Template talk:Infobox television

message: There was a bug in the infobox with  which I fixed here. The infobox will now place the value of the text in italics if it is singular. When it is plural it won't, as lists can cause lint errors. These will need italics to be manually added.
Additionally, if the value has disambiguation (such as Another name (1999)), the template will handle it so only the text outside the parenthesis is in italics.
I'm working on a tracking category for the plural cases so those can be fixed.
Testcases can be found here. Please let me know if you see anything that needs to be fixed.
I'll update the live code in a few days if no issues are reported. Gonnym (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: An issue that probably will arise and will need fixing, is that if an alt title already uses italics, it will now have 4 ' and will be in bold with an extra one on each side. Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A tracking category can be added to the  section of the Pluralize template transclusion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'll probably add a tracking category to find plural usages that need fixed. Those are done over at Module:Infobox television as the logic gets more complicated than template syntax can handle. I just need to think how best to catch entries of a list (still hoping to find some template or module out there that will save me writing that code:) ) Gonnym (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, code written to handle plurals without italics and singular with italics. Will make this code live this week. Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  alt_name bugfix 

message: For Seasonal shows Like Bigg Boss , It is best to add slogan of the season as the image caption in infobox television. For Long time it used to be like that, but yesterday one of the member removed slogan from all edition of Bigg Boss in multiple languages. I Request all Members to propose their suggestions below. Alen Hermen (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: To add a bit information to this. This discussion was supposed to be held at Template talk:Infobox television season and not here as it concerns that infobox. Regarding the actual issue, the slogan was used inside  resulting in information that is not relevant to the image at all (a standard Bigg Boss logo). This has also MOS:ACCESSABILITY issues as we're setting screen readers to give incorrect information to their users. I am the editor that removed this usage which was used on exactly 10 articles. Gonnym (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The slogan strikes me as off topic. At best it's irrelevant, and at worst it's WP:PROMO. If the slogan has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it can be covered in the body of the article itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Gonnym's point about accessability makes a lot of sense.  I see no reason to include it as a separate parameter, and it would be ripe for abuse were it included.  I'd be a hard "oppose" if this came up for official discussion/comment. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slogan (For Seasonal Shows) As Image Caption In Infobox Television 

message: Here's a question regarding , seeking input from experienced television editors and template editors.  Suppose a show is co-produced (i.e. funded) by an American company like CW, but it's entirely produced/filmed in Canada.  When it airs simultaneously in Canada and the US on different networks and (possibly) different air dates, what's the appropriate protocol for listing the  and / values?  Should we use  and , or would it make more sense to use a plainlist for the multiple networks (considering it's essentially simultaneous, not a reboot or network change)? ButlerBlog (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If the show is a co-production then use plainlist. If it was just produced in Canada that doesn't mean anything. Arrowverse shows were filmed in Canada but they are only American. Gonnym (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Gonnym.  That confirms what I was thinking.  Here's another one that's related: Children Ruin Everything.  In this case, Roku and the CW appear to just be international distribution.  My presumption on this one is that it should just be CTV as they are the original network in the country of production (Canada).  The others are just picking it up for international distribution. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the show so no idea. I found in the last few months of fixing networks and dates that this is one of worst cases of unverified information in articles, because sometimes it even has a source which makes it seem valid and it still isn't. Children Ruin Everything specifically mentions only Canada in the lead and in the infobox, so that seems to mean that it is only CTV. In any rate, the lead, infobox, body and categories should all match. Gonnym (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: <thumbs up icon here> Thanks! ButlerBlog (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Network/dates question 

message: This topic has come up previously in the archives, however, it is often related to Co-EP listing on narrative TV shows that often use the credit for writers (who are also listed elsewhere).
In documentary TV series, the Co-Executive Producer is most always used to denote the showrunner.  Therefore, it seems fair to include that as a separate credit available in the info box.  The co-executive producers are more creatively involved and responsible for the series on all levels than producers.  The omission therefore overlooks a key role in these types of productions. 2600:4040:912F:B200:99B1:B552:3710:54CE (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a matter of opinion - and one that I do not share.  If it's a "key" role, then discuss it in the article's prose - specifically, the "Production" section, where it can be given proper context.  If you're concerned about the exclusion of "key" information, then add it to the article - there's nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from making sure it's covered.  But it doesn't need to be in the infobox. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-Executive Producer listing in info box 

message: The parameter for first aired states "" In the world of streaming, if a series airs a "full preview" episode in theaters should that also be included? Asking in the case of Tulsa King, it "premiered" on Paramount+ on November 13, 2022, but had a "full preview" theatrical release of its first episode on October 29 and 30. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave that answer to other editors, but I'll note that the the lead and episode list do not use that date. So whatever is decided here, the lead, infobox and episode list should all use the same date. Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and if the answer is no I'll add an efn note in the episode table, just wanted to ask before I changed it either way. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  First aired 

message: I just came across this convention on the Masters of the Air page, with someone else griping about it on their talk page. I realize it would be a huge pain to change all the pages to match “episodes scheduled” or planned or whatever. I’d mostly just like to understand why it is this way. And I wonder if there’s a way to change the wording to make it clearer, or perhaps include a link in the template comment for this line pointing to an explanation, to at least reduce some of the frustration by people trying to correct the episode count. (Yes, they should read the comment and not try to change the episode count inappropriately, but it’s so incredibly counterintuitive I can understand people not bothering to read it.)
I’m not familiar with how templates work under the hood.  Would it be horrible to change the wording from “No. of episodes” to “Episodes aired”? GaryFx (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "No. of episodes" is a neutral term because there are some instances where it is appropriate to note the total number of episodes produced, which may not equal the total that actually aired, for series that were prematurely cancelled. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: But doesn’t that mean you can never tell from the infobox whether it’s the number aired or the number produced? GaryFx (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why episodes aired instead of episodes scheduled? 

message: I see the documentation is silent on the use of footnotes. Should we encourage the use of footnotes for certain cases? Here is an example where I think footnotes could be useful.
#The end date of a television series has been publicly announced
#The total number of episodes that will be aired for a television series has been publicly announced
I am sure there are other cases in which footnotes could be useful, but these two examples are already on my mind. Up the Walls (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The WP:INFOBOX is pretty clear that , meaning that the end date and number of episode information should be in the article body (and for those specific examples, probably also in the lead). Since the information is in the body of the article, that is where the reference should be placed. Gonnym (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now you were talking about regular notes and not references. Well that can depend on the type of note. The two types of notes you added at Young Sheldon violate WP:CRYSTALL so aren't really helpful. Also, they seem to bypass the infobox parameters and create pseudo parameters. If we wanted to have a "number of episodes aired (out of total expected)" we would have a parameter for that, since if it's good for one TV series, it's good for every TV series. Similar to the expected end date. Propose these new parameters here and see if you have consensus to add them. Gonnym (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually a pretty good idea. Let me think about how to properly phrase it. Up the Walls (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using footnotes in the infobox 

message: Me and another user have different understanding of what last_aired explanation is because some South Korean TV series has renewed but have yet a release date. See this discussion and also this. Can someone help? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 23:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreement about present or end date on last_aired parameter 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Adding animation services attribute 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 17:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Documentation has been updated. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't showrunner be plural with a "s" when they are multiple showrunners as just not the showrunner as in singular as in adding ? 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Showrunner for singular and Showrunners for plural would be consistent for how they are used. — YoungForever(talk)  03:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the request both here and on the season infobox. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

text: . P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 20 April 2024 

message: Per the above discussion, showrunner needs to be pluralized if there are multiple on the series.
Changing  to  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)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional edit

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The IP address has hopped to 148.252.159.35. — YoungForever(talk)  20:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bringing back distributor. 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Producer" entry