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've been noticing for a while now, if I access an article on the mobile site using this infobox, the title above the image does not display. However, film articles do display the title. For comparison, see Spider-Man: Homecoming versus Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Comparing the code for the two infoboxes (this and Infobox film), the only difference I can see is this uses | aboveclass = summary navbox-title and the film infobox uses | aboveclass = summary. That's the only thing I can think of that is preventing this from happening, and such most likely be changed if that is the case. AlexTheWhovian, would you know any more about this given your work on templates? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it may be the case. I removed navbox-title in the sandbox for {{Infobox television}}, to match {{Infobox film}}, and per the testcases displayed in the mobile format for this template, it does seem to be the issue. However, looking at the testcases in the desktop format, it removes the styling of the header. In the mobile format, it appears that none of the subheaders (e.g. Production, Release) display either, where {{Infobox television}} uses these, but {{Infobox film}} does not. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

interesting. I see that too. At this time, I don't suggest we adjust, because we shouldn't remove that heading styling. Maybe this is a WP:VPT question? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an infobox using a class intended for navboxes ? Please remember that classes are not just pretty colors, they have semantics. Navboxes are removed from the mobile view, so it shouldn't be surprising that these titles are removed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ: Disregarding style and colors, are there any classes that would produce the same results for the headings that are not the navbox variety? I'm don't know anything about CSS options available, so any help would be appreciated. It does also seem like Alex created a work around in the sandbox with these edits to keep the style as is, but with the correct class. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, in general, we don't define classes for purely visual style and/or for templates that in most page views are NOT used. We just use inline styling (as bad as that is, but there is no other alternative right now). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ and AlexTheWhovian: Okay. I was able to get it to work by making these adjustments in the sandbox. Alex, can you edit the live version to make these changes so articles in mobile view will start to be displayed as their desktop counterparts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The changes also have to be made to {{Infobox television season}} and {{Infobox television episode}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the servers have to update or not, but for checking, the AoS article still does not display correctly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does for me (screenshot). I did just purge the page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, good for me now too. I wasn't purging correctly on my device. I'm going to adjust for the season template, and do a template request for the episode one to make the same changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! And thanks for the fix at {{Arrowverse crossover episodes list}}; I forgot we'd been using custom infoboxes. I did try to implement the hidden section, but it didn't seem to work. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see num_series and "number of series" used. I keep stopping at that. Shouldn't it be "number of seasons"? Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The parameters "num_seasons" and "num_series" both exist. Per the description: "The number of seasons (US) or series (UK) produced. Use one or the other, not both." -- Alex^TW 16:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the word "series" is typically used in the UK to mean what US English speakers call "season". In the US, the word "series" typically means the entire run of a show. Hooray for multiple Englishes! – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and your patience- I should have read farther in the instructions, of course, sorry! Schissel | Sound the Note! 00:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can explain to me why in the parameter only the link is seen, but not the text "website".--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 00:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) made this edit recently, to display infobox URLs when printing. I see the validity in this, but I'm not aware of a guideline or policy that states this, especially given that almost no other URL (references, external links, etc.) in an article would be printable. -- Alex^TW 00:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AlexTheWhovian. I didn't do it because a policy forced me. A good idea needs no justification beyond the fact that it is a good idea. Of course, in this certain case, in accordance to WP:EDITCONSENSUS, this certain edit of mine is taken to have consensus support because this is general practice in Wikipedia. 181,907 articles are already doing this.

But there indeed is a guideline: MOS:WEBADDR.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this problem to be solved, as it is strange to see a loose URL in the infobox, I would prefer to see the text "website" instead.--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 10:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Philip J Fry: Can you please show me an example, so I can better understand about what you are talking? —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As seen here. In the "External links" part of the infobox.--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 11:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see both the text "website" and the printer-friendly link. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Philip J Fry is referring to is that previously, instead of the actual URL being visible, it said "Website" for the link name. I believe you're referring to the text "website" as the parameter name in the infobox. I just think, TV editors have been accustomed for it to say "Website" as the link name in the infobox, so it comes off as a bit odd-looking; just need to get used to it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not going to solve this problem, what is the meaning of this?.--Philip J Fry ^Talk 00:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a message left on my talk page per an edit to Family Guy regarding aspect ratios that, "The picture_format field should be 'the video or film format in which the show is or was originally recorded or broadcast'. Aspect ratios are not a video format." I vehemently disagree, the field is "picture format", not "video format", and there aren't any clear guidelines about what to include and what to exclude. The vast precedent is to include aspect ratio in the technical specs as nearly all shows have that information in their specs. Guideline should be updated to address this. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such precedent and "most" programs do not include aspect ratios. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Just because editors who don't understand formats have done so in some articles doesn't mean that it should be done in all articles. As I wrote on your talk page, the infobox instructions say the picture_format field should be "the video or film format in which the show is or was originally recorded or broadcast". Also as I wrote, aspect ratios are not a format, they are simply the ratio between width and height of an image. A TV program originally recorded with a 4:3 aspect ratio can be broadcast with a 16:9 ratio by adding side borders. Videos recorded in any format are not locked to a specific display aspect ratio. The aspect ratio is not part of the format. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]