Template talk:Infobox television episode/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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)

template on polish wikipedia

Could anyone add link to polish version of this template (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szablon:Odcinek_serialu_infobox)? Since I can't, as template is protected. Quolav (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates

Unresolved

I would like to add an optional coordinates property, for episodes, particularly of documentaries, which are form or about one specific place. This should allow as input, or at the least, emit, the {{coord}} template, allowing the coordinates to become part of the hCalendar microformat; and this the page to be mapped on the Wikipedia layer on Google Earth and in similar tools. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bump. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. I can't see there being any reasonable objection to this. Would such functionality permit inclusion of more than one location, if appropriate? -- Trevj (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, though only the first given would be included in the emitted hCalendar microformat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      Thanks for the explanation. -- Trevj (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Prev/Next and crossover/pilot episodes

Episodes which are a crossover or a back-door pilot often list the Prev and Next episodes of both series. However, the template doesn't recognize this, and ends up quoting them improperly. As a result, we end up with things like (e.g. from the infobox of Who and What, a CSI/Without a Trace crossover, <br> represents an actual line break): 

 Previous <br> "The Chick Chop Flick Shop (CSI) <br> Run (Without a Trace)"
 Next <br> "Goodbye and Good Luck (for CSI) <br> Where and Why (Without a Trace)"

What we really want is the quotes only around the episode names themselves: 

 Previous <br> "The Chick Chop Flick Shop" (CSI) <br> "Run" (Without a Trace)
 Next <br> "Goodbye and Good Luck" (for CSI) <br> "Where and Why" (Without a Trace)

Probably the easiest way to do this (without having to change every existing episode article which doesn't have multiple Prev/Next episodes to manually include quotes) would be for the template to check for the presence of quotes (") in the Prev or Next entry, and if found, then simply rely on that entry to be properly quoted on its own (e.g. not add the default start and end quotes that are added now). This would cover both the multiple Prev/Next entry case, and any other case where it was necessary to include some sort of extra info into the Prev or Next entries that is not part of the actual episode title (and thus shouldn't be quoted). In other words (pseudo-code): 

 If Prev is set
   If Prev contains '"'
     just include Prev, rely on article page to get the quoting right (we can't foresee all the possible special cases)
   Else
     include "Prev" (as we do now)
   End
 End

Anyone got enough wiki-foo to implement this into the actual Infobox Television episode template? John Darrow (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot check for the presence of ["] or any ohter character, that requires StringFunctions, which is not enabled. — Edokter • Talk • 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks like RPrev and RNext now allow this to work just fine. Thanks! John Darrow (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody add a similar function that optionally removes the quotes from the title field, so that untitled episodes are formatted correctly (e.g. pilot episodes). Bradley0110 (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

imdb / tv.com

{{editprotect}} it would be great to have direct access to the episode pages in the imdb and tv.com databases.

  • I am opposed to this change. There's no real reason for external links in the infobox. Use the external links section of the articles. Jay32183 (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Elonka 01:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Support it exists for all movie-templates so why should we not have it here?/94.254.45.181 (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

episode chronology

Given the formatting functionality, and that this infobox deals with episodes of a given series, is there an SOP for linking previous stories that fall into a narrative chronology? Could the "episode chronology" be renamed such to accommodate that? Could the double-quotation automatic formatting be removed (or given a variable to nullify) to allow that functionality? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

Resolved
 – This one is not the problem. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Per MOS, the faulty hyphen between the Title and the Series should be an WP:ENDASH. See Damien (South Park) as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I need more specific information. Perhaps the error is somewhere else; I can find no dash being displayed in this template. — Edokter • Talk • 22:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, it was not this infobox that was the problem. Never mind. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Guest section

Can we model the guest section to Template:Infobox_Doctor_Who_episode or any other templates like it? It seems more orderly that way and less crowded. Can we --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

redux

This seems to have been a rather unilateral decision as far as I can tell without seeking input from elsewhere. If I'm wrong, please point me to the discussion I missed.

That being said, I'm rather ambivalent to the change except for two points: (1) There was no matching change to the template's documentation (Template:Infobox Television episode/doc) to indicate how this new formatting is to be implemented. (2) After the formatting in point 1 has been dictated/decided, all television episodes are going to need to be edited duly, an effort requiring probably the use of a box and more community involvement. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was suggested, and no objections were made (here). I came up with that format in the Doctor Who box some time back. It's an open format parameter, so there is no rush to edit every episode; it takes either <br> formatted lists or bulleted lists. I've looked at a few and they seem fine. — Edokter • Talk • 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
As I did not have this page on my watchlist, I was unaware that a change was being made; now that I am aware, I object. I think that the old format was more seamless, whereas this blue bar interrupts the infobox and the middle loses some consistency. –thedemonhog talk • edits 10:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no issue with the change of position, but I must confess to a strong dislike of the actual positioning of the actor names, squashed up to the left hand side. Can they not be centred somehow, or automatically bulleted, or something? U-Mos (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree—the old one had them closer to the centre. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Many episodal infoboxes have changed to the new style (Stargate articles among them, as well as several I updated to this new SOP) even despite the exemplar code in the template's documentation not being changed. I'm impartial to one or the other, as I find both of them lacking. However, we do need to set a standard for site-wide consistency. My 3¢ at this juncture. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So the actor names are meant to be bulleted, as in Children of the Gods? That may look better. U-Mos (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Still looks a bit odd when character names are not used, as in An Invisible Thread. U-Mos (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Story" and "storyboards"

I think it'd be useful to include these two new fields. I know at least for Phineas and Ferb (which I am in constructing of making several episode articles for) both are very crucial for the production; in fact, the actual show doesn't even have a writer, it's labeled as two seperate groups, story and storyboards. Several different animated series employ this style as well. Thoughts? The Flash {talk} 04:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • A story credit means the writer didn't format it as a teleplay, that could be included as the writer credit with "story" in parentheses. Storyboard artist could be included for animated shows; all of them use this by the way. Storyboarding is the process of converting the story into basic pictures so that the voice actors and animators have a basis for their work, rather than just visualizing it in their heads. If we're adding special parameters for animated series then we should probably throw the animation director in as well. Jay32183 (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Good point. And, yes, I already know what a storyboard artist and the story credit are. :S Anyways, that would also be a good field to add as well, I suppose, after all it would avoid a "Template:Infobox animated episode" creation and hundreds of TFD discussions. The Flash {talk} 16:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I also want a field in this infobox for storyboard artists of an episode. If I added that, would it be removed really fast? dogman15 (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Teleplay/story credit

I think a paragraph or two should be added to the writer section of usage providing guidelines for episodes where writer's credit is split between "Teleplay by" and "Story by". I think this should follow the same rules as for film. A Tale of Two Cities (Lost) is a good example of this style of formating. As it is now, many writing credits for TV episodes are unreadable. Have a look at this old Homicide page for example.–FunkyVoltron talk 18:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New request

I'll make another request this year: add a "Teleplay by" field and a "Story by" field to the Infobox. It has now been added to Template:Infobox film (except as "Screenplay", of course). I see no reason for it not to be added to the television infobox as well.–FunkyVoltron talk 21:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree, support addition of these parameters. Xeworlebi (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Is the intent to replace the "Written by" or are they only for things that had separate people writing story and teleplay? In which order should they appear? Jay32183 (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I would say, additional to "Written by", so only when they are different. I would go for "Story by" first and then "Teleplay by" makes most sense in that order. Xeworlebi (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Jay32183, the intention is not to replace the "Written by" field, just provide new fields for episodes where the credits are split between teleplay and story. Template:Infobox film lists "Screenplay" first. I think we should follow this. I.e. the "Teleplay by" field comes first and the "Story by" field second.–FunkyVoltron talk 09:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I fully support the addition of these parameters. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Objections to the addition of the fields "Teleplay by" and "Story by"

Will need some more input before requesting this. Specifically: does anyone object to the addition of these fields? They have already been added to Template:Infobox film. Teleplay would come first in the list.–FunkyVoltron talk 19:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The proposed merge from Template:Infobox UK Television Episode should be easily feasible. The only parameter that needs a fix is |Series name= there, which is |Series= here. A minor detail. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there the issue that one year in the US is called a season, but one in the UK is called a series. We'd need a parameter to identify the show as US or UK and display season or series as appropriate. Jay32183 (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I don't see the need for separate boxes for US or UK series.--NeilEvans (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Infobox Television already uses 'series' options, so it shouldn't be a problem implementing the field. The JPStalk to me 13:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Now merged. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

{{Editprotected}} I am nominating this template for a merge at wp:tfd, using {{Tfm}} on Template:Infobox UK Television Episode. Please remove the present merge template from here. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Box within Infobox

PDF rendering of Dennō Senshi Porygon produces Episode chronology and everything under it as a mini box in the infobox in Wikipedia:Books/Anime and Manga. Reported here: Help:Books/Feedback#Box within Infobox. Extremepro (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on the original discussion. There isn't anything which can be done about the issue in question in this infobox's code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

please ad season link option

several shows now have articles on seasons, so having a possibility to link them would be really nice! Nergaal (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Length

Has this section become deprecate, because it doesn't show up when it is filled in?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Appearently, because I saw no such parameter in the code. Debresser (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The parameter may have been added to the documentation without having been added to the actual code. Do we actually need or want it? Jay32183 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why not. Television eps can vary in minutes, and it's too miniscule to point out in the afrticle body.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
So....should we put the parameter back in?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection. Jay32183 (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Who knows how to add the code?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Can this text be added after airdate: 

{{#if:{{{Length<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
{{!}}'''Length'''
{{!}}<noinclude>† </noinclude>{{{Length}}}
{{!}}- 
}}

Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, but I don't see the purpose of all those daggers. Can anyone explain why they are needed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I have no idea, this is the first time I've been here, because the length wasn't working for me. 117Avenue (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Season list

I'm not sure what the policy is for wedging a list of episodes into the infobox, but those interested in this practice may wish to comment here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Guest stars formatting changed ... yet again

117Avenue (talk · contribs) just updated this template's documentation, and in doing so changed the "Guest stars" formatting in the infobox yet again. Was there any consensus for this change? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that this template wasn't watched by alot, since the above discussion went unresolved for four months. (If you wanted the documentation perfect why did it mention length?) I based the example off a good article, after I saw that The Twilight Zone episodes are the oldest articles to use this template, and the project page lists no featured articles. Can you direct me to any FAs that aren't Futurama or The Simpsons (which use their own templates)? There is actually a third formatting, used by Degrassi Goes Hollywood, that I decided not to mention, out of respect for those who wrote those guidelines before me. What were the concerns that were brought up previously? 117Avenue (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You're right, the previous discussion petered out without anything definitive being done about it. However, the standard that was put into place was left alone since then (almost a whole year) and has been the de facto standard for infobox implementation since. (I don't know what you're talking about re: "perfect documentation"). My concern is principally about a constantly shifting standard without discussion, followed by a desire for the listing to be clear and easily understood (that is, not able to be misconstrued). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I am referring to the documentation having errors in it. It mentioned length, a parameter that didn't exist, it didn't mention Season list, the parameters were not listed in order of appearance, and a number of them were labeled as being required for the template to work. 117Avenue (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for fixing those. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 07:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I surveyed the contents of Category:FA-Class television articles, there are 27 episodes listed. 10 use line breaks, 8 use bullets, and 9 don't list any guests.

Which means what I wrote in the documentation is correct, either format is acceptable, as long as it is the same for every episode in the series. 117Avenue (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I updated the template documentation today. See if you find it palatable. I provided guidelines for both styles: the idea is to include the character the guest actor portray in the episode if using bullets and not include the character if using line breaks. This appears to be how the majority of the articles are structured (the exception was "No Such Thing as Vampires"; I updated it).–FunkyVoltron talk 14:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't actually make that connection, thanks. Do the crosses on the template page need to be there? Can they be removed? 117Avenue (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I haven't actually figured out what they're for. Perhaps mandatory fields?–FunkyVoltron talk 09:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe those are there to make them show up in the preview, otherwise you get an empty table as seen on {{Infobox television}}, where you don't see the formatting or order. It basically forces the parameter to show here, but with the <noinlcude> it doesn't on transcluded pages. With the example in the doc this isn't really necessary though. Xeworlebi (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition of the fields "Teleplay by" and "Story by"

{{editprotected}} Consensus has been reached in the matter. This will make the formatting more consistent in innumerable articles. Just add the following to the code, beneath the "Writer" code: 

{{#if:{{{Teleplay<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
{{!}}'''Teleplay by'''
{{!}}<noinclude>† </noinclude>{{{Teleplay}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{Story<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
{{!}}'''Story by'''
{{!}}<noinclude>† </noinclude>{{{Story}}}
{{!}}-
}}

I'll update the template documentation afterwards. Thanks.–FunkyVoltron talk 11:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than making the edit, I've lowered protection to semiprotection. Feel free to make it yourself. I'm going to have a look at improving the template's codebase (and possibly moving to {{infobox}}) at some point in the future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
All done. I do think the template documentation will need some additional updating; it's a bit out of date in some places. I'll get on it. Here's an example of the new fields implemented – working as intended. Thanks.–FunkyVoltron talk 13:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
All right, I've updated the documentation now. I do think most changes are warranted and reasonable. If anyone objects, feel free to change it back.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Code Updates

Funkyvoltron (and others, including me :) ) have made some tentative improvements to the template, which are currently in the sandbox. A side-by-side comparison can been made by checking the testcases. You will notice that there are minor differences in spacing, but overall, I believe this is a step in the right direction. The improvements include

  1. The sandbox code uses {{Infobox}}, which makes for less complicated code, and makes the appearance similar to the vast majority of infoboxes on Wikipedia (standard width, font size, ...).
  2. The sandbox code includes improved handling of the "season list" parameter. Currently, the season list templates are partially coded tables, which are wedged into the infobox. The sandbox code allows for this practice, but also allows for vastly simplified flat lists, or more generic tables, or the embedding of a collapsible list. I would like to see the old format deprecated going forward, and converting all the episode lists to this new format (but that can happen at a later stage as time and consensus permits). See the second example for an example of this feature.
  3. General reduction of complexity by relying on the default CSS styling generated by {{Infobox}}.

Hopefully, this is a relatively non-controversial change. Any minor styling differences or glitches can always be fixed on a case-by-case basis. However, I feel this is a step in the right direction. If there are no objections, I would like to deploy this soon. Thanks, and post any concerns or comments here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Since we're updating everything, I would like to see two thing change: debold the quotes around the title, like this is done in the episode list (using {{Episode list}}) and change "Original airdate" to "Original air date".
Test 2 shows a guest list not using an actual bulleted list and is therefore on the extreme left without any padding, which makes it look out of place. Same happens with {{Unbulleted list}}, and even the bulleted list seems to much to the left to me. I would like to see it getting the same level indentation of what it had or as the |Season list= has, to make it more uniform and streamlined. Beside some errors in the filling out of the preview itself I don't see anything majorly wrong. Looks good. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Have a look now.–FunkyVoltron talk 10:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks much better now. I just noticed this; in test 3, the background of the episode list is white, not the #f9f9f9 gray that the rest of the infobox uses, it's a faint difference, but a little beauty error, not the case in the current infobox. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
That will be the case with many season lists that uses individual formatting. It will change after the new infobox has gone live; the idea, for reasons of uniformity, is to turn all season lists into simple lists similar to the test list in my sandbox and let the template handle the actual formatting. We will discuss exactly how to display the season lists after the new infobox has gone live (I have a suggestion I think is somewhat convenient myself).–FunkyVoltron talk 12:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I added the "background-color: transparent" option, so the faint color difference in Example 3 should now be gone. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm seeing a larger space above the episode list link in the sandbox version. I would also like to know how many series' with episode articles have {Infobox television/colour} set up, and if there is a lot, if a work around should be made so that the series title can be linked on all articles using this template. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The larger space appears to be a by-product of the template code. It's noticeable, but I don't think it's an issue. I wouldn't say a lot of shows use the television/colour function, only a handful.–FunkyVoltron talk 10:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
If you link the series name when you specify it, then it will appear linked. The only catch is that it must also then be linked in {Infobox television/colour}, which is not a problem to implement. The additional spacing cannot be reduced very easily since there is a certain amount of cell padding hardcoded into {{Infobox}}. However, this should be viewed (in my opinion) as not a bad thing since it will allow for more uniformity. One thing that could be tried is to change the default line-height (see the code for {{Infobox park}} for example), which could reduce some of the spacing. I see these as minor cosmetic tweaks that can be experimented with after the first revision is implemented. Are there any lingering "show stoppers"? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what kind of input you're looking for, so please forgive me if I'm out of line. I really really like Test 1, and I have two questions: (a) Is it possible to identify or differentiate which column of guest stars represented the actors v. characters? In my head I'm not sure if I should read it as "John Doe played by Kevin Spacey" or "Kevin Spacey as John Doe" (fwiw though, I love the columnization, that looks really nice imo). (b) Does this template allow for an seasonal listing like Test 2 and Test 3 do, and if not could it? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Test 1, 2 and 3 are all the same templates. Left, the current; right, the proposed one. They're just filled out with different content to test the different styles used on different pages. The columns are both actors, no characters are named in the previews. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Aha, I see; pardon my ignorance! I like the potential the template offers, but if implemented will it be documented with a standardized formatting exampled? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
It will.–FunkyVoltron talk 13:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Think it's time to implement it now?–FunkyVoltron talk 13:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I deployed the new code. Hopefully, this doesn't cause any major problems. Minor problems can be handled on a case-by-case basis. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Spotted the first glitch, episode no isn't wrapping like it used to. 117Avenue (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. I will check the old code and restore the old wrapping behaviour. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Season list (new)

All right, now that the new code has been implemented, let's discuss possible ways of handling the season list. The old way, with individually designed season lists, definitely needs to be replaced with something more streamlined and uniform. I had the following idea: use a "Season premiere" and a "Season finale" field for the air dates of the premiere and finale episodes of the season; those dates will then be displayed under the "Season X" header with collapsible episode list (collapsed by default). It would look like this. Actual season lists should not be more complicated than this. The snag — there's always one — is that the air dates of the season premiere and season finale has to be added to the infobox of every episode of the season.–FunkyVoltron talk 17:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think two things need to be standardizes; the naming convention on this and the formatting. For the formatting, a simple numbered list is sufficient, are the dates really necessary? The list is intended for navigational purposes, I mean is it particularly interesting in that place? For the naming, because some have some pretty excessive names along the lines of {{Infobox television series show name episode list season number}}, this in my opinion is just ridiculous. I propose to go with the simplest format possible, {{show name (season #)}}, to keep it in line with the naming of season pages. Xeworlebi (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the names should be standardized, which would actually allow for automatic linking to the episode lists using some "ifexist" logic (just a thought). I like the idea of allowing for a collapsible list. The problem with using the premiere and finale dates in the title for the episode list is that it is often too wide. I am currently in the process of categorizing all of the episode list templates, so at least we should be able to find them all: See Category:Television episode list templates. In the process, I have converted most all of them from the old partial table markup format to the new flat list format. I did preserve the collapsible list feature in many of the, but just used the premiere year and finale year for the title part to make it a bit less wide. My goal here was to try to make it as similar to what was there before, but still achieve some level of standardization by converting the old "half table" markup. You can browse the templates in the category to get an idea of what is being used in practice. I will provide links to the 3 to 5 different formats that I have seen in a bit. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way one should watch out for things like Template: Family Guy (season 1) vs. Template: Infobox Family Guy season 1. In this particular case, it appears as though the episode list is out of favour, so I have nominated those for deletion, in favour of the navigation boxes. However, one might run into problems if the simple name is already being used for something else when renaming the episode lists. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So far I have seen (a) plain flat lists (e.g., Template:Infobox How I Met Your Mother season 1 episode list), (b) flat lists with a date span header (e.g., Template:Infobox Futurama season one), (c) flat lists with a date span header and season navigation footer (e.g., Template:Infobox American Dad! season 1 episode list), (d) collapsible lists with a year span header (e.g., Template:CSI season 2 episode list), and (e) collapsible lists with year span header and season navigation footer (e.g., Template:Infobox Modern Family season one episode list). Another interesting example is Template:Infobox Simpsons episode, which uses a collapsible season list, but has the season link for the title bar. By the way, I think they have all been converted to the new format, which doesn't use the half-wiki table markup. I will make sure that there are none of the old-style left before removing support for the old format. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Consistency is always nice, but it may be a lot of work to go through all the templates. 117Avenue (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So, how about making one of the styles the default style? I still believe it's advisable to have a hidden episode list, though I realize this is somewhat tricky to achieve. Here's another way (left) of displaying the premiere and finale dates with a hidden episode list (a fairly involved way at that).–FunkyVoltron talk 14:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the different styles, Template:Infobox Modern Family season one episode list most closely resembles this. I think it's a decent enough style to utilize and with only the years displayed, it doesn't run the risk of overlapping with the [show] button.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes, new parameters

Apparently {{Infobox Dad's Army}} was merged here and came with some new parameters. None of this has been discussed here. These are already in the template under a different name:

  • |Script=: same as |Teleplay= or more globally |Writer=
  • |Original transmission=: same as |Airdate=
  • |Preceding=: same as |Prev=
  • |Following=: same as |Next=
  • |Series=: already exists as subheader, now shows up twice

New are:

  • |Recorded=: Date of recording is often a week, with later voice recordings often done at a completely different time
  • |Figures=: Presumably for ratings info

Along with those some other changes have been made without discussion. And in my opinion; most of it not for the better. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The new parameters are necessary to correctly perform the merge discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_16#Template:Infobox_Dad.27s_Army, while minimizing the disruption to the articles containing the merged template by preserving the titles under which information is displayed, as well as the information itself. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
No, the articles using the other template should be adjusted to use this one and then the other template should be deleted. These changes and especially new parameters are disruptive and should not have been made without discussing them here first. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the duplicate appearance of the series parameter. The remainder of the parameter changes have been effectuated so that the appearance of articles that already use the template is not altered. The width adjustments will only show up if the "DA = yes" parameter is supplied, which is being added by my bot in the process of converting the infoboxes. The consensus at the TFD discussion was certainly not to remove information from the infoboxes of articles; new parameters must often be added to merge templates. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 1 editor who says they might be useful here does not constitute as general acceptance of them, edits to a template should always be discussed on the talk page. The difference in width should not be done in general. Xeworlebi (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the changes. This merge require such drastic changes without discussion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you suggest that the date of recording and rating information is removed from Dad's Army infoboxes? I need to know what to expect before proceeding any further. Since I now need to roll back 86 or so bot edits that, in the absence of the parameters I added, break articles, I don't want to have to reverse the bot again. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
If you already have a bot changing parameters why don't you just change them to the ones already in this template, rather than just capitalized versions of the ones in place and of already existing ones in this template? (Not really this discussion but from the articles I just quickly saw, nearly non had ratings figures, nearly none had sourced recording info, and almost all were entirely unsourced and seriously lacking notability.) Xeworlebi (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the recorded and figures information will be redacted; everything else will be converted as appropriate. No changes will be made to the width of the infobox for Dad's Army articles. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
As a follow up, the viewing figures field is now saved as "Viewing figures" in the Dad's Army articles, but is not currently enabled. I decided to park it here in case there is consensus to add this field. For the "recorded" information, I put it as a subentry of "airdate" in the articles. I would be happy to redact it if this is desired, or I can split that too into it's own field. Thanks everyone for your efforts and sorry for the mess. I think it was just a big case of miscommunication. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Special televison episode infoboxes

Is it possible that one could make episode infoboxes that are special and or specific for certain television shows? I'm thinking of House, and including a parameter for Final Diagnosis. There could be other shows that could benefit from this as well. I don't know. Maybe it already exists, or such an infobx would not meet Wikipedia's criteria. --852_Charlie_Papa (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Such spin-off templates are depreciated and are continually deleted and replaced with this one. As far as I know this template has no empty parameters for this like {{Infobox character}}, maybe it should, although I have no idea were those would fit, as there are no current parameters for in-show content like this. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 15#Template:Infobox House (TV series) episode. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Italic for show name disambiguators

Is it worth implementing something like this? I've got very close with the code but need to know how to do something. The following code would work if the parameter |series= was given without a wikilink, however it needs a tweak for wikilinks. It should be fairly simple as it basically just needs to resolve the wikilinks first and parser the text within {{{series}}}.

{{#ifeq:{{Str find|{{PAGENAME}}|({{{Series}}}}}|-1||{{DISPAYTITLE:{{Str left|{{PAGENAME}}|{{Str find|{{PAGENAME}}|({{{Series}}}}}}}''{{{Series}}}''{{Str right|{{PAGENAME}}|{{#expr:{{Str find|{{PAGENAME}}|({{{Series}}}}}+{{Str len|({{{Series}}}}}-1}}}}}}}}

Any help or comments would be appreciated. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I already tried, and was told episode titles aren't italicized, they are put in quotation marks. 117Avenue (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Untitled episodes

I've already brought this up somewhere on this page, but no discussion or action came from my suggestion, so I'm starting again. Many episodes of British television series are untitled - they just go by Series X, Episode Y (see Series 8, Episode 1 (Spooks) as an example in action). These designations are automatically wrapped in quotes in the episode infobox, which is incorrect. Can an option be added to remove the quotation marks for such cases? Bradley0110 (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why there couldn't be. 117Avenue (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The Prev and Next already had an option, by adding an R at the beginning, I made the option for the Title to work the same way. I am guessing the R stands for raw. 117Avenue (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I believe the R stands for reference, as the field was introduced to allow references for titles to appear outside the quote marks (it would previously have been formatted as "Episode Title[1]" instead of "Episode Title"[1]) Bradley0110 (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Sopranos (episode) Info' box

I have noticed that whilst a long list of guest actors features in this info' box, the "Starring" line is missing. I have added the four main actors/characters to the edit page, but, for some unknown reason, I cannot make the edit appear on the article page. Any help would be welcome. Regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at Template:Infobox_Television_episode and it appears it's not part of it apparently.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Seems odd, doesn't it, especially as "guests" can be listed ... and it works on the The Sopranos' Info' box
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe that's deliberate. The stars of a series don't change from episode to episode, but guests are specific to episodes. Individual episode articles don't need to repeat the full series details, or even single season details. That would be extremely redundant. Jay32183 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. It makes sense when I think about it. Although, in this instance, it being the pilot, the omission of the names of the regular actors might appear to be unusual.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"Guest stars" or just guest actors? (possible edit request)

Hi,

Just wondering, when actors have appeared in an episode of a tv series but did not have starring roles (e.g. all the names from Amber Tamblyn down in the infobox for this episode of Buffy), is it appropriate to list them under "Guest stars" (especially if they were relatively unknown at the time)? And if not, would it be possible to add another parameter, for example "Also featuring", or perhaps even change "Guest stars" to "Guest actors" or something? (This issue may be related to the one raised in the previous section, since that article on an episode of the Sopranos has a ridiculously long-looking, to me anyway, "Guest stars" list - though I don't watch that show, so I have no idea, maybe they were all billed as guest stars.)

Thanks very much! -- TyrS  chatties  05:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello!
I agree with you.
Regarding The Sopranos (episode), it is the style of The Sopranos to feature the names of the "regulars" during the opening sequence – which is the same, every episode, except for the removal of The Twin Towers after the destruction of 9/11 – and list everyone else who appeared in that particular episode during the closing sequence.
Kind regards,
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

First broadcast channel?

Would it be useful to include a parameter so that the first channel/station which broadcast the documentary could be included? -- Trevj (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't a documentary use Template:Infobox television film? 117Avenue (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose it could do. Maybe it's worth creating a redirect there and/or amending the documentation - I'll have a look. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The specific case I'm considering is "Now the Chips are Down". Here are two options.
{{Infobox television film}} {{Infobox television episode}}
Please do not use {{Infobox television film}} directly. See the documentation for available templates.
"Now the Chips are Down"
Horizon episode
Episode no.Series 14
Episode 18
Original air dateMarch 31, 1978 (1978-03-31)
List of Horizon episodes
Additional parameters could arguably be added to either template. I've posted a link to here at WT:WPTV. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Coordinates, redux

Please see #Coordinates, above. How can we implement this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Now done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I have to oppose inclusion of this parameter. It's problematic at best. In {{Infobox television}} there is a location parameter that is never used correctly. In this template we're going to see the same thing, with people adding coordinates that they assume are correct but have no basis in fact. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent addition of blank fields

I reverted AussieLegend's addition of three blank fields to the television episode infobox. Making similar changes to an infobox with 8252 transclusion without first starting a discussion was ill-advised, especially since using blank parameters is itself controversial for a matter of data granularity.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The addition of those fields was an extremely minor edit that doesn't break any articles. Unfortunately, by reverting you've broken all of the infoboxes in articles that used {{Infobox Rome episode}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, adding these fields should be discussed first. As far as I can tell, {{Infobox Rome episode}} does not use these blank fields. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Infobox Rome episode has specific fields. The addition of the custom fields was made so that this infobox could be used in place of the Rome infobox. I don't really care either way, but it seems silly to have a separate infobox for only 22 articles, whether it's a full blown infobox or a wrapper for this one, especially when the addition is exceptionally minor. This template only has 39 watchers and, like most of the TV infoboxes, it's not really of interest to the end users. As you can see above, the last discussion was a year ago and Pigsonthewing's request from 11 months ago has gone unanswered, so opening a discussion here would have been rather pointless. I usually criticise Pigsonthewing because he bypasses discussions and goes right to TfD but this time I have to agree with him. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Infobox Rome episode is being discussed in its own TfD right now, and if there are edits to be made to this template as a result of that TfD they will be made once the discussion is closed, not now. The number of watchers, or your subjective judgement of the importance of this template to readers, doesn't really change any of that.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing stopping changes being made at any time. The TfD process doesn't preclude changes being made while discussion is underway. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I could see adding a single additional 'setting' parameter, but I don't really see a need for blank parameters, since they just encourage adding cruft to the infobox. I will present more reasoning in the TfD for the Rome box. Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there is an ideal solution for this problem. A "setting" parameter is likely to be as problematic as the "location" parameter in {{Infobox television}} as it will be used for all the wrong reasons by non-Rome episodes. I'm also opposed to adding specific parameters that are only used in one series or are otherwise low use, such as the coordinates parameter mentioned elsewhere on this page. A custom label can at least be used by numerous series, as is the case at {{Infobox television season}}. If we had added specific fields for each series there, we'd probably have another 20 or 30 parameters in the infobox and that one is only used in 3,000 articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I tried directing editors at WT:TV to the Infobox Rome episode TfD and to this discussion to discuss this, but subsequent discussion at WT:TV has resulted in support for addition of the blank fields. As there has been no futher discussion there in over a week, I have asked for further input. If there is no opposition, based on the WT:TV discussion I intend restoring the edits so we can get the Infobox Rome episode TfD out of the way. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    • there appears to be no consensus in this discussion to add blank fields. Frietjes (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I said there is support for addition of the blank fields, not consensus, which is why I have asked for further input. There is no consensus for addition of the fields discussed in the section below this one, but nobody stepped forward to remove those. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
        • unless there is a major change in the state of the discussion in the thread below, I suspect those parameters will be removed in the near future. Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late arrival to this discussion, but I must oppose the addition of blank fields at this time. Like the location field below, I worry about misuse. How can the blank fields be used only for what is necessary? Giving users the freedom to add anything will cause the infobox to be bloated with trivial information. In 2010 it was discussed to add a "final diagnosis" field for House episodes, it was decided not to add this in world piece of information. The addition of this parameter would allow it. 117Avenue (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

How can any field not be misused? It's something that we have to live with in templates. {{Infobox television}} contains two field for adding colour for specific series and those are only rarely abused. My proposal is the addition of undocumented blank fields (although they were documented initially) and creation of specific forks of this only as subtemplates, which should keep them under control. For example, {{Infobox Rome episode}} would be replaced by {{Infobox television episode/Rome}}. This was previously done at {{Episode list}}, and still is used in one instance, with {{Episode list/sublist}}. We don't want to see forks everywhere, which was the case with {{Infobox television season}} before generic fields were added to that template. I'm yet to see any abuse of the generic fields there. As for your example, which you have to admit is WP:OTHERSTUFF, that was one field. In the Rome example, we have three, so we're losing more than just a single bit of information that is easily included in the episode summary. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
That is how you provide clarity, (support inclusion). 117Avenue (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remove coordinates parameter

Pigsonthewing has added two new parameters today, "location" and "coordinates". Location doesn't appear to have been discussed at all. Pigsonthewing first proposed coordinates in 2008 and with no responses again in 2010 with no responses. A single editor did support it over a year ago but there has been no further addition and I don't ever remember seeing this discussed at the TV project. Both parameters are problematic as I have indicated above.[1] The location parameter is of particular concern, being of the same name as the parameter in {{Infobox television}} that is always misused. The coordinates parameter is unlikely to be used to any extent and will probably always be unsourced. Neither should have been added. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The parameters should not be removed; there are many programmes for which they are relevant, and consensus for the coordinates parameter (with no opposition) was reached above. That a location parameter is already in a related template is an argument to include, not exclude, it here. AussieLegend was aware of the proposal to add coordinates, having discussed it in earlier threads in this page; to only object once the change was made is disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
As I asked on your talk page, where is this consensus? Response by a single editor was made 2 1/2 years after your 2010 bump and nothing since is hardly consensus. Given that you've only received a single vote of support in 5 1/2 years and the section is marked as "unresolved", I don't even see how you could claim consensus. As indicated in the section above, discussion is required and your response here doesn't address the problems I highlighted. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett: "there are many programmes for which they are relevant ". Such as? — Wyliepedia 14:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I would be interested in seeing a use-case. Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Episodes of factual series about an event at single location, such as a plane crash, murder, robbery, archaeological dig, concert, sporting contest, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I think everyone would like to see some actual examples of where these parameters would be useful. Theoreticals are just that. If there are no actual articles in which these parameters are used, there is no point in having them in the infobox. While I've got your attention, I'd still like an answer to my question, which you've avoided answering. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
For my own edification, I too would like to see examples of actual in-wiki use cases. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Remove - The mechanics of these templates are baffling to me, so I can't speak about any of that stuff. Superficially, I don't understand the value of a location parameter, particularly since it seems to conflict with the Infobox television location parameter. One describes the filming location, the other the setting location. Anecdotally speaking: nobody reads the template instructions! Seems like a recipe for disaster. Further, I've always understood that the infobox is supposed to represent a concise summary of article content, not simply be a repository for various data. We already have problems with lazy editors using the infobox to present facts instead of via article prose. Though I am receptive to contrary opinions, I currently don't see the value in adding this information, as it doesn't seem to have tremendous potential to improve our understanding of the episode any more than a Wikilink to Bangkok in the prose would. (Minor note: I posted this relevant comment on a different page where it had no relevance, so I am posting it here instead.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't see any real rationale for removing the parameters in your comment, just FUD ("nobody reads the template instructions!"), and IDONTLIKEIT ("I don't understand..."). If you think the name conflicts with that in another template, one or other can be changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
IDONTLIKEIT doesn't apply. Cyphoidbomb has identified the problems, purpose of the infobox and querying the reason for and value of inclusion being some. The concerns about usage of the parameter are valid, not FUD. Certain parameters are widely misused, as I've already indicated, and this alone reduces the value of the parameters. Ironically, the location parameter is one you added without any discussion at all. It shouldn't even be in the infobox, per the discussion immediately above. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that this discussion has been canvassed in a partisan, negative manner, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Infobox television episode. Aussie Legend certainly ought to know better than to do that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly how is that canvassing? I notified the TV project with an introduction to the problem, since they are the end users of this template, directing them here and editors decided to continue discussion there. I've engaged in the discussion but the notification is not canvassing. Instead of trying to make others out to be the bad guy, please try answering questions that you've been asked. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe I'm correct in recalling that I've referred you to [{WP:CANVASS]] before; but either way, you should read it now. The kind of partisan notification you posted is explicitly cautioned against. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If the location and coordinates are to be included, they will need to be very strictly regulated. I also fear misuse. Pigsonthewing, could you please explain how the location and coordinates will be used so that it is clear to the reader, and how the documentation can be better written in order prevent the use of this parameter beyond its intended use? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove. Series that use world wide locations in one episode such as Marvel Agents of SHIELD would pose problems or old series like Danger Man or The Saint (TV series) The Man from UNCLE often used fictional locations (how could you add coordinates?) but never left the film studios. Parameter needs more thought. REVUpminster (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
More FUD. The parameters are optional, and would not be appropriate for a drama set in multiple locations - read what is written in the documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
With the lack of explanation for the proper use of the parameters, I must say remove. 117Avenue (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been no further discussion on this in the past week. From those who have participated there is obvious support for removal of the fields added by Pigsonthewing who has failed to answer the question of how he justified consensus to add the fields initially. Nor has he provided any practical examples of how his fields are useful despite requests by multiple editors. If nobody has anything further to add, is there any opposition to those fields now being removed? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

They should not be removed, for the reasons given above, and in comments which remain unaddressed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
All of your comments have been addressed appropriately. What is frustrating is that you expect people to respond to you but you have persistently fail to address the concerns of others, by responding either not at all, or in the vaguest way possible. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Based on the discussion above, there is clearly no support for addition of the parameters except by Pigsonthewing and therefore there is no consensus for their inclusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Unprotect template

Mike V, please unprotect the template again per Wikipedia:Protection policy. The template has not been vandalized. Christian75 (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Per the protection policy, this template is highly-transcluded with over 8,000+ pages. As such, it meets the criteria for template protection. Mike V • Talk 14:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
8000+ isnt a high-risk template, as Wikipedia:High-risk templates says: "It is transcluded into a very large number of pages." - the protection of templates has been discussed a lot of times, and this template has earlier been reduced to semi protection per WP:ANI ANI discussion[2]. Christian75 (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, 8,000+ transclusions is a large number of pages. The ANI discussion was concerning an administrator applying full protection to templates en masse without much consideration. In addition, the discussion does not take into account the fact that we now have the template editor permission which increases the number of users that can edit the template. Mike V • Talk 03:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The template editor permission should only be used when the template earlier would have been fully protected as the policy says (you linked to it in your first reply) "It should only be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection." This was a big concern when we voted for the new permission. Christian75 (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V: any answer, Christian75 (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Can we add a new column labeled "Release date" as an alternative to Original air date? I say this because there are a number of cases (such as Flight of the Phoenix (Arrested Development) and Chapter 1 (House of Cards)) where the episode has never "aired" it was released though streaming. Its more accurate for cases were the episode was released though means aside for traditional broadcasting, and could be more useful as the online series trend continues to grown in popularity. Grapesoda22 (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Guest actors

It says, "If using bullets, include the character the guest actor portray in the episode after his/her name in the infobox".

First of all, bullet points should not be used in infoboxes. I don't know of any other that says they should. Second, characters shouldn't be listed if there is a cast list section (along with the characters). The parameter is called "Guest actors", not "Actors and characters". And an infobox is basically supposed be a summary, so if the characters are listed in the body, they're not needed in the infobox. Why not just have it like the "Starring" parameter for series infoboxes? --Musdan77 (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

linking the season number

Is there an SOP or guideline or even preference for linking the season number or not? I see there's no guidance in the documentation, but it's something that I've never seen before, that is before I just came across a user linking them. — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That user was me. I did it for every season of all the Star Trek shows (except Enterprise but, I was planning to get to it next week) and also some othe shows. My thought process was that it will just make the pages easier to navigate. Sorry if it shouldn't be done that way, it just seems so minor, I really didn't think anyone would mind. If it's a problem and anyone wants to undo it, I won't object. I'm heading out of town for the weekend but, will check this when I get back and, if not undone by then (Monday), will assume it's okay to continue on with Enterprise. Cheers!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cebr1979: you shouldn't link to the season as you did. I don't really know of any thing to link for you regarding this, but this has been a standard practice of the TV project for as long as I've been a part of it (almost 4 years). Let me know if you have any questions about this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This just seems so bizarre to me. I honestly can't think of one single reason why linking to the season would be detrimental in any way? However, since it bothers some (although, again, I really can't see why nor how anyone took the time to even notice something so minor), I won't do it again. I won't be spending time undoing the ones I've already done, though. It just seems so trivial.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

fourthords & Favre1fan93: Hi, guys! Just a friendly notice that I'm going to start doing this again because there's nothing anywhere that says I can't and there's no feasible reason not to... other than the two of you don't like it but, that's just not a valid reason to tell me I can't. There's no reason not to do it. None. Like, at all. And you two saying, "Don't 'cause I said so" is worthless and holds no weight. Grab on to your hats, kids! Wikipedia's about to get a whole lot more clickable! Toodle-oo!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"The Adversary"
Episode no.Season 3
I don't see the point of linking at all, especially because of the way that it appears in the infobox. In the example to the right, only the "3" is linked, so it's hard to see that there is a link at all. The average reader would expect a link to work if he or she clicked anywhere in "Season 3" but that doesn't happen. It seems a pointless exercise to link as it stands now especially in the case of "The Adversary (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)" as Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (season 3) redirects to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes#Season 3 (1994–95), meaning there is absolutely nothing to be gained with this link. Admittedly though, I'm more concerned that these articles exist in their present form. Many are unreferenced and fail WP:PLOT. Instead of linking unnecessarily, perhaps Cebr1979 could instead concentrate on getting these articles to a level where they won't fail at AfD. Otherwise it's going to be a case of "Grab on to your hats, kids! Wikipedia's about to get a whole lot less Star Trek episode articles." --AussieLegend (✉) 10:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
AussieLegend: I'm just gonna continue doing what I feel like doing not doing what you feel like I should be doing or what you don't see the point of. You've given not one single reason why it shouldn't be done other than "I don't really get it so it shouldn't be 'cause like you know" which is just not how wikipedia (or life) works.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
"What [you] feel like doing" is not what the current consensus is to do. So I would highly suggest you take the advice from a highly experienced, respected editor of the TV project, and work towards making these Star Trek articles acceptable against AfD standards, than going around trying to add pointless links that readers are not expecting to find or use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Favre1fan93: There is absolutely no consensus on the matter whatsoever anywhere and "highly experienced, respected" individuals don't go around saying that about themselves. You have already stated you "don't really know of any thing to link to regarding this" and, until you can... your "standard practices" have no merit. As I keep pointing out, there is not one single sensible reason not to do it and there never will be. "I don't like it so don't do it but I don't have a reason for not liking it other than I just don't" is not a reason. It's childish and children don't build encyclopedias.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
"What [you] feel like doing" is not what should be driving your actions. We are here to build an encyclopaedia and adding pointless links is not a constructive part of doing that.
"You've given not one single reason why it shouldn't be done" - Actually, I have given more than one reason why it shouldn't be done. It's an ambiguous link because only the actual season number and not "Season " is linked. It's a pointless link because it doesn't help the reader. You are linking to season articles that have been redirected. The link goes to an episode list that doesn't provide any more information to the reader than the episode article does. It's actually you who has not provided a single reason why it should be done. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
AussieLegend: For some of them, sure, I guess... 'cause, like, you know... but, that's only for some of them because that's where the redirects go. For the ones where the link isn't a redirect, they go to a page for the season and, even where a certain season may not have a page of it's own... YET... ever heard of redlinks? Welcome to that! For the ones that have a page for each season (and, for the ones that don't, their seasons are definitely notable and it is conceivable that the seasons will one day have pages of their own so...), YES! That is useful! Answer this question, Aussie: Is doing it in any way shape or form detrimental? And then, after answering that question (rhetorically, please), stop and ask yourself why you took the time to respond when you've looked at, like, I don't know, only some/barely half/who knows how many but definitely not even close to all the television shows Wikipedia has articles on and then given a "reason" that reflects a whole two series... TWO... 1 + 1 = 2... 2! 'Cause you and I both know you only looked at Voyager and DS9. Go look at Next Generation and the bajillion other shows Wikipedia has to offer (including the other shows I have done it for). There's not one single person on this planet (nor has there ever been or will there ever be) who will lose sleep or pull hair from their head because, like, you know, "OHMYGOD the season number was linked in an infobox for a TV show on Wikipedia!" HAHAHA! I didn't just type "HAHAHA!" I actually did it out loud here in my home because you're all being so ridiculous. HAHAHA (<--- that was also real laughter)! There ARE people who will click on the link and get taken somewhere useful. Will it be a bajillion people? Will it be just one person? Who knows/who cares! I reiterate: "There's not one single person on this planet (nor has there ever been or will there ever be) who will lose sleep or pull hair from their head because, like, you know, 'OHMYGOD the season number was linked in an infobox for a TV show on Wikipedia!" I'm doing what I'm doing and never returning to this conversation again. Respond if you want, ping me if you want, do whatever you all want: I'm mot going around in childish circles over nonsense - I'm gonna go be a big kid and contribute to an encyclopedia. Bye.Cebr1979 (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Oops... one more thing I forgot to mention before I "don't return to this conversation..." I don't have to "provide a single reason why it should be done." Ever. Nor does anyone. Ever. For anything. Ever. Like, not even one time. Welcome to the wonderful world of contributing to an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you don't want someone to do something, you have to provide... let's all take a breath here... sensible and reasonable reasons for why they should stop. Otherwise, you are/have been editing the wrong type of website and should go [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content|start your own that you can control]. That's it. For real this time: I'm never returning to this conversation.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Something doesn't have to be detrimental to be unconstructive, but yes, linking to a page that doesn't provide any additional content for a reader can be detrimental because it distracts the reader, and can confuse. A reader clicking "3" and ending up at a List of episodes page will wonder "what did that link send me here for?" WP:SEAOFBLUE actually says Beware of linking to an article without first confirming that it is helpful in context.
I'm doing what I'm doing and never returning to this conversation again - That's a rather childish attitude to take. Another editor has taken issue with your linking, others agree (I don't actually see anyone supporting you) and yet you are saying "Bugger off, I'll do what I want!". That's not the way Wikipedia works. Wikipedia works by building consensus and the consensus seems to be that you shouldn't be making these links.
I don't have to "provide a single reason why it should be done." Ever. - No, that's not the case at all. You can't just go around doing whatever you want. You have to edit appropriately and remember, WP:BOLD also says Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted. It just doesn't make sense that you would prefer adding pointless links when so many of the articles that you're adding links to need fixing. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 January 2016

Please change Episode no. to Episode {{abbr|no.|number}} for accessibility (screen reader users). nyuszika7h (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done - This seems uncontroversial and is compliant with the directions at MOS:NUMERO. It is also consistent with changes made at {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox television season}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_television_episode/Archive_2&oldid=1204655869"