Template talk:Infobox TV channel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject British TV channels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British TV channels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project British TV channels, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


WikiProject Television Stations This article is part of WikiProject Television Stations, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Television stations. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Breakage

The template is somewhat broken due to the edits of Netoholic (talk • contribs) which he made in order that it comply with WP:AUM. (This coincided with the renaming of the template). He has not updated the above information so this should be regarded as innacurate.

I am awaiting clarification on this policy in order that I may fix it.

At the risk of sounding overly possessive, I would ask that changes that fundementally affect appearence, function or name be discussed here before being implemented. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain what is wrong with them template? I'll try and address them. -- Netoholic @ 16:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm stil awaiting an answer.... what was so wrong with the template that has caused this template to be practically incomprehensible. -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] replacing qif

MrWeeble asked on WP:AUM: "However is it possible to hardcode using techniques similar to what qif uses, though avoiding using meta-templates. My question is, are these techniques permissible?" (see Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#use of qif style parameter kludges). I don't think it is possible to mimic the effect of qif but I might be wrong. Frankly, if such inlining exists, I would say that would be permissible as WP:AUM states "Is the desired effect only achievable through a meta template, or can a template of basically the same appearance be made without them? If the same effect can be achieved differently, even if it is more difficult, a meta-template should be avoided." More difficult in this case would mean more difficult to maintain your template, but that could be somewhat diminished by carefully documenting your inliners. On the other hand, you should keep an eye on the fact that at the moment there are not that many people who are able to understand the techniques used for example in template:qif, though it's not that hard to learn. Ligulem 16:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, The code will be oh so nasty and painful, but it shall at least produce decent markup. I shall do some experimentation tonight, but didn't want to spend hours doing it only to be told that what I have done is as bad as how it was before. – MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 17:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A good docu is on m:Help:Parameter default. Maybe template artist and inventor of qif user:AzaToth could help (warning, he's a real template geek, but a nice one though :-). You might try asking him (just say I sent you :-). user:Patrick (maker of m:Help:Parameter default) is also a specialist. That whole mess is really sad. I'm sorry that you have some hard times due to that. I tramped into it at template:book reference and I frankly do not know what we should do with that. I still hope there is some way out of this without breaking the citation templates. I wish we had that qif stuff in MediaWiki code, but that seems not to be so easy to achieve. The Develeopers seem to have bigger fires than our conditionals. Ligulem 17:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, done it. The code is bad, oh how bad it is, it will burn your eyes just to look at it, but it is done. The bad news is, the parameters are not 100% compatible with the current version of the template, so each usage will have to be manually altered to ensure that it works. The good news is that each and ever line it it (except the name of the channel and the headings for availability) is now optional and done without using any metatempates. My test version is at User:MrWeeble/sandbox5 and shown working with 3 demos at User:MrWeeble/sandbox6 – MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 21:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Think we have another conditional master! I try to learn from you for other cases (That's the nice thing of the GFDL license :-). Ligulem 21:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Am now going through, I have broken the link between the old name and the new name, and am redirecting to the new name as I make the changes. This should prevent anything too unsightly. I shall revert the redirect once I am finished. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 21:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, that code made my eyes bleed (mostly because there were mixes html-tables and wiki-tables) :) →AzaToth 22:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I started out using wiki tables but then came up against the problem of printing a | that would render as part of a table but not be counted as a parameter break. when I have a little more time I shall do entirely in HTML MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 23:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Small suggestion (take it or leave it of course), should it maybe say 'Launch date' rather than 'Launched date'?--AntzUK 00:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly, in many ways

That code makes this template unreadable and uneditable. Also, imposing the "dummy parameter" requirement is just silly. Nice, creative method, but it will not be practical. -- Netoholic @ 00:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"silly" is not a technical argument. I agree that MrWeeble's proposal is badly maintainable. We could try writing a compiler (running client side), that generates "Weeble code" from qif code so that template designers could write their code using the qif syntax. The code could then be manually maintained for example under Template:Infobox TV channel/src on the "qif-level" and compiled into Template:Infobox TV channel (compile and edit action). If such a compiler would exist (of course under Gnu, BSD or free license) would you then accept the "Weeble-technique"? Ligulem 06:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Templates are supposed to be a simple method for adding repeatable text to wiki pages. Templates are not intended as an "API" for wanna-be coders nor should the template source be unintelligible. There is nothing, within reason, that cannot achieved by using the simple MediaWiki markup language. If you are tempted to put too much into a template, you are probably over-thinking things. -- Netoholic @ 07:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You know what's really odd? I find myself in complete agreement with Netoholic (cue dramatic music). The changes which included the dummy parameter stuff looked like a contestant in an obfuscated code contest: I was ready to cry at the mere thought that anyone could think this would ever be a sensible way to go. —Phil | Talk 08:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The code is actually very very simple (and sensible) once it is explained, which I have not as yet had time to do (I was editing up until nearly midnight and figured it would be best if I went home cos I was tired).
the key clause is the very simple:
{{{dummy parameter{{{Variable|}}}|{{{Variable{{{Variable|}}}|Text and wikimarkup to be printed if Variable exists}}}}}}
I think this can be simplified to
{{{dummy parameter{{{Variable|}}}|Text and wikimarkup to be printed if Variable exists}}}
Patrick 14:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
You are indeed correct, much kudos to you for spotting it. I dunno why I missed that last night. That change makes it even simpler. implemented at User:MrWeeble/sandbox5, shown in use at User:MrWeeble/sandbox6 – MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 15:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I've documented that at Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#Comparison CSS trick/Weeble code (permalink). Ligulem 10:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The reason it looks as messy as it does, is that it is just it is repeated many, many times and each clause is pushed together (otherwise the wiki interpereter inserts lots of blank lines, which of course looks terrible as the end result). The way I edit is to reinsert the line breaks so I can see each line on its own.
To my mind once the above is explained (as it now has been) the code instantly becomes intelligible.
Obviously in an ideal world there would be an easy way to replicate this functionality in a simpler fashion or the functionality could itself be hidden, unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world.
My view is that a wikitemplate is a simple method to extract things from the actual wikimarkup that is not required to be shown as editable on the main page. This fulfils those requirement admirably.
Yes it requires a dummy parameter, but this is better than inaccessible clientsite css hacks which look awful if the CSS does not load, is disabled or the page is viewed in a CSS incabable browser.
I fail to see why Netoholic says it "Will not be practicable" when it does currently work. Yes, not everyone will be able to edit it, but not everyone can edit a normal table; not everyone can even work out how to create a thumbnail image (I must confess I need to look at m:help:images every couple of days to remember which order things go, and I always need m:help:tables, before I attempt anything along those lines)
Netoholic has requested a list of faults for his version, (yes some of these are petty and trivial changes, but he has reverted when I fixed them in mine), so here goes:
  1. Breaks when no image
  2. Small images get enlarged and thus get distorted
  3. Fails to show any message when channel is unavailable
  4. Style of channels is inconsistant with above (ie no ":"'s)
  5. As far as I can tell, (and I can find no docmentation on this, so to my mind this is as "unintelligible" as my code was) hiddenStructure is css based and this does not work in non-CSS enabled browsers or people using custom stylesheets
  6. Likewise it breaks accessibility by ignoring aural style properties
  7. Long lines make the template expand rather than wrapping
  8. Huge vertical paddings in the availability section
  9. But absolutely no horizontal padding anywhere so the text is pushed right up against the border
Finally I would appreciate it if we could avoid snide comments insinuating that anyone who uses logical processes is a "wanna-be coder". As a professional developer of a fair few years experience, I find this to be fairly insulting to be told that I am merely a "wanna-be". MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 11:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I have been looking at pages with this new info box and it makes some of the smaller images look terrible. Channel 4, ABC1. Is there no way set it so only images larger than the width of the box are resized? Keith 15:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Keith, Please see the above discussion. There are two versions of this infobox. The one that causes the problems is the current one as done by User:Netoholic which is coded with fairly simple code. The alternative version uses slightly more complicated code inside the template, but does manage cases like these. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 15:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Now everything isn't centred. --AntzUK 23:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I managed to centre a few things again. --AntzUK 23:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WeebleCode

I think this solves some of the issues with the CSS trick. I used this concept to alter {{taxobox}} so that it could handle multiple formatted line sections again. The CSS methodology had a problem with that, but 'WeebleCode' does not. See Dinosaur for an example of the new template in action. The CSS version would have printed 'Sauropodomorpha, Theropoda, and Ornithischia' in the body of the article as well as the bottom of the box. I kept the CSS trick except for that one section... which I converted to WeebleCode. Since the two approaches can be used together I'd suggest using CSS except where it doesn't handle things quite right. --CBD ☎ ✉ 20:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If I understand the Weeble Trick correctly I think you must have an additional parameter defined when calling the template. See User:MrWeeble/sandbox6 (permalink). If you use the original Weeble Trick that parameter is "dummy parameter=" which must be defined but set to empty. Unfortunately this is not very user friendly and easy to forget. This is a clear drawback of the Weeble trick. Ligulem 21:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Hrmmm... I didn't add that parameter to the {{taxobox}} call in Dinosaur, but it seems to be working without it. What's the difference between having the parameter set blank in the call and not being defined at all? --CBD ☎ ✉ 21:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm also not 100% shure (I'm not as intelligent as Weeble :-) but see this User talk:Ligulem/work/WeebleTrick. You may also talk on that page there (under section discussion). Or wherever you see fit. Ligulem 21:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The empty string "" is a value. {{{a|b}}} is b if a is undefined, but it is "" if a="".--Patrick 00:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Neto has already reverted you (diff). Ligulem 22:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I reversed it. He didn't provide an explanation and even if the MrWeeble method doesn't go into long-term use it certainly doesn't make sense to use the CSS version which breaks pages using this template. --CBD ☎ ✉ 22:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I wish poeple would explain precisely what is "broken" when they make these claims. -- Netoholic @ 08:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It is explained on the page and in my edit summaries, but to do so again... this kind of taxobox with a formatted list of items under the 'subdivision' parameter was not working properly in the CSS version. The list appeared in the taxobox, but was ALSO printed in the main text of the article itself. This could be fixed by coding in breakpoints and spaces to handle the formatting all on one long line, but would require adjustment of many taxoboxes. I've since replaced the CSS trick and WeebleCode with a simple {{{subdivision|}}} statement. I'm still a little perplexed about that. It seemed the obvious solution, but given all the wrangling and complexities with CSS and WeebleCode I figured there must be some reason why it wouldn't work. Thus far I haven't found anything which it breaks though. Should also help the browsers which can't handle CSS. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I redid this box using qifs. The code looks a lot more complicated, but it accomplishes the same thing as hiddenstructure without the inherent problems in using that class. If the setup is too ugly, there's always this version. It does the same thing and is much neater in comparison, but uses a high risk template to do so. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audience Share

Should audience share be made optional for articles? A lot of channels have no audience share information available. --AntzUK 20:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It is. - RHeodt 15:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, it isn't. When you leave the audience share field blank on articles, two brackets appear. Maybe I didn't clarify: I meant that it should be optional for the audience share field to appear on articles.--AntzUK 20:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It's optional now. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Any chance you could put Closed Date above Owner? Cheers, AntzUK 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Tv net infobox into Infobox TV channel

This merge needs to take place. They are duplicates of each (in that they both do the same thing) however, the latter one is easier to use and is used more. - Рэдхот 13:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template width

Is it possible to increase the default width of the template? In its current form, the infobox on Fox Sports (Australia) looks terrible. I would change it myself but was worried it might cause problems on other pages. -- Chuq 00:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could someone explain me the diference between "TV sat serv" and "sat serv 1"?

Could someone explain me the diference between "TV sat serv" and "sat serv"? I fail to see it. --Andromeda 02:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither can I, so I have removed it. --Marknew 09:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closed date

The closed dates don't seem to be showing up on the infoboxes anymore. Anyone know why? BillyH 22:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Because someone had removed it. It's been restored. --Marknew 09:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my fault... KevinAction 12:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/f/Template_talk%7EInfobox_TV_channel_e297.html"