Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 1

message: On the removal of the IMDb link by Ed g2s: How about adding in TV Tome links instead? (Should have checked Ed g2s's talk page first; it's already been asked...) --Christopherlin 06:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and to repeat what I said there, the parameters would need to be added to all the pages before the template is edited. ed g2s • talk 11:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding TV Tome links instead? 

message: Major changes, such as the addition of several fields to an infobox, need to be proposed and discussed on the talk page first before they are implemented; there needs to be a consensus. I would say that ratings information is relevant, but adding it to the infoboxes may not be the best idea because (1) not all shows are shown in the same region, and (2) not all shows are rated. It would probably be best to add a single rating category, that can be edited accordingly for each article. --FuriousFreddy 14:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. --Ryanasaurus0077 14:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The best thing to do, if you want to include all the certificates on whatever articles you have, is to make a new infobox (call it "infobox television 3"; there's already a "2") and use that one. This one is implemented on a number of pages, and not all of those shows would even have the ratings to enter into the boxes. --FuriousFreddy 14:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: ratings 

message: Is it just my computer, or does this template sit on the right of the screen and really mess with the formatting of the page? It forces all the text down to the bottom of the screen instead of sitting nicely on the left like the Moviebox. Can we fix this? Premeditated Chaos 07:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad formatting 

message: For consistency with other infoboxes, should 'Television' be capitalized:  Infobox Television?  Or is it too late to make that change? --Jeremy Butler 12:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a Template:Infobox Television page and redirected it to Infobox television.  I tested it and it seems to work.--Max  E|C 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalize 'Television'? 

message: Should we add writers and directors? --Jeremy Butler 12:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against this, because some shows have such large teams that change soo often, it's undoable. Besides it clutters the infobox too much as well The DJ 01:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writers, Directors? 

message: No. of episodes is a bit tricky for shows that are still on the air.  Is it presumed that the number will be incremented each week as the program is broadcast? --Jeremy Butler 01:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to be updated all the time. Most shows will announce how many episodes they have for the season anyway. Just put something like "50 as of November 2005" or something. That's fine till the season is over. Increment that if you want. K1Bond007 02:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No. of episodes 

message: It seems like the text is vertically spaced out too much in the infobox, thus making it taller than it should be.  I don't have the requisite skills to fix this though; anyone else?  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 10:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text is spaced out? 

message: I noticed at Firefly (TV series) that someone made the not-unexpected mistake of interpreting the ambiguous term "format" as medium format; e.g., "DVD". That is a logical use of the term "format" in the context of television shows, however useless it might be for this specific context. An even more logical interpretation would be "NTSC" or "PAL". Only third on the list would be genre. I recommend that we change this variable name to the unambiguous term "genre" before the template usage increases beyond the current 655 articles. If no one offers a compelling reason otherwise, I'll commit the effort in the near future to fix the articles simultaneously with the change. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Format" should be "Genre" 

message: I don't yet understand the programming aspect behind creating templates (using "if" statements and triple brackets), so I am pointing this out here so someone else will know to fix it. The template page describes the Show Name as the only required field. If true, the template with only that field filled should look like the first but instead it currently looks like the second. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 21:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be fixed now. See the 3rd example to the right  --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Required field visiblity "problem" 

message: last_aired is described in the comments as "The last day the show aired. Use Present if it is ongoing". My understanding is that "aired" means the same as "broadcast". In these days of cable, almost any popular show is being shown daily somewhere in the world, so almost everything should say "Present". So far so good, but the template then generates the text: Original run: first_aired - last_aired. This seems to contradict the definition (except for programmes that were never repeated). Which is right? Notinasnaid 13:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, first original broadcast. Last, first airdate of the last original episode to be broadcast. Matthew 13:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  last_aired 

message: Not sure if this is included, should we also have the argument of current air time and channel for the Television Series e.g. House on FOX at Tuesdays 9/8c Gurudatt 14:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think we should. Mostly because wikipedia is not a TV guide, but also because encylopedicly speaking, it's just not that important when the show is being described. Note however that the Channel already is included in the Infobox. (Original channel in the Broadcast section). This is mostly because the Channel can have significant influence on the prodcution team, and often decides when a show will end and that sort of stuff. Another reason i think it's bad to add that info, is because then people will start adding this kind of broadcast information for every international broadcaster, and every scheduled rerun as well. It's just not that useful from an article perspective. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, times are subject to change. Matthew 14:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Time of Air 

message: Can someone tell me why Veronica Mars has a different background color? Somethingvacant 02:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because it's listed in , although if it should actually keep that colour can be a matter of debate. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The idea seems nice written down, but in actual usage I don't think it would work properly. There *are* shows that make really good use of colours, e.g. The Simpsons. My opinion is that colour, used correctly, truly does increase the quality of the article. Matthew 19:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Simpsons color (while burning my eyes) does have purpose, as it's distributes across all Simpsons content.  Other things, though (like the three+ colors for Star Trek; why not one?), and just general shows could do better with a color scheme, I think. --  19:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know who added the Star Trek ones.... but they are a bit "icky". Matthew 19:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors 

message: Would anyone mind limiting the image size to something like 220px, like in most other infoboxes?  I've seen some ZOMG HUGE pictures making the template excessively wide.  (I'd do this myself, but a. I wanted a consensus first, and b. implementing it like other templates would require editing every page with an image to remove the image sizing code.  Meh. --  18:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I would. 250px has long been the accepted practice. "Silence equals consent" (WP:CONSENSUS), and I'm not sure what other infoboxes use 220px, but all I've seen use 250px or 300px. Matthew 18:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, though 300px seems a little large. --  19:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd agree 300px in an infobox may be too large. If there's no objections you should downsize it on the respective pages, be bold. Matthew 19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Size 

message: I recommend we add a link to the wiki at TVIV. Modeled after Wikipedia, it's generally much cleaner and more navigable than the heavily commercialized and high bandwidth TV.com currently included. --Thomas B 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TVIV... ? I see so much empty information there (people seem to create "template" pages for no reason?) TV.com is notable, but is TVIV? Matthew 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend adding TVIV link to links section. 

message: I added "Composer" to the infobox, because the only thing listed for music was "opening theme", "ending theme" and "theme music composer", but not all shows are restricted to this. Take Smallville for example. The theme music is "Save Me" by Remy Zero, but Mark Snow is the composer for the score that accompanies the episodes during their 42 minute runs. "Theme music composer" wouldn't fit him, because his music changes each episode. So I added a "Composer(s)" section to allow for the insertion of individuals that may not provide the theme for a show, but do other music scoring.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composer 

message: For current shows, particularly one's heading for sydnication, there may be more than one "official" website (e.g. Scrubs (TV series)) .  I'd suggest adding two additional parameters, such as "network_website" and "production_website";  for backwards compatibility, they could be in addition to "website" although I suspect that the latter is usually the same as "network_website".
Before I may this change, I am looking for better ideas as to the names of these parameters as well as opinions as to whether these new parameters belong in the links section of the infobox or integrated into the broadcast and production sections.  Of course, if you think the whole idea is a bad one, waiting before I do it means there's an opportunity to point that out too...  67.101.7.136 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this widespread enough to warrant a field in the infobox? The JPStalk to me 01:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. I wouldn't say "some," but in fact "most" shows have a network page and a production page. --lincalinca 03:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it is increasingly common.  An alternative approach could be to allow multiple values in the website field with the option to change the displayed text. REALJimBob (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an optional one up. Rename it if you wish. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  I hope its okay, but I reverted your addition.  Something is wrong in the code and it was showing up really wonky on article pages (showing [ Production website]) and I don't know enough about that kind of code to fix it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some shows have official websites from both the network and the production company 

message: Some shows have different names in different countries, such as Strange Days at Blake Holsey High being the same as Black Hole High, Ocean Girl being the same as Ocean Odyssey, Don't Blame Me being the same as Don't Blame it on the Koalas and Don't Blame the Koalas etc. etc. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a parameter that can state other names by which a show is broadcast? I'd add it myself, but have absolutley no idea how to, and would probably just break the whole thing... TheIslander 00:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No response from anyone, so I went ahead and added it myself. Fairly sure I got it right - if there's a problem, please let me know. TheIslander 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also Known As 

message: I have a problem with the fact that the picture format is showing both HD and SD formats on many places this template is being used. A prime example is The Office (US TV series). The show is produced in 1080i for HD, which should definitely be listed, but it also lists 480i SD. Although the show is down-converted, the show isn't and has never been produced in 480i. If the show is broadcast at all on an analog station, of course it's being converted to 480i... I'm guessing the intent of this field was to be the NATIVE picture format. The only case I could see listing both formats is in a show like The King of Queens, where the format changed during the show's run. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Format 

message: Is is possible to change the color of the banner (from blue to something else)? I don't mean changing the default color on this template, but is it possible to change the banner color when used on articles? MITB LS 17:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is - use the parameter '| bgcolour = white', replacing 'white' with whatever you want ;). TheIslander 18:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The parameter "bgcolour" will eventually be removed as it was deprecated in favour of . Matthew 18:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner color change? 

message: I notice we now have a director parameter for use in, mainly British, shows where there was only one director. Could one also be added for the writer? I'm thinking of British shows which often had only one writer like, say, Press Gang or One Foot in the Grave as well as serials such as The Singing Detective or The Quatermass Experiment. Joe King 12:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there needs to be a writers parameter.  While many series do have multiple writers, for shows where there is only one writer, and for miniseries (which mostly use the tv infobox), a writers section is really needed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writer parameter? 

message: Looking at the template, there is the "Format" attribute following the "Genre" attribute.  However, when applied such as Ōban Star-Racers, the attribute is not appearing. KyuuA4 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still wasn't appearing at some articles (eg. The High Life (TV series)).  I've amended the bracketing to fix this. --Old Raw 08:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format not Appearing 

message: Just asking for an opinion on what the image for the infobox should be. I have been having a discussion with another user (Stickeylabel) and if the right image to use is a screen capture of the intertitle (title card) for the show or a proper logo of the show which is often found in press releases and on official websites. What are your views on what should be used? --Lakeyboy 07:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title screen should be used unless you have good reason not to (this has long been the standard now). A show can also have several different "variations" of an "official" logo. Matthew 08:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi again Lakeboy :). I agree with Mathew, in that consistancy should be adheared to. There are few examples of popular television program articles that use non-intertitled infoboxes. The main examples of logos in use, is for television programs that have not aired yet or are not widely known. It would be best to follow the coherent standard that has been followed for years, in order to acheive consistancty with regard to the manual of style. I hope this does not become a long debate, as that would detract from individuals time, of which could be used for more productive purposes. Stickeylabel 11:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type of program image that should be used 

message: I've noticed that Template:Infobox film automatically sets thumbnails at 200px for consistency in the size of the posters. Could the same feature be added to this template? Brad 12:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend 245px Jamie jca (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto thumbnail size? 

message: In the "seasons" section of the infobox, it is unclear if the number should reflect how many seasons have been completed--something along the lines of how many episodes that have aired, as is done for that section--or, if that section is supposed to include a season that may be in current production. I think this should be clarified on the template page, as it isn't consistent along television show articles.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  season number 

message: TV Rating option has been added with the variable "rated".  You can enter "rating = TV-MA LSV" in your templetes, or if you want it fancy, you can use an image, but it needs to be restricted to 50x50 pixels.
Example:

Final Product:
The gif itself is 100x96 pixels, but you can tell the page to slice it in half by using "50px" or half of the width of the original image as the number.
--Mr Congeniality (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, not all television shows are rated the same thing in every country. This seems like it would promote a bias to a particular country.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone is welcome to add other country ratings as well, as long as it's 50x50 in an image.  Example: TV-MA (USA)14+ (Canada)16+ (Any Country You Want)Result:TV-MA (USA)14+ (Canada)16+ (Any Country You Want)There is absolutely nothing bias about this.--Mr Congeniality (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a little indiscriminate to list every rating a show receives from all the countries it is broadcast. It's the same reason why the Film Community doesn't list film ratings--er, some people try, but the project itself actually says otherwise--because without context the ratings are only letters and numbers. Why does one show get a TV 14 rating and another gets a TV-MA?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ratings are however factual and not self-determined, but determined by the network that airs them.  Parental guideline ratings should remain on the page to keep a history of how the show was used as such.  Mr Congeniality (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The network determines them, but again, by what measures. What makes Smallville's rating different from say Gilmore Girls, or whatever other show on that network? Indiscriminate information has nothing to do with whether or not it is factual, but whether or not it is relevant. Ratings insist meaning, but without context the meaning is lost and the numbers/letters are irrelevant.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This really isn't problematic, basically the ratings are there to mark how the network looked at their show, which is non-bias (to the viewer, of course), and documented by the viewer, blah blah blah.  Information that is biased is posted on Wikipedia, but usually it's only because it's biased by someone else.  Like for example, if Clinton started talking all kinds of mad crap about Monica Lewenski, it would end up as quoted in his biography page on Wikipedia.  So that's what it basically is, kind of like a quote from a person who has biased something/someone.  I don't think we should really have to worry about this, my only objective here is only to better the quality, not lower it.  Maybe we should replace the images with just the letters and have them link to the this page.  Or somehow work it out so they understand why that is there. Mr Congeniality (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't separate the comments by page break lines. You are missing the point, which is the point that is made on the film community. It's the same thing as film ratings. Without context, these are nothing but letters. It's really something that should have been brought up at WP:TV, since it's something that affects the entire community. It doesn't matter if CBS rates CSI as "TV-MA", unless we know why they are rating it that. Ratings are indiscriminate collections of information. Unless there is some controversy surrounding the ratings, they are inconsequential to the article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, that is not context. It's a generic category. A show can be "TV-14" for language, and another show be "TV-MA" for language as well. There is no context to adhere to the letters. That's why film ratings are generally not included in film articles. Only in special circumstances are they, like when a series of films which have generally received PG ratings suddenly receives an R. If you added all the countries in the box with ratings, you could easily have more than half a dozen ratings, which mean absolutely nothing. The US could rate a show stronger based on language and violence, whereas the same show in Australia could be rated much more leniently. Without context it means nothing.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Having these kind of ratings in the template is neither necessary, useful, nor desirable.  Ratings are arbitrarily decided by the network airing the show, and a show can have multiple ratings if its in syndication.  Which one is more "factual" and which ones are more correct?  We also can't just say a show is TV-14 for X, Y, Z because not all networks give that information and the main networks that actually use ratings are the broadcast ones.  Most cable networks, that I've seen, do not do the ratings thing at all, but still rely on a simple warning screen for possible content problems.   Having ratings would be a purely US-centric thing, which is not appropriate as this is NOT the US Wikipedia, but the English one.  Feel free to read the entire similar discussion on MPAA ratings at the Film project (with the result being a big no for good reason).  AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: What should be used for "Original channel" if the channel has changed name since the show started (for instance, shows on what is now ITV1 that started before 2001)? "ITV (now called ITV1)"? "ITV1 (then called ITV)"? "ITV/ITV1"? (ITV refers to more than that one channel.) — 82.36.30.34 (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd follow Smallville (TV series), which was originally on the WB, but moved to the CW.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you use "ITV1" an editor who specialises in ITV articles will make shouty comments at you. Personally, I just stick to what the channel was known as when the programme was first broadcast and, if necessary, pipe the link (e.g. Channel 5 for a programme that started in 1997). The WB/CW example is slightly different as the name changed as the result of a merger rather than just a rebrand. Brad (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renamed channels 

message: I noticed that there's one case the current template doesn't account for—when a program goes off the air for a short time and is resumed. I'm thinking specifically of This Week in Baseball.
I was about to add the infobox to that article, but ran into a problem. The series ran originally from 1977 through 1998 in first-run syndication. It was mothballed in 1999, but relaunched for the 2000 season by Fox. This isn't a case like Wild Kingdom, which was revived about 15 years after its first run ended... when Fox revived TWIB, it used the original opening and closing theme music (and still does), and used an animated version of the original host (who had died in 1996), using his actual voice, to open and close the show through 2001.
How would the infobox handle a case like that? — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say missing a year is too much detail for the infobox, but it should be mentioned in the article itself.  If there was a big gap of many years then it might be considered two different shows with two separate articles (or distinct sections within one article with separate infoboxes). Halsteadk (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show resuming after a hiatus 

message: Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible to modify the template so that if "last_aired" isn't specified, the dash before it will not be shown. Currently if a TV show was a one-off, you either have the choice of making "first_aired" and "last_aired" the same (so it will say "31 December 2007 - 31 December 2007") or omitting the last_aired (it will say "31 December 2007 -"). Both look a bit odd! Halsteadk (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Also "Original run" sounds a bit strange for a single episode so if last_aired isn't specified then the title of the field is changed to "Original airing" (best I could come up with - better suggestions welcome!). AlexJ (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one, thanks. Halsteadk (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: To me original runtime sounds more like the length of the episode (1 hour etc.) in it's original form. AlexJ (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original air date(s) for single episode 

message: I believe there should be an easy way to change infobox color, by having a | infobox color = color | in it. Does that sound good or does that create skittles. Mythdon (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be some sort of uniformity across all the articles, rather than allowing any old colour to be chosen. If colours would be different perhaps they should relate to the format (although tricky to do within the template as this field is just free-text) or whether it is a historic, current or future show. Halsteadk (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by uniformity. Mythdon (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Why does invoking the variable "bgcolour" allow for the circumvention of this infobox's standardization?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know, but check if it is okay with other users if the "bgcolor" variable can stay. Mythdon (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohh and if you want to know why "bgcolor" changes the infobox color, that is because somebody had to have added that in the infobox to allow for color changing. Mythdon (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easy infobox color change 

message: Are they info boxes for TV news anchors/reporters? I haven't been able to locate one so far. And probably doesn't exist, since, Larry King is under infobox actor. Do let me know if there are infoboxes for this cat.--PremKudvaTalk 11:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it okay to use Template:Infobox actor television ...oops no, I just read that it is not to be used for news anchors, journalists.--PremKudvaTalk 11:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television other cats? 

message: A question has arisen at Lucy, the Daughter of the Devil over which date to put in the line for first_aired.  The show was premiered on October 30, 2005, but the series actually started on September 9, 2007.  Which date should we put?  The other problem is the text for this field changes.  The line in the edit window says "first_aired", which points to 2005. But when viewed normally, it says "original run", which points more towards 2007-present.  Maybe we can add an optional line for premiere date? Torc2 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First aired vs. premiered? 

message: What is the relevance of the judge value? NorthernThunder (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many contest shows have (celebrity) judges.  — Edokter • Talk •  17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judge? 

message: I tried to add these myself but was immediately reverted.  Is it alright to add these?  "Presented by" and "Narrated by" aren't really  appropriate terms for those types of programs. I think that addition would greatly benefit the template.
Snowpeck (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Presented by" sounds like a prefectly appropriate term to me. TalkIslander 13:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Hosts are referred to as hosts in game and talk/variety, not as presenters.  I think the terms need to be added, as I have had a similar problem lately editing a couple of articles. Nicholasm79 (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed, I think we need these options, particularly for announcer.  Narrated by does not work well for announcer, as they are different things. Hosted by would also be an appropriate field, though its not as bad with presented by. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game and Variety/Talk Shows need Host and Announcer Options 

message: The network field shows as "Original network" which makes me wonder how to deal with shows like Jeopardy!, which has aired on multiple networks during its 40 year run.  Right now, the networks are listed with years, but is that the appropriate way? Do we need a premiere network, then other network field? AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a similar question. If a show is gonna switch networks, do you add the new network as soon as it is announced or once the show starts airing on the new network? TJ Spyke 12:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Network 

message: What is the consensus regarding the use of the television infobox?  Is it intended to represent only the current or most recent iteration of a television program, or is descretion permitted to allow it to show significant figures from a program's past?  On the present version of the infobox for the television sitcom 8 Simple Rules, John Ritter is listed among the cast, even though he was not with the cast for its final season.  The infobox for Family Feud similarly lists all the hosts of the show and gives their years; however, it leaves off details for the show's directors, producers, announcers, etc.  Is it proper to list the hosts of the multiple versions of a game show, but not its several announcers?  How should directors/producers be handled?  (Listing directors and producers for all versions leads to bloat, but listing only the most recent directors/producers of a long-running show may give undue weight to staff members who have been with a show for a relatively short amount of time, perhaps as short as only one episode, such as a series finale.) Robert K S (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, an Infobox is more a short summary of the current state of the show, hence would show the current director and producer and such information.  Notable former members might be better described in prose within the article itself.  However, if a program has had, say, 10 directors I don't see why it would be relevent to describe each one, unless there is a specific reason to.Fritter (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right for current shows, but for "historic" shows, that might be different. In these cases you usually go with the "important" cast members troughout the history of the show or you direct people to a subsection in the page with a link. John was a primary cast member and the episodes were "viewed" from his characters perspective until his death. When I visit that page I personally (as having watched that series) would expect his name to be in that section of the Infobox. There are no rules, it is an editorial decision basically. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in cast/crew? 

message: I changed the name to "Infobox Television show" as "Infobox Television" is vague. (Is "Infobox Television" about a make of television, a television channel, television network, ...?) The descriptions of the parameters in the documentation also keep referring to the... show. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming of the core template should be as concise as possible, and the "show" part really isn't needed. There are also several redirects (such as Infobox TV) that point to this template. Moving should not be done unless there is consensus.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template name 

message: Okay, I'm sorry if I was too "bold" in effort to simplify this template's code by using . Would people please indicate what's amiss with this version (the one preceding the reversion) so I can then amend it to the consensus' satisfaction. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the problem I found was that the template's stylistic formatting was altered. The alterations made the infobox stick out and not flow with the article in my opinion. Note that I've got no problem with simplifying the code itself. Matthew (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. What is it, then, you don't like about the version linked above, so that I may amend and then reinstate it? Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the issues I encountered were: font-size was too small (infobox is already set to 90%) and linespacing was too tight. It also seemd to needlessly line-wrap each field name, making the lack of line-spacing even more noticable.  — Edokter • Talk •  17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think using one central infobox template means infoboxes will become boring as hell real soon.  is more of a central infobox "core" or "skeleton", like Navbox/core. So, like Navbox, Infobox should be easier for people to set up and modify without feeling a growing need for a computer programming degree. Infobox Television (show) isn't such an oddball infobox that it can't be more straightforwardly defined using  -- at least, that's how it seems to me. Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some consensus please