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.

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]

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request for comment admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR. Admin: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases". It was reiterated here: "A reliable third party source is required. ... I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get...."

Based on this, the directions for the infobox's runtime parameter need to include this decision, which follows Wikipedia WP:OR policy. This would be, to quote, the admin: "third-party source required." I would ask that the editors who argued against this in the RfC to please abide by the RfC close, the admin reiterations, and Wikipedia OR policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make clear, since another editor expressed concern: "Third-party sourcing required" at runtime does not mean an inline citation necessarily. If a running time is verified in the article body, for example, that fulfills WP:VERIFY. And as we all know, personal time-measurements are impermissible OR. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is inappropriate. People using the infobox don't necessarily look at this talk page and we don't include redundant notes in infobox instructions, especially when they've been added under false pretenses. The RfC closer has quite clearly stated that the RfC close was procedural and related to use of original research. At no point in the RfC close did the closer say or even recommend that the redundant note be added. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I would have to say what's inappropriate is your response to a gesture of good will. The closing admin stated in no uncertain terms that OR is not allowed. And OR is rampant in the infobox runtime parameter. The RfC took place on the Infobox Template's talk page and not the general project talk page precisely because that's where we discuss edits to the Infobox Template.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where this RfC took place. The only recent RfC was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. That is not the infobox talk page and the closer wrote Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind. That RfC has nothing to do with infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I transposed the two pages in my mind. You are correct: The RfC took place Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television.

Regardless, the closing admin said that the runtime parameter required third-party sourcing. I'm not sure why anyone would object to stating that in the infobox when OR — editors making educated guesses — is rampant. The only reason I can think of is that someone is OK with educated guesses and doesn't want to go to the trouble of verifying.

I have an idea: Why don't we present the issue to the closing admin, neutrally, and ask him to decide? That would save us a lot of time debating and possibly edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The closer said what he said in relation to the original research aspect of your nomination which is why he has subsequently went to the extremes of stating The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes. He stated that "A reliable third party source is required" was in relation to the close, which was about OR. Nothing he said was about the runtime parameter. I can't see why you don't get that. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And honesty, I'm not sure how you, in turn, can't see that the entire RfC was about the runtime parameter: "TV-show running times in the TV infobox". The admin said very specifically that "third-party sources are required". Since this basic Wikipedia policy is being flagrantly flouted in TV Project infoboxes, what reasonable individual who cares about Wikipedia's accuracy would not want to alert people that they can't just put in OR claims?

Look, if you think I'm off-base, then you should welcome having a disinterested third-party admin who knows the issue make the call. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was closed because it asked if we could use original research. The arguments made had no effect. I don't know what you're expecting to achieve by further annoying JzG. He's already said that the outcome of the RfC had nothing to do with the parameter but if you must, annoy him some more. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're all agreed that we can't use original research, then I don't see why you and I are not on the same page. In any event, here is proposed wording to ask him. It is just a draft, and we'll tweak it so that we both think it's fair before asking him. So, first draft:   "Are we allowed to embed in the infobox template the phrase 'third-party sourcing required'?" --Tenebrae (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if you are in violent agreement: OR is not allowed. It's fair to clarify this in the infobox /Doc or some similar location, or even to link to a general page wihtin the wikiproject that details how to use the infobox properly. You can fight out the issue fo inline cites between yourselves :-) Guy (Help!) 22:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and, geez, thank you again for all the time you've taken on what I would have imagined was a non-controversial thing. It's been very nice of you to have so much patience.

Just to clarity to AussieLegend, I have not been talking about inline cites, and I won't even comment on them unless an RfC or other discussion is brought up — I'm certainly not planning to push for them. But as Guy (Help!) says, it's fair to clarify the OR issue in the infobox template. Could we leave it at that and move on? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above discussion, and with an admin's help, the agreed-upon, compromise wording was "third-party source required," added on March 22. In fact, User:AussieLegend appeared to agree to that when he left it in his edits of April 2 of [2] and going forward.

But then, today, he unilaterally removed that wording [3], and when I pointed this out, he included different phrasing to reflect his own personal position [4] rather than the one we all agreed to. I've restored the agreed-upon version, [5].--Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't all agree to the wording. The RfC was procedurally closed with no outcome either way because because the wording of the RfC question was faulty. You took it upon yourself to add wording to the documentation, which I opposed. I subsequently left it in the documentation because attempts to remove it were reverted by you. What you "pointed out" was false. Your edit summary claimed This was added after a protracted RfC and discussion, at the direction of an admin.[6] However, the RfC outcome was not consensus to add any such text. The RfC was closed procedurally without consensus either way. Nor did an admin direct that the text be added. You wanted it added and when you sought clarification after I opposed inclusion, you asked the admin if it should be added, his response was that it was reasonable. He did not "direct" that it be included. An admin has no more power than any other editor to direct that content be changed. Such changes come about by consensus, as you should be aware. The note is entirely redundant. Per WP:V, all content must be verifiable by reliable independent source required. That note could be added to all parameters but, because it is standard procedure, it is not required in any. Adding it gives unnecessary prominence to that particular parameter, and there is no justification for that. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:AussieLegend, comments are often left in Wikipedia source to help editors avoid making common mistakes (not providing a reliable source for this parameter in this case). "Prominence" has nothing to do with it. Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to provide a citation for the the runtime parameter. There still isn't. The aim of the RfC was to gain consensus to require citations, but the RfC was closed before consensus could be determined. The closer had to state several times not to read anything beyond the outcome being procedural. That being the case there is no consensus for the added text. Stating that a third-party source is "required" for that specific parameter misleads the reader into believing that one must be provided and there is no consensus for that. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:AussieLegend, the RfC close was not one of "no consensus", but rather one of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, more precisely that WP:V overrides any possible local consensus and that a reliable source is therefore indeed required regardless of the opinions expressed there. Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V requires that content be reliably sourced, not that citations be provided for everything. Adding this content to only this specific parameter gives the impression that a citation is required for this specific parameter, which was not the outcome of the RfC. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've been reading of previous discussions, I don't see anywhere where it was agreed upon that "third-party source" had to be required wording in this documentation. Now, going off of what (I think) you are both getting at, if there is something in the infobox that is not represented in the body of the article, then in theory it should have reliable source attributed to it, if it is likely to be challenged (as WP:V states). And while we can't police all articles in this Wikiproject to ensure this happens, more times than not, the runtimes added are not going to be challenged material because the episodes themselves act as the reliable source. But in the cases where editors have issue with the given runtimes, then sources should be used to state why those times are in the article. Now, I'm not trying to bring back anything from the RfC, but pertinent to here, I don't see the need to single out this parameter as needing a source, when all of them (in theory) need it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the episodes themselves are emphatically not a reliable source: that is in fact WP:OR. If the runtime is to be included, a reliable independent source must be provided. The entire point of the RfC was that runtimes were being added by users who had timed the shows themselves, which is impermissible by policy. A runtime without a source is contentious, as evidence the existence of the RfC and the arguments advanced within it, and therefore runtimes cannot be used unless reliably sourced. This is, as you point out, merely the routine application of WP:V. The source does not have to be linked inline in the infobox, but it has to be provided within the article. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Television episodes are regarded to be acceptable primary sources, and are used per WP:PRIMARY, so a blanket claim that the episodes themselves are emphatically not a reliable source is not correct. Favre1fan93 is correct that more times than not, the runtimes added are not going to be challenged material. This is actually the case and has been for years, until Tenebrae started making a fuss. However, the primary concern here is whether we really need that note in the instructions, and we don't, as it applies to all content any way. If we add it here then we should add it to every parameter in every infobox that is used on Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is simply not true. The episode is not a source for the length of the episode. Read WP:NOR. The episode does not include its runtime as a piece of on-screen information. Many sources exist for run times, this counts as information liable to be challenged (self-evidently, given this conversation) so needs a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all agree that we are not here to rehash the RfC discussion. As pertaining to this discussion, no that wording should not be used specifically for this parameter, because all fields in the infobox need to be sourced if not doubled again in the prose. Now if we have to rehash exactly what constitutes needing a source for runtimes (do episodes themselves count or not), I suggest we retake that discussion elsewhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether episodes themselves count is the point already settled by the RfC. The answer is: no they don't, because that is WP:OR. Consider: a monument exists, we have an article on it. A Wikipedia editor measures the monument and adds the measurements to the article. Is that original research? Yes. It cannot be verified by other editors from reliable sources. Any fact liable to be challenged must be sources, and it is self-evident that runtimes are being challenged, so need to be sourced. I am reminded of arguments past where people argued to include OR because it was really hard to find a reliable source for something and it's "useful". Guy (Help!) 12:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That one editor has chosen to question runtimes is not an indication that runtimes are likely to be challenged and the evidence to date is that they are not. In fact Tenebrae's intial concern was simply What constitutes "runtime.", even though the template instructions explain that it is the Episode duration. Should not include commercials and should be approximated, e.g. "22–26 minutes" for most half-hour shows.. However, as has been pointed out, this is irrelevant to this discussion, which is all about whether a redundant note should be included in the instructions. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This issue already was settled in an RfC in which an admin specifically gave clarification for the wording, and specifically inserted wording to avoid any confusion over the issue. I would ask AussieLegend to accept the RfC closing and subsequent clarifications and reiterations. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it was not settled in the RfC. The RfC was procedurally closed because your question asked if we could OR to source runtimes and WP:NOR says we can't. The RfC closer has specifically stated, do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind, yet you have taken the close to mean that we need to add a redundant note to the instructions, which was never part of the close. The clarification of the close also specifically stated The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, yet that is exactly what your note implies. You have clearly read far more into the procedural close of the RfC than the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research. Claiming that an admin specifically inserted wording to avoid any confusion over the issue is, at the very best, misleading. You were the one who added the note and that admin said you were wrong.[7] He only changed[8] what you added,[9] and even that was subsequently changed by someone else,[10] amking the note even more redundant than it already was. Your claims regarding the outcome of the RfC have been quite ridiculous, including the claim that the RfC didn't go my way. I didn't start the RfC, you did. Your aim was that runtimes be cited but the RfC comments didn't support that and it wasn't an outcome of the RfC, as clearly stated by the closer, so the RfC clearly didn't go your way, yet you are acting as if it had, and fighting to keep a clearly redundant note in the instructions. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:12, 11 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]

Don Pardo - Saturday Night Live? Shadoe Stevens - Hollywood Squares? I too am curious about the proposed usage of this parameter, and I wonder if it will be mistaken for "commentator" (for example in sports shows). Are we talking about using it for the guy who basically just says "From Hollywood, it's the X show, starring John Doe!"? If so, I don't know if that's a significant enough role to spotlight in the infobox, but still curious as to usage. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually already answered this when I made the proposal one topic above. Bignole, let me clarify, I did not mean (or even change in the code) "Narrator" to "Announcer" as I agree (and stated) that both are different roles. As for the examples: The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) and The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson - if you look at the infoboxes, you'll see the announcers are already listed under the "Narrator" field. As I also stated, I'm not even arguing adding new information to the infobox, these people are already in the infobox (and not added by myself), I'm just arguing that the field name does not represent the correct role and in addition to Narrator an Announcer field should be added. --Gonnym (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

btw, Cyphoidbomb Saturday Night Live does list Don Pardo in its infobox as Narrator (which again is not correct). --Gonnym (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to ruminate on this. It seems to me like a simple misuse of a parameter that might be more easily resolved by clarifying the template instructions, instead of adding more parameters to the infobox. Daniel Stern narrating The Wonder Years contributed significantly to the storytelling. On the other hand, Curt Chaplin, the People's Court announcer, is also the hallway griefer, and does play a significant part of the show. Hmm... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it seems prudent to clarify the instructions so I've added a link to narration to narrator. Interestingly, the lead of Announcer is An announcer is a presenter who makes "announcements" in an audio medium or a physical location. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its true, announcers do "present" stuff, however, as long as I'm not mistaken, for this template's purpose aren't we using the "Presenter" field for people who are actually hosting the show as in Survivor (U.S. TV series) and Top Gear (2002 TV series)? These two positions are different. Changing the people announcing to being "presenters" will again make this field wrong. --Gonnym (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might be shooting myself in the leg, but since I'm not here for any personal gain, just to sort out the inconsistency in articles on the same subject, I want to raise a few more issues which I've noticed going over more articles. The "Announcer" role is mainly used in two TV formats - the game show and the late night talk show. Note: I've compiled a list of the pages I've checked with the results sorted for easy reading here. For the talk show format, the announcer is currently listed under 'narrator", for example The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Late Night with Conan O'Brien and "starring", for example Conan (talk show), Jimmy Kimmel Live! and The Late Late Show with James Corden, with Conan's infobox entry also serving as a Side-Kick, Kimmel's entry getting "(announcer)" after the name and Corden's entry being also a band leader. Which leads me to the next two issues - Bands/Band leader and Side-kicks. Most articles already have the band information added under "Starring", some have only the band leader, others have the band leader and the band name. In Kimmel's case the entry gets "(band)" after the name. Two articles did not add the band information to the infobox (Tonight Starring Steve Allen and The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, even-though its listed in the article). Side-kicks are listed in Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Kimmel Live! and Conan (talk show), where again, Kimmel's entry gets a "(sidekick)" added and Conan's entry was also the announcer.

My question is then, do we (A) list side-kicks, announcers and bands under "starring", (B) list each entry under a new relevant field ("Sidekick", "Announcer" and "Band") or (C) remove side-kick, announcers and band information from the infobox (which will probably require some sort of RfC to change so many articles. (D) for completeness I'll add this option of leaving everything as is, but I don't see how this is a valid option as listing announcers under narrators misrepresents the role and the inconsistency across the articles with some having the information added, others don't and others add a note stating what the role is, just looks bad. My opinion is option B would best serve the articles with precise field names (so a reader won't have to guess who is the band leader, who the announcer is or who the sidekick is and without having to read the whole article, which is what infoboxes are for) as the information is already added and it seems the working-consensus is inclusion. --Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments? opposing ideas? conditional support? don't cares? Would appreciate any comment at all so I'll know what peoples thoughts are. --Gonnym (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how no one commented and the closer of my edit request didn't even state an opinion on the issue raised, I started an RfC at the bottom of this page to get more eyes on this, seems very bureaucratic for this issue, but after 4 weeks with no replies on the matter this feels a lot like stonewalling. --Gonnym (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be on-going debate on this issue, so it must be brought up — should years be included on infoboxes for reality competitions, such as: The Voice, The X Factor and American Idol, or should they be excluded? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before (sorry don't know exactly where, but maybe the main TV project), but I believe consensus/understanding is not to include years. Similar to a non-competition show that has a main cast, years are not used in the infobox for them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we've specifically discussed judges, but we treat "presenter", "starring", "judges" and "voices" in the same way. As the result of a discussion at Top Gear (2002 TV series) an editor sought clarification at WT:TV about presenters and the results of that discussion were as Favre1fan93 has indicated. That wasn't good enough for one editor at the Top Gear article, so I opened an RfC and that also closed with the same result. I've been lax and haven't amended the documentation to reflect the results of these discussions. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As i said in your talk page. Template talk:Infobox Television says not to include years for judges. Please don't put Louis Walsh ahead of Simon Cowell, even though he was in more episodes. Simon was still credited ahead of Louis in the first season as was Osborne. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 09:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think its ridiculous to be honest that the years have been removed - why? Surely it makes more sense to have them there, otherwise it suggests that there are 10+ judges where we have not specified when they were judges. Feels like someone has decided to make change for the sake of change. ThatJosh (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that what you state is not the case - the above has been the case for years, so in actual fact, it is the article in question that is actually in violation. If you require the years to be present, have them in the article itself. The infobox needs no such clutter. Alex|The|Whovian 07:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in The X Factor (UK TV series), the years/series for the judges are included in at least four places - a table giving an overview of the series, a text section about the judges, a table showing which categories each judge mentored each series, and a picture gallery. The infobox is just stating that the entire run of the show stars these people at various times, it's not saying each judge appeared in every episode. The infobox is meant to be a brief overview, not a replacement for the article, so the years are not required. –anemoneprojectors– 09:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think years for judges and/or presenters for reality shows. Readers deserve to learn facts in a manner they prefer, whether that be pictures(photo gallery of judges with years), words(Season overviews, and numbers(InfoBox). For example, on a February 16, 2006 edit of American Idol[11], Brian Dunkleman is listed as being a presenter with the year 2002. Guidelines written from a sandbox someone made were not added to the template article until March 10, 2007[12]. So years have actually been used for nearly a decade, and over a year before guidelines came into effect. If years have been on the article for 9 years, it baffles me why we are removing them. I agree, we are changing it for the "sake of change". It does not clutter the infobox anymore than the years for the directors of American Idol. In fact, there are more years for the directors of Idol than there are for the judges. Arcticgriffin (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you. The reason it was changed was because it was never properly discussed. Once it was it was decided that years should not be included. I also have to disagree with you when you say it does not have clutter. To be honest it really does. A lot of shows (not all but a lot) have people coming in and out of the show e.g. 2002-2003, 2005-2007, 200-present. That is a lot of clutter to fit in one line. The whole point of the infobox is quick info quickly. Highlighting the key points not all the details. That is why the rest of the article exists. The infobox should tell you who is in it. The rest of the article should tell you when they are in it. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 20:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should num_episodes only be implemented when a new episode airs? Every TV series I've ever edited, this has always been the case, but now I'm editing another series where the editor believes that it should be updated to the count the complete series of eight episodes before it's started airing. Alex|The|Whovian 11:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The label is ambiguous, so it's probably OK to specify both, e.g. "0 (of 8)". Alakzi (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree Alakzi. Anything can happen to stop a show from finishing airing. Just because they say that they ordered them doesn't mean that they will air, especially new shows. FOX is notorious for cancelling series and not finishing the airings. It needs to be what has aired. There are other locations that can list what was ordered.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current documentation says: "The number of episodes released. This episode parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air or when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production. An inline citation is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired, such as in the case of a show being cancelled.". I'm also leaning towards number of episodes being updated when a new episode airs (with the exception noted in the documentation regarding canceled shows with more produced than aired). However, whether this changes or not, lets keep the documentation updated to match. --Gonnym (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation clearly says "The number of episodes released. This episode parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air or when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production." We don't normally see reliable sources confirming completion of episodes, although it does happen, so this effectively means only updating num_episodes after the latest episode has aired. The "when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production" is normally only used when we have a situation where a series finishes mid-season and it is confirmed there are still episodes that haven't been aired. There's nothing in the documentation that supports something like "0 (of 8)" and there has never been consensus for that sort of thing. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant background to this is at Talk:Humans (TV series). The documentation is, it seems to me, entirely clear that we do not have to wait for an episode to air. The documentation has said much the same since 2007. If practice is at variance with documentation, then one or other should change!

I feel that, if we know (on the basis of reliable sources, natch) episodes exist, then we should show that. That's based on general principles like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BALL. In the case of Humans, it is clear that there are 8 episodes. It is possible, if highly unlikely, that not all of these will air, but there will still be 8 episodes. (While I take the point about FOX, this is not FOX: this is effectively a short mini-series and it's in a UK context.) So the article should say that. If necessary, User:Alakzi's approach can be taken.

I am uneasy with the practice of incrementing counts as episodes air. That appears to be encouraging a sort of live reportage by editors as they watch TV that is entirely at odds with how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia based on reliable sources; we do not encourage edits based on direct observation by individuals. Reliable, secondary sources trump primary sources and definitely trump original research. If reliable, secondary sources say Humans is 8 episodes (and they do), then Wikipedia should say it is 8 episodes. Bondegezou (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You state that there's eight episodes, you've sourced this, yes, but nowhere have you given a source that they have finished production. That's your main contradicting argument here. Alex|The|Whovian 14:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bondegezou, we do encourage direct observations...all plot summaries for TV and Film (and really all media) is directly observed and reported on Wikipedia. The difference is that the Infobox contains what has happened, not what "may" happen. We have other sections that do that. That is why you will see, "Network has ordered 8 episodes of Humans." in the prose sections, not the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources previously provided are sufficient in the specific case of Humans: I refer readers to the discussion at Talk:Humans (TV series) so I may focus on the general point here.

Yes, WP:PRIMARY/MOS:PLOT does explicitly address the issue of plot summaries. It is also very clear that secondary sources are to be preferred and primary sources are only to be used "to a lesser extent" (WP:PRIMARY), noting even with plot summaries that "editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible" (MOS:PLOT). It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that it privileges secondary sources; it is not designed for first-hand reports. Individual template documentation cannot ignore Wikipedia policy (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). I also note that an infobox is a "quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout" (WP:INFOBOX) or "that summarizes key features of the page's subject." (WP:IBT) And it should be short ("The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose"). If the main text talks about 8 episodes, the infobox should talk about 8 episodes. The point of an infobox is not to contain different interpretations to the text. Personally, a counter incrementing as each episode broadcasts does not seem to me to be what an online encyclopaedia based on secondary sources should be focusing on. Bondegezou (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question on the Directors. Do you list just the main directors or each director that was ever on the show. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 11:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On every series I've edited, I've only seen the main directors listed. If it was the latter option, and you had four seasons, twenty-two episodes each seasons, that's a hell of a lot of directors you're going to list. Alex|The|Whovian 11:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am just referring to Seinfeld as

• Art Wolff
• Tom Cherones
• Andy Ackerman
• David Steinberg
• David Owen Trainor

are listed Tom Cherones and Andy Ackerman are the main directors. Cherones directed all of seasons 1-5 bar 4 episodes. Ackerman directed all of seasons 6-9 bar 2 episodes. The other 3 listed directed at the most of 3 episodes each. You can see the list of episodes here. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 11:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnGormleyJG, I'm not sure if there is a general consensus on this (as we were debating the Directors field in a similar template). @AlexTheWhovian, Unless one director does most/all of the directing on a show, how do you decide who the "main" directors are? --Gonnym (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each series of a show has a main director for that season, sometimes if the main director is too busy or unavailable there might be a "guest director" for an episode. The show might change main director each season or keep the same one throughout. In this case for seasons 1-5 the main director was Tom Cherones and seasons 6-9 it was Andy Ackerman. The other 3 that are currently listed in the infobox were guest directors. I suggest have only main directors listed in infobox as some shows have a lot of guest directors. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 12:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule of thumb is that if there are too many to list, they're better listed in the prose. This applies to everything in the infobox not just directors. Although it's not mandated, "too many" is generally regarded to be more than 5, or 5 or more - it's left up to editor discretion. In a situation like Seinfeld where there are apparently only 5 directors they can all be accommodated in the infobox. However, because there are so many writers it's best not to include any in the infobox. Remember, even if there is a field, there is no actual requirement to populate it. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think with Seinfeld should it be those 2 main ones or all 5 (even the ones who just directed 1 episodes) or should I leave that up for discussion on the Seinfeld talk page. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 12:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, you'll end up wasting your time arguing over 3 directors as there is no limit on how many or how important they are to be included, but its your time to do with it as you please. --Gonnym (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just using Seinfeld as an example, there are many other shows with this. I was just requesting if the wording in the template could be changed to main directors (a.k.a. series directors) only to save me a lot of time. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 12:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If its a general request, then I'll be against it. I'd much rather have them all listed with {{Collapsible list}} if the entries are "too many" (more than 5 seems a good number). Having a "main" critera will lead to endless debates regarding who should be considered a main director (Example 1: 2 directors are main for season 1, they are replaced in season 2 by 2 different directors. This happens for each season and the show has 8 seasons. Who are the "main" directors? Example 2: one director directed 3 episodes of a season and 3 others 2. Is he the (only) main because he has 1 episode more?) Regarding "guest directors", if you mean a situation like Quentin Tarantino directing 2 CSI episodes, then for a situation like that I could agree that they shouldn't be listed (but deciding who is a "guest director" would need to be based on sources as to not be OR). --Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone change "theme music composer" to "theme music by" in this infobox. I think that "by" is totally enough (we all know it means the person who composed the theme). Beside, the word "composer" is now mentioned two times in this infobox, could be confusing. Thank you very much. Sportomanokin (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your changes to the documentation.[13] Until there is consensus to change the field it is theme_music_composer and your edits do not change that. All you achieved was to introduce errors into the documentation. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TV Parental Guidelines - content rating to be mentioned in the infobox television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuveerappan (talk • contribs) 06:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Parental ratings for why this will not be considered for an addition to the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the "Announcer(s)", "Band", "Sidekick" and "Correspondents" fields be added to Infobox television to sort out the inconsistency with such entries already added to the infoboxes of late-night talk show related articles? --Gonnym (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in the infoboxes of articles about late-night talk shows you can find people who were Announcers and Sidekicks and even the show Bands listed under various fields as there is no dedicated field for them. Announcers can be found under "Narrator" (example: The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson) and "Starring" (example: Jimmy Kimmel Live!); Sidekicks under "Starring" (example: Late Night with Conan O'Brien); Bands under "Starring" (The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon); and Correspondents under "Starring" as well (example: The Daily Show). In addition, since there is no official place for them in the template, some articles have this information in the infobox, while others omit all or some of it (examples: Chelsea Lately not listing Chuy Bravo as a sidekick and Tonight Starring Steve Allen not listing Skitch Henderson as the band leader). As the current situation is that of an inconsistency, any result of the RfC will have to come to an outcome. Note: I'm not entirely sure how the module system works, but perhaps making this a module would solve any fears of "clutter" in the infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please !vote for one of the options and avoid any threaded discussion in the supporting sections.

1. Option 1: Adding all of the following fields to the infobox: "Announcer(s)", "Band", "Sidekick" and "Correspondents".
2. Option 2: Adding all of the information under the "Starring" field without creating new fields.
3. Option 3: Removing all entries wrongly placed in the related articles and oppose creating new fields.
4. Option 4: Adding some of the fields and remove all other entries wrongly placed in the related articles (State which fields you are in support of adding).

Option 1: Adding all fields

1. The current situation of everyone adding the information under whatever field they think is best is bad practice. The current infoboxes on late-night talk show articles show that editors are adding this information regardless of having a dedicated field for such information. This information hasn't been removed from these articles, which means that other editors have found that information to be a relevant for inclusion into the infobox. However, having it listed under other fields misrepresent the information added and causes confusion. "Voices", "Narrator", "Judges" and "Presenter" can all be said to be a variation of the "Starring" credit, yet we created dedicated fields for them and the same should be the case for talk-show relevant fields. --Gonnym (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2: Adding all of the information under "Starring"

Option 3: Removing all entries wrongly placed and oppose creating new fields

Option 4: Adding some of the fields

Discussion