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.

I noticed one page used no_seasons / no_episodes instead of num_seasons / num_episodes. I fixed it but am worried this might happen on other pages. Is there any way we can alias these so any pages calling on these NO inputs will give the info to the NUM inputs? Or can some bot detect when non-existant fields are called upon for this template and tag them for investigation and correction? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replace all occurrences of {{{num_seasons|}}} with {{{num_seasons|{{{no_seasons|}}}}}}, replace {{{num_series|}}} with |{{{num_series|{{{no_series|}}}}}}, and replace {{{num_episodes|}}} with {{{num_episodes|{{{no_episodes|}}}}}}. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please establish consensus for this change before reactivating the edit request. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We really shouldn't be adding aliases for one-off occurrences. I've been editing TV articles for a long time and I can't ever recall having seen this mistake. If it was happening often, then there might be a case to do so, but if we add aliases "on a whim" it just serves to bloat the template. @184.145.18.50: Have you found any evidence of this happening elsewhere? --AussieLegend (✉) 06:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help. Every time I try to create an infobox television template, I see a screwed up infobox template.

Infobox television
Created by	Jerry Siegel Joe Shuster
Starring	Christopher Reeve
Theme music composer	John Williams
Country of origin	United States
Original language	English
Production
Running time	120 minutes
Production company	DC Comics
Original release
Release	1978 – 1979

Could you please get that template fixed so that there won't be any more problems? AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AdamDeanHall: Where are you trying to add it? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It's happening everywhere. There were no changes here. @AussieLegend and AlexTheWhovian: Is this a Lua module-template? Did something happen on that end? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Every time I edit a page with this template, the title on the top of the infobox is smaller and no longer in italics. Something must have changed. Random86 (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure... There's been no changes on Template:Infobox television, which uses Template:Infobox (no changes), which uses Module:Infobox (no changes). Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Upon inspecting the element, I've found style="/* invalid control char */" in the header rows. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So is that the issue? How could it be if no one has edited any of the places that would affect this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that with the above there's no actual styling going on, that'd be the issue. Don't quote me on this, but I have a feeling it's further down the Lua line. Something else that the above use must have been incorrectly modified. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also got that problem. If a page hasn't been edited the title in the infobox is still in italics. But when you save your edit no matter where you added it the title comes as stated up there by a AdamDeanHall. Just to name a few; Empire and Frente al mismo rostro. Note: This only applies to pages that have undergone any of changes lately especially from March 10. To the admins, how can we solve the problem us as ordinary users? Could we force the italics by using double apostrophes? Please solve this problem.- Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 05:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyanchoka: It is affecting all articles that use it. You may have "purge" the article if it hasn't been edited in a while for it to happen. Also, admins generally don't roam the talk pages of project templates. If the regular editors of the project can't figure it out, then we'll notify the admins or WP:VPT. @AlexTheWhovian: Can you compare the code here vs the season infobox? That one isn't being affected as this one is. (I just tested by purging both Agent Carter (TV series) and Agent Carter (season 1). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox television/colour}} contains a list of 14 TV series that are permitted to use colour in the infobox. That has had no changes either, but for some reason the links to it in Infobox television are what were causing the problem. I've commented them out for now and that seems to have fixed the problem. I don't know why 14 articles are permitted to use colour, when the other 37,103 articles using the infobox can't. If nobody complains about these programs no longer having coloured infoboxes, maybe we should just delete the links altogether, along with Infobox television/colour. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Not entirely sure why background colours would introduce a HTML comment into the style tag. I'd support the deletion of colours - there's no need for them. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens.... This thread at the village pump revealed the same problem in {{Infobox television episode}}. Yes, the same solution fixed it. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be fixed after a hack to the colour subtemplate. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So stemming from the above issue, do we really need {{Infobox television/colour}}? Based on all we did the past year or so regarding updating color usage on the project, this seems unnecessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's no need for it at all. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated in sandbox. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting it out works too, but I don't see why, if it's not going to be reinstated. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts to permanently remove the colour have met with opposition. I've commented it out for now to see if anyone objects. You can ask a million people to discussions and only 3 will turn up, but take away their colour and they're more likely to join in. If nobody complains in a few days, we can delete it totally. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. And if we do delete it, we should also delete the subpage, so someone who might go snooping and finds it will try to reinstate it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be good to look at the talk pages for the series effected, because users are more likely to bring up the question of the color gone there, then the project page or here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by AussieLegend. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the pages we need to watch are:

• Talk:Angel (1999 TV series)
• Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer
• Talk:Entourage (TV series)
• Talk:Firefly (TV series)
• Talk:Futurama
• Talk:House (TV series)
• Talk:Mad Men
• Talk:Sex and the City
• Talk:The 4400
• Talk:The O.C.
• Talk:The Simpsons
• Talk:The Sopranos
• Talk:The X-Files
• Talk:Veronica Mars --AussieLegend (✉) 02:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I say we give maybe a weeks time to see if anything turns up. And if nothing, proceed with full removal and deletion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone involved in Veronica Mars episode articles, I have to say that I like the new singular color. I was a bit confused when the template started to change, but after finding this thread, it makes more sense now. I never quite understood why those few lines in VM articles were bright green. :) Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose that we switch the order of |num_seasons= and |num_series=. While the typical use for |num_series= is for the UK version of a season, there's also pages like this that list separate series, so I'd like to change:

| label22     = <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> of seasons
| data22      = {{{num_seasons|}}}
| label23     = <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> of series
| data23      = {{{num_series|}}}

to:

| label22     = <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> of series
| data22      = {{{num_series|}}}
| label23     = <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> of seasons
| data23      = {{{num_seasons|}}}

so that in the linked case, it is listed as series then seasons then episodes. Consensus? Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: As far as I can tell, the only time the two parametres will be appearing together is in a case like the one Alex linked to, in which it makes sense, I think, to list them series then seasons then episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I understand. Why does the linked article use both num_series and num_seasons? The instructions specifically say "Use one or the other, not both". num_series is not meant to be for an entire television series. It's supposed to be the UK and Australian equivalent of a US (and ironically Australian) season. The infobox itself is supposed to be used in TV series articles, not lists of series. That article is really where {{Infobox media franchise}} should be used. If anything, the infobox should be coded to prevent use of both. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because in the television series area of the MCU, there was 4 total series and 8 total seasons. Yes, it assumes the UK-equivalent of a season, hence why it says not to use both (though Doctor Who is another case that uses both, for good reason), but it could also mean the American equivalent of a program. There's no reason for it not to. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article is only about television series, not a media franchise, it just so happens to be about more than one, and the infobox is not 'Infobox television series', it is 'Infobox television', so it is still appropriate in this case. For |num_seasons=, we have been saying "8 (across 4 series)", but Alex has noted that |num_series= exists, albeit for a different meaning as you note, and that for the context of this article (and any other like it) it would be more useful to use both, using num_series not as it was originally intended, but to replace the "(across 4 series)" we were adding to |num_seasons=. I think that this is a good idea, and that we should rewrite the instructions to say that |num_series= should be used for either replacing |num_seasons= if appropriate or for counting number of separate series if appropriate. And if we can all agree on that, I think we should swap the order around as Alex has suggested here to make more sense for cases such as this (which would not affect cases unlike this, given that the two parametres should never appear together in those cases). - adamstom97 (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthering the above change, I would add a small modification to the code, and swap the order only if a new parameter was specified (e.g. |series_first=y), as for the case of Doctor Who, |num_seasons= needs to precede |num_series=, given that the show aired under the guise of "seasons" first, and then under the guise of the newer UK-based term "series". Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in the television series area of the MCU, there was 4 total series and 8 total seasons. - So there were 4 UK series and 8 seasons of a US television series? That's what the infobox says now.

@Adamstom.97: - The linked article is about a number of television series, not a single series and this infobox has always been used in articles about a single television series. It was created specifically for that purpose, and the instructions reflect that. Template:Infobox television series is a redirect to {{Infobox television season}}, because "series" sand season" are equivalents, which is why we don't use both num_series and num_seasons. There is no infobox directly suited to a list of series, but the only infobox that caters specifically for multiple series is {{Infobox media franchise}}.

Remember, we write articles for ALL readers, not just those who are fans of a particular franchise, and the infobox used here as an example is ambiguous to the average reader. That's why Infobox media franchise lists TV series by name and not the number of seasons/series and episodes. That information is included in the individual series articles. This infobox is used by over 36,000 articles and we shouldn't be making changes to fix non-standard use in 1,2 or even a handful of articles. You can see that in another discussion on this page we're proposing to remove colour that is only used in 14 articles --AussieLegend (✉) 00:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend:, I understand your points, but {{Infobox media franchise}} is inappropriate for the linked article, as it is appropriately used at Marvel Cinematic Universe. I do not see the issue of adapting the standard TV infobox for use here. (Note List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films uses the standard film infobox {{Infobox film}}). I will also note that the previous coding of the infobox on that article was | num_seasons = 8 (across 4 series). I felt that was the best usage, per the documentation, and the fact I didn't think |num_series= could be used when |num_seasons= was. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's used in one article doesn't mean that Infobox media franchise can't be used in another, provided the fields are used in accordance with the instructions. The infobox doesn't declare "Media franchise" in the articles in which it is used. Like you, I didn't think |num_series= could be used when |num_seasons= was used. I thought that the infobox was coded to prevent this. If we fixed that, it would break the use at the linked article, and therein lies the problem. When fields are used in the wrong way, it can cause problems when changes are made to templates. We base changes on correct usage, and don't take into account incorrect and obscure usages. If one of those usages is broken then users just have to accept it. I upgraded an infobox a few years ago after editors had become used to using hacks and another editor and I had to go through several thousand articles to fix problems. Template:Infobox protected area of Australia was horribly out of date and lacking essential functionality when I fixed it in 2013.[1] It required hacks in most articles in which it was used and two years later, I still have 77 articles that need fixing. We shouldn't be adapting specific purpose infoboxes used in 36,000+ articles for use in 1 or 2 non-standard articles. Nor should we be encouraging their use in such articles. The previous wording you mention (| num_seasons = 8 (across 4 series)) seems a far better way to get around the "problem" that started this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say, we can't exactly "fix" the issue of them being able to be used at the same time, given that some articles need them to be used at the same time, as they have had both seasons and series released. So, "fixing" it is really a no-go anyways. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, do you know of any examples, outside of where we tried using it, that both need to be used? And Aussie, the media franchise infobox has too many unneeded, excessive parameters to be used at the List of MCU TV series article. That is why the general TV infobox worked, because, while not conventional, it was adapted to suit the total series' needs with the info that is only specific to TV series (the production and release bits for example). And up until this request (not blaming or anything), it worked out fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually have to use all the parameters in the infobox, only those that are needed. even the actual franchise article doesn't use all of them. However, I don't really see an issue with using this infobox with the code you mentioned. At least that way, the parameters are being used correctly (well almost). --AussieLegend (✉) 06:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added code to the infobox that puts articles using both num_seasons and num_series into Category:Television articles that use both num series and num seasons. At this time, only Doctor Who and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series are members. We'll have to wait and see if more are added. Can somebody please explain why Doctor who uses both? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already have. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that. Still, I really don't see that as justification. It's a UK series, so "series" seems appropriate. Use of "seasons" implies a US program, not a UK programme. It's just local terminology. Theoretically we could just use one parameter for all. Just out of interest, is there a reliable source explaining use of seasons for the early years? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find sources all over the article; for one, the main BBC site lists them as Seasons/Series (change between Page 1 an 2). There's no changing them except without an extensive discussion, as this is how the separation between the classic and revived episodes have always been distinguished. One parameter for all of them would not be sufficient for this article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bit dubious about listings on websites. Modern listings often screw up old terminology, replacing old terminology with new. You can see an example of why I'm dubious here. I disagree that the article couldn't use just one parameter because it did just that until 16 October 2010, when num_seasons was added without any discussion on the talk page.[2] However, if we assume the usage at Doctor Who is appropriate, swapping the order of num_seasons and num_series would not be, as the listings would no longer be in chronological order. That leaves, at this time, a single article which, as already shown, can use only num_seasons. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And that is your opinion, and it is noted. However, given that it is directly from the BBC, where the series is produced, then it complies with policies as a reliable source. And if you wish to change the naming scheme that has had universal consensus for many years, then I recommend you take this up at the Doctor Who WikiProject page. However, for now, we should go back to the intended discussion of the inclusion of both parameters on the originally-linked page. As for the chronological order, I've already covered that as well (search for "series_first"). And per WP:CON, consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity - are you able to provide another editor minus yourself who disagrees with changing the original use to a more updated one alongside the documentation? Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus also doesn't mean "majority rules". We're dealing with an infobox used in 37,281 articles and the limited involvement here really doesn't justify the changes, especially when we're doing it for a single article. We can continue to use the existing infobox in both articles but, as Favre1fan93 has pointed out, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series previously used | num_seasons = 8 (across 4 series), and that worked fine. Instead of recoding the infobox, the article should comply with the infobox instructions, which have also had consensus for many years. I note that the article did comply until two days ago, when you changed it,[3] apparently without discussion, which is apparently what prompted this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did change it as a bold edit, which prompted Adam to post on my talk page at User talk:AlexTheWhovian#MCU TV series, not to disagree but to note how he agreed with the edit and see if there was a way to reverse the order - that is what prompted this discussion. And yes, the instructions has had consensus for many years, but things like this can always be subject to change to suit what is needed. While it may only affect two articles, it is not affecting any other articles in any manner, especially in any negative form. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it only affects a single article. Doctor Who is fine the way it is. That you may have one supporter who agrees that the infobox instructions should be violated on one article out of 37,281 still doesn't justify adding extra code to the infobox just to fix one non-compliant article that complied until 2 days ago. Why not just make the article comply again? It's a lot easier. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You insist on making it a "violation", yet I'm trying to make you see that the word "series" has two meanings, and this could easily be adapted to suit both of those meanings. Allowing the use of the series parameter on the MCU TV Series page allows for a more compact way of displaying the data, instead of needing to add appended small text to the seasons parameter. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox television
No. of seasons	8 (across 4 series)

Infobox television
No. of seasons	8

As far as this infobox is concerned num_series has a single meaning and a single purpose. The instructions say "num_seasons or num_series The number of seasons (US) or series (UK) produced. Use one or the other, not both. The parameter should only be incremented once the first episode of that season or series has aired". It's clearly talking about the UK equivalent of a season. When you use a template in a way that contradicts the instructions, that is a violation. You're advocating a change to justify a violation in only 1 out of more than 37,000 articles when there is nothing wrong with the way that the article was 3 days ago, when there was no violation. No other articles will benefit from this change so "adapting" the infobox will have no real benefit, except to that one article, and that's a benefit apparently only seen by two editors. In fact the change will be detrimental as it requires extra code to make seasons and series reversed just for that one article.

Allowing the use of the series parameter on the MCU TV Series page allows for a more compact way of displaying the data - That makes no sense. Prior to your edit the information was all on one line. Now it takes 3 when you include the blank line between "No. of seasons" and "No. of series". How is that more compact? It's also confusing, as it seems to indicate this program has had 12 seasons/series and makes the reader wonder why the two are separated. The previous version was unambiguous. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, would adding a "No. of shows" parameter solve this? I think it's weird to open with "No. of seasons" and have the number of actual shows we're dealing with relegated to parentheses. The number of shows is an important basic fact about the MCU, whereas their total number of seasons is basically trivia that I've never heard anyone discuss (except here!). —Flax5 13:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slight tangent, but does anybody actually know when and why the UK TV industry phased out the "seasons" terminology in favour of the more ambiguous "series"? Are there any shows other than Doctor Who that were produced across this period, and if so, should they also use both terms, and count seasons and series separately? (I think it might clarify things if we had different parameters for old UK shows and new American ones rather than using "seasons" for both, but I'm not sure what they should be called.) —Flax5 13:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't actually phase "seasons" out, they phased it in. When I was a kid in the 1960s the UK programs all referred to "series", which is why we here in Australia used the term. We only used "seasons" because that's how the US programs were referred to. The term "series" had its roots in the old "radio serials" that were popular before the advent of TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. The terminology currently used by the BBC had me believing that "season" was the standard term used when the original Doctor Who was broadcast. I assumed it must have something to do with the serialised nature of the show at that time, or maybe the fact that they originally broadcast episodes all year round. If this is some kind of strange revisionism on the BBC's part, is it really accurate to continue using "seasons" on Doctor Who at all? Would something along the lines of "No. of series: 35 (26 classic + 9 revived)" make more sense, maybe with a footnote? —Flax5 13:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's the Americanizm of the English language that has been going on since the '80s and '90s. It's been especially the case in the past decade or so that a lot of traditional UK English terms have given way to more US terms. A lot of the younger people are unaware of the "correct" terminology and so have changed things to the American version. In 1998 in Australia, one Act of Parliament (I think it was the ASIO Act) was completely revised because somebody had edited and spell-checked it using the default US dictionary in Microsoft Word, instead of the Australian dictionary. A silly example is "ass". The US uses "ass" while the UK/Australian term is "arse" and I know a lot of younger people who think "jackarse" is the Australian term for "jackass". This is why I asked about references for use of "seasons" in Doctor Who. It just doesn't seem right. Right until Tom Baker left Doctor Who, which is shortly before I stopped watching it, "series" was the term used. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "season" was in use at or before that point, see for example

• Lofficier, Jean-Marc (1981). The Doctor Who Programme Guide - Volume 1: The Programmes. London: Target Books. ISBN 0-426-20139-6.

which covers everything up to Tom Baker's departure, and speaks of "First Season" through to "Eighteenth Season". More info at WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that we prefer to use series of show, but I think Flax's suggestion of adding |num_shows= is a good one. That way we can clean up the article in question, set a nice precedent for any future alike articles, and not affect any other article. Then, after the discussion above, I would suggest just using |num_series= for Doctor Who, and either saying "35 (26 classic + 9 revived)" or just "35" and leaving the explanation for the rest of the article. I suggest this because it seems unclear whether the BBC actually used thise terms at the time and it seems confusing to say 26 series and 9 seasons together - someone who doesn't understand the infobox instructions would probably assume that this is a similar case to the MCU list, not a grouping of the different seasons. Anyway, if you guys agree with these two solutions, then the infobox can be coded so that |num_season= and |num_series= cannot appear together again. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I definitely disagree. How it is listed at Doctor Who should remain, as listing 35 series is incorrect per the terminology that Redrose64 linked to in their previous post. Whether or not the BBC used those particular terms at the time is irrelevant - times change and so does terminology. If something like |num_shows= were introduced, then the MCU article could be modified accordingly, and the Doctor Who article could be left as-is, as the two would no longer be "similar cases". Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for num_shows at all. No code change is required to support Doctor Who as it stands and the infobox can easily be coded to ensure that num_seasons and num_series can't be used together while not affecting Doctor Who, all in an extra 129 bytes. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aussie. num_shows doesn't need to exist, the MCU article should be changed back to the way it was, Doctor Who should stay the same, and the other coding to prevent the two from being used elsewhere should happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring the MCU article to the previous formatting. If we want to proceed with the other formatting we stated (only allowing either season OR series, outside of Doctor Who), that's fine with me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax asked on my talk page if it is possible to have the infobox automatically grab the url for the official website from wikidata. many infoboxes now support this, for example, see the website section in {{infobox telescope}}. I can add a similar feature here if there are no objections. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how anyone would object to this. I'd actually prefer that you did it, as my experience with Wikidata is limited. Is there a list of the Wikidata values somewhere? That's been my big stumbling block. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the multinational co-productions have official websites from multiple countries. For instance, the British-American Humans has both a UK Channel 4 and a US AMC official website. In the infobox, this can be included through the production_website parameters. How would wikidata reflect this? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Cocoa Frosting, one of the keys here is that the value from wikidata is used only if the parameter is omitted entirely from the infobox in the article (and a value exists at wikidata). so, you can prevent it from using the wikidata value by adding the parameter to the infobox in the article. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax and AussieLegend: okay, now implemented. I also added a floating box in the doc indicating that this property is used. I can't remember the exact method for finding all the properties by name, but you can use the {{Uses Wikidata}} template to create lists. also, this works and so does this, but is not in a user-friendly format. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found the list by searching for "Wikidata property" on Google. What mystifies me is who populated Wikidata. Pixies? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend, Frietjes, and Dark Cocoa Frosting: Answering and questioning in order:

Frietjes, does the website= parameter have to be removed so the infobox television will pull from Wikidata? On every other box I work on I just put website = {{official website}} and the connection is setup.

Then I do a Preview page to see if the article has an official website listed on Wikidata. If Wikidata has the data, the website link in the infobox will be in blue and be "official website" with a superscript external link flag on it. If Wikidata does not have the data a huge red error will show up in the infobox. At this point I switch into gnome mode, right-click (on a PC) to the pages Wikidata item, click on the +add link, pull up the "official website" property", click on it, go to the next box, insert the URL, wait for the save button to turn blue, and save the change. Going back to the article page you can refresh the article page and the red error will go away and be replaced by the "official website" external link.

While I am at Wikidata I stay in gnome mode and add other lacking details of the infobox to Wikidata (like birth date, birth name, given name, surname, producer, original release, record label, genre, created by, starring, country of origin). If items for the details cannot be found, then I add the item. I have over 1000 edits on Wikidata now.

Each article on Wikipedia has a Wikidata link on the left hand set of links (or right hand if you're in Iran or another RL country). If by chance the article lacks a Wikidata item you can add the item, but this is rare, as Wikidatabots scrub Wikipedia to add items, however they do not scrape any properties for the item, nor even an item description. You can add these easily, manually, just like on Wikipedia. The difference is that on Wikidata you have to find or create each item, then save each change as you move through the master item. You start by adding a property then adding the item.

Bonus: If Wikidata has an official website for an article then you can also put:

* {{official website}} in the External links portion of the article you are working on and the article will now pull the data from Wikidata. You can then delete the oldstyle crufty link from the External links section.

If you need help assimilating this, hit me up. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, y'all. I tested it.

Note: Wikidata must already have the Official website property added to the Wikidata item for the article page.

1. website= parameter removed: Wikidata creates an external link labeled "Website"
2. website= {{official website}}: produces this mess: [<span%20class="official-website"><span%20class="url">[1] Website] – which is a 404 because it includes the spaced word "Website" after the URL generated
3. website= left blank: produces nothing, even if Wikidata property exists

I would like to see: 1 ) "Website" changed to "Official website". 2 ) Return external link labeled "Official website" with data pulled from Wikidata. 3 ) Return result of "Official website" with data pulled from Wikidata.

This would make things easy to document, and to implement. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to use {{official website}} in the infobox at all, as it defeats the point of having Module:Wikidata in the infobox code. In order for this to work, |website= shouldn't exist in the infobox. If a website doesn't appear when website is missing, adding {{official website}} shouldn't make one appear, as it just tries to pull the same non-existent url from Wikidata. The naming of urls has been the subject of discussion and it was decided not to make the label "Official website". Instead, the status quo reigned and if you want to use a custom label, then you need to include |website_title=Official website. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting that there be scenarios. Not everybody is going to know to omit the parameter, nor will they know to go to Wikidata to add a URL (official website) property to the article's Wikidata item if one is lacking. Official website is what the property is called on Wikidata.

There may be a local consensus to name the URL Website but the systemwide consensus on Wikipedia is to use Official website, at least when the data is pulled from Wikidata. For instance, in External links, only the Official website is permitted to be listed (as opposed to a WP:LINKFARM). Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the issue with having to physically omit the parameter. I cleanup a lot of TV infoboxes by substing User:AussieLegend/Infoboxes/ITV and this includes all parameters. Having to remove the parameter just so you check to see if there is a url on wikidata and then having to restore it is a nuisance at best, as it requires an extra step or two in the process. The label is just a matter of terminology. There are quite a few infoboxes that just use "Website" as the title. {{Infobox building}} (14,830 transclusions), {{Infobox settlement}} (453,308 transclusions), {{Infobox UK place}} (22,710 transclusions), {{Infobox person}} (215,632 transclusions) and {{Infobox organization}} (19,356 transclusions) are just a few picked at random. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AussieLegend. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. If you go to an infobox that can be populated by WikiData, in most cases you just put in {{official website}} and WikiData will take it from there, if WikiData has an official website Property on the article's Wikidata item (the link to the Wikidata item can be quickly found on the left hand set of links on the English Wikipedia). If Wikidata lacks the official website property in the article's Wikidata item then you can easily add it. Then everything is happy.

The way Frietjes has set up the infobox television, the only way to pull up the Wikidata official website property from the article's Wikidata item is to remove the website = parameter from the infobox television. This is not the case in infobox person.

Now, on infobox people the system goes with the majority of infoboxes where you can pull from Wikidata by putting website = {{official website}} and Wikidata will take it from there if the official website property is populated on the article's Wikidata item.

Check out infobox person by going to Donald Trump and doing some test edits, previewing each one, and then canceling when you are done:

1. website = {{URL|http://www.donaldtrump.com|DonaldTrump.com}}
2. website = http://www.donaldjtrump.com
3. website = {{official website}}
4. website = {{Website}}
5. Try removing website =

Be sure to Preview after each edit, and be sure to cancel your last edit. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox person}} doesn't call Wikidata, so {{official website}} can be used to pull the information from Wikidata, but using {{official website}} on this infobox serves no purpose, as it pulls Wikidata automatically. {{Website}} is a redirect to {{URL}}, so your first and fourth examples are the same thing. That leaves #1 and #2, both of which work. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back at this discussion, it was mentioned that dates of the same year should be displayed as "April 28 – October 21, 2016" (for example). Instead of creating a new parameter in {{Start date}} as suggested, I've created a multitude of examples and edge-cases in my sandbox that covers same-year dates per the discussion listed, through my module sandbox (suggestion, this could be implemented at Module:Infobox/dates). Then all we need to do is change

| data41      = {{{first_aired|{{{released|}}}}}}{{#if:{{{last_aired|}}}| – {{{last_aired|}}}}}

to

| data41      = {{#invoke:Infobox/dates|dates|{{{first_aired|{{{released|}}}}}}|{{{last_aired|}}}}}

and the dates will be listed correctly. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why Module:Infobox/image when we're talking about dates? That seems a bit close to Module:InfoboxImage, which is all about images. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Busy day, wrong word. Corrected. All and any metadata is also kept. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Module:Infobox/dates with the working code from my sandbox. The only edit requires to this template is the code in my first post. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Would you mind putting your code in the sandbox and moving the tests to /testcases, as per the standard naming for these pages? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code is in the sandbox; the test cases that already exist between the live and sandboxed versions can be seen to remain identical to each other (the test cases in my sandbox are just for the dates themselves, not the usages of the template). Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant, because although I recognise the work you have put into coding and testing this, it is still an ugly hack. You are using one template to package the raw data and then another module to unpackage and repackage everything again. Would it be better to develop a template/module (e.g. {{start and end date}}) which will take both start and end dates, apply the logic you have put into Module:Infobox/dates and also emit the appropriate microformats? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS I see a template called this already exists. I wonder if it has been developed to do this job? Pinging User:Netoholic to comment. It could obviously use the repeated month/year logic though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, {{start and end dates}} was intended to be a companion to {{start date}} & {{end date}} for exactly this sort of scenario, but I had trouble implementing it and I'm not totally convinced that it's worth using. Its preferable for start and end dates to be defined as separate parameters of a template, and then let the backend handle the formatting. When you combine start/end into one parameter, you lose some granularity of control over the output. I think @AlexTheWhovian: has a good solution. -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Start and end dates}} is a great idea and all; however, the edits I propose mean that no page other than this needs to be edited, and no new format needs to be introduced, confusing editors who are used to the template as it is. The module also makes sure that all metadata is kept as-is, and it may be a hack of sorts, but nothing terrifyingly bad or anything that users without programming experience need to know about or learn. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Module:Infobox/dates, I've moved the sandbox to Module:Infobox/dates/sandbox, and the test cases that were in my sandbox to Module talk:Infobox/dates/testcases. Netoholic, I've also update the code to throw an error if the date order doesn't make sense, as you added to my sandbox (this cases still exists at the new test cases page). Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert me if I'm out of line here, but I implemented it at {{Infobox television season}}, and it works fine, such as at Vikings (season 3) (MDY), Doctor Who (series 9) (DMY), Once Upon a Time (season 4) (MDY–MDY+1) and Once Upon a Time (season 5) (MDY–present). Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose this as a temporary fix, but I feel we can do much better. I envisage something like

|released={{start and end dates|April 28, 2016|October 21, 2016}}

where your clever code would be called by {{start and end dates}}. Of course we would need a bot to help us to fix these. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. My edits would require no mass changes to usages of this template, whereas that particular edit would 1) require us to no longer use {{start date}} and {{end date}} and use plain format, and 2) that is not the intended usages of the {{{released}}} parameter; the two dates should be listed separately under {{{first_aired}}} and {{{last_aired}}}. Perhaps we should get the opinion of more than one template editor? Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a "consensus" needed? What is it needed for? There's already been a discussion about this, linked in my original posts and there is literally zero things wrong with what I have suggested. And I'm pretty sure it's also the only reliable method without mass changing every page that uses this template. I request you revoke your previous post and get yourself up to date with this discussion. I requested the opinion of another editor, not an instant result made. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The {{edit template-protected}} template is not for requesting opinion, it is for bringing in a person with the appropriate user right to make the edit which has already been agreed upon. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it actually was agreed upon. "Looks good. Would you mind putting your code in the sandbox and moving the tests to /testcases, as per the standard naming for these pages?" Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting "consensus" on this soon would be great. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in support of Alex's proposed method, to keep the individual use of Start and End date templates and the metadata they each provide (yet format them correctly per the MOS on date ranges). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no further comments on this, other than support for it, I take it that there is consensus and have therefore reopened the request for its implementation. I would also note the lack of issues with the implementation of my fix at {{Infobox television season}}. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  Stick to sources! Paine  02:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

splitting release into start and end dates

Sorry I am late to return to the discussion. I am happy to support the change as a stopgap measure, but would anyone be interested in helping to sort this out properly? I propose that the template should accept raw start and end dates, i.e.

|first_aired = April 28, 2016
|last_aired  = October 21, 2016

and let this template do the magic formatting and metadata. This would require the help of a bot of course. But the end result would be a more robust template which is easier to use. Would this have support of people here? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be necessary for the template to accept dmy formats as well as US formats. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. Any date recognised by the #time parser function would be acceptable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have my support. I believe that it's fine the way it is. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not if we can make it better? What are the disadvantages? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to fix what isn't broken? And I'm pretty sure that almost every template uses {{start date}} and {{end date}} for the metadata that it provides. This removes that. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They would still be used but they would be applied by the template, not in the article. That's how it should have been implemented originally. No need to get editors to deal with technical stuff; they just put the dates in and the template deals with the rest. It will also be much easier to make changes such as the above without resorting to kludginess. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying the work I've contributed "looks good", then refer to it as "kludginess". There's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing technical a regular editor needs to know about it. Whereas the latter would be the case were it changed to your suggestion, as the template would need to convert the month names to numerals, and use multiple regular expressions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is kludgy and I'm not sure how you can deny that. It's no criticism of you as your module has made the best solution in a bad situation. Indeed I credit you for spotting the problem and finding a way to solve it. But we should aim to fix these properly. For a "regular editor" the change would mean typing

|first_aired = 28 April 2016
|last_aired  = 21 October 2016

rather than the current situation:

|first_aired = {{Start date|2016|04|28}}
|last_aired  = {{End date|2016|10|21}}

Do you still say that the current method is easier than the proposed method? Yes of course there will need to be more technical wizardry in the template, but that's what we template editors are here for, is it not? To sort out the technical code so that article editors do not need to worry about it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do say that the current method is easier. That way when an editor edits the sandbox version of this module, they only need worry about one line for the dates, and not a massive amount of random gobbledegook that the "experienced" template editors put in because only they need to understand it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the idea of switching to two parameters, for start date and end date. I'd really like to have them sync up with Wikidata properties for start time and end time. --Netoholic @ 20:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Netoholic: I'm not sure what you're talking about. The code already uses two separate parameters for |first_aired= and |last_aired=. This discussion is about changing the way they are used. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add three hosts to show. How do i do this on Let's Get Married (Russia) Moscowamerican (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Film recently reached consensus on an edit to that project's infobox, to include, where known both gross and net budget. Please see discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Request for comment. Gross budget figures (pre-tax-incentives) appear to be available for TV series as well; see http://www.esd.ny.gov/Reports/2015_2016/FTCP_4Q2015_Report.pdf, for example. Would it be consistent to add to this template's budget field a note saying " 'gross' and 'net', when applicable, should be parenthetically added beside the figure(s) in the existing budget field, using the {{Plainlist}} template" ?--Tenebrae (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Television budgets are few and far between, so it would not really be applicable to add to the infobox, to service the few over the many. If budgetary info can be found, anything applicable would be appropriate in an article's production section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

....And misreading partially the question and what we actually have for parameters, the budget parameter as it is now is mainly for television films, after we merged two infoboxes. However, as far as I've seen, many television films use the film infobox, not this one. So reanswering, it would be fine I think to adapt the decision made for the film infobox, however, the parameter is still only meant for television films, not television series, per the reasons I gave in my first response. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until the merge, television films should have been using {{infobox television film}}. After the merge they should be using this infobox. Where they use {{infobox film}}, they should be converted as they should never have used that infobox. I don't see a need to add a note endorsing something that is not currently forbidden. Doing so is unnecessary instruction creep. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox television
Original release
Release	7 December (2015-12-07) – 10 December 2015 (2015-12-10)

Infobox television
Original release
Release	December 7 (2015-12-07) – December 10, 2015 (2015-12-10)

Why does the code

{{Infobox television
|first_aired = {{start date|2015|12|7|df=yes}}
|last_aired = {{end date|2015|12|10|df=yes}}
}}

produce an error message "Invalid date range", or, more importantly, how can that be fixed? Note that the same code without |df=yes does not give that error.

{{Infobox television
|first_aired = {{start date|2015|12|7}}
|last_aired = {{end date|2015|12|10}}
}}

Cheers, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is being caused by a recent edit to the infobox. I've reverted the change until the issue can be fixed, hopefully by AlexTheWhovian, who wrote the code. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: The issue has been fixed, per the new module's testcases. The edit can be reinstated. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --AussieLegend (✉) 07:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added error tracking for unsupported parameters. See Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. A red error message appears when you Preview the article, between the edit screen and the rendered preview. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the category, the articles are sorted by the name of the parameter that is unsupported. You will notice that there are a lot of articles listed under "S" that use the |status= parameter. I saw a few mentions of that parameter in the talk page archives, but you might want to determine whether this parameter should be part of the template before a helpful gnome removes it from all of the articles.

Let me know if you would like the template, or the error check, to be modified. I will watch this page for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I almost wish you hadn't done that. Not knowing how many infoboxes are wrong made things less scary. No, status is a deprecated parameter, but it was never actively removed from infoboxes. It might be useful to implement Module:Check for unknown parameters at {{Infobox television season}}. Do you use a script to sort parameters alphabetically? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, ignorance is bliss. I do use a script. It's in my vector.js file if you want to take a look at it. It is not fully automated and does not always work, so tread carefully if you use it.

I have added the check to the television season template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are at least 2,500 articles that use |status=. You might want to file a Bot request to remove that parameter and its value. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to just have AWB go through all of these articles to adjust, possibly with @AlexTheWhovian: and @EvergreenFir:'s attempt to update all to the new granularity parameters? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 and Favre1fan93: I've still got a lot to go through but I can add a regex line to remove |status=. Bot might be easiest in the long run though as I'm not moving all that fast. Just to be clear, the task is to remove the parameter |status= and its content from the infobox, right? Any chance you know if that parameter is unique to the infobox and not contained in, say, the citation template? Knowing that makes the coding easier. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edit a lot of citation templates, and I've never seen |status= in any of them, so you should be clear there. If you're looking for a way to prevent false positives, you could look for values of the |status= parameter that appear on the (outdated but probably useful) list at this discussion. Using those values will probably allow you to fix 70–80% of the articles without false positives. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed useful! I've yet to figure out a good way of getting regex to stay within a particular template (if you know of a way, I'm all ears... sick of |title= getting hits in wikitables and citation templates). I thought [^FOOBAR] would help, but it only considers single characters). Let me whip up the regex real quick. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like |setting= is another one being caught by that maintenance category. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at User:Jonesey95/AutoEd/unnamed.js for a regex that limits replacement to Cite templates. It will fail (safely, proposing no changes) if the template contains another template, e.g. a {{plainlist}} inside of an infobox, but it works well otherwise. You still have to supervise it, but it helps.

Something like this may work for you:

Find this: ({{\s*[Ii]nfobox television(?:[^}{]*(?:\{\{[^}{]*}}[^}{]*)*))\|\s*status\s*=\s*[parameter value]\s*([\}\|])

Replace it with $1$2 or \1\2, depending on your regex processor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you for that! The one I cobbled works well so far (see Special:Contributions/EvergreenFir). Was using \n\s*\|\s*status\s*\=\s*(?:ended|canceled|cancelled|ongoing|returning|airing|new\sseries|on\shiatus|in\sproduction|current|upcoming|finished|running|completed|continuing\sseries).* and replacing with null. Skipping pages that do not contain \|\s*status EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: I tried out your code and came up with (\{\{\s*[Ii]nfobox television(?:[^}{]*(?:\{\{[^}{]*\}\}[^}{]*)*))(\n\s*\|\s*status\s*=.*) and replace with $1. Seems to be working so far. Think it's a safe bet to just remove the entire parameter line. Do you see anything wrong or potential false positives with it? If not, I think we could request a bot to do the rest of the category. Could also have it search for other deprecated params ((status|setting|FOOBAR)) and just have it run a few times on each page until there's no changes to me made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I always prefer to have a backstop of ([\}\|]) to detect the next parameter or the end of the template. You could so something like \|\s*status\s*=[\da-z\s_-\(\)\[\]]+([\}\|]) to capture any value of the status parameter containing numbers, letters, underscore, hyphen, parentheses, or square brackets. I'm not a regex wizard, but I prefer to have a few null edits rather than a bunch of erroneous changes. If you want to make your life easier with AWB, you could turn off general changes so that the proposed edits are very easy to spot. I think you can also have multiple regexes so that you could remove |setting= and other common unsupported parameters all at the same time, as I have done with my unnamed.js script. As for a bot, I think there is too much weird stuff in infoboxes, and I would recommend AWB or manual fixes only. It won't take that long. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Thanks for the input! I'll add the ([\}\|]) as a fail safe. And yeah, multiple rules makes sense. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: I finished my first pass through the category. Removed about 4000 pages from it. Will make another page to keep whittling it down. I refined my regex coding as I went along and as I noticed more common param issues. Hopefully I can get the category under 1000 pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a num_cycles parameter option to be used in addition to num_seasons and num_series. The term "cycle" is synonymous with series and seasons in some countries. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]