Template talk:Infobox television episode: Difference between revisions

Template-protected edit request on 29 January 2016

Maybe we could change "Original air date" to read "Release date" or "Original release date" or something along those lines. Becuase then it would be in sync with Template:Infobox television and Template:Infobox television season. Also with the growing trends of programming being released through streaming services a lot of newer television episodes never technically "air" on television like this for example. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television would be a good place to leave a notice of your proposal. - Evad37 [talk] 02:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I copy and pasted the conversation over there. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Title alignment issue - fix ready - consensus requested

I'd like to get consensus before making a change per this discussion at the tech pump and the change I implemented and tested tested at Template:Infobox television episode/sandbox. Cheers. fredgandt 15:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Do not implement that fix. It's not a fix. fredgandt 15:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: We had a similar problem with {{Infobox television}} today. Have a look at the discussion and see the change I implemented that fixed it.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 15:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure the folk at the tech pump will be glad if you can fix this one too. I'll leave it to you. I have to go AFK for a while. :-) fredgandt 15:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

appears to be fixed after a hack to the colour subtemplate. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 June 2016

We should put the "s" in "Guest actors" in parentheses on header 24. There are several cases were an episode only has one guest actor, like wise there are several episodes that feature several guest stars. Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22: There appears to be a large number of undocumented params that allow this sort of customization. But you can currently use the param |guests title= to override the default "Guest actors", i.e. |guests title=Guest actor when needed. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: I still say we should consider it. I've seen tons of episode pages with only one guest actor that does not utilize this. It would be a huge pain trying to find and fix every instance its needed. I also doubt people will remember to do this with future episodes. Grapesoda22 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, done. (Request seemed reasonable. Found a precedence "Demonym(s)" in {{Infobox settlement}}.) I was reading over style guidelines about when/when not to use "(s)", and couldn't find any. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I also suggest that we change "Presenter" in label 23 to "Presented by" to match the other fields. We should also move the "Awards" label out of the "Guest actor(s)" section becasue its out of place there and it looks awkward. Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI I'm not watching this page, but I happened to see your follow-up here. Doesn't look controversial, but I'm toggling this for a bit of visibility before a change is made, perhaps there'll be some feedback. I've updated the sandbox with the suggestions. The placement of both "Presenter" and "Awards" might be questionable. They were added by Pigsonthewing in May 2015 and Oct 2012 respectively. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 06:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: I don't see the "Presenter" and "Awards" labels being used to often. I've maybe seen them less then five times ever. I don't have an opinion of them, I just thought they could have been written out better. I hate to keep buggin you here, but I have one more suggestion. I think we should change to wording in the "Guest actor(s)" header. I was thinking with should change it to "Guest appearance(s)". Because the term "Actor" really only applies to men. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22: Not inclined to make the change for now, and am also not ready to debate if "Actor" is gender-neutral. It would have been best to get the wording done on the first request. Please consider getting consensus for the change before making the suggestion. Also, note that frequent changes to highly-transcluded templates can be costly. If there is a good amount of support for the change, consider making an official edit request. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: I've only submitted a few minor tweaks to the wording. I wouldn't say the term "actor" is gender-neutral. Wikipedia itself says that actress is the female word for actor in the first line of the Actor page. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22: A "guest appearance" seems to be an event, whereas "guest star", "guest actor", or "guest actress" is referring to people. If we're really gonna be nit-picky about this field, perhaps "Guest appearance(s) by" is most appropriate. See the test cases. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: I still suggest "Guest appearance(s)", without the word "by". The word "by" isn't totally necessary in its context and its just plain cleaner without it. Also both Guest actor and Guest star redirect to Guest appearance, meaning its the preferred phase on Wikipedia. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't there a space in the infobox for starring characters?

It seems absurd that only guest actors appear in the infobox, since with series such as Game of Thrones, the starring actors appear in most episodes but not some, and there is no way of telling in the infobox which episodes the starring actors appeared in. TedEdwards (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree to a point. That is, many infoboxes allow us to customize the template and they keep some free fields like "data 1" "data 2" "data 3" and we can use those spaces for whatever we want. I don't understand why this cannot be done here. For example, if I start working on Undercover Boss episodes, there is not such thing as a "guest" in each episode. That too is absurd. Every member we see on the TV is a guest. What we need is "Boss" which would include his name and title and then list the "Employees" in the same way. I find it a daunting task to have to design an entirely new infobox (Help:Designing infoboxes) just to get this to work. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 06:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 September 2016

I have added a |release_date= parameter to display "Original release date" instead of "Original air date", for shows that are released online, e.g. on Netflix. Please implement the changes from the sandbox.

nyuszika7h (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H:  Done Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

embed - module =

it's work, but can we standardise the use and requirement of the line entries ? Dave Rave (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dave Rave: I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about? Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

module =
embed =
so many sub modules that can/can't be embedded/moduled Dave Rave (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Like what? What modules need embedding? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

sometimes it is embed = the module with embed = yes for the sub - and sometimes it is "module = the module but still with embed = yes Dave Rave (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Deprecating uppercase parameters

I've been recommended to start a discussion here, per Wikipedia:Bot requests § Corrections to usages of Template:Infobox television episode. To use the same initial post as I did there: Many occurrences of {{Infobox television episode}} use the uppercase form of parameters rather than lowercase, and spaces in parameters rather than underscores (for example, |Series no= instead of |series_no=). This should be updated to use the lowercase/underscore format to match the usages of {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox television season}}, so that the uppercase/spaced formats can be deprecated in the episode infobox template. Thoughts? Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm in support of this. I noticed this recently and was questioning why it was different. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Support, in the interests of standardisation across templates, which makes life easier for editors and bot-authors alike. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Generally support consistency. I prefer spaces to underscores personally, but I think I'm in the minority there. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I support this too. Consistency across the templates should always be the aim. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I support the deprecation of caps, but prefer spaces to underscores. Spaces are simpler to type, and less confusing and deterring to new editors. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC).

This seems to now be spanning two discussions, but I'm not sure how an underscore is harder to understand for new editors. It's a single character that is already being used in two similar templates, that haven't had any related issues or hardness to understand. If this template were to use spaces, then the other two would need to be adjusted as well, and that's just unnecessary. In my view, at least. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The above is now  done. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 December 2016

Please add the code from the sandbox here to the live version. These changes adjust the class styling for the above and header sections, so they properly implement on mobile view. See similar discussion for Template:Infobox television here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we have some fields so that other shows can be better customized?

Let's look at Undercover Boss because that's what I'm finding is a problem. The word "Guests" is not a good word since there are zero regulars on the program and everyone is a guest. However each episode, as I mentioned somewhere else here, focuses on one particular boss who has a specific job title (it's not always CEO) and then 3-5 employees with their own job titles. It makes absolutely perfect sense to include these in the infobox. Now I cannot right off recall which ones they were, but I have seen infobox templates that create extra customizable-ish fields such as "data 1" then "data 2" then "data 3" and so forth. I think the datas are actually infobox subtitles. I'm not positive though. Still, that would be great! I just don't think I should have design > propose > prototype > wait for comments > then use my own infobox design. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing we could simply customize these for each television episode, since there are many variables that end up being consistent as in my example. It's a simple change that would make life easier for everyone. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 07:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 February 2017

The |story= parameter should come before |teleplay=, since story credit is generally given before teleplay credit (and natural progression of crafting the episodes is story created first, then made into a teleplay). Additional, both of these parameters should come after |writer=, as both cover the same aspect of the episode. Having them separated does not make sense. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's leave this for a few days and see what the community thinks. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this will be anything contentious, but I've left a message at WT:TV if anyone wants to weigh in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe the request, in both its parts, is a reasonable one because the logic seems sound to me. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support story before teleplay. Proposed ordering makes logical sense -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Thanks for the adjustment, but the main point of the request was to move these two under the |writer= parameter. Sorry if that was not clear. The order of story and teleplay was just supplemental to the fact that they both were moving. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Writer, then story, then teleplay. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Season list template

There's an issue with the documentation, which states that the parameter | season_list = is for "A template containing a list of episodes in that season." The example doesn't have a template but a piped link to season article.

If this is intended to have a link to a season episode list article, I propose its description/explanation be changed to "Wikilink to the "List of <showname> episodes (season #)" article." (And, of course, "Use either Season list or Prev/Next, but not both.")

Thanks – Reidgreg (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually don't think this parameter is used widely anymore. And if articles still do, it probably should be depreciated, because the more common practice is to list the Prev and Next episodes, as well as the list of episodes, which would supersede the use of a season list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Should we officially deprecate this parameter and update the necessary articles to the standard format of using the previous/next links? -- Alex^TW 02:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

We should make sure users are aware of the intention to depreciate it, but yes we should. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There used to be quite a few articles using the season but none are showing up. We should have at least been showing articles that use the templates in Category:Television episode list templates. I've modified the infobox so that it puts these articles (if there are any) in Category:Infobox television episode articles that use the season list parameter - it's a dummy cat, which is why it shows up as red. We don't actually need to create it to get the list. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That's why I disabled the validity of it as a known parameter, so that articles that use the parameter would appear at Category:Pages using infobox television episode with unknown parameters, without needing another category, and so far, it lists over a thousand articles. Given the success of listing all of these articles via the initial method, I would recommend reverting back to it. -- Alex^TW 11:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The articles weren't showing up in the category when I checked. Category:Pages using infobox television episode with unknown parameters should only contain articles that use invalid parameters. It shouldn't be polluted with 1,000 articles that don't actually have any errors. Doing that makes it hard to identify articles that actually do need fixing. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Really? I checked when I first made the edit, and it was already populating... Huh. And not really; anything under S is "season_list", which requires removing. Either way, may need to get AWB onto it. -- Alex^TW 01:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that there are apparently over 1,000 articles, a not insigificant number, I think we need a bit more discussion before changing any articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. What would you like to discuss about it? -- Alex^TW 23:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we're only dealing with 11 series that have episodes using this parameter, as seen by Category:Television episode list templates. So really only a small fraction of articles within these 11 series, plus maybe a couple stragglers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That would seem to be the case but Alex identified over a thousand articles with his edit. I'm going to restore that edit to try to find out the real number. If there are templates that are not in the category, we should try to identify those templates so they can be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

So which template are we supposed to be looking at now? This one Category:Infobox television episode articles that use the season list parameter? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to matter now. Both categories seem synchronised. As I type, both have 1,079 articles in them. One of the issues I see already is demonstrated in 97 Seconds. That article uses |season_list= instead of |prev= and |next=. If we deprecate season_list, somebody will have to add |prev= and |next= to articles like this one and populate the fields with the correct article links. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The Previous/Next option assumes that every (or most) episodes of a season are going to be notable enough to have their own articles. That can't always be the case. Reidgreg (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, follow the instructions given in the template's documentation: If an article does not exist, link to the season with an anchor to that episode. For example, "Sins of the Father" should have its previous link to Unchained (Arrow), and its next link to List of Arrow episodes#ep83. -- Alex^TW 15:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, though that sounds like WP:OVERLINKING if the Prev and Next both link to the same season article (and almost the same place in it). Reidgreg (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Infobox television episode articles that use the season list parameter appears to have the same 1,078 members as Category:Pages using infobox television episode with unknown parameters, the only difference seems to be that the latter has set the sort key for all of these to S (that means "season list"?) So, this doesn't seem to be such an "unknown parameter" after all. Beware that category maintenance folks patrol for red-link categories, and will create the cat when they find them. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

1. The Simpsons – 615 episodes
2. Futurama - 140
3. How I Met Your Mother – 208
4. Modern Family – 185
5. Red Dwarf – 67
6. Seinfeld – 180
7. The Goodies – 76
8. House – 177
9. The West Wing – 156 (not all episodes have an article)
10. The Wire – 60

TOTAL = 1931 (1078 ÷ 1931 = ~56% coverage)

You need to get consensus from fans of these series to deprecate? wbm1058 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that rather illuminating breakdown. Category:Infobox television episode articles that use the season list parameter was only meant to be a temporary red-linked cat but it was created without checking here first. No point crying over spilled milk though. It exists now, so let's use it. If we have to add |prev= and |next= to articles, I'd like to know who plans doing that if we deprecate. Is it really worth the effort? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll do it, I'd be happy to. Might even be able to create a script for it. I mean, it's not my first time; I manually cleared out the 2,700+ articles that used to reside in Category:Episode lists with invalid line colors in December 2015. -- Alex^TW 11:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Created a script in the same manner as my other scripts. Removes season_list, replaces with prev/next. (Except in the cases of a premiere/finale where the previous/next links don't exist - these need to be done manually.) Example. Now, I would note that there's a number of custom infobox-episode templates, as can be seen at {{Film- and television-related infobox templates}}, which use season_list within themselves; if the parameter was removed from those few templates, the tracking category would empty out rapidly. However, this needs to be done after the script is run on all articles, to gather the previous and next episodes, meaning that the category will still show those articles even after the script is run. -- Alex^TW 13:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

So I just tried working on some. For example, Red Dwarf has a custom template. The episodes, at least for this series, need to be converted to the normal episode infobox, and then have the script run. There is nothing inherently different with the Red Drawf infobox than this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I have completed all of the episodes pertaining to The Wire. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

HIMYM is also done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Red Dwarf done. -- Alex^TW 10:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Seinfeld done. -- Alex^TW 13:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian:, don't know if you did this too when you went through, and it is a bit separate, but as I mentioned above, there is nothing inherently different/exclusive about the Red Dwarf infobox. Those episodes that use it should all be converted to the normal episode infobox at some point and the Red Dwarf one deleted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll run through with AWB to make it quicker, then request a speedy delete for the template. -- Alex^TW 23:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good! Also, The West Wing is done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's where we stand on the clean up:

1. The Simpsons – 615 episodes
2. Futurama - 140
3. Modern Family – 185
4. The Goodies – 76
5. House – 177

1,193 episodes, but as of this post, 552 in the category. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Modern Family done. 374 left between House, Goodies, Futurama and Simpsons (and any outliers). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Category emptied, finished the last several hundred listed in the category today. Deprecated the parameter in the template, speedy deletions requested for the templates. Only The Simpsons is left, as the articles didn't appear in the category given that {{Infobox Simpsons episode}} uses {{Infobox}} directly, not this particular template. -- Alex^TW 08:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

executive producer field

Hi there does anyone else agree that there should be an executive producer field like there is on Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode. I can currently only see the field producer. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

How can I suggest an executive producer field are many television shows the have executive producer but there's no field to enter it onto the infobox. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Add a new "multi_episode" parameter

I'd like to implement a new parameter |multi_episode=, which, when triggered, will adjust some of the text of the infobox to be more correct when it is used on a television episode that is two parts, but aired under the same episode name (sometimes in one airing). Examples include S.O.S. (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), Last Forever, The Wedding (Modern Family), etc., to name a few I could find quickly. The code for such implementation is in the template's sandbox and a test case can be seen here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done I see no issue with it. -- Alex^TW 07:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: The parameter needs to be added too to the bottom tracking category so it does not trigger the categorization of unknown parameters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)