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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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[1], 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[2]. 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]

So, if that's the case then how about putting the the "present" judges in italics or something like that? (not bold though) --Musdan77 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are written for all readers, not just fans of a particular program. A casual reader would wonder why some judges are italicised and some aren't, so that would need to be explained in the prose, not the infobox. It's better to explain which judges are current in the prose and just leave the names in the infobox without any markup. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using your same argument, if there's no distinction, "a casual reader" would think that all the judges (or hosts) listed are current. The infobox "summarizes key facts". Showing which are present and which are past is a key fact -- and not a "trivial detail". --Musdan77 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "key facts" are that the list of judges in the infobox are people who are now or have been judges, just as people listed under "starring" are people who are now or have been credited in a starring role. Italicising some judges and not others doesn't help the reader know that the italicised names are "current" judges. They still have to go to the prose to find out who are current judges so italicising names in the infobox is redundant at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one could say it's "redundant" – but I said, "italics or something like that." I was trying to bring out some ideas. Musical artist infoboxes have "Members" and "Past members" for groups. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is supposed to be useful for the "casual reader", shouldn't we only include the current judges, and remove all past ones? A "casual reader" only cares about what is current; they don't care about what has happened in the past. Researchers would want to know all listed years in a detailed timeline, so they would scroll down and read the article. I don't see any point in having judges from the past. This removes a whole bunch of what some people call "clutter". May I remind you that years have been used in infoboxes for judges/presenters on American Idol since February 16, 2006[3] and current guidelines were written over a year later on March 10, 2007[4]. And now, eight years later we decide to change everything?! How can you not agree that having 11 judges over a period of thirteen years is not confusing for the "causal reader"? Arcticgriffin (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The February 16, 2006 version that you linked to only shows a year for one "star", with the other 4 judges not including years at all. The 10 March 2007 version of the documentation doesn't say years should be included.[5] It merely says "Who stars in the show. Separate multiple people with line breaks". Years are not "Who stars in the show". Clearly there is no direction to include years and nothing really has changed regarding that. All that has happened now is that we have decided to clarify that years should not be included, since editors have taken it upon themselves to add content that has never been supported. You might note that the instructions at that time also say to use flag templates, but MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says not to do that, so it was removed. Consensus can, and has, changed over the years. As for including all of the judges, WP:TVCAST says Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series, so if you want that changed you need to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, not here. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TVCAST is about cast and characters lists in article body, not infoboxes. No one responded to my last post. So, what about subheadings of "Present" and "Past"? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the various discussions that we've had at the MOS and WT:TV, WP:TVCAST applies to the whole article, not just the article body. We don't use headings like "Present" and "Past". We list them in original credit order followed by order in which new people join a series. See MOS:TENSE, which says write all articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued. That precludes use of headings like "Past". --AussieLegend (✉) 20:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're taking things out of context. MOS:TENSE is talking about "Verb tense". It has nothing to do with lists, as in cast lists. And again, I refer to musical group articles as an example. In both the body and infobox (if relevant), they have lists for members "Present and Past" (or "Current and Former"). If that went against MOS, then it wouldn't be allowed. And like musical groups, if a show has ended then there would be no need to distinguish between present and past - because they all would be past. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Musdan77: You make a great point, I would actually agree with you. I think it should be only current judges listed in the infobox. It is very confusing to have a list of 10 former judges above the current ones when they are already listed in their own section. The main objective of an infobox is for quick info. Anyone who wants the current judges will just look at the infobox. Whoever wants to know past judges will look thought the article. I agree with you. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 19:24, 21 July 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]

May I suggest an approach that would certainly please me as a user of the information in the Infobox? Why not have two values in the Infobox, one that states the number of episodes in the series and one that states the number of episodes shown to date? In the example of Humans, it could then be indicated that there are 8 episodes ordered for the current series (or season, in American parlance) and that as of today, 5 of those episodes have aired? The number of episodes aired could be incremented each time a new episode was shown (presumably in the first market where it was appearing). That would certainly be helpful to me. When I look at the current Infobox, it seems to be implying that there are only 5 episodes in the series (season). Next week, when I look, it will say 6. If I'm recording the series and waiting to watch it in one go when I have the whole series, I won't know that I have the whole thing until such time as the number stops incrementing in the Wikipedia page. Even then, I can't be sure since it may just have been pre-empted for some reason with further episodes yet to come. It would be far more useful to me to know that there are, say, 8 episodes in the series and 5 have already aired. Of course the proposed numbers would have to be identified and distinguished so the label is open to discussion. I suggest something like "Episodes projected for current series" and "Episodes aired to date", although something concise that was going to be understood correctly would be better.

198.84.215.251 (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, it occurs to me that |voices= is pretty broad in its description:

Any voice artists used in the show. Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}}. Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show. Years and/or seasons should not be included.

"Any voice artists used in the show" is cruftbait. By comparison, the |starring= is more restrictive by nature, since "starring" is typically a special credit given by producers and is not the same as "appearing in". I assume that |voices= is to be used in lieu of |starring=. If that is correct, should |voices= be clarified to only include starring voice acting roles? If my assumption is not correct, is there any other way to clarify this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure about the proper usage of the creative_director parameter in the context of a television series. I have never seen someone credited as creative director in a television series. The explanation in the documentation links to Creative director, where it says in the Film section "The creative director in the film industry is referred to as the production designer", and the linked page makes it clear that the production designer is the same thing in film and television. I would conclude from that that the parameter can be used for the production designer. However, I was explained that putting the production designer is an incorrect use of the parameter. Can the explanation in the template documentation be changed either to point out the correct use less ambiguously, or to clearly state not to use this parameter? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]