Template talk:Infobox television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborate effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Someone can explain to me why in the parameter only the link is seen, but not the text "website".--Philip J Fry Talk to me 00:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) made this edit recently, to display infobox URLs when printing. I see the validity in this, but I'm not aware of a guideline or policy that states this, especially given that almost no other URL (references, external links, etc.) in an article would be printable. -- AlexTW 00:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, AlexTheWhovian. I didn't do it because a policy forced me. A good idea needs no justification beyond the fact that it is a good idea. Of course, in this certain case, in accordance to WP:EDITCONSENSUS, this certain edit of mine is taken to have consensus support because this is general practice in Wikipedia. 181,907 articles are already doing this.
But there indeed is a guideline: MOS:WEBADDR.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I would like this problem to be solved, as it is strange to see a loose URL in the infobox, I would prefer to see the text "website" instead.--Philip J Fry Talk to me 10:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Philip J Fry: Can you please show me an example, so I can better understand about what you are talking? —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
As seen here. In the "External links" part of the infobox.--Philip J Fry Talk to me 11:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I can see both the text "website" and the printer-friendly link. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I think what Philip J Fry is referring to is that previously, instead of the actual URL being visible, it said "Website" for the link name. I believe you're referring to the text "website" as the parameter name in the infobox. I just think, TV editors have been accustomed for it to say "Website" as the link name in the infobox, so it comes off as a bit odd-looking; just need to get used to it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
If they are not going to solve this problem, what is the meaning of this?.--Philip J Fry Talk 00:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Aspect ratio[edit]

In response to a message left on my talk page per an edit to Family Guy regarding aspect ratios that, "The picture_format field should be 'the video or film format in which the show is or was originally recorded or broadcast'. Aspect ratios are not a video format." I vehemently disagree, the field is "picture format", not "video format", and there aren't any clear guidelines about what to include and what to exclude. The vast precedent is to include aspect ratio in the technical specs as nearly all shows have that information in their specs. Guideline should be updated to address this. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no such precedent and "most" articles do not include aspect ratios. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Just because editors who don't understand formats have done so in some articles doesn't mean that it should be done in all articles. As I wrote on your talk page, the infobox instructions say the picture_format field should be "the video or film format in which the show is or was originally recorded or broadcast". Also as I wrote, aspect ratios are not a format, they are simply the ratio between width and height of an image. A TV program originally recorded with a 4:3 aspect ratio can be broadcast with a 16:9 ratio by adding side borders. Videos recorded in any format are not locked to a specific display aspect ratios, with limited exceptions like 720p, which specifies a 16:9 aspect ratio as part of the format. Examples of appropriate formats are listed in the template instructions - Black and white, Film, 405-line, NTSC (480i), PAL (576i), SECAM (576i), HDTV 720p, HDTV 1080i. Do not use "SDTV" as it is ambiguous. 1080i, for example, is a video format that "assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9" but the aspect ratio is not part of the format. --AussieLegend () 19:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I had a discussion with Shiver regarding this on Talk:Stranger Things#Tech specs. I agree with AussieLegend and this addition they made to the documentation on the fact that aspect ratios should not be noted (unless there is something unique/notable in regards to the aspect ratio they are using ie The Hateful Eight, despite that being a film). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
This seems more like of an argument over the semantics, everything described above would be better called a broadcast standard or resolution, format can refer to aspect ratio, e.g. Anamorphic format. Among broadcasters, picture format is defined as “two traits: Aspect ratio and screen resolution”. Per WP:NOTFATRAT, it’s useful information, aspect ratio is as relevant of a technical detail of the visual presentation of a show as resolution or broadcast standard, being one of the few pieces of technical information listed on physical media and guides like IMDb.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

New parameter to separately put co-exec. producers from (main) executive producers[edit]

Shouldn't there be a parameter named something like "Co-exec_producers" in case exec. producers and co-execs are credited separately? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 11:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Add them under the same parameter with a note that they're co-execs in small text? -- AlexTW 12:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
"Co- exec." shouldn't really be mentioned in the infobox though. That's why they don't have a parameter, and shouldn't be listed in the "Executive producers" parameter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Why no imdb parameter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Because it's unreliable per WP:RS/IMDb. Plus it generally goes in the external links section, not the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Doing rid with the 'producer' title in the template and possibly adding a 'produced by' credit[edit]

Since the staff writer, story editor, co-producer, producer, supervising producer, and co-executive producer titles are just experienced writing staff whose title often changes per season, the producer title serves no relevance in the template. Also, it might be worth considering adding a "produced by" credit, as it refers to the person operating physical production facilities. If adding the "produced by" credit in the template is not an option, could we at least do rid with the 'producer' title all together? Thanks. ATC . Talk 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

the producer is important as he is the one who makes the director's wishes happen. Executive producer usually find the money.REVUpminster (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
In film, that is correct. However, that's not the case in television shows. The showrunner is the executive producer who runs the writer's room and is key to the success of a TV series. Also see here: http://www.producersguild.org/page/coc_ts and here: http://www.producersguild.org/page/coc_ts_2 ATC . Talk 22:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
BTW, the infobox template for films could use also use the "executive producer" title. ATC . Talk 22:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Open theme[edit]

I would like to know what can be done about this, there are telenovelas and series that always change their opening theme a clear example is El Señor de los Cielos and Señora Acero that in each season their main song are changed. Is it correct to mention this in the infobox?--Philip J Fry :  Talk  04:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If there are multiple opening themes (I'd say more than 2), I'd suggest putting in the infobox "see below", which links to a subsequent "Music" section of the article, where the changes to the opening theme can be discussed in more detail. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Bold descriptions to preceded_by and followed_by[edit]

Hey all, in this edit I boldly added descriptions for |preceded_by= and |followed_by=, but then reverted myself because I think I screwed up. My additions were:

  • |preceded_by= <!-- To indicate placement in narrative continuity, not time slot. Ex: Star Trek: Voyager was preceded_by Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. -->
  • |followed_by= <!-- To indicate placement in narrative continuity, not time slot. Ex: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was followed_by Star Trek: Voyager. -->

Is that what they're for? To indicate narrative chronology? Or are they just to indicate production chronology? So if Star Trek: Enterprise is a prequel to the 1966 series, we don't care about that, we only care that it was produced after Voyager, thus Enterprise would be |preceded_by=Star Trek: Voyager. Is that correct? I think we need some kind of short explanation for the people who copy/paste the template into new articles. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I would assume "real world" chronology, so "production". So basically TOS followed by TNG followed by DS9 followed by Voyager followed by Enterprise (I guess we have to acknowledge it, although it pains me) followed by Discovery. Which seems to be the way it is used in the Star Trek entries (although apparently I forgot the animated series). —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I would also assume real world chronology, not narrative, as that would be WP:INU. However, that can of course be noted in the article with third party sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

website link[edit]

You messed up the template by extending the website, because a lot of these shows' websites feature long URLs and ruin the page structures. Please change it back. —Jman98 00:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit so that it can be fixed. -- AlexTW 02:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
As explained at WT:TV, the edit simply used existing code from another infobox to enable suppression of the website in the event that the website at Wikidata was no longer valid. It shouldn't have changed formatting at all. The long url "problem" was introduced in May this year in order to ensure that printed versions of articles displayed the url.[1] It's just something we have to live with. This edit to Daredevil (TV series) messed up the infobox there, by formatting the url in a way that it shouldn't be. When a problem is found the solution is not to hack around the problem, but to fix the problem which, as yet, I've been unable to specifically identify. I haven't been able to reproduce this on any of the computers, tablets or phones that I have here. The infobox code has now been updated to enable hiding an incorrect url, as well as fixing some problems introduced in May, such as incorrect display of the "External links" header in various circumstances. It has been tested at a number of articles and has worked in all of the articles where it has been tested. The strange effect that this created at Daredevil doesn't seem to appear any more either. I assume the whole thing was caused by some glitch today as none of the related templates seem to have been modified recently. --AussieLegend () 10:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is still an issue. The latest update(s) made still stretches the infobox if the URL is too long. Is there a way to fix this? livelikemusic talk! 03:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed that as well. Any edit pertaining to the website needs to be reverted until it's fixed in the sandbox. We can't just have faulty code live. -- AlexTW 03:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
There's no faulty code. What I changed just added the "hide" option. It doesn't adjust formatting AT ALL. The code is straight out of {{Infobox OS version}} and there are no reported errors there. The code was added to that infobox in October 2015,[2] and that was copied from {{Infobox software}} where it had been working successfully since August 2015. There must be something else going on. Can you give some examples of where this formatting is an issue? --AussieLegend () 05:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
[3] [4] -- AlexTW 05:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
On my computers (I'm looking on several) I'm seeing the url exactly as it should appear. On my Samsung Galaxy tablet I'm seeing different versions depending on what I've got set. If I call up this page and select "desktop" mode then click on one of the two urls, the urls don't wrap as they should. However, if I then click on the "Article" tab, everything is fine. If I switch to "Mobile view" mode, everything is still fine. I've tried various options and it's only when I'm looking at an old version of the page that the url doesn't wrap. Is there a reason you picked old versions of the page? What does the current version look like to you? --AussieLegend () 05:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The URL not wrapping (and therefore stretching the width of the infobox) is the issue that's being discussed here. I linked the old versions of the articles because those versions are the ones still using the |website= parameter. I then removed these parameters, so that it would pull straight from Wikidata, and then it wraps properly. It just doesn't wrap when the URL is declared through the parameter. -- AlexTW 05:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you check those urls now please? --AussieLegend () 05:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Issue seems to be fixed. Thanks. -- AlexTW 06:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, everyone.
I am failing to see the alleged problem at this time. AlexTheWhovian, could you please post a screenshot of your examples?
The problem with the code from {{infobox software}} is that it does not format the plain link. The burden of properly formatting it in a printer-friendly link using {{URL}} is on the writer of the article. So, yes, if someone supply a long bare link, it will stretch the infobox. But I see that AussieLegend has already noticed and deployed a fix.
You guys need a policy for the film and television URLs. Bare URL or formatted printer-friendly link?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem appears to have been the result of a number of issues. Prior to this edit in May we disguised urls i.e. website instead of http://www.example.com After the May edit we saw the full url but it was wrapped by Module:URL. As indicated by Codename Lisa the code that I added doesn't use {{URL}} for the bare website parameter but does for the url pulled from Wikidata. This is not a problem on a computer, but is on some mobile devices and even then, only in some modes. To fix this I've deployed {{URL}} so that it works for people with mobile devices. --AussieLegend () 07:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone look at Father Brown (2013 TV series) to fix the stretched infobox. It worked and looked beter when it said BBC website and you just clicked on it.REVUpminster (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Ps I've looked at some of my watched pages and many, not all, are stretched.REVUpminster (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The page's cache just needed flushing. That's probably why only some of your pages are stretched. --AussieLegend () 09:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks but what is flushing. The edit shows you deleted the website yet it is still there after deletion??? This is above my pay grade.REVUpminster (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The simplest way is just to open the page for editing and save it. If you have problems, add a space at the end of a line and save that. Father Brown (2013 TV series) still displays a website because the website is now being pulled from Wikidata. --AussieLegend () 18:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I think there may still be a problem... if you look at this edit, where the parameter is removed and the website is pulling from wikidata, it renders as so but when the parameter was restored, it renders in a separate "External Links" section, which I assume is as intended. So why isn't the External Links separator/section showing up when it's pulling from wikidata? —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't make sense, for a number of reasons. The simple fix is just to remove the empty fields that don't need to be there anyway. Everything is fine then. --AussieLegend () 08:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Er... Joey is talking about the missing header. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I realise that. Removing the url from the field and leaving the field is pointless. Removing the field and the url results in the infobox displaying as it should. --AussieLegend () 16:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that the infobox gracefully handle the cases where the parameter is included but empty as many people copy-paste in stock versions of these templates that probably contain many empty parameters. It sounds like it's not handling these cases gracefully, and there's no reason it shouldn't handle an empty parameter the same as the absence of the parameter. Maybe that's nothing to do with the recent change; wasn't trying to point fingers. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you. It's just that removal of the fields is the quickest and immediate fix until the heading issue is resolved. --AussieLegend () 19:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Then it should be worked on as soon as possible. Temporary fixes being executed until the main issue is fixed is something that you yourself have previously frowned upon when I made an error. -- AlexTW 22:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Some of us do have lives away from Wikipedia Alex. The problem wouldn't exist if we didn't include a ridiculous amount of flexibility. While almost all other infoboxes simply call the website "Website" the TV project insists on being able to call it something else. Not only that we have a second parameter for the production website, which we also insist has to be able to be called something other than "production website", further compounding the issue. This is a rather insignificant issue in any case. The infobox works fine if you use a manual url or remove the fields for the url. It's only when you do something silly like remove the url and leave the field that there is an issue. Of course there are issues with people using other fields improperly that the infobox doesn't like at all. Every day they appear in Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters, a category that seems ignored by most people. Do you ever fix anything from it? I do. These are generally far more significant problems than this, causing data to disappear from the infobox altogether. If you have a problem there is nothing stopping you implementing a fix. --AussieLegend () 00:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)