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

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

OK, so I'm being a bold newbie to this area. I noticed that a couple of shows didn't have infoboxes, or didn't have them fully filled out, so I added them. That led me to have to research what I should put into some of these fields, which in turn led me to record my observations back into the documentation and update the example to match observed common style.

It occurs to me that consistency could be aided by using strongly stylized values, with the template turning them into common presentations. (imdb_id and tv_com_id are good examples of what I mean.)

For instance:

Okay, a summary. One editor has added small text to the template and has been reverted. An edit war has thus begun. Arguments include small text in the box include difficulty for those with disabilities, and that it's easier simply to change the screen resolution rather than change the text directly. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem seeing the standard text on my system - its not huge, but I can read it easily enough. My problem is with forcing smaller text sizes (lower than 90% on IE6) on the template. Changing system settings is not a viable solution here. - BillCJ (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally ok with and prefer the larger font. I see no reason to make it smaller. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, some compare links for those wanting to see the difference original and smaller version and proposed larger?. For my view, I think the original is just fine and does not need to be made either smaller nor larger. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The 88% size is perfectly readable, and looks far nicer than the 100% does. Furthermore, it's a common standard in most templates. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain the change from 90% to 88%. Yes, on IE it looks smaller; it now has the same size in IE as in every other browser, where the font size already was the same as you see it now. Font sizes have to be consistent accross browsers, it is essential to be able to build the templates based on this template. 90% is the only value that happnes to render different in IE then other browsers (which is why it should never be used). If a bigger font is preferred, it would have to be bigger in all browsers; not just IE; and we would have to abolish all small fonts on every page/template/styling. And such a change accross the board will need a consensus. With all due respect to BillCJ, but if you have a vision problem, there are other solutions. If you cannot read some elements at standard font size, increase the font. But don't try and force a change in design for your sole benefit. — Edokter • Talk • 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to disagree, but it looks smaller in Firefox as well, and somewhat distorted. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's odd... for me the jump in font-size doesn't happen until 92%. And in what way does it look distorted? — Edokter • Talk • 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a trick of the spacing. Your latest version, compared to the original one Collectonian linked, has an added "line-height:1.5em;", which has the effect of making the lines closer together and making the text seem smaller than it actually is. There's no significant difference in my Firefox. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dimensions of the letters seem off versus the original, like when you resize an image but forget to keep aspect ratio turned on. I can take screenshots if it would help. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaving out the line-height causes the lines to be too far apart; which too me makes the font look even smaller. Are you on Windows or Linux? — Edokter • Talk • 10:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Disability" should really not be an argument here. People who can't read small text already have views at their disposal, such as the on-screen magnifying glass, and zooming in, to view small text. Many sites use smaller text as a standard for stuff. It looks fine to me. Danielkitchener1 (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way. The font sizes are easy enough to override on the end-user's computer anyways. -- Ned Scott 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, since one could easily manipulate font size, as mentioned just above, a change in the temp is unnecessary. Cliff smith (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template should be an {{infobox}} anyway, and should use the default sizes specified in that master template. Can we get this unlocked, please? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox}} is not used as a meta-template in this case. But this template is is using the same font-size as Infobox. — Edokter • Talk • 14:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "should be" as in "in the future". If it were an {{infobox}}, we wouldn't have having this conversation, because we wouldn't have to arbitrarily pick values. Once it's unprotected, I plan to make that happen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to use Infobox is not a trivial task. But there is the sandbox which is not protected. — Edokter • Talk • 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin editor fix it? -Lwc4life (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fix what? prod is short for production, or do you mean fix in the documentation? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I meant the documentation. Anyone who doesn't click "view source" would not understand why does prod_website fail to work. Lwc4life (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to do this myself, but as a mere Untermensch I'm not able to thanks to Collectonian's valiant requesting of full protection.

Code dump is at User:Thumperward/tv. Drop-in replacement. The only changes to existing style are as follows:

1. The title is in the "title" infobox parameter, and thus floats outside the box.
2. {{{show_name_2}}} is used as an "above" at the top of the box, rather than being a normal parameter.

If these things cause serious distress then I can use the previous markup for those, but I feel that this is making better use of the infobox semantics. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, those were not the only changes. You significantly changed the code, and you changed all instances of No. to Number, making multiple lines wrap needlessly. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I said "only changes to existing style". I'm aware that the code has changed heavily; that's the whole point. Minor wording issues can be trivially corrected afterwards (or would be, were it not for the template being needlessly fullyprot). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is you didn't bother to discuss you. You just waited until the template was unprotected and immediately went through making a ton of changes with no discussion as to whether they were needed, valid, or desired. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because I'm a skilled template editor, and know well enough to work without needing my hand held. Procedure is there to keep the project ticking smoothly, not to give random weenies power over other editors. You reverted edits which you didn't even understand, which leads me to believe that I'm not the one who shouldn't be editing in templatespace.

Regardless, I'm not here to argue with procedural nonsense. I'm here to get peer review for the updated code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that Edokter also disagreed with the switch, as it functions the same. This isn't a matter of skill, as making an infobox isn't rocket science. People just disagree with the need to switch. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Edokter disagree?

Look, there's literally no reason not to switch. The advantages in the new version are obvious:

1. The code is vastly simpler, easier to follow and maintain.
2. It ends arguments about default text size, because the size is standardised across every {{infobox}}.
3. There's a trivial fix to allow {{{show_name}}} to inherit from the article title, which should have stood regardless of the other changes.

There are no advantages to using the current version. Nobody has come up with a single one, other than bickering about process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't necessarely disagree, however, I said it is a major operation. Before this conversion is done, it should be thouroughly tested in the sandbox. Chris, please move your code to the this template's sandbox, so we can all test-drive it. — Edokter • Talk • 11:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Might as well re-do the non-controversial part.

Currently, the template demands a {{{show_name}}} attribute. This shouldn't be necessary if the show's article is located at the same name, so changing:

! style="font-size:125%; background:{{{bgcolour|{{Television colour|{{{show_name}}}}}}}};
color: {{{color text|{{{colour text|#000}}}}}}; text-align:center;" colspan="2" | ''{{{show_name}}}''

to

! style="font-size:125%; background:{{{bgcolour|{{Television colour|{{{show_name}}}}}}}};
color: {{{color text|{{{colour text|#000}}}}}}; text-align:center;" colspan="2" | ''{{{show_name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}''

Allows the infobox to exist without any mandatory parameters. This is pretty common across infoboxen now, and doesn't break anything anywhere.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eeek! Wrong section. This is the meant to replace the second line of the template. Re-enabling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 12:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I apologise. Sorry. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any interest in adding a "Host" section to the info box for shows such as news magazines and game shows? There is some debate on talk pages as to whether or not "hosts" should be billed as "stars" of the show. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hosts are generally put in the presenter field. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the parameter "Original channel" being used for currently running tv programs is not useful.

I think the parameter should cease use and be replaced by a new parameter called "Original network(s)" as channels refer to frequencies not networks or stations although the community uses the term channel for stations.

Lets not delete the parameter "Original channel" but rather replace it. Also, the "Original network(s)" parameter should only be used for no longer airing tv shows. Also, lets make three new parameters for more specific uses.

• "Current network(s)" - The current network(s) that broacasts show on its stations
• "Former network(s)" - The former network(s) that broacasted show on its/there stations
• "Rerun network(s)" - Like "Original network(s)" should be used for no longer airing television series.

Is that a good idea?

I disagree on ceasing use as a large number of lay people use channels the same way it is used here, as do all the satellite and cable companies. Adding an alias of original network would be find. I disagree on having current/former as its are enough to not be an issue. Big huge no on rerun networks - syndicated series don't need to have every network listed that may have shown an episode or two of a series. The channels a series is rerun on is rarely notable at all, and if it does become notable it will be covered in the prose.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "first aired" makes sense for programs that haven't even debuted yet. Think there should be some sort of switch to change it to something else for shows that haven't aired yet and are set to debut, like maybe "Premiere date" or something? ViperSnake151 15:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Premier date" isn't really that important; it'd only encourage even more futuritis in articles. The attribute is optional, so it can just be omitted if the show hasn't started. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I imagining things or has a formatting change taken place that now aligns the TV info box on the left hand side of pages rather than on the right and in-line with text? Not sure how to correct this... Sottolacqua (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific article you are seeing this on? It looks normal to me on TV articles I checked. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeo_Drive_(game_show)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Price_Is_Right_(U.S._game_show)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)

Are you using Firefox or IE? This appears to be happening with just Firefox on my current computer.

Sottolacqua (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Firefox and they are all appearing on the right side for me. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after doing some hunting I think it has to do with using the Modern skin rather than the default MonoBook. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I meant to ask which skin you were using and if it might have been changed lately :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I switched back to the default skin and all is well. Have a good day Sottolacqua (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation for the "writer" parameters says The show's writer or writers. Separate multiple entries with line breaks (<br/>. Don't use if the show has many (5+) writers. The first bracket needs closing. ;) —97198 talk 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, Template:Infobox Television/doc is not fully protected. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh :) Well, thanks. —97198 talk 02:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Aside from the AKA parameter, how about a separated parameter to show the original title of the programme from non-English-speaking countries, locating right under the showname parameter?
2. Does the separated parameters of Genre and Format working well?
3. How about the extra parameters of airdates like what is on the right?

--JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 11:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please change:

{| class="infobox" style="width:22em; text-align:left; font-size:88%; line-height:1.5em;"
! style="font-size:125%; background:{{{bgcolour|{{Television colour|{{{show_name}}}}}}}}; color: {{{color text|{{{colour text|#000}}}}}}; text-align:center;" colspan="2" | ''{{{show_name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}''

to

{| class="infobox vevent" style="width:22em; text-align:left; font-size:88%; line-height:1.5em;"
! style="font-size:125%; background:{{{bgcolour|{{Television colour|{{{show_name}}}}}}}}; color: {{{color text|{{{colour text|#000}}}}}}; text-align:center;" colspan="2" | ''<span class="summary">{{{show_name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}</span>''

then add class="description" to the whole table row:

{{#if: {{{starring|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} |
! Starring
{{!}} {{{starring}}}

so that this template will output an hCalendar microformat.

Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]