Template talk:Infobox television

Distributor parameter: is it needed?

I hate to bring up yet another parameter for discussion of removal, but the "distributor" parameter causes quite a bit of confusion. Although the docs say "original", this quite often becomes a catch-all for "every" distributor. I have seen instances where this becomes a list of every distributor including syndication (although, of course, I can't find and example when I need one). It also has led to what is essentially an edit war across numerous articles (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass edits to TV pages changing the distributor in infobox) over whether this can/should include international distribution, what distributors should be used, and what should be or shouldn't be in this parameter. I would say in some instances, it is difficult to determine (and/or to find a source). With classic TV, the credits display the syndication distributor, which is not the "original". So, is it a useful parameter or should it be removed? If kept, do we expand/loosen the docs to be more than "original" or do we tighten it to say "original, and well/clearly sourced otherwise leave it out"? Or should it even suggest that this needs to be covered in the body for inclusion in the infobox (which really, every parameter, being a summary of the article, should be)? ButlerBlog (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's better to tighten the definition of what the parameter includes than loosening it, because the latter will only bring more edit wars and cluttered infoboxes, while the former will simplify everything. —El Millo (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel if the show originally aired on a network (CBS, ABC, NBC, etc) then the distributor field should not be used. I am not really sure when "distributor" would be used, the document really don't explain its use other than "use only original distributor". Maybe this works for modern TV shows (like streaming, cable channels), but when you are trying to find the original distributor for a show in the 50s, 60s, 70s, it's not so clear-cut. IMO, "network" is best used for this (and content in the infobox should be sourced in the article, and what network it aired on is usually sourced or easily verifiable). Mike Allen 13:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't be filled in at all if it isn't sourced. It should be the name of the original distributor, that means original in the country of origin for the initial release of the series or show. The name used is the one used by the distributor at that time. The network is generally the original distributor unless it is originally a syndication release. IMDb seem to be using that convention when it lists the original distributors. I would be OK with removing the attribute completely because it is seldom sourced, contentious in use and has little value for TV stuff unlike its use in films. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the parameter "distributor" is necessary, why? Because it refers to the company that distributes and sells the program or its format, either for domestic syndication (in the case of programs produced in the United States), for the sale of broadcasting rights internationally, or for the sale of the rights to the format for an international version. That is what the use of this parameter is for. --Luis1944MX (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem, LUis1944MX, is that for older shows, distributors sometimes change. The current docs for the template indicate the "original" distributor. As MikeAllen pointed out, this often is difficult to determine, and difficult to provide a source. I think his suggestion that for network programming, it makes sense to exclude the original distributor would clear up confusion or improper use (where "current" distributors are listed for "classic" shows, which is not the "original"). I would also lean towards, if it's not discussed (and sourced) in the article, exlcude it. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, AussieLegend, Favre1fan93, MB, Magitroopa, and Some Dude From North Carolina: Seeking input (if they have any) from users who have been active in previous parameter format/inclusion/documentation discussions. @Gonnym:: any thoughts on this as the main editor of this template? ButlerBlog (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I personally find the infobox bloated. Additionally, reading these key/value pairs on sites like IMDb is much better than infoboxes on Wikipedia. With that in mind, I'm always in favor of removing the more technical fields which most readers don't care about. Is who distributed a TV series important? Yes. Is it important in the infobox? No. Just as casting director or stunt director or any one of many other credits that aren't in the infobox.

Taking an article which was used as an example in the noticeboard link above - Hogan's Heroes. The infobox lists 3 distributors, yet none of them are even mentioned once in the article. Ok, so that article was not a FA so it's fine it isn't perfect. How about the WP:FA House which lists NBCUniversal Television Distribution but again does not mention it, and the same for Wizards of Waverly Place.

This shows me that although the the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (MOS:INFOBOX), with this field it tends to fail a lot. Somewhat related, it would seem also that there isn't a category tree for this like there is for Category:Television series by studio (which is for the production studio). Gonnym (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Gonnym's assessment that, while it is important, maybe it isn't for TV series infoboxes. Though the parameter would still be needed for TV film use I believe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Noting Gonnym's comments, I can't think of a single instance where I have seen it mentioned in the article content, which, based on MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, is what led me to suggest the possibility of removal as an unnecessary param. With other parameters we have removed, it was usually due to their misuse in some way, which I think is the case here. And of course, were it to be removed, just because it's not an infobox param doesn't mean the article content can't mention it, right? Leaving it to something like the "Release" section opens up the possibility for covering changes in the distributor, which based on the docs, we don't currently do in the infobox. As MikeAllen pointed out, a more relevant parameter is "network". The possible exception to that may be from the early days of television when some shows were syndicated in first run, for example Death Valley Days. But even then, the production company is the more important item and is easy to source - distributor, not so much. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe there have been discussions about removing this parameter from Infobox film as well. I support both removals. This is trivia that is often unsourced, it would very rarely be included in articles if it wasn't in the infobox. It is often unclear who the distributor is as it is rarely included in sources, and it is usually a non-noteworthy company division related to the production companies or the networks/streaming services which are already covered and more important. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

So it seems the trend is towards removal? @Gonnym: would it make sense to update the docs to reflect something like "do not use if network is used" (or something that would suggest criteria for its non-use) and then begin to remove it per docs? That may give a sense of what level of uproar it would cause. (Thinking back to when we started removing "name" as optional) Or is it better to do a more formal RfC and move towards simply removing it altogether? ButlerBlog (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think adding a note is needed. If someone adds a distributor to a parameter called "network" they obviously know that is incorrect and just don't care. Those two words mean completely different things. Regarding an RfC, that's on you. I detest those. The code in the /sandbox version is already ready, so whenever whoever decides, I can move it. Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If someone adds a distributor to a parameter called "network" they obviously know that is incorrect and just don't care. Sorry, I may have been unclear. I was referring to MikeAllen's suggestion that if there is a (valid) value for the "network" parameter (i.e. CBS, Netflix, etc), then the "distributor" parameter isn't really necessary. My suggestion to revise the docs was primarily so we could have a reason to remove it in these instances kind of as a trial balloon. I just want to avoid removing it and then having a dozen editors flying off the handle saying "I wasn't aware or I would have commented". Or am I just being too non-committal on something that we should just move forward on? ButlerBlog (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to make sure even more people see this, leave a message at the TV WikiProject. If after a week or so consensus stays the same as above, then that's enough in my opinion. Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll say remove the distributor parameter because it is pretty much unnecessary when the network parameter is already being used at least for TV series articles, I am not sure about TV films though. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a television film was changed to use the television infobox. It seems like Template:Infobox film has all of the parameters it would need, while many fields are left unused in the the television infobox. Infobox television should be for TV series. However, I suppose that should be another discussion. Mike Allen 17:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

There used to be {{Infobox television film}}, but that was merged into {{Infobox television}} after this discussion. The television film infobox is (or rather, was) more closely related to the television infobox than the film infobox. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought I recalled |budget= sticking around but I guess not. So this wouldn't be an issue for TV films, because at that point, depending on what it is, it might be better to use the film infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: I don't know if you saw this from before, but you should also take a look at Template talk:Infobox television/Archive_13#Any support in removing 'Distributor' parameter? if you haven't already. And you should have pinged me above as well. I definitely support removal. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: I actually did mean to include you in my list of pings - I'm not sure how/why I missed that, but I'm sorry about that. I totally missed that previous discussion - and I even had commented on it (insert facepalm here). ButlerBlog (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

We're approaching 7 days since the start of the discussion, and I believe we have consensus to remove the parameter. If we have no new comments in the next day or so, do we have agreement to remove and depreciate |distributor=? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems so. But lets wait for the second discussion below so a bot can do both at the same time and not have pages be edited twice. Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

So to clarify, with the |distributor= field removed we will only use |network= going forward? That also includes shows that air on Netflix, Hulu, Apple TV+, HBO Max, etc? Mike Allen 17:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, noting that the network parameter should already be used for streaming services. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Will you be adding these to the Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters or something similar? If so, I can pick them up in AWB. I already have a regex when we removed similar params, so it would be a simple add to my existing screening. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Once they are removed, they will show up in Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. Additionally, I've created Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters (temp) which will populate with the full namespaces in order to stop copy/paste errors from never ending (which has stopped for almost all other removed parameters after we did those). Gonnym (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I think we should go ahead with this. The consensus is clear to remove |distributor=. I believe you mentioned waiting on the chronology discussion below so we could do both at the same time, but the way I see it, if we don't remove |related= (which appears to me to be the leaning consensus), removing chronology is not going to be quite as automatic as removing |distributor=. It seems that it will require looking at the current chronology params to determine if they are actually related and should move into |related= or if they should simply be removed. (That's my take, anyway. Others may see it differently.) ButlerBlog (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

From an "edit count" perspective, it would be better to do any/all parameter-changing in the same run, if possible. There is little point in Editor A removing one parameter and then two days later Editor B (or Editor A again) removing the second (regardless of whether the editors are bots or humans). Primefac (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

On a related note, I think both will have some instances where a human element is better than a bot anyway. In addition to the reasons for human eyes noted on the chronology params, if the |distributor= has a reference, we have to make sure it's not the primary use of a named reference that is picked up elsewhere as straight removal would break the reference. There are certainly a lot that don't fall into those instances and can be removed with automation (probably most), but there will be some that need a "look-see". ButlerBlog (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Parameter removed. Gonnym (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a word of caution for anyone removing the distributor parameter - note that in some instances, there may possibly be a named reference. If that's the case, you need to check if it is the primary instance of a citation and whether it is used elsewhere on the page. Otherwise, removing it may leave a broken reference. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• I had removed the parameter on some television shows, since most of the time the network is the distributor. However it might not be the case in some instances, like in the credits for The Simpsons, it is said that the distribution is done by 20th Television, formerly 20th Century Fox Television. Recent episodes have a copyright notice for the company and considering that the 20th Television Animation logo appears instead of a 20th Television one at the end, I believe that 20th Television distributes the show instead of the network airing it. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: Is your AWB run hitting the draft space as well? I'll hold off manually doing removals on pages I watch in the draft space if you'll be getting to it with your run. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I was hitting whatever was in the maintenance category. I did see some drafts in there, but didn't separate anything out. I'm also skipping some that have some level of complexity that I can't specifically target with AWB. What I've skipped so far mostly have |distributor= entries that use {{plainlist}} that I can't pick up automatically with a regex since it could have any number of additional lines. The other skips were if it had a named reference (although there aren't many of those so far) or if I needed to look more into whether the |preceded_by=/|followed_by= entries could/should be merged with |related=. My skips account for the entire first column and about a third of the second when looking at the first page of the maintenance category (if that description makes sense) - essentially up to Australia's Brainiest as of this entry. But I'm not worried about getting in each other's way if you're not. It's going to take some time to get through (there's about 37K entries right now) so feel free to jump in wherever. I think what I'll do from here is reverse the list and work from the end going backwards. Anyone working manually is more likely to start from the beginning I would assume. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh snap! I re-read your post and I think I misunderstood what you meant. I'll still work from the end of the list, but sure - go ahead and do whatever you want to in draft space - once something's fixed, the AWB regex is going to skip it anyway, so it doesn't affect my run if you've picked it up. (Hope that makes sense) ButlerBlog (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure the parameters for the run, and drafts are in the cat so all good. I'll either do it myself (if others don't either), or just wait until you get there with where you are at. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac can your bot help with the removal? I think it could easily handle:

• |distributor= when either empty or with values without references - in both cases just remove
• |preceded_by= and |followed_by=
  • If they have value - merge with |related= if the bot can do that
  • empty - remove

|distributor= with reference will need to be handled manually so the reference can be moved to the body of the article. Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It might be a week or two, but I should be able to help out. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac if you have time this is still wanted. While it's slowly going down, the bot would still be helpful with its speed. Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep the ping flagged, if I remember and have time I should be able to get to it tonight. Primefac (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a bit, distro is done. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym: The rest of Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters (temp) has been cleared (with the exception of some non-mainspace lists). ButlerBlog (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Amazing work! I'll update the template code. Gonnym (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Deleting some Chronology parameters

Since we might be making adjustments with |distributor= above, figured I'd hop on the train since this has been in the back of my mind. I think |preceded_by= and |followed_by= should be deleted. Every time I've come across them, they seem to be used incorrectly. This is mainly on animated series, where I've seen it done where if a new series comes out on the character (say Spider-Man), but it's a completely brand new take on the character, these parameters are used. This work should be done with navboxes. The only one that I think should remain and is relevant and helpful is |related=. Editors can add links to any truly connected series or franchises here (Young Sheldon and The Big Bang Theory, The Conners and Roseanne, linking to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series for the MCU TV shows along with any that have direct spin offs like The Punisher and Daredevil or WandaVision and Agatha: Coven of Chaos. I think this will remove headache and allow editors to truly zero in on the relevant links and help remove the ones more easily if they don't have proper connection. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I've thought about the same thing for a long time. Navigation templates have become the standard over the years as a means to handle these links, and anything that needs even extra text to it, can be handled either in the lead, a see also section, or somewhere else. I personally would also get rid of |related= with the same rational. Navigation templates and sections do it better. Gonnym (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I still feel there can be merit to |related=, but am fully aware of other options to handle such information if consensus is to remove that too. WP:FILM did away with their chronology stuff in the infobox years ago, and Wikipedia in general has also done away with the chronology templates. So at the very least those two parameters directly related to that should go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

From what I see day-to-day, there is a lot of misuse of these. I agree that nav templates do it much better. I would support removal of preceded/followed_by. I can support either way on "related" - I guess it depends on who asks ;-) ButlerBlog (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I would support removing |preceded_by=, |followed_by=, and |related=. I think all of these are rife with misuse and they are all well covered by navboxes. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I can support this – I would be in favor getting rid of |preceded_by=, |followed_by=, and especially the |distributor= parameter, but would definitely argue in favor of keeping |related=, as spinoffs and "reboots" and the like are all directly relevant. Basically, if all of these were just covered under just the |related= parameter, the parameter would actually be used correctly 90-95% of the time from what I have seen. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The template doc gives The Office (British TV series) as an example for |related=, and while the usage is correct it just looks bad IMO. Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I could see altering the docs to say something like "List no more than 4 series under |related=." and/or "Do not list international adaptations under |related=." (the latter would mostly solve the issue with The Office (British TV series) IMO). But I would not support its elimination from the Infobox...

I would support the removal of the other three parameters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's more than reasonable. I like keeping the number the same as other params with a limitation (i.e. writer) so that we only really have to remember one number (and by "we", I mean "I" as I tend to forget these things easily) ;-) ButlerBlog (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree 100% on seeing it misused more often than not. 69.24.178.178 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It would appear that there is pretty solid consensus to remove |preceded_by= and |followed_by= but not |related=. Question: Presuming we remove these along with |distributor=, I would think that it's not quite as simple as simply removing |preceded_by=/|followed_by= and moving their values to |related= (as in, doing it with a bot or AWB would be problematic unless it's straight delete or move); that some of these may be straight up delete if misused, where other instances may be moving to |related=? Or am I overthinking it? ButlerBlog (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Though I noted the value I felt that |related= still had, I think if we're going to remove Chronology, we should go full stop and do it all. I do agree that there are other areas of the article that can handle this info better than the infobox. So we should get rid of all three, and thus no issue with figuring out if material in the other two need to be moved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, "See also" covers it as well. @IJBall:: I think you're the only other voice that was for keeping |related=. Any additional thoughts/input on it? ButlerBlog (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, I disagree with removing the |related= parameter, and would fully oppose doing that. It is worth noting spinoffs and revivals (if not foreign adaptations) in the infobox. I'm frankly surprised there is any support for doing that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I can also see the possibility of general pushback on its removal ex post facto. I think for now it may be prudent to stick with where we are thus far: removing |distributor=, |preceded_by=, and |followed_by=, while leaving |related= in place. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Can we move ahead removing |distributor=, |preceded_by=, and |followed_by=? We have clear consensus on those. The leaning on |related= is to remove, but the arguments for keeping it are valid (IMO), so I think we should table that for now. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure. We can always go back to |related= another day. Gonnym (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

|preceded_by=, and |followed_by= removed. Gonnym (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Chronology heading adjustment

Now that those have been removed, is the header "Chronology" still appropriate? I'm sort of leaning no, but I don't know if a header and parameter both showing "Related" is the right move either... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing... kind of seems "off" a little bit. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: Perhaps the header should be "See also", with the parameter still called "Related"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think "See also" probably makes the most sense. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Do you have any thoughts about this? If not, could you make the header change? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No strong opinion on this. No problem with changing it if no one objects. Gonnym (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall and Adamstom.97: As the other participants in the removal discussion, do you have thoughts about adjusting the heading? I've proposed changing it from "Chronology" to "See also". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I would advise changing the header to 'Related' (or possibly 'Related series'). Either that or possibly just remove the header?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The hope was to avoid the dual instance of "Related" being used twice in the header as well as the parameter label. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue 'Related series' avoids it being purely repetitive. But there are number of synonymous words: "affiliated", "connected", "associated"... Another option would be to change the name of the parameter rather than the header, so the header could be 'Related' and the parameter could display something else, like 'Associated series' (similar to the existing 'Associated acts' used in {{Infobox musician}}. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Films are also used as values. Gonnym (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

As are larger franchise articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyone have some examples of films or franchise being listed under "related". That is a prospect I do find... problematic... at least until I have seem some examples.

To my thinking, |related= really should be used for "directly related" progenitor, spinoff and revival TV series (and the template docs mostly seem to point in that direction). I am a little nonplussed at the idea of it being used beyond that (e.g. the idea that something like Starsky & Hutch could/should link to the film adaptation(!) in its infobox...) – that might merit a wider discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Two examples but I'm sure there are more: Babylon 5, Xena: Warrior Princess. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, TV films ≠ theatrical films, which is the case with the former. For the latter, yeah, a direct-to-video animated (sequel?) film would be fair game to list. I question whether Young Hercules should even be listed there, though – it's not a "direct" spinoff of Xena, etc. and should only be listed on the Hercules: The Legendary Journeys page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall another example - Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about that example – the TV series is a wholesale reworking of the 1992 film. IOW, it's an adaptation, not a "directly related" work. I would argue that the film should not be listed there, though the comicbook and Angel are legit to include. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Back to the larger point, if we're going to include films and such (which, again, I'm not thrilled about), the IB section header could be changed to "Associated works". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I have a great deal of respect for IJBall, but I'm inclined to say that too rigid of a definition of what fits into |related= is a setup for headaches. When the average editor uses the infobox, they look only at the parameter name, not the docs. Making this for "directly related" progenitor, spinoff and revival TV series, but not film adaptions, is going to make policing this just as problematic as the |distributor= we just removed. I'm not suggesting a "free-for-all", but there needs to be a balance between what is desirable and what is likely to be the real outcome. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Would it work if we did this?

Release
Original release	January 1, 2000
Related
Related series one Other related piece

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

See too how this would look at the testcases. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This looks good to me. Print it!

To ButlerBlog's point, the Xena example convinces me that they are some rare examples where including, say, a spinoff direct-to-video film might be acceptable. But we definitely need to rule out cases like my Starsky & Hutch example (or others such as 21 Jump Street) – the important issue is that anything listed under |related= needs to be directly-related works (e.g. spinoffs, or "revivals" involving the same cast and crew), not mere "adaptations" (or spinoffs of spinoffs either). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym: can you implement this? It's in the sandbox already. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Gonnym (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I did not see this thread when pinged, looks like you all came to a great result though! - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Default value of image_upright

A recommendation of setting the parameter "image_upright" to "1" for upright posters was added to the template documentation a few months ago, after the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox television/Archive 13#Value of image upright for upright posters. On further review, a substantial plurality of the articles using this infobox appear to have upright posters, while the setting of "1" looks acceptable for the articles that do use title cards or logos (many of which already have a non-default size setting). I propose that the default value of the parameter be changed from 1.13 to 1 per my previous rationale of consistency with other media infoboxes, like for film and books. — Goszei (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If there is no dissent, I will go ahead and make this change in a few days. — Goszei (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Goszei (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Showrunner History in Key Info Box

Everyone knows that Showrunner is not a credited title, however, it is both internally and externally used about TV shows, and is widely regarded as the key creative figure on a TV show, much like a Director for film. It seems silly to not have this information easily accessible simply because it is not an official credit.

For series' such as The Walking Dead, it's difficult for me to understand why there is not at least a graphic somewhere on the page about which showrunners handled which seasons or what years they were active on the show for, and I would argue that this should be in the key information box as well. Jmdfry (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It isn't in the infobox because it isn't a credited title. The showrunners are still listed, because they are the producers of the show. In general, you would find them identified in the lead paragraphs and in the body of the article though. We don't go out of our way to point of the lead actors among the list of series regulars (e.g., Tom Welling and Michael Rosenbaum are the leads of Smallville, even though there were on average 6 to 8 series regulars every season).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Showrunners are not credited anywhere in the episodes. Usually one or two of the executive producers are the showrunners which are usually mention under Production and the lead paragraph of a TV series article. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

As soon as you begin a sentence with "Everyone knows that ...", you're on shaky ground here on Wikipedia. See WP:V and WP:OR. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 June 2023

Adding Media franchise in the first part/section of the infobox would quickly point to the spinoffs and more information of the universe if there's any. shelovesneo (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You have |related= for that. Gonnym (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: seems that there already exists this type of functionality per the previous comment. If this is a new parameter that needs consideration, please get consensus first. Primefac (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible parameter equivalent alias for "narrator"

Recently I've come across some uses of the |narrated= where it is used incorrectly as |narrator=. It's not happening a lot, but enough to make me think that the current param is not as intuitively named as one might think. Could we add |narrator= as an equivalent alias of |narrated=? I believe we have that for some such as |opentheme= which is an alias of the correct/preferred |open_theme=. This would make the param more intuitive (IMO) and more similar to others such as |presenter= which is not |presented=, or |developer= which is not |developed= (to name just a few). I don't think it's necessary (or wise) to wholesale change it as it is used across a lot of articles, but use as an equivalent alias would seem to be more intuitive when compared to the other params. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yet another example today... [1] ButlerBlog (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a valid change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Created a test case. Seems to be working. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. These really should have been parallel this whole time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Number of episodes

Regarding the "Number of episodes" parameter, I request for the criteria to be based on the verifiable number of episodes being released. The current criteria is frequently misleading to readers because the infobox is supposed to summarize the series as a whole. For example, we would not leave out stars if they did not appear in the first one or two episodes. To have only a gradually-increasing number is too dynamic to a fault and implies that maybe the next episode won't happen. This is almost never the case. It is a verifiable data point to state the total number of episodes.

For a series with multiple seasons, added criteria could be something like changing from a one-season episode count to a two-season episode count once the second season premieres. As a reader, I've been occasionally flummoxed by the partway count. For example, watching Hijack (TV series), the parameter said there were four episodes. It took off-Wikipedia research to find that there are seven episodes total. This kind of total framing is more useful to readers than upping the count one by one. I invite other editors to support this change. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the instructions are fine as they are now. The dynamic issue applies only during the initial run of the series, after the series is complete the number will be static. During first run a series article is generally updated fairly quickly with changes. Also number aired is verifiable with contents of an episode list. We shouldn't be adding cast names until they appear in an episode, but that is a separate issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Many readers will be reading the series article during the run, though, and that is why the number of episodes is misleading. There is no benefit to taking an incremental approach when the full total number of episodes is known. Why should series that have one episode aired have only Number of episodes = 1 presented in the article? Readers going to the series article during a run will be thrown off. The complete verifiable number of episodes makes more sense during a run and after it. I'd argue that the total number can be there before the run because it's verifiable. The episode count isn't going to change mid-run, barring very rare circumstances. I'm not seeing the case why the incremental approach is better than the complete-total approach. Like I said, watching Hijack then coming here and seeing number of episodes = 4 made me think it was a four-part series, when if it just said 7, I'd know the full scope right away, and that's not a contentious data point. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Everything you noted to support your reasoning has been discussed before. I'm not saying consensus can't change, but we've discussed this before much more than once and the result is always the same. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

From what I can tell, WP:CRYSTAL is cited in defense of the current criteria. It does not apply, though, because for infoboxes releasing products like films, we cite a release date in the future. If we applied this infobox's logic that way, we wouldn't be allowed to write any future date on the off-chance that it won't happen. I feel like this whole situation is a case of tradition for the sake of tradition, doing this because it's always been done that way. I highly doubt that there would have been so many discussions about this if the total number of episodes was always reported. It's the pedantry of the incremental approach that triggers repeated discussions. In over 99% of the cases, the number of episodes is already known even before the very first episode is aired. From what I can tell, most exchanges about this are brief, other than one extensive discussion that was more about changing the field's name to include "Aired". I feel like an RFC is necessary to get a broad consensus, especially readers of TV series articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not against aligning our approach for this field with the lead and series overview tables (give the full known episode count with sources) but I do think we should differentiate in the infobox between released episode count and currently airing season episode count. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad this was brought up because I've never understood why the guidelines were set up this way. It's not beneficial at all and really goes against what the infobox was designed for. I agree with Erik that a RFC is needed to see what actual readers find useful. Mike Allen 02:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd be interested in an RFC on this (and a ping if someone does start one!). My initial thought is that it is a waste of time to update an infobox, say, weekly for 24 weeks in a year 1 episode at once when it is more than 99% certain that the full season order will air. There are exceptions—we saw some in the last big writers' strike—and it's decreasing in importance with the trend of releasing a full series instantaneously. But I don't think we can say it's CRYSTALBALL when it's information significant enough to be reported elsewhere in the article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

A simple solution is to use Template:Episode counter which displays the count and an "as of" date. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

That template is only used on 50 articles in the mainspace, and I would say does not have community wide consensus to use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not any different than putting an "as of" date or other clarifying notation into the param, which does not specifically fall outside of what's in the docs (although it could certainly be argued as being implied). Regardless, I'm just trying to offer a reasonable alternative through discussion. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

No, yeah, understood. I just wanted to pointed out that that template does not have wide adoption for use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Parameter clarification

|animator= is meant to be a person or persons who worked on the show, not an animation company, correct? That's how I've always assumed, along with the documentation wording under |company= Note: sub-contractors hired to perform production work, e.g. animation houses, special effects studios, post-production facilities etc. should not be included here.... If my thinking is correct (or even if it isn't) I'd like to add clarifying wording to the documentation regarding this parameter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

From understanding, the |animator= has always been a person or persons who worked on the show, not an animation company. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the documenation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to add to a discussion seemingly concluded nearly a month ago, but if the purpose of the "Animator" parameter is to refer to persons who did animation work on a show, how do we refer to animation studios? There are many articles where animation companies are listed with the "Animator" parameter. I'd think it would make sense to have an "Animation Production" or "Animation Services" parameter, but it would of course need clear definitions in regards to outsourcing and sub-contracting. You could argue they should be listed under "Production Company", but that role usually means something different in TV animation, and in my mind it makes sense for animation studios to be listed separate.

I'm also unsure about what the purpose of the "Animator" parameter is to begin with, especially if it's truly meant to refer to people who did animation work on the show. Unless only a few animators total worked on a project, or listing the main animators who contributed to a series somehow ends up being justified, it seems too low level a credit to include in the infobox in most cases (at least in my opinion).

I'm very new to Wikipedia editing, so perhaps I'm missing something. MuddyYoshi (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Per past consensus on the matter, the TV project guidelines (as conveyed in this template's documentation) is to not include animation houses in the infobox. That information should be noted in the article, if appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove "Picture format" and "audio format"

I'm surprised that the "Distributor" parameter was removed for being useless but the "Picture format" and "Audio format" parameters are even less necessary. Unless an article is about the first TV show in color or first high-definition program, I really don't think it's important information, and most readers probably just skip over this information in general. These parameters just bloat the Infobox and provide unessential information. —theMainLogan (t•c) 12:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Those format parameters are very rarely sourced in the article and are an attribute of the network or release method and not of the production itself. Basically useless information for the infobox of a television production and I agree they should be removed. When it is a production "first" it should be highlighted in the article itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I could get behind their removal, for the sole reason that if they are used, they are mostly unsourced. And as stated, if any of these aspects are notable for the series, they would hopefully be included and sourced in the body of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above points. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The sandbox has been updated to remove these parameters, and you can see in the test cases how it would render versus the current live template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What needs to be done to make the change in the template and get a bot to remove them from articles? Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Usually just enough days to see there is no opposition to the removal. I'll add a note to the television WP about this just in case. Gonnym (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

And once they are removed, it'd be a mere task of asking User:Primefac to run his bot which has a task to remove unsupported parameters. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed; just waiting for stuff to get implemented. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The parameters have now been removed. Gonnym (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm rather late to the party here, but I oppose the removal of these parameters. Picture and, to a lesser extent, audio formats make a large contribution to the aesthetic experience of watching a television program, certainly the aspect ratio has a huge impact. I'd argue this information is just as important as other parameters in this template.

I disagree that these parameters are not a function of the production, at least in part. The production results in material with a certain resolution, aspect ratio, number of sound channels, etc., which are sometimes then modified or constrained by network or release method (downscaling resolution, letterboxing aspect ratio, downmixing audio channels, etc.)

The main thing that gives me pause is that, as mentioned, this information is usually unsourced. I'd think in the majority of cases much of it should be verifiable, though? It's also not generally included in the body of the article, but I think this is a case where the exception at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE may apply: the more technical nature of format information would read unnaturally if integrated into the body's prose in most cases. MarioFanNo1 (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This proves a point I thought about but forgot to write in my proposal about only the most die-hard videophiles and audiophiles taking interest in this kind of information.—theMainLogan (t•c) 02:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing is though that the production format may have little to do with the broadcast format the network chooses. The color formats NTSC, PAL and SECAM could be used for the same production depending on the country airing it. And generally for the years they were dominant sort of trite to even mention it as that was the only color formats used in the different countries. Likewise with HD formats 1080i and 720p which can be used for the airing the same production on different networks but could be produced in many different ways, including film, that could be converted to the airing format. What would be useful and interesting is the production format and setup. How aired is a network choice and is an attribute of the network and date aired. In a significant number of series I have looked at the information is just plain wrong and appeared to be added without any consideration or checking, just copied from some other use of the template. Or someone just added the information without checking if it is valid or not. I've tried to correct the 1080i formats listed for ABC, Disney, ESPN, Fox when I find them but that is an example of people not even trying to get it right and just assuming everything recent is 1080i (and maybe now 4K). Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Whilst maybe the photo format isn't necessary for more recent TV series, I think the paramater is important to be kept for older shows which were filmed in that period from between when formats changed from SD to HD formats; if a show is only available in SD or was filmed in HD format earlier than other series from its time, it probably should be in the infobox. Happily888 (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you give an example of such a show? Gonnym (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: so with the above comments coming in later, is this removal on-hold? Or is it going forward? I know that @Primefac was going to run their bot, and pending that, I had added some regex patterns to my regular script that handles the maintenance categories. I had it running earlier, but put it on hold pending these additional comments. Or is there consensus to move forward with removal? ButlerBlog (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: The parameters have been removed and I don't believe there is, or are heading towards, consensus to restore. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! That confirms pretty much what I was thinking. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't off base. I'll keep that additional script in then and move ahead with removing as I maintain other params. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I was waiting until the above kerfuffle got sorted. If indeed that is the lone voice of opposition, I can start a bot run. Primefac (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

"Budget" should be below "Camera setup"

I just think "Camera setup" → "Budget" sequentially makes more sense than "Camera setup" → "Running time" → "Production company" → "Budget". "Production company" should probably be at the end of the "Production" section. —theMainLogan (t•c) 14:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)