Template talk:Infobox television

Nowrap List of episodes

Is there any interest in nowrapping the phrase (List of episodes), diff? 117Avenue (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is no opinions about this, I'll request it being done. 117Avenue (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please nowrap ([[{{{list_episodes}}}|List of episodes]]). Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. — Edokter (talk) — 00:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Canadian shows and episode number

I changed the documentation for this a while ago because it was the commonly accepted and standard way to do (giving the episode number of the episodes that have been released, not the ones produced or ordered etc.). Because of the way deals with Canadian shows and their networks are made Deliriousandlost finds that it should be the number of ordered episodes, in short (if I understood it correctly. Read Deliriousandlost's statement) they are legally obligated to air the ordered episodes within a certain timeframe, they cannot not air them. Is there any consensus that Canadian shows should show the number of ordered episodes instead of the number of released episodes? Personally I find that mixing this will only cause more confusion. Other than that if there's support for this I'll be happy to update the template documentation to give Canadian shows (maybe others as well?) an exemption/different guideline for episode count, so that it's at the very least clear. Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

O so you did read my note to you last time i saw you doing this. Personally i find it absurd that the content of articles is mixed between how many are ordered and how many are broadcast and there is not always anything more than a digit. The infobox doesn't say "No. of episodes Broadcast To Date" but rather just "No. of episodes". I personally find it confusing to look at an article and see 13 episodes for the first season and the infobox says 10. If i wasn't more aware of the absurd construct and presentation i would instantly assume at least one of those numbers is wrong if not both of them. Episodes exist before they are broadcast. Broadcasting them makes them publicly available but it doesn't suddenly make them exist. That episode of House that is on at 8pm ET still existed at 6.49pm ET. But that is with shows in general. As to the Canadian television industry, things function really different from the way they do in the USA. Bignole, if you read this know that the only reason Aquaman ever was seen by you and will be on the Smallville complete series is because it got Canadian tax credits and had to be broadcast somewhere in Canada. Aquaman was shown on YTV and was made available to Americans on iTunes. If not for that mandatory broadcast it might still be unseen by yourself. The documentation for this used to address episodes produced. That was fine. People that edit American shows took that to be produced=broadcast. Canadian and British shows tend to be entirely produced before they get to broadcast and changing episode orders is just something that doesn't happen once financing is secured and production started. All 8 episodes of King have been made (7 broadcast as of writing this) and all 4 episodes of Vera were done before it came on itv. Scott & Bailey premiered last night on itv (no article here yet) and all 6 episodes of it are done. This notion that episode orders change and episodes might not be shown is a very American thing that doesn't really apply to most every where else either by common practice or stricter reasons. The closest to that idea of unaired episodes of late in Canada was with Shattered, a show that just wasn't popular at all. It premiered 1 September 2010 and by 24 February 2011 even the pilot episode made in 2008 had been broadcast. 14 episodes in 5 months is more frequent than some American shows are broadcast.
In short, as Xeworlebi wrote the documentation change a few months ago can work for US shows though it is confusing; things don't really work that way most everywhere else and if anything the USA should be the exception to count by broadcast rather than order/commission/production. Else why do we bother noting that ITV commissioned another 13 episodes of Law & Order UK in October last or that FRINGE was given a 22 episode order for its fourth season if all that matters is episodes broadcast. In an 18 episode show like Chase it gets really awkward when you have sources certifying 18 eps but only have info on 17 of them. I prefer to at that point put in something like a "TBA" for the title of ep 18 just to show that it is not missing in error. I find it aids in minimising confusion but do note that such is not the popular practice. As for Endgame, the show Xeworlebi and i are disagreeïng on, the titles and broadcast dates for all 13 eps are available but so far i have only listed 11 of them because Showcase did a very, very rare thing in pulling last week's episode for a repeat almost at the last minute. That episode is on tonight and the others bumped back a week.
OK, so it wasn't that short. Sorry. But what of my writing is ever really that short? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I saw your note, I take it the last time I tried to have this discussion with you and suggest you take this here to gain consensus for your different approach and your requested exemptions first, you didn't just ignore me but 'missed it'.

The reason why it was changed was because there are almost never reliable sources giving the correct number of produced episodes, this created many confusing discrepancies between articles, this one showed broadcasted, that one showed produced, another one showed ordered number. It was changed for consistency, and it was already done that way long before I made the change, which I did because there were some who needed it to be set in stone before they accept common practice, and no-one objected to the proposed change. Point being, consistency is good for a reason, since Canadian shows release there episode just like U.S. shows, updating those as they are released is more correct then going produced/ordered/etc. for the U.S. shows, which can turn out plainly incorrect. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the number of episodes produced (that is, exist), shouldn't be used (for ended series'). 117Avenue (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate, you mean give number of episodes released until the show is over (ended or canceled) and then use the number of produced, or use produced while the show's still going? Your use of brackets is confusing. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The former. Only give the number of aired episodes for series' that are still active. Otherwise conflicts of references, and arguments arise. But this discussion is on ended series'. 117Avenue (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Conflicts of reference are created when 18 episodes are ordered and made but only 13 get broadcast. The way most people would write that is the show has 13 episodes and there are 5 episodes of the show that were not broadcast. So is that 8/13 or 13/18 that were broadcast? Yeah, not confusing at all. All of those series overview tables which list the commissioned episodes for current and fothcoming series yet only include scheduled episodes in the following list. If there are 18 episodes how misleading is it to have a blank space? It actually is most easy to understand when a blank entry is displayed rather than omitting mention of it outside of a tally. This version of List Of White Collar episodes ([1]) shows the third season to have 16 episodes but the list ends with the 10th episode and there is no explanation for the other 6. Xeworlebi, if i recall correctly you are not a fan of "TBA" because that means someone literally said they will say later. By saying there are 16 episodes and giving the info for only the first 10 that would rather strongly imply that we will be told later regarding the rest. Then there is the point i think you make about not using this as a tv guide. By counting only the broadcast episodes rather than those commissioned or made you actually enable use of Wikipedia as a tv guide to help people keep track of how much of their favourite show has been broadcast by featuring exactly that information in the infobox. That there will be 16 episodes is far more appropriate for the scope of the site than that only 5 episodes have been broadcast as of last night. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

status field

Request: Please documented the common standard values for this field. --Javaweb (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I would like to know too, I have seen many different uses of this field. Personally, I'd like this field removed, because I don't think it's necessary. 117Avenue (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Returning series vs. Currently airing

MegastarLV claims that the |status=returning series is for shows that are currently airing, interpreting as it's 'returning' for more episodes (tomorrow). Although returning series has in my experience always used to indicate that the show is actually returning from something, from going away; hiatus, cancelation, etc. And this seems to be the most logical meaning of the word returning, you have to actually go somewhere else to be able to return. From the looks of this users' contributions, MegastarLV has changed this on dozens of articles. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It apparently does indeed mean the former, maybe the latter as well, but it's confusing and it's not a very clear meaning, and I'm not really aware of anywhere outside of the US that uses this term. I would prefer to change to something with a more obvious and clear meaning that can be easily understood by a broader audience. --Dorsal Axe 15:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at the words in the phrase. In particular i bring your attention to "series". Series don't return week after week or day after day in the case of The Price Is Right. Episodes return weekly or daily. If a series is in the schedule then it "is" and it is not "returning". If it will be back in 5 months then that would be a returning series. If it is neither in the current schedule nor even an anticipated return date then it is not returning. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

MegastarLV's edits caught my attention on the 60 Minutes article which I believe doesn't really qualify as a "Returning" series as it is a news magazine and airs news episodes on a near regular basis and really doesn't go into a traditional hiatus like a sitcom or drama series. Same goes for The Daily Show. Truth be told, this parameter has always been something of an annoyance as there is no clear definition of what should be listed in it. For one, no one can decide if "Ended" or "Cancelled" is appropriate for a show that is no longer airing. I think it rather redundant to list a show as "Currently airing" when the preceding dates aired parameter gives that information. I personally think the entire parameter should go as it is too subjective and too many silly problems like this arise. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see it go too, since there is no standard. 117Avenue (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Last aired

The doc for "last aired" says :

last_aired: The original air date of the show's last episode. Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and {{end date}} if the show is ended. Only insert a finale date after it has happened.

The problem is shows that just stop. They aren't cancelled, but they aren't renewed. People associated with the show may talk it up but nothing is officially announced, and there is no sign of any new production. It can be pretty obvious that the show is an ex-show, but some people insist it's just pining for the fjords. So I've filled in the "last aired" date for a show after the final episode of the final season aired, and nothing except hopeful hot air about any future shows. But I keep getting reverted by people who insist it's "current" until someone officially says it's not. This is silly. If all the shows produced have been aired, and there is no announcement of a new production, then it's time to fill in the "last aired" date. If it does pull a revival, then that's the time to make it "current" again. Is this reasonable? Barsoomian (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Was there some announcement on it being the last season? If not, I would keep "present" until there's confirmation, it's not that uncommon the shows are picked up for another season after the finale of the previous, especially when the seasons are short and end before the usual "it's announce new shows and renewals week". _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In one particular case, (Primeval) they're scrambling around trying to find another network or some sugar daddy, or talking about making a movie. So they will never admit it's the "last season". Though most of the plotlines are resolved. When a show is airing, it's clearly "present". When it goes off the air, unless there is a positive indication it will return it shouldn't be "present" any more. I marked "status = Future series unconfirmed" while any claim that it's "present" is pure wishful thinking. If the continuing status can't be confirmed and all produced shows have aired, the default should be "ended". If no one goes on the record to say "It's dead", are we supposed to keep it "present" for a week? A month? 20 years? after all Doctor Who was revived after a few decades "hiatus". If it comes back from the dead, fine, update it then, no harm done. Barsoomian (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You want to assume a show has been cancelled but yet you have great objection to assuming a show will be broadcast as has been announced. Reconcile your own conflict with assuming and then go from there.
Your position with regards to changing the status of a show that gets revived (a quick edit) is exactly the same as i believe i have said a few times now to you or someone regarding wanting to omit scheduled future broadcasts because the show could get cancelled tomorrow with no provocation.
The article on Primeval indicates that the partnership with BBCA and the German broadcaster was for 2 series. Those two series are complete. It shouldn't be hard to find the confirmation the scheme was only for an additional 2 series. If that is incorrect then the article needs to have some editing done to it and you are wrong to assume it is dead short of a different notice that there will be no more. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Both cases involve wishful thinking being treated and worse, documented, as facts. There is no inconsistency needing "reconciliation", and why you seek to analyse me in that manner I don't know. As for Primeval, all the shows contracted for have been made and broadcast, so I have no idea what point you think you are making. Barsoomian (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If you believe there is wishful thinking involved in a broadcaster following their published schedule and you feel to tell me that my very simple statement regarding Primeval makes no sense to you then all i can think of to quote is, "I defie the Pope and all his lawes. If God spare my lyfe ere many yeares, I wyl cause a boye that dryueth þe plough, shall knowe more of the scripture then thou doest." Call the scripture here the scheduling of television programmes. You clearly accept that ITV said they are only arranging a deal for two additional series. You clearly reject ITV's publication of their broadcast schedule. So you believe ITV was telling the truth then and is lying now. How convenient as each of your beliefs regarding the reliability of the various statements support every position you wish to advance. Ended is what it is with Primeval; anything else is the wishful thinking you claim to abhor but seem to embrace. Future Series Unconfirmed would be about as much a lie as The Show Was Still On ITV And You Just Missed It would be because it has been confirmed that there will be no further series. Why we are discussing this here when there are claims in the article of documents from ITV which verify the show is now dead is another of those mysteries. Choosing to declare it as Present at this time would be the worst of the options for it outright contradicts the introduction of the article.
"Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and {{end date}} if the show is ended". Primeval is neither ongoing nor renewed so use end date. It really is simple. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite beginning with a series of irrelevant personal attacks and misrepresentations, you actually end up endorsing my position. Unfortunately your incoherency and continuous smug point scoring makes it unlikely to have any impact. But thanks anywayBarsoomian (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

People are reverting my editors with the bizarre reasoning "the series can only be finished if ITV or Watch confirm it". It's not in their interests to do that, when ITV has yet to air their run. If a show is 1) Not on the air and 2) Not in production and 3) Not with any announced deal for future production; in what sense can it be said to be "present"? I think that requiring "present" to be verified is not out of line. Possibilities can be mentioned in the article, but until they're confirmed, it's irresponsible to declare the show is "present". Barsoomian (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Future series unconfirmed" seems like a reasonable middle-way for Primeval in my opinion. "Ended" would be too soon, while "present" would indicate that new episodes are on the way. According to all sources I've seen (there are probably a few in the article) the deal was for two seasons/series. The makers of the show have been very stubborn to keep the show alive in the past, so I can understand those who want to keep it at "present" until the shows ending is official, but I think that for the reasons I mentioned above both "present" and "ended" would be a little misleading. Choosing between the two "present" would be the best choice for now. Jiiimbooh (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Best choice for now" How long is "for now" ? "Present" means it's, well, present, which it isn't. Ended is what it is. Neither state is irrevocable, we're not talking about whether a person is dead. The state of the show changed when the last produced show was broadcast: now all shows made have been aired, there is nothing in production and nothing but (slowly fading) hope for any future series. (Series 4 on ITV was tedious and got low ratings, they seem to have blown it with that.) It seems we're pandering to fans (which despite appearances, includes me) who seem to believe that writing "present" in Wikipedia somehow makes it more likely to continue. We should be describing the actual VERIFIABLE facts, which are that it's NOT "present" and that label shouldn't be used until new production is verified. Reversing the onus, to insist we must wait until one of the parties declares "it's cancelled" is foolish, they have no obligation or need to make such a pronouncement, they can continue saying "discussions are underway" for literally years. They have been talking about a "new series" in 2013. Are we supposed to leave it as "present" until then, or another possibility replaces it? I don't see what the problem is in writing "ended" now and if a month, a year, or ten years later it's revived, then it becomes "present" again. After all, this statement has been reversed about 6 times in the last 4 days already, though not in response to any actual new information. Barsoomian (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's because people disagree with your view on what "Ended" implicates (and that you have reverted every time). You insist on verifiable facts before they can say it is not over yet, yet to say it is over you don't have to provide any? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 06:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So you want me to prove that there isn't an invisible rabbit behind you? It's verifiable that the series finale has aired. ("Primeval Season 5 Episode 6 of 6... Last in the series...Tue 28 Jun). So now, after that date, it has indeed "ended". Is your position that a show is assumed to continue forever, to be eternally present in its Wikipedia article, if the producers fail to make any statement otherwise? I think we could draw guidance from the WP:NFF guideline: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". That puts the onus on the proponent of creating a film article to show that it has, in reality, started production. We don't have to be quite so strict here, but do you really want to reverse the onus for future TV shows? If you're going to comment, please say why you think "present" is valid, after the show is off the air and out of production, and why it shouldn't simply reflect the status now, rather than what some people wish it was or imagine it will be. Barsoomian (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No I want you to prove the show has ended, just like you would have to prove someone is dead before you can say so, you can't go around saying "hey, I haven't heard anything from him in some time, he must be dead". Yes, you need a source that indicates production has started, jut like you would need one to say it has ended. Note that I'm not commenting on any specific case, only general implications of it, if you have sources for this particular case bring them up at the appropriate place, article's talk page. But you know what, I'll comment on this specific case, the source states that it is the last of the series, which there have been five of now, as this is a UK show and series are seasons. I don't even see a single comment about this on the article's talk page. On that last request, I've already answered that in my first reply to you, renewal does regularly come after the season finale and before the production starts for the next one. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"prove the show has ended, just like you would have to prove someone is dead". I hope you don't actually believe that makes sense. For one thing, a dead person usually leaves a dead body. A show that no one has committed to just has -- nothing. Sorry, no corpus delicti. You're asking me to prove your invisible rabbit doesn't exist. "renewal does regularly come after the season finale and before the production starts". Which is hardly a guarantee, and is a very long shot for this show. Anyway, if and when it's renewed, it becomes "present" THEN. What the problem with that? You keep dodging the question I've asked a couple of times: How long does this zombie state of "present" have to be maintained after the show has gone off the air? Or are you happy to let fans just keep pretending it's alive forever? I don't so much insist on stating the show has "ended" but it seems the only alternative is "present", which is quite obviously not true. (And before you talk about "verifiability", tell me why "present" doesn't have to be verified.) Barsoomian (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this must change now, it has only been three days. That it is highly unlikely that the show would be picked up for another series is just your opinion. You know what happens when someone goes missing? It's assumed they're alive, until they're declared dead by a judge they're considered alive. You don't need a body for the declared dead part. If this show is done there will be an announcement, a statement from the network, show creator, a mention in an interview, etc. sets get taken down, actors, writers, etc. get new jobs, … Shows don't just disappear, but you might have to wait more than three days. Something remains in its state until it changes, you need a source for change, not for retaining a current state. There's absolutely no rush to declare it as dead. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The day the last episode that currently exists aired, the state changed. It's no longer "present". The word "present" refers to NOW. Not what might happen in the future. Is there another meaning of that word that I am unaware of? And "If this show is done there will be an announcement"? Really? How do you know that? Why would they? And I'm getting annoyed with you continually using that emotive equation of a show not being renewed and "death", talking about "missing people". Next you'll be saying it's like drowning a kitten. I am objecting to the word "present". That's the issue. It isn't "present" in any sense that I can understand. The show finished shooting months ago. It finished airing last week. And for the (fifth?) time HOW LONG DO WE WAIT? If three days is too short, how long do we have to keep this bogus "present" label? If we followed this "It's happening unless they say it's not" rule for upcoming movies, we'd be full steam ahead for a million full fledged articles on films in development hell. Barsoomian (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Let me try to state this again, clearly. The reason I started this here on the template page is these fields are in the template:

| last_aired           = 
| status               = 

The "last aired" date doesn't mean "the last one, forever, it will never ever come back, it's dead Jim", it should mean "the last one before now". As "last night", "last week" were not the final night and week, ever. The "status" field can clarify and describe things like "returning", "cancelled", "uncertain" ... whatever. The convention arose of using "present" for a show that was on daily or weekly while it was running. But when the season has finished, the "last aired" date can be noted as it will certainly be that for several months at least. If this convention was followed, any show could have its last date set at the end of each season with no implication that it had been cancelled and the ensuing outrage. And there would not be dozens of shows "present" that in fact are on hiatus, or even, actually cancelled but no one wants to admit it in public. Barsoomian (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)