of source you'd necessarily expect to an have encyclopedia-quality classification scheme. I don't know what to do with Format in the infobox - I think we may need to find a domain expert, or at least a suitable guide or source of emulation - but I don't think we should just hack out Format until we do have an answer, especially since it might prove necessary to put Format (or something like it) back in again. RW Dutton (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@RW Dutton: Hi, thanks for your response in this desert of discussion. :) I agree that there has to be a better way to classify television programs, as "animation" could be considered a medium or a format, just as "live-action" or "weekly series" could also be considered formats, even though they seem to be unrelated concepts. However, I haven't yet been able to garner ample opinions on this discussion, let alone tackle something as big as taxonomic classification. I would like to point out that the parameter has been problematic for 8 years and the longer it sits without being addressed, the more conflicting information it generates. Additionally, Template:Infobox film doesn't support a genre parameter at all, so another answer might be to remove both the format AND genre parameters from the infobox and to let the article convey the relevant info. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A "Format" is far too broad a term to nail down for this template. I see no example that has been brought up which shows the "correct" usage of this field. Considering the film infobox doesn't even list genres, why should television shows have two parameters? It seems like an unnecessary and confusing classification, and I'll welcome its removal. Paper Luigi T • C 21:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support D just to be difficult. Let's re-purpose "format" to mean 4:3 (full screen), 16:9 (widescreen), 16:10, etc... Technical 13 (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose D as redundant given that this is already almost precisely the purpose of the picture_format parameter. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Are the website parameters correctly named?

Withdrawn by nominator. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the website parameter be renamed to official_website and production_website parameter renamed to official_website_2? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Support as nominator: I agree with the point regarding the current vague naming of the former parameter several users made above. At the same time, I think the scope of the latter should be broadened somewhat per my comments above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As explained above, there is reason to rename |website= to |official_website= but |production_website= should remain as is. Dogmaticeclectic's suggestion is contradictory. He proposes giving one parameter a less ambiguous title, which I agree with, but he then proposes to make the other parameter more ambiguous. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, "official" is an overused term. 117Avenue (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:117Avenue, could you provide more reasoning for your opinion? The current reasoning seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something is only official if a widely recognized organisation declares it official. Here on Wikipedia people have been going around calling everything "official", that it has lost its meaning. Why do we need to label something official? If there are more than one, how can it be official? 117Avenue (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:117Avenue, I think the first sentence in the paragraph above is absolutely incorrect. As I see it, in the context of a TV show, an official website is any website directly connected to any entity directly connected to the production of the show, full stop. In my view, this includes production companies, original distributors, original networks, etc. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Anything connected to the show? If everything is official, the word is redundant, and not needed. 117Avenue (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per AussieLegend, Seems all rather pointless to me, All in all imo seems fine as it is. -
-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is unuseful and a massive refactoring and readjustment may be needed which is going to involve a ruthless effort. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 19:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@User:AussieLegend: I would like to clarify my reasoning regarding the second parameter. Let's say a show has a separate website, such as showname.com, as well as a subsection (let's say a major one) at the network's website, such as networkname.com/showname. However, this show's production company happens not to have a website (and let's say the distributor doesn't either).

Currently, what would happen is one of two things. In one scenario - and the one supported by the current parameter name - only the first of the two existing links is provided, which in my opinion does a disservice to Wikipedia readers. In the other scenario, the parameter is used as if it already has the name I proposed and both links are provided. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of shows have one website, "official_website_2" would have a very limited use. (You've never provided an example of such a use) Your proposal effectively deprecates "production_website" but without any explanation as to why this should happen. Many articles use this parameter, so we need good reason to drop it. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:AussieLegend, my proposal does not deprecate that parameter in the least. Current usage would be able to continue unchanged with the addition of an alias. The only change in the case of the second parameter is that it broadens its scope (while still restricting it to official websites). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal didn't state that. Regardless, it's still renaming an unambiguously named parameter to something that is ambiguous. And, you still haven't given an example of a TV series where this would be useful. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:AussieLegend, I'm unfortunately only really familiar with articles that I have significantly edited myself, and this is especially the case regarding articles about TV shows - so any examples I give you may very well have been created by me in the first place. However, I do not think there is anything ambiguous about the name of that parameter in the proposal - it is clearly to be used for a secondary official website. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, what exactly is a secondary official website? This was the issue with "website_2" in the failed proposal above. Tacking "official_" in front of it doesn't make it any less ambiguous as TV programs generally only have one official website. (The official website is generally regarded to be the official website in the country of origin.) Without any examples there is nothing to support your claim that there are secondary official websites. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:AussieLegend, here's another example situation. A show has a website showname.com and a major subsection at a distributor website distributorname.com/showname but no subsection of a production website productioncompanyname.com/showname (nor any subsection of a network website networkname.com/showname). Could you let me know what you recommend should be done in this situation given the current naming - and why? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a real world example of this? Let's stick to those and not hypotheticals. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:AussieLegend, I already explained about that above. What would a real-world example add to this discussion anyways, other than showing that yes, such situations can in fact occur (which is theoretically extremely likely among the immense existing number of shows)? (Also, I would ask that you not change the indentation back - this is a different scenario, and in any case indentation has gone quite far already here.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A real world example might provide some justification that the changes that you are proposing are warranted. Without any real world examples there simply is no reason to support them. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

Please replace the lines 

| label1      = Also known as

and 

| label35     = Original channel

with 

| label1      = {{nowrap|Also known as}}

and 

| label35     = Original channel

to prevent the seemingly unnecessary linewrap of, respectively, "as" and "channel". 213.246.118.248 (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support only if span style="white-space:nowrap" is used in both cases; oppose otherwise: consistency is important! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please put your requested change in the sandbox and let's see some testcases showing it working correctly and not breaking other stuff. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Technical 13, I don't think that kind of stuff should be requested for such a simple change. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DE, if I wasn't so busy, I would have just done it myself and not have cared much. However, I have a ton of other stuff I need to get done for the immediate foreseeable future, so if someone wants to throw it in the sandbox and see how it's going to look on the testcases page, I'll be happy to apply it to the live template. Alternative is to wait for a TE with more time on their hands and a clearer head than I have or wait for me to have time. Thinking just getting it in the sandbox will be the fastest. Technical 13 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did what's been suggested and also added style="white-space:nowrap;" to a couple of other labels that might wrap awkwardly. 213.246.118.248 (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done in a manner that uses a much smaller footprint and achieves the same result. Due to the the fact that a table is used for these, using   instead of regular spaces on the longest required parameter and any longer, desired, optional parameters is all that was needed to achieve the same result. Technical 13 (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent change

A change has been made to the template which is now causing the hidden menus in infoboxes (like here) bleed into the drop down link. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • 213.246.118.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) or DE, please address this issue and create working code and testcases and I'll re-apply this request. Until then, I'm reverting. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preceded and followed by

Are several articles using these parameters? These have been abused lately, and if it's not that being used that much, we can get rid of this. –HTD 08:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how many articles use them but I've seen quite a few. Eliminating parameters is not the resolution to stopping incorrect usage. If we did that we may as well get rid of infoboxes altogether. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know but I'm sick and tired of reverting (LOL). The parameter isn't that important and if it's very few we can just get rid of it.
Also, the documentation doesn't really spell out its proper use. –HTD 19:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not much use. The relationships between different TV series are rarely as simple as "preceding" and "succeeding". Some shows have direct sequels or prequels, some shows are revived under the same name, some shows have spin-offs that air simultaneously with them, some shows have spin-offs that air after their own run has ended, some shows start separately but cross over with other shows at a later date, some shows have combinations of more than one of the above scenarios... it's too complex for an infobox, which should stick to simple, hard, basic facts. This information is best left to the article body and (where suitable) navbox. —Flax5 20:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This isn't as straightforward as most movie (Star Wars) or book series (Harry Potter) for example. Is the successor of Late Night with Conan O'Brien The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien or Late Night with Jimmy Fallon? Or none? Or both? There have to be clear guidelines on when these should be used. What would be our basis? Canon? By my experience, people use this as successors in that time slot (WTF). –HTD 22:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do articles immediately show up when the parameters are used? If it does, this will be handy in my dealing with people who'd use these parameters wrongly. –HTD 22:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. Looking at the articles there, some, like the Biggest Loser and Survivor ones, should not have been using this infobox but the TV season infobox. –HTD 23:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer your question, no, it takes days, sometimes weeks, or even months for pages using templates to show up in categories. Depending on the popularity of the pages and how loaded the job queue is.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of now there are 117 articles in the two categories. It is possible to force the categories to populate by making a null edit to each article that uses the infobox using AWB, but that's going to take a while. Note that the Survivor articles don't use this infobox directly, they use {{Infobox television Survivor}} which is a wrapper for this infobox and do so because {{Infobox television season}} doesn't have the right parameters. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The categories now have over a thousand articles; I've skimmed through the list and I've removed some which are not chronological, but left some which are in the "gray area". We really need a guideline on this one. These are the gray areas:
  • Some networks have a program of miniseries that end in a week/month, and a new one starts the next week which isn't connected to the previous miniseries. These surely don't fit the "chronological order"?
    • A similar question: Do individual miniseries merit a separate article a la separate seasons?
  • How about news programs? Let's say a late night news program ended and was replaced the next week by a new one. How's that?
  • Similar to above: Sports coverages. Is NBA on NBC followed by NBA on ABC? I'd say yes.
  • How about cases such as iCarly and Sam and Cat? How about Beverly Hills, 90210 and 90210 (TV series)?
  • How about the next "episode" is a movie? Like the Veronica Mars and 24 TV shows?
  • And the reality shows that are using this template?
–HTD 13:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture format

Quick question! Should it be input as HDTV (1080i) or 1080i (HDTV)? I'm referring to what goes in the parentheses. – Recollected • 03:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, HDTV (1080i). Definition first, then pixel resolution. — Wyliepedia 09:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion 1080i (HDTV). Specific resolution first then generalized definition (layman's term). Technical 13 (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have none of you looked at the documentation? It's actually neither - it's "HDTV 1080i", and that doesn't change unless you can get consensus on it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • DE, you scold us for not looking at some supposed documentation, but you offer no links to said documentation. I would say that without that, this is a consensus building mission in of itself and that even with the existing consensus you claim exists, CCC, so this discussion is still a worthwhile venture. Technical 13 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Technical 13, in case you are actually being serious, here's the link, but I find it strange that you apparently don't know how to access template documentation - especially since you're a template editor: Template:Infobox television/doc#Attributes Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that the resolution should be in parens for consistency with the other documented resolutions. Might have been an oversight or a typo. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cyphoidbomb, notice that the other HDTV resolution isn't written with parentheses either - in my view, it's clearly because HDTV is the only item on the list that has multiple variants listed and so providing the actual resolution is not merely a matter of convenience. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently some of them have resolution in parenthesis, and others don't. I can see it is very possible, based on this inconsistence to either use or omit the parenthesis based on personal judgment. They all seem to have definition first, then pixel resolution second as CAWylie prefers. Also, so far, Recollected, CAWylie, myself and Cyphoidbomb all seem to agree that parens are reasonable, and only DE has seemed to be against it based on a strict interpretation of the existing (but not apparently consensually gained) documentation. I propose that we update the documentation to 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), HDTV (1080p). Do not use "SDTV" as it is ambiguous.) to make it consistent. I think we can agree on this without making a big MOS RfC out of it, don't you all? Technical 13 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Technical 13, did you read my explanation above? If so, please address it. (Also, please note that WP:TPO explicitly permits formatting changes.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DE, I had not read it (must have been the edit conflict and I forgot to go back and read it). I see two different 576i resolutions there, and I see no justifiable reason to not put the multiple HDTV resolutions in parens. Also, that policy you just quoted as giving you permission to change the formatting of my posts which are acceptable per Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages)#Indenting starts out by saying It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Anyways, back on-topic, do you agree that standardizing all of the resolutions by wrapping them all in parens is acceptable and agreeable? Technical 13 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up a good point regarding PAL and SECAM, but there's a significant difference - the ambiguous term is the one in parentheses in those cases, while in the HDTV cases the ambiguous term is outside of them. (I was not correcting mere typos or spelling/grammar mistakes - if indentation is left uncorrected it can and often does affect the layout of other posts, and indentation is specifically listed as an exception below the statement you quoted.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did read down through that, and my understanding was it was acceptable if there was no indentation to add it or to correct the number of levels, not to change from bullet points to unmarked indentation and strip whitespace that makes reading the post easier in the edit window. Your changes actually rendered material more difficult to read. and was against the spirit of that section of the guideline. Now, back on topic, unless you are already highly knowledgable in the field of televisions or screen resolutions, there is no significant difference, both terms are actually ambiguous. Also, if you're claiming that HDTV is an ambiguous term, then perhaps it should be disallowed just like SDTV is for the same reason. No? Technical 13 (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pro-parens. I don't understand DogmaticEclectic's explanation. I tried to find the edit that brought the current version to the page, to see if there were related discussions, but I was not successful. Maybe I wasn't looking in the right place. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_television&oldid=592210875

Leave a Reply