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.

I just recently learned that the |editor= parameter is only meant to be used for the content editor(s) of a political show. There are many articles that misuse this parameter, so perhaps we need to rename it to |content_editor= and go through existing uses of it and remove the inappropriate ones. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support creating |content_editor=, but |editor= should stay to indicate Film editors, which is what I'm assuming is how many articles are using it now. That is an acceptable parameter to include under the "Production" heading for nonpolitical shows, and it would be necessary if the infobox is used for television films. This change would affect the few articles that are using it correctly currently (a small number I'm assuming), while no change would be needed on the articles using it "incorrectly". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would be fine with having |editor= for film editors. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to this edit on 16 February 2013, the instructions for the field simply said "The editor or editors of the show". The edit was apparently made as the result of this unanswered question 2 days earlier. The question acknowledges that the field was as many seem to think for film editors, yet the change was made to the personal preference of the editor who asked the question. Looking at the field from the POV of most editors who, from my experience, never seem to bother looking at instructions, what is the difference between "content editor" and just "editor"? Surely an editor edits content? And, for those who do read the instructions, what relevance are "film editors" to a template that, until relatively recently, only catered for television programs? {{Infobox film}} was the infobox for films. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie, are you saying, then, that the parameter should be left as is, and should cover both film editors (ie the people who composite together the footage shot to make the episode) and "content"/news editors, with the documentation reworded to notate such? And if we should split out to specifically notate these "content" editors, maybe the param should be |news_editor=? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think something more specific as you've proposed, is probably a wise choice if the intention is to create a new parameter. There are a lot of TV articles out there, and I'm not sure the global community is going to be able to figure out what "content_editor" is. I too thought this parameter was just for regular video editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, common sense would generally veer towards the parameter being about film/video editing, and the original wording was vague. But I don't know how the editor who made the change felt it meant what they changed it too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyuszika7H, AussieLegend, and Cyphoidbomb: So this discussion went a bit stale, but can we implement the changes as discussed? Have |editor= be for film editors, and create a new parameter (we said |content_editor= but whatever would be the best wording) for the news editors? And then we'd have to search through articles using the parameter and adjust as needed (which I'm presuming would be a small number that would need to change). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi F1F93, I support |editor= to mean the person who sits in the video editing bay. |content_editor= I fear is far too broad and I can see legions of ignorant users mistakenly using that, because everything on TV is "content" and "editor" is the person who sits in the editing bay. Instead I support the creation of |news_editor= for news editor unless someone can think of a reason why that's too narrow a label. My feeling is that with a clear description in the documentation, it shouldn't be an issue. Ex: "|news_editor= This field should be used to indicate the senior reporter who oversees the writing of news and magazine video content." (or whatever the proper clear definition is.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would support that. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A film editor should in the pecking order come below cinematography. As in example of a political programme an editor is usually the last named reflecting the responsibility as a film director in a drama would have. REVUpminster (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. So @AlexTheWhovian and Cyphoidbomb:, can either of you make these changes for us since you have template editor rights? The current |editor= should be moved below |cinematography=, and where |editor= currently sits, should be the new parameter, |news_editor= (News editor). We'll also need to see what articles are currently using |editor= and which of those need to become |news_editor= now (because a bunch are using it to represent film editors), maybe in a tracking category? Let me know if anyone has any questions, and I'll also update the documentation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AlexTheWhovian just pinging you again to see if you saw this to implement it. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; saw it, completely slipped my mind. I'll take a look at it today for you! Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93  Done Changed order of parameters, and added tracking category for usages of |editor= to Category:Pages using infobox television with editor parameter (needs creating). Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created the cat. Didn't realize 5,000+ articles were using the editor param. Hopefully there is only a small amount that need changing. Its just a matter of finding the right ones... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm proposing the addition of |native_name= to the infobox for consistency with Template:Infobox film. Currently the way people indicate a series' native name is to paste the native script into the infobox like at Devathai (2013 TV series) where the Tamil script is pasted on the line below the show's title, but a better way to embrace this (and I think we should embrace it) is to create a unique parameter that allows us to display the name, but perhaps in a less prominent way. See Premam, where the Malayalam script appears underneath the image. The film infobox uses Template:Infobox name module. I think that module has a bunch of different options to it. Other templates use {{lang-ta|தேவதை}} to render Tamil: தேவதை. What do you think?

As for why I think the data is worth including, my reasons are three-fold: 1) It promotes accessibility to the English Wikipedia. People searching for a show in their mother tongue will have the option to read an article here. 2) It makes it easier for Wikipedians to find other references if we have the native script at hand. There are reliable published sources written in a variety of languages. 3) WP:NOINDICSCRIPT prevents the inclusion of Indic scripts in an article's lead, and readers want to put this information somewhere. The infobox seems like the quickest and simplest way to deal with this. The native language is going to get added anyway, so it makes sense to figure out a way to accommodate it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a very good idea to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support this idea as well. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me too. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend, Geraldo Perez, Favre1fan93, AlexTheWhovian, Adamstom.97, Bignole, EvergreenFir, and AngusWOOF: Any thoughts on this? Sorry for the obnoxious ping, but I didn't want to barrel ahead without getting some more feedback. If we decide to proceed, is there anyone locally who can make the change? Aussie? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any opposition after 9 days so I don't see a problem incorporating it, but I will wait for the others to reply just in case. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too see no issue with this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOINDICSCRIPT applies to wiki project India only and only for titles using Indicscripts and RfC intent seems to be ownership of which variation of script is correct for a title. Conclusion is to use IPA. Logically if an Indicscript version of the title doesn't go in the lead it shouldn't go in the infobox for the same reasons. Stuff in the infobox should reflect what is in the article proper and if a wiki project India guideline say it shouldn't go in the lead of article in that projects purview it shouldn't go in the infobox of those same articles either. This is separable from the the issue of having |native_name= which I have not objection to, just this cannot be a way around the RfC that relates to Indian articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't have a problem with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this is a good idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine. It also depends on how complicated the translation is. Some infoboxes as with Korea or China have their own section as with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: - It's interesting you'd bring up Crouching Tiger. The film infobox wants us to use the feature-rich {{Infobox name module}} in |native_name=. If you scroll through the name module template instructions, the sample Infobox is Crouching Tiger. I don't know if that means Crouching Tiger has not yet been changed to use the correct template, or if the community decided to go a different route. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections to this? If not, may we proceed? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no objections, Aussie, is there any chance you could monkey with the template to make this happen? I know that Template:Infobox film employs the {{Infobox name module}} template in this field. I don't know nuthin' about this technical stuff, so I don't know if {{Infobox name module|ta|தேவதை}} is better (it's certainly longer) or if {{lang-ta|தேவதை}} is better. Also, if you don't have time, no probs, I can go to The Pump. Don't mean to unfairly dump it on you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Cyphoidbomb's VPT request, I've added |native_name= to the sandbox. Please test to ensure that it has the desired effect. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JJMC89, I tested it here but don't see the result. I don't see that you updated the template here but I see your edits at testcases. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: Dammit. Mistyped your name. Sorry! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: I only added it to the sandbox, not the live template. If the testcases look good, I can sync it to the template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: Ah. Looks good to me! [1][2]. Thanks for the assist! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! Synced and documented. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should change the section of the template that says "original release" back to "original run", because I think "original release" would only be suitable for writing about a television movie. I don't think it makes sense to put on an article about a series, because obviously separate episodes of a series are aired. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about series that are released all at once, like Netflix's shows? Saying that they were originally released on a certain date and other series were originally released over a certain date range works for both situations, but original run only applies to traditionally broadcast series. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All series that run are released, but not all series that are released are run. The current term is acceptable. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The value of the parameter show_name_2 should be italicized to be consistent with show_name. Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should do it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 04:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Xaosflux

Your edit on the television infobox [3] is causing problems in cases like this and this where information about the second title is in parenthesis. Is there a way around this? Could you revert it if there isn't? Grapesoda22 (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapesoda22: I undid the edit. @Mdrnpndr: & @MSGJ:, please review. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xaosflux, we are not generally supposed to make allowances for parameter misuse. Please restore the edit without delay. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grapesoda22 does this explanation satisfy your concern? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux:Yes it does. Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Restored to version from last edit request. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So there are over 14,000 pages that are using the 4 deprecated params (Category:Pages using infobox television with alias parameters). Is there some reason that these params need to be deprecated?? Why not just support both? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These parameters are not deprecated. I must have added Category:Deprecated parameters in error when I created the cat, which was created to track uses of the aliases. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Zackmann08, @User:AussieLegend: I think the alias category should be deleted entirely. It's essentially a (hidden) badge of shame for using perfectly valid parameter names. Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdrnpndr: no objection here. I agree entirely. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The category is a maintenance category created in order to identify articles using aliases instead of the correct parameters, primarily targeting articles that have been incorrectly converted from using {{Infobox film}}, not as a "badge of shame", whatever that's supposed to mean. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: setting aside the "badge of shame" comment (which I took as a joke), I'm curious to what end the category was created? Is the hope to convert all these pages over? What is the harm in having the aliases? Just curious. :-) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV articles are a constant battle. Every day I have to clean out Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. Today is a good day, but normally there are 3-10 pages per day (it varies considerably). The alias category helps with that. Normally there's not a problem with aliases, but the fewer aliases we have, the easier it is to maintain Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. However, if we're seeing a trend with strange parameters, there might be a case to add an alias. That's the quick and dirty explanation. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: I'm certainly not advocating adding MORE aliases but with 14,096 pages using these aliases I say just let them be.... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been noticing for a while now, if I access an article on the mobile site using this infobox, the title above the image does not display. However, film articles do display the title. For comparison, see Spider-Man: Homecoming versus Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Comparing the code for the two infoboxes (this and Infobox film), the only difference I can see is this uses | aboveclass = summary navbox-title and the film infobox uses | aboveclass = summary. That's the only thing I can think of that is preventing this from happening, and such most likely be changed if that is the case. AlexTheWhovian, would you know any more about this given your work on templates? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it may be the case. I removed navbox-title in the sandbox for {{Infobox television}}, to match {{Infobox film}}, and per the testcases displayed in the mobile format for this template, it does seem to be the issue. However, looking at the testcases in the desktop format, it removes the styling of the header. In the mobile format, it appears that none of the subheaders (e.g. Production, Release) display either, where {{Infobox television}} uses these, but {{Infobox film}} does not. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

interesting. I see that too. At this time, I don't suggest we adjust, because we shouldn't remove that heading styling. Maybe this is a WP:VPT question? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an infobox using a class intended for navboxes ? Please remember that classes are not just pretty colors, they have semantics. Navboxes are removed from the mobile view, so it shouldn't be surprising that these titles are removed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ: Disregarding style and colors, are there any classes that would produce the same results for the headings that are not the navbox variety? I'm don't know anything about CSS options available, so any help would be appreciated. It does also seem like Alex created a work around in the sandbox with these edits to keep the style as is, but with the correct class. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, in general, we don't define classes for purely visual style and/or for templates that in most page views are NOT used. We just use inline styling (as bad as that is, but there is no other alternative right now). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]