Template talk:Infobox television

Add "IMDb-id" parameter

Please add a parameter called "IMDb-id" to this template so that it can be linked to its corresponding page in IMDb website. Mohammad ebz (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It is definitely inappropriate as it is not a reliable source at all. IMDb can only considered as an External link at the bottom of an article which is {{IMDb title}} — YoungForever^(talk) 07:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

What does it have to do with the accuracy of the information source ?, it is just an external link; If so, Wikipedia is also unreliable. The IMDb website is a center for movie and series information and is improved by its users almost like a wiki.

I suggested it only because the breadth and popularity of the IMDb website on the Internet is great and it is better to put it in the information box. (I have nothing to do with the accuracy and precision of the information contained in IMDb) Mohammad ebz (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Most external links other than the websites were removed from the infobox years ago. Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

For reference, imdb and tv.com were removed as parameters in 2009, based on the "film" infobox also removing external links. The discussion is in the archive here: [1]. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Website parameters

Is there still a worthwhile reason to include these in the infobox? I don't see the benefit to featuring any sort of website in the infobox when the External links section is perfectly sufficient for them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'd be inclined to lean towards keeping them. Most of the "Arts and culture" infoboxes use it (although "film" does not). Also, the resulting maintenance category to remove it would be significant - it would probably need a bot to clean up. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

As an addendum to the above, I was looking up the discussion relative to removing other external links (imdb and tv.com) which was done in 2009. In the discussion, it was mentioned that film was also removing external links, to include website. However, the discussion seemed to lean to leave the website as tv series sites tended to offer more than film sites (which were deemed to be little more than an advertisement offering little value). The discussion is here: [2] ButlerBlog (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is a more recent discussion which basically had consensus that wasn't acted upon. Gonnym (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - that looks like consensus. I've probably shifted from "weak keep" to "neutral" anyway. However, I doubt there are many editors that follow this level of detail in TV; most people seem to focus on the article level, so it's probably hard to get input for a broader consensus. In an unofficial survey, I believe it goes unused on most sites and on the sites that use it, it seems generally to be duplicated in the External Links. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I completely forgot I brought this up previously. Yeah, these definitely should be removed per that last discussion and me bringing it up again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, my opinion is only a "weak keep". So I'm definitely not married to keeping them. And on the "remove" side of the equation, there are a lot of instances of the infobox where this value is empty anyway. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing these completely and moving any link to the EL section. Regarding ButlerBlog concern of needing a bot, we already have those and this specific move is pretty straightforward. Gonnym (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I say keep them as they are on the Infobox because they are part of the summary aspects and I don't think general readers of articles would scroll to the bottom of an article to find the website. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But most other infoboxes don't include website parameters, and I think readers fare pretty well finding this. The question I have is, what makes a series' website something that needs to be accessed in the infobox? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I really don't understand the comment "most other infoboxes don't include website". It is a standard parameter on most infoboxes, such as biographies, schools, parks, museums, sports teams, universities, companies, and so on. The website is usually in the infobox and repeated in the EL section. The benefit is that the infobox is for "key infomation" that can be seen "at a glance", i.e. a quick summary. In most other infoboxes, it is considered something that fits this criteria and belongs in the infobox. I haven't seen any real reason given here for removal except that it "could just go in the EL section". That's not really a statement about its importance. MB 23:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You haven't listed other "media" infoboxes. Film and music infobox do not include website parameters, as well as the TV project's own other infobox, season and episode. Sure, it can be common for the types of entities you've listed, but it really isn't common for media to have a website parameter in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I would definitely support some sort of suggestion or guidance towards not using this as I don't think most "official websites" are genuinely "key information" for a series. I don't know if we need to force every article to stop using it if it is going to be a significant amount of work, but avoiding it moving forward / having something to point to for future updates would be good. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It's also something that has potential for abuse. Not that I've seen any, but it is possible for someone to make the url a fansite or some-such that is not necessarily "official". ButlerBlog (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• I say remove the parameter. To me personally, a bare link to another website screams unprofessional. Especially for Wikipedia where WP:BARELINKS are discouraged. Readers go to Wikipedia to learn about a topic, not to be sent to a company's website where they can buy the product. Official websites should go in the external links section, using the "official website" template. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Bumping this. I want to say there is soft consensus to remove these. Any further objections? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Not by me. Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Great, so how do we go about removing these parameters? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Two options. Either we remove completely or we move them to external links section (with a bot). Since it's impossible to know if the website is an official website, if moved, I'd say we shouldn't move them into a {{Official website}} template. Gonnym (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We likely should move them to the EL section (though I have a feeling if they are in the infobox, they are also down there already), but we can't know that for sure, and we shouldn't lose data if that's true. So I'd say we move them there, not in the {{Official website}} template. Can we set up a tracker category to see how many articles we'll be dealing with that currently use the parameters? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

TemplateData says we have 18379 usages of |website= and 2498 usages of |production_website=. Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Content in |website= I'd feel more confident exists in the EL section as well, the content in |production_website= not as much. So perhaps we just remove |website= all together, and move content in |production_website= to the EL section? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this decision. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. Since the values of the links are also in the reversion history, watchers of specific pages can always re-add any useful and missing links to the EL section if needed. Gonnym (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Great, so is this a bot task? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I would think so yes. The bot will need to remove 4 parameters from the infobox and move the |production_website=, using the |production_website_title= value to the External links section. I've set up a tracking category Category:Pages using infobox television with deprecated parameters. Gonnym (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Can Primefac's bot do that? Should I ping them? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, no. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I hope all of the above is clear. Let us know if anything needs clarification. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove |production_website=, |production_website_title=, |website=, and |website_title=, and if possible chuck the former two into the elinks section. My only concern is duplication of the elink data, as I'm not sure I'll be able to check that. Primefac (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup. In theory, the |production_website= info would not be "official" website if down there and quite likely not in templates or wikidata, so it would just be straight hyperlinking, if that helps to see if * [some hyperlink] already exists? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Are production websites necessary? Wouldn't it be easier to just get rid of them? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever seen a true production website, but I'd image they could be a useful EL link. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Just came upon this discussion due to the new warning regarding deprecated parameters. In theory, will the 'official website' links be moved to the EL section? I would think an official website link would be worthwhile to keep, whether in the infobox or EL section. Magitroopa (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of articles that include the website parameter also include a hyperlink in the external links section to the official website. We wouldn't want a bot to create duplicate links. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

So will an attempt be made to move what is currently listed in the 'website' parameter into EL, and avoid duplicate links (through a/the bot), or will it just remove the 'website' parameter and editors will need to figure out what does/does not belong in the EL section themselves?... Magitroopa (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: Based on the uses of parameters Gonnym listed above, |website= is used much more than |production_website=, so it's stands to reason that those uses are very likely the same as official websites, which in turn are already down in the EL section. So yes, the hope is for the bot to simply remove what is in |website=, and move anything in |production_website=, with editors helping adjust any extraordinary cases. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to note that currently if you don't want a website to automatically show in the infobox you need to use |website=hide and articles that are doing that are getting picked up by the new deprecated parameter warning. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, using |website=hide currently does not hide the external links section of the infobox and shows "[hide Website]" instead of a website, so that is not ideal. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That hasn't worked for a very long time. The current category is picking any usage (including empty usages) so that when Primefac runs the bot, the parameter will be completely removed. Gonnym (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, Butlerblog, Favre1fan93, Gonnym, MB, Magitroopa, Primefac, and Some Dude From North Carolina: Now that the deprecated parameter error appears when editing articles with |production_website= and/or |website=, could one of you please update Template:Infobox television/doc with guidance for editors on how to resolve these errors? (e.g. move the links to the "External link" section) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem doing that but really once Primefac starts the bot it should be done automatically and completed in a day or so. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, was away on the weekend and wasn't able to get to it, and then the question of what to do with the links themselves popped up. If that's resolved I'll try to get to this in the next day or two. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is. All links in |website= should be removed because the assumption is they are very likely to already exist in the External links section. Links in |production_website= (and any adjusted titling) should be added to the External links section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gonnym Thanks for updating the documentation! It will need to be updated again after the bot run to remove the parameters from the "Usage" and "Examples" sections. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Bot update

Just as an update, I have to now decline to perform this bot task; my bot has always had the remit to perform substantive changes (i.e. non-cosmetic) but due to a fundamental difference in philosophy between me and another editor - who I respect and for almost all other matters I agree with - the tracking category set up shows all uses, including the blank parameters, which I cannotwill not sift through to only remove the used deprecated parameters. You will have to find someone else who is able to get a bot task approved that can do the cosmetic half of the edits. Primefac (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out, when the data rows are removed from the infobox, used and blanked parameters both show nothing visually. So either both types are cosmetic or both aren't. Additionaly, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 30 never had this caveat in its approval (and as can be seen by two recent runs, also actively removed blanked parameters slogan, slogan and web). Gonnym (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Fine. Primefac (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata

Oh yeah, I just remembered that thanks to info over on Wikidata, some articles may still have a website link in the infobox- some possibly incorrect. Take Teen Beach Movie for example, where MPFitz1968 removed the parameter so the bot doesn't have to.

The infobox originally had the website parameter included, but empty, resulting in nothing. Now with the deprecated parameter removed, a website is now listed in the infobox, due to the data on its Wikidata entry.

Anything that can/should be done with this? I'm willing to bet that Wikidata entries aren't kept as up-to-date and this may lead to many inconveniences/incorrect websites in the infobox (Fun!). Magitroopa (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: the actual parameters have yet to be removed from the infobox. Once the bot run goes through, they will be removed, and the Wikidata instance on articles like you mentioned will be correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification on that. I've remembered having the same issue in the past (though way before this discussion of the parameter removals), so I guess this will make that much easier. Magitroopa (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Gonnym, can you remove the Wikidata option for these parameters so editors aren't seeing that pop up after the parameters have been removed? I very similar question that Magitroopa had was brought up by Drovethrughosts at the Television project talk. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerns

I missed this unadvertised discussion until coming across the bot in my watchlist just now, and I think this is a clear error. Our goal is to serve readers, and one of the main reasons readers visit these pages is because they're thinking about watching the show. Providing a link at the top makes it easy for them to do so; having it only at the bottom makes it harder. URLs appear in tons of other infoboxes, so I don't buy that there's some special redundancy problem here—if there is, it should be considered centrally at a wider scale, but I think most editors would say the entire lead is by design a repeat of information below it in the article and that's fine. Unfortunately, parameter deletions are somewhat difficult to undo, but this was not given sufficient discussion and came to a poor result, so that's where we are now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record I'm putting the bot on hold pending resolution of this concern. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Not everything has to be in the infobox or lead, and these websites more often than not do not hold any useful information for readers. In fact, the other external links are likely to be more useful (IMDb, for example, will probably have way more information on a series than an official website does). As has already been pointed out, other infoboxes may include URLs but it is not common for media articles and even for this infobox the parameter has been used very inconsistently so far, so it is quite likely that readers of TV articles who want to see these links will not be expecting to find them there. Those same readers should know to look in the External Links section for such links, or will find it in the table of contents pretty easily. I don't see the argument that we are harming readers in some way with this. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The solution to this is to define the usage of the parameter to be the "most helpful" website for a reader to get more information - which could be a website hosted by the show/network/production company, or IMDb or anywhere. This is analogous to biography infoboxes, where the website parameter can be used for a person's private website, or if they don't maintain one, their Facebook page, Instagram account, etc. MB 19:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

One line we could draw would be to recommend including the link to the official website only if it's possible to watch the series there, as for e.g. Netflix shows. Thoughts on that? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

So, who is going to start coding this sophisticated system that knows what shows are available on Netflix in every country and then only show the link if the user logs in from an IP from the country the show is available on? Are we just going to pretend everyone on en.wiki is from the United States? What about shows that are on Netflix and on another platform? Do we just automatically give Netflix the primary link? Gonnym (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

IMDb was previously a parameter which was removed. We can't give one for-profit-company this much free traffic over other companies which provide similar services. That is why the EL exists as all viable links can be used there. Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

IMO, external links just look bad in the infobox. Why should we have a link to a different website when readers come to Wikipedia to read about a show. Google a show and you'll see an official website, Wikipedia, and IMDb as the top results. That means readers don't just come here to see where they can watch a series, so let Google or justwatch do that for them. WP:BARELINKS are also an issue since they look bad and unprofessional. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The link at the infobox was never a link to watch the show. Gonnym (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

As has been discussed above, and in a previous discussion, also linked above, there is virtually no benefit in media infoboxes to having external links. Partially a) depending on the type of show (network, cable, or streaming), readers might not even be able to view the relevant link based on territory; b) we shouldn't be putting "watch" links in infobox; c) the links still exist appropriately in the external links section; and d) because of these changes, it's been made aware that some links for older show no longer airing are now dead, so how is that any help to readers in the infobox? Media isn't the same as biography or business articles, where those URLs to personal/business site are helpful to readers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Any other issues to raise? I would expect stopping the bot run mid-way to elicit a less casual discussion... Gonnym (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree the bot run should resume. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac was there another issue with the bot run? It stopped at around 5k pages left (which other editors reduced a bit since) but there are still pages like Mint To Be with non-empty values used in the the parameters. Gonnym (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No issue, I broke the bot run down into two parts, just haven't gotten around to running the second one yet. Primefac (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Putting a limit to number of genres

I would like to purpose limiting the number of different genres listed in the infobox to five. This can be a soft limit that allows for exception, but I think that it would be good to at least have a suggested limit because I often see infoboxes get overfilled with an excessive amount of genres that aren't really defining to the show, but one source describes it as such, so it can't just be removed as unsourced. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what a good limit would be, but guidance about it actually being "defining" may help as one source suggesting a genre that is not generally supported shouldn't be enough to include it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@adamstom97 I definitely support adding guidance that the genres must be defining, but I think 5 is great for a soft limit. It's very rare that a show really has more than 5 defining genres (not counting genres that are redundant with each other). JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Linking language

Currently, the documentation says the following:

Do not link to a language article, e.g., [[English language|English]], per WP:OVERLINK.

It's obvious enough why this should apply to languages like English or Spanish, but the guidelines at WP:OVERLINK are clear that links should only be avoided for major examples of languages (i.e. ones with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar). That doesn't apply to less well-known languages, like Newar or Egyptian Arabic. Should that point be clarified in the documentation, or are there any reasons to not link in any circumstances? I'm only asking because an editor editors appear to have undertaken the task of unlinking all instances of this field from articles, so it will be good to have some consensus here. – Uanfala (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There shouldn't be conflicting guidance, the above is wrong. Local guidance should not override project guidance either, so the above should just be removed or changed to something like: Link to a language article, e.g., [[Phuthi language|Phuthi]], only when appropriate per WP:OVERLINK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Editors may decide that in a particular context there are good reasons not to follow some rule from the MoS, and that's OK: the MoS is not a policy but a guideline, and so allows for exceptions of that kind. However, that doesn't appear to have been the case: from the template documentation, and from what I see in the archives, this appears to have been understood as a straightforward application of WP:OVERLINK.

It turns out that if the infobox detects any links in the |language= parameter, it will place the article in Category:Pages using infobox television with incorrectly formatted values (a large category with over 8,000 pages at the moment), so that editors doing cleanup will eventually unlink the language. This can be remedied by just removing language = args.language, from Module:Infobox television. The template documentation can then be updated to match the advice of the MoS. Still, let's leave a day or two so we can hear from others? – Uanfala (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK says not to link to "major" languages, so I don't see the issue if you're linking per WP:OVERLINK. I've been editing TV articles for 10-15 years and I don't generally remove links to minor languages because that's what OVERLINK says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieLegend (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The documentation could be adjusted slightly if editors aren't familiar with OVERLINK (or choose to go there) to state: Do not link major language articles, e.g., [[English language|English]], per WP:OVERLINK. That still satisfies what has been done, but more clearly allows for minor languages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(outdent) I was the editor whose actions sparked this discussion and I was trying to clean out the tracking category, Category:Pages using infobox television with incorrectly formatted values, that currently has 8,682 entries in it, all of which are language links. When I looked through the template edit history and discussion I was hoping I would find a good consensus to back up these edits. The documentation was changed from use a link to do not use a link per WP:OVERLINK in June 2012 with a small discussion at Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 5#Language_section. WP:OVERLINK at the time of this template change said what is says now about avoiding linking major languages, while now there are some examples of major languages. If changes are made to the documentation about language, it should also be used for the country field, that also states not to use a link, but is not including in the tracking category.

I have a concern about what constitutes a major language, since on my talk page, User:Uanfala, objected to my removal of Bengali, which is one of the ten most spoken languages in the world. Going back through my own edits these are the languages I am going to add back if the documentation is changed: Nigerian Pidgin, Burmese language, Wyandot language, Mohawk language, Marathi language, Nepali language, Cebuano language, Waray language, Sinhala language, Dari, Pashto, Taiwanese Hokkien, Southern Min, Catalan language, Afrikaans, and Galician language. Aspects (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, Aspects. That clears things up a fair bit. I was lurking on this as I have been working on maintenance categories as well (although not this one) but was hesitant to comment until more info was available. I'd like to see @Gonnym: bring an opinion as I believe they are involved in working on defining what the maintenance categories pick up? ButlerBlog (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

If the guidance changes, the module will reflect that. So just ping me whenever this ends with what the outcome is. Gonnym (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding to the above, the module can remove the check completely, or be modified to check if a language is on a "don't link" list. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the documentation [3] so that the advice for languages and countries matches MOS:OVERLINK. Sticking to this rule isn't an imperative: style guidelines allow for exceptions, especially in contexts (like an infobox) that's different from what people had in mind when devising them. So, feel free to make your approach more restrictive or more permissive if that's going to improve the infobox.

Gonnym, I don't think dedicating a lot of code or effort to this would be worth the trouble: slight over- (or under-)linking isn't going to make a lot of difference to readers. If I were you, I'd simply remove the checks for links, just so that editors working on the maintenance category can focus on what I'd imagine are more consequential errors. When that category is eventually emptied, then maybe at that stage it will make sense to revisit the issue and add more nuanced checks depending on how much interest there will be for the resultant clean-up effort. – Uanfala (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The category for that Category:Pages using infobox television with incorrectly formatted values currently tracks usages of |language=, |website=, |production_website=, and |italic_title=. The last 3 have already been cleared out. So maybe at that stage it will make sense to revisit the issue and add more nuanced checks depending on how much interest there will be for the resultant clean-up effort is apparently now. :) If there is no interest in fine tuning the language (and country which wasn't checked) parameter then I can just remove the tracking. Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Since this last note, |image= and |image_size= were added(?). As far as I can tell, we have cleared out everything from the maintenance category that is not |language=. Is there any further clarification on language? Based on the discussion, it would appear that consensus is for not linking "major" languages, but linking others. I am just not clear on what constitutes "major". There are some that are obvious, but a solid line of demarcation would be good if that's the case. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I also don't know what "major" means. If I get a list of languages that should be delinked or linked I can adjust the category to check based off the list. Gonnym (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no such list. "Major" is defined in WP:OL as language most readers are likely to recognize/understand. I would say that includes things like English, Russian, and Chinese but where to draw the line is a judgement call. MB 01:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Seasons

I noticed some editors are putting the seasons for executive producers and producers parameters on the Infobox. Is there a general consensus to put the seasons for executive producers and producers parameters on the Infobox? — YoungForever^(talk) 18:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if there was a specific past discussion, but generally we don't include those extraneous details because they are better left for prose with context. Otherwise, it tends to invite that type of stuff for every person in the infobox, including cast members.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought so, too. Personally, I do not add the seasons on executive producers and producers parameters. We don't do them for starring cast members. So, why should executive producers and producers parameters be any different? — YoungForever^(talk) 19:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

They shouldn't be different. It's the same reason we don't add film lists to the actor portrayal list of a character infobox. It's just a great way to clutter the infobox with information that is better left to prose content if it's relevant. I have seen it with studios or TV channels when a series changes ownership or broadcast location, but really it shouldn't be there either. It should written in prose to be able to explain why there was a change in the first place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Some editors add the seasons on executive producers and producers parameters because they do not clearly say Years or seasons should not be included. on there. Some editors see that as a loophole when it did not say that. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I would support stating it explicitly. Too much extraneous data in the infobox tends to make them cluttered and untidy. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think so as well to include that on both parameters on the template. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

If something like "Years or seasons should not be included" should be the default for all parameters, then it should be added to the text above the table, which already covers other general guides. Gonnym (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this topic has been brought up again. I was just about to ask the same question I did two years ago. Why do the descriptions for certain parameters explicitly mention that parenthetical details not be mentioned when others don't? I'd prefer it if all of these extra details were either omitted in the infobox altogether or contained to footnotes, but the template doc does not make clear what is and isn't acceptable. It would be nice if I could cite a specific portion of the template doc or even MOS:TV to keep these small details from popping up. This has been a problem for a long time. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Bot needed

Could someone make a bot to remove the "name" parameter for all shows in Category:Pages using infobox television with unnecessary name parameter? Per the category's description, "Articles that use Infobox television with a |name= parameter which matches the PAGENAMEBASE value. Usages should be removed as the infobox already performs this task automatically." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to ask the dumb question, in my "before" duty as a botop, but... why is this a thing? Why do we care? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Infobox_television/Archive_12#Name_parameter_category for the answer I got to this question. MB 17:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I rarely disagree with Gonnym, but most of those reasons sound like reasons to do the reverse, actually, and check whether the |name= field doesn't match the page name. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Primefac. It doesn't matter if the infobox has a name. Most infoboxes have a name field and it can be confusing to editors to not see a name. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I also would agree - we could reverse the category. However, I did submit a bot request for myself. I know of at least three users who have been working on this category manually (including me), two of whom are using AWB (including me). Since it is primarily just a minor edit, it's probably better to run it as a bot so that editors following various pages can ignore it. I had been considering submitting it as a bot request before, but hadn't done so until this question motivated me to submit it. I'm already enabled for AWB and have been running a simple regex on this category manually. To do it as a bot, I would just have to get the bot account enabled for AWB and then approved as a bot (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ButlerBlogBot) ButlerBlog (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Just noting in this discussion my view that |name= is a standard infobox parameter and removing it here will lead to more confusion. The fact that there can be some many different names (e.g. image=, image_name=, image name=, photo=, Photo=, static_image_name=, etc.) for equivalent fields is a tremendous waste of time for editors who work in multiple topics. We should move towards more standardization, not less. MB 14:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please show where and what confusion this would cause. Gonnym (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

To clear up some things here. There is already a category that checks if the name does not match - that is regardless of this one. As I've stated, most vandalism target the most easy target, which is the name, removing it gives them one less visible win. This is also a parameter which suffers from pointless fixes - page moves, MoS style changes, etc, need to update the field. The fact that a lot of other infoboxes have a pointless parameter does not mean we need to keep doing this. {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox television episode}} have received major behind-the-scenes updates over the past year+ which included streamlining stuff, making things more automatic and allowing for things to be discovered and fixed. Editors need to stop clinging to the old days and let computers do the automatic stuff. To note, over 10k pages have already been cleared from the category since November with no issues so far. Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am less concerned about OTHERSTUFF and more concerned that there is consensus, given that it's a prerequisite for my bot. If there is no significant opposition to this move away from "the norm" (i.e. is MB the only holdout?) then that's fine, I'm just attempting to do my due diligence.

Also, in case you're wondering, I might disagree with the task but I will generally not stand in the way if I'm in the minority. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Just for reference, I would add that of the users I know who are working on the category, we've already removed it from about ~12k entries so far. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please show where and what confusion this would cause - That was explained. It's a standard parameter in infoboxes and not seeing it causes confusion. I've seen a few infoboxes where |show_name= has been restored because editors thought it was missing.

Editors need to stop clinging to the old days and let computers do the automatic stuff. - Normally I'd agree but people are not computers and sometimes you just have to let them have it as they want it, at least that's been my experience in programming for 47 years. It's not limited to computers either, it extends to a lot of fields. From personal experience I can say that I get really frustrated when the automation in my car does something that I specifically didn't want to do. There's also a few examples in Wikipedia where this isn't the case. I had several infoboxes that automatically generated coordinate strings based on simple inputs but Wikpedia decided that wasn't the thing to do and now all coordinate strings have to be entered manually. It affected a lot of infoboxes, not just mine.

To note, over 10k pages have already been cleared from the category since November with no issues so far. - As I've said, I've seen a lot of infoboxes where |show_name= has been restored. If we remove this parameter I expect to see te same thing. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have the category on watchlist so I can say with a very firm certainty that if the parameter has been restored, it was less than 10 times (in over 10k pages). I also have all the other maintenance categories on my watchlist, and even there almost no page has returned. Additionally, while it might be standard in infoboxes, even in the television area we have |title= for the episode template, |season_name= for the season template and while we have |name= here, until very recently, it was |show_name=. If the television editors managed to handle this myriad of parameter names, I'm sure they can manage this. Also worth noting, that from my experience editors copy what they see, and if they (eventually) don't see the parameter in use, they just won't use it. Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I would concur with Gonnym that from personal experience editors copy what they see on another article as opposed to going to the template docs. This is evident from working through the maintenance categories in television. If a parameter is removed from use and we get the maintenance category cleared, the likelihood of it being used in the future would likely be minimal, if at all. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I can say with a very firm certainty that if the parameter has been restored, it was less than 10 times - Maybe you're not looking at the right category. I check Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters almost every day, sometimes 2 or 3 times, and I can guarantee that |show_name= has been returned many more than 10 times since we changed it.

If a parameter is removed from use and we get the maintenance category cleared, the likelihood of it being used in the future would likely be minimal, if at all. - That's totally incorrect given my experience over the past years. |show_name= has been returned a lot of times, |imdb_id= was removed several years ago but it keeps getting added, completely invalid fields are often added and I've seen runs where very old versions of the infobox are added. Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters often has 5-10 entries to fix every day. Add that up over a year and it's quite a lot. I know that somebody else is clearing the cat as well, so there are additional entries to those that I've had to repair. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I came across some pages where the |name= parameter was removed, and I'm unclear about this being an improvement. When I previewed the page with and without the parameter, the version without always had higher CPU and LUA time usage. Doesn't this cause increased server load? It certainly doesn't save any memory, since it creates a whole new revision (several kilobytes) to remove a few bytes. On a personal note, I do a lot of my editing offline in a text editor, often working on multiple articles, and I find it very useful to have the name parameter right there at the top of the wikicode, to quickly confirm which article the wikicode belongs to. I'm sure that I'm in the minority, but this could be a significant problem for editors who work the way I do. Perhaps there should be some sort of consensus before making wholesale changes like this? – Reidgreg (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that I'm in the minority... You're not, there is currently no firm consensus that this should be done, but while it gets discussed a number of users are manually removing it anyway. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

If there's no consensus, it shouldn't be a maintenance category, which it has been since at least last fall (I started working on it in November). And while the passage of time does not equate to consensus, the existence of a maintenance category on the project page would lead users to act on it. Approx 20k articles have been edited so far (around half the original), and that has brought seemingly little discussion considering the number of edits. Some of the people working on it may not necessarily be aware of the current discussion (and I use the term "current" somewhat loosely as there has been 2 weeks between this and the last comment in this thread). Personally, based on the earlier discussion (March 3-9) I put the pause on what I was doing but with no clear outcome based on the above discussion, I started back doing a few yesterday (which was before I saw your additional comments above, @Primefac:, and hence I am putting the brakes on again). Which brings me back to my original quandary: If there's no consensus, it shouldn't be a maintenance category. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that gnomish minor edits which didn't affect the appearance of the articles went uncommented. Page watcher A assumes that editor B knew what they were doing, and editor B assumes that category creator A knew what they were doing.

I've searched high and low at Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization, Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (just the main page, too many search hits in its archives to be useful) and while there was information about what maintenance/tracking categories are and how to make them, I didn't find anything about why/whether they should be made, under what circumstances/criteria – such as having prior discussion or consensus. I'll try to ask around. In the meantime, I opened a Category for discussion thread on it. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

logo parameter

In popular series and movies, there are often famous logos and posters, and it is better to have a parameter called logo in the template so that the logo is placed below or above the poster.

So please add this parameter. Thankful Mohammad ebz (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mohammad ebz: The logo is almost always on the poster. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

But sometimes the logo of a series becomes very popular and it is better to show it separately Mohammad ebz (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There does not need to be a special parameter for the logo, if it makes sense to use the logo to identify the series with then it can go in the normal image parameter instead of a poster. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Cameras

The last discussion on this topic was held about thirteen years ago. I am talking, of course, about the single-camera vs. multiple-cameras parameter. Is it necessary? Someone, back in 2009, said it was, and that the distinction sets the tone. While this is true, should it be in the infobox, and should it be linked? As an average person, I would say the average person does not know the difference between a single-camera take vs. a multiple-camera take. This, I infer, leads to readers clicking to another page for an explanation. Now, I like to stay on pages I want to read without having jargon confuse me. Anyone else? Also, how are we editors supposed to know what to put for what show? Most shows don't have a reliable source stating the format in which it was shot. This was an issue over at 'film' with the deletion of a category listing aspect ratios. Since the infobox is already crowded as it is, should this information be included? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There is at least distinction in each set up, in that many sitcoms are multi-cam, while dramas tended to be single cam. Does that warrant included and distinguishing in the infobox? Probably not, because the vast majority of projects will fall in line with their "expected" camera set up, and it many only really matter when one goes against the expected norm. In which case that can be covered in the Production section of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I personally believe that most technical parameters shouldn't be part of the infobox as they don't offer the same summary value that other parameters do, and unnecessarily make the infobox longer. Most aren't even mentioned in the article (which does not follow MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Gonnym (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Writer parameter - Written by

Please see a relevant discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_film#Writer_parameter_-_Written_by. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Pages using infobox television with unnecessary name parameter has been nominated for discussion

Category:Pages using infobox television with unnecessary name parameter has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

First_run param should be renamed

Here's a problem I've run into while editing TV articles over the years as recently as today: first_run, a param with an intended value for the country a program was first aired in, is often confused with premiere dates, "sneak peeks", or pilot episodes produced before a full series has been ordered or officially broadcast. I assume good faith on the air date usage as the param name is not very clear. After all, not every editor has read the doc for every template used. A number of discussions about this param have been held in the past, including this one from 2018 about its removal as a trivial detail, but these discussions did not highlight the erroneous usage for air dates.

Today I'm proposing that this param be renamed to something less vague, such as first_run_country or premiere_country. Basically I think it would be more helpful if the param were renamed to something with the word "country" or some other term that denotes that the param is for nations or territories because it would remove the ambiguity here. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I support this. Clarity is always better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I actually even doubt that this parameter is even useful. If the premiere country is different than the country of origin, then just mention it in the article, but is it that important that it requires a parameter in the infobox? I personally don't think so. Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The parameter is unnecessary for the infobox. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with its removal too. I am not aware of any instances where this is being used that the info needed to be in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing yet. Most of the time when I see it actually populated, it is incorrect, although mostly I see this incorrect usage as duplicating country of origin, not a date. I see that far more often than I see it populated with a date. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

TemplateData shows a total of 1634 usages. The first 10 usages in that list use this parameter for:

• Country that is the same as the |country= - 4
• First date - 4
• Network that is the same as the |network= - 1
• Using correctly - Totally Spies!.

1 out of 10 while a small sample size, is a pretty bad ratio. Gonnym (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked at a few more random article beyond that first 10, and most are using it for first date, or the same country of origin. Not promising at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Support renaming as |first_run_country=. That should avoid the confusion and alert editors who are copying from other articles without looking at the infobox documentation. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Should first_run param be removed?

Past discussions have held no consensus on whether the first_run parameter should be kept. Because some of you have commented on my proposal for renaming this parameter with contentions that it should be removed entirely, I'm bringing this up again as a sub-topic to see what the community thinks we should do with it in 2022. Because no consensus has been reached in the past, I propose turning the discussion on its head by asking you all to answer the following: If the first_run param were proposed to be added to the template today, what would be your reasoning for its inclusion? Could you defend its existence if had not already been a part of the template since 2006? Why or why not? I hope the discussion that follows will not devolve into endless tangents about technicalities or some kind of an edit-measuring contest. Please be civil and concise. Thank you. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete as has been highlighted above by looking at what articles are actually using the parameter, the results from the small sample set is not encouraging. The intention of the parameter was (seemingly) always unclear for editors as to what it's goal was. And I think at this point, if any series had a truly notable instance of airing first in a country that was not its production country of origin, that can be discussed in the prose of the article. But I feel like some of these articles that are using the parameter correctly, it's a minor trivia point at best saying "Series premiered first in country X, when it was produced in and for country Y that aired after its debut in X." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  @AussieLegend Your thoughts? — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete. I agree completely with Favre's argument. In the Totally Spies! example, the fact that the show aired in the different market before France, while mentioned, isn't highlighted as an important fact, but casually mentioned. This to me makes it more trivial than a key fact needing to be summarized in the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• To answer your questions: My reasoning would be to include it because rights of first broadcast is a significant attribute. When a 'defining characteristic' to be included in the infobox (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), this could be a show produced primarily for export to an audience of differing nationality and culture than the country of origin. This could also be of significance for co-productions. I probably wouldn't support it if it wasn't already established, though... because I'd want to see a stronger argument (than my own) from whoever was proposing it. General discussion: While I see there is widespread misuse of the parameter, I didn't have to look far to find a bunch of examples where it appears to be used legitimately (Archie's Weird Mysteries, Mythbusters, Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century, Sonic Underground, The Virgin Queen (TV serial), Rolie Polie Olie, The Hoobs, Space Precinct, Ratz (TV series), Police Rescue, Super Duper Sumos, The New Tomorrow, The Why Why Family, Jeopardy (TV series), Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)). In my opinion, a lot of these articles are not well-developed enough for them to positively pass the 'defining characteristic' threshold for the parameter, but I would tend to AGF that the editors of the articles are better informed (and would hope that they flesh out the articles). Ultimately, though, removing the parameter kind of seems like punishing the few editors who have followed the rules because many other editors have misapplied them. We should delete the parameter if it has no foreseeable use, not because some editors are abusing it. Otherwise vandals would dictate Wikipedia policy. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the FA Adventure Time and GAs Degrassi Junior High, Steven Universe and Minute to Win It (American game show) all misuse the parameter. I didn't find any correct applications of the parameter in promoted content. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

So looking at your list of 'legitimate' examples, here is a breakdown:

• 8 use a value which is the same as one of the country of origins (which per the documentation is not correct). 2 use US (Archie's Weird Mysteries, MythBusters), 3 use UK (Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century, The Hoobs, Jeopardy (TV series)), 1 France (Sonic Underground), 1 Canada (Ratz (TV series)) and 1 Australia (Police Rescue).
• Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) says that the first season was co-commissioned by Sky Television, making it a British co production, which if then correct, makes this usage also incorrect.
• Rolie Polie Olie, Space Precinct, and The Why Why Family do not even mentioned in the article the first broadcast country so even the basic validation is impossible here.
• The New Tomorrow - seems to be correct, though it is unclear what makes this show a New Zealand show if the original network is an Australian one. Filming something in a country does not make it a show from that country.
• The Virgin Queen (TV serial) and Super Duper Sumos - correct usage.

So out of the 15 examples, 2 are valid correct usages, 5 different degrees of questionable and 8 out-right not. Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Is that so? I only saw where the documentation advises Omit if the same country as country of origin [singular]. I didn't notice anything about what to do when there are multiple countries of origin. (It doesn't seem to mention co-productions either.) – Reidgreg (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, I think we can agree that the documentation for this param, which reads, "The country or region where the show was first broadcast. Omit if the same country as country of origin above or if the show has only been broadcast in one country or region. Do not link to a corresponding article per WP:OVERLINK", should be revised somehow. It lacks clarity on its usage, and a number of articles are misusing this param for dates or some other reason. If we decide to omit this param from the template, I propose that a footnote be appended to the original broadcast date that would clarify the country of first broadcast if that country were different than the one in the country param. Would any of you oppose this solution if the param were omitted? — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would. If the parameter is removed then adding it after the date isn't removing it. Gonnym (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I was just proposing a compromise. Using a footnote instead of having a dedicated param is a possible solution. I understand that no single solution can please everybody. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. Is this footnote for the template documentation or would it appear in the generated infobox? – Reidgreg (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

In my proposed idea, the footnote would be an Efn template that would be included in a citation after the original airdate in the infobox. My main focus has been that the template documentation should be updated regardless of whether we decide to remove this param or not. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete – problematic parameter as outlined above, that doesn't need to be there. I'm of the opinion that, outside of the "airing" and "number of episode/season" parameters", IB Television should be cut back to just those parameters that can be supported by in-show crediting. The "first_run" parameter isn't one of these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete – clearly more trouble than any value it might bring. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Well it seems that there is consensus to remove the parameter. If no new comments in the next few days, I'll update the template. Gonnym (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Now removed. Gonnym (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion / Infobox television episode

Hey, you're input is welcome at Template_talk:Infobox television episode#Photographer should be cinematography. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion over at Infobox television season

Now that the website parameters were removed from the infobox, the only television infobox that still has them is Template:Infobox television season. I've started a discussion over there on the subject. Gonnym (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Non-italic titles

If | italic_title = no , shouldn't the infobox title itself disable the italics as well as the article title? -2pou (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

As you said, the parameter is used to disable the infobox from applying a display title modification. This is needed since sometimes the automatic italicization clashes with the manual one used in the article. If you want to disable the infobox itself from applying italics, then use {{noitalic}}. As an aside, most uses I've seen use that tend to use an incorrect infobox. If the title does not need italics, then is it really a television program? Gonnym (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gonnym The only use case I've come across and can think of is for upcoming shows that may not have a finalized title yet, and the article title uses the most prominent feature/creator in the title before it gets moved when finalized. There are plenty in Draft space, but Untitled Guy Ritchie film (although a film) is an example in main space.-2pou (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 May 2022

Move "Distributor" to the Release section. It's much more relevant there. —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 18:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please gain a consensus for this change. Since this infobox can be use (infrequently) for television films, in those instances, the distributor field would be most relevant in its current location, and it does still work for normal televisions series and programming. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

No. of episodes

For current series, I think the rule of only adding episodes to the "no. of episodes" field after they have aired is a bit odd. It is extremely rare nowadays that once a season has begun, they don't fulfil the number of episodes announced for that season. So, to make it simpler and less confusing, I suggest we list all episodes of any current season, once the first episode has aired. This would also apply to Template:Infobox television season and anything similar. I can't count the number of times I've briefly checked the Wiki infobox of a show I'm watching to see how many episodes left, only to be totally befuddled for a minute, and I can't be alone in that. Thanks. Jenny Jankel (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It's because we're an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and generally is only concerned with what "has happened" (i.e. can be verified), not what "will happen" (i.e. cannot be verified). Although not explicitly stated, it's kind of related to WP:NOTTVGUIDE. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand that, but for current seasons, the number of episodes doesn't change during the season. Wikipedia is certainly not only concerned with what has happened. And WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply here, because we're not talking about speculation or unverified rumors. We're talking about officially scheduled episodes of an already begun season. And WP:NOTTVGUIDE is a different policy entirely. I guess it goes without saying that my proposal is to include the number of episodes in a current season only when verifiably sourced, just like anything on Wikipedia. The list of episodes within the article includes upcoming episodes, so no reason why the infobox couldn't, too. Jenny Jankel (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand that, but for current seasons, the number of episodes doesn't change during the season - see COVID-19, networks pulling episodes that are sensitive to recent tragedies (at least in America), etc. That's why we don't update number until they've aired, because a lot can happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Should the template allow parenthetical details for credits?

This is something I've asked about before, but discussions have yet to yield a concrete consensus. Should parenthetical details, such as seasons, specific episodes, years, or job titles (e.g. "line producer", "associate producer", "supervising director") be included for credits in the infobox, or should it be kept to names only? The template doc doesn't say one way or the other, which has had me wondering whether to remove these details or keep them. I'd really like to know what you all think. Thank you. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree it would be nice to have the docs be as explicit as possible. Personally, my preference is "no" - primarily because what's in the infobox should be supported by the article. Or, to put it another way, the infobox is summarizing what's in the article (or what should be in the article), so too much detail is just clutter. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Names only. A person in Georgia (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll comment on part of what you wrote, which isn't the question, but it's worth emphasizing. (e.g. "line producer", "associate producer", "supervising director") none of those jobs are supported by the template and should never be added. |producer= is only for the individuals who are the actual producers (and are credited as such). Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

What he said – none of those should even be included anyway. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and that's how I've always tried to handle it when adding infoboxes. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)