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 feel the explanation for the location parameter should be edited slightly, by simply removing the part that says "Leave blank if same as country of origin above." This is rarely ever followed (rightly so), so it'd be nice to just see that sentence eliminated. Strictly speaking of American-produced TV, 95% of the time, a show will be shot in the U.S., obviously. Just because an American show is shot in America, doesn't make it's actual shooting location not important. It's important and notable that say, Breaking Bad shoots in New Mexico, or Homeland shoots in North Carolina, and The Walking Dead shoots in Georgia. The only time using the location parameter is unnecessary if it's for like a sitcom that shoots on sets in a warehouse in Los Angeles. Anyway, I just feel that part is dated and rarely followed, thus, should be updated. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree that this guideline "is rarely ever followed". The only person I have ever seen reverting the guideline is you. As you suggest, 95% of US shows are filmed in the US. Shooting in numerous states the US has become more common, with production companies choosing to go where it will be cheapest (i.e. incentives). Is it that notable that a show is not filmed in California that it needs to be mentioned in the infobox? Not really. There is plenty of room in the production section to discuss the exact location(s). This isn't the 1950s, when most shows were shot on an LA soundstage. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've only really reverted/added back the info a few times, filming location info has pretty much always been included in the infobox as far as I can remember. Anyway, you said, "This isn't the 1950s, when most shows were shot on an LA soundstage", correct...meaning aren't the filming locations notable? How is the filming location any less notable than say, the audio format, the ending theme, or editors, etc. Most of everything in the infobox is discussed in the article, in more detail, that's not really a good excuse. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITV's Endeavour (TV series) is a show written and devised by Russell Lewis. As enumerated in BBC Commissioning, a "deviser" is a standard showrunner role; it is similar to the creator role, though devising is based on another creator's work, similar to the "developer's" role that Ronald D. Moore had on Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). As a standardised role defined by the BBC and also used by ITV, I believe "Devised by" should be added to the infobox. Thanks. 72.244.204.252 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I floated this question by WP:TV. I was curious to find out if there's a rule/guideline that governs the appropriate usage of the genre parameter. I've seen a number of TV show infoboxes with very specific descriptions of the show's humor styles, e.g., "gross-out humor", "slapstick", "off-color humor". Some examples of these: Sanjay and Craig, Fanboy and Chum Chum, Ren and Stimpy. I've also seen a number of shows where very broad, obvious, indisputable genres were used, e.g., "Sitcom", "Adult animation", "Animated sitcom", like for Seinfeld and Family Guy. The Infobox television template points to Television program#Genres for examples, and I don't see categories like "black comedy" or "farce". How detailed should these genre descriptions should be? Obviously we should use sources if we're going to get into nuance, but I also see this being a perpetual source of frustration-- editors battling over their specific interpretation of a show's genre. "No, it's surreal humor!" "Nuh-uh, it's surrealism!" Thanks for your input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, it would be great if we could get a more descriptive explanation for the "format" parameter. It currently reads "The format of the show", and no one really seems to know what that means – most articles don't use it at all, and many that do (such as The Simpsons and Family Guy) use it interchangeably with "genre". —Flax5 18:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was confused by that as well! Thought maybe it had something to do with UK shows. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, we're gonna handle this format parameter once and for all! (I say, hoping naively that my sheer enthusiasm will lead to wide community interest and a permanent resolution!)

FACT: Template:Infobox television has a format parameter, and nobody seems to know how/if it should be used, or why it's still there. The lack of proper explanation is harming television articles, because well-intentioned editors, many of whom are children, have no idea what to put in these fields, so they guess. "Hmm, [[Booger humor]] sounds about right." Or editors will look at other articles to see what a "proper" usage of format is. But of course, there is no proper usage, because format was replaced by genre long ago.

BACKGROUND:

Jan 2005: The template as it was originally created. Format is there. All is quiet.

Dec 2005: Jeff Q proposes that format be changed to genre because "format" is ambiguous. Jeff Q is a sage man!

Feb 2006: Discordance changed format to genre but then changed it part-way back anticipating collateral damage.

Feb 2007: A time when format doesn't exist, having been replaced with genre

Mar 2007: Format returns inexplicably.

Sep 2007: KyuuA4 says format implies medium, such as Live Action, Broadway Play or Animation. The ambiguity continues!

Mar 2009: TheDJ explains that format is deprecated, having been replaced by genre. AnmaFinotera proposes its removal.

Mar 2010: Other editors are still confused. AnmaFinotera again proposes its removal.

SOLUTIONS:

PROPOSAL A: Listen to Jeff Q and AnmaFinotera! Cut the format parameter. What type of fallout will occur? Is there an easy way to fix it? Anyone talented enough to write a bot that can delete the parameter and its contents from every page that uses the parameter? Or can we generate a list and team up to do it manually?

PROPOSAL B: Change the description of the format parameter from "The format of the show" to something like, "Do not use. This parameter was replaced by genre." Then, we suppress format from displaying on any pages that use infobox television. This will allow us time to remove the errant data, without confusing casual readers. Then, we re-word genre with clear examples, so that children know "booger humor" doesn't belong there, but "sitcom" or "drama" does.

PROPOSAL C: Keep both genre and format, but clearly differentiate the two. Genre=comedy, drama, thriller, news. Format=animated series, sitcom, soap opera, magazine. (Or whatever.)

Whatever we decide, we need a solution that improves clarity, to help cut down on the extra work and confusion. We've ignored Jeff Q and AnmaFinotera for too long! Thank you for your time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter for Genre already exists. So, it would be redundant to utilize Format to include Genre. Just to pull out some examples:

• The Walking Dead (TV series)

Format used to denote the story telling style, to distinguish episodic vs non-episodic style (questionable)

• Full House

Format used to denote "genre" (incorrect)

• Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Format used to denote "genre" (incorrect)

• The West Wing

Format used to denote "genre" (incorrect)

• The Cosby Show

Format parameter not used at all

• The Lucy Show

Format parameter not used at all

• Breaking Bad

Format used to denote the story telling style, to distinguish episodic vs non-episodic style (questionable)

• Lost (TV series)

Format parameter not used at all

Conclusion. Eliminate the Format parameter, as many articles use it to label Genre. A number of series do not even use the Format parameter at all, and they can go along well without it. Therefore, Format parameter is not particularly needed. By elimination, that will force articles to properly use the Genre parameter; and thus, any confusion on its use would be eliminated. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I didn't know about this discussion (including previous) before, but interestingly enough, just about a week before this section was started, I had added a link for format in the parameter's explanation. And, yes, there should be a better explanation given ("Proposal C"), but the link certainly does help. Whenever I see an infobox using format for genre, I correct it. But, most show's infoboxes don't need to use the Format parameter at all. It should only be used for shows where the format is out of the ordinary. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your input. From what I can tell of the edit history and of the discussion history, "Genre" was created to replace the ambiguous "Format", so from my perspective, anybody who uses "format" to mean "genre" is using the field "correctly" (or more accurately, they're using a deprecated/abandoned field "correctly"). There is sufficient overlap between the two categories to suggest that they are the same thing, and I think we might be trying to ret-con what the fields mean (Which is fine, if we all agree to back Proposal C). Is "soap opera" a genre or a format? Is news a genre or a format? Is live-action a genre or a format? It seems to me that if we were to treat entertainment like animals, there should be some clear taxonomic hierarchy a la: Kingdom=Entertainment, Phylum=Television/Movie/Radio/Porn, Class=Serial/Special/Feature, Order=Daily/Weekly/Annual, Family=Sitcom/News/Reality, Genus=Live Action/Animated, Species=Slapstick/Magazine/Human interest, or something along those lines. But we only have two categories, and they both seem to mean the same thing as far as the community knows. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was going to refer to the List of genres article, but after taking another look I saw that a lot of what's listed as genre were actually formats. So, I have restructured the section, putting the genres under their respective formats. And instead of answering each of your questions here, you can see the answers by going to List of genres#Film and television genres. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That list looks a lot better! May I ask if you have a preference about what to do with the format parameter? Proposal A, B, or C? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "format" parameter at Template:Infobox television appears to be a deprecated parameter, having been replaced by genre long ago over concerns that "format" is an ambiguous terminology that creates confusion. The parameter has not been officially retired or deleted, so the confusion persists. There are three proposals on the table so far: A) Delete the format parameter from the template once and for all. B) Leave the parameter, but clearly mark it as obsolete in the template description. C) Re-define what "format" means for those who edit television articles. For context, history and scope the main discussion is here. 20:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support C. I'd rather that it be properly described. It could be used for animated/live action, serial drama, etc. I don't have a problem with it being discouraged or even deprecated, but it does seem to have some potential for usefulness (which is currently not being met, apparently). I'm sympathetic to the point of view that it's more trouble than its worth (due to being confused with genre), but I think we should try option C first before we deprecate it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I can see how it causes confusion. To me format implies either NTSC or PAL, or it could be used to denote whether a particular program is serialized or stand alone. It's just too confusing and I agree that it should be retired. Wickedlizzie (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Wickedlizzie's reasoning. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support also per Wickedlizzie's reasoning. – Recollected • 06:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support C and oppose all others: I don't see how, for example, it is supposed to be indicated that a show is an animated series without this parameter. The genre parameter is completely different in that it covers drama, comedy, etc. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is there any specific order in which the judges of a show need to be listed? --MSalmon (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should follow the casting order, since judges technically are the "stars" of the series. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with livelikemusic. –anemoneprojectors– 23:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]