Template talk:Infobox Television episode

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Television Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. 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.

This page is not an article and does not require a rating.

[edit] Webcast Air Dates

Adult Swim is premiering new episodes of its shows on the internet the friday before they air on television. Should there be a distinction in the infobox between TV airings and internet airings, or should the first airing on any medium take precedence?

Would it be a television episode if it was broadcast only online? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 08:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmetics

I thought the infobox looked ugly, so I edited it. Extraordinary Machine 04:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Added the Episode list parameter. Change this to a PIPED link (ie in [[]]) to the page which lists the episode chronology, like eg List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. So: Episode chronology -- Alfakim -- talk 16:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Would the Episode list parameter be better rendered as:

[[{{{Episode list|Episode}}}|Episode chronology]]

? This would cause the "Episode chronology" to always be a link, but never an incorrectly piped one.-- Alfakim -- talk 16:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the Image parameter. Change this to [[Image:Example.jpg|300px]] to put an image at the top of your infobox (like a screenshot of the episode). Remember to add the |300px or you'll ruin your page. -- Alfakim -- talk 22:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is no longer the case. The infobox stretches now, so smaller or larger infoboxes won't mess up a page. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 09:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supernatural/Natural

I have an idea. Some shows waver in between supernatural and natural content, and it's not always clear if something supernatural has just occurred. This happens in shows like The X-Files or Lost. It doesn't happen so much in a sit-com like Friends. But I think it would be helpful for viewers and people interested if those who know the stories behind the episode mark a show (one that would be relevant) with a symbol if something supernatural has occurred in the episode. Might be a bit of a spoiler, but then if someone is looking up information on an episode, there are going to be spoilers anyhow and I think that an article on a show should be comprehenisive and I think a clear label like this will clearly help people understand what is going on in the show. What do you all think? I know answers may take awhile (sometimes months, I'll watch the page). (Bjorn Tipling 05:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

this seems too specific an idea, and i really dont see its worth. -- Alfakim -- talk 14:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well say for instance that you just watched an episode of Lost on DVD and something happened like someone was killed by a monster in the jungle that was never actually shown to the viewers. The episode ends and you're not sure just what happened and you are dying to know if it was supernatural or a natural thing (the difference between the two would drastically change the nature of the plot). I believe people want to know, because there are people who want to watch Ghost/Alien/Monster Fantasy/Sci-fi and people who don't. Some people just want to know, and so I think this notice (only on shows that have 'supernatural' (I hate using this term, but it's better than 'fantasy') would go a long way to inform people about the nature of a TV episode. (Bjorn Tipling 04:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC))

That's not really useful for this template, which is a general info template. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Airdates

I changed US airdate to Airdate since not all the series air in the US first. --Tone 18:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navbox

Previous	Next
Babylon 5 episode
"Midnight on the firing line"
Wikipedia's example image, on a white background
Episode No.	Season 1 Episode 1
Guest star(s)	{{{Guests}}}
Writer(s)	{{{Writer}}}
Director	{{{Director}}}
Production No.	103
Airdate	26 January 1994
Episode chronology
"Babylon 5: The Gathering"	"Soul Hunter"
List of Babylon 5 episodes

I was thinking of changing the navbox part of the episode box. But i'm not real sure yet if i actually like it. Still I'm also not 100% satisfied with the way it is now. Does anyone else have good ideas on how to do the Prev/Next/Index thing ? The DJ 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. I guess we'll soon find out how people like it... —Down10 ^TACO 09:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The episode lists are being squished to the right instead of centered at the bottom, can this be fixed? Jay32183 15:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Precedent TFDs?

Hello folks. Have there any precedent TFDs concerning deleting templates created for individual shows in favour of this one. I ask, becasue Template:Infobox Fawlty Towers has been created for Fawlty Towers, which doesn't seem to do anything that this template doesn't do. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added colour tag

The default colour is still the tag as before, however an optional parameter has been added so the background can be changed. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Any background colouring should convey some information, so use data templates if you are using a colour to represent a certain genre for example, such as {{tl:Infobox Television episdode/sci-fi colour}}, then have | genre = sci-fi. Ideally the background should be invariant and declared in the stylesheet. ed g2s • talk 02:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do, some shows have projects associated with them or templates. The project colour visualy identfies them and links them together. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: This is used so please do not remove it without a concensous. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we should seek concensus for reverting something you implemented today? Combination 11:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I didnt implement it today i implemented it 3 days ago. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Combination 11:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to remove it feel free to, i wont revert again. However it is used and does have a purpose as some articles have projects or templates associated with them and have "there" own colour. and thus this template associates the episode with the series. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that this tag shouldnt be removed as it is used succesfully in hundreds of articles. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 08:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to do this, then please explain where it is neccessary and then implement it per my suggestion, using templates to store the colour values, so instead of colour = black you use colour = prison break colour. Just because you implemented this and set it up of a few series, doesn't make it worthwhile or necessary. ed g2s • talk 12:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Its purpose is association, and do not remove it as it is used in hundreds of articles, which you mess up when you remove it. Also, template colours are used and it doesnt have to be done "eds way" Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also it has been in use for numerous weeks now with no problems. The only problem encounterd so far is your silly reverts. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the ability to use hexs is there for ease, however some telvision series do use templated colours. (ref: stargate) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No pages have been "messed up", they merely look how they did before. Would you like to explain the significance of these colour associations, and what they add beyond the text on the page. ed g2s • talk 12:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Numerous projects use there own colours, using the colours in the tpl visually links them. Also some projects have there own templates which usual difference is only colour. It is better to have one template then 10 templates all doing the same thing. It also adds greater functionality. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be well if it actually applied to individual television episodes. Why, for example, did you colour in the Prison Break episodes black? ed g2s • talk 12:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I didnt choose that colour, it was choosen by previou editors. And i assume its because black si associated with the "project" and the show. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

But there isn't actually a project, nor are there any other infoboxes for it to homogenise with. Basically you're just applying per-show colourings which will only lead to unnecessary colour clashes, reduced readability in some skins, and serve to benefit whatsoever. One assumes that if you navigate between that if you are browsing episodes of a given show, you will already be expecting the same show, without a colour bar to confirm it. If you navigate between shows, you will not recognise which show you are looking at by seeing the colour. ed g2s • talk 19:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For an example see stargate wikiproject. In the O.C. we use orange colours in veronica mars green (ie: its template and sub pages follows suite and thus episodes should to) please do not mess up pages. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is used, do not remove without discussion! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that i am writing a template now and so it would help if you dont revert so i can implement it succesfully over the span of a few hundred pages. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Colour and TColour should be left there at least temp anyway. I do plan on implementing widescale template useage but it will take a short while.

Until then there serving a purpose (in hundreds of articles) and should be left, note hat some articles already use templates (ie. stargate eps.) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 21:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also read here (specificly the colour part) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 21:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Please do not edit war over this template - if you need to arrive to some sort of consensus about what should be used, you may want to consider leaving a message in the village pump. If it continues, protection of the template until the some sort of consensus is reached may be used. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 20:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see why Ed has a problem with the template, but either way i am trying to implement his ideas now. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background Colour Tag

I just wanted to gather some concensus on the background colouring tag, now first of let me point out that it modifies the appearance in no way unless it is called and retains the default gray unless called.

Secondly some projects like the Stargate Wikiproject have there own colours (see: Template:SGColor) which is used in articles related to Stargate, also some articles use navigation templates with a primary colour on all pages related to the subject (IE: The O.C. or Veronica Mars) -- The colour chosen to be used has already been selected by participants actively editing those pages and thus if it has proven to cause no harm why would it in the infobox.

Thirdly if you can see the gray navbar fine why would you not be able to see black, blue or green etc? Wikipedia pages generally use an assortment of colours and so this cannot be really a basis for argument.

Fourth, Wikipedia is not paper, we do not have to worry about ink. Fifth, Wikipedia should be aesthetically pleasing as well (thus why we use the nice monobook skin vs. default?) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that it was suggested that colours be called via a template, which is a good idea.. however the ability to still call it via manual hex is still good. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore note that on the other skins colours cause no harm or problems. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

I see no harm in this or bad, just the good. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support It would be silly not to have this, how Ed can call it major is well, beyond me.Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
See no harm in this. — ^`CRAZY`(IN)`SANE^` 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied from user talk:

No, applying colour to inline text when it is not necessary is Bad. What looks good on the monobook skin may not look good another skin, or visually impaired users who have their browsers set up with a specified colours for suitable contrast. Furthermore the reason we use a skin at all is to give pages a consistent look. If we start colouring pages by topic just for aesthetic reasons, we'll end up looking like myspace. This may be acceptable on users pages, but the article space is supposed to look professional. ed g2s • talk 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The colours chosen are generally already used, we use colour in other boxes/infoboxes. Now unless you wish to be reported for your disruptive behaviour i expect you to converse. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 08:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the appearance is changed no way unless the tag is called. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 08:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Support availability of tag. Default will work for most circumstances; ugly, unprofessional, or inconsistent usage within a TV series can be dealt with on a series-by-series level. Use of color to represent groupings (see, e.g., Google News) is not in itself unprofessional. Travisl 17:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Please don't implement series-by-series coloring; it's not as useful as people seem to think for identification (since only those who work on a series are going to know what the colors mean), and it just ends up looking crappy in some skins and setups. This isn't useful in 100% of cases, and has the possibility to damage readability in a percentage of cases. Just no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the bolded votes, voting is useless and divisive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Does nobody understand the fact that this is being used right now on hundreds of pages? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 07:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I do understand that fact. Why are you edit warring using a revert tool to reinsert a controversial edit into a highly-transcluded template? Don't do that. Get consensus and then make your changes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The current cocnensous SUPPORTS it (4/0), You dont seem to realise that it is high visibility and removing this messes up content on some pages. I will allow you to self revert if yu wish, and it is only controversial as ed tried to make it contriversial, there would be no edit war if you all discussed before mesing up hundreds of pages.. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 07:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting is useless and divisive, and your vote count seems to discount me, Combination, and ed g2s. Get support for the colors, then add them to the template. Revert with vandalism-reversion tools and I will block you, and recommend that your AWB/VP/whatever access be stripped. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You are all in the support section, Ed has made comments (note he also removed the oppose sect.) and there seems to be support, and for making threats saying i cannot revert i intend to report that. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 07:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How is "Ugh. Please don't implement series-by-series coloring" ambiguous? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Tag serves a purpose, removing causes disruption. Insanity13 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Support wow I can't believe there is actually controversy around this. There is absolutely no harm by including the option as most series have color schemes that make sense. If it doesn't then it can be looked at. Not to mention color often times makes items easier to read and stand out more! --Argash 09:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose -- I stand by A Man In Bl♟ck on this one. In general, I tend to trust a work like what he has done more than attempts to pass opposition off as support just because of a silly section head. --Chris Griswold 11:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I'm with A Man In Bl♟ck on this too. I definitely don't want tons of colors at wiki. Before the argument is repeated in a response to me, I fully understand that others are doing this, but that doesn't make it correct in doing so. I would tell users who are using various colors the same thing. Colors should be standard and any customizations should be on the user side only. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 23:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 2

One assumes that if you navigate between that if you are browsing episodes of a given show, you will already be expecting the same show, without a colour bar to confirm it. If you navigate between shows, you will not recognise which show you are looking at by seeing the colour.

This is why the colors aren't useful.

What looks good on the monobook skin may not look good another skin, or visually impaired users who have their browsers set up with a specified colours for suitable contrast. Furthermore the reason we use a skin at all is to give pages a consistent look. If we start colouring pages by topic just for aesthetic reasons, we'll end up looking like myspace.

This is why the color are harmful.

Colors are harmful and not useful. Adding them to this template is a net negative. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying we should just use black and white.. *sigh* Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think we should leave it to the style sheets. If you'd like white-on-black or bright orange or whatever (both of which have been used in unfortunate infoboxes), you can edit your monobook instead of inflicting it on the wiki at large. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I dissagree many shows color code their seasons and if your a regular reader of a particular show then you become accostomed to that shows color scheme and can identify a particular episodes season just by it's color. Seriously there is no reason NOT to include the option for color and if you continuously revert to the version without that option all that will happen is the shows that want color will make their own custom templates. Is that what you want one template per show? -- Argash | talk | contribs 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think users can be trusted just to identify particular episodes of a particular show by the first sentence of the article or the first line of the infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure they can but your not listening. Some shows like their color schemes (Stargate and The Simpsons come to mind. If the default template can't support that color scheme then they will just make their own template. By denying this very simply option that doesn't have to be used you could very well end up with hundreds of extranious templates.

BTW by my count its currently 6-3 in favor of the color option. -- Argash | talk | contribs 12:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Good thing it's not a vote. I think it's ridiculous that Wikiprojects for various TV series are declaring that they have "their" colors, and anything to nip that nonsense in the bud is good. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What if you use a screenreader? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

...then you can't see the color anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty wrong really, you may use a screenreader if your partialy blind (ie: a blur) so you can make out colours but not text.. thus its more efficent to also offer colours. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! One of the reasons why i added optional colouring so that we [wikipedia] didnt have to have hundreds of episode templates, if we can have one instead of 10 it is much better! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need ten different colors? Unified infoboxes good, unified apperances even better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Way to be a conformist! Seriously thats your reason for being against a color option? -- Argash | talk | contribs 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

...you're accusing me of being a conformist for suggesting that a standardized infobox have standardized colors? Um. Kay.

My argument is up the page, with that "not useful" and "harmful" bit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of a standardised template is so that there is an easy way to enter and display standard information that does not mean that there has to be a standard color scheme. -- Argash | talk | contribs 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

True, you caught me conflating a standard template with standard appearance (which could vary greatly if there were a productive purpose). There still isn't a productive purpose, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is and you've been told them [numerous times] so dont dismiss them. thanks. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 3

This is why the colors aren't useful.

This is why the color are harmful.

These points remain unaddressed.

It has been argued that such-and-such Wikiproject is unwilling to use this unified template without a color variable. I can understand the difficulty of getting people to adopy a unified infobox (being a bit of a template wonk at times myself); can you point me to an example of this reticence? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you going on about? One of the whole points of teh adition of a optional condition was so that all these shows did not have to use differnt templates and so they could use THIS ONE! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do they need a color variable to use this template? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You just aint listening are ya? (numerous (repated) reasons below)

Association.
Aesthetics
Helps the disabled
That projects colour scheme should not be limited when it doesnt have to be.
Colour shuld be used, wikipedia is not paper.
Colour is pleasing.
Wikipedia shouldnt aim to be bland.
If you can see a gray infobox why would you not be able to see a blue infobox?
The colours choen are generally already used in associated projects/artcles/templates etc

Need i write more? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The title covers association.
Most of the color schemes were plug-ugly. (White text on black? Ugh!)
How does it help the disabled?
Is there a project that has complained? Where?
Color shouldn't be used for color's sake. This is Wikipedia, not Myspace. Color should be used when it serves a productive, not merely aesthetic use.
Wikipedia shouldn't aim to make readers blind.
Blue is fine. Let's pick a color and stick with it. I don't care what color, as long as it's low-key.
Is there a project that has complained? Where?

I'd appreciate it if you'd write more, to address these answers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even going to justify wasting my time to replying as your answers are laughable, since when was wikipedia a blog? Since when did it make them blind. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to discuss your changes, I wouldn't expect to find wide consensus supporting them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I know that Stargate makes use of the color option (well it did until you reverted it). As for the two points you say are unresolved:

many shows color code their seasons and if your a regular reader of a particular show then you become accostomed to that shows color scheme and can identify a particular episodes season just by it's color
lynx is not the standard browser of choice these days, it will seriously not adversly affect more than a miniscule ammount of readers to implement a color option. If a color scheme that is hard to read gets implemented (say something hard to read for those who are colorblind, then im sure someone will be quick to point it out and fix it. -- Argash | talk | contribs 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the Stargate project particularly unwilling to accept a neutral color? Can you link me to this discussion?

Again, I've answered the point of identifying by color; the name of the series is right there up top, as well as in the lead. Illiterates won't be using Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, you may wish to be civil and stop making attacks. they may be aprt blind. Furthermore the stargate project uses a neutral colour already (#7F8EB7) and this is the concensous of the many of which colour should be used. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Who was I attacking? These articles are already cut off from anyone who lacks the visual or English reading ability to understand the titles; the colors serve no purpose. What disability are we serving here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Some disabled people use "readers" (i know a child did at my old school, he would hoover text and it would be spoken to him) if you can see colours you can associate, thus its also a time saver. PS: You atatcked the "illiterate" Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't attack them, merely noted that anyone who isn't able to understand the first thing said in any article is unlikely to be able to gain any use from Wikipedia. Even someone using a reader is going to hear the series name in the first sentence, no matter what. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would they? they wouldnt have to listen to it if they already knew what it was. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would they know what the article is about in the first place without hearing a single word of it? This is a silly argument; get someone who knows something about usability for the disabled in here if you want to continue it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with A Man In Black's issue with colours, as included at the top of this section. Thanks/wangi 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 4

I haven't been keeping up with the stargate project much myself lately I just know they make use of it, couldn't point you to a specific discussion though. I'm leading up the charge for the Entourage project and I want to make use of colors there I can tell you that. I did just dig up another template that is almost an exact copy and does have the color option so if your going to piss in moan about it I guess we'll just switch over to that template. -- Argash | talk | contribs 13:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I also diagree with the use of series-specific colored infoboxes. This is not Skittlepedia, nor is it myspace or tvtome or any other place. The reasons to keep a consistent look have already been listed above (professionalism, consistency, special needs readers). Color schemes, whether templated or not, should not be customized according to the whims of the editors who work on particular series, and if this has already happened on some projects, it needs to be stopped, not encouraged or expanded. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but have you taken a look at Main Page recently? -- Argash | talk | contribs 14:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The special needs argument is FOR colours! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How will they know what color to look for if there's not a consistent color? --Interiot 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? There generly is i believe, examples: a purple/blue for stargate, black for prison break, green for veronica mars, orange for The O.C., orangey/gray for entourage. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my comment got lost above, but the concern seems to be that color will make Wikipedia into SkittleSpace. As I said before, "ugly, unprofessional, or inconsistent usage within a TV series can be dealt with on a series-by-series level." Argash makes a great point that the Main Page is already skittle-riffic.

Speaking as someone who has worked in forms design (paper and electronic) for almost ten years, I'm one of the last people to suggest that people use color for the sake of using color. But quality, judicious use of color can add additional meaning (e.g., which show, which season, which character). Granted, the color-blind won't be able to get that meaning, so it does need to be included elsewhere textually, and if a page starts to look like a pumpkin patch of black and orange steps should be taken to professionalize it, but making ugly pages is not the proposal under consideration.

Would those who object to the inclusion of the color tag in the Television episode infobox also object to the ability to change font color elsewhere on the page? It's permitted, you know. What about font size? Any page can be made to look ugly. It's our responsibility -- as editors -- to clean it up when it does. Travisl 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Anyone using font tags to make colored text in the body is likely to be reverted as soon as someone with some sense happens by. Let's not be encouraging that sort of silliness by giving people additional tools to make the infobox ugly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Formatting issues:

Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases. If you absolutely must specify a font size, use a relative size, that is, font-size: 80%; not an absolute size, for example, font-size: 8pt. It is also almost never a good idea to use other style changes, such as font family or color. Typically, the usage of custom font styles will

reduce consistency - the text will no longer look uniform with typical text;

reduce usability - it will likely be impossible for people with custom stylesheets (for accessibility reasons, for example) to override it, and it might clash with a different skin as well as bother people with color blindness;

increase arguments - there is the possibility of other Wikipedians disagreeing with choice of font style and starting a debate about it for aesthetic purposes.

For such reasons, it is typically not good practice to apply inline CSS for font attributes in articles.

Something to not dismiss lightly. Thanks/wangi 13:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You are for getting teh default colour isnt defined in the css so that means we either have colour or we dont. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The only solution is to not use colours at ALL in ANYTHING, that means we use black or white.. also the MediaWiki CSS needs to be changed to remove blue backgrounds.. the logo uses gray as well, problem? Also powerd by has some yellow. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 13:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you specify colours and background within the CSS, this lets those with issues (whatever they may be) to ignore those settings by using their own (or no) stylesheet. Have a read of Cascading Style Sheets and Web accessibility. Thanks/wangi 15:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your wrong the current bar is a hardcoded hex vallue, this deosnt allow you to change the colour. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 5

By my count currently 6 support backgrounds and 3 oppose, hence a majority support, thus i will readd it later today if there are no more opinions to be cast as the talk seems to have died now. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

wangi, ed g2s, Combination, myself, Thacher13, freakofnuture, and ChrisGriswold are seven users. Crazy, Insanity (who has been accused of being a 3RR-avoiding sock), Travis, yourself, and Argash are five users at best. Even if this were a vote, you wouldn't have a majority. Now stop declaring that you've "won" an ongoing discussion and please confine your grandstanding to the talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Combination and and whoever FreakOFN have not voiced opinions here? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 09:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Combination expressed an opinion waaay up the page. First one to do so after ed g2s did. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Are you suggesting we should seek concensus for reverting something you implemented today?" is not an opinion. If you assume it is you must be desperate for opposition. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 09:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just going by Combination's revert. I suppose we should probably ask Combination.

That said, this isn't a vote, and even in the unlikely event that it was, it wouldn't be decided. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was a vote, thus why i said i'm trying to gather concensous. The current concensous however is support. Thus why i will re implement the var. soon or allow annother editor to do it. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Also looking thru your contribs it seems you make edits to templates without proposing them first.. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to browse the archives of WT:CVG; template talk pages are usually a bad place to propose changes. The problem is not the implementing without checking first; as long as you know exactly what you're doing (and you're clearly not incompetant when it comes to templates), that's fine. The problem is bulling ahead when there's significant opposition, and you've reverted no less than five experienced editors who all think this is a bad idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the background color option. It adds some color to the page where it's lacking and can have meaning to the TV show it's for. In the case of Veronica Mars, which I frequently edit, the color used is one of the two colors from the school that the main characters went to in the first and second season of the show. Having the same color on the character pages and episode pages make it known that the page has to do with the show it corresponds to. It also makes those parts noticeable, like the character name and episode name on those pages. It makes the pages more interesting to look at rather than ones without a background. HuskersRule 10:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Where there is nothing intrinsically wrong in seeking views, I'm concerned about representativeness. [1] The JPS^{talk to me} 10:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Views needed to be gatherd as this page was begining to die so i messaged a few editors at random who i have seen edit pages on my watchlist in the past day, also.. i sent everybody the same message. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see you sent four people the same message, but my problem is the selction of which four. I suggest using a highly visibly project such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Television would be a better wat to get a diverse range of opinions. This would include those from experienced editors rather than those with only a handful of edits and who only edit pages about The O.C. and the like. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You've already messaged them i believe and they dont seem to be interested, the best aproach may be at the project list of episodes. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A general TV one, you mean? I don't think a specific programme one would be advantageous for obtaining a neutral perspective. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Augh. MF added hard-coded color tags to all of the television project infoboxes, apparently on the suggestion of an anon. This happened on July 23, and seems to have gone completely unnoticed save for the motly single-topic editors who make articles for single episodes of television shows. This singularly bad idea (just look at Prison Break) isn't limited to episode articles. I think a full topic RFC may be in order. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Other affected templates include {{Infobox character}} and {{Infobox Television}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To me it just seems your nit picking now. Because its pretty clear to me the support is greater then the oppose. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 11:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And {{Infobox actor}} and {{Infobox Celebrity}}. *sigh* - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I can understand the point about consistency within a series, but the main TV infobox should be consistent amoungst TV shows. There also seems to be a very familar discussion here. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Support. If this is regarding having specialized colors for each show, then I support it as it helps but if this is about something else, can someone let me know?

Faris b 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary, possible solution?

(Note: For those intrested backgrounds have been avilable on Infobox Album for sometime now (Ed 2gs also edited this template a few times)[2])

Regarding "{{Infobox Celebrity}}" -- I implemented bakground colouring mainly for femenine and masculine colours (pink for girls, blue for boys.. you get the picture) now this has been implemented on some pages and recentley i have discoverd a better way to implement this without hardcoding hex values into each bio.. this can be done via advanced template markup and gender.. the same can be done for infobox celebrity.

Now.. Regarding this template.. you may wish to see here it uses advanced markup to store each shows colour and is called like: {Show Colours|Veronica Mars}.. the same should also be impletedmented on template charcter as well.. this avoids hardcoding hex values all over the place and also offers ease and stores the value in one place. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 09:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so what are we going to do? Having a quick look it does seem support out weighs oppose. So what happens now, can i reimplement the tag? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 14:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So, any objections then? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If theres no more opinions i will probably re-implement in 24 to 48 hours. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

On the basis that voting is evil, and looking at the qualatative views, there have been more convincing arguments not to implement. Please do not implement. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that someones asked me not to before i do it is good enough for me not to. I would however like to know how to conclude this and gather concensous? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been three days now.. seems like nobody is interested, so what happens now :-\? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing, I guess... Thanks/wangi 11:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well theres still seems more support so something i guess. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 11:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So..? Is it safe to readd the opt. var now? (PS: Note that there are lots of infoboxes using background colouring, 2 articles which are FA have used a background colour tag this week!) MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If there are no more support/oppose i will readd it tommorow! MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

When wangi says "Nothing, I guess," isn't he implying that it shouldn't be readded? The JPS^{talk to me} 09:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

He has already stated his opinion further up. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 09:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, when I say "nothing, I guess" I am implying it shouldn't be re-added. There is no consensus to add it, nor is there any great reason to do so. The sun will still shine tomorrow without background colours... Thanks/wangi 09:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you repeat your self? Repeating doesnt make your position any stronger. Either way im sick of even bothering so the easiest way is to return all those shows who previously didnt use this template back to there originals as i cant be botherd to waste my time anymore. Furthering on who intends to remove the tag from 500 odd pages? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 09:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on, I've repeated myself at each point because you see fit to push the issue - you keep saying you're going to re-add the feature, when there's no clear consenus to do so. There is no need to revert usage of this standardised template. /wangi 09:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You know i did'nt see you complaining over Edwards changes? or years ago when the design was changed totally.. oh look in fact Edward did it him self. Also if you look you will see support out weighs the support. The opposers have yet to provide one valid reason as why they oppose. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 09:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue this, clearly many good reasons against the implementation have been offered above and other ways to implement it. To discount those reasons as invalid shows your lack of respect in the opinion of others. Thanks/wangi 09:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh look! I my self have offered other ways to implement it! Oha and look again! No one is interested. (PS: Why do you keep thanking me :\?) MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Beacause I'm a polite sort of guy. Ta/wangi 09:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you dont seem to be respecing my wishes to implement these changes so we can have one template rather then five! MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: BGColour tags have been used in several FAs this week. If those articles are deemed to be of a good quality and there using bcolour what is wrong with these articles? thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You know its funny how no one cares for the recent edit that wasnt suggested here? thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 06:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So; Getting kind of bored, its pretty obvious no one is truly interested? thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You haven't added to your reasons of why this should be used at all. Referencing other pages that use them does not make it a good idea. Featured article != perfect article. ed g2s • talk 14:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you a) need to read the threads as while we've listed like 10+ reasons you can only seem to come up with one hard and silly reason. b) stop making assumptions; where did i say there perfect? c) looking at your contribs i see you removed lots of colour, yet i dont see you *asking*? thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes that (in part) dupe this box

Due to the recent number of TfD's on the "redundant" Episode boxes, I have gone trough the cat and build a list of infoboxes that should be considered for deletion or merging into this one. Note that there are quite a few with colored bars in it, which might blow open the discussion above, but I can't see how we can avoid that. Please read the collected information on the page and see if you can help weed out the rest. If anyone has ideas on setting guidelines for inclusion of information from the fictional universe into the Infoboxes, then that surely will be helpful as well. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colors again

One of the results of the banning of colors in this template is resulting in quite a few forked templates having been created. I want to unfork these templates back into this central template. However I suspect I might get some opposition from people who will simply not like to lose their color. I have 2 ways to tackle this:

again try to add color to this template
just ignore that the templates had color (therefore removing it) and wait till i get BBQ'ed by the ones who care about color.

Personally (and i have some supporters for that) I would prefer to add color to this template.

Simply add a "color set" parameter. The Color set parameter would then contain a Template:Showname colors for each of the templates with colors that i intend to replace. The episode infobox will then query that Template:Showname colors template for the appropriate colors.
I can alternatively choose to not add a "color set" parameter, but have it "autodetect" the presence of Template:Showname colors.

Both will guarantee consistent color usage troughout the specific shows. The latter option will also make it considerably difficult to understand how to use this option to prevent every single fanboy of creating colored templates on their pages, yet simple enough for the more experienced editor. An example is shown in my sandbox. The parameter "Series" (in this case SG) is used to detect if Template:SGColor is present. And then uses colors from that template for the header background and header text. The implementation looks like this:

style="{{#ifexist:Template:{{{Series}}} colors|color: {{{{{Series}}} colors|headertext}};|}}
background: {{#ifexist:Template:{{{Series}}} colors|{{{{{Series}}} colors|header}}|#DEDEE2}};"

When converting the infoboxes, I think I will only add color templates for shows with either their own wikiproject, or a very obvious "show" color (Simpons). That are my ideas, I welcome any feedback. -- TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. It allows the consolidation and prevents the color usage from getting way out of hand. Jay32183 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not again. This is just going back to having a hojillion different colors, most of them ugly as sin, because somebody decides green on red is "obvious" for this series of that. Let's not do that again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If an autodetect mechanism is being used then the project should always be aware of all the colors being used. So we should always be able to have consensus decisions and prevent the accessibility issues that would be created with certain "over-the-top" colors. If we don't do this then new templates will be built simply because people don't like the standard color scheme. There are several infoboxes that differ from the standard simply by being a different color. This is probably the best way to consolidate. Jay32183 04:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On that last point, it would then be as simply as changing a single setting in a template or TfD'ing the entire associated colors template. I'm sure we can keep that under control, I doubt it will be more tedious as the work we have to do now regardless of it not being present in the template. And your reaction makes me think you didn't bother to read past the first two lines of this section and just went with "colors are bad", which annoys me to be frank. -- TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 04:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfork the templates if you must, but "people .. will simply not like to lose their color" still isn't a good reason to use them. ed g2s • talk 10:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that the problem is split into 2 parts. A maintenance problem (unfork, something I volunteer to do, but I don't wanna get BBQ'ed), and color. And if you don't like color, then at any time, you can mark all those colors templates for TfD/MfD and discuss it with the people who care about it. I just don't feel like getting flamed for a stylistic issue, that I simply don't care about, and don't want to be bothered with either. Also, i'm not adding color, i'm simply not removing it (in several cases). TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I just realized there is a third alternative. Someone TfDs all the colored infoboxes that are in place now, and gets them deleted, before I do my work. However I cannot do this, since I don't support such a TfD. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be an option to set the color. This would make it possible to unfork a lot of templates and if people chose an ugly color then take it up with those people. --Maitch 17:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be consistent and professional. Excessive use of colour (and colour in infoboxes is normally excessive) contravenes both objectives. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. have you looked at the main page recently? or this page now you're on (blue background) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colours again, part two

Okay, have a basic unanimous consensus to add the colour param. and so I will do so later on today, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_18#Template:Colored_infoboxes_of_television_episodes. If anyone wishes to remove it then they will require a consensus to do so, i.e. no edit warring, but the apparent consensus there is add the param. here so the forks may be deleted, eventually. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The pastels used on the main page does not contradict my statement. The main page is the main page. Plus, the pastels are much better than the garish, childish colours used in those silly forks. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If we trust our editors to /edit/ then we need to trust them to chose good colours, if they don't then we /change/ them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Change them all into grey for consistency then, please. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

or we could change them to one of the colours at Wikipedia:Colours, which are accepted colours, by consensus on Wikipedia. We even have infobox examples (Wikipedia:Infobox colours). HTH HAND. So yea, if you see a problem colour change it to a more neutral one until a consensus is reached for that show or they return to the default, as a side note perhaps we should get a consensus now here for what the default colour should be :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why he (Matthew) should do that. In the TfD the tally was: 6 total delete as forks, 10 delete but preserve color, 1 keep. I see enough concensus to add color to this template, unfork all the boxes, and after that, you can do whatever you (JPS) want to get the color removed from the parent box. however I do not see why we should put the unfork drive at risk of total reversion by removing the color.

@Matthew. Will you make use of colortables/templates to ensure consistency among shows ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, I did actually create something using switch last year but had a speedied as unused. A good example is how the Stargate project do it with their {{SGColor}}.

Personally I can foresee a lot of shows not using colours if we chose a good decent standard colour. A good example where colour would be to good use I can think of is The O.C. (The Orange County) so naturally orange would be a good colour, and that show already has a standadrised orange choice which is put to good use.

I propose the default colour be #c6c9ff, which is an accepted standardised colour by consensus on Wikipedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I support that color. It was in active use in television related articles before Infobox Television and Infobox Television episode were created --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As you verly correctly stated it has been a long term TV colour choice, and as it has consensus I've made it the default. I've created Template:Television colour, I believe this could be useful for the other television templates that use a background colour field, what do you think DJ? I've started with a small selection of shows that I know have consensus for their colours and that are neutral. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"have a basic unanimous consensus to add the colour param" - do you even know what unanimous means! There are still clearly many objections. ed g2s • talk 15:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I presume you do not, discounting the objections with no substance we have unanimity. The first consensus was clear, the second discussion here was clear and the third discussion at TfD was even clearer, there is substantial support with strong reasoning for the addition of colour, measures had also been taken to stop it from becoming "skittlepaedia". None the less, Ed, you are the one edit warring against consensus. Matthew 16:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"discounting the objections with no substance we have unanimity" - an inspired claim to unanimity. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before. I don't give a frell, but if you (User:ed_g2s) change it here, have the guts to change it on

{{{show_name}}}
Broadcast

as well. Also this is gonna be a pointless discussion as long as the same people are involved. Take it to the Village Pump, and invite all the contributors of all the TV related wikiprojects to join the discussion. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Director(s)

"Director" should be "Director(s)". There are episodes with more than one director and it looks strange to write "Director" and the list two names. It is the exact same thing as "Writer(s)". If people wants this template to be the standard episode template, then this is one those many changes that needs to be done. --Maitch 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Two writers for a television episode are common, but it isn't common for a television episode to be directed by more then one person. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that it is not common, but I still feel that an infobox should be correct for all cases. --Maitch 17:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It is correct, just without the added parenthesized plural, if people are smart enough to read the text, and nobody till now has made a complaint I'm pretty sure it then works fine. The "(s)" is just generally extraneous text. The line break in my opinion makes up for a missing plural. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if "(s)" is just extraneous text then you won't mind if I change it to "Writer". --Maitch 18:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't mind at all, I believe it's just as extraneous, but I won't remove it anyway, that's your prerogative. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prod. code

I propose we remove this field, firstly because often they are non-verifiable information and thus are primarily un-cited, failing WP:ATT, secondly they're often nothing more then trivial little codes that could more then likely not be cited within the articles prose. An argument for this field is that the field is often useful for those episodes aired out of order (even though in reality the numbers aren't the production codes..), thus I also propose we make an optional addition to the Episode no. field titled "Produced", e.g.

Season 01 Episode 01 Produced 05

Anybody got any opinions? Matthew 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm against it. the production code (IF it's available) is used in television studio works and archives and as such i think it's important. Of course that doesn't mean it's a required attribute of the infobox, but in general i think this is useful information in many cases. (and just as useless btw in a lot of other cases) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it's optional anyway the we should only be using it in cases where it can be verified. Just because some are wrong doesn't mean we should scrap it entirely. Jay32183 19:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you show me one where it has been correctly cited? To date I've not seen one. Matthew 08:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Param additions

I'm looking into merging {{Infobox UK Television Episode}} and {{Infobox British Television episode}} into this template. As such we need to find a way to do Series vs. Season. I could add a "Series no" option that if present will automatically replace {{{Season}}}, or I can add a {{{UK}}}==yes option that only uses different wording in the include, but will still use {{{Season}}} as an option name. Also one of these templates has {{{Producer}}} as an option, which I think i'd like to add.

And then of course there is something else, which is {{{Season list}}}. This will be used to merge back the various templates that use some sort of Season list, instead of the Prev/Next system. See User:TheDJ/SandboxTemplate2 and User:TheDJ/Sandbox for what it would look like. Opinions please ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writer optional?

Can we make "writer" optional? For instance, when the same person(s) are responsible for writing all episodes? I did this with "Director" already, and surprisingly, nobody objected or reverted it, but I thought that I'd ask about this one, since I think it would be a bit more controversial.. :: ZJH ^{(T C E)} 03:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That reasoning makes sense on a list but not a single episode. When writing about one episode you would still need to point out who wrote it. Jay32183 04:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about one episode. I'm talking about 68 episodes (52 of which have articles). All written by the same two people.

I would be content either way, though. I have to update most of them anyways, because some list the writers in one order and others are switched around; a few are missing the writers completely. :: ZJH ^{(T C E)} 06:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're only looking at one episode at a time. Each episode page does need to point out who wrote the episode. What you're asking for is akin to saying you don't need to say George Lucas wrote Return of the Jedi because he wrote Star Wars. Don't assume the reader already knows. Jay32183 14:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jay. You have to imagine that the person who reads the article doesn't know anything else about the subject. It should be fairly quick to add it with AWB if it is the same person. --Maitch 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that writing is also an elementary part of the creation of an episode. It is critical that the story that is written actually lands on the director/producers table. Without that the director cannot make that specific story, but he can make loads of other episodes on other stories. If a story isn't actually taken into production (cancelled series etc), there will also not be a director/producer, but the episode is considered as "existing" in some form, be it script only. As such I feel much less for an optional writer param. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Writers are integral to the creation of creative works, it should stay like it is. Matthew 18:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMDb

How about an IMDb link on in this box?

That seems really biased. Why would we favor IMDb over TV.com? I thinking leaving them as external links is fine. Jay32183 17:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I just happen to be using IMDb. TV.com looks nice too, but I happen to like movies, so I would want the connections.

Any reason not to include both? --87.189.95.49

Putting too many hyperlinks in the infobox mostly. Go ahead and put both links in the external links section of any of the articles, but I don't think we need to modify the infobox for that. Jay32183 17:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the television series and film infoboxes already have these links is even a matter of debate lately, let's not add them to episode infoboxes before we have reached more concensus on that. And my personal opinion is that for episode articles both sources are usually quite unreliable when it comes to plot info, trivia etc. I have a reasonable amount of trust in imdb's credentials listing, but that's about it. (and gaming credentials are excluded from that statement :D )--TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The gaming credits are fine, on the Luigi's Mansion page. I only say that because I submitted all of it to IMDb, so in general your assessment of the gaming part of IMDb is correct. Jay32183 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help request

Hi I'm trying to write a new template infobox for a tv series set of articles (Eva) and I really am not sure how to do that; could somebody walk me through the basics of setting this up? Please contact on my user talk page. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 02:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would dissuade you from creating a pointless fork. What do you need to include that this template does not offer? The JPS^{talk to me} 13:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length

I've reverted this addition per my rationale in the edit summary, please discuss here if you disagree. Matthew 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at converting {{Infobox Anime episode}} and of all of the extra parameters, episode length is the only one I consider worth salvaging. Also {{Infobox animanga}}, which is used for all anime articles, does not have a length parameter. So if there is a switch between Infoboxes, then the episode lengths would be lost. --Farix (Talk) 13:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, but anime is generally the same length per episode, isn't it? Matthew 14:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not always consistent, especially when dealing with OVA episodes. --Farix (Talk) 14:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Ok I can see how it could be useful -- but perhaps a note should be stated in the template docs that the parameter shouldn't be overused (i.e. on a series which has a clear run time (e.g. Lost)), what do you think? Matthew 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Does its use really need to be limited? --Farix (Talk) 02:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see how 'length' could be appropriate for the infobox. After all, the reader does not necessarily know what is "usual." The JPS^{talk to me} 14:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is why we state it in the main article! Hehe. Matthew 14:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We can not assume that the reader will know that. Articles are treat separately. hehe The JPS^{talk to me} 15:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Can't assume the reader knows what? That the reader knows the length, or to look in the main article? Matthew 17:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Both. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not really redundent either. At least it's no more redundent then any other field in the template. Indead, most of the other parameters are more redundent then the 'length' parameter. --Farix (Talk) 02:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings (Viewers)

Could someone please explain why there isn't a field for ratings infomation. Viewers (In Millions), Viewers 18-49, Rank for the week, ect.? Jamie jca 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be because we often have difficulty finding reliable sources for that. It could also be because we haven't really thought about it much. If we can set it up right, it shouldn't be a problem. Definitely needs to be an optional field though. Jay32183 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not back at WP:TV, i just happen to spot this while browsing around. This discussion has certainly been done before. To quote the {{Infobox TV ratings}}

Next to the fact that a rating can be different per country, note that unlike for a movie release, a television rating can change per episode, network and rerun. As such it's impossible to note correctly in the article as a fact and to do so might even be considered "unencyclopedic". A description like: "An animated show targeted at young children (+/- 7 and older), with little to no bad language. Although originally targeted at a young audience it has also garnered a large group of adulescent and adult enthousiastic followers of the show The show is often rated as TV-Y7 in the USA" for instance is usually a better idea. Be sure to add your source when adding the information.

Basically, the point is that TV ratings are pointless facts unless they are put into context with other shows, multiple years, different countries etc. This is usually done better in prose than in an infobox. Also, with the current advent of TIVO, IPTV and illegal downloads, the correctness of the ratings is proven skewed. It is known that some shows that attract an early 20s audience are so incorrect (think Jericho) that companies are scrambling to find more reliable methods to judge popularity over the traditional method. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language

I have changed "Original airdate" to "First broadcast": it is better, more professional English. "Air" in this context is used as colloquial slang for "broadcast", in a limited number of countries. And I see no reason why we should choose regional slang terms over international formal ones unless there's a specific reason to do so. EuroSong ^talk 05:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonders of language as a living and evolving entity. "Airdate" has been in common usage for a sufficient number of decades to have established entries in both Merriam Webster (a US dictionary) and the OED (that's one published by a little known university in the UK). --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to patronise me. The word has been included in the dictionary - yes, that's fine. But that establishes nothing except to say that it is a recognised part of the language. Words like "ain't" are also in the dictionary, because they have also been used for many years.

However, when it comes to a formal encyclopædia entry, it should always be preferable to choose formal English over slang terms. I am not disputing in any way that "air" (or any of its forms), as used to mean "broadcast" is, not a word. It is a word. However, it remains an informal slang term.

Given the choice between the two, could you please provide your justification as to why on Earth you would choose the informal slang over the more correct term? They're both words in the English language, in the dictionary, yes - but that does not mean they carry equal status in professional writing. EuroSong ^talk 14:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it does not bear the status of informal slang and also because consensus currently points towards a preference for the original wording. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"First broadcast" is no more better or professional than "Original airdate", simply it's how you would like it worded. Matthew 16:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So do you claim that "airdate" is more professional English, or do you put the two on an equal footing? I suspect that this is just how you want it worded. Don't get personal now - I am just asking. Do you think that "airdate" is better, more professional English than "broadcast"? EuroSong ^talk 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we're asking questions, from what source do you get the idea that "airdate" is colloquial or unprofessional? At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the term "broadcast" was originally applied to planting methods, and was only appropriated to describe the transmission of radio waves in the 20th century. Its modern usage isn't that much older than the neologism we're currently using. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I made no claim that "airdate" is more professional English. I do prefer "Original airdate", though, primarily because that's what we use. "First broadcast" leaves the door for interpretation open (i.e. some POV pushing American changing the original non-American air date to the "First broadcast [in America]"). It's also pretty awkward wording in my opinion. Matthew 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Airdate" is not slang. Slang is marked as slang, colloquialism, or nonstandard in the dictionary. That means the issue is completely stylistic and the choice is arbitrary. When such an arbitrary choice is made it should not be changed without overwhelming agreement. For some one concerned with professional English, it seems odd that you would use the redundant phrase "colloquial slang". Jay32183 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music

How come there's no place for the credited composer(s) of television shows? -- kosboot (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Because that information is not episode-specific; it is covered in {{Infobox television}} instead. — Edokter • Talk • 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, what about those shows where it is episode-specific, such as the Twilight Zone? -- kosboot (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather add an optional field to the infobox than make a forked template for one series to use. Reducing to one template for all TV episodes would be good. Jay32183 (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Non-article television pages | WikiProject Television articles