Infoboxes
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

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.

Hey team, I see this has been discussed before here with apparently no follow-up, so just bringing attention back to it. Currently it is suggested to use |website=hide if you don't want to display the wikidata URL in the infobox, but instead of just hiding the field it is displaying "[hide Website]". Does anyone know how to address this? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up question. Why do we even need website info in the infobox anymore? Can't we just include it in an external links section at the bottom of the article? Just looking at other media infoboxes (film and video games), they don't include websites in their infoboxes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only just spotted this, but I support the idea. Remove the parameter and let External Links do the job it's brilliant at. - X201 (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the template code: {{#if: {{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} | [{{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} {{#if: {{{website_title|}}} | {{{website_title}}}|Website}}] }}. Looking at the code, I have no idea how the "hide" flag handles this. Regarding the removal of the parameter, I don't think I have a problem with it, but I'd like to point out that other TV- and media-related templates such as {{Infobox television season}}, {{Infobox reality talent competition}} and {{Infobox media franchise}} have this parameter. I'd be in favour of removing only if we are consistent with this across these related templates. --Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the three templates mentioned I can't see any special reason why they should keep the field either. - X201 (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still of the mindset of outright removal, and would support removal on the other templates Gonnym listed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left notices at the other templates about this discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hide parameter did work initially but broke when Alex 21 fixed something.[1][2] --AussieLegend (✉) 11:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97, Favre1fan93, X201, and AussieLegend: no one commented on this after I posted notices. How should we continue? --Gonnym (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still say it should be outright removed and any website(s) can be kept to the external links sections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Favre. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there I'm just asking if a show such as Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway has broadcast from one off filming locations such as Walt Disney World, is it acceptable for that Location to be mentioned in the infobox? Pepper Gaming (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Location should be the main/primary filming location. One-off locations shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox, but can/should be noted in the article body/appropriate area. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Can you edit that and add something that says no one off locations? And why shouldn't be included? Pepper Gaming (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Can someone answer my question please Pepper Gaming (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added "primary" to the location section, as that is what it has always meant.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bignole: Cheers, otherwise people will believe that one off locations are accepted (like me, until GUtt01 said otherwise)

This infobox uses |show_name= with |name= as an alias. This is inconsistent with most infoboxes with |name= being the field normally used. This also causes an issue with the ongoing conversion of television film articles to use this infobox rather than {{infobox film}}. The field is normally overlooked when manually converting, resulting in Category:Pages using infobox television with alias parameters being populated. I am therefore proposing that we deprecate |show_name= in favour of |name=, with |show_name= becoming the alias. This will not affect any existing articles as |show_name= will still work. Articles can be "fixed" on an ad hoc basis unless somebody wants to organise a bot to change all infoboxes. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: more intuitive, consistent and pragmatic. — Bilorv (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: No opposition from me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: @AussieLegend would this change include also |show_name2= to |name2=? --Gonnym (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would have to. (I actually forgot about that one) --AussieLegend (✉) 17:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, support both parameter changes. I would actually prefer the end result to have a bot replace the parameters (User:PrimeBOT is set up to handle such operations) and then remove it from the infobox code. --Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend and Gonnym: Actually, if we're going to make these adjustments, would it be better and potentially clearer to make |name2=, |alt_name=? I think just by looking at the parameter with that name, it is super clear what it should be used for. Right now, |name2= has ambiguity to what it could be used for in the template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems quite appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I just hope that there won't be confusion between it and |alt=. --Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The actual field is |image_alt= but it is interesting that I've found a lot of articles where image_alt has been removed because editors thought it referred to an alternate image, and "alt" when it has been included has been removed because editors thought it referred to an alternative name. I t seems a lot of people don't preview before saving. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for continuity. Helps to clear confusion for new (and long time for that matter) editors. MarnetteD|Talk 17:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 10 days have passed with 5 supporters and no one opposing. I'm going to implement the sandbox changes. --Gonnym (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you make a change like this, please purge the docmentation, so that it updates (I've done that now). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Gonnym: Thanks for doing the hard work on this. I was happy to do it myself but got distracted with other stuff so you diving in and doing it all is really appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem on my part, had some spare time so did some overall cleanup in the process. --Gonnym (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I came across this through other channels, I'll hit the cat with my bot to remove the deprecated params. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• replace with "title=" - works of art don't have "names" they have titles. -- Netoholic @ 02:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support replacing with "title" per Netoholic. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The changes have already been made. "Title" is not appropriate; this is a template, not an article, and the default parameter in infobox code is "name". The aim of deprecating "show_name" was to standardise the infobox with others. "Title" goes completely against this. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair; I misremembered the parameter name in {{Infobox book}}. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted today's changes, because [[Category:Pages using infobox television with alias parameters|]] was showing as raw text in articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was with a tracking template, so I've restored the edits but without tracking, for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having been reverted without explanation at Template:Infobox television/doc by Gonnym and AussieLegend, I am wondering why. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware of why I reverted your changes because I've had to warn you on your talk page (twice) about edit-warring and refusal to discuss your preferred, undiscussed changes. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said that there was an "edit war", despite the fact that one reversion by each of two people does not constitute an edit war under WP:EW. Beyond that, you provided no objection to the edit in se. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made a WP:BOLD edit, it was reverted by Gonnym and then you reverted to your preferred version without even trying to gain consensus for your change. That was edit-warring. I reverted you and you reverted me 3 minutes later, again without even trying to gain consensus for your change. That was more edit warring. My objection was to you edit-warring, which is why I left the summary,"Your edit was opposed, please discuss on the talk page. don't edit-war", which you ignored. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was edit-warring. Did you read WP:EW? It provides that "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." A single reversion hardly constitutes "repeatedly". 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted twice, the second time after I wrote "Your edit was opposed, please discuss on the talk page. don't edit-war". That's clear edit-warring. Yes, I have read WP:EW, I have submitted many reports at WP:AN3 and almost every one has resulted in the reported editor being blocked. Stop fighting and take responsibility for your actions. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to a documentation page of a template, especially one that is highly used as this one, should not happen without discussion. You've also changed a long-standing rule on what not to link without explaining, plainly saying Conforming with MOS guidance what guideline exactly was that? Your edit summaries shouldn't be cryptic. --Gonnym (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why change it to {{tq|most country articles}]? Why, in this instance, would links to some countries be okay, and others not? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant MOS guidance from MOS:OL is as follows:

Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: ...

• The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of:
  • countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian)

So, for example, Japan and Brazil would not be linked, but Bahrain would be. This is already established by a central consensus (which, while long-established, appears to have been discussed on the guideline talk page as recently as November). 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've also changed a long-standing rule I would hardly call it a rule (and all the less so if it is incongruent with the guideline on the subject). ... what guideline exactly was that? MOS:OL, which I discuss further below. But that doesn't explain why you wouldn't have used an edit summary when reverting – why is that? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where that guideline says to link to Bahrain nor did I see in the discussion. I reverted as you've changed the documentation page of a highly used template without any prior discussion. Should I have added a note "oppose undiscussed change"? Probably. Are you expecting a formal apology or something? --Gonnym (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where that guideline says to link to Bahrain nor did I see in the discussion. I didn't include suggest Bahrain was specifically mentioned my the guideline. Rather, it is clear from the guideline that countries "with which most readers will [not] be at least somewhat familiar" are typically linked, as is fitting with MOS:LINK § Principles generally. Do you read the guideline and the spirit thereof differently?

Should I have added a note "oppose undiscussed change"? Probably. Are you expecting a formal apology or something? I am not requesting a formal apology, but a brief "sorry" is typically offered by someone working in good faith to build a consensus in such a circumstance. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Bahrain be linked? It's quite a well known country, as are most countries. What makes Bahrain stand out? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we're linking anything, why not link to Television in Bahrain and the like? I agree that in most cases the country link is unnecessary, but if we made it more relevant with a link to the country's "Television in" article. -- Netoholic @ 11:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP is misinterpreting the text they quoted from WP:OVERLINK. All countries fall under examples of countries, not simply the two (or countries "deemed on the level" of those two) they presented in the example. So their claim that Bahrain would need to be linked is incorrect; it wouldn't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I guess you can consider this a separate proposal to have the infobox link to the "Television in [country]" articles, which would be a novel use and not OVERLINK. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linking simply a country name to "Television in [country]" would be an WP:EGG link. Readers would not know they are being taken to an article about television in that country. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a question about the use of parenthetical details in television infoboxes. When is it appropriate to use them, and when is it not? The template does not specify whether they can be used for director, theme_music_composer, composer, opentheme, endtheme producer, executive_producer, company, distributor, picture_format, or audio_format. I ask because most of these are presented with parenthetical details on the infobox for Dexter's Laboratory, and because there are not restrictions in place for these params, I'm not sure if I should leave these parenthetical details or remove them. Any guidance or clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 18:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to add an "Inspired by" parameter on the template? I noticed some TV series use "Inspired by" instead "Based on" according to their on-screen credits. "Inspired by" isn't the same thing as "Based on" and vice versa. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]