Template talk:Infobox television episode/Archive 4

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

Season and series_no values both show up

Is there a reason why the infobox will show both |season= and |series_no= values and not just one? While not that common, some editors are mistaking one for the episode value as can be seen Final episode of The Colbert Report and The Color of Friendship (1981 film), while a fix would be pretty simple. Any objections to limiting this to show only one? --Gonnym (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Testcases can be viewed here. --Gonnym (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
As explained in the documentation these should not be both used: "season / series_no - The number of the season (or series) this episode is part of. Use either season or series_no, but not both. Typically, "series" is used for television series produced within the United Kingdom while "season" is used for American television series." In Final episode of The Colbert Report the infobox is saying the episode is both in the 11th season and the 1,447th series. The correct field entry should be |episode=160 as the episode was the 160th in the season. The Color of Friendship (1981 film) had a similar error. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your comment meant. If you were explaining the correct usage of those parameters to me, that was unnecessary as I understand them and was not what I was asking. --Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
You asked why the infobox will show both |season= and |series_no= values and not just one and the answer was immediately clear to me after looking at the examples that you provided. The documentation says not to use both but someone had at both articles. You don't use both because because it's a simple terminology issue. You obviously weren't clear about that because you had to ask on my talk page.[1] The only fix that was required for the examples you provided was for editors to use the infobox correctly, in accordance with the instructions. Your suggested fix seems to prioritise |season= over |series_no= which means that articles that use both but which actually should only be using |series_no= would be incorrect. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Lets be clear what I asked. I asked why the infobox shows both - not when to use a param. I knew why it showed both, and also knew how to fix them. Also, I asked on your talk page as you change, changes the scope of the field. Some infoboxes that I've seen are already writing the total series number and not the number in the "series", that's what happens when we use confusing and conflicting terminology. I just made sure that what you meant by your change is in fact what the field means and not a stealth change. Yes, my fix prioritizes |season= over |series_no= which happens for two reasons. The first, is that season is used in much more countries around the world AND in much more articles in en.wiki, hence logically, that should be the one it checks first. Secondly, the current code is "wasteful" by the fact that it does two if checks, while my code reduces that in most scenarios to only one. If the doc says to use only one and not both, this is really a non-issue, if the infobox shows |season= over |series_no= then just change the param and it's fixed, not sure why you insist in having faulty code. This is the same scenario with |release_date= and |airdate= - we show one and not both. Do we really need an RfC for this? --Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it would be nice if you'd be clear, and stop attacking me on my talkpage. You asked why those fields appeared and gave two examples. The reason that both fields appeared in the two examples is that the infobox was filled in incorrectly. It appears that what you actually meant "why is it possible for both to appear" and that's an altogether different question. You most certainly did not make it clear that you knew how to fix the problem. Any responsible editor would have fixed the problems if they knew how to fix them.
The first, is that season is used in much more countries around the world AND in much more articles in en.wiki, hence logically, that should be the one it checks first. - The problem with this assumption is that we don't favour any one spelling or use of terminology over another. Both "series" and "season" are used widely and we can't make any preference for "season" over "series" especially when it will result in a large number of articles suppressing valid information.
not sure why you insist in having faulty code. - I'm not sure why you'd make that claim when I never said anything of the sort. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Would you stop telling me what I said and actually read it? Or is reading something other than you wrote, something you are uncomfortable with? Please read everything I wrote and see that I ended with Any objections to limiting this to show only one? which you've still have not answered, as is common with you, to find something other than the point to argue about and derail the conversation. I did not fix it as I wanted the editors here to see the issue first, as I'm sure leaving it up 1 more day would not change anything. My fix does not give season any preference over series, want to use series in your infobox? go ahead and use it instead of the season param. And yes, by stonewalling this fix you are actively advocating for keeping faulty code, a code which does unnecessary ParserFunctions. Also, don't assume my coding or comprehension skills. If you can't understand anything in the discussion, either ask, or stay away from it - Do as you preach and stop attacking. --Gonnym (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, seriously, how the hell can you really say with a straight face that you believe I didn't understand how to fix this, I even posted a code fix and put up testcases even before you commented on this. /sigh --Gonnym (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
as is common with you, to find something other than the point to argue about and derail the conversation - Pleas be civil and stop attacking other editors. This only ensures that other editorswill not respond to you and can result in blocks. So far, you've attacked me here and on my talk page and that is unnaceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I find it funny that stating facts is a personal attack on you, but me stating that you are belittling me and patronizing me is also a personal attack on you. --Gonnym (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Glitch

When this infobox is used with {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, a glitch occurs resulting in a blank line at the top of an article (see Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones), Pilot (American Horror Story), and Wildfire (The Walking Dead) for examples). Does anyone know how to fix this? --TedEdwards 22:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix that issue, however, I do know how to fix the root of the problem. This infobox should have an italic title parameter so it can handle this without needing the display title. It requires updating another module first, so hopefully I'll get it this week. --Gonnym (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Replacing "produced by" credit with executive producer (showrunner) credit

The template inaccurately states that the showrunner is a producer and uses it synonymously with "produced by". To begin, the showrunner is an executive producer—the leading executive producer who oversees the creative and management responsibility for a TV series. Second, "produced by" is not synonymous with "producer"; the former credit refers to the production facillities producer who is usually also the line producer. Therefore, the produced by credit in this template should be replaced with an executive producer credit. For more information, see the Producers Guild of America (PGA) Code of Credits here: [2]. ATC . Talk 21:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I do not work much with TV, but this seems like a good change to make. I suggest posting a neutral notification at WT:TV about this. And perhaps stating what change you'd like to make, exactly. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
A few notes - first, I agree that a change should be made. The question is what change and what is the actual credit we are looking for. If we are looking for the showrunner credit for shows that have it OR the top producer credit for shows that don't have a showrunner, then it should be implemented as a switch - {{If empty |{{{showrunner|}}} |{{{executive_producer|}}} }} (with the label: {{#if: {{{showrunner|}}} | Showrunner | Executive producer }}). If we just leave it as EP then scripted shows with showrunner credits could even have 10 named personal (look at the series list at Lost (TV series)). Also worth noting, that we shouldn't take the US style of credit and apply it to the whole world. In a lot of places in the world, a "producer" is the highest TV credit (same as film). So going back to the previous example, the result should be {{If empty |{{{showrunner|}}} |{{{executive_producer|}}} |{{{producer|}}} }} (with the label: {{#if: {{{showrunner|}}} | Showrunner | {{#if: {{{executive_producer|}}} | Executive producer | Producer }} }}) - this way we make sure that we cover all types of highest credit, and prevent the infobox from having multiple producer credits. --Gonnym (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
First of all, all TV series' have a showrunner. Without a showrunner, the series' would not take place. The showrunner employs the cast and crew, negotiates with studio and network bosses, and in scripted/fictional TV series', they also supervise the writers room. And their actual credit on the screen is executive producer (EP) (not showrunner; EP in the United States Code of Credits and producer in all other countries). We should just keep the note in the template data that the only producers/EPs to be listed are the showrunner(s), but give the option to either use "producer" or "executive producer"—depending on the country of origin for the TV series. ATC . Talk 21:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Not all TV series have a showrunner, not everywhere in the world has a showrunner concept. While a showrunner might not appear in the episode credits, this isn't a random credit, but a credit RS report about. If the proposed change does not actually call it a showrunner, it isn't any improvement over the current status. --Gonnym (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Brought this up to WT:TV. ATC . Talk 01:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
While that's true, not all executive producers are "showrunners" either. So I wonder if we need to add a parameter for "showrunner". It probably would only apply to U.S. and Canadian TV shows, but I think it might be worth doing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Is showrunner something we need to include in the episode infobox? The contents of the infobox should be specific to the episode. Showrunner would be relevant in {{Infobox television}} but here? Not really. If the showrunner changed during a season it's something that should be noted in the prose in a season article but it's not something that needs mentioning in an episode article, unless a person is the showrunner just for that episode. As an analogy, we can compare the program, season, episode heirachy to country, state, city. Iincluding the showrunner in an episode article is like including the US president in an article about a city and we don't do that. For the record, the "show runner" text was added to the documentation in 2010, here. I don't see any related discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
You're right, I missed that – that would be good for {{Infobox television}}, but isn't necessary for {{Infobox television episode}}. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind not including a showrunner credit here, but that means that either the |producer= parameter is removed from this template, or the documentation is changed to reflect what actual producer credit we are searching for, as it currently does say that it should be the showrunner. --Gonnym (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:OR. There's a reason series have separate executive producer and produced by/producer credits. If they were the same thing, they wouldn't be separated. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem with a showrunner title but we should either put an EP or producer credit in parentheses (depending on the country of orgin) so others (unfamiliar with what a "showrunner" is) knows what is being referred to in the template, as EP/producer is the showrunner(s) professional title in the television industry (and the term is only used to distinguish him or her from other TV producers). ATC . Talk 22:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Again, why do we need a showrunner listed in an episode article (see above). We should simply modify the documentation to eliminate references to the showrunner. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
If that is agreed upon by others, I don't think the photographer or editor sections are neccessary either then. ATC . Talk 00:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on changing part of an If function

NO CONSENSUS
There is no consensus to change the if function; meaning that the current code should be kept. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the code in data1 be changed from 
{{#if:{{{season|}}}|Season&nbsp;{{{season|}}}<br />}}{{#if:{{{series_no|}}}|{{nowrap|Series {{{series_no|}}}}}<br />}}
to 
{{#if:{{{season|}}}|Season&nbsp;{{{season|}}}<br />|{{#if:{{{series_no|}}}|{{nowrap|Series {{{series_no|}}}}}<br />}}}}
? Please read my comment after for a more detailed description. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 05:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC). --Gonnym (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The change in code proposed is intended to limit showing only 1 result in this field - either the |season= or the |series_no= value. This follows the documentation which states The number of the season (or series) this episode is part of. Use either season or series_no, but not both. Typically, "series" is used for television series produced within the United Kingdom while "season" is used for American television series. An added advantage of this code is that it reduces the amount of Parser Functions calls (#if checks) in most cases to just one, instead of the always two. Important to note, this change does not change the usage of the template, its layout or how its viewed, but it fixes an issue which appears in articles where editors mistakenly use both |season= and |series_no=, where |series_no= is used for values other than what is intended for and also neglect to use |episode=. This also is consistent with other code used in this template in the same situation, where {{#if:{{{release_date|}}}|release|air}} uses either |release_date= or |airdate=, but not both. --Gonnym (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Just to comment on some points my fellow editor below raised - the code change does not "favor" one style over the other. This is just how an if/else block works - the reason why season is the first choice that it checks is simply because that would be the most cost efficient as it has the most uses. If an editor wants "series" to appear, they just need to use that instead. This really seems like a non-issue disguised as something else. Regarding the use of the word "hack"... Wow. I've never seen an if/else block described as a hack, but ok. --Gonnym (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Additional information: Template:Episode table has the exact same issue (used in 7189 articles, so similar usage). It has both |season= and |series= parameters and the documentation says Note: "series" and "season" cannot be included in the same table in the same fashion as this template does and when trying to use both, only |season= will appear. See below:
No.
overall		No. in
season		Title
--Gonnym (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


"Infobox television episode/Archive 4"
Episode no.Season 11
Series 12
Episode 1
  • Oppose - The code above is currently implemented in the template sandbox and has been alluded to above in the section titled "Season and series_no values both show up". While the suggested code does eliminate an issue that could have been fixed by editors simply using the infobox in accordance with the instructions, it results in a far more serious issue as discussed above in that it favours season over series_no, which is unnaceptable. In the event that an infobox uses both fields, but is actually supposed to use series_no, the display will be "Season", not "Series", making that article incorrect. As I've said in the above section we should not be favouring one terminology over another, in the same way that we don't favour US over UK spelling unless strong national ties apply, or US over UK or even ISO dates per MOS:DATE. This infobox is used in 9,866 articles and we can't introduce hacks that fix one minor issue but might be introducing errors into thousands of articles. The resolution to the problem that Gonnym sees requires either a more sophisticated resolution or none at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox Inhumans IMAX merger

Per the result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Template:Infobox Inhumans IMAX, {{Infobox Inhumans IMAX}} is to be merged into this template. The question is should the merger be done, as in, what parameters should be added to the base infobox and what should use the |module= parameter directly in the article. Without adding any new parameter, this is how using all unique IMAX parameters would look with |module= being used: Template:Infobox television episode/testcases. I personally don't like the layout as it separates fields that should be next to one another and would rather add new fields to make it look better. --Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 April 2019

Could we please add a second season article field, so that two different season-articles can be listed together in a single infobox. This would help in awkward cases were multi-part episodes are aired apart in different seasons. Example 1, Example 2, Example 3. Grapesoda22 (✉) 01:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  •  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Covering two episodes in one article leads to several problems, such as categorization, and the production details like writers, directors, etc. may also be different between them. I think the better handling would be to split such articles, and so would oppose this template change. -- Netoholic @ 06:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Netoholic: Well, splitting multi-episode articles is a different conversation; one that likely wouldn't end in your favor. At this point it is standard to have multi-episodes combined into one page and the issue I mentioned still causes problems. What I am proposing is technically "doable" now (example below), it would still be better to have an formal field within the infobox.


"Time's Arrow"
Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes
Episode nos.Season 5 & 6
Episodes 26 & 1
Production code226 & 227
Episode chronology
← Previous
"The Inner Light" 		Next →
"Realm of Fear"
Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 5)
Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 6)
List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes

("Time's Arrow")

Grapesoda22 (✉) 16:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 May 2019

Please add a parameter named "image_upright", alias "upright", to the image section as per Module:InfoboxImage and MOS:UPRIGHT. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please make your proposed changes to the template's sandbox. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Just noting that the code for this is already in {{Infobox television}}. I added it here --AussieLegend (✉) 22:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Would you like to do the same to this template then? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Just to speed up any consensus building if needed. I don't understand too much about how the images work as I haven't read that module, but if some of television infoboxes use upright I see no reason for other television infoboxes to not use it. If this is added, then just please update the documentation at the table and TemplateData sections. --Gonnym (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Yes that would seem the most logical move. Consistency between the related infoboxes is preferable. I just don't have time to do it myself right now. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I see no one has attended to this yet. If it's as simple as AussieLegend said, then this is now in the sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

MSGJ, note that using a default "image_upright" value of 1.13 will affect images in articles. To ensure that there is no change in the size of the image for this change, the default should be 1. If it is wanted, 1.13 can be used, but it will change the look of the infobox. You can test this by previewing an article such as And When the Sky Was Opened, when you have changed the Infobox television episode to Infobox television episode/sandbox. The image will be slightly wider. If you add |image_upright=1 to the previewed edit, the width of the image should be the same in the article and in the preview. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Use of 1.13 results in an infobox image approximately 250px wide, which is the optimal size for this infobox. The infobox normally uses screen captures which are landscape. |image_upright=1 results in an image that is narrower than the infobox and consequently leaves a lot of whitespace around the image. It's a good size when you can find free portrait images but alas, most TV episodes have to rely in landscape screengrabs. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
AussieLegend, Ok. Just wanted to make sure that in this change the increase in default image width is what was wanted. I have no problem either way, but agree with you that having the default 1.13 is probably better. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done In that case, changes in sandbox are merged into template with the default value for image_upright being 1.13. This is the image_upright code and adding image_upright to the parameters (for check for unknown parameters) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

two problems with Template:Television episode short description

As per Gonnym's request here, I'm reposting my comments on Template:Television episode short description where apparently more eyes will see them:

  1. This template shouldn't mix numerals and words. For instance, here it generates "1st episode of the eighth season of Game of Thrones". That should either be "First episode of the eighth season" or "1st episode of the 8th season". Given this is a short description, I would go with the latter.
  2. At least in the case above—Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode)—the given short description is redundant because the disambiguation tag already includes the series name. The proper short description for an article titled "Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode)" would simply be "1st episode of the 8th season". So really this template needs to be smart enough to look at the article title, note if the series name is included in a disambiguation tag, and omit it from the short description if it is present.
Similarly, the short description for Duty and Honor should be "7th episode of the 1st season of The Americans" but the short description for The Oath (The Americans) should be "12th episode of the 1st season".

—Joeyconnick (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 May 2020

Add the ability for this infobox to be used as a child infobox, by adding: 

| child    = {{{child|}}}

This would allow this template to be used in {{Infobox television crossover episode}}, which would make that template more uniform with this one. TheTVExpert (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: Can you also add child in the check for unknown parameters at the bottom of the template. TheTVExpert (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 18:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 August 2020

Replace | header24 = {{If empty |{{{guests_title|}}} |{{nowrap|Guest appearance(s)}} }} with | header24 = {{#if: {{{guests|}}} | {{If empty |{{{guests_title|}}} |{{nowrap|Guest appearance(s)}} }} }}. To not cause the "Guest appearance(s)" header to show up when |guest= is not used, but |module= is. See the testcases and Bart the Daredevil for examples. TheTVExpert (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've changed the template to give the output you want, but implemented it using |autoheaders=y and a blank header (saves on #if statements). Primefac (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: Thanks. TheTVExpert (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 August 2020

The "autoheaders" parm is duplicated, with values "yes" and "y". Davemck (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Davemck (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Gonnym. TheTVExpert (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

why not display BOTH release and air date

Problem with this:

| label19 = Original {{#if: {{{release_date|}}} | release | air }} {{#if: {{{multi_episodes|}}} | date(s) | date }}
| data19 = {{If empty |{{{release_date|}}} |{{{airdate|}}} }}

Issue: it produces an either/or situation. Air date is only displayed if release date is empty.

What if both dates are important though? For example with s10e1 premiere of Walking Dead, it was streamed 29 sep 2019, televised 6 oct 2019. Template prevents me from displaying both. You should be able to display both. 64.228.90.251 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

List only first air date. Any other date can be listed in the article, if notable. --Gonnym (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
We should probably deprecate {{{airdate}}} in that case. All airdates are "release dates", but not all releases are "aired" (as in over-the-air/broadcast). I don't see why we need both in the /doc if only one is used. -- Netoholic @ 19:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
But both are used. |airdate= shouldn't be depreciated, because an article for a "traditional" weekly network series should be using "airdate" to have the label state "Original air date", while an episode for a series released on a streaming service all at once, would use |release_date= for the label to be "Original release date". The documentation has this stated. It's the same reasoning there's the option in {{Episode table}} to use either airdate or release in the column text. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Having one "override" the other while ostensibly "supporting" both feels like a distinction without a difference. -- Netoholic @ 00:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Producer parameter

I think this needs a little bit of a refresh, given the intent for the parameter is to include the series' showrunners. As it is currently, just having |producer= and the label say "Produced by" doesn't easily indicate who should be included in the parameter. A few changes I think could be made: first, the parameter becomes |executive_producer= and the label becomes "Executive produced by"; and second, we create parameter aliases |showrunner= and |head_writer=, which in turn would change the labels to "Showrunner" and "Head writer" (which doesn't fit with the current labeling scheme), so if there are instances where a show clearly has someone in either of these roles, that's what is used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Titles with an apostrophe in the disambiguation modifier

There seems to be a problem rendering titles for television episodes if they include an apostrophe in the disambiguation modifier (for example: Torpedo (Bob's Burgers) or The Sound of Silence (Grey's Anatomy)). I've narrowed it down to a conflict between {{DISPLAYTITLE}} and {{infobox television episode}}, but can't determine what parameter needs to change. I notice the title will render correctly if I place {{DISPLAYTITLE}} after the episode infobox - but I still get the DISPLAY TITLE warning. Is there a work around? Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the report. I'll see how I can fix this, but in the meantime, when you see this issue, use the parameter |no_italic=yes in the infobox to disable it setting it. --Gonnym (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for figuring it out! Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Partial italicization of disambiguation

@Gonnym: I found another case that isn't rendering titles correctly. See Episode 1 (Ashes to Ashes series 1), which should only italicize the show name in the disambiguation, i.e. Episode 1 (Ashes to Ashes series 1) - assuming this article is named correctly. I can't recall other examples, but I seem to remember some articles being named "...(TV show episode)" Would this be a good time to turn on |no_italic=yes? Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to remove awards and child parameters

I propose to remove the following parameters from the infobox:

  1. |awards= - a typical award consists of the award giver, the category and the nominee - these values are way to big to add to the infobox without it spreading over multiple lines. We end up with entries like:
  2. |child= was added at Template talk:Infobox television episode/Archive 4#Template-protected edit request on 15 May 2020 with the rational of it being used in Template:Infobox television crossover episode. There is never a reason to use that as a child of the crossover one as that will make the template incredibly large, which is why it was setup the way it is. It has also remained unused for over a year. Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Update problems

@Gonnym: The removal of |multi_episodes= poses a problem in cases were a series has special episodes, in multiple parts, that are not counted as episodes in the main series. [example] Another update that poses an issue is the removal of the parenthesis around the "s" in Guest appearance header. There are numerous examples of episodes that only have one single guest, and having this strictly plural-only header results in several pages being mislabeled. It is for those reasons I am requesting for these two changes to be reverted. I do find the other changes helpful though. Grapesoda22 (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Season/Series

Looking at article The Bed of Nails (Yes Minister) which uses |series_no= gives a short description of "5th episode of the third season of Yes Minister". I would have expected this to be "5th episode of the third series of Yes Minister". Keith D (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You are correct about that. It could be something with {{Television episode short description}} and its module. Gonnym any thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. Please report if you see any issues. Gonnym (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for changing. Keith D (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Behind the scenes sandbox updates

I've made several behind the scenes updates in the /sandbox.

  1. The infobox now supports automatic article title italicization (already live).
  2. The infobox header using the |title= parameter will now use {{Space+single}} and {{Single+space}} if needed. This was added as I've noticed that articles such as Bart Gets an 'F' and 'Round Springfield already manually added these fixes. This will create a consistent fix across all articles needing it.
  3. Replaced the div tag in the guests row with a nested infobox.
  4. Plural labels:
    1. The "Production code" label now uses {{Detect singular}} to know when to change to a plural label ("Production codes").
    2. The "Original release date" and "Original air date" label now use {{Detect singular}} to know when to change to a plural label ("Original release dates and Original air dates").
    3. The guest header also uses a plural label by default.
  5. list of episodes:
    1. The list of episode links now checks for 2 single quotes ('') along with the previous "]]", if it finds one of them, the value of |episode_list= is used as is, if it doesn't find it creates a link.
    2. The text label is changed from "List of <series> episodes" to "List of episodes".
      1. The rational here is that long series names here cause a very long link which even breaks into more than 1 row (see When the Bough Breaks (Star Trek: The Next Generation)), and the series itself is already used two other times (in the sub-header and the season name) so the reader already knows whose list of episodes they're going to see.
    3. If |episode_list= isn't used but |series= is, the infobox creates an automatic link to "List of series-link episodes".
  6. Tracking categories:
    1. Pages using a |title= which doesn't match {{PAGENAMEBASE}} are placed in Category:Pages using infobox television episode with non-matching title. I've already cleaned quite a few from here (as this is already live) and it seems a lot of the differences were either vandalism or inconsistencies in spelling.
    2. Pages using |series=, |prev= or |next= with unlinked values will be placed in Category:Pages using infobox television episode with unlinked values.
      1. The rational here is that these parameters are not very useful to readers if unlinked as they don't offer navigation to targets a reader is likely going to want to go to. A series should pretty much always have an article if an episode has one and for the other episodes, a redirect is always more useful than no redirect.
    3. While pages using |series=, |prev=, |next=, |episode_list= with bold or italics (for |episode_list= also "]]") will be placed in Category:Pages using infobox television episode with incorrectly formatted values.
      1. The rational here is that episode titles should only be styled with quotes per the MoS. For situations where the link isn't an episode title we have |rprev= and |rnext=.
    4. Pages using |release_date= or |airdate= are now checked to make sure they use {{Start date}} like the other television infoboxes. If they aren't, they are placed in Category:Pages using infobox television with nonstandard dates
  7. 5/7 update: |multi_episodes= is no longer needed as the template can automatically extract that based on the input.

Feel free to comment or ask any questions. Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

All looks great! Thank you for your tireless (and usually thankless) work helping to maintain these templates Gonnym! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Gonnym I have a query about the automatic inclusion of the "List of episodes" parameter. I primarily edit soap articles and have noticed that it has created a redlink on any articles about standalone episodes of soaps – this and this as examples. I understand it may be useful for shows that have an episode list (or have the potential for one to be made), but with soaps, episode lists will not be created as there are too many episodes. In short, is there a way for this infinite redlink to not be included? – DarkGlow • 16:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@DarkGlow, I noticed that for the two examples above, the shows have a "storylines" section (Hollyoaks#Storylines and Doctors (2000 TV series)#Storylines). That seems like it could be a valid alternative to the standard episode list. What do you think? Gonnym (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@Gonnym: I suppose that's better than a permanent redlink. Thank you! – DarkGlow • 08:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@DarkGlow, I've modified the template to detect storylines links and modify the text. See Episode 5569. Gonnym (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@Gonnym: That's great – thank you so much! – DarkGlow • 09:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Suppressing list of episodes

At "Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal", there's a need to suppress the default "List of episodes" redlink, as no list of Newsnight episodes exists (including at the page Newsnight itself, which is already linked in the infobox anyway). No list of episodes page would be appropriate per WP:IINFO; god knows how many episodes there have been but 5 days a week for 40 years (10,000 or so) is a starting approximation. This is, genuinely, one of the single-digit number of notable episodes of the programme. — Bilorv (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv, use the /sandbox template on the article and use |episode_list=no. Is that good? Gonnym (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Gonnym: tested in preview mode and it looks like it works perfectly. — Bilorv (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv I've scrapped that idea and just disabled the automatic link if the target is a red link. This should be more elegent. Gonnym (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure, well it looks to be working at "Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal". — Bilorv (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Issue with the infobox displaying "Episode nos."

I noticed when a reference is placed beside the episode number in the infobox, it is being displayed as "Episode nos." and saying it's "Episodes 1". See various Seinfeld articles such as "The Seinfeld Chronicles" as an example. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References should not be placed in the infobox. So move it to the actual article and everything should work fine. Gonnym (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: making lists work without the need for manual list templates

The template's documentation says to use {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}} when adding multiple values for a parameter. I was looking recently at @Nardog's comment Template talk:Based on ((Speaking of which, why we don't simply attach the plainlist class to all <td>...</td>'s of {{Infobox film}} so that we wouldn't have to call {{Plainlist}} each and every time is beyond me.)) and decided to implement it here.

I've consulted with the resident CSS expert @Izno on their talk page and got the confirmation that such a change is viable and made the changes in the sandbox and added tests which worked as expected.

What this means?

Current system (usually one of the two):

  • Option a) An editor uses {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}} and inserts the values in the field.
  • Option b) An editor incorrectly uses <br>...</br> tags.

New system:

  • Adding entries with bullets (behind-the-scenes the parameters use the "plainlist" class just like using one of the templates). Example:
| director = only one value
| writer   =
* writer one
* writer two

The following parameters are the ones that will get this change:

  • |director=
  • |writer=
  • |story=
  • |teleplay=
  • |narrator=
  • |presenter=
  • |producer=
  • |music =
  • |photographer=
  • |editor =
  • |production=
  • |airdate=

Gain:

  • Eliminate the need to remember list template syntax and the editing errors that occur from forgetting to close the template (or from editors removing an entry and the closing bracers).
  • Cleaner editing experience as this will reduce the amount of list templates used on a page and the amount of text in the text editor.
  • Make the lists more consistent (with no usage of <br>...</br> anymore).

If there is consensus to implement this then I'll make a bot request to have current usages (the ones using the one of the manual list options) be simplified to bulleted lists. As always, if you have questions feel free to ask them. Gonnym (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

If an editor, not learning of the new system, adds something in the "old system" style after the system is changed, what error message or abnormal functionality will they see? — Bilorv (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv None. It would still work exactly as it does now. I'll probably setup tracking categories so those could be fixed similar to ant other issue being fixed. Gonnym (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
As it's on the /sandbox version you can test it out in ant article. Gonnym (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
In that case, I support the implementation of this. A bit of short-term disruption with watchlist spam and users changing behaviour, for a saving in the long-term (I certainly do see lots of {{Plainlist}}-related problems in my watchlist, and remember it confusing me for a while when I was first learning the old practice). — Bilorv (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This has my support! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv and @Favre1fan93, two additional questions:
  1. I've noticed a lot of |music= entries use the same style of values as the |based_on= one ('music' by 'artist'), should the /doc be updated to say to use {{Work by author}} (a redirect of {{Based on}}) in these situations?
  2. Following from the above, should |based_on= also receive the new class? Should |music= not get it? Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
It's hard to imagine a circumstance where |based_on= requires two values, so I wouldn't say it needs to be added to the list, but |music= should be on there. Using {{Work by author}} for each music entry makes sense to me. — Bilorv (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Implemented. Let me know if you see any issues. Gonnym (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac do you think your bot can be used to convert the values using {{Plainlist}} (and related templates) and <br>...</br> (and its variations) into bulleted lists? Gonnym (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Theoretically, yes. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
And in practice? :) Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not something I've ever done, but I have a related task that's been on my to-do list for a few years now that would benefit from figuring it out. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
If you have the time to test it out, I'd appreciate it. Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I will see about doing so this weekend. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, will there be a tracking category for the pages that need this change, or will I just have to run through all 11,300 calls? Primefac (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I can make a tracking category. I'll get to it tomorrow. Gonnym (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The category is Category:Pages using infobox television episode with unnecessary list markup and it is being populated now. The |commentary= parameter which is used in {{Infobox Simpsons episode}} is currently not tracked (but should) as it is used in the nested infobox (will see how I fix that). Additional question for this task, are cosmetic changes to the infobox possible while list mark is fixed? Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I run infobox genfixes any time I'm doing substantive changes to them. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Just an update on this: I do apologise, but I have not had the time I have wanted to dedicate to this project, mostly because of higher priorities on-wiki and real-life annoyances that have kept me offline for longer than expected. I still have this on my to-do list, but if you want it done before New Year I suggest popping a request over at BOTREQ. If it can wait, then I will give it my full attention after I am done with the module conversion. Primefac (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure, there is no hurry. Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac friendly ping if things have freed up. Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Still waiting on a reply to this query; either no one knows or no one cares, but honestly at this point a BOTREQ might be faster. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Photographer should be cinematography

The "photographer" parameter should be retitled "cinematography". Template:Infobox film and Template:Infobox television both use "cinematography" so why should this be any different? "Photographer" can also be confused with other roles in a show's production, such as on-set photographers who are actually taking photos, like a photographer would. Once this change is made, a bot can be set up to change the uses. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

In essence I support any consistency between these templates. I'll just say that sadly "cinematography" itself isn't consistent with how the most of the rest of job parameters are written. Most are written as "writer", "director" so this would be "cinematographer" and not "cinematography". Gonnym (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
The parameter label is already "Cinematography by" so the parameter should match for clarity. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_television_episode/Archive_4&oldid=1204655961"