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

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

Contrary to what Aussie Legend and a tag-teaming editor claim, the RfC absolutely said reliable sourcing is required for runtime.

Here are the exact words by the closing admin: "The point at issue was, narrowly, are we allowed to use running time figures measured by individual editors directly. The answer is an unambiguous "no"< for the same reason that we would not allow such sources for the height of an actor or the size of a building. --Guy (Help!) 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC) --Tenebrae (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The exact words by the closing admin do not say that citations are absolutely needed. In fact, the closer clarified this very point when he said The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this RfC's admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR.

In the closing admin's words: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases".

He reiterated it on this page under "Thank you, and a question": "A reliable third party source is required."

In other words, we follow WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything added to Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source but not everything has to be cited. You don't seem to be able to differentiate between sourcing and citing, or to be able to understand the closer's clarification, which I see no point in repeating. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who closed it says you're misinterpreting the close, so I'll thank you not to make unverified claims about me as well as about running times. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misinterpret anything. The close was procedural, as stated by the admin in his clarification: Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind.[2] It says nothing about the need to cite every runtime in every article, as you are well aware. This seems to be an additional requirement that you are forcing, despite what WP:V requires, and this has been questioned by another admin at WP:AN3. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin says you are indeed misinterpreting. Here are his exact words:

Runtimes must be sourced. AussieLegend knows this as he was part of the RfC. If AussieLegend is adding runtimes from personal observation, that is original research and forbidden by policy. AussieLegend also knows this. WP:NOR is canonical policy, not a guideline. If AussieLegend wants to ignore policy, then he will be blocked. The simple solution is to find a reliable source for the runtime, and cite it. Adding it without a source is not only a violation of policy, it is also disruptive, because AussieLegend knows that adding unsourced runtimes does not enjoy wither [either] consensus or the support of policy. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

--Tenebrae (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not from the RfC close or the clarification of the RfC close. What I quoted was directly from the RfC. Everything added to Wikpedia must be sourced, but that doesn't mean everything has to be cited, as has been explained to you ad nauseam. Please, please, please take some time to read WP:V. There is a discussion at WT:V with some very good comments that may help you in this regard. The remainder of the comment clearly demonstrates that the admin has not bothered to actually investigate beyond reading what you wrote. As an example, the last time I actually added a runtime to an article was a very long time ago, but he seems to think I do it all the time based on what you told him. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The heading "Chronology" doesn't make sense when titles of "Related shows" are included (rather than "Preceded by" and/or "Followed by"). Can this heading be changed to "Related" (or something similar) which more accurately covers all three categories of related titles? —sroc 💬 17:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uses of this template use {{dts}} in the first_aired parameter, especially if the series has premiered and concluded in the same year, so that the dates appear as "May 7 – July 16, 2015" (for example). However, this is the incorrect usage of this template, per its documentation, and the documentation of this particular template clearly states that {{Start date}} should be used, so that the dates correctly appear as "May 7, 2015 – July 16, 2015" (for example). I have made edits in the sandbox to collect all the templates that use {{dts}} into a maintenance category (as of yet not created), checking for the presence of class="sortkey", which is only present in {{dts}}. If approved, I intend to do the same for {{Infobox television season}} (not protected). Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it was a typo, but your changes to the sandbox would put the articles into Category:Category:Articles incorrectly using Template:Infobox television with dts, which is not a valid name for a category. I'm only talking about the repeated "Category", not the inclusion of "Template:", although that may be an issue for other reasons. I can see the issue with using {{dts}} but we need an alternative. "May 7, 2015 – July 16, 2015" is not appropriate according to WP:DATERANGE, which says that "May 7 – July 16, 2015" is the correct format (see "between specific dates in different months"). --AussieLegend (✉) 15:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be beneficial to propose a new parameter over at {{Start date}} to hide the year? That way, the template still collects the appropriate info it needs, but what is displayed would satisfy WP:DATERANGE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding the year in {{Start date}} opens the door to vandalism which is not visible from the page itself.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How so? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that, Aussie! Favre, probably by setting the parameters to something like {{Start date|2500|5|7}}, which (per above) the year 2500 wouldn't appear and May 7 would be the output, but it would mess up the hidden metadata. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, does anyone have any further ideas on how to implement the correct date range? If not, should the edits in the sandbox be implemented into the live version? Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider adding a science advisor entry to the infobox. Thank you. JeanLucMargot (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation of |released=/|first_aired= explains how to treat aired "preview" episodes, but does not explain how to include on-demand episodes. It seems that often a later broadcast is given preference because of the historical naming of these parameters, however, to the reader this all displays as "Original release" which does not discriminate between broadcast and on-demand. (As a technical remark, actually, the |released= parameter is just an alias for the |first_aired= and if both are present, the latter has priority.) However, nowadays what used to be traditional broadcast networks also provide the same content on-demand before and/or after the broadcast which leads to mixed release schedules, e.g., a first on-demand release with later broadcast.

Also the |last_aired= parameter needs an update in naming or explanation for mixed release schedules. As two recent examples, all Public Morals episodes were released on-demand by September 5, yet the "Original release" dates state October 20 as the time the last episode was finally broadcast, taking the "last_aired" parameter literally. Wicked City "aired" an episode on November 10 for the last time, yet here the "Original release" states December 30 which is when the last episode was released on-demand in the United States, not taking the "last_aired" parameter literally.

I understand that the strict distinction between on-demand release dates and broadcast periods used to be meaningful at a time when there was only Netflix and traditional broadcasters, but nowadays it just leads to confusion and complication. I also understand that the current parameter names must be kept for backward compatibility, but they all luckily display the same as "Original release". All of this could be made easy by taking whatever release date comes first for the first and for last episodes as "Original release" span. This is one easy rule that fits pure on-demand, pure broadcast, and mixed release schedules, and only requires an update to the documentation. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed one page used no_seasons / no_episodes instead of num_seasons / num_episodes. I fixed it but am worried this might happen on other pages. Is there any way we can alias these so any pages calling on these NO inputs will give the info to the NUM inputs? Or can some bot detect when non-existant fields are called upon for this template and tag them for investigation and correction? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replace all occurrences of {{{num_seasons|}}} with {{{num_seasons|{{{no_seasons|}}}}}}, replace {{{num_series|}}} with |{{{num_series|{{{no_series|}}}}}}, and replace {{{num_episodes|}}} with {{{num_episodes|{{{no_episodes|}}}}}}. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please establish consensus for this change before reactivating the edit request. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We really shouldn't be adding aliases for one-off occurrences. I've been editing TV articles for a long time and I can't ever recall having seen this mistake. If it was happening often, then there might be a case to do so, but if we add aliases "on a whim" it just serves to bloat the template. @184.145.18.50: Have you found any evidence of this happening elsewhere? --AussieLegend (✉) 06:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help. Every time I try to create an infobox television template, I see a screwed up infobox template.

Could you please get that template fixed so that there won't be any more problems? AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AdamDeanHall: Where are you trying to add it? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It's happening everywhere. There were no changes here. @AussieLegend and AlexTheWhovian: Is this a Lua module-template? Did something happen on that end? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Every time I edit a page with this template, the title on the top of the infobox is smaller and no longer in italics. Something must have changed. Random86 (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure... There's been no changes on Template:Infobox television, which uses Template:Infobox (no changes), which uses Module:Infobox (no changes). Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Upon inspecting the element, I've found style="/* invalid control char */" in the header rows. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So is that the issue? How could it be if no one has edited any of the places that would affect this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that with the above there's no actual styling going on, that'd be the issue. Don't quote me on this, but I have a feeling it's further down the Lua line. Something else that the above use must have been incorrectly modified. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also got that problem. If a page hasn't been edited the title in the infobox is still in italics. But when you save your edit no matter where you added it the title comes as stated up there by a AdamDeanHall. Just to name a few; Empire and Frente al mismo rostro. Note: This only applies to pages that have undergone any of changes lately especially from March 10. To the admins, how can we solve the problem us as ordinary users? Could we force the italics by using double apostrophes? Please solve this problem.- Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 05:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyanchoka: It is affecting all articles that use it. You may have "purge" the article if it hasn't been edited in a while for it to happen. Also, admins generally don't roam the talk pages of project templates. If the regular editors of the project can't figure it out, then we'll notify the admins or WP:VPT. @AlexTheWhovian: Can you compare the code here vs the season infobox? That one isn't being affected as this one is. (I just tested by purging both Agent Carter (TV series) and Agent Carter (season 1). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox television/colour}} contains a list of 14 TV series that are permitted to use colour in the infobox. That has had no changes either, but for some reason the links to it in Infobox television are what were causing the problem. I've commented them out for now and that seems to have fixed the problem. I don't know why 14 articles are permitted to use colour, when the other 37,103 articles using the infobox can't. If nobody complains about these programs no longer having coloured infoboxes, maybe we should just delete the links altogether, along with Infobox television/colour. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Not entirely sure why background colours would introduce a HTML comment into the style tag. I'd support the deletion of colours - there's no need for them. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens.... This thread at the village pump revealed the same problem in {{Infobox television episode}}. Yes, the same solution fixed it. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be fixed after a hack to the colour subtemplate. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So stemming from the above issue, do we really need {{Infobox television/colour}}? Based on all we did the past year or so regarding updating color usage on the project, this seems unnecessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's no need for it at all. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated in sandbox. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting it out works too, but I don't see why, if it's not going to be reinstated. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts to permanently remove the colour have met with opposition. I've commented it out for now to see if anyone objects. You can ask a million people to discussions and only 3 will turn up, but take away their colour and they're more likely to join in. If nobody complains in a few days, we can delete it totally. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. And if we do delete it, we should also delete the subpage, so someone who might go snooping and finds it will try to reinstate it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be good to look at the talk pages for the series effected, because users are more likely to bring up the question of the color gone there, then the project page or here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by AussieLegend. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the pages we need to watch are:

• Talk:Angel (1999 TV series)
• Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer
• Talk:Entourage (TV series)
• Talk:Firefly (TV series)
• Talk:Futurama
• Talk:House (TV series)
• Talk:Mad Men
• Talk:Sex and the City
• Talk:The 4400
• Talk:The O.C.
• Talk:The Simpsons
• Talk:The Sopranos
• Talk:The X-Files
• Talk:Veronica Mars --AussieLegend (✉) 02:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I say we give maybe a weeks time to see if anything turns up. And if nothing, proceed with full removal and deletion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose that we switch the order of |num_seasons= and |num_series=. While the typical use for |num_series= is for the UK version of a season, there's also pages like this that list separate series, so I'd like to change:

| label22     = <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> of seasons
| data22      = {{{num_seasons|}}}
| label23     = <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> of series
| data23      = {{{num_series|}}}

to:

| label22     = <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> of series
| data22      = {{{num_series|}}}
| label23     = <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> of seasons
| data23      = {{{num_seasons|}}}

so that in the linked case, it is listed as series then seasons then episodes. Consensus? Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: As far as I can tell, the only time the two parametres will be appearing together is in a case like the one Alex linked to, in which it makes sense, I think, to list them series then seasons then episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]