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 4 sections are present.

Can Planned by be added as parameter? Or can we continue using "Created by" and "Developed by"? The South Korean infobox has it and a lot of articles (TV series articles) use it. Manly, a planner is a production manager that oversees the production company and help it plan the work. He is not part of the production company or it is an entire different company that help plan everything before the production company start shooting. So far people have been using "Created by" and "Developed by" since there is no "Planned by". May question is, which is the correct parameter for this? CherryPie94 (talk)

Hi, should we be listing series that have had a few years gap and have come back as a revived format. For example Dancing on Ice finished in 2014 but then returned in 2018, so should we list the start and end dates separately? MSalmon (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The start date is the first date that the first ever episode aired. The end date is the first date that the last ever episode aired if the program has ended. If the series is still airing, which includes revived series, then the end date in the infobox is "present". This has previously been discussed and is in the instructions for the infobox. Your most recent edit to the Dancing on Ice infobox was quite correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What if the show has had a name change i.e. The Million Pound Drop to The £100K Drop MSalmon (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to the top:

   {{redirect|T:ITV|the ITV navbox|Template:ITV}}

or the template namespace equivalent. Because this template lists T:ITV as a shortcut while {{ITV}} is its own template. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is generally better to add things like this to the documentation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: - Shortcuts are added to the documentation as indicated by MSGJ and there is already a shortcut at the top of the documentation subpage. There is therefore no need for a shortcut in the template itself. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The country or region a show merely happened to air in first is incidental information, and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual production of the show.

It also confuses readers because there are no other fields referring to this one, e.g. first_network. (And I would certainly oppose introducing any, for both trivia and size reasons.) Modernponderer (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most TV programs first air in the country of origin, i.e. where the program is filmed and/or produced. However, there are some programs where the program is produced in one country but then first airs in another country. Indeed, many US TV programs have aired in Canada the day before it aired in the US. The country where the program first airs generally determines the air dates in the episode lists so this needs to be identified, which is why first_run exists. It's not trivial at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:AussieLegend, the original network as referred to in the infobox is the network of production, not a random channel possibly halfway across the world that just happened to air the show first. Air dates from other countries cannot be included in the infobox (doing so violates not only WP:TRIVIA but also WP:UNDUE). Modernponderer (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing network with company. Per the infobox instructions:

network - The original network(s) on which the show has appeared.

company - The names of the production company or companies that funded/organized series production.

The network is not necessarily the company that produced the series. There was a long discussion regarding first_run back in 2014 that I started. It is now archived here. A subsequent RfC failed to gain any support for removal. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AussieLegend: I am not confusing anything. The original network(s) are the ones that appears in the closing credits, if any. If for some reason this information is not available, then it is the network(s) that contributed to the production of the series as verified by reliable sources. Finally, if none of this applies then the network can be assumed to be in the country of production.

Your interpretation would force recognizing an "original network" in a country that has absolutely nothing to do with the show. Again, WP:UNDUE prohibits this, and as it is policy you could not override it with consensus here even if it existed!

The RfC on this parameter you're referring to – which I started – had no input whatsoever from other editors, so I could just as easily say it failed to gain any opposition as well. If it were an AfD, it would have been relisted. Unfortunately publicizing RfCs is unnecessarily much more difficult.

On the other hand, your proposal actually did fail to gain consensus, despite quite a bit of discussion. The parameters you proposed were not implemented, and are unlikely to ever be. Modernponderer (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you are wrong. If a program was produced by NBC but aired on CBS, then |network=CBS is the correct entry. That's why the instructions say "The original network(s) on which the show has appeared." If the program simultaneously aired on CBS and NBC, both would be included.

then it is the network(s) that contributed to the production of the series as verified by reliable sources. - That is not supported by the instructions. Again, you are confusing this with the "company" field, which is about production.

The RfC on this parameter you're referring to – which I started – had no input whatsoever from other editors, so I could just as easily say it failed to gain any opposition as well - Ahh, so you're another account of Dogmaticeclectic. An RfC requires the support of others in order to implement a change. If nobody supports or opposes then the proposal fails so failure of anyone to participate can only be taken to mean, given the number of editors who participated in the previous discussion, that people weren't interested in making that change, no matter how much they were hounded. By contrast, the changes proposed by Favre1fan93 did receive support, but the discussion just fizzled out like so many do. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:AussieLegend, your statement about me reads like a personal attack, so please strike it out. This is not "another account" – it is exactly the same account.

Your interpretation leads to absurd situations. Consider even these very basic examples:

• A show was made in the US with participation from the US broadcaster but with absolutely no input from Canada, and was bought by broadcasters worldwide but happened to air in Canada one day earlier than in the US. You would permanently replace the US broadcaster with the Canadian one in the infobox. How in the world is this in line with policy, or remotely useful to readers?
• A show was made in the US but first appeared online on a foreign broadcaster's streaming platform. Would you replace it then as well?
• A show was made in the US but was first aired in a non-English-speaking country. How would you even put this in the infobox? Would you change the "original" language of the show too? After all, the merits of the definition are the same as those for an original broadcaster involved in production...
• A foreign-language series was first aired in the US, or another English-speaking country – perhaps even merely being made available online in some form. Would you really violate Wikipedia:Systemic bias and put the US broadcaster in the infobox?

The simple fact is, if there are commissioning broadcaster(s) for a show – and for modern series there virtually always are – those must be the ones included in the infobox. This prevents quasi-paradoxes like the ones I pointed out, is what policies such as WP:UNDUE require, and is what readers expect to see in an article – not some broadcaster from a country they may never have even heard of. Modernponderer (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A statement of fact is not a personal attack and, no, it's not the same account. Dogmaticeclectic has had a number of name changes and it would have been nice to know who I was talking to. The last name that Dogmaticeclectic was moved to is still registered. This appears to be a separate account, which is fine as you've disclosed other accounts on your user page. Also, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, you don't need to ping someone every time you reply to them. If they're watching the page, as I am here, they'll see your response. It can be annoying to other editors and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop pinging me. Now, let's move on.

A show was made in the US with participation from the US broadcaster but with absolutely no input from Canada, and was bought by broadcasters worldwide but happened to air in Canada one day earlier than in the US. - Per the infobox instructions it would be appropriate for |first_run=Canada if the series consistently aired in Canada before the US. If it was a one-off incident then commonsense would dictate that first_run would not be completed. The other examples that you've provided have never eventuated to my knowledge. It does nobody any good to consider such possibilities until they happen. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is in fact the same account, like I said. For technical reasons, the redirects had not been updated – I've gone ahead and fixed those. I would suggest not relying on redirects to determine user identity in the future, or questioning what established users tell you about their own accounts for that matter (and in doing so making incredibly dismissive statements that read like attacks).

Second, I cannot know in advance who does not want to be (re-)pinged, or guarantee that I will remember past requests. Now that you have asked, I will stop doing so in this discussion, and will do my best to remember that in future discussions. But, especially on longer talk pages, even having them watchlisted does not mean you will necessarily spot an updated discussion, which is why I continue to use pings unless requested otherwise.

Third and most importantly, you basically dismissed almost everything I wrote as "unimportant" hypotheticals. Even in the one example you did address, you essentially contradicted yourself in terms of application, since now you claim there is a new, unspecified, and arbitrary cutoff for "consistently aired" vs. "a one-off incident". Do you not understand that parameters are supposed to be general, not for incredibly specific use cases that you may have in mind? You have to consider all the reasonably possible use cases, because otherwise infobox parameters are as good as useless. Modernponderer (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an account is still active, it doesn't matter if it redirects somewhere else, it's still an account. Provided they are used legitimately, multiple accounts can be used even if they are used by the same editor, but they're still separate accounts. I don't know why you're still going on about this. Regardless of whether or not you know someone is watching a page, you don't need to ping them every time you respond to them. Reply and if they haven't responded in a reasonable time, ping them then if necessary. Pinging someone every time is completely unnecessary. It's like a small child yelling out "Mum! Mum! Mum! Mum! Mum! Mum! Mum! Mum! Mum! Mum!" That leads me to:

you essentially contradicted yourself in terms of application, since now you claim there is a new, unspecified, and arbitrary cutoff for "consistently aired" vs. "a one-off incident". - Not at all. As I said, you have to use a bit of commonsense. The field is aimed at identifying when a series airs in a country other than the country of origin. If a US series airs its first episode in, say, Botswana before the US and then every other episode in the US first, it's misleading to use Botswana in the infobox. The infobox is about the series, not individual episodes, and articles are supposed to report the entire history of a series. In this case it might be appropriate to include a note in the prose that episode 1 aired in Botswana before the US but it's not something that should be in the infobox, which is similar to the lede in that it is a summary of the whole series.

Do you not understand that parameters are supposed to be general, not for incredibly specific use cases that you may have in mind? - This is a rather hypocritical tack given your response to Whats new? in which you state as I already wrote, to my knowledge I have simply never seen one, and from such a perspective your claim that it is "often" mentioned seems incredibly dubious. That's pretty much the argument I used above; it's OK for you to use the argument but not me? Now that's contradictory.

You have to consider all the reasonably possible use cases - The suggestions you made are, in my opinion which is based on 13 years of edits to over 35,500 Wikipedia pages, not reasonably possible use cases. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called hypocrisy you are referring to does not actually exist, because the context is completely different. I am arguing that, in general, reliable sources do not care whatsoever about where a show aired first, so we are not allowed to care either (based on years of experience with reliable sources in general). You are arguing that the entire categories of shows that I am referring to are not reasonably possible use cases (based on your personal choices of which articles to edit). Once again, I refer you to Wikipedia:Systemic bias, and now ask: are you aware that your argument here is essentially based around that, and even perpetuates it? Modernponderer (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removal. I was actually looking at that parameter yesterday and it really seemed out of place. Regarding AussieLegend's comment, no reader unfamiler with what you just said will understand that from that parameter. If the episode tables need clarification of something, then one of the {{Efn}} templates should be used on those tables. Unrelated side note: I believe that |country= would better fit in the Release section where this parameter is. --Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem here. Perhaps Gone (TV series) is a good example. Commissioned by broadcasters in France and Germany for an American production company to make, but aired first in Australia. I think the infobox is pretty clear and contains all the relevant information. Country of origin, Production companies, Original network and First shown in all seem to work and all are notable. If anything, it makes it more notable that the program aired first outside its home market. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whats new?, how in the world is it notable!? Would a single reliable source ever even comment on the fact that a show first aired in another country, outside of purely technical citations like for schedules? In all my years of looking up sources for even the most obscure shows, I have never seen this – WP:RS only ever mention original networks, or the network they are focusing on (often the one in the same country as the source) regardless of first airdate.

Furthermore, even if we did for some bizarre reason consider this as "notable" information when reliable sources do not even include it, we would have to change this parameter to first_network because the fact that the different network is in another country is a completely arbitrary distinction – it goes against the rationale behind WP:INFOBOXFLAG much more than it would by actually just using a flag. Modernponderer (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is often mentioned in news media when a program or episode will debut outside its home market first. I think things as they are now are fine, and don't see any need for change, and frankly don't understand the fuss here -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whats new?, could you please provide even a single example? Because, as I already wrote, to my knowledge I have simply never seen one, and from such a perspective your claim that it is "often" mentioned seems incredibly dubious. Modernponderer (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gone is the only example I can think of, as I raised earlier [1] which premiered first in Australia. No one would reasonably say it was an Australian show, it just happened to be broadcast on an Australian channel first before any of its three home markets. The infobox works. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whats new?, thank you for providing that link. It is indeed a reliable source supporting that claim, but given how unusual it is it should only be noted in prose in the article's broadcast section per WP:TVINTL, and not in the infobox.

(Note that TVINTL was very contentious and mentioning foreign broadcasters at all barely got consensus, so I really struggle to see how having an infobox parameter for this type of information is in any way logical even from a consensus perspective.) Modernponderer (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm not sure how you think this is different from, say, |country= from {{Infobox book}}. In most cases the network on which a series first airs is not "a random channel possibly halfway across the world that just happened to air the show first."— TAnthony^Talk 01:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:TAnthony, this infobox template does have its own "country" parameter, as well as an entirely separate "network" field for the original network(s). The parameter in question is used for something entirely different, that is very often "a random channel possibly halfway across the world that just happened to air the show first". Please refer to the discussions above, where I explained the issue in detail. Modernponderer (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "country" field in {{Infobox book}} has a similar use to "first_run" here, which is different to the use of "country" in this infobox. That's what he was talking about, not implying that this infobox doesn't have one. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Infobox book does not have a separate parameter for a second country that is entirely separate from the production of the book. And even if it did, publication is part of producing a book, while merely broadcasting a show has nothing whatsoever to do with producing it! The analogy fails on multiple levels. Modernponderer (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A show was made in the US but was first aired in a non-English-speaking country. How would you even put this in the infobox? Would you change the "original" language of the show too?" So what do you do with "Stargate Atlantis" or "Supernatural", which were produced in Canada but first run in the U.S.? (I'm less sure about the likes of "Rookie Blue" , which AIUI was made for Canadian TV & exported. It appears "Diamonds", which I first saw on on CBS, actually ran first on Global.) Omit the U.S. network? And what happens to "Airwolf" or "JAG", which debuted on one network & moved to another, or changed production companies, or both? You seem to think only networks produce programming; AFAIK, that's never been the standard in U.S. or Canadian TV, though it might be elsewhere. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trekphiler, you bring up some rather interesting cases but your characterization of my position is incorrect – it is in fact the exact opposite. I am drawing a distinction between production companies and commissioning broadcasters. The former go into the company field, the latter under the network parameter.

Countries are, and should be, largely irrelevant for the infobox outside of the country parameter itself – which according to the documentation for company should pretty clearly be based on that (and not the networks at all), though it is not stated explicitly. Modernponderer (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am drawing a distinction between production companies and commissioning broadcasters. The former go into the company field, the latter under the network parameter. - Where did you come up with "commissioning broadcasters"? That is not at all mentioned in the infobox. The instructions are quite clear |network=The original network(s) on which the show has appeared. Nowhere does it talk about commissioning broadcasters. This seems to be only your (mis)interpretation. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only interpretation of "original networks" that does not violate WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, and WP:TRIVIA is as "commissioning broadcasters". (Note furthermore that "original" is not the same as "first", e.g. as used in the parameter we are talking about here.) Modernponderer (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note furthermore that "original" is not the same as "first" - You are incorrect. Quite some time ago we had a problem with people adding networks to infoboxes that resulted in the usage being changed, or rather confirmed as meaning the first network on which a series aired. To the average person "original" and "first" mean the same thing, at least as far as the channel/network is concerned. An example of the problem was that a program was first aired on "network 1". Reruns subsequently aired on "network 2" then it later appeared on "network 3". People would add "network 2" and "network 3", because they were networks on which the program aired, which was wrong. The field is for the first/original network. Nobody has ever discussed "commissioning network". Again, this is only your interpretation and is not the way that the field is used or, to my knowledge, has ever been used. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are incorrect – on all counts (other than the reruns thing, which is obviously true but a red herring in this discussion). First of all, even if you were right that that is not how it is currently used, that would still be how it ought to be used. I remind you that WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, and WP:TRIVIA are policy (or a guideline in the latter case) and per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot be overridden neither by "accepted use" (which hardly qualifies as consensus at all), nor even by an actual consensus here! Second, in my extensive experience editing TV series articles, that has essentially always been how it was interpreted, and it is in fact your interpretation that when attempted has been quickly reverted and provoked significant controversy (for very good reason). Modernponderer (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of this, and similar discussions does not support your claims but it appears that reality is not something that you are willing to accept. As for your extensive experience editing TV series articles, I'm not convinced, nor impressed with such a claim, given my own experience. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could say all of that to you (given that this discussion is a pretty obvious "no consensus" right now). The simple fact is that we probably need a separate discussion on the question of "original networks", as that seems to be the key issue – on which basically nobody else has even weighed in here. Modernponderer (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

♠"your characterization of my position" I don't mean to characterize it in any fashion. It's evident I've misunderstood your intent, because I read it to mean produced in one country & broadcast in another, without regard to "commissioning".

♠On the matter of "commissioning", that implies networks are pre-ordering certain kinds of pilots, & AFAIK, no network has ever done that. If you mean, the network that buys the particular pilot (series), I think we still disagree, but I'm not (now) clear enough I've understood you correctly. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with pilots. A modern TV show generally has commissioning broadcaster(s) listed in the credits for the entire duration of the series. Modernponderer (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current parameter fulfills its function. For example, see La Piloto, Amar a muerte, La bella y las bestias.--Philip J Fry (¿Dime quién ama de verdad?) 02:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Philip J Fry, what!? The country of origin is already stated to be the US there! Why in the world would you need two parameters to say the exact same thing? Your examples only serve to demonstrate why it is not needed... this is seriously getting ridiculous. Modernponderer (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Modernponderer: Eh?, nope. Both productions belong to two countries that are Mexico and United States.--Philip J Fry (¿Dime quién ama de verdad?) 03:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are you talking about? The first two articles have "United States" for both the country and first_aired parameters, while the third lacks the former entirely. No mention of Mexico at all! (And may I ask why you're pinging yourself, User:Philip J Fry?) Modernponderer (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It must be because no one has bothered to mention it, or maybe it's lazy. Or maybe it was omitted because it premiered first in the United States. I know there are so many reasons, for example. The first season of La Piloto premiered first in the United States, while the second season premiered in Mexico.--Philip J Fry (¿Dime quién ama de verdad?) 03:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @User:Philip J Fry: Then perhaps you should change that before using it as an argument, especially so I can see whether there is at least a local consensus for that information to be there!

But even if you're right about that info – you're simply pointing out that the countries that should be listed are the US and Mexico. So what is the point of listing both of them twice? What is the purpose of this parameter being in the infobox, as opposed to "country"? Modernponderer (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think its use is already explained. For example if the introduction of the article does not say something about it, this helps anyone understand and know in which country premiered a production. And really, I will not change my opinion. The parameter fulfills its function very well.--Philip J Fry (¿Dime quién ama de verdad?) 16:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Then you should be aware that WP:POLL applies to all consensus on Wikipedia, not just deletion discussions. And given that your opinion is essentially WP:ILIKEIT without offering any explanation whatsoever for the duplication of identical information, I cannot take it into serious consideration – and I would expect that to be the case for other editors as well (such as a potential discussion closer). Modernponderer (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: When did this paremeter get added? I have done many infoboxes in the last 10 years and have never used it. I can see problems with many shows such as Game of Thrones that has been having simulcasts in the UK and America and I think in other parts of the world. The paremeter is not being used there. REVUpminster (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The field was added 12 years ago.[2] Like most fields, it doesn't need to be used in every infobox.

I can see problems with many shows such as Game of Thrones ... The paremeter is not being used there. - If it's not being used there it's not really a problem is it? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]