Template talk:Infobox television

first_aired with no last_aired issues

Currently we don't track pages that have a |first_aired= value but no |last_aired= value. The infobox documentation says to use |last_aired=present if the show is still ongoing. I was thinking of tracking those pages and add them to a tracking category. However, that brings up a different issue which would require a parameter usage change.

One-off programs, specials and television films usually use |first_aired= so they will be incorrectly added to the category. Instead, these programs should use |released=. While the parameter name itself can mean slightly different things, the fact is that the display used by the infobox for both is "Release" so it doesn't really matter. If the parameter name is a problem we can create a new parameter.

Thoughts appreciated. Gonnym (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good. I know the docs say (or said?) that |released= was streaming, but since we have quite a number of tv films, it may also make sense for that, since a lot of those only have a single date. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so I've updated the validation code as follows:

• Usage of |first_aired= without |last_aired=. As before, if it is still ongoing use |last_aired=present
• Usage of |last_aired= without |first_aired=.
• Usage of |first_aired= and |released=.
• Usage of |last_aired= and |released=.
• No |first_aired= or |released=. This is tracked but can still be refined. Currently using the word "Upcoming" as a value will remove it from the tracking category.

TV films, TV plays, specials and other one-off programs should use |released= instead of |first_aired= (as the output label is "Release" regardless). Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding animation services attribute

I suggest adding an attribute for animation services for animated shows, as opposed to adding non-standard parameters to do that. Raymondsze (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. A number of articles already include them under "animators" or "production companies" or add an attribute for "animation studio" (see The Legend of Korra). An animation studio is comparable, concise, and materially relevant (Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain?). And it's important information, animation studios do skilled work and it's reflected in the quality of the show. DA39A3 (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with this motion of having an actual attribute for animation services in animated shows instead of removing them completely as a "non-definable" attribute in info-boxes.-Prince Silversaddle (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it is "Materially relevant to the subject" and it is seldom info that is "Already cited elsewhere in the article" - that supports that it is not materially relevant. This is generally skilled labor work that is implementing the creative output of the production companies listed in "Company". The arguments in the infobox instructions for "Company" really apply to not listing animation services at all in the infobox. If an attribute has not been added by consensus to the standard set, using infobox construction work-arounds to add it as a non-standard attribute for a specific infobox is inappropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Alternatives to writer and director parameters

From this discussion, it seems there is some disagreement over when to include the writer and director parameters. I want to propose something different: omitting those parameters for TV series and adding a showrunner parameter. This could go at the top of the production section, before executive_producer. I also propose omitting creative_director for similar reasons. The parameters would stay in the template for TV films (to align more closely with theatrical films), but a note in the documentation would specify when they should be used.

Paraphrasing my rationale from my earlier comment: The main creative control on a TV show is usually the showrunner alongside the producers, so maybe those should be the parameters we focus on. Writers and directors are generally either hired in with minimal creative control or are producers/executive producers; in the former case their contributions are less relevant to the infobox, and in the latter case, they would still be listed in the infobox. There have been a few discussions about showrunners before:

• This January 2021 discussion noted that showrunners are typically executive producers, and listing them twice might be redundant. To avoid this, I would suggest not repeating showrunners under the EP or producer sections (this seems to already be the case where producers who are promoted to EPs are only listed as EPs).
• This May 2023 discussion stated that showrunner is not a credited title. To this, I'll remark that while they aren't credited as such in the aired credits, they are clearly defined jobs; for instance, the WGA directory lists them.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I've long felt that the way are three-tier level of infobox work is incorrect. A list of writers, directors, editors, etc. (and basically anything other than stars) in the top-level {{Infobox television}} is unhelpful and just creates a random list of mostly unsourced information which typically isn't written in prose in the article. That information is relevant in the lowest-level {{Infobox television episode}}. In a site like IMDb where the data is better presented, there isn't a problem with placing all of the information in the top page, but here we either end up with various (S1), (Season 1), <small>(season 1-season 10)</small> after the names, or just list with no context, both of which are IMO unhelpful or bad syntax.

The only valid usage as you've noted, is for television films or one-off programs. Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I support limiting the writer and director params to TV films per the initial reasoning above. I don't feel as strongly about adding the showrunner because it is very rare for that person to not already be listed as an executive producer, but these days it is usually a key fact in an article to point out who the showrunner is and the point of the infobox is to summarise that sort of key information. I don't think we should exclude people from the executive producer list because they are the showrunner, that would be like excluding someone from a film producer list just because they are also the director. I do think it makes sense to add a showrunner param to the TV season infobox, since that can often change from season to season and there is no list of executive producers in that infobox to cover them. While we are on this topic, I would also recommend we either rename the producer param on the TV episode infobox or just remove it. Confusingly, that is technically for the showrunner which I think most people don't realise. It is going to be very unlikely that the showrunner changes from episode to episode so it probably isn't needed at that level anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes to adding a showrunner parameter, no to removing writer and director. There are many (i.e. non-American and older) examples where there are no showrunners, and this role should only be stipulated in an infoxbox where it can be sourced to a person or people (as it isn't a credited position). Otherwise, it's appropriate to list producers/writers/directors, especially where they are consistent across series (which isn't limited to TV films). U-Mos (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fair to keep showrunners listed as EPs – I only mentioned not doing that since it seemed to be a past concern. I also agree that a showrunner parameter would be really useful for season infoboxes and that producers are generally unnecessary for episode infoboxes. Regarding the showrunners also being EPs, I think it's useful to distinguish them in some way; for instance, Carlton Cuse was a co-showrunner on Lost (and is fairly well-known for that), but there's no easy way to tell that currently because several other EPs are listed above him. I guess there could just be a symbol to mark the EPs who were the showrunners but that feels more convoluted and less clear. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd support exploring adding a showrunner parameter here and at the season infobox, renaming or outright removing the producer one on the episode infobox to "showrunner(s)", and possibly limiting the use of writer and director. I think at least in a more modern setting, unless there is largely singular force behind a (usually mini)series' writing or directing (say Sam Levinson writing all of Euphoria for writing or Matt Shakman directing all of WandaVision), these parameters are better served by the episode tables. So whatever wording would be appropriate that these parameters are for TV films or maybe 1-2 sole creators on (limited/miniseries?) series, I'd support that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand how a single writer/director might fit, but in those cases, we typically cover them elsewhere (for instance, Levinson is the creator, showrunner, and top EP for Euphoria – that seems like enough to clearly note his influence). And we could also end up with awkward cases where we only list a director but no writers, or vice versa, as would be the case with Shakman and WandaVision. That's why I would personally push for removing the writers and directors from TV shows more broadly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I understand/overlooked that point about those sole creators then also being credited elsewhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I also support implementing a showrunner parameter for the infobox and adding rationales for using writer and director. I think there should also be a |head_writer= parameter for instances where that term is used, as it has been used interchangeably with "showrunner" and this fact should be recognized where applicable. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose to removing director, writer, and producer parameters for TV series. As for showrunners for TV series, most of the time they are listed as executive producers already which is redundant. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Just for clarification, this is not about removing these parameter, rather updating the documentation for when and how they are used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on RunningTiger123's proposal and other editors' comments, it seemed to read that way. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if that was so, but that is not the case (in the event you'd like to comment further on the matter). The discussion boils down to: |writer= and |director= is proposed to be updated in documentation for use only with TV films and not with TV series, and separately, the creation of a |showrunner= parameter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I support the addition of a showrunner parameter in both a series and season infobox and limiting when writer/director parameters are used. I don't have too strong of an opinion on how they should limited. Showrunner changes have been given pretty large cover in recent years [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. This is just from a quick Google search, there's many many more. It's uncommon to see articles stating "X_Exexutive_Producer Steping Down" or "Y_Exexutive_Producer Taking Over." I think it's fair to provide showrunners the weight of a separate parameter due to that. It's information that would support our readers by being quickly accessible. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the original discussion linked in your original post. The argument was not about long-running TV series with endless amounts of new directors continuously being added. The argument was about limited series and miniseries where there is a set limited number of directors that will never increase and no editing ever needs to be done beyond the first mention of their names. Please do not misrepresent the facts and try to act as though the argument was about open-ended TV series. That is not what this discussion was originally about. Nicholas0 (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, this discussion has evolved beyond the scope of the original discussion to talk about the writer, director, and potential showrunner params in general. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there is clearer agreement for a showrunner parameter (both here and in season infoboxes) than for other changes to writers, directors, etc. (at least to me, though I could be biased). Would it be better to add a showrunner parameter on its own, or wait to decide how to update/revise the documentation for other parameters at the same time? RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say, at a bare minimum, that there's consensus to add a showrunner parameter based on where the discussion stands right now. I do feel however, that the discussion likely hasn't received wide enough input from other regular television editors and would likely receive pushback if implemented right now. I left notices on WT:TV and WT:MOS/TV to hopefully gain some additional input. I would personally wait another few days to see if anyone else comments before we move forward as it hasn't even been a week since the discussion began. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and I definitely wasn't trying to close the discussion already, just see if the different parts should be implemented separately (if consensus is reached for each at different times) or all at once. RunningTiger123 (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Considering the amount of infoboxes that would need to be updated, it would probably make sense to implement both at once (if possible) to save time. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I've also notified the season infobox talk about this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: I believe I actually misread your initial question. If consensus is reached on one part of this proposal and not the other, we should go ahead and move forward with it as we may never reach a consensus on the other portion. That said, and pinging @Favre1fan93: to this part as well, it's been a week since other relevant talk pages were notified of this discussion and there have been no further objections or supports that have arisen from those notices. It's also been nearly two weeks since this discussion first began. Do we want to discuss moving forward with the showrunner parameter? Otherwise, if someone truly believes that more discussion is still required an RFC would be an option? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think enough time has been given for us to move ahead with adding the showrunner param to the series and season infoboxes. The documentation should note that it is only to be used when an actual showrunner can be reliably sourced, editors should not be putting other people in this param that served similar roles.

I think we need further discussion, and potentially an RfC, to confirm the other changes. We need to confirm whether the producer param for episode infoboxes should be renamed to showrunner or outright removed. We also need to confirm what the documentation for writers and directors should be. My recommendation for that is wording about using the fields for: TV films; or series with only one or two writers who are not already included in the creator/showrunner params. I was also wondering what opinions there are on using the writer param for the head writer and using the director param for the supervising director or producing director, people who are typically also executive producers but not necessarily creators or showrunners? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree that a wider discussion might be needed for some of those changes. Is it worth going all the way to RfC, or should we just have that discussion at a more public page, such as WT:TV? RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I only suggested an RFC because I posted a notice of this discussion at WT:TV and it didn't help much. Actually hosting the discussion there could help though. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all that's been done since I've last been active and the plan moving forward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey guys, thoughts on including the showrunner parameter at Line of Duty? I added it and got reverted because it's "americanism", "the credit doesn't actually appear in the series", and because the "term isn't common in the UK." The only semi-reasonable reason the reverting editor had in my opinion is that the showrunner in this case was also the creator, writer, executive producer (series 2-5), and producer (series 1), and already exists in those fields in the Infobox. They feel that it's not useful since they're in those other fields, but I think as long as it's sourced we should consider it's inclusion? There's a talk page section about it, and I'd appreciate comments from anyone who has an opinion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Because the term isn't used at all in that article, I think you will probably need to get consensus for including it in prose first before adding it to the infobox. A quick Google shows that there are UK sources which call him showrunner so I think you should have a good argument, it would be better if there is an example of members of production using the term to make sure it hasn't been incorrectly assumed by the media. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I assume that these two sources from the BBC: [10] [11] which refer to him as the showrunner should work? It is a primary source, but does avoid the incorrect assumption. While I do agree it should be added to the article as well, that doesn't seem to be the disputing editors primary argument. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

In 99.9999% of the time we should be following on screen credits for infobox crediting material. This obviously is not an on screen credit so we need to look to outside sourcing to support these titles. So yes, those references should be utilized. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The disputing editor and I essentially reached a stalemate, so I opened up a formal RFC on Talk:Line of Duty if anyone cares to comment there. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Continuing the original discussion about next steps, a discussion about the episode infobox has been started at Template talk:Infobox television episode#Addition of "showrunner" in the template. That just leaves the discussion about documentation for the writer and director parameters here. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 20 April 2024

Description of suggested change: Add a "showrunner" parameter to the Infobox and renumber the subsequent parameters. This has been added to the sandbox and tested and appears to have worked. The two just need synced. It's too much text to go into {{Text diff}}, but a full view of the edit that needs done is visible in my first link of the sandbox. This was discussed in the section directly above this one and there is a consensus to add the parameter. The other changes proposed will be discussed further and addressed later. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Documentation has been updated. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't showrunner be plural with a "s" when they are multiple showrunners as just not the showrunner as in singular as in adding {{Pluralize from text}}? Like executive producer is plural when there are multiple executive producers and not plural when there is only one executive producer. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I actually considered this when making the request. The only reason I didn't is because the parameters in the immediate vicinity aren't (creator, developer, writer, director). Series are often created or developed by more than one person and the writer parameter actually says in the instructions that it can old up to five people. Yet we don't see "creators", "developers", or "writers" pluralized in the Infobox. I personally think that it probably should be but I was just aiming for consistency. TheDoctorWho Public (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There probably needs to be a separate discussion to review all the places that need plural criteria so we can be consistent. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Slightly different because their labels are "Created by", "Written by", and etc. If that is the case, shouldn't it be "Showran by" for the label though? — YoungForever^(talk) 19:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You're correct, I didn't notice that when getting the request together. I'd definitely prefer "showrunners" rather than "showran by". I'll put in an updated request later tonight if no one beats me to it since I can't edit the template myself. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Showrunner for singular and Showrunners for plural would be consistent for how they are used. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I've made the request both here and on the season infobox. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Additional edit

Per the above discussion, showrunner needs to be pluralized if there are multiple on the series.

Changing label7 = Showrunner to label7 = Showrunner{{Pluralize from text|{{{showrunner|}}}|plural=s}} will take care of it automatically (minus the nowiki tags if looking at this in source editor).

Here's the sandbox edit and the corresponding testcase edit where it worked. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Separating release dates by networks in different countries

There is something about the current formatting of listing networks and release dates that's bugged me (specifically for shows co-produced between two networks), and it's the fact I sometimes see the additional parameters being used to separate release dates by country, rather than separate the run of the show by networks that are in the same country. This misuse of the formatting appears on Titanic (2012 TV series), Torchwood, Neighbours and Doctor Who. They all have their infoboxes attempt to seperate releases for different areas, with similar attempts on Torchwood: Miracle Day and Dinosaur (TV series). And it gives me this idea: what if we had a specific template for TV shows that would list multiple runs of a show in different countries? We could have this for miniseries and TV seasons, but possibly also general shows that span multiple seasons. Notably, it will also allow this box to better align with Template:Infobox film and Template:Film date. Like User:U-Mos said, transnational co-productions are becoming common, but it feels like this box isn't doing them justice. I look forward to what other users have to say for this problem. I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed before too. Inpops (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There should be no splits based solely on country, multiple networks are only included if the series changes networks or if multiple networks have been determined to be the "original" network for the series. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes when a show is co-produced by two countries it has multiple original networks. That's the case with both Doctor Who (2023 specials and onwards; BBC One + Disney+) and Torchwood (series 4/Miracle Day; BBC One + Starz). "Original network" isn't strictly limited to the country of origin. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

And I'm saying that we should not be seperating the networks and releases for these specific shows with the additional parameters when the networks air in different countries. it's kind of confusing, especially on Torchwood where the BBC and Starz air dates for series 4 are similar and the params are for shows that "move" to another network in the same country. It's a similar thing with Neighbours too. Just thought I would let you know (especially when you do edits like this). Inpops (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm still failing to see why it's an issue. If there are multiple original networks they should all be listed, regardless of country. Picking and choosing would be unencyclopedic. In the case of Doctor Who some of the dates are the exact same, but it's still considered an independent original network. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It's an issue because as of now, we only have to list the earliest run on only one of the original networks for a co-produced show and not multiple. There are multiple examples of this. The Clone High article does a good example of how the networks and release dates should be listed. It lists both networks for the first season in the same parameter, it shows the earliest release for that season (in a country of origin), while still listing the revived run. It also used to be like that on Neighbours. Yet we still have multiple attempts to seperate releases by country and we should probably do something about it. Inpops (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

In the cast of Clone High it appears that the two networks in the different countries had the same air dates. So that would actually be listed properly. This isn't the case with Doctor Who (where D+ didn't released anything prior to 2023) or Torchwood (where Starz didn't air anything ahead of series 4). Listing those networks concurrently would imply that D+ had released Doctor Who since 1963 or that Torchwood aired on Starz in 2008. TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"it appears that the two networks in the different countries had the same air dates."

The show premiered in Canada in November 2002 and in the US in January 2003, so no. Hypothetically for now for Torchwood we could have Starzin the same param as BBC One with "(series 4)" next to it to clarify it only aired the fourth season, and also do something similar with Doctor Who and listing D+. Inpops (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You quite literally only further illustrated my point that the networks across countries should not be co-listed if the dates aren't the same. The Clone High example implies the dates on the two networks had the same dates, and if they don't then it's factually incorrect and they should be separated. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

To me it seems disingenuous to not to have both the networks in the same param. We already use this formatting for another purpose. Surely there has to be a better way to list these releases than the one you are encouraging. There are also many other examples where only listing the earliest release for one of the networks appear. Inpops (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Other content exists, just because one article does it that way doesn't mean they all have to. While there can be somewhat of an argument based on other content, if and only if there's a clear precedent, there's clearly not here as we have named numerous articles that swing both ways. We should definitely work towards a consensus though on how all of the articles that are co-produced between two networks in two countries should be listed, and I stand by my suggestion that they should be listed separately. The current discussion does seem to be slightly leaning that way. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree they should be listed separately, but not by the way you are encouraging. Like with listing film release dates, they should atleast all be in the same param. Dinosaur does a good job at separating its release dates (white it's infobox might have some other issues) as its networks released all the episodes in one day, and also it's more aligned with film dates. It would be better if we could better integrate that within this infobox, perhaps with a specific template. Similarly we could use {{Start and end dates}} with parentheses next to it. Inpops (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

No to any new start date template. We've been working behind the scenes for around 4 years cleaning up after various mixed and incorrect usages editors create to fix problems that don't exist. If a solution can't be done with infobox parameters, it can't be done with inventing new start date templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"various mixed and incorrect usages editors create to fix problems that don't exist."

That sounds just like what is happening here with these attempts to separate releases by network. Inpops (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that Infobox actually had a few issues. It used small text which is a violation of MOS:SMALLTEXT, "Avoid using smaller font sizes within page elements that already use a smaller font size, such as most text within infoboxes, navboxes, and references sections." It also listed seasons next to the people which is a violation of the Infobox instructions, "Years or seasons should not be included." I went ahead and removed those. The networks should be split as well for the countries, and appears to be the consensus based on this discussion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

For a series that is an equal co-production between two series, how do you intend to pick which country is more "important", then? For example, Doctor Who is (as of last year) a British/Ameican co-production, thus Disney and BBC are the original networks. A change in original networks can mean a change of country as well. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I was specifically talking about how there are attempts to list multiple broadcasts in different countries, currently it should only be the earliest broadcast for only one of the networks that co-produced for these sort of shows. Inpops (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Only "for only one of the networks that co-produced"? How do you determine which one of those co-producers is more "important"? Is this based on any guideline, or is it just personal choice? Again, a change in the original network can mean a change of country; e.g. Doctor Who now has two original networks across, yes, two countries. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

While this infobox doesn't mention anything about co-productions, before we introduced this formatting that's what it was like on most of these articles. Also a show can be co-produced between two networks in the same country. Inpops (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It absolutely can be, yes. A show can also be co-produced between two networks in different countries. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Bringing back distributor.

So I was thinking that what if we can bring back distributor back into the infobox television? It had been two years since the removal of the distributor from the infobox television 148.252.159.156 (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What use or benefit would this info have in the infobox? Unlike films which tend to have multiple distributors across different regions, most distributors of television series tend to be within the same company or relatively closely related to the original network or channel, thus mitigating the need for such a parameter in this infobox. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 Note: The IP address (seemed to be IP hopping) above is also disruptive editing by adding seasons on the infobox on a lot of TV series. The general consensus (based on past discussions) on here, MOS:TV, and WP:TV is that we do not include seasons, years, nor episodes on the infobox. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe multiple people are using this same IP to do the same edits. No way one person is able to rapidly change these pages that fast. Mike Allen 13:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It is likely one person using an automated tool (or a bot) to make the edits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The IP address has hopped to 148.252.159.35. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

"Producer" entry

Since the "producer" title tends to refer to as a pay scale of the writing room staff (which changes per season), I was thinking if for the "producer" entry, it appeared as "produced by" in the infobox template to refer to the production facilities/logistics producer(s). 2600:1700:B331:50F0:C9F3:119E:1837:833 (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The "Producer" field refers to individuals credited as producers on the series. The production facilities are already handled by the "Production company" field via the |company= parameter. I don't think we necessarily need to alter these as they are already accurately descriptive for what they are intended to display, and using simply "produced by" could be misleading. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The production facilities/logistics producers are the producers who facilitate the choreography, stunts, and other physical productions on set during live filming. In this case, if you were to leave the "producer(s)" writing staff template entry, you might as well as also add related redundancy of the payscales: "co-producer", "producer", "supervising producer", and "co-executive producer (aka senior writers)" (which changes every couple of seasons). It's very different in film where the producer(s) are second in seniority below the director, and the film's executive producer oversees investing in the shoot (In tv shows, the EP is either an experienced writing staff or the showrunner who has full creative and management responsibility for the TV show's season or throughout its entire run). 2600:1700:B331:50F0:C9F3:119E:1837:833 (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

As Trailblazer pointed out, the production companies already have their own parameter. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

But how is the production company related to a production facilities producer crew member? Also, the "producer" credit may not be necessary then, as it's just a low-level pay-scale staff writer. 2600:1700:B331:50F0:C9F3:119E:1837:833 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Producers oversee and manage production. I don't think they are low-level pay-scale staff, but they are lower than executive producers. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

In scripted comedy and drama TV shows, “staff writer”, “story editor”, “executive story editor”, “co-producer”, “producer”, “supervising producer”, “co-executive producer” (aka “senior writers” the latter who also assist with other tasks such as supervising the editing room, assisting with negotiating the budget with the showrunner and production office management staff), and “executive producer” is a pay scale of the writers room staff. The only producer credit not affilated with the writers room staff is the line producer (in charge of the production office management staff and determines the budget, coordinates the shooting schedules and recruites below the line crew members for the showrunner to hire) and “produced by” (aka “production facilities/production logistics producer” who facilitates the choreography and stunts live on set). EJA94 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Narrated by

It's come up before and no one has ever given a good reason not to, yet it never happens. Is there a way to make the "narrator" field display "announcer" instead in certain contexts? Certain genres of show, such as talk shows and game shows, have announcers, not narrators, and it looks wrong to have "narrator" on a game show. I'm sure there's a way to make "announcer" override "narrator" where "announcer" is the more commonly used term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an article where you'd want to add this? I'd like to see if these are notable cast members. Gonnym (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

On just about any game show, the announcer is a notable part of the proceedings. GA-class game show articles such as Jeopardy!, Wheel of Fortune (American game show), and Press Your Luck mention the announcers in the lead. The Price Is Right mentions not only the announcers, but also their catch phrase of "come on down!"

Talk shows like Late Show with David Letterman also have a lot of byplay with the announcer. Just about every episode, they'd cut to Alan Kalter for a comedy sketch. The tradition of talk show announcer byplay goes back to Ed McMahon on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson.

I think it's safe to say that for almost every talk show or game show, there is more than enough precedent for the announcer(s) to be considered notable parts of the cast. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that rundown. I'm fine with adding it if no one opposes. Gonnym (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Does the narrator parameter still exist though? As in does it still reads "Narrated by" for using the narrated parameter (when not using the announcer parameter)? — YoungForever^(talk) 23:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Right now, just about every game show and talk show that has had an announcer uses "narrated by". I was just wondering if there was a way to add an "announced by" field that overrides "narrated by" in cases where "announcer" is the more common term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The proposed coding done by Gonnym seen in the sandbox here would make |announcer=/"Announcer" that would replace |presenter=/"Presented by", not |narrator=/"Narrated by". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah sorry, messed that up. Good thing we have sandboxes. Gonnym (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so now that that's sorted, to answer YoungForever's question, the parameter still exists, though it can not be used simultaneously with the new announcer one. Only one or the other (as coded currently) could be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 So "announcer" can be used now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: I see no worthwhile objections or issues to this, so I'm going ahead and implementing this in the template. It should be available to use momentarily. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Template needs to be updated to support night mode

Hi this template doesnt support night theme for transparent images example as it doesn't provide a way for editors to style images either by adding a white background or inverting colors. The [12] is to allow editors to add a class to the image via a template parameter. This is already beimg used in placed like infobox signatures.

Please see my recent attempt to fix this for reference (reverted by User:Gonnym) and application in The_Acolyte_(TV_series) (reverted by User:‪Adamstom.97.‬

This feature is planned for deployment by June 20th so a fix should ideally be applied before then. Thanks in advance for deciding what you want to do about this. I am fixing issues like this at a large scale spanning multiple Wikimedia projects and templates (mostly to raise awareness of this issue) so unfortunately do not have time to discuss on a per-template basis but if you have any general questions you can direct them to the MediaWiki recommendations page.

Thank you! 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the only way to fix these images is on a per-image fix by adding "skin-invert"? Do all .svg files need this same class? Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Not always. Qnother solution might be adding a different class to set background to white. The issue also occurs with png images with transparent background - not just svg.

In fact, the quickest fix to consider here is always defining the background as white globally in the template. E.g. .infobox-television img {background:white;}

Another example I came across today:

Fantasmas_(TV_series). 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

So if we define the background as white like you propose above, would this have any other unintentional effect? Gonnym (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a problem for images that are just white text? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Are there images that are just white text? They would not show on the current white background, so I suspect there aren't any. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

What Jonesy95 says: Images with just white text wouldn't show up in the normal theme so are not a problem. There would be no side effects of such a change other than the image no longer inheriting the background color of the infobox - but that itself would be an accessibility improvement. 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I've added (I think) the rule to the sandbox version. Please add a test to the /testcases and make sure this works as you want. Gonnym (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

LGTM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_television/testcases#Note_about_images 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Paging @User:Gonnym - please go ahead and apply this fix. 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jdlrobson: I've viewed the newly added image to the testcase in dark mode and I don't see any difference between the live template and the sandbox with it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you viewing it with ?vectordarkmode=1 in the URLs per the instructions? Also please disable the dark mode gadget enabled if you have that on. 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The sandbox loads styles in the examples page that also applies to the non sandbox version so you can't reliably test it in that way. It would be better to edit an article like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Acolyte_(TV_series)?useskin=vector-2022&vectornightmode=1 to use the sandbox to see the difference. 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok I see that at The Acolyte. Though switching to the sandbox template it produced this error: Lua error in Module:Infobox_television/sandbox at line 140: attempt to compare number with string. So that will need to be investigated before going live if it is something with the CSS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The error has nothing to do with it. That's some unfinished code I'm working on (which is why it's on the /sandbox). You can switch the template sandbox to use the live version of the module to test the CSS. Gonnym (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

All good. The CSS appeared to work as intended, so if that Lua error isn't part of that, then I think this is fine to make live. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Added. Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Episode counter

I've recently came across Template:Episode counter which was used in the |num_episodes= field of the infobox of an article. Is this something we want used in articles? Since the infobox should have a consistent look across the wiki, a Korean or reality series shouldn't seem that different. Currently all other articles typically just use a simple number for this. Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems a bit excessive. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

{{Episode counter}} is just extraneous details we do not need on the infobox. A simple number is sufficient already for the |num_episodes= parameter. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't see the need either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with the above, unnecessary. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

As the template is now removed and not in use in any mainspace article, should it be delete? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 14:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It has been nominated for deletion. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate field

@Gonnym: In your latest change you added duplicate label54 and related fields. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Fixed. Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)