Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

What if the page title is not to be in italics?

Discussion copied from User talk:Anthony Appleyard

• Anthony, I noticed you recently removed the "Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade" request on the Requested moves page, due to it being exactly the same as the old one but did you read the explanation I had about it being Italicized? Do you know how to fix this? AnimatedZebra (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Page Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade transcludes Template:Infobox television, which transcludes Template:Italic title, which sets the page title to display in italics. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• I do understand that but this isn't a television show; Post from another user on Discussion page...

  "This article's title should not be italicized; it is a simple proper noun, not the title of a television program (although there is a television program associated with it that often uses the same name, they are not the same thing)." AnimatedZebra (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion

First, if it is not an article about a television show then {{Infobox television}} should not be used. To answer the question: as the documentation clearly states: "This infobox automatically italicizes the article title. If this is not required, add |italic_title=no to the list of parameters." _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Is there any particular spot in the parameters it should go? AnimatedZebra (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• No. Although, as I said, the template should not be used on that page in the first place, or at least not at the top of the page, maybe in the section about the TV coverage. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Number Aired

I propose we add episodes_aired to the list, or similar, for series that have finished without airing all the commissioned episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.26.135 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 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)

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)

I think a very clear standard needs to be proposed here or we need to work to get rid of the parameter altogether. The whole point of an infobox is to have information available that is standardized and clear. Any thoughts? Pinkadelica^♣ 22:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it's useful and using some standard terms like "returning", "on hiatus", "cancelled" would be helpful to the reader, while retaining the flexibility to use whatever words are appropriate to describe a current situation like "Future series unconfirmed", ""Mid season break", who knows. A lot more "silly problems" arise when there is apparent only a choice between "continuing" or "finished", say, but things are truly up in the air and partisans of the show insist it must be "continuing" until proven otherwise. See my comments at the end of the next topic, which are related to this and how "status" judgements are being forced into the "last-aired" parameter. The "status" is the perfect place to clarify these issues.Barsoomian (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem - there is NO consensus for what the parameter should state which is what I am attempting to achieve here. If one cannot be reached, yeah, I believe the parameter should be deleted as is it too open to interpretation and is basically being changed at individual editor's discretion and personal preference which is what started this conversation to begin. There's no need to say a show like 60 Minutes or The Daily Show is a "Returning" series. They're news shows that are topical in nature and do not have typical seasons. We also have folks changing "Cancelled" to "Ended" because they simply prefer that wording. Sorry, but I find that to be "silly" to say the very least. Wikipedia is not tv.com or TV Guide, and it really is not our responsibility to keep readers up to date to the very minute of a particular show's status. If anything, that content should be detailed in the text of the article that way it can be properly sourced and reliable. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It is time to cancel the field in the infobox itself. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose deleting the "Status" parameter as it is too open to interpretation and redundant. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The documentation of this template needs to have more examples:

• A series that is in production but not yet aired
• A weekly series that is in its first year
• A series on hiatus
• A series that has been canceled
• A series that is now in syndication but no new episodes have been shot
• Others ???
  --Javaweb (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I Concur that the "status" parameter should be removed. It was boldly added way back in 2007, without any sort of discussion--that I can find. What is its use? Over a year ago, it was noticed that this parameter receives inconsistent input, because there simply isn't a clear list of terms to fill it. Ongoing, returning, ended, canceled, on hiatus, airing, in production, completed, etc. None of these terms really adds anything to the reader's understanding of the article. If anything, the inconsistency this parameter's vagueness inherently encourages only serves to confuse a reader who may see "returning" on an article and "in production" on another. If a reader wishes to know the "status" of a television show, it seems to me that the article body is the best place to find that information. Placing the "status" in the infobox is an attempt to simplify a less-than-simple amount of information.  Chickenmonkey  23:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the definition of cancelled? There's controversy with that term. 117Avenue (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Cancellation (also known colloquially as axing) refers to the termination of a program by the network, typically (but not always) because of low viewership and/or bad, critical reviews. That seems like a pretty cut and clear definition right there. Pinkadelica^♣ 05:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

To Javaweb, I don't get your post....could you clarify why we need to list examples of text that can go in the status parameter? Pinkadelica^♣ 05:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

creator

Why isn't the creator parameter doing anything in the infobox?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you give an example where it doesn't work? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Example
Created by	John of Reading

Oops. At Powers (FX TV series) I had the following code:

|creator = [[Brian Michael Bendis]]<br>[[Michael Avon Oeming]]

|writer = [[Charles H. Eglee]]

| creator =

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of status parameter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Concensus was to remove the Status parameter and the parameter has been removed

---

From various previous discussions on this page it becomes clear that there is a request to remove the |status= parameter due to its everlasting ambiguous options like ended vs canceled, and the lack of standardization for it. I think it is best to have a !vote here in a separate section and get the ball rolling. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support, per the aforementioned ambiguous options and lack of standardization, as well as my above comments on the subject, which I will elaborate upon--and restate--if further discussion dictates such.  Chickenmonkey  08:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose (Retain the parameter). Add some suggested common options to the doc if that's a problem. Also I note that deleting a parameter that is in use in thousands of articles is likely to cause concern to many totally unaware of this discussion amongst a handful of editors, when they suddenly find that text no longer displays for no obvious reason. Barsoomian (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support, agree with the above opinions. I find it quite unnecessary. If it says "present" for last air date, then obviously it's still airing, if it has an end date, then obviously the series is over/ended/canceled/whatever. I don't see the point of including stuff such as "returning series", "currently airing", "on hiatus", etc. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Because stuffing that status information into the ""last_aired" parameter, which should be simply a date, has created a whole other can of worms. If "status" is deleted, people will just put even more text into "last_aired". Barsoomian (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Once upon a time the status parameter didn't even exist and I can assure you, there was not an abundance of folks "stuffing" loads of content into the "last aired" parameter. In fact, I don't recall anyone even being all that confused by the "last aired" parameter or what went in it until recently. The template infobox page pretty much explains what content goes where, and since the "last aired" parameter is pretty clear on that (unlike the status parameter), there were no problems that I am aware of and I've been editing television show articles since 2007. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You are endorsing using "last aired" as a status indicator then, as well as , or instead of, the current "status". Since the two parameters do exist, for now, their use could be clarified instead of merging them. Barsoomian (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support as the parameter is redundant and, as Xeworlebi stated, the lack of standardization for it use. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, unnecessary information, no standard, has lost meaning. 117Avenue (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• |status=remove_me because i am ambiguous, start lots of fights, have no standards, and am open to abuse. .... On the other hand i do actually use it for "|first_aired=insert date of Thursday next week" paired with "|status=Forthcoming series" because it does work a lot better than refusing to list the premiere date in the infobox until the show has been broadcast. If it is in the opening paragraph and the list of episodes why is it commented out in the infobox? It is silly and rather contradictory and confusing. Even without the status parametre one can still instert that date of 'Thursday next week' and just not put in anything in the |last_aired= and it will still generate a premiere date in the infobox and hopefully a reader is able to recognise the date is in the future.
  This also has me point out that some fields of the infobox are expected to be treated as current and others are all-encompassing. 18 episodes order but so far only 4 broadcast (so say 4 in the infobox and 18 in the body of the article) and this guy is joining the cast in episode 7 so we can't list him in the infobox yet (but he is in the body of the article) and when the woman leaves the show with episode 12 don't remove her from the infobox cast list and don't list dates in the infobox until they happen but please do include them in the body of the article as soon as they are announced from a reliable party. There is more than just the status parametre that needs addressing as many of the common practices associated with this template are actually doing what many strongly guard against, the use of Wikipedia as a tv guide. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should not be used as a television guide, because it isn't one. If a premiere date is scheduled, I agree that date should be mentioned in the body of the article and qualified accordingly (as "scheduled" and not a certainty); however, if the premiere has not yet aired, it would seem to go against the use of the infobox to include the date in the infobox, before it has happened. With episodes, however, I agree with you. Under current consensus, if episodes are produced, they will end up in the infobox--even in the event of cancellation. Therefore, it does make sense to include, in the infobox, all episodes that can be verified to have already been produced. That way, in the event of cancellation, those episodes are already verified to exist and the only change needed is to mention the cancellation. With the cast, if an actor has been verified to have already filmed episodes for a show, I agree that the actor can be added to the infobox. However, since shows exist in perpetuity, a cast member should not be removed from the infobox as a result of leaving the show. I'm not currently aware of the consensus on the cast. however; so these are merely my opinions.  Chickenmonkey  09:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Keeping and/or maintaining a clear consensus of what text is acceptable in the infobox really shouldn't be that difficult. Other projects with a much bigger scope manage to do it and I think we can too. I think things have degraded a bit on television show articles because there's not a whole lot of activity on this Wikiproject and the people who do regularly work on television show articles have kind of given up because there's not a whole lot of clarity on what is acceptable and what is not. Plus, as Deliriousandlost has stated, too many people think Wikipedia is TV Guide and I know keeping that junk out gets difficult. I think it would be beneficial if people here brought up issues that have been bothering them so perhaps they can get clarity on it or if needed, generate a new consensus. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus appears to support removing the status parameter. Would someone like to make an edit request to get it removed? Pinkadelica^♣ 04:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've already noted my opinion above, but I'd like to again point out that you are proposing to make information disappear from every single page that uses this parameter. You have made no effort to inform or seek the opinions of those editing the many pages affected, most who will have no idea who did this or why when the line disappears from their articles. Just 5 "support" votes made in this poll without any publicity suffices? This is incredibly arrogant behaviour. If you did the equivalent action of going to each page and deleting the information, it would be considered vandalism. There is a huge difference between considering whether an unimplemented parameter is a good idea and deleting one that has been used for years. Maybe it's sometimes "ambiguous" because the status of a show is. The real world is ambiguous. Barsoomian (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have left a notification on WikiProject Television, in an attempt to find wider consensus. As it pertains to editors of the articles that would be affected by this change, articles are not "theirs". Our goal is to work together for the improvement of Wikipedia, for everyone.  Chickenmonkey  19:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Barsoomian, I assume your comment is directed towards me because I dared to move this conversation forward with a suggestion. Need I remind you to assume good faith when dealing with other editors? This is the second or third time you have resorted to personal attacks against editors on this page and frankly, it is getting tiresome. If I were truly arrogant, I would have made the edit request to have the parameter removed myself instead of making the above statement that consensus appears to support removal. I left the statement open-ended on purpose, but I suppose you missed that. Regardless, thank you Chickenmonkey for posting on the WikiProject Television for additional input. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't attack or even mention you or anyone else, unlike your direct abuse of me. So just address the issue. Pointing out the implications of a proposal is not an attack on the proposer, and as for "assuming good faith", I am very tired of that being used as method of stifling any criticism of ISSUES, not PEOPLE. And the issue is that you have "consensus" of five people to delete information from a huge number of articles, without any notice on the pages affected. Barsoomian (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You didn't mention me, eh? Your snippy comment was directed solely at me in reference to the message I left (ie your message was left directly under mine which, according to talk page standards, means it was in response to my message). Just because you didn't use my name does not mean you weren't talking about me, so do try again. Also, I hardly "abused" you. I pointed out your obvious behavior which anyone with two eyes can see and others have already pointed out. If you do not want people commenting on your behavior, act accordingly. As far as the issue you want me to address, Chickenmonkey already left a message on the relevant talk page of the Television WikiProject so how else would you like people to further address the "problem" that only you seem to have issue with? If you're so very concerned about garnering a larger consensus, go around notifying people of the proposed change. As long as you word your notification neutrally, I'm sure no one here cares what you do. Pinkadelica^♣ 23:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't mention you. So stop whining. I've discussed the issues. You've discussed me. Barsoomian (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You obviously have some personal interaction issues so I'm going to leave you to it. Have a good one. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Again you just keep stating unpleasant and insulting things about my character while ignoring the issue at hand. But it's all fine because your buddies are getting their kicks in too. If I really was the jerk you paint me as, the way to deal with me is to demolish my argument, not my personality, deeply perceptive though your analysis of my "interaction issues" is. Barsoomian (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - it's a needless option that does not add a lot of weight to the infobox. First, the category for the date of the show will indicate if it's still actively being produced or if it's been cancelled (unless it's cancelled then it should always say "Date B - present"). The lead paragraphs should also indicate the "status" of the show as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Why require readers and editors to deduce the status from "last aired"? Why not use "last aired" to indicate the last aired date and nothing more? There are 47 parameters in the infobox, why overload one to save a line? Barsoomian (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The infobox should be a collection of integral and unambiguous information about the topic. Since the parameter clearly causes a lot of conflict, it may be easier to describe the film as ended, in production hell, airing or on hiatus, etc, in the actually text of the article where explanations are much more capable. BOVINEBOY2008 02:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support removal. A lot of fighting over something that (in my mind) can already be deducted from the first_aired/last_aired parameters. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per above. I think the status parameter is not needed anymore. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 07:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. What choice do we have? There's lot's of arguing about how the status should be kept (i.e. Ended: Canceled, Cancelled, Off air, Complete, Done, Finished; Returning series: Airing, Currently airing, Currently airing season X, Ongoing, Running; On hiatus: Hiatus, Timed out; In production/New series: Upcoming, New, In production, ETC). It should just be eliminated from the infobox system entirely (eliminated as in so it does not appear when it is typed in the infobox). MegastarLV (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This status parameter almost always causes arguments on the proper title of the status. Anyways, most infoboxes already have the "original run" parameter which states the day the show started to when it ended. And if it didn't end it says "Example date-present". I think that verifies the status of the show well enough. Obviously if they read "example date-present", the show's status is that it is currently airing. And if they read "example date- example date", it means the show is over. TRLIJC18 (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Parameter is very unnecessary. Plus the "Canceled" vs. "Ended" & the "Returning series" vs. "On hiatus" vs. "Currently airing" arguments always come up with this parameter, remove it altogether. QuasyBoy 23:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Too much controversy and waste of editors' time over the confusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

Another editor has already pointed out that there is consensus for removal of the parameter. Why can't it be removed? Are we waiting for more support votes for some inexplicable reason?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

f:The editor probably isn't a Wikipedia administrator (Who is the editor, by the way?). We must wait for a consensus, then (if possible) the parameter will be removed. MegastarLV (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But there is a consensus. As for removal, because the template is fully protected, we need to make an edit request, which is what the editor (Pinkadelica) properly said. Unless I see some objection, I'll make the request.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but first of all where is the consensus? All I see here is editors supporting the removal. MegastarLV (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You're losing me. I said consensus for removal, and you say all you see is "editors supporting the removal", which confirms what I've said. Even you support the removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do support it for the sake of ending so much argument over this, but it just doesn't go away. I believe now's the time to make that edit request? MegastarLV (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the parameter in accordance with the strong consensus on this talk page. Ucucha (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters or not, but class and data numbers 40-46 should be decreased by 1. 117Avenue (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, that is not necessary. Do you see any problems in pages where the template is used? Ucucha (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they look fine. 117Avenue (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New "infoboxes without images" categories?

I have been pondering a new category set: "Infoboxes without images" where, when the image field is blank/null, a hidden category is added. In the case of this template, "Television infoboxes without images" would fit. (I use "without" instead of "missing" because missing sounds like a requirement, which this is not.) This idea could apply to several infoboxes (like biographies) but I look through television shows more hence placement here. I know that the categories would end up very large (seriously, how many of them have no become that way lately?) but they would make it easier to discover and maintain which articles do not have a title card or biography photo, or CD cover, and so on. (I would have taken this on immediately myself if editing was not blocked, but I do not know what coding would be needed anyway.) What are your thoughts? — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 23:49, 8 August 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)

The only thing i am certain of is that you have the most inconsistent position here and that i utterly disagree with you. Don't you dare thank me.
There is also this magic option to leave the |last_aired= blank. It turns it into a single date rather than a date span.
What i see here though is you complaining that people are disputing the end of Primeval and you refuse to provide sources and instead are complaining that people want some proof and are reverting things. You should have added in the references rather than come here and essentially complain. I am absolutely against your idea to put in "Future series unconfirmed" because it is original research, speculation, wishful thinking, and completely contradictory to the primary sources. I don't agree with you at all. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your input. Complete nonsense and uncivil, but that seems your style. Barsoomian (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to miss my point that all of this comes from the complete nonsense you display in refusing to add in a reference. I refuse to add in such reference because that would be 'doing your work for you' and i do believe you could do it yourself rather than have come here and complained about the fields in the template not being used in a way that you like and your edits being reverted because there is no evidence being supplied to substantiate the claims made in your said edits. Your entire argument is nonsense and bickering. So someone calls you out on it and your defense is to call them stupid. Brilliant. It actually just goes to prove my point. None of this at all need have been brought here in the first place. "People are reverting my editors with the bizarre reasoning "the series can only be finished if ITV or Watch confirm it"." Guess what, ITV has confirmed it. Perhaps you could add in the reference rather than call that person's request for a reference bizarre. Problem would have been solved long, long ago, on the specific article's page. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"Refusing to add a reference"? A reference to prove that something doesn't exist? I've already noted that is in general impossible. And I haven't called anyone stupid here, so you are simply lying now. Barsoomian (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You have noted that yes, but it is complete nonsense, or are all the references for every show that has ended imaginary? Please check a random show article that ended/canceled, it will have a reference stating so. You know what, I'll give you some articles just in case: Veronica Mars, Angel, Alias, Deadwood, Hellcats, going to stop now as one could list pretty much every article on an ended show. The show exists, the cancelation happened (if that's the case), no-one is asking you to reference something that doesn't exist, quite the opposite actually. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to justify something I didn't do. I haven't tried to label the show as "ended" or "cancelled"; just not "present". As for "the show exists", WTF? You keep using words like "dead", "exist", "cancelled"; none of these labels have been suggested or are in dispute. The problem is the word PRESENT. And all the TV shows you listed were major shows on major US networks, they have a pretty much standard time of announcing their renewals, or otherwise. None of that applies to a show like Primeval. And you continue to IGNORE THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU. You're showing no good faith. Barsoomian (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You clearly haven't looked at the given articles, half of them were only announced after the finale aired, most of them were oddball cancelations. And here are some British shows, Survivors, Fern, Zen, Outcasts, Campus (some in talks for future things, but all announced), but there is no different standard for British shows. BTW, this section is called "last aired", I'm commenting on that, you're constantly trying to deviate to the status field for some reason. A show exists for eternity, even after it gets canceled it still exists, you need a source to say it is canceled, ended or whatever horrible word you haven't said, which all boils down to input of the last air date which should only be done when the show is confirmed to be dead (oh no! yes dead, canceled, ended, axed, canned, finished, terminated, concluded, whatever, don't get hung up on the semantics, all the same thing and irrelevant to the point). I have answered your question half a dozen times now, you need a source for ending, you don't have one? then it stays out. Stop obsessing about the status field which I am not commenting on, instead focus on your reason for actually starting this, now ridiculous, thread. No good faith? I disagree with, answer your repeated questions repeatedly, what do you think good faith means? Agreeing with you? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You keep putting words in my mouth: I NEVER SAID IT WAS CANCELLED/DID NOT EXIST. Really, stop PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I only am insisting that it is not "PRESENT" -- which some people would leave in "last aired" forever. Including I must assume you, since, for the seventh time, you have ignored my question of how long it should remain after it's off the air if there is no official cancellation or renewal. You have never answered that question, so please cite where you have "answered your question half a dozen times now". Your examples prove not a damn thing except you aren't familiar with the show that triggered this discussion. Barsoomian (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please get this in your head: when you declare a last date you effectively say it is over, while you keep insisting you never said the show is over you keep insisting on declaring a final date. It is the same thing. You can keep insisting this but it makes no sense, on one hand you claim the show is done, on the other you claim you never said that. And stop requesting I answer your question, I have already done so multiple times now, and from your last comment you make it clear you know the answer, I won't be quoting myself, but here once more: no source = no dice. The show which triggered this discussion is not relevant, if you want to have a discussion about that show do it at that articles talk page, you came here, I assume, to get a wider, more global, input on the matter, not that specific case. And I'm telling you here in general that if you do not have a source that states the show is over you can not put an end date in the infobox. It really is that simple. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:07, 3 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)

Postscript: I've just noticed that you keep saying I want to mark the show as "ended". No, I want to set the "last aired date" as the date the last (first run) show aired, and not as "present". That isn't saying the show has "ended". "Ended" might go in the "status" field when that's more clear. The status is currently undetermined, though I doubt it's coming back. Barsoomian (talk) 07:18, 2 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)

Thinking about it again I think Barsoomian is correct. The planned episodes have all been aired. No deals about any future series. To the best of our knowledge the show is ended. Jiiimbooh (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Barsoomian's idea is so wacky wonky nonsense absurd incorrect screwed-up that i honestly think this is a big joke. So according to this idea about having a perpetual |last_aired= Combat Hospital would have 13 episodes but have a broadcast history of 21 June - 28 June 2011. That is bullshit. Anyone looking at that would think the show was cancelled. Next week it would have 13 episodes and a broadcast history of 21 June - 5 July 2011. And the week after that it would be 13 episodes and 21 June - 12 July 2011. If you append a "Currently broadcast" to that most people would assume one of the two bits of data is wrong. Those that understand the cryptic message being conveyed would also realise you are treating the data as a tv guide rather than an encyclopædic summation. I'm not even going to ask if you are pranking us. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Try to be a little bit civil. You're putting words in my mouth I never said. Stop doing that. AS I SAID, "Present" is fine for the "last aired" date of a show that's in the midst of its season. The word "cancelled" is in your own mind, where you got that from I don't want to know. Barsoomian (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's try this again. You wrote, "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."[2] That would be you explaining your idea and that which i consider plain wonky because you are describing a perpetual last aired date. I don't care if a show is in the middle of a season or cancelled (o my that evil word) your idea to put up a last aired date in the infobox would imply that the show is cancelled to the casual reader. And infoboxes are to be summations of the article for quick reference. It is the worst of ideas that can be made to sound good because it is fundamentally misrepresenting and just really confusing. Hence i do believe it has to be a joke.
The last aired date field be blank, "present", or the end date of the show and nothing else. The status of the show removed from the template. That is what i would support.
If a show comes back a decade later like Doctor Who then it is easy to change the decade later but to leave it as "Future series unconfirmed" from 1989 through 2004 would have been totally insane. Yet that is what i believe you are suggesting be done with Primeval as compromise since people don't like you putting that it is ended and you refuse to add reference for the ending of the show. And from that we get all of this. Just add in the reference and be done with it. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"a last aired date in the infobox would imply that the show is cancelled" No, it doesn't. If that were the meaning, it should be labelled "date of finale". Are you really claiming ignorance of the meaning of the word "last" as, e.g., "In the last episode, Batman was about to be cut in half"? Do you think "My God, what a terrible way to end the series!" or "I wonder how he'll get out of that in the next episode?" As for "Future series unconfirmed", that's the current status of Primeval, I can't think of a more accurate description until something is announced. And "people don't like you putting that it is ended". Well, you're confused again. I did not do that. You just quoted what I did actually write: "Future series unconfirmed". No one knows for sure. One thing we do know is that it isn't on the air at "present", so that label was incorrect. Barsoomian (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's called "Original run", if it has an end date then yes that means it's over. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If ITV says they are willing to do 2 more series and those 2 more series are now done the presumptive is that the show is done not that it is unconfirmed. Short of ITV saying, "You know what, those were a smashing success so we're going to make more and please disregard our previous comments" their previous declaration of '2 more series to end it' is confirmation that it is ended. That would be the reference you would want for the end of the show and thus correctly declaring the last aired date in the original run. That is what you refuse and instead put in "Future series unconfirmed" when ITV has previously confirmed there will be no future series. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, go ahead and make it so and see what happens. I won't revert that. Though I don't think it's actually verifiable, it's what most people think is the situation. I've given up trying to work out why you spit at me and in the next breath advocate going even further than I did. Barsoomian (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It is going further, but in the other direction, and with a reference. That is all you ever needed to do. Anyone else could have done it too. Instead we get all of this because you don't want to include a reference. I am not asking your permission to do something. I am suggesting a course of action for you to take to resolve the fighting about Primeval. Though i suppose if you are one of those who believe there will be more series produced there is no happy resolution at this time. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe shows should be viewed as "present", until it can be confirmed that they are no longer present. Wikipedia operates on verifiability. In the particular case of Primeval, "future series unconfirmed" is the complete opposite of "verifiable". It was verifiable that the show was on the air; the onus is on the editor who wishes to change the status quo to prove why it should be changed, by using sources. If it is verifiable that the show is not "present", verify it, and there is no problem. Otherwise, it should not be changed.  Chickenmonkey  05:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Here you go: It's verifiable that the status of the show changed on June 28, it is no longer "present". E.g., ("Primeval Season 5 Episode 6 of 6... Last in the series...Tue 28 Jun). "Unconfirmed" is just stating the lack of verifiable information regarding future series, so you are correct. If you do have verifiable information, feel free to update it. Barsoomian (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. Look at this episode guide, from that same website. Look at the episode descriptions of each final episode of each season; they all say "last in the series". Did Primeval end after every season? Of course not. I believe this is a case of the UK using different terminology than the United States; they usually use "series" where the US usually uses "season". I'm sure you know this; you just weren't aware that is what the website was doing. In regards to "unconfirmed", we do not document the lack of verifiable information; we document verifiable information.  Chickenmonkey  06:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't verify that the show is returning either, so we can't put anything under status. We can't put "end date" or "present" under last aired, because both options would be unverified. It has to all be blank, possibly for years to come. Jiiimbooh (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. In that particular article's case, it already said "10 February 2007 – Present". Then, an editor made an unverified edit to remove "Present". As is the case with all unverified edits, the article should be returned to the state it was in prior to the unverified edit. However, the "status" parameter should then be rendered blank, due to the "unknown" status of the show. This is another reason why I believe the status parameter is in need of removal; it's open to too much ambiguity. Anyway, after the article is returned to its pre-unverified edit state (whether "status" is blanked, or not), those parameters should then only be edited when a verifiable change can be made.  Chickenmonkey  06:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"Unverified"? The date and the fact that the last show produced had been aired on 28 June was in the list of episodes in the same article. The infobox summarises that, the links are in the main and subsidiary articles. And in the comment I made just above. I don't know what your problem is in writing "unknown" as the status, and how one is supposed to interpret a blank as that, or anything. It just looks incomplete. Since that parameter does exist, it should be used sensibly. But I'm not terribly concerned about the status as long as the show isn't indicated to be "present" without any verification. Barsoomian (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The "last_aired" parameter isn't used to indicate the most recent episode to have aired. I understand that you feel the word "last" should be used in the manner of "last week" or "last month", but that isn't how it is being used in that parameter. "Last_aired" is used to indicate when the final episode has aired. If the final episode has not aired, it is to read "Present". The link that you have provided only verifies that the last episode of season 5 has aired, not the final episode of the show. The problem with writing "unknown" in the "status" parameter, is that it is not verifiable. By its nature, something that is "unknown" cannot be verified; we only document verified information. It is fine to leave the "status" parameter blank. Now, I suggest any further discussion on Primeval be taken to that article's discussion page, as that is the proper place to discuss that particular article. It is especially pertinent to discuss these things there, since these things are (presumably) the reason Primeval is currently protected from editing; that makes getting this matter resolved of ever higher priority, so when the article is unprotected the article's improvement can continue.  Chickenmonkey  07:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I raised this here because this interpretation of "last aired" seems, well, foolish to me. It is not simply what is appropriate for one show as I have seen variations of this elsewhere. And 'If the final episode has not aired, it is to read "Present" ' is insane. A show is not on the air, It is not in production. How can it be said to be "present"? How on earth did a default of a show being deemed to be on the air eternally until proven otherwise arise? I can't think of a polite way to describe this, it's simply counter to any logic. The renewal of a TV show is a very uncertain outcome. For Wikipedia to declare that a show is permanently on the air without any actual programs being broadcast or produced, as seems to be the case, is foolish and leads to misleading "facts" stated here. If this is indeed a policy, where is it stated, and who determined this and how can I get the issue considered it logically and get a definition of "last aired" that is congruent with the meaning of the words? As for Primeval, well if writing the date the last episode aired in the "last aired" slot is going to give people aneurysms, having me accused of killing a show prematurely instead of just reporting a fact, well, the only other option is leave it blank. Because "present" is certainly both wrong in the real world and unverifiable in Wikispeak. Barsoomian (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from uncivil hyperbole. You're advocating that every infobox, in every article, on every current show, be edited at the end of every season? If this isn't what you're advocating, please tell what it is. Most shows aren't perpetually "in production", so your interpretation would have those shows be considered what? Not current? A show is "on the air", until it is either verifiably canceled or verifiably out of production, by choice. Having a show's run listed as "Date - Present" is its last known verifiable state. Once there is another verifiable state (such as canceled), then the article is changed to reflect that. You seem to believe verifiable proof of a show's cancelation (or end) is something that is hard to come by; this is rarely the case. In the case of "last aired", the word last has a definition that is congruent with this parameter's current use of it: "Final, ultimate, coming after all others of its kind." Last also has the meaning you wish to adjoin to it here: "Most recent, latest, last so far." Both definitions, and uses, are accurate; for this parameter, however, the first use is being employed. I honestly don't understand your objection to this.  Chickenmonkey  09:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The current convention is insane. Is it uncivil to insult a convention? I apologise to the convention, I hope it can forgive me. It seems it's open season to insult me here, so I'm sorry if I am not turning the other cheek as much as I should. Anyway, the infobox parameter "num_episode" is normally updated for every single episode aired, so updating last_aired once a year doesn't seem a great burden. And again "A show is "on the air", until it is either verifiably canceled or verifiably out of production". This is ******* (since I will avoid incivilty). The "on air" status of a show can be VERIFIED quite easily by recourse to any number of reliable program guides, not least the broadcaster or producer itself. If the show is not on the current schedule, it's not on the air. Are you seriously telling me this is not verifiable? How did it happen that the onus for upcoming TV shows ("prove it's NOT going to happen") is exactly the opposite of that for upcoming movies ("confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography" WP:NFF)? "You seem to believe verifiable proof of a show's cancelation (or end) is something that is hard to come by; this is rarely the case." Great! Tell me how to come by this information for Primeval. How long do we wait? A month? A year? /// "Last also has the meaning you wish to adjoin to it here: "Most recent, latest, last so far." Both definitions, and uses, are accurate; for this parameter, however, the first use is being employed." Excellent. That's what obviously should be used for "last_aired" : The date of the "most recent" episode. While we're looking at definitions, may I reiterate that my original issue was that "present" is misleading (not to mention, completely, and verifiably, untrue) for a show not on the air, especially one with no real prospect for renewal. How do you justify that, since it seems you do fully support that convention?Barsoomian (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not insulted you; in fact, I feel I have been quite patient with you. You appear to be becoming defensive. That is not an optimal position to take, when having a discussion. Just calm down; a pleasant discourse is better for everyone. An "upcoming" television show's production does need to be verified, before "first_aired" can be filled in; the first episode must have already aired, before that parameter should be filled. Once a show is already on the air, however, verifiable information is needed to fill the "last_aired" parameter; the show's final episode has to have aired (and it must be verifiable that it is the show's final episode). This interpretation of "last_aired" is correct; your interpretation of "last_aired" is also correct. Currently, however, the first interpretation is the one in use. This is the current convention; if you feel this current convention is incorrect, you are welcome to see if consensus on this issue has changed. A show having "no real prospect for renewal" is original research, unless that opinion can be attributed to a reliable source. It appears that you are also contending that a television show, while not in production, should be considered as "ended". The reason I say it appears that way, is because you link to WP:NFF. If this is something you are contending, I would remind you of WP:CRYSTAL. Essentially, you appear to be contending that a show should be considered over, until it is confirmed to be back in production. This is predicting the future. It is also predicting the future to consider an upcoming television show as "present" when it has yet to air; however, it is not predicting the future to consider a show that is already on the air to be on the air, until it has verfiably ended. That is to say, a show must remain in its most recent verifiable state, until a change of that state can be verified. The end of a season/series does not qualify as the end of a show. As for Primeval, this information does not yet exist for that particular show. Wikipedia is a work in progress; be patient. If a show is canceled, there is likely to be information to verify this, soon. As I said, in rare cases, this information may take a longer amount of time. There is no rush.  Chickenmonkey  18:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say you insulted me. Others have here, with impunity. Just look above. I'm not whining about it, but it sets a tone. Moving on: "It appears that you are also contending that a television show, while not in production, should be considered as "ended"." No, I never said that either. One more time: What I am saying that any assertion that it is continuing (i.e., a new season at some time in the future) requires verification, same as any future event. I cannot understand how you can say this is "Crystal". It's the assumption that a new season will be made, with no evidence, that is crystal balling. But this is not actually the point I started with, though important. I was and am concerned with the word "present" being used when a show is not present. "until a change of that state can be verified". Exactly. The state of being "present" changed when the last episode of the season was broadcast (and in this case, no renewal has been made). Both these facts are verifiable. It DOES NOT mean that the show is ended. A definition of "present as "not ended" is wrong. It's misleading and unhelpful to put "present" in the infobox when the show isn't on the air and in some cases, hasn't been renewed. Your faith that definitive information will be forthcoming on Primeval is based on what? Assuming that is crystal balling. Assuming the the show will be renewed, is even more crystal balling and/or original research. I've asked others here and been ignored: How long is this state of grace allowed to last? I was abused for changing it immediately. So, a week? A month? Six months? How long does does "nothing" happen before it's allowed to admit that a show is not "present"? And just again, as this keeps getting misinterpreted: Not stating it's cancelled, merely that it's not "present". Barsoomian (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The assertion is not that a show is continuing. That's where I think we are losing each other. In an article which currently says "Present", the most recent verifiable state is "Present". The end of a season/series does not render a show "not present". To change an article that already says "Present" to include a "last_aired" date is assuming the show will not be renewed, only because it has yet to be renewed (or canceled, or any other change of state). No verification is needed to leave an article in its already verified state; the verification is needed to change its state. There is no assumption that a new season will be made; it is only the leaving of an article in its most recent verifiable state. You seem to be saying you feel, once a season/series has ended, then that is reason enough to remove "Present". That isn't reason enough to remove "Present", because the removal of "Present" implies that the show has ended. That doesn't mean that you are removing present because you consider the show to have ended; it only means that including a "Last_aired" date implies that the show has ended. This is the current use of the "Last_aired" parameter. I understand that you disagree with that interpretation of the "Last_aired" parameter, but that is the case. My faith that definitive information will be forthcoming on Primeval is based on history; when shows are canceled (or end), it is usually verifiable. The duration of this "state of grace" is irrelevant. Again, Wikipedia does not have a deadline; it is a work in progress. Articles should only be edited when such an edit can be verified, whenever that may occur.  Chickenmonkey  05:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"The assertion is not that a show is continuing." Yes, it is. That's what the English word "present" implies. "The end of a season/series does not render a show "not present""????? How can it not? ". To change an article that already says "Present" to include a "last_aired" date is assuming the show will not be renewed," No, it isn't. It's stating the date the show as last aired, exactly as one would expect "last_aired" to reflect. "You seem to be saying you feel, once a season/series has ended, then that is reason enough to remove "Present". " Correct. "the removal of "Present" implies that the show has ended." No, it doesn't -- as I've said at least 20 times in previous posts. Anyway, at least you haven't insulted me like the others who disagreed with me. But I hope you won't be offended if I conclude by saying: This is wrong and it's bad for Wikipedia as it makes articles report as "fact" things that are demonstrably, verifiably, untrue. Barsoomian (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You acknowledge the current consensus on the use of "Last_aired", correct? That current consensus is that "Last_aired" is being used to represent the date of the final episode, not the most recent episode. Again, both interpretations are correct, but only one of them can be employed; currently, the one you disagree with is being used. With this consensus in mind, the end of a season/series does not render a show "not present" because the final episode of a season/series is not necessarily the final episode of the show. The word "Present" merely implies that the show is ongoing, which it is, until it has verifiably ended. With that, the "Last_aired" parameter is not being employed to state "the date the show last aired"; it is being employed to state the date the final episode aired. Bearing that in mind, again, filling the "Last_aired" parameter, with a date, is implying that the show has ended. I realize that you disagree with this--and have stated so multiple times; your disagreement, however, does not change the fact that this is the case. I honestly don't understand how leaving an article in its most recent verifiable state is bad for Wikipedia. If you feel consensus has changed on this, there are avenues by which one can determine that. As consensus stands, currently, your interpretation of the "Last_aired" parameter and the use of the word "Present" within this infobox is against consensus.  Chickenmonkey  06:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is it bad? I've said that a dozen times too. Because you are labelling a show "present" when it's not present, it's off the air. This novel definition was created in 2009 and has been religiously applied ever since. This date parameter is not being used as a date at all, but as the status of a show (those that have not been verifiably cancelled). Every show that is not cancelled is "present". Thus defeating the point of having a date parameter since it hardly ever is used as a date. By the way, like everyone else, you keep ignoring my question of how long a show is to continue as "present" in the absence of either formal renewal or cancellation. You just laugh it off as if that was an impossible situation. You insist that it must be announced at some time, but only have "faith" to back this up. You won't even answer it hypothetically. Why not? Barsoomian (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

On their own |last_aired= and |first_aired= each result in the infobox saying that it is a single date. When used in combination the infobox calls it Original Run, which is the opposite of the second run syndication at 7;30 Monday-Friday of How I Met Your Mother on the FOX station i get. That said i don't know of any show that makes use of the |last_aired= to the exclusion of a |first_aired= date though i suppose it is possibly found on some articles of the oldest television programmes. The original run of a programme does not end each week with the newest episode. It also doesn't end with each season or series. The Listener's first season was shown in Morocco beginning on 1 March 2009. It was on CTV starting on 3 June 2009 and NBC on 4 June 2009. It was renewed in 2009 for a second season. There were no new episodes broadcast in 2010. The show was still not cancelled or unconfirmed. The second season premiered in Canada on 8 February 2011. There is 23 months 1 week gap between the premieres of the first and second seasons. All that time it was still "2009-present". What you are most recently advocating is that the original run be changed at the end of each season to indicate the original run is over and when the next season premiere comes along change the original run back to read "present". If a show is known to have more episodes coming and often until there is some indication beyond mere speculation that there will be no more the original run is not yet over. The 12th season of Degrassi has already been confirmed but they are still working on season 11 and the most recent broadcast of a new episode was the season 10 finale. The 5th season of Flashpoint has been confirmed but the fourth season has yet to be broadcast anywhere (CBS and their wonky lies being dismissed cause it is s3 they are showing) yet the show says "2008-present" and will continue to once the fourth season is shown. Because the original runs of these shows are known to not be completed. "last_aired" as a parametre in the infobox is a convenient, short term that conveys the intended content. If it were to be "end_date" would you be here saying that the end date is each week with each new episode or the end date is with each season until the next starts. No matter what it is actually called in the template it is intended to be the first date of broadcast of the final episode of the show. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What you are most recently advocating is that the original run be changed at the end of each season to indicate the original run is over" No, I'm not. But I'm used to you making up crap, declaring I said it and then calling me names. So we'll leave it at that. Barsoomian (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understand that you have stated why you feel it is bad. However, the simple fact that you have stated that you feel it is bad doesn't automatically make it bad. I have explained to you how current consensus interprets "Present" and how that interpretation is not in line with your interpretation. This "novel definition", having been "religiously applied" for two years, represents assumed consensus, due to silence. Not only was this consensus reached through discussion, but it has also stood the test of time--even being reaffirmed, in later discussion: Here. However, as I have already said, if you feel consensus has changed, there are ways to determine that; simply stating "This is bad" or "This is not being used correctly" is not a way to determine if consensus has changed. As for your question, I did not ignore it or laugh it off. The duration of time is irrelevant. Again, Wikipedia does not have a deadline; it is a work in progress. Articles should only be edited when such an edit can be verified, whenever that may occur. I used "faith" because that's the term you applied to it. Hypothetically, in the extremely rare case of a show's renewal/cancellation never being verifiable; that would be handled on a case-by-case basis. Has it ever happened? Has a show ever gone off the air or been renewed without that somehow being verifiable? This feels like a straw man argument, because this hypothetical situation is such a rare occurrence. One rare situation I can think of, off-hand, is Futurama; it was never "canceled", but it was simply allowed to go out of production. How do I know that? Because a reliable source reported on it; that's what happens. When a show ends, the overwhelmingly usual result is someone saying something about it. I've answered your question, both directly and hypothetically. I don't see where this discussion has any further to go.  Chickenmonkey  08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, fine. Any arguments I make supported by facts or logic are simply my "feelings" and will be discounted. I get that.

"When a show ends, the overwhelmingly usual result is someone saying something about it." Well, duh. Obviously it isn't an issue for the shows that are formally cancelled. But I also know that it isn't true for the particular show "Primeval". "Has a show ever gone off the air or been renewed without that somehow being verifiable?" It's easy to verify that the show has gone off the air, but apparently that isn't enough, I have to verify that someone says that it is "cancelled". And as "the duration of time is irrelevant", so, if Impossible Pictures doesn't issue a statement saying the show is cancelled (they won't, not for years at least) , then "Primeval" is absolutely required to be "Present" forever. How appropriate for a show about time travel. Barsoomian (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the position that your arguments have been supported by facts and/or logic, but that isn't the point. If you want to argue that consensus has changed on the interpretation of this infobox's parameters, perhaps you can explore these avenues for determining that. Current consensus, however, does not support your arguments. In regard to Primeval, that show aired its series 5 finale six days ago. Be patient. If that show is canceled, someone is most likely to say something, soon. It doesn't have to be Impossible Pictures; it only has to be a reliable source reporting that the show has been canceled (or renewed). To use the Futurama example, again, Zap2it reported that the show had been allowed to go out of production. All that's needed is a reliable source. Again, to be clear, current consensus does not recognize the most recently aired episode as "Last_aired"; current consensus recognizes the final episode as "Last_aired". So, to fill in "Last_aired", a reliable source is needed to verify that the most recent episode is, in fact, the final episode.  Chickenmonkey  18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"reliable source is needed to verify that the most recent episode is, in fact, the final episode"? True, but irrelevant. We are not talking about the "final" episode, but the "last aired" one. If the date was meant to be the date of the finale, why isn't it "Final(e) date"? The date of the last aired episode is a simple unambiguous fact, which you are insisting cannot be stated unless and until some unnamed person at some undetermined time in the future declares they are not going to do something. The state of "present" when it is not on the air requires a definition of the word "present" that is unique to this template and unexpected to any speaker of English. You may sadly be correct that consensus, amongst the self-selected group that decides this, agrees with these absurdities. I reject your assertion that it has any relation to logic. Barsoomian (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

We are, indeed, talking about the "final" episode. It is not my problem, if you refuse to accept this. I could easily say, "If the date was meant to be the date of the most recent episode, why isn't it 'Most_recent'?" I don't have to say that, however, because it's irrational. You're choosing to only accept your point of view. I've acknowledged that your interpretation could also be accurate, which is why it's understandable that you would come here looking for clarity; however, I have offered clarity, and all you've offered is confrontation. You've made your opinion on current consensus known, and you're aware of how you could determine if consensus has changed; instead of either accepting consensus or attempting to see if consensus has changed, you've decided to continue simply arguing your point. Sometimes consensus doesn't agree with you; it's okay. If you can't accept that, just continue improving Wikipedia in some other fashion or perhaps taking a break from Wikipedia would be an option.  Chickenmonkey  21:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You still fail to justify the definitions you insist on, it's a Humpty Dumpty definition. Barsoomian (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't.

1. "Last_aired", according to consensus, represents the final episode.
2. "Present", according to consensus, is used when a show has not aired its final episode.
3. Removing "Present" and filling "Last_aired", according to consensus, signifies that a show has ended.

It's quite easy. Please, either accept consensus, or take the next step to determine if it has changed.  Chickenmonkey  02:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's exactly that. If "Last aired" is a date, it means the the show has ended Except when it's "present" when it then means "Not cancelled". That's perfectly clear. My confusion arises because I was using the meaning of the words as defined in a dictionary. How foolish of me. Barsoomian (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm stepping away from this conversation. Have a nice day.  Chickenmonkey  04:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Here we have a consequence of this idiotic definition: The Adventures of Dudley the Dragon. The last show was made in 1999. Yet its infobox states "Original run: 1993 –present". I might have tried to fix this, but I've been told here over and over that there is no time limit on "present" and that you have to prove a show has been cancelled before you can write the "last aired" date. So this show must therefore be present, 12 years after it ceased production. But the important thing is that your definitions are all self consistent, no matter what happens in the real world. Barsoomian (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A short Google search returned this "He was equally at home as Mr Crabby Tree in the now cancelled hit children's TV series The Adventures Of Dudley The Dragon.", which is a reliable source confirming that The Adventures of Dudley the Dragon had been canceled. We shouldn't base our policies on the fact that one may be able to find a poorly sourced article. Wikipedia is a work in progress; as such, it contains a great many poorly sourced articles. If you want to "fix" that article, or any other poorly sourced article, that's great; just make sure you "fix" it with sourced information.  Chickenmonkey  04:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't patronise me with lectures about how to use sourced information. That isn't the issue. If you are going to fault my edits on those grounds, be specific. Your source is behind a paywall, so it's not accessible anyway to assess its reliability. I'm not going to put myself out to fix problems that your policy has created. Barsoomian (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not patronizing you. You pointed at a poorly sourced article and expected that to mean--what exactly? I'm only saying, as I said previously: if a show is canceled, a reliable source will likely say something about it. At least one reliable source has noted that The Adventures of Dudley the Dragon was canceled. The fact that our article on The Adventures of Dudley the Dragon hasn't been edited to include verifiable information is beside the matter; verifiable information exists. As it pertains to that source, the fact that it is behind a paywall does not affect its reliability. The only problem here is that The Adventures of Dudley the Dragon hasn't been edited properly, and that has nothing to do with your argument. It's not "[my] policy"; it's just consensus. Nobody is asking you to put yourself out. Editing Wikipedia is not compulsory; you do not have to participate, if doing so puts you out.  Chickenmonkey  06:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not patronizing you". You just took the opportunity to lecture me about reliable sources because you thought I'd never heard of the concept? Sorry for misinterpreting your helpful pointers. And it is your policy. You support it, you enforce it. (No, not "yours" exclusively, obviously, and unfortunately.) The state of the Dudley article demonstrates what happens when your policy of "default present" is applied: instead of the last aired date being applied from the simple known facts at the time it happens, it must be left to some nebulous future time when a random mention is made in a random newspaper. And if no reporter happens to mention it in passing, if no one is paying attention, it will continue to display the obviously incorrect "fact" that the show is "present" indefinitely. Anyway, since you apparently have access to this particular news item, you can verify its reliability and update the article in conformance with your policy. I can't. Barsoomian (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel slighted, at all. It seems discussion with you often ends with you accusing other editors of insulting you in some way. I don't wish to unintentionally insult you, anymore. That is the end of this discussion, for me--again.  Chickenmonkey  08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Again the "it's all in your mind" response, ignoring the point. So you'll let The Adventures of Dudley the Dragon rot. Fine, who cares? I'll fix it then, feel free to revert it. You must think it's so clever to disparage someone in the form of an apology. Try addressing the subject rather than what you imagine are my personal failings and a lot of time would be saved. Barsoomian (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You know what? No. I'm not going to ignore that comment. I'm not disparaging you. I don't understand how you could possibly think I am. It's consensus. I won't link to it, though, because then you'll find some way to say I'm insulting you. You understand what consensus is; you understand how consensus works; so what's the problem? If consensus agreed with you, I would support that. The only reason I joined this discussion, to begin with, is because I was trying to help you, because you seemed to not understand. I see now that you do understand; it's just that you don't care. As long as consensus on this matter disagrees with you, you're going to argue the point. So have fun. I'm finished letting you bait me. Have a nice day.  Chickenmonkey  09:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Baiting you? Let's expand that acronym you hurl at me: "Disruptive, agenda-driven or disturbed editors may egg you on" How pleasant of you. I'm not looking for an argument, I was looking for a discussion of the issues. Your response to any question starts and ends with "It's consensus". That doesn't tell me why. You say "If you disagree, change the consensus". But if I try to do that, by discussing the issue, pointing out cases where the "consensus " policy has lead to absurd outcomes, you just assert that I don't understand the concept of consensus, or tell me what a reliable source is, or to look both ways when crossing the road. All quite useful knowledge, to be sure. None of which address the basic question I started with weeks ago, which you simply refuse to address: what does the English word "present" mean and how on earth can it be redefined to the exact opposite of its normal meaning? Let me guess: it's because that's the consensus. And to question that is a sign of a disturbed mind. Barsoomian (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"That doesn't tell me why" - I attempted to tell you why, but apparently I was not clear enough: Others do not have an issue with this (hence, it is consensus). I did not say that you do not understand consensus; I particularly said that you do understand consensus. I have also said, multiple times, that the English word "present" is not being misused here. It simply is not being misused. There are multiple ways of determining if consensus has changed. Maybe others will agree with you; that's the point of something like an RFC, to get more editors involved. If more editors are brought in, perhaps they will agree with you. That is fine. Continuing this discussion, between you and me, is not productive, but I did not want to leave it on the terms I left it on, last night. I hope you find someway to get past this, whether that means further discussion with someone else or accepting that consensus does not always agree with you. I, however, have wasted too much time on this.  Chickenmonkey  18:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, you say only that "it's consensus". No examination of the logic. You know how unlikely it is that anyone not a habitué of this page will take an interest. It's the people who made and support the policy who should explain it. Also when the issue did arise elsewhere, when you forced Primeval to conform to this ruling, you accused me of forum shopping. And while I can see you are now trying to be polite, if you don't want to argue the logic, please just don't respond at all. It's not like I force you to participate. Your homilies about what consensus means and how I should just accept it are not achieving anything and to repeat them over and over, mixed in with various links implying that I'm a "disruptive, agenda-driven or disturbed editor" is counter-productive. Barsoomian (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of website parameter

I don't think a URL is crucial information, and therefore, shouldn't be part of the main infobox. Isn't that what the external links section is for? I don't think it's any more notable for inclusion than the "reviews" parameter for albums/singles that was deprecated a while ago. Lachlanusername (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Website display text

Please amend the last two parameter-pairs from

| data45      = {{#if:{{{website|}}}|[{{{website}}} {{{website_title|Website}}}]}}
| class45     = url
| data46      = {{#if:{{{production_website|}}}|[{{{production_website}}} Production website]}}
| class46     = url

to

| data45      = {{#if:{{{website|}}}|{{{website}}}}}
| class45     = url
| data46      = {{#if:{{{production_website|}}}|{{nowrap|Production website:}} {{{production_website}}}}}
| class46     = url

for better accessibility and printability of these external links (so a printed copy of the page will have an actual URL rather than just the text "Website" or "Production website"). — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made your changes to Template:Infobox television/sandbox. I've also made a few changes of my own for consideration: if you are not using titles for the URLs it may be better to use the label function of the infobox. Please see my edit summaries to the sandbox and also Template:Infobox television/testcases, and give me your comments. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox preview?

Is there a reason why there is no longer a preview of the Infobox? AnimatedZebra (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? If you don't enter any parameters you end up with an empty box. 117Avenue (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

On the {{Infobox Sydney New Year's Eve}} page, there is a preview up top. AnimatedZebra (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

As the user who removed it said, we've got proper documentation. 117Avenue (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Status=Under Production

Why isn't there a parameter to not that a show is now Under Production? I want to adjust the infobox at The Firm (2012 TV series).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That parameter does not (and will not) exist in the infobox. MegastarLV (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but don't worry, all the important parameters, like "theme_music_composer", "picture format" etc. are safe. Barsoomian (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

New cast members in the television infobox

It's been an unofficial policy because of WP:CRYSTAL for some time not to add announced cast members to the infobox until they actually appear in the opening credits of an episode of the show. This has caused problems in the past--sometimes they end up simply being recurring and not listed in the opening credits (this happened once on CSI: Miami) and other times they quit after only a few episodes and so were listed as "Special Guest Star" (as happened last year on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit). Lately, though, I've been seeing problems with editors edit warring over this and insisting that merely being announced and filming an episode is sufficient to be listed in the starring portion of the infobox. As such, I propose the documentation for this infobox be edited for the "starring" guideline as follows:

"The show's star or stars. Separate multiple entries with line breaks in original credit order followed by order he/she joined the show (<br />). New cast members should not be listed here until they appear in the credits of at least one aired episode for current shows or one unaired episode for DVD and other releases."

Thoughts or objections? 74.130.135.208 (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Alana de la Garza (Connie Rubirosa) is a prime example of an Actor/Actress added onto a "Starring" list - prior to appearing in an episode. Infact, she was added into the 'Starring' list of the Law & Order: LA section in January 2011, 5 months prior to appearing on the show in June. Barring that, it isn't Crystal, if it is definately going to happen. More than 6 episodes have already been filmed, New cast interviews, photo's, storylines have been developed, Hundreds of reliable sources, stating that these two actors actresses will be on the show. This is no difference from removing all information for the upcoming season -- because it's in the future. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because de la Garza was added to an infobox doesn't mean she should have been. And it is WP:CRYSTAL because you have no way to know it is definitely the case until you see it in the opening credits, no matter how many sources you have. Dozens of sources "confirmed" that Megalyn Echikunwoke and Evan Ellingson would be joining the cast of CSI: Miami at the beginning of season 7. Instead, the producers chose to list Megalyn and Evan both as a guest star despite calling them part of the cast. Megalyn was finally added to the opening credits mid-season but Evan was never added to the opening credits. The editors who edit warred over this were violating WP:CRYSTAL because they had no way to know whether Megalyn and Evan would appear in the opening credits, just like you have no way to know until tonight whether the two new actors on SVU will appear in the opening credits, no matter how many sources from NBC you quote. They just don't necessarily indicate that they will appear in the opening credits.

FYI, MelbourneStar is the prime editor who has been edit warring over this at Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Takes two to tango, and tonight's episode will feature Giddish, the next episode will feature Pino. And, Pino and Giddish have already had their cast photo taken [3]. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, all completely irrelevant. There were cast photos of Megalyn even though she wasn't in the opening credits for some time. And just because they're in the episode doesn't necessarily mean they will be in the opening credits. I'm sure I don't have to point out that Michelle Hurd, Stephanie March, Diane Neal, and Adam Beach were all listed as guest stars before they were listed in the opening credits, just like Megalyn. Cast photos exist featuring Dean Winters but he was never in the opening credits.

You can't predict who's going to be in the opening credits based on who's considered cast since different studio have different definitions of who's cast and who's not. The classic example is Star Trek: The Original Series: only William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley were ever listed in the opening credits, despite six other actors and actresses being called "cast members" who even appeared in promotional photos. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: For other interested editor's information, besides Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, the other two articles this has been an issue at this year were Two and a Half Men and CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I don't agree that the credits should be the only criteria for appears in the list. However, I think there should be more than just some pictures with them. I would argue that to comply with policy (WP:RS) we need a reliable source stating who is starring. This could be a published list of stars or the opening credits. However, I have not expertise and am just stating my view. Eomund (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you the opening credits shouldn't be the only criteria, even though it's often the most reliable. Some shows, such as Everwood, Jack & Bobby, Sabrina: The Teenage Witch, and My Wife and Kids has other stars that were listed as "Also Starring" and appeared before the guest stars of the episode during the first act. There also needs to be a definite reason for them to be listed as starring in the infobox; if we started listing all recurring characters, some shows, like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, would have an extremely long infobox. And, per this RFC, they shouldn't be listed in the infobox before they are cast members, i.e. just after they have been announced, as network announcements have, in the past, been notoriously unreliable and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

*Weak support - WP:Crystal is pretty clear, WP should not include information about events until they happen. For example, the WP:NFF guideline for films dictates that films cannot have articles until production has started. Turning to the question of stars in a TV show, what is the "bright line" when a star is actually in a show? I can see two litmus tests: (1) when an episode is filmed, including the star; and (2) when the episode is broadcast. The latter "broadcast" criterion is better for a couple of reasons: (a) many filmed shows never make it to the air; and (b) we are not talking about an entire Film or TV series: we are talking about a single actor appearing in an infobox: that is a statement of fact, and really needs to have concrete evidence of a broadcast. For instance, a TV series could start filming, and then change actors before broadcast. This proposal is compliant with the spirit of WP:Crystal. Before the broadcast happens, there is no problem with including information about prospective actors in the body of the article where context can be given (e.g. "actor ABC has filmed 3 episodes, due to air ..."). On the other hand, the other criterion (1) is not to bad ... the important thing is to pick one and stick with it. Text of RfC changed ... no time now to reevaluate. --Noleander (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Very well reasoned and thought out comments. Thank you. The reason I'm not in favor of including actors when they have filmed episodes is because studios are inconsistent about how they deal with certain events, such as an announced cast member being dropped from the cast after only a few episodes. For example, Jerry Orbach was to be a cast member of Law & Order: Trial by Jury but only filmed two episodes before he died; he was included in the opening credits of the two episodes he appeared in. Paula Patton, on the other hand, quit Law & Order: Special Victims Unit after filming only a few episodes and, as a result, never appeared in the opening credits. In this case, it appears that how the studio personally felt about the actor at the time motivated whether they were in the opening credits or not, not whether a press release had been given about them joining the cast. Plus, all of the instances I noted above where announced cast members filmed episodes but still weren't included in the opening episodes. As such, it's really unpredictable until the episode airs. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: per Eomund's suggestion above, I'm modifying my original proposal. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Version 2: "The show's star or stars as listed in a reliable source such as the opening credits. Separate multiple entries with line breaks in original credit order followed by order he/she joined the show (<br />). New cast members should not be listed here until they appear as starring in at least one aired episode for current shows or one unaired episode for DVD and other releases."

IP: If you are intending to amend your original RfC, this "mid course" change may cause confusion. Several editors above have already replied to the original suggestion, so the Support/Oppose !votes above become ambiguous, or even wrong. If you've changed your mind about the RfC, the best course of action would be to retract this RfC, and start another one. Since you are the originator, and I'm the only supporter (so far) I see no problem with just closing this RfC (see WP:RFC) and then starting a new one with your new proposal. --Noleander (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind about the RfC; I've just changed the wording slightly to reflect the fact that opening credits are not always the only source of a show's starring cast. The only oppose vote so far is going to oppose it no matter what I say because they sincerely believe that new cast should be added as soon as they're announced, and I assumed the slight change in wording would not be objected to by you. It's all in reference to the comments by Eomund above, and I see collaboration on an acceptable version to be one valid use of RfC. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you should not change the text of an RfC after other editors start responding. An editor might respond "Support" to the original RfC, then you change the text, and if that editor does not notice, their "Support" may either (1) become nonsense and make the editor look like a fool; or (2) not reflect their intentions, which is worse than being foolish. You only time you can safely change the wording in an RfC is if there are only 1 or 2 editors that have responded and they are all cooperating in the text change. --Noleander (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think you're being a bit unreasonable and bureaucratic here. I'm not a newbie so this isn't my first time at the rodeo. The modified text does not significantly change the original proposal to the point it invalidates or makes "look silly" either your support or MelbourneStar's oppose. The two of you, along with the editor this change is in response to, are the only editors who have responded to the RFC. The proposed modified text is placed within the discussion so as it is clear which comments came before the modified version, and it is clearly identified as a modified version, with the original also displayed. I honestly see no reason to close this RFC simply to reopen it because the text was changed slightly to be clearer and avoid certain possible problems in the future, and I can find nothing a WP:RFC that says it is necessary to close a RFC if the text changes. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Talk page conventions in WP are clear: it is inappropriate to post a comment in a Talk page, and then after other editors have responded below the comment, to change the original comment. In rare situations, you can amend the original comment by striking-through the original text, and perhaps inserting new text in a special font, such as bold. In this case, you also had the option to add supplemental text into the original RfC post (as a sort of postscript) but chose instead to replace the text. That is contrary to WP Talk page conventions. I'll retract my "support" comment above since I don't have time to reevaluate the new RfC text. --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

....if that's what you must do, I suppose you must, but it's completely unreasonable. If you used the time you've spent giving these comments and, instead, look at what's actually changed, you'd see that all that's changed is, instead of using "credits" for the basis of the attribute, it now says "a reliable source such as the opening credits". Your comment claims you don't have time to reevaluate, but you've just spent all this time lecturing over a slight change that makes absolutely no difference to anything you said when a two minute read would have shown you as much. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I think that RS would be enough to justify listing actors names. WP:CRYSTAL applies to things which could have no RS. jmcw (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs target market/demographic/audience parameter

This would be useful information. Unless you've seen previews for them, or spent time and possibly money to watch the first episodes, you would not necessarily get any inkling that, as some examples, Merlin (TV series) and Terra Nova (TV series) are heavily geared toward teens, as opposed to either kids or adults (sometimes farcically so, like the teen sister in Terra Nova's pilot being more interested in flirting with the cute military grunt than in finding her missing brother who is probably being eaten by dinosaurs; but of course that's just my POV). Contrast Camelot (TV series), which is nothing like Merlin, but a adult-themed period piece along the lines of The Tudors (TV series) and Spartacus: Blood and Sand. I'm not talking about ratings by some censorship body saying what is "appropriate" for what age group, I'm talking about authorial, directorial, editorial, and marketing intent. This can generally be gleaned from entertainment industry publications and reviews as sources. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This is something that can be written in the lead, I don't see how this is appropriate for the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have to "glean" it from "from entertainment industry publications and reviews" that would be OR &/or synthesis. Besides, often the creators of a show state it is one thing when many viewers and critics categorise it otherwise. For instance, many shows that are clearly fantasy, involving magic and the supernatural, are described straight-facedly by their networks simply as "dramas". And some shows like Doctor Who, ostensibly a children's show, have a large adult audience. Trying to boil all that down into a single label would often be impossible and contentious. Barsoomian (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Preceded by/Followed by

If Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss, a made-for-TV film, should be using the Television infobox, then should the chronologically "preceded by" and "followed by" films by Jean Shepherd be listed? I think so, but another editor seems to think not. The directions for the infobox seem to refer mainly to related series, not films. --Lexein (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

TV show vs Televised event

The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade is a televised event but isn't a TV show and so some things like "Starring" and "No. of Episodes" don't really go along with it and should really be "Host(s)" and "No. of events" (or something). The same applies to the Infobox I want to create on the Sydney New Year's Eve page but I'm not sure what to do, other than to add "Host(s)" etc. to the list of hidden commands. Any suggestions? AnimatedZebra (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's already there, there is the 'presenter' option. BTW. i don't think a television box needs to be the info box for an article as that. I suggest moving it to the "Television coverage" part of the article. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Casting Director parameter

I am not sure if this has been discussed before, but can we add a "casting_director" parameter to this template? --Thorwald (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as an important enough detail for the infobox. It isn't supposed to be a complete credits list. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Narrated

In the past, some game show fans have said they don't like the fact that announcers are credited as "narrators". Is there a way to make it so that the "narrated" field can be changed to "announced" for any show with a de facto announcer (e.g. game shows, most talk shows, etc.)? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Or we could just add a |announcer=, if someone wants to decide where exactly in the list it should go. And should the label be "Announced by", or just "Announcer"? Anomie⚔ 04:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the context here? I would have thought that any announcer notable enough to be listed in the infobox would be credited as a presenter. Do we really need to list the guy who announces the prizes? Disabling as this needs further discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I forgot about this, so I'm reopening to clarify. Precedent is that game show announcers are worthy of inclusion in the infobox, even if they don't do as much heavy lifting as, say, George Gray on The Price Is Right. Since we have a history of including them, and they're not quite "narrators", why not give them their own field? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you be able to point to any past discussions about this issue? Or could we get some more editors to comment on whether this is needed or not? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 10#Announcer and host parameters, Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 5#Game and Variety.2FTalk Shows need Host and Announcer Options, Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 9#Announcer listing, Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 11#Talk shows. There's been discussion of it before, but nothing resembling a consensus (despite what Archive 9 says). I would like a consensus to form, since I feel that announcer ≠ narrator. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay I am disabling the request until there is a consensus. Have you tried WikiProject Television? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Website display text

The website links should avoid using display text — per the last paragraph of WP:LINKS#Syntax, as the URL itself is the important data and for better printability. Please change the last four lines within the template call from:

| data45      = {{#if:{{{website|}}}|[{{{website}}} {{{website_title|Website}}}]}}
| class45     = url
| data46      = {{#if:{{{production_website|}}}|[{{{production_website}}} Production website]}}
| class46     = url

to

| data45      = {{#if:{{{website|}}}|Website<br>{{{website}}} }}
| class45     = url
| data46      = {{#if:{{{production_website|}}}|Production website<br>{{{production_website}}} }}
| class46     = url

as is the case with other infoboxes. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. This has been discussed before. The case is that TV related URLs are usually too long to fit in the infobox, so we have to mask them. — Edokter (talk) — 01:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely if some need masking, this should be done in the articles that require it, allowing URLs that don't need masking to be displayed? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That is usually not the case. Plus your format would require the editor to know how to format external links. Just use website_title= to show a short URL. — Edokter (talk) — 14:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Owen. And {{URL}} should be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sub-templates

I've re-added reference to {{Plainlist}} and {{Start date}}. These are standard across our infoboxes. The former is easier for editors to use (no knowledge of HTML required), improves our adherence to HTML standards, and improves accessibility. The latter makes the date machine readable in the emitted metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference between using {{Plainlist}} and <br />? From my experience, a lot of editors do not know how to use templates like this successfully (not saying it shouldn't be used). I feel like it will introduce more confusion for new/fresh users as well as adding more template jargon into the already complex infobox. BOVINEBOY2008 20:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As explained in its documentation, {{Plainlist}} deploys proper HTML list markup. This (unlike the use of <br /> to simulate lists) complies with HTML standards and is more accessible for, for example, people with sight problems using screen readers. The MoS also tells us to use wikimarkup in favour of raw HTML (like <br />). If you have issues with this, please raise them centrally, rather than in regard to one specific infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the template though. And I see that it is a replacement for {{Unbulleted list}}. I do see the benefits of this template, but I am just concerned that adds more confusion and cluster for editors. Is there anyway that such a template could be hardwired into the template instead of requesting every list in an infobox? Especially for two element lists, it seems extremely excessive. BOVINEBOY2008 21:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, now you understand, please restore the edits you reverted. Two-element lists are still lists. It may be possible to embed the template as you suggest, but I don't believe there was consensus to do so, and there would be practical barriers; it would need thorough testing to ensure that all circumstances and edge-cases were catered for, or could be worked around, feel free to suggest it centrally, though. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As Bovineboy2008 hasn't responded, I'm going to revert the documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)