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 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]

For my response, may I just point you to the last column of Template:Infobox_television#TemplateData, which clearly lists most of the template's parameters as optional. Translation: remove what is bothersome and/or unnecessary, thereby removing your "clutter", which doesn't show if empty. — Wyliepedia 09:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:CAWylie, here's some better reasoning: why are we elevating the status of a show in another country to the level of the infobox in the first place? Why is the fact that the show first aired somewhere else so important that it is afforded any spot(s) at all there? Note that this is an airing which could easily even be in a different language - are we going to have Wikipedians scouring sources with translators just to fill in some infobox field(s)? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because today's writers generally cannot generate one original thought and must use another country's ideas? Or a network cannot afford to produce their own series so they must mine others? Or simply the production schedule is stacked so other countries get it first? Finally, please stop pinging names. Some editors can comprehend properly worded responses. — Wyliepedia 21:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the discussion above prior to stating an opinion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (as nominator): I do agree that the fact that a given show first aired somewhere other than in the country of origin is likely a fact that should be noted somewhere in the relevant article. I just don't think the infobox is the right place for it, overloaded as it already is with parameters available for use. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think requiring citations for genres is a bit overkill the way it's implemented here. If sources and the body of the article reinforce a particular genre then I don't see why you would need to provide citations after the genres listed in the infobox. Subgenres I can see, but the way its being required here is a bit silly. ₂₃W (talk · stalk)

Hi, 23W, part of the problem involves the numbers of children who keep turning normal genres like comedy into stuff like Black Comedy and Dramedy. Someone changed Kung Fu Panda into Comedy-Drama recently I think. (See also this extreme example. It's nuts!) The genre parameter is frequently misused and is a receptacle for interpretation, even beyond just the childish nonsense, which is no good. Now, maybe some broad genre are obvious and don't need sourcing, like comedy or animation, but then what differentiates fantasy from adventure as with Secret Mountain Fort Awesome, and why is it up to us to decide? If a comedy employs drama like every comedy on the planet does, is it a comedy-drama or a "dramedy" or just a regular comedy? I don't know why we wouldn't want to encourage references, either. Update: this was added shortly after I posted this reply. And then I found this recent edit and then these and then these and then this. Many users don't understand what these fields are for, but they are certainly not for listing every single storytelling element that a series employs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get a few opinions about the order of the stars in TV series infobox at Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Starring_order_in_Infobox. The statement that: "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show" seems clear to me, but one editor doesn't want to add the new people at the end. I think the policy should be adhered to for consistency unless there is justification and a consensus to change.AbramTerger (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Para detallar.png

Hello, I hope that I can understand. You could add a parameter that says "Slogan" for articles of soap operas. In the picture I put a screenshot for you to see what I mean. Take it from the article in wikipedia in Spanish. All operas have slogan, and I think it would be good to place in the template. And I say this only so that they are used in articles of telenovelas. Since operas are those most using the slogan. And it is not a method of advertising or something as well. Could you allow this parameter?.--McVeigh (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, didn't you already ask this question from your former identity, Damián80? There was no consensus for the change, and you gave up on the discussion because it no longer interested you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that was before, also at the time I had problems with some of the users who participated in the discussion. Why leave the discussion. Is that a case can not be another time is petition?.--McVeigh (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For me, we're back to the idea that a slogan is nothing more than a tagline. Taglines are marketing gimmicks and not actually part of the name of the program. If it was, then it wouldn't be a slogan, it would be a subtitle. So, I'm not in favor of adding slogans to the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what is for you a motto?, in other wikipedias do not think the same. In the wikipedia in Spanish if you may and here not?. I know that the wikipedia in Spanish is another language and have different rules. But I don't understand what the problem of using "slogans" in this wikipedia. They are not a way to make widespread or advertising.--McVeigh (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that anything has changed since the last discussion so I'm not convinced that there is any benefit in adding a field for slogans, or supporting their use in the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The motto/slogan/tagline serves no obvious purpose, and there is no reason to expand the infobox template to include something that is of unclear necessity, and that the vast majority of TV shows do not use. "My Heart is Yours: Although I did not expect it." What is the point? If the tagline is relevant, shouldn't it be addressed in the article somewhere? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ehmm, well I see not interested in proposing, so you earn well. But I am not going to leave the discussion, wait to see if more users are involved. Because the slogan could be used as subtitles, but in a different way.--McVeigh (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is really minor, but it seems there's two spaces inserted between the first aired parameter and the en dash. You can tell as you can highlight two spaces with your mouse between them. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request that the "first_run" parameter be removed from this template per the recent WP:RFC and Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can take silence as consensus to remove it. You really need a firm consensus to remove parameters, as we had with format. RfC outcomes are not binding and, for the record, I'd disagree with its removal so there is no consensus to remove it. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia, I request that in the Infobox television that we add a Art Director because most animated shows have Art Directors more that Directors also Live Shows sometimes have Art Directors. 64.228.75.199 (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. When making requests like this please link the discussion where the change was agreed. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a TV show that is airing on two networks (US and UK) very near to the same time (premiering within a week of each other) is it possible to have more than one official website in the infobox? And if so, what is the string? Entering 2 "website" and "website_title" merely displays the last one entered. Thanks Springhill40 (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Springhill40: I don't believe so. You should have the website for which ever network is the "original" (ie where the production company first intended it to air), and then possibly put the second at the bottom of the article. Which show are you asking about? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking specifically for articles like those on the Hanna-Barbera programs like Scooby-Doo, Where are You! and the like. A number of TV shows and/or companies have changed hands multiple times over the years; should the "distributor" section of the infobox reflect the original company (in Scooby's case, Taft Broadcasting), the current distributor (Warner Bros. Television), or the enumerated list of all of the distributors over the years? Would it be better in these cases to simply list the first or last distributor and relegate everything else to prose in the article itself? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say original. Distributors are straining importance at best anyway but it's not realistic to list every possible distributor, and many of them are just in single countries. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of other countries, we're only sticking to distributors in the country of origin in these infoboxes, correct? The Hanna-Barbera shows I'm speaking of would have no less than five American distributors over the years (Taft, Great American, Worldvision - a Taft subsidiary - Turner, and Warner Bros. The pre-1967 shows will also have Screen Gems as well). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a need for this parameter due to multiple distributor changes over the years for old programmes; that for many articles is probably out of date. REVUpminster (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all. The director parameter of this infobox is intended for people who are directing episodes, right? Like, behind the camera (live-action) or overseeing the storyboardng (animation)? That's my interpretation anyway. I keep seeing editors adding supervising directors, art directors, and other people with "director" in their titles to this parameter and I'm wondering if maybe the intention of the parameter isn't presented quite clear enough for these editors. Examples: [1], The Problem Solverz, Secret Mountain Fort Awesome Art directors seem to be more appropriately placed under creative_director. What about these other people with director titles? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation is correct. It should be blatantly obvious what is meant by the parameter. We have |director= and |creative_director=. If we wanted to list "supervising directors" we'd have a parameter called |supervising_director= but we don't! Note that, unlike |writer=, which is for "the show's writer or writers" (note use of plural form), "director" is for "the show's director" (singular). I've boldly tightened the wording for this parameter by adding a link. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The director aspect seemed obvious to me. I will admit that I didn't find the singular nature of |director= to be intuitive. Cartoons often cycle through directors during a season. Assuming it's a reasonable number of directors (5 max?) why wouldn't we list them as we would writers? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the purpose of |company= to list all the various sub-contractors who might have been involved in the literal, physical production of the series, or is it intended to list the main company/companies that funded the venture? For example at Avatar: The Last Airbender are Nickelodeon Animation Studios, DR Movie, JM Animation, MOI Animation, and a user recently added Titmouse because they produced the opening credit sequence. The scope is vague and needs clarification. And, does that mean under |country= we'd add United States, Korea, and Canada and adjust the lede accordingly? (i.e., "The Legend of Korra is an American—Korean—Canadian animated television series...) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion in Infobox film seems to be relevant here; it may be helpful. Raamin (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]