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.

I think we need to be more specific about the related parameter. Many editors are adding articles, and have been for years, that do not fit the parameter instructions that the field is for "remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc". I removed an example of this today.[1] First Monday's only link to JAG was that a character from that short-lived series appeared as a recurring character in JAG after First Monday was cancelled. The link to Hawaii Five-0 is even more tenuous. In 2012, 7 years after JAG ended, Hawaii Five-0 had a crossover with NCIS: Los Angeles, which was a spin-off from NCIS (TV series) which itself was a spin-off from JAG. I can't explain Scorpion. The only link seems to be that David James Elliott appeared on Scorpion as a guest star. Unfortunately, this is all too common but I don't think that the resolution is all that difficult. I propose simply changing the label for the parameter from "Related shows" to "Spin-offs or remakes". I believe that "remakes" covers adaptations. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need to be more specific... frankly I am unclear as to what it means. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally thing the current parameter name is fine and the template instructions are fine. People just need to learn to read. This is probably just a matter of better broadcasting what the field is for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with "Related shows", but if the name has to change what about "Connected series/shows"? Maybe the instructions could be tightened up a bit. Whether that's a spin-off or a remake, it's still a connection. Some shows are not direct spin-offs or remakes, but are connected. For example, although they call it a "spin-off" in the article, Caprica isn't really a spin-off in the sense that we generally use it. It isn't based on something specific within Battlestar Galactica, but the history from that show, it's a prequel. In other words, I don't want people to think that if it isn't like The Flash, where the character originated on Arrow, then it's not supposed to be there. Like the upcoming Vixen will feature the Flash and Arrow, but it will not have started from either show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: You are absolutely, 100% correct. Unfortunately, as this discussion demonstrates, even those who should know better don't read instructions, and if we can't get it right, how can we expect the average editor to do so?

@Bignole: Crossovers make shows connected too. Don't say they don't, because that's what is causing the problem. We need to hit people in the face with something that is obvious. For situations like Caprica, we can cover that in the instructions, which some people read. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I would say that Last Man Standing is not really connected to Cristela, even though they had a crossover episode as a promotional thing. Not a real connection, and not a true relation. That is where the description should be tightened up a bit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions do say "Note that simply sharing crossover episodes does not make series related", but it gets ignored because editors don't bother with the instructions. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shows how much I pay attention to what it already says. :) So, does the description really need to be fixed, or do we need to do a better job of enforcing what it says?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first step is to make the label less ambiguous, which is why I suggested "Spin-offs or remakes", but I'm open to suggestions. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'd be open to changing the field name, but I'm not sure "Spin-offs or remakes" is the best. My feeling, similar to what Big mentioned above with his example, is an instance say with Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter. Carter is not really a "Spin-off or remake" of SHIELD, but it is related and used in the field correctly per the current instructions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion for a better label? --AussieLegend (✉) 01:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related really is the best term in my opinion, because it encompasses the spin-offs and remakes, as well as "sister series" (if you will). So I think it's just a matter of clarifying wording somewhere, maybe creating a tracking category to see which articles use the field, and see if it is being used correctly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Related" has been demonstrated to be a bad term. Editors think crossovers are enough to make a series related. In the case of "Scorpion", David James Elliot's appearance as a character totally unrelated to his JAG character was enough to make it related to JAG. Changing the instructions won't help because people don't read them. It really needs a new label. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm fine with trying to change it. I just want to make sure that a term exists somewhere to still validate series relationships like SHIELD and Carter (that do properly use the field now). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose a new parameter to change the wording of one of the infobox headings. The parameter would change "Broadcast" to "Release". With many series now being distributed on streaming services, "broadcast" is not necessarily the correct term. "Release" is more applicable, because in most cases, these series don't have any chance of "ending" per se and all episodes are released at once. Here is the current code for this heading: | header34 = {{#if:{{{channel|}}}{{{network|}}}{{{picture_format|}}}{{{audio_format|}}}{{{first_run|}}}{{{first_aired|}}}{{{last_aired|}}}|Broadcast}} My proposal would be to have a new parameter release, which would be a simple "y"/"Y"/"yes" field and it would be a "but-if" case to the previous code (not exactly sure how to do that on here). Here are the layman's terms: If any of the fields under the headings are used, add the "Broadcast" heading, but if release is flagged, it would be "Release" over "Broadcast". What are other's thoughts on this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox television
Original release
Release	January 1, 1901 (1901-01-01) – December 31, 1999 (1999-12-31)

Infobox television
Original release
Release	January 1, 1901 (1901-01-01) – December 31, 1999 (1999-12-31)

Is this what you're aiming at? --AussieLegend (✉) 06:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup that's it! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also for my documentation edit, I had a lapse. Thought genre was format for a second... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But on the inclusion of this, does this make sense to make the change? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can a template editor please implement the change AussieLegend made to the sandbox in the live template? This should be a non-issue, as it is a help to the template, not really a deterrent. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Please update the documentation. Alakzi (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert this edit by Nnemo, which was made without any discussion, consultation or other attempt to gain consensus for edits to a template used in 32,000 articles. No attempt was made to test these edits in the sandbox. By replacing "No." with "Number" the change has made a generally long infobox longer. Such edits should always be the subject of discussion. See discussions immediately above for examples. AussieLegend (✉) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partially undone. I've used <abbr>...</abbr> to provide a title for accessibility purposes. Alakzi (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alakzi: Excellent idea. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, whatever changes were made, can someone please double-check them, as the List of episodes link is displaying all wonky in the infobox, for instance at Little Charmers I see:

Number of episodes: 13

({{#if | 13 | l | L}}}ist of episodes).

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a vestigial phenomenon, coming from an old version of the template. I checked, it has no reason to happen now, ...except failing temporarily to use the up-to-date version of the template. If you see again such bad display, purge the page. To do so, on the page, click on "View history" and then, at the end of the address, replace "history" with "purge". --Nnemo (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nnemo: When does the "l" in "lists" need to be in uppercase? Alakzi (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When there is only the part "(List of episodes)", without number before. Before my edits, the L was always in uppercase. So I wanted to respect the edge cases. But the main issue I that wanted to correct was the cases like "7 (List of episodes)", in which the uppercase L was absurd. --Nnemo (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 21 April 2015

I don't see any consensus for the recent addition of an extremely ugly abbreviation tooltip. Please remove it immediately. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. See previous section. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Redrose64, what exactly are you talking about? I'm requesting a revert of an edit that did not have consensus for it in the first place. Are you unfamiliar with WP:BRD? Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegend, EvergreenFir and Nnemo all seem to agree to what is a common-sense accessibility enhancement. Please don't waste our time with vexatious wikilaweyring because you just don't like the look of it. Alakzi (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Alakzi: Do you realize that you've forcefully added an incredibly ugly dotted underline to the very beginning of thousands upon thousands of pages? I think that goes a little beyond a mere "common-sense enhancement". Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "forcefully" add anything; I would've reverted if there was protestation. On the contrary, I was thanked by the three aforementioned editors. "No." is widely understood to mean "number"; this enhancement is for the sole benefit of screen readers. Therefore, I think it'd be uncontroversial to hide the underline - though, I note, {{Discreet abbreviation}} no longer functions. Alakzi (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACCESS would seem more important than anyone's aesthetic tastes when it's something this minor. Hide the underline if possible, but I will point to WP:NOSTRIKE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the underline looks crappy, but I'm OK with the change, as this is what is suggested by MOS:NUMERO. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template was recently nominated for merge with {{Infobox television film}} and the TfM discussion has now closed with unanimous support for a merge. Please replace the existing infobox code with this version from the sandbox which incorporates these changes to the existing code. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC) AussieLegend (✉) 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're missing a few parameter aliases: "alt" for "image_alt"; "italic title" for "italic_title"; and "image size" for "image_size". Do we want to add these here or update the parameter names in all of the TV film articles? Alakzi (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles that I tested didn't reveal any issues with those aliases so I'm not sure whether it's going to be an issue. Most of the articles still use the image formatting syntax from the pre-Module:InfoboxImage days, so that may be why no errors appeared. I intended running through all of the articles using infobox television film with AWB to update parameter names anyway, so I can incorporate this into the changes. Once I've been through all of the articles, I'll be removing the added aliases as they'll no longer be necessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Alakzi (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Please update the documentation accordingly and let me know if I need to run through with AWB and convert the old template uses to the new template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace the live code for this template with this version from the sandbox.

In order to merge {{Infobox television film}} into this template several aliases were added as a temporary measure. These were name, based on, narrator and editing. As indicated in the above edit request, I have now run through all articles that used Infobox television film with AWB and have converted them to use this template and its parameters. Subsequently, these aliases no longer serve any purpose and should be removed. AussieLegend (✉) 12:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

There is currently a revamp discussion going on at Template:Infobox television season. One field that I asked adding was an "Announcer(s)" field. My rationale: Late night talkshows, such as The Tonight Show, have a special place for the announcer. Ed McMahon, for example, is famous as The Tonight Show announcer. Currently these people are already in the infobox, but under a "Narrator" field which is semantically incorrect. An announcer is not a presenter, a host nor a narrator. Clarification, What I'm asking does not add another name to the infobox, as that name is anyways listed, it just lists it under the correct name. This is a similar issue to having a narrator being placed under "Voiced by" or reality show judges being placed under "Starring". --Gonnym (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder to anyone watching this page. Another example The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) where the announcers are listed as narrators. --Gonnym (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I requested in the previous subject here, the Announcer field should be added to this template. This change will not add another line to any template, as currently the individuals are placed in the template, but just under an incorrect field name (Narrator). I've waited a week for comments with a friendly reminder 3 days ago with no comments so I'm requesting this be added.

I've made the changes to the sandbox here (from label16 onwards)-> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=664540252 Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You need to gain consensus to add this parameter. Lack of discussion in only 7 days cannot be taken as consensus to add a parameter to a template that is used in nearly 35,000 articles. This discussion doesn't appear to have been publicised. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. First, I've followed the guidelines concerning this change and after waiting 7 days without any comment at all, I was WP:Bold. You say this wasn't publicized, yet in our other discussion you told me to post this here and I did so and also said I did so. I do not need to post this everywhere as this change does not effect the 35,000 other articles (nothing was removed, and except a correct name added, no new data will be added to the templates as the people are already written). I'm really feeling as you are not discussing this change in good faith. --Gonnym (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:AussieLegend has serious WP:OWN issues. I suggest simply ignoring them in discussions like this and reporting them in case of edit warring. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdrnpndr:Please comment on content, not on the contributor. If you can back up your personal attack, please do so in the appropriate venue. If you cannot, don't attack other editors. You know far better than that. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym:You still need to get consensus for such a change and, as you know, there has been resistance to the other parameters you've suggested from other editors. There are other places a proposal such as this needs to be published. WT:TV is a good one, as the editors there are the end users. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody wish to discuss the proposed addition? Alakzi (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bignole and Favre1fan93: - These are editors who have recently participated in related discussions at Template talk:Infobox television season. I've also advertised the discussion at WT:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym, you said that "Announcer" is being mislabeled as "Narrator". To me, they are two different roles, can you provide an example of when you would need "Announcer" for an infobox though? The only one that immediately comes to mind is the "Price is Right".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]