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.

For the parameter |show_name=, please allow for an alternative parameter name of |name=. The |name= is used on {{Infobox film}} and when editors change the infobox from film to television (e.g., in this edit), the parameter becomes broken and appears in Category:Pages_using_infobox_television_with_unknown_parameters. I encountered this issue a large number of times when originally clearing out that category with AWB and allowing for the alternate parameter name seems like an easy solution to the issue.

Please ping me in reply or if there are questions. Thank you.

EvergreenFir (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir:  Done Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are we supposed to do with the First_aired/Last_aired parameters if a TV show airs on one network for, say, one season, and then aired on another network or in syndication for a second season? The specific example I'm referring to here is Finders Keepers (U.S. game show). TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 31 July 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Those parametres are for the initial run of the show, so first aired is for the first ever broadcast of the first episode, and last aired is for the first ever broadcast of the last episode. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has previously been discussed in relation to other programs. There should only be a single date, and nothing else, in these fields. I've fixed the article in accordance with the infobox instructions and the outcome of the previous discussions. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question, then. What about series with revivals? For example, Doctor Who and The X-Files each have more than one pair of dates, and I'd bet many more pages at Category:Television series revived after cancellation do too. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be beneficial to add "Revival release" parameters to put two dates for that? I specifically say "Revival" over say, "Second release" to not include, as with this example article, series that start up syndication, or the like. But to use it solely for articles like X-Files or in that cat that you linked Alex. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that the Last aired would just get changed when a series is revived, since that date no longer refers to the airing of the last episode. A further explanation of when the original last date is and when the revival began can be added to the lead and body. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When a series is revived, last_aired is changed to |last_aired=present once episodes start airing and remains that way until the series ends again. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that would be factually incorrect. For example, X-Files has not been running from September 10, 1993 to the present day. I believe that this is another case where the documentation needs updating; I'd agree with Favre's suggestion. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first_aired - last_aired range doesn't say any series has been continuously running. It just displays the dates that the first and last episodes aired, nothing more. Every series has gaps between episodes airing. Look at a program like Sherlock (TV series), that has 2 years between series, 3 for the latest, and has only aired 9 episodes and one special in 6 years. It has effectively been 3 miniseries of 3 episodes each. Daredevil (TV series) is having a 2 year gap between the 2nd and 3rd season. Hotel Hell has a 2 year gap between seasons too. We can't be overly specific in the infobox, it's just a quick summary. That's why we provide links to the episode list, so readers can find out the specifics of when episodes actually aired. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, none of those examples provided fit the criteria of the original question, as none of them were cancelled/concluded and then brought back to air. We don't have to be greatly specific, no, but we don't have to provide as least information as we can, though. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that they don't fit the question's criteria. They were simply presented as examples of TV programs that have not aired an episode in a long time. As I said, last_aired simply denotes the last time a new episode of the series airs, nothing more. It has nothing to do with whether or not a series has been revived. If a series ends without a formal announcement, last_aired remains as present until a formal announcement is made, or until 12 months have aired since the last episode aired. If there is a need to note that a series has been revived, then perhaps |revived_series= needs to be added to the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just recently learned that the |editor= parameter is only meant to be used for the content editor(s) of a political show. There are many articles that misuse this parameter, so perhaps we need to rename it to |content_editor= and go through existing uses of it and remove the inappropriate ones. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support creating |content_editor=, but |editor= should stay to indicate Film editors, which is what I'm assuming is how many articles are using it now. That is an acceptable parameter to include under the "Production" heading for nonpolitical shows, and it would be necessary if the infobox is used for television films. This change would affect the few articles that are using it correctly currently (a small number I'm assuming), while no change would be needed on the articles using it "incorrectly". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would be fine with having |editor= for film editors. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to this edit on 16 February 2013, the instructions for the field simply said "The editor or editors of the show". The edit was apparently made as the result of this unanswered question 2 days earlier. The question acknowledges that the field was as many seem to think for film editors, yet the change was made to the personal preference of the editor who asked the question. Looking at the field from the POV of most editors who, from my experience, never seem to bother looking at instructions, what is the difference between "content editor" and just "editor"? Surely an editor edits content? And, for those who do read the instructions, what relevance are "film editors" to a template that, until relatively recently, only catered for television programs? {{Infobox film}} was the infobox for films. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie, are you saying, then, that the parameter should be left as is, and should cover both film editors (ie the people who composite together the footage shot to make the episode) and "content"/news editors, with the documentation reworded to notate such? And if we should split out to specifically notate these "content" editors, maybe the param should be |news_editor=? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think something more specific as you've proposed, is probably a wise choice if the intention is to create a new parameter. There are a lot of TV articles out there, and I'm not sure the global community is going to be able to figure out what "content_editor" is. I too thought this parameter was just for regular video editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, common sense would generally veer towards the parameter being about film/video editing, and the original wording was vague. But I don't know how the editor who made the change felt it meant what they changed it too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyuszika7H, AussieLegend, and Cyphoidbomb: So this discussion went a bit stale, but can we implement the changes as discussed? Have |editor= be for film editors, and create a new parameter (we said |content_editor= but whatever would be the best wording) for the news editors? And then we'd have to search through articles using the parameter and adjust as needed (which I'm presuming would be a small number that would need to change). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi F1F93, I support |editor= to mean the person who sits in the video editing bay. |content_editor= I fear is far too broad and I can see legions of ignorant users mistakenly using that, because everything on TV is "content" and "editor" is the person who sits in the editing bay. Instead I support the creation of |news_editor= for news editor unless someone can think of a reason why that's too narrow a label. My feeling is that with a clear description in the documentation, it shouldn't be an issue. Ex: "|news_editor= This field should be used to indicate the senior reporter who oversees the writing of news and magazine video content." (or whatever the proper clear definition is.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would support that. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm proposing the addition of |native_name= to the infobox for consistency with Template:Infobox film. Currently the way people indicate a series' native name is to paste the native script into the infobox like at Devathai (2013 TV series) where the Tamil script is pasted on the line below the show's title, but a better way to embrace this (and I think we should embrace it) is to create a unique parameter that allows us to display the name, but perhaps in a less prominent way. See Premam, where the Malayalam script appears underneath the image. The film infobox uses Template:Infobox name module. I think that module has a bunch of different options to it. Other templates use {{lang-ta|தேவதை}} to render Tamil: தேவதை. What do you think?

As for why I think the data is worth including, my reasons are three-fold: 1) It promotes accessibility to the English Wikipedia. People searching for a show in their mother tongue will have the option to read an article here. 2) It makes it easier for Wikipedians to find other references if we have the native script at hand. There are reliable published sources written in a variety of languages. 3) WP:NOINDICSCRIPT prevents the inclusion of Indic scripts in an article's lead, and readers want to put this information somewhere. The infobox seems like the quickest and simplest way to deal with this. The native language is going to get added anyway, so it makes sense to figure out a way to accommodate it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a very good idea to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support this idea as well. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me too. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend, Geraldo Perez, Favre1fan93, AlexTheWhovian, Adamstom.97, Bignole, EvergreenFir, and AngusWOOF: Any thoughts on this? Sorry for the obnoxious ping, but I didn't want to barrel ahead without getting some more feedback. If we decide to proceed, is there anyone locally who can make the change? Aussie? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any opposition after 9 days so I don't see a problem incorporating it, but I will wait for the others to reply just in case. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too see no issue with this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOINDICSCRIPT applies to wiki project India only and only for titles using Indicscripts and RfC intent seems to be ownership of which variation of script is correct for a title. Conclusion is to use IPA. Logically if an Indicscript version of the title doesn't go in the lead it shouldn't go in the infobox for the same reasons. Stuff in the infobox should reflect what is in the article proper and if a wiki project India guideline say it shouldn't go in the lead of article in that projects purview it shouldn't go in the infobox of those same articles either. This is separable from the the issue of having |native_name= which I have not objection to, just this cannot be a way around the RfC that relates to Indian articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't have a problem with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this is a good idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine. It also depends on how complicated the translation is. Some infoboxes as with Korea or China have their own section as with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: - It's interesting you'd bring up Crouching Tiger. The film infobox wants us to use the feature-rich {{Infobox name module}} in |native_name=. If you scroll through the name module template instructions, the sample Infobox is Crouching Tiger. I don't know if that means Crouching Tiger has not yet been changed to use the correct template, or if the community decided to go a different route. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections to this? If not, may we proceed? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no objections, Aussie, is there any chance you could monkey with the template to make this happen? I know that Template:Infobox film employs the {{Infobox name module}} template in this field. I don't know nuthin' about this technical stuff, so I don't know if {{Infobox name module|ta|தேவதை}} is better (it's certainly longer) or if {{lang-ta|தேவதை}} is better. Also, if you don't have time, no probs, I can go to The Pump. Don't mean to unfairly dump it on you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should change the section of the template that says "original release" back to "original run", because I think "original release" would only be suitable for writing about a television movie. I don't think it makes sense to put on an article about a series, because obviously separate episodes of a series are aired. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about series that are released all at once, like Netflix's shows? Saying that they were originally released on a certain date and other series were originally released over a certain date range works for both situations, but original run only applies to traditionally broadcast series. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All series that run are released, but not all series that are released are run. The current term is acceptable. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]