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, 15

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

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" articles 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 ratios, with limited exceptions like 720p, which specifies a 16:9 aspect ratio as part of the format. Examples of appropriate formats are listed in the template instructions - Black and white, Film, 405-line, NTSC (480i), PAL (576i), SECAM (576i), HDTV 720p, HDTV 1080i. Do not use "SDTV" as it is ambiguous. 1080i, for example, is a video format that "assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9" but the aspect ratio is not part of the format. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a discussion with Shiver regarding this on Talk:Stranger Things#Tech specs. I agree with AussieLegend and this addition they made to the documentation on the fact that aspect ratios should not be noted (unless there is something unique/notable in regards to the aspect ratio they are using ie The Hateful Eight, despite that being a film). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems more like of an argument over the semantics, everything described above would be better called a broadcast standard or resolution, format can refer to aspect ratio, e.g. Anamorphic format. Among broadcasters, picture format is defined as “two traits: Aspect ratio and screen resolution”. Per WP:NOTFATRAT, it’s useful information, aspect ratio is as relevant of a technical detail of the visual presentation of a show as resolution or broadcast standard, being one of the few pieces of technical information listed on physical media and guides like IMDb.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a parameter named something like "Co-exec_producers" in case exec. producers and co-execs are credited separately? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 11:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add them under the same parameter with a note that they're co-execs in small text? -- Alex^TW 12:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Co- exec." shouldn't really be mentioned in the infobox though. That's why they don't have a parameter, and shouldn't be listed in the "Executive producers" parameter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why no imdb parameter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.33.162 (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's unreliable per WP:RS/IMDb. Plus it generally goes in the external links section, not the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the staff writer, story editor, co-producer, producer, supervising producer, and co-executive producer titles are just experienced writing staff whose title often changes per season, the producer title serves no relevance in the template. Also, it might be worth considering adding a "produced by" credit, as it refers to the person operating physical production facilities. If adding the "produced by" credit in the template is not an option, could we at least do rid with the 'producer' title all together? Thanks. ATC ^{. Talk} 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the producer is important as he is the one who makes the director's wishes happen. Executive producer usually find the money.REVUpminster (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In film, that is correct. However, that's not the case in television shows. The showrunner is the executive producer who runs the writer's room. Also see here: http://www.producersguild.org/page/coc_ts and here: http://www.producersguild.org/page/coc_ts_2 ATC ^{. Talk} 22:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]