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 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Can we "codify" the standard 250px width used for the intertitle images? Thumperward wants to change all the image sizes in favor of using frameless which would reduce its size everywhere from the currently 250px width. In the process can we adopt the different parameters (|image=, |image size=, |alt=) for the different image properties as done in other infoboxes (film, person, …)? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't reduce the size in all cases: users who have changed their default thumbnail size would have the image scaled appropriately. Using frameless also means that images smaller than 250px are not upscaled (which is undesirable). {{infobox film}} already uses frameless, following the discussion at template talk: infobox film/Archive 17#Default image size. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chris, I see no reason to go against policy (WP:IMGSIZE) on this. If you want the images bigger you can use the image size setting in your preferences, which will change the size of all images using "thumb" and "frameless". -- d'oh! _[talk] 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to mess up the article for everyone without special preferences. There is a clear precedent to use 250px. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is the article "messed up" without the forced image size? The larger image maybe good for users with larger screens but what about users with smaller screens? Also the image size also resizes the infobox from the standard size. Also precedent isn't a good reason to override the policy. -- d'oh! _[talk] 10:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy leaves an opening just for this, the precedent is to use 250px, doing that is perfectly within the policy boundaries, and does not "override" the policy. 220px is smaller than the infobox itself and creates wasted space on both sides, for users with small screens replacing image with white space makes no difference. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frameless seems to be a sensible default to me. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the advantage to having this over this? It just seems silly to me. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They both look the same to me, with the first one matching the box width and the second one just making the box larger? Perhaps your font size is different in your browser? I believe this is the central problem. If you define the infobox width in "em" units and the image in "px" units, then it assumes a particular font size. For example, it looks entirely different on my iPhone. By the way, you can still framless and get something that is 10 percent wider using "frameless|upright=1.1", for example. However, given that the appearance is browser dependent when you start mixing em and px units, tweaking it might make it look different in your browser, but have an undesirable effect in someone else's browser. But, every user has the chance to override the width used by "thumb" and "frameless", not so with hardcoded px units. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try logging out before checking? Logged out, on every one of the randomly chosen PCs that I've checked out of the 120 I have available, the first is consistently smaller than the infobox while the second neatly fits the infobox. Logged in, the frameless version is ridiculously tiny because I have my default at 180px. As I sid to d'oh! on my talk page, there's nothing to be gained by making an infobox image smaller than the minimum width of the infobox. The only exception is when the image is so tall as to make the infobox excessively long. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There also seem to be some confusion about consensus, as per WP:CONLIMITED the current consensus is for "frameless", to go back to "250px" there need to be wide consensus to go against policy, WP:IMGSIZE or a good reason is put forward (which has consensus) as per the policy. Also from now on I am viewing any reverts of "frameless" in articles as vandalism. -- d'oh! _[talk] 08:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only WP:IMGSIZE would say that images can benifit from other sizes but the standard size and that in those cases forcing the size is perfectly acceptable. Oh wait, it does! There is no "going back to 250px" the person changing all of this is you, from the current 250px to frameless. Your stance is quite arrogant. Especially since you're going out of your way editing on articles you have never edited before just to press your preferred view trough. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)There certainly seems to be some confusion so please let me clear it up for you. The template instructions currently say "An image relevant to the show. Should be resized to a width of 300 pixels or below", and have done since 10 March 2007, when the template was first fully documented. "Frameless" is not mentioned anywhere in the instructions, nor does "frameless" appear anywhere in the archives of the talk page, so "frameless" is not the current consensus for this template. Viewing reversion of your changes can not be viewed as vandalism. I think you should read the policy on that. However, bulldozing your edits into the various articles as you have, against opposition by other editors in the absence of any consensus to use frameless, and only frameless, can certainly be seen as edit-warring. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template instructions can not override policy, the instruction says nothing about copyright does that mean I can ignore the copyright policy? No, of cause not. Again the policy clearly says there needs to be a "good reason" when not using "frameless" and "thumb", and both of you hasn't offered one yet. I am not arrogant, I am just sick of my edits to TV show articles getting reverted even when they are within policy and/or received support from other editors, then have to spend time creating arguments for them, when I could be spending that time improving the articles. I don't care which one is used as long as there a clear consensus for one, which is currently "frameless". -- d'oh! _[talk] 09:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMGSIZE says "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so", not "do not ever, under any circumstances define the size of an image". There are no good reasons for making the image size less than the minimum size of the infobox as I explained on my talk page when you brought the discussion there. If you have problems with the instructions here, then you need to gain consensus to change. You can't simply choose to ignore the instructions and then brush off the concerns of those who are doing what the instructions say to do. We work on consensus, not "I'm right and you're wrong because policy says. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one doing the lawyering with this comment, if there is a wide support not to use "frameless", I will have no trouble with it, and by wide support I mean across the whole project not just one or two WikiProjects. Also this revert[1] and the fact you are not addressing the other people's arguments here shows how little you care about other editors ideas or concerns. If its such a "horrible colour" why didn't you change it to a better colour instead of just half reverting it to make a point and creating a problem, which is white text on a light blue background. Finally I am not ignoring the instructions, they say the image should be resized to 300px or less, "frameless" is within that requirement. The fact you both want to only use 250px requires consensus to change the instructions. -- d'oh! _[talk] 10:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is, there is currently no consensus to use only "frameless" in this template. Nothing you have said above changes this. The reversion I made to {{CastleTV}} is not relevant to this discussion. Please stay on-topic. Your changes to "frameless" are predicated on supposed compliance with WP:IMGSIZE, and when you are reverted you warn people not to revert again and state you will view any further reversion of your edits as vandalism. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you clearly are demonstrating an unwillingness to collaborate. I have to agree with Xeworlebi, your stance is quite arrogant. Until such time as this changes, I don't see how we're going to get anywhere. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's fairly simple, currently 250px is used, this has been so for years, which is not a violation of the policy, and is perfectly acceptable. The fact that the policy does not forbid this, but allows it, makes that current consensus on individual wikiprojects and templates trough editing still holds, you want to change this to frameless. That would require a new consensus here, since current practice is within the policy boundaries. Just because a new format becomes the preferred one higher up does not mean that other formats are banned from use on individual wikiprojects and templates. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the best interest of the project and avoiding a large scale war, I am dropping it, but I hope the idea of using "frameless" images in the television infobox is at least looked as a option. -- d'oh! _[talk] 17:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems as though there is no consensus for either option. The entire image size thing with infoboxes will always be a problem so long as we are using "px" units for images and "em" units for the width of the box. The width of the box will depend on the width of the font, and resizing the font resizes the box without resizing the image. That's not to say we should use "px" units for the infobox, since W3 guidelines suggest always using relative rather than absolute units. So long as there are variations in browsers, and people tweaking options, there is no way to please everyone. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the description of these should be changed from "produced" to "released". This comes up every once in a while and an old discussion from when the doc was changed ( didn't really have an end. The main issue I have with produced is that it is the exception, it's often not sourced at all, and when sources are given these mostly don't talk about production but about the order they got. Very few sources state when shows have actually finished production, it's often mistaken for ending of filming and what about post-production? Going with episodes aired is much more streamlined and gets rid of the very few places that use produced. I would go with "released" rather than "aired" in case of unaired episodes which are released on DVD or online. Saying this, I have only seen a real issue about this at Dollhouse some time ago, the rest have always been based on production order rather than sourced information about the number of episodes produced. Basically the episodes released are used pretty much everywhere. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} When wiki italic marks are used in the show_name, the title of the article is not italicized.

Article title italicized:

| show_name = Show name

Article title not italicized:

| show_name = ''Show name''

Someone should clarify this and make a note or a comment on the Template page that including wiki italic marks for show_name does not italicize the article title. XP1 (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose this type of formatting. Changing the displayed title should only be done for cases like "eBay" and similar. This doesn't meet the criteria to change the name. Or am I missing some consensus somewhere where italic titles are allowed for television shows and films? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITALICTITLE, says it should. The link you provide mentioned the template used for this, {{Italic title}}. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. Sorry for not checking through. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the template only italicizes the article title when it's the exact same as the one in |show_name=, which excludes addition markups there and disambiguated pages. Also |show_name= is already italicized so no-one should manually italicize that parameter. {{Italic title infobox}} exists, which should work fine here as well, It's deployed at {{Infobox album}}. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's deployed at {{Infobox film}} as well. This was the edit made, and it's better than just {{Italic title}} because you can include parameters in the infobox like |italic title=no to prevent italics or |italic title=force to force italics, especially for titles with symbols (like it was applied for (500) Days of Summer) or titles that more than 50 characters. I put together guidelines at MOS:FILM#Article italics; feel free to copy. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Please make the required changes to Template:Infobox television/sandbox and when you have reached an agreement, reactivate the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the "language" field would it be alright to link to the local variant of English such as American English for an American TV show or Australian English for an Australian TV show (something I'm thinking of doing for the CNNNN and Neighbours articles). Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editrequest}} The template currently links to {{italictitle}}. This is a redirect to {{Italic title}}. Could someone please change this to link to the page directly rather than the redirect? Mhiji (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but this is really rather pointless, per WP:2RD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italic implementation

{{Edit protected}} I would like to request that the way the italic title is implemented be changed. Change {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{{show_name}}}|{{italictitle}}|}} to {{Italic title infobox|{{{italic title|}}}}}, this is used in several other templates and allows forcing italics (for including brackets) and turning it off. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would affect existing uses (if show_name is not equal to PAGENAME. Therefore I think this might need further thought/discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is used at {{Infobox film}}, {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox album}}, all templates which use it. It will finally italicize all the disambiguated TV articles, |italic title=no can disable it, both which are current problems with the way it is setup here. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Per above - needs to be changed to italicize all the disambiguated TV articles. Mhiji (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the infobox has automatic italicization of an article's title text, how does one override that for articles whose titles are not television series (e.g. Fred Figglehorn)? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a function listed above that does it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]