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 when more than 4 sections are present.

I was thinking that the template should say "Original language(s)," not just "Languages" to be clearer, or to stop readers from thinking that the series/movie got dubbed when it really didn't. That should help.

166.137.100.42 (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What specific change are you proposing? Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, seems straightforward enough. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2006, there was a brief discussion about having head_writer as a parameter, at a time when there wasn't a writer parameter. It didn't get much discussion back then, but since its easy to find nearly 400 uses of "head writer" in existing articles, and over 170,000 hits for the term on IMDb, I'd like to get feedback from some of the 117 editors interested in this template as to whether you think adding "head writer" would be an good idea. Thanks in advance — 68.165.77.155 (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs clarification; Is it as I believe for content editor of news/political programmes such as Panorama and Newsnight or as many seem to think for film editors. If it is film editors surely it should be after director of photography. Comments please. REVUpminster (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A number of the labels have the optional pluralised "(s)" on the end. It's fairly common practice for these kinds of labels not to be pluralised, leaving the singular form of the label to be applicable if there are multiple entries in the field. Singular should be the default, unless the field would always result in multiple entries, and then the plural form should be used. Labels in question: Creative director(s); Composer(s); Original language(s); Executive producer(s); Producer(s); Editor(s); Location(s); Production company(s). I propose we take all of these back to singular. Any objections? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please add a "Based on" field to this infobox, perhaps after the "Created by" field? Many television series are based on existing series, films, novels, comics, and so on. For example, the editors of the Sherlock (TV series) article have resorted to a [makeshift solution] with a bolded note about Arthur Conan Doyle's source material shoehorned into the field intended for the names of the creators, and the editors of Hannibal (TV series) have inaccurately [given] Thomas Harris creator credit for the TV show, with parentheses explaining the nature of his involvement.

I think that it would be much neater, more informative and more straightforward to add a field specifically for the source material and its author; this would have the added benefit of being consistent with Template:Infobox film, which already has exactly the feature I'm proposing. —Flax5 19:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, was actually about to ask the exact same thing before finding it already posted. Many TV series (True Blood, Hannibal, Elementary, The Vampire Diaries, Pretty Little Liars, Game of Thrones, Haven to name a few off the top of my head) are based on novels or pre-existing materials and right now there is no good way of acknowledging them. I think a based on template should be added. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm hoping to get some clarification and edification about the use of the fundamentally-flawed "last_aired" field in infoboxes, because its use/misuse is driving me a little nutty. I know there has been debate over this before, (Archive 4 and 5) but I'm not certain what the official position is, and I'm desperately trying to avoid reading the textwalls of rage. As editor Barsoomian pointed out here, shows just end. This appears to be the case with networks such as Nickelodeon, who, unlike NBC, don't typically pen press releases proclaiming "This show is canceled." To make matters worse, since Nickelodeon doesn't seem to really have "seasons", and they tend to trickle new episodes over months or even years (ex: Fanboy & Chum Chum and Robot and Monster), it becomes even more difficult to point at these shows and say, "definitely cancelled". Compounding the frustration, are the legions of children on both sides of the fence who insist Show A is cancelled, and "Nuh uh!" Can it be appropriately assumed that if a pickup is not announced at the following year's "Upfront", that the show has been cancelled? And more importantly, should the "last_aired" field be used to indicate the last date a new episode was aired, rather than an "end date" for the series? I feel like a goon every time I revert a "last_aired" submission for shows that show little indication of returning. Thank you for helping me work through this tough time in my life.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]