Template talk:Infobox media franchise

Before I futz...

Anyone mind if I futz with the 'box a bit...

And is there an intent to keep this 'box consistent in style on all of the pages it's going to transclude to or is it supposed to adopt the style of the "parent" Project's 'boxes?

- J Greb (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to change or show me what you are intending, please? This box is to be used on franchise articles, media specific articles still get media specific infoboxes. So, each franchise would use this box once. LA (T) @ 00:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK... the upshot is at User:J Greb/TemplatePaste 4 with an example at User talk:J Greb/TemplatePaste 4.

A few things...

• The image setup changes a bit. It follows the style of the comics related 'boxes. That is the template sets a max width and height. (see most of the templates at User talk:J Greb/TemplatePaste 4

 Done LA (T) @ 06:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• The titel is derived from origin and a second field, originlink is present for cases where the article for the original series has a dab suffix.

 Not done The editor can make the link. [[Some title (dab)|Some title]], and it is simple since the Pipe trick exists. LA (T) @ 06:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Another project's scheme can be set as an alternate. In the example the bottom has "ComicsProj=y" which changes the look to match the Comics Project 'boxes. This is where my concern is, is something like this acceptable or is the idea to keep all of the MF 'boxes the same.

 Not done Let's try to keep the franchise boxes as simple and unobtrusive as possible, plus the original work may not be the best known work of the franchise. There are so many films that I like that are based on books which I didn't know were based on books until I read their articles. LA (T) @ 06:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Last there is a slight hiccup with the soundtrack and later sections. This may be eliminated if "soundtrack" is moved to "Audio" and field for "Radio programs" and "Music" are added. The same can be done for the "others", changing the head to "Miscellaneous" and shifting the otherlable# to actual labels.

What other labels do you have in mind? I came up with two more, magazines and toys.

In general, I did not use {{Infobox}} to create this template. I just used the class="infobox" instead. The meta template was not as flexible as I liked. LA (T) @ 06:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

- J Greb (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually... you missed a few things.

{{Infobox}} is just as flexible as what you're doing, the coding is a little simpler. It also prevents an error that is currently showing in the table format currently being used. Please see my updated example (I've expanded it to use all of the fields and added the same data using the current MF template). Using the base template would not have allowed the broken "Plays" section.

Well, all you had to do was tell me that plays was broken. I just forgot to add two hyphens. Since this is not widely used, I am still tweaking it a bit. I tend to stay away from meta templates as much as possible. I need a little elbow room. LA (T) @ 10:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

By including the option of an in or out title and to change the header and label colors, you invite editors placing the 'box to make it unique (noticeable) or try to mimic 'boxes of other Projects. If the intent is to have the 'box remain unobtrusive and consistent, pick a titling format and a color scheme and don't allow tinkering.

 Done The title is inside the box only. The colors can still be changed, but that is not too bad as long as the colors don't clash or overwhelm the senses. LA (T) @ 10:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

By shifting, I meant not treating them as headers. the markup for the template format allows for "label##={{{otherlabel#|}}}". That makes it easy to create 3, or more, flexibility title "Miscellaneous" categories.

The reasoning behind "originlink" isn't to avoid the pipe trick. It's to allow "origin" to serve 2 functions — a variable in the 'box title and the presentation text for the link in the "Original work" link. Yes, it's a hedge for the eventual "Something (dab)" franchise where the original work for the franchise needed to be differentiated from an unrelated but like named "Something".

- J Greb (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and did a little juggling which included:

• Renamed "Books" header to the more general "Print publications".
• Moved magazines to there.
• Added a field for newspaper strips.
• Renamed "Plays" to "Theatrical presentations" to avoid using "Plays as both a header and a label.
• Swapped "Radio shows" and "Soundtracks" — shows generally precede soundtrack releases.
• Added field for non-soundtrack music.

- J Greb (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the need for non-soundtrack music. Is there any music that is notable for an article that would not be included in the soundtrack article? Also, films are theatrical releases, so there needs to be another heading for plays and musicals that would not include films. Thoughts? LA (T) @ 03:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head for the music — "Sunshine Superman" (Donovan), "Superman's Song" (Chras Test Dummies), "Yoda" and "The Saga Begins" (Wierd Al), and "Doctorin' the Tardis".

The other option for plays would be "Live theatre".

- J Greb (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

I just found this template, so I was wondering for a movie franchise such as the Die Hard series, would this template be appropriate? Or do I stick with the movie infobox? ONEder Boy (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Title

I think it should be media franchise, not media franchises, because that title doesn't sound right. Any comments suggestions? --EclipseSSD (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Necessary?

Are franchise articles really in need of infoboxes? For a film series, maybe, because you would list people involved in the films. For a franchise, you're basically recreating the table of contents. It just creates an unnecessary object on the page and crunches the text that is stuck between the TOC and the infobox. It's also redundant to the template present at the bottom of most franchise articles that lists all of the related articles in the franchise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Larger

Is it possible to make this template larger like other infoboxes, like the film infobox? It just seems kinda small and almost hard to read. ONE^der Boy21:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Quotation marks?

Is there a reason for the title to have quotation marks? I don't understand why there should be. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I just came here to ask the same question. Per our MOS, it is not common to put series of works in quotation marks. These should be removed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Italic title?

I can't seem to get the italic title to turn off on pages that don't need it. Does the italic_title parameter apply only to the page title, or does it also affect the infobox title? Powers ^T 15:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@LtPowers: The |italic_title= parameter is for the article title. Flagging it with "no" will unitalicize the article title, as the template defaults to italicizing it. What you are attempting, to adjust the infobox title, needs to be handled with {{no italics}}. I have adjusted on the article you were trying to fix this here. Hope that helps. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if that logic should be incorporated into the Template:Infobox. Powers ^T 23:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the website parameter

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Website parameter which is relevant to this template. The proposal is for removal of the |website= parameter from the infobox of this and other TV- and media-related infoboxes and move it to the External links section. If you have any opinions, please go to that discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Functionality of this Infobox

There has been a number of differing opinions regarding the exact use of this template on various pages. It seems that some editors are under the impression that every single parameter that can be used, needs to be filled. I pose the argument/stance that we know it should not serve as a "table of contents" by any means, and therefore it should be used sparingly/in a concise manner. I would like to hear other editors opinions on this matter, as on a number of articles some editors are vehement that all information needs to be listed. If this is the case, how is it not becoming a "Table of Contents" in function? There is a Contents list by default on all Wikipedia pages. Is this a preference over guidelines, or is this as frustrating to everyone as it appears to be for some others? Let me know m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the best place for this discussion if there is to be enough people to get any kind of consensus. I think there a few things going on here:

• MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE The purpose of the Infobox is to summarize important details in the article.
• WP:INFOBOX warns against using the Infobox like a table of contents (ToC).

We can certainly have a reasonable discussion about how best to summarize, and the level of detail appropriate for a the Infobox, but the "table of contents" warning was about avoiding links within the same page, and if the guideline isn't clear enough I think the past discussion only makes the intention about not include links to within the same page in the Infobox even clearer.[1] It tangential at best, and using it as justification for trimming back Infoboxes only muddies the water. If you want to argue that {{Infobox media franchise}} should be kept short and that a film series should only list the first film[2] in the Infobox please make that argument separately from the TableofContents issue. -- 109.79.80.88 (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This is here because of a content dispute at Underworld (film series). The OP is arguing that we should not list the actual films and other media products in a media franchise in its infobox [3], despite there being fields for exactly that purpose. and has chosen to discuss this here, rather than on the article's talk page as asked to. For example: "films: List all the feature-length theatrical films (and their years of first release) which have been released in the franchise." and "shorts: List all the short films (and their years of first release) which have been released in the franchise." As far as I am concerned, what's in the franchise, and what order the various parts came out in is by far the most useful information in the entire info box. We're not using the info box like a table a contents. We are using the info box to give pertinent information about the franchise, as it was intended to be used. This case is not one in which there is an extensive list of dozens of items which are stretching the infobox to ridiculous lengths. Instead, the franchise currently consists of five films, one short, and one video game. I don't see a problem in that the table of content happens to list some (not all) of the same links as headers. Meters (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)