Template talk:Infobox television film

message: I think this infobox should have parameters for the film's editor, cinematographer, etc.. IMDB does include this. Any objections? Easchiff(talk) 03:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added an "editing" parameter & updated the documentation. Easchiff(talk) 01:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Done; I'll try adding the missing documentation. Joshua Issac (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Above the Line" Credits Missing

message: could someone investigate why this template creates an additional carriage return at the top of articles? examples of this anomaly can be seen here and here. --emerson7 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: anomaly

message: As shown on this page, the code for a TV.com link is wrong.  To make it work, the text needs to be "tv.com_id", not "tv_com_id".  Suggest correcting to functional syntax, but adding to template to support both, as there must be pages using this format having copied from this page. --hmcnally (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: TV.com template example error

message: Is there any chance that this template can be fixed so that the image_size tag works as in  (or the way it's supposed to work there, anyway)?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It also seems to have a stray blank line, at least as it appears in Indictment: The McMartin Trial.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated it to match Template:Infobox Television rather than Film since its more of the former than later (I think). Whole thing probably needs an serious update based on lots of updates to the other two, but I'm not that good with templates :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: today i updated the template to match the optimised coding of both  and  to add a bit more across the board consistency with variables and output. however, i held off on including the code that makes it unnecessary to fully format for the image and imagesize, i.e. , because of the fragments in leaves for the 500 or so already entered. after submitting a request for a bot cleanup, the new code can replace the current coding:
CURRENT
{{#if: - |
 style="text-align: center;" colspan="2"   
NEW
{{#if:| 
 style="font-size: 95%; line-height:1.5em; text-align: center;" colspan="2"  | 
--emerson7 05:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: image_size tag

message: I'm working on Tin Man (TV miniseries) and the "last_aired" parameter appears not to be working. I've filled it out, but it doesn't show up in the page view as it does in the examples here. A little help? --IllaZilla (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The person who did the update above forgot to put it in. I'll see if I can fix it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --IllaZilla (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with last_aired

message: I'm proposing substantial behind-the-scenes changes to bring it this template in line with . The visible changes will be minimal - see this example. Pick over the source code, please. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure this was just done, using both the TV and film infoboxes...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no - whilst the looks were brought in line, the back-end wasn't. I think it now should be. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm not sure i understand what is meant by "back-end". --emerson7 22:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare the old code with the new code - like Infobox film, my proposed changes would make the template create an infobox using the infobox template, rather than creating a table by itself. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 07:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no-ones complained - if you can't see what's been changed, that's a good thing - I'll make the changes official. Next question: deprecate imdb_id, tv_com_id, amg_id? The same / very similar have been deprecated on . - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with that. Moreover, we can run bots to do the job. The case is similar  where a similar decision was made since, as we read in the documentation manual, "When this infobox template was first created, in December 2004, one of the parameters created an external link to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Irrespective of the fact that IMDb is not used as a reliable source for verifying content in Wikipedia articles, it still is a resource that many people, including editors and readers of Wikipedia, often turn to. In more recent years, additional external websites have become increasingly useful resources, including Allmovie, Box Office Mojo, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. Also, modern films almost invariably have an official website. As a consequence, new external links were added to and removed from the infobox as consensus changed on the subject. Discussions about the fate of these links took place in numerous places over some time, with a number of people advocating removal of all external links from the infobox, if not the article as a whole. Others spoke of the value of having at least a link to IMDb in the infobox. Eventually, a far from undisputed consensus arose to remove all external links from the infobox and to move them to the External links section where appropriate in view of the External links guideline."  -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite what it says in the documentation for , the status of the external links remains up in the air. Discussion started going around in circles, and eventually the links were put back in. I'm not sure what's going to happen next, but I guess there will be another RfC somewhere down the line. For now you might want to hold off making a similar decision here. PC78 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well; I think we should wait for a resolution to that one to avoid getting burned. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The parameters are not supported anymore in Infobox film and as far as I remember there was a bot taking the links away from the infobox to the external links. Shall we proceed? It's been 3 months! -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go for it. I'd forgotten all about this. PC78 (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the documentation. I gave a ring to AnomieBOT as well. This was the bot which did the job in Infobox Film. I think the "official website" has to be removed as well as per the same arguments and similar discussion in Infobox Film. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bring inline Infobox film

message: An editor used this template as an example of it being optional to format  (break) without a space and a slash. That is true to an extent that it is option but I'd like the template to not just do the bare minimum that is required but show the preferred most strictly correct XHTML formatting for . Templates should follow best practice right? Hoping for some consensus before changing, even a +1 or "I agree" comment would be appreciated. -- Horkana (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Strict XHTML formatting of <nowiki><br /></nowiki> line breaks

message: Could the runtime be moved down some? I don't see why it needs to be the first thing listed after the image. Also, the heading should be changed to just "Runtime". BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed...it should be moved down below the air dates, similar to the regular film article, and also agree on renaming it to just Runtime. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its about time this template deprecated external links as well, in tune with the film template. The television infobox still includes the official site and production site, so we may need to bring this up there first. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

text: When we did this for infobox television, before deprecating tv.com/imdb etc, we ran a bot to make sure the links were added to the External links section. A similar things might be appropriated in this case. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure how to do that. Do you know who did it then? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_10#Removal_of_IMDb_and_TV.com_links_from_television_infobox_proposal and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/AnomieBOT_25. I'm sure Anomie can adapt the bot for this template. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Runtime

message: A proposal has been raised on WT:FILM under WT:FILM#Merge of minor infobox variants which is pertinent to this template. Please leave comments or suggestions on that thread. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: With interest in performing the merge, discussion will take place at Template talk:Infobox film#Merging infobox film templates to discuss specifics. Erik (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge of minor infobox variants

message: Should there be a "name_2" parameter for additional, alternative titles for the film?--Twinsday (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: name_2

message: Since this template is also used for miniseries, it misses the  parameter as seen in . The line: |data20 =  replaced by: |data20 =   should do it. Thanks Xeworlebi (t•c) 17:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree with this request. A miniseries shouldn't have a standalone list of episodes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Example of this is Band of Brothers (TV miniseries), the article is already too long to not add List of Band of Brothers episodes to it as well. Xeworlebi (t•c) 17:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding it for a single series is pretty excessive. As Magioladitis notes, you can simulate it of necessary. Very few miniseries have the minimal 10 episodes necessary to even begin to justify a separate list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries) could use a link to it's episode list. I'm sure there are others as well. Just adding it would make it consistent and just easier for those that can use it. Templates are supposed to be for presenting info in a consistent manner, this doesn't hurt and only helps in it's goal. (on a side note, are you still going to respond on my talk page?) Xeworlebi (t•c) 18:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does hurt. It gives the incorrect impression that miniseries should have an episode list by norm rather than an extremely rare exception. A link to the episode list of a miniseries is not a requirement in the infobox (which is for quickly highlighting the main points of the list) and has already been suggested, for those few outliers that may warrant an episode list, one can easily add a link manually. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every parameter in an infobox is a requirement, that's why basically all them are optional, and some rarely used. There is no real difference by doing it manually than by adding a parameter to the infobox, only that it insures consistency. For one, I have never seen an television infobox that actually used  but it's there for those that do use it. 19:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Maybe you can add them as a link next to num_episodes}. Please don't add editprotected before starting a discussion here to gain consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but why not just add the parameter? I used editprotected because this was a simple request that I thought was uncontroversial and didn't thought anyone would have a problem with it, guess there's always that one person… Xeworlebi (t•c) 18:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't uncontroversial (obviously) nor is adding/changing any parameter in any infobox that is used on a large number of articles. Discussion and consensus should always be done before doing such things with an infobox as you affect not just one article or one related set of articles, but generally dozens, hundreds, sometimes thousands. That is WHY these are editprotected in the first place, to keep any one editor from just coming in an adding/changing parameters to match their own tastes/desires.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No article using this template would have been hurt or even affected in any way, that's why it is uncontroversial. Besides that  is frequently used to attract attention to a request as they are often ignored, without a response. But I will drop the case and do it the hack kind of way. It would have only helped in those cases that is was needed. Xeworlebi (t•c) 19:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make something clear. It's very nice that you started a discussion on the subject. The problem with editprotected is that sometimes sysops that haven't really followed the discussion come and perform the change assuming good faith. Discussion before putting the template helps to prevent such situations. One the main subject now: I agree with Collectian. Adding this parameter may cause confusions. moreover, we always avoid to add parameters that will have low rate of use. My advice: Try to implement it by hacking and if you see that we have a lot of infoboxes needing it come back. Happy editing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Add {{Para|list_episodes}}

message: Friends, why are we still seeing the forced linking of "English" in this infobox? Finally, the country-name isn't linked unless the editors determine it's helpful; can we please fix this? Most television films are in English, aren't they. Tony (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We could do the same thing as done at , which excludes "English" from being linked, but includes all other languages. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. Pretty much by definition, visitors to en.Wikipedia have heard of the English language. When the odds of someone bothering to click a link fall between one chance in  to one chance in a googolplex, it’s better to not link it. Greg L (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: . Xeworlebi (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Who's ever heard of the English language?

message: I wanted to split the writer credits, but to my surprise this template has not yet implemented this. Splitting writer credits meaning in addition to  a  (maybe we should call it "teleplay" here?),  and  parameter. This has been discussed at length at Template talk:Infobox film#Writer Parameter where it has been implemented on , this carrier pretty much verbatim over to this template, so this shouldn't be all that controversial. I've updated the sandbox with this as well as some other adjustments, such as the addition of , changes in the order, de-bolded "Official website", and to auto-link languages as I suggested above, and works fine with already linked languages, so it shouldn't mess those up. Xeworlebi (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since ther has been no rebuttal for more than a week I've implementing this. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Split writer credits and adjustments

message: Would it be possible (or a good idea) to add parameters for a background and foreground color, as seen on Template:Infobox television season?  I'm trying to work on an article that I believe would benefit from this, but I wanted to make sure this was something that would be a good idea first.  Thanks.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Background Color

message: Why do those two get to be at the top? It looks very stilted and unnatural, especially because :Template:Infobox film is also widely used, and it doesn't have those at the top. They should match each other, as both of these templates are very similar. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Genre" and "Distributed by"