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 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Infobox television
Original release
Network	Teletoon
Release	March 1, 2014 (2014-03-01) – present (present)

Infobox television
Original release
Network	Cartoon Network
Release	April 9, 2014 (2014-04-09) – present (present)

There are some contradictory instructions for some of the important parameters in this infobox. These are (with emphasis added for clarity):

Parameter	Explanation
channel or network	The original channel(s) or network(s) on which the show has appeared. Do not add foreign broadcasters here.
first_run	The country or region where the show was first broadcast.
first_aired	Date the show first aired on its original channel or network.
last_aired	The first airdate of the show's last episode on its original channel or network.

This causes a problem at TV series such as The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series). The series is American but first aired in Canada so Teletoon is a foreign broadcaster and therefore should not be in the |channel= field. Instead this should be Cartoon Network. Similarly, because |first_aired= and |last_aired= specify the "original channel", the US dates should be used in those fields. Including "Canada" in |first_run= per the instructions is misleading as the average reader would expect to see Canadian information, given Canada's location in the middle of the section and since that is where it first aired. The instructions either need to be rewritten, or the parameter relocated so that it's clear that the data is local and the foreign location is just a note. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How I'm reading this, all of this information should relate to the channel that corresponds to its country of origin. But, if this information does not correspond to where it was first broadcast (in Tom and Jerry's case), then we should use the parameters as such. What if we change as so: keep "channel" or "network", "first_aired" and "last_aired" as is, and change instructions for "first_run" to include country, channel and it's air dates, or default to the country of origin if not used. I'm expecting the output to be something like: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If first run is different than Country of Origin
Original channel	Cartoon Network
Original run	April 9, 2014 (2014-04-09) – present (present)
First shown in	Canada on Teletoon March 1, 2014 (2014-03-01) – present (present)

If first run is not different than Country of Origin
Original channel	NBC
Original run	January 1, 2014 (2014-01-01) – present (present)

That's not exactly what I was thinking of but it solves the problem and probably in a better way than what I was thinking. I'd be tempted to add fields for the foreign country dates so editors don't have to manually format the field. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When you presented this, it seemed logical to me. And yes, I just did a rough mock up, so I do believe a few new parameters may be needed. I'm seeing possibly three additional? If leaving |first_run=, then add one for the country's channel, and then one each for the start and end dates. And do note that the order they appear in the infobox will have to be adjusted to be clear as well (as I did in my mock up). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to call the new parameters. Adding _foreign to existing names seems rather simple and makes the intent of the parameters obvious, so we'd end up with first_aired_foreign, last_aired_foreign, channel_foreign and network_foreign. If we use your suggestion, network_foreign would simply be an alias for channel_foreign and used only for consistency with current parameters. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about all the parameters as follows: |channel= or |network=, |first_aired=, |last_aired=, |first_run=, |first_run_channel= (or network. either or, or both), |first_run_first_aired= and |first_run_last_aired=. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'd work too. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one else has commented, but I don't see why there would be any objections. Can you make these changes? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: Do you feel we can implement this? Are you able to do so? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no opposition, I'll have a look. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just pinging @Bignole: as an active WP:TV editor whose input is worth seeking. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds logical to me. I don't find this issue all that much to have a real opinion about it. What you've written up Favre seems appropriate. I'm ok with it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta hand it to Favre for some clear mockups there. I hope my silence was considered implicit acceptance. The only note I have is that we please, please, please provide clear instructions in the docs. I will chase each of you 'round the moons of Nibia to get some clarity to the Infobox parameters! And I'm sorry I didn't participate in this discussion sooner. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I will chase each of you 'round the moons of Nibia" Yeah, look where that got Khan. ;) --AussieLegend (✉) 06:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not fail like Khan! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also arrived late. These discussions need listed in more places. I'm a WPTV troller and this should've been pinged there somehow. If my plate was less full, I would create a global Television issues area somewhere. — Wyliepedia 10:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CAWylie: Aussie made a post about this on the project talk page back at the end of April: here - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahso! Apologies for my dropped ball (or full plate). — Wyliepedia 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We have not acted on anything, so if you'd still like to weigh in, please do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about a {{Film date}}-type addition, used with a film's |release parameter? I.e.: {{Film date|2014|6|24|Canada}} returns:

That way, it shows where it first aired while retaining the original (normal) airing country's format (first run, last aired, channel)? Or Favre1fan93's previous suggestion. I'm sleepy, thus flexible. (EDIT: Or add a date to the second blue box's Canada up top? So it would say "First shown in: Canada (March 1, 2014)" as suggested.) — Wyliepedia 16:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:AussieLegend, User:Favre1fan93, User:Bignole, User:Cyphoidbomb, and User:CAWylie: can we finally deal with this at some point? Personally, I would simply drop the first_run parameter altogether, since such a fact can simply be noted outside the infobox instead, and the alternative addition of several parameters serves merely to clutter up the template from my point of view. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was hoping to get some clarification on the Company parameter, and propose we modify the explanatory text in this template accordingly. Currently the Company parameter reads: "The names of the production companies." Nice and vague. I noticed this edit, which added Titmouse to the company parameter (Titmouse is credited in the series with "Animation Production Services"). Is the purpose of the Company parameter to list all of the companies that may have contributed to the production, (ex: the literal "production", or manifestation, of the animation) or only the companies that funded the production as a producer might do? I see this all the time in animation articles, where a project somehow becomes a co-production because Company A financed it, and Company B did the animation, and it's never really been made clear what qualifies something as a co-production. The side-effect of this, is that often series becomes pegged as a multinational project (ex: "XYZ series is an American/Canadian production), which is sort of accurate, but not for the reasons we think. Some American cars have Japanese engines, for example. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I would go with the company that is paying the bill. For example, The CW often does a lot of business in Canada because it is cheaper, but their shows are not Canadian shows. It's about location and finance. I wouldn't call Casino Royale a Moroccan film because it was filmed there. Where the money is spent should not be a determining factor, because you're going to look for the cheapest option.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; animation tends to be outsourced to multiple companies, and really only the main studio that is doing the pre-production and has their vanity logo on the show should be listed. The other studios are considered subcontractors. Only Nickelodeon Animation Studios should be listed in the infobox; Titmouse as subcontractor should be mentioned in the prose. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For shows like Futurama, Family Guy, Dr Who and The Comeback which have had substantial gaps in productions after being cancelled the first aired and last aired dates are not very helpful. The Doctor Who infobox is a shambles with it having both 26 series and then seven seasons (even though the British term is series for that as well) and the editors of that page have adapted by using their own headings, date fields, line breaks, etc. The Comeback (TV series) lasted for one short series in 2005 before being cancelled and is allegedly being renewed this year.

I believe that in cases where a show has been cancelled and off the air for a long time a "second aired" or a "subsequently aired" or "revival aired" option would be useful in a summary box. The "subsequently aired" option could easily be defined with a variable so that a second cancellation and a long gap followed by a new revival would obviate the need for a "third aired" in future. I am sure others could easily define a reasonable standard for when a show would qualify, such as being renewed after being cancelled or off the air for several years. Waerloeg (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this edit at the MOS, I thought it wise to drop by here to take a look at the parameter instructions for last_aired. I think they need to be clarified, because in common usage, and per WikiProject Television consensus, the last_aired value typically represents a cancellation, and we have for a long time been requiring that cancellations be sourced, either in the article prose, or in the infobox. Kids' shows don't get a lot of press about cancellation, instead they just don't get picked up and quietly fizzle into obscurity. I propose a simple change to the prose, my additions are in bold:

The first airdate of the show's last episode on its original channel or network. Use "present" if the show is ongoing, renewed, or if its fate has not been announced, and {{end date}} if the show is ended. Only insert a finale date after it has happened. Since the end date represents a cancellation, it must be supported by properly sourced prose in the article body, or by an inline reference to a reliable source.

Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to clarify, because I think I may be misreading it, are you proposing that if a kid's show is cancelled, but they have not made a formal announcement about it then we leave the article as "present" for an extended period of time (if it's an obscure show, no one may make note of the cancellation)?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey B, cancellations for network shows are typically sourced or verifiable because there are published announcements in trades that a series has been cancelled or has otherwise run its course. That makes it easy to determine what the series' last episode is. Kids' shows don't get this treatment. Either a pickup is announced at the next upfront or not, but there's rarely any attention drawn to the fact that the plug has been pulled on the series. Fanboy, Robot & Monster, Secret Mountain Fort Awesome, are some examples. This leaves a lot of kids shows in limbo and perpetually listed as "present", because we can't determine what the series' last episode is if there's no announced cancellation. So either the community decides that a series has ended when it does not appear in the upfront (which seems like OR) or we could go with The Futon Critic's determination that series with no activity in 12 months are considered cancelled, but that is a determination they have fabricated, and has been argued as original research. (see this prior conversation). So, my feeling is that either we change how we use the last_aired parameter, we clarify the instructions, or we reevaluate how we treat kids series. And if I'm wrong about any of this, let me know, because I've been rejecting unsourced series end dates for a while now with no correction from the community. And in the case of Fanboy and Robot & Monster, there's some indication that Nickelodeon is about to burn off the last few episodes, so "present" has technically been correct, even if absurd. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I think better clarification is necessary, regardless. As far as how it needs to be clarified, my opinion is that if a show had not aired in 12 months (barring news that it is just on extended hiatus, ala Hells on Wheels), then we put the date of the last episode. We can clarify in prose (and it can be stated that it is mandated that we do) that the series was never officially announced as over, but that a new episode has not aired since date X. Otherwise, you'd end up with a series that ended 3 years ago and still saying "Present" because no one bothered to officially say it was cancelled.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that consensus favored the "perpetual Present". I even included that clarification in the FAQ, "even if the series stopped airing new episodes 5 years ago, leave it 'present'." If that doesn't actually reflect consensus, then we need to address that, because that's what I've been enforcing. (Awkwaaard!) I personally find it problematic that we maintain perpetual Present because it seems silly to think that a show off the air for three years still has a shot to continue. I actually thought it was cool that FutonCritic was calling these series dead so that the kids could source something finally. I do, however, understand the WP:OR considerations. If a series doesn't get picked up, I don't fundamentally have a problem with changing "present" to the last airdate as long as we are not saying that the series has been cancelled, rather that it has not been picked up (which is basically the same thing, except "not picked up" is easier to source than "cancelled" is.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to more people weighing in on it. My feeling is that after a certain point we need to just identify a date. Prose can be used to clarify that we're not the ones saying that it was cancelled, but merely that was the last time the series had a new episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled has a different meaning than not picked up or not renewed. Cancelled is 20 ordered but less than that aired. If 20 are ordered and 20 aired the series has ended as planned and has not been cancelled but has also not been renewed. I think the default should be if we have a referenced series order and the shows ends at the end of the order we put that end date in the last_aired parameter unless we have a reference that supports either renewal or cancellation. The presumption should be the show is ended as planned unless we have sources that say otherwise. Leaving a perpetual "present" in last aired should not happen. In any event I think 1 year with no activity is sufficient to say "He's dead, Jim" and let it go. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can we indicate that the programme is not currently airing but that we don't know its last date? See Buying Naked. No evidence on the channel's website, so not currently running. But leaving "last aired" blank, or entering "unknown" both come up with "Currently airing". What's the equivalent of "Date of death missing"? Or perhaps this article just needs to be nuked as its only source is the Daily Mail. PamD 07:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Googling shows that the show was still/again airing in June 2014 so not relevant now - but as a general question, there must be some cases where someone is writing about a historic show that hasn't been aired for decades but they don't have the exact date - there should surely be some option to get an output other than an exact end date or "currently airing". PamD 08:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd read the article talk page I'd have spotted that the reason I couldn't find it on the tlc website is that the URL redirects to www.uk.tlc.com when viewed from the UK. But the "date of cessation missing" issue remains. PamD 09:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buying Naked's first season just ended by American TV standards. It may take months for any renewal news and is therefore considered "present". I don't know what happened to the |status= parameter, but that was used to show if it was currently airing or not (to editors, not the public). Perhaps that can be returned or possibly even a category to show such statuses (again, even if hidden)? — Wyliepedia 10:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of two parameters that can easily be confused with each other has led to repeated discussion here. I propose that:

• the genre parameter should only contain entries from the "Literary genres" section of List of genres;
• the format parameter should only contain entries from the "Film and television genres" section of the same list, with the exception of the subentries in the "Live-action scripted" subsection since they largely duplicate the literary genres.

This seems largely consistent with existing usage (in some cases the usage seems to be reversed, but it seems that literary genres should take precedence in this regard). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these parameters were discussed late last year (see this discussion) and a link to List of genres#Film and television genres was added to the instructions for genre. Format was linked to Television program#Formats. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AussieLegend: First, the discussion that you linked to shows a clear lack of consensus. Second, there has been subsequent discussion of this issue at this very page since then, which indicates that the discussion you linked to should be afforded even less weight in determining consensus regarding this issue. Third, the current lists that are linked to are not mutually exclusive, causing confusion; the lists in my proposal would be. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the removal of Genre. It is largely interpretive and problematic. Kids think that a cartoon in which someone dies de facto makes it a "black comedy", or that comedies that employ dramatic elements are "dramadies". The Template:Infobox film doesn't contain a genre parameter. Assuming that we're not all on board to remove the genre parameter, I would propose we do all of the following: A) Limit the genre to a shorter list of options than the example list. Microgenre should be discouraged the way that the Music wikiprojects limit ridiculous microgenres (post-punk rockabilly/grunge fusion). B) Limit Format to a set list of options such as "magazine news show", "miniseries", "animation", "reality TV", "taped", "filmed" or whatever "Format" is intended to mean. I have never quite understood the intention of this parameter, which is why I originally proposed its removal. C) Require in docs that genre must be sourced in infobox, or in the article prose. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyphoidbomb, as sources do indeed exist for genres, option C is the obvious choice. That doesn't resolve the core issue of the confusion between the two parameters, though. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Cyphoidbomb: Regarding the recent clarification, you haven't proposed what the "set list of options" in option B should be! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]