Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 13

Category:Pages using infobox television with unnecessary name parameter has been nominated for discussion
Category:Pages using infobox television with unnecessary name parameter has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Website parameters
Is there still a worthwhile reason to include these in the infobox? I don't see the benefit to featuring any sort of website in the infobox when the External links section is perfectly sufficient for them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but I'd be inclined to lean towards keeping them. Most of the "Arts and culture" infoboxes use it (although "film" does not).  Also, the resulting maintenance category to remove it would be significant - it would probably need a bot to clean up.   Butler Blog   (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As an addendum to the above, I was looking up the discussion relative to removing other external links (imdb and tv.com) which was done in 2009. In the discussion, it was mentioned that film was also removing external links, to include website.  However, the discussion seemed to lean to leave the website as tv series sites tended to offer more than film sites (which were deemed to be little more than an advertisement offering little value). The discussion is here:    Butler Blog   (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a more recent discussion which basically had consensus that wasn't acted upon. Gonnym (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that looks like consensus. I've probably shifted from "weak keep" to "neutral" anyway. However, I doubt there are many editors that follow this level of detail in TV; most people seem to focus on the article level, so it's probably hard to get input for a broader consensus. In an unofficial survey, I believe it goes unused on most sites and on the sites that use it, it seems generally to be duplicated in the External Links.   Butler Blog   (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely forgot I brought this up previously. Yeah, these definitely should be removed per that last discussion and me bringing it up again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my opinion is only a "weak keep". So I'm definitely not married to keeping them.  And on the "remove" side of the equation, there are a lot of instances of the infobox where this value is empty anyway.   Butler Blog   (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of removing these completely and moving any link to the EL section. Regarding ButlerBlog concern of needing a bot, we already have those and this specific move is pretty straightforward. Gonnym (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I say keep them as they are on the Infobox because they are part of the summary aspects and I don't think general readers of articles would scroll to the bottom of an article to find the website. — Young Forever (talk)   17:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But most other infoboxes don't include website parameters, and I think readers fare pretty well finding this. The question I have is, what makes a series' website something that needs to be accessed in the infobox? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand the comment "most other infoboxes don't include website". It is a standard parameter on most infoboxes, such as biographies, schools, parks, museums, sports teams, universities, companies, and so on. The website is usually in the infobox and repeated in the EL section. The benefit is that the infobox is for "key infomation" that can be seen "at a glance", i.e. a quick summary. In most other infoboxes, it is considered something that fits this criteria and belongs in the infobox. I haven't seen any real reason given here for removal except that it "could just go in the EL section". That's not really a statement about its importance. MB 23:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You haven't listed other "media" infoboxes. Film and music infobox do not include website parameters, as well as the TV project's own other infobox, season and episode. Sure, it can be common for the types of entities you've listed, but it really isn't common for media to have a website parameter in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would definitely support some sort of suggestion or guidance towards not using this as I don't think most "official websites" are genuinely "key information" for a series. I don't know if we need to force every article to stop using it if it is going to be a significant amount of work, but avoiding it moving forward / having something to point to for future updates would be good. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also something that has potential for abuse. Not that I've seen any, but it is possible for someone to make the url a fansite or some-such that is not necessarily "official".   Butler Blog   (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I say remove the parameter. To me personally, a bare link to another website screams unprofessional. Especially for Wikipedia where WP:BARELINKS are discouraged. Readers go to Wikipedia to learn about a topic, not to be sent to a company's website where they can buy the product. Official websites should go in the external links section, using the "official website" template. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Bumping this. I want to say there is soft consensus to remove these. Any further objections? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Not by me. Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, so how do we go about removing these parameters? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Two options. Either we remove completely or we move them to external links section (with a bot). Since it's impossible to know if the website is an official website, if moved, I'd say we shouldn't move them into a Official website template. Gonnym (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We likely should move them to the EL section (though I have a feeling if they are in the infobox, they are also down there already), but we can't know that for sure, and we shouldn't lose data if that's true. So I'd say we move them there, not in the Official website template. Can we set up a tracker category to see how many articles we'll be dealing with that currently use the parameters? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * TemplateData says we have 18379 usages of website and 2498 usages of production_website. Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Content in website I'd feel more confident exists in the EL section as well, the content in production_website not as much. So perhaps we just remove website all together, and move content in production_website to the EL section? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this decision. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Since the values of the links are also in the reversion history, watchers of specific pages can always re-add any useful and missing links to the EL section if needed. Gonnym (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, so is this a bot task? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would think so yes. The bot will need to remove 4 parameters from the infobox and move the production_website, using the production_website_title value to the External links section. I've set up a tracking category Category:Pages using infobox television with deprecated parameters. Gonnym (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Can Primefac's bot do that? Should I ping them? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, no. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope all of the above is clear. Let us know if anything needs clarification. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove production_website, production_website_title, website, and website_title, and if possible chuck the former two into the elinks section. My only concern is duplication of the elink data, as I'm not sure I'll be able to check that. Primefac (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup. In theory, the production_website info would not be "official" website if down there and quite likely not in templates or wikidata, so it would just be straight hyperlinking, if that helps to see if * [some hyperlink] already exists? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are production websites necessary? Wouldn't it be easier to just get rid of them? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't say I've ever seen a true production website, but I'd image they could be a useful EL link. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just came upon this discussion due to the new warning regarding deprecated parameters. In theory, will the 'official website' links be moved to the EL section? I would think an official website link would be worthwhile to keep, whether in the infobox or EL section. Magitroopa (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a lot of articles that include the website parameter also include a hyperlink in the external links section to the official website. We wouldn't want a bot to create duplicate links. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So will an attempt be made to move what is currently listed in the 'website' parameter into EL, and avoid duplicate links (through a/the bot), or will it just remove the 'website' parameter and editors will need to figure out what does/does not belong in the EL section themselves?... Magitroopa (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the uses of parameters Gonnym listed above, website is used much more than production_website, so it's stands to reason that those uses are very likely the same as official websites, which in turn are already down in the EL section. So yes, the hope is for the bot to simply remove what is in website, and move anything in production_website, with editors helping adjust any extraordinary cases. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to note that currently if you don't want a website to automatically show in the infobox you need to use hide and articles that are doing that are getting picked up by the new deprecated parameter warning. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, using hide currently does not hide the external links section of the infobox and shows "[hide Website]" instead of a website, so that is not ideal. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That hasn't worked for a very long time. The current category is picking any usage (including empty usages) so that when Primefac runs the bot, the parameter will be completely removed. Gonnym (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Now that the deprecated parameter error appears when editing articles with production_website and/or website, could one of you please update Template:Infobox television/doc with guidance for editors on how to resolve these errors? (e.g. move the links to the "External link" section) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no problem doing that but really once Primefac starts the bot it should be done automatically and completed in a day or so. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was away on the weekend and wasn't able to get to it, and then the question of what to do with the links themselves popped up. If that's resolved I'll try to get to this in the next day or two. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe it is. All links in website should be removed because the assumption is they are very likely to already exist in the External links section. Links in production_website (and any adjusted titling) should be added to the External links section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gonnym Thanks for updating the documentation! It will need to be updated again after the bot run to remove the parameters from the "Usage" and "Examples" sections.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Bot update
Just as an update, I have to now decline to perform this bot task; my bot has always had the remit to perform substantive changes (i.e. non-cosmetic) but due to a fundamental difference in philosophy between me and another editor - who I respect and for almost all other matters I agree with - the tracking category set up shows all uses, including the blank parameters, which I cannot will not sift through to only remove the used deprecated parameters. You will have to find someone else who is able to get a bot task approved that can do the cosmetic half of the edits. Primefac (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out, when the data rows are removed from the infobox, used and blanked parameters both show nothing visually. So either both types are cosmetic or both aren't. Additionaly, Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 30 never had this caveat in its approval (and as can be seen by two recent runs, also actively removed blanked parameters slogan, slogan and web). Gonnym (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine. Primefac (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata
Oh yeah, I just remembered that thanks to info over on Wikidata, some articles may still have a website link in the infobox- some possibly incorrect. Take Teen Beach Movie for example, where MPFitz1968 removed the parameter so the bot doesn't have to.

The infobox originally had the website parameter included, but empty, resulting in nothing. Now with the deprecated parameter removed, a website is now listed in the infobox, due to the data on its Wikidata entry.

Anything that can/should be done with this? I'm willing to bet that Wikidata entries aren't kept as up-to-date and this may lead to many inconveniences/incorrect websites in the infobox (Fun!). Magitroopa (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * the actual parameters have yet to be removed from the infobox. Once the bot run goes through, they will be removed, and the Wikidata instance on articles like you mentioned will be correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification on that. I've remembered having the same issue in the past (though way before this discussion of the parameter removals), so I guess this will make that much easier. Magitroopa (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , can you remove the Wikidata option for these parameters so editors aren't seeing that pop up after the parameters have been removed? I very similar question that Magitroopa had was brought up by Drovethrughosts at the Television project talk. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerns
I missed this unadvertised discussion until coming across the bot in my watchlist just now, and I think this is a clear error. Our goal is to serve readers, and one of the main reasons readers visit these pages is because they're thinking about watching the show. Providing a link at the top makes it easy for them to do so; having it only at the bottom makes it harder. URLs appear in tons of other infoboxes, so I don't buy that there's some special redundancy problem here—if there is, it should be considered centrally at a wider scale, but I think most editors would say the entire lead is by design a repeat of information below it in the article and that's fine. Unfortunately, parameter deletions are somewhat difficult to undo, but this was not given sufficient discussion and came to a poor result, so that's where we are now. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record I'm putting the bot on hold pending resolution of this concern. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not everything has to be in the infobox or lead, and these websites more often than not do not hold any useful information for readers. In fact, the other external links are likely to be more useful (IMDb, for example, will probably have way more information on a series than an official website does). As has already been pointed out, other infoboxes may include URLs but it is not common for media articles and even for this infobox the parameter has been used very inconsistently so far, so it is quite likely that readers of TV articles who want to see these links will not be expecting to find them there. Those same readers should know to look in the External Links section for such links, or will find it in the table of contents pretty easily. I don't see the argument that we are harming readers in some way with this. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The solution to this is to define the usage of the parameter to be the "most helpful" website for a reader to get more information - which could be a website hosted by the show/network/production company, or IMDb or anywhere. This is analogous to biography infoboxes, where the website parameter can be used for a person's private website, or if they don't maintain one, their Facebook page, Instagram account, etc. MB 19:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One line we could draw would be to recommend including the link to the official website only if it's possible to watch the series there, as for e.g. Netflix shows. Thoughts on that? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So, who is going to start coding this sophisticated system that knows what shows are available on Netflix in every country and then only show the link if the user logs in from an IP from the country the show is available on? Are we just going to pretend everyone on en.wiki is from the United States? What about shows that are on Netflix and on another platform? Do we just automatically give Netflix the primary link? Gonnym (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * IMDb was previously a parameter which was removed. We can't give one for-profit-company this much free traffic over other companies which provide similar services. That is why the EL exists as all viable links can be used there. Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * IMO, external links just look bad in the infobox. Why should we have a link to a different website when readers come to Wikipedia to read about a show. Google a show and you'll see an official website, Wikipedia, and IMDb as the top results. That means readers don't just come here to see where they can watch a series, so let Google or justwatch do that for them. WP:BARELINKS are also an issue since they look bad and unprofessional. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The link at the infobox was never a link to watch the show. Gonnym (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As has been discussed above, and in a previous discussion, also linked above, there is virtually no benefit in media infoboxes to having external links. Partially a) depending on the type of show (network, cable, or streaming), readers might not even be able to view the relevant link based on territory; b) we shouldn't be putting "watch" links in infobox; c) the links still exist appropriately in the external links section; and d) because of these changes, it's been made aware that some links for older show no longer airing are now dead, so how is that any help to readers in the infobox? Media isn't the same as biography or business articles, where those URLs to personal/business site are helpful to readers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Any other issues to raise? I would expect stopping the bot run mid-way to elicit a less casual discussion... Gonnym (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the bot run should resume. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Primefac was there another issue with the bot run? It stopped at around 5k pages left (which other editors reduced a bit since) but there are still pages like Mint To Be with non-empty values used in the the parameters. Gonnym (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No issue, I broke the bot run down into two parts, just haven't gotten around to running the second one yet. Primefac (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Seasons
I noticed some editors are putting the seasons for executive producers and producers parameters on the Infobox. Is there a general consensus to put the seasons for executive producers and producers parameters on the Infobox? — Young Forever (talk)   18:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there was a specific past discussion, but generally we don't include those extraneous details because they are better left for prose with context. Otherwise, it tends to invite that type of stuff for every person in the infobox, including cast members.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought so, too. Personally, I do not add the seasons on executive producers and producers parameters. We don't do them for starring cast members. So, why should executive producers and producers parameters be any different? — Young Forever (talk)   19:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't be different. It's the same reason we don't add film lists to the actor portrayal list of a character infobox. It's just a great way to clutter the infobox with information that is better left to prose content if it's relevant. I have seen it with studios or TV channels when a series changes ownership or broadcast location, but really it shouldn't be there either. It should written in prose to be able to explain why there was a change in the first place.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Some editors add the seasons on executive producers and producers parameters because they do not clearly say Years or seasons should not be included. on there. Some editors see that as a loophole when it did not say that. — Young Forever (talk)   20:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support stating it explicitly. Too much extraneous data in the infobox tends to make them cluttered and untidy.   Butler Blog   (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think so as well to include that on both parameters on the template. — Young Forever (talk)   23:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If something like "Years or seasons should not be included" should be the default for all parameters, then it should be added to the text above the table, which already covers other general guides. Gonnym (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this topic has been brought up again. I was just about to ask the same question I did two years ago. Why do the descriptions for certain parameters explicitly mention that parenthetical details not be mentioned when others don't? I'd prefer it if all of these extra details were either omitted in the infobox altogether or contained to footnotes, but the template doc does not make clear what is and isn't acceptable. It would be nice if I could cite a specific portion of the template doc or even MOS:TV to keep these small details from popping up. This has been a problem for a long time. — Paper Luigi  T • C 21:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion / Infobox television episode
Hey, you're input is welcome at Template_talk:Infobox television episode. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion over at Infobox television season
Now that the website parameters were removed from the infobox, the only television infobox that still has them is Template:Infobox television season. I've started a discussion over there on the subject. Gonnym (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Non-italic titles
If, shouldn't the infobox title itself disable the italics as well as the article title? -2pou (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * As you said, the parameter is used to disable the infobox from applying a display title modification. This is needed since sometimes the automatic italicization clashes with the manual one used in the article. If you want to disable the infobox itself from applying italics, then use noitalic. As an aside, most uses I've seen use that tend to use an incorrect infobox. If the title does not need italics, then is it really a television program? Gonnym (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gonnym The only use case I've come across and can think of is for upcoming shows that may not have a finalized title yet, and the article title uses the most prominent feature/creator in the title before it gets moved when finalized. There are plenty in Draft space, but Untitled Guy Ritchie film (although a film) is an example in main space.-2pou (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 May 2022
Move "Distributor" to the Release section. It's much more relevant there. — Ð W -🇺🇦(T·C) 18:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please gain a consensus for this change. Since this infobox can be use (infrequently) for television films, in those instances, the distributor field would be most relevant in its current location, and it does still work for normal televisions series and programming. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

First_run param should be renamed
Here's a problem I've run into while editing TV articles over the years as recently as today:, a param with an intended value for the country a program was first aired in, is often confused with premiere dates, "sneak peeks", or pilot episodes produced before a full series has been ordered or officially broadcast. I assume good faith on the air date usage as the param name is not very clear. After all, not every editor has read the doc for every template used. A number of discussions about this param have been held in the past, including this one from 2018 about its removal as a trivial detail, but these discussions did not highlight the erroneous usage for air dates.

Today I'm proposing that this param be renamed to something less vague, such as  or. Basically I think it would be more helpful if the param were renamed to something with the word "country" or some other term that denotes that the param is for nations or territories because it would remove the ambiguity here. — Paper Luigi  T • C 01:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I support this. Clarity is always better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually even doubt that this parameter is even useful. If the premiere country is different than the country of origin, then just mention it in the article, but is it important that it requires a parameter in the infobox? I personally don't think so. Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. The parameter is unnecessary for the infobox. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with its removal too. I am not aware of any instances where this is being used that the info needed to be in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing yet. Most of the time when I see it actually populated, it is incorrect, although mostly I see this incorrect usage as duplicating country of origin, not a date.  I see that far more often than I see it populated with a date.   Butler Blog   (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * TemplateData shows a total of 1634 usages. The first 10 usages in that list use this parameter for:
 * Country that is the same as the country - 4
 * First date - 4
 * Network that is the same as the network - 1
 * Using correctly - Totally Spies!.
 * 1 out of 10 while a small sample size, is a pretty bad ratio. Gonnym (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked at a few more random article beyond that first 10, and most are using it for first date, or the same country of origin. Not promising at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support renaming as first_run_country. That should avoid the confusion and alert editors who are copying from other articles without looking at the infobox documentation. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Should first_run param be removed?
Past discussions have held no consensus on whether the  parameter should be kept. Because some of you have commented on my proposal for renaming this parameter with contentions that it should be removed entirely, I'm bringing this up again as a sub-topic to see what the community thinks we should do with it in 2022. Because no consensus has been reached in the past, I propose turning the discussion on its head by asking you all to answer the following: '''If the first_run param were proposed to be added to the template today, what would be your reasoning for its inclusion? Could you defend its existence if had not already been a part of the template since 2006? Why or why not?''' I hope the discussion that follows will not devolve into endless tangents about technicalities or some kind of an edit-measuring contest. Please be civil and concise. Thank you. — Paper Luigi  T • C 01:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as has been highlighted above by looking at what articles are actually using the parameter, the results from the small sample set is not encouraging. The intention of the parameter was (seemingly) always unclear for editors as to what it's goal was. And I think at this point, if any series had a truly notable instance of airing first in a country that was not its production country of origin, that can be discussed in the prose of the article. But I feel like some of these articles that are using the parameter correctly, it's a minor trivia point at best saying "Series premiered first in country X, when it was produced in and for country Y that aired after its debut in X." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @AussieLegend Your thoughts? —  Paper Luigi  T • C 02:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree completely with Favre's argument. In the Totally Spies! example, the fact that the show aired in the different market before France, while mentioned, isn't highlighted as an important fact, but casually mentioned. This to me makes it more trivial than a key fact needing to be summarized in the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * To answer your questions: My reasoning would be to include it because rights of first broadcast is a significant attribute.  When a 'defining characteristic' to be included in the infobox (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), this could be a show produced primarily for export to an audience of differing nationality and culture than the country of origin. This could also be of significance for co-productions.  I probably wouldn't support it if it wasn't already established, though... because I'd want to see a stronger argument (than my own) from whoever was proposing it.  General discussion: While I see there is widespread misuse of the parameter, I didn't have to look far to find a bunch of examples where it appears to be used legitimately (Archie's Weird Mysteries, Mythbusters, Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century, Sonic Underground, The Virgin Queen (TV serial), Rolie Polie Olie, The Hoobs, Space Precinct, Ratz (TV series), Police Rescue, Super Duper Sumos, The New Tomorrow, The Why Why Family, Jeopardy (TV series), Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)).  In my opinion, a lot of these articles are not well-developed enough for them to positively pass the 'defining characteristic' threshold for the parameter, but I would tend to AGF that the editors of the articles are better informed (and would hope that they flesh out the articles). Ultimately, though, removing the parameter kind of seems like punishing the few editors who have followed the rules because many other editors have misapplied them. We should delete the parameter if it has no foreseeable use, not because some editors are abusing it. Otherwise vandals would dictate Wikipedia policy. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, the FA Adventure Time and GAs Degrassi Junior High, Steven Universe and Minute to Win It (American game show) all misuse the parameter. I didn't find any correct applications of the parameter in promoted content. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So looking at your list of 'legitimate' examples, here is a breakdown:
 * 8 use a value which is the same as one of the country of origins (which per the documentation is not correct). 2 use US (Archie's Weird Mysteries, MythBusters), 3 use UK (Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century, The Hoobs, Jeopardy (TV series)), 1 France (Sonic Underground), 1 Canada (Ratz (TV series)) and 1 Australia (Police Rescue).
 * Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) says that the first season was co-commissioned by Sky Television, making it a British co production, which if then correct, makes this usage also incorrect.
 * Rolie Polie Olie, Space Precinct, and The Why Why Family do not even mentioned in the article the first broadcast country so even the basic validation is impossible here.
 * The New Tomorrow - seems to be correct, though it is unclear what makes this show a New Zealand show if the original network is an Australian one. Filming something in a country does not make it a show from that country.
 * The Virgin Queen (TV serial) and Super Duper Sumos - correct usage.
 * So out of the 15 examples, 2 are valid correct usages, 5 different degrees of questionable and 8 out-right not. Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that so? I only saw where the documentation advises Omit if the same country as country of origin [singular].  I didn't notice anything about what to do when there are multiple countries of origin. (It doesn't seem to mention co-productions either.) – Reidgreg (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * At the very least, I think we can agree that the documentation for this param, which reads, "The country or region where the show was first broadcast. Omit if the same country as country of origin above or if the show has only been broadcast in one country or region. Do not link to a corresponding article per WP:OVERLINK", should be revised somehow. It lacks clarity on its usage, and a number of articles are misusing this param for dates or some other reason. If we decide to omit this param from the template, I propose that a footnote be appended to the original broadcast date that would clarify the country of first broadcast if that country were different than the one in the country param. Would any of you oppose this solution if the param were omitted? —  Paper Luigi  T • C 03:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would. If the parameter is removed then adding it after the date isn't removing it. Gonnym (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just proposing a compromise. Using a footnote instead of having a dedicated param is a possible solution. I understand that no single solution can please everybody. —  Paper Luigi  T • C 02:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand. Is this footnote for the template documentation or would it appear in the generated infobox? – Reidgreg (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In my proposed idea, the footnote would be an Efn template that would be included in a citation after the original airdate in the infobox. My main focus has been that the template documentation should be updated regardless of whether we decide to remove this param or not. —  Paper Luigi  T • C 02:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete – problematic parameter as outlined above, that doesn't need to be there. I'm of the opinion that, outside of the "airing" and "number of episode/season" parameters", IB Television should be cut back to just those parameters that can be supported by in-show crediting. The "first_run" parameter isn't one of these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete – clearly more trouble than any value it might bring. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Well it seems that there is consensus to remove the parameter. If no new comments in the next few days, I'll update the template. Gonnym (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now removed. Gonnym (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Should the template allow parenthetical details for credits?
This is something I've asked about before, but discussions have yet to yield a concrete consensus. Should parenthetical details, such as seasons, specific episodes, years, or job titles (e.g. "line producer", "associate producer", "supervising director") be included for credits in the infobox, or should it be kept to names only? The template doc doesn't say one way or the other, which has had me wondering whether to remove these details or keep them. I'd really like to know what you all think. Thank you. — Paper Luigi  T • C 01:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree it would be nice to have the docs be as explicit as possible. Personally, my preference is "no" - primarily because what's in the infobox should be supported by the article.  Or, to put it another way, the infobox is summarizing what's in the article (or what should be in the article), so too much detail is just clutter.   Butler Blog   (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Names only. A person in Georgia (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll comment on part of what you wrote, which isn't the question, but it's worth emphasizing. (e.g. "line producer", "associate producer", "supervising director") none of those jobs are supported by the template and should never be added. producer is for the individuals who are the actual producers (and are credited as such). Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What he said – none of those should even be included anyway. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, and that's how I've always tried to handle it when adding infoboxes. —  Paper Luigi  T • C 01:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Crowd source Exec Prod credits
Follow-up to the above that only EP credits are within scope of the infobox. What about EP credits offered via crowd funding campaigns (Kickstarter, Indiegogo, etc) that are distinctly credited as EPs but with an added qualifier? Case in point; The Legend of Vox Machina has 9 "Crowd Funding Exec. Producer" credits—listed separate from the other EP credits—for the first 10 episodes of season 1 – none of those producers move to the regular EP credits list for the last 2 eps. As best I can tell from production updates (as a backer at a lower tier); those 9 had no production role outside of their sizeable financial investment via the Kickstarter. Local consensus of 2 from March 2022 was to remove, but felt it best to check here as to to the intent of the infobox as one of the Crowd Funding Exec. Producer's names has been readded (since removed and pointed to the talk discussion in edit summary). Little pob (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, so it seems on IMDb the credits are distinct. So following from our guidelines - executive_producer is for individuals with that specific role. Not "associate producers" and not "Crowd Funding Exec. Producer". If Critical Role wanted someone to get that credit, they would have handed that out. However, EP credits comes with other benefits and rights which I assume, they did not want to hand out. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the speedy response! Little pob (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Linking language
Currently, the documentation says the following:

It's obvious enough why this should apply to languages like English or Spanish, but the guidelines at WP:OVERLINK are clear that links should only be avoided for major examples of languages (i.e. ones with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar). That doesn't apply to less well-known languages, like Newar or Egyptian Arabic. Should that point be clarified in the documentation, or are there any reasons to not link in any circumstances? I'm only asking because an editor editors appear to have undertaken the task of unlinking all instances of this field from articles, so it will be good to have some consensus here. – Uanfala (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There shouldn't be conflicting guidance, the above is wrong. Local guidance should not override project guidance either, so the above should just be removed or changed to something like: Link to a language article, e.g., Phuthi, only when appropriate per WP:OVERLINK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors may decide that in a particular context there are good reasons not to follow some rule from the MoS, and that's OK: the MoS is not a policy but a guideline, and so allows for exceptions of that kind. However, that doesn't appear to have been the case: from the template documentation, and from what I see in the archives, this appears to have been understood as a straightforward application of WP:OVERLINK. It turns out that if the infobox detects any links in the language parameter, it will place the article in Category:Pages using infobox television with incorrectly formatted values (a large category with over 8,000 pages at the moment), so that editors doing cleanup will eventually unlink the language. This can be remedied by just removing  from Module:Infobox television. The template documentation can then be updated to match the advice of the MoS. Still, let's leave a day or two so we can hear from others? – Uanfala (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OVERLINK says not to link to "major" languages, so I don't see the issue if you're linking per WP:OVERLINK. I've been editing TV articles for 10-15 years and I don't generally remove links to minor languages because that's what OVERLINK says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieLegend (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The documentation could be adjusted slightly if editors aren't familiar with OVERLINK (or choose to go there) to state: Do not link major language articles, e.g., English, per WP:OVERLINK. That still satisfies what has been done, but more clearly allows for minor languages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(outdent) I was the editor whose actions sparked this discussion and I was trying to clean out the tracking category, Category:Pages using infobox television with incorrectly formatted values, that currently has 8,682 entries in it, all of which are language links. When I looked through the template edit history and discussion I was hoping I would find a good consensus to back up these edits. The documentation was changed from use a link to do not use a link per WP:OVERLINK in June 2012 with a small discussion at Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 5. WP:OVERLINK at the time of this template change said what is says now about avoiding linking major languages, while now there are some examples of major languages. If changes are made to the documentation about language, it should also be used for the country field, that also states not to use a link, but is not including in the tracking category.

I have a concern about what constitutes a major language, since on my talk page, User:Uanfala, objected to my removal of Bengali, which is one of the ten most spoken languages in the world. Going back through my own edits these are the languages I am going to add back if the documentation is changed: Nigerian Pidgin, Burmese language, Wyandot language, Mohawk language, Marathi language, Nepali language, Cebuano language, Waray language, Sinhala language, Dari, Pashto, Taiwanese Hokkien, Southern Min, Catalan language, Afrikaans, and Galician language. Aspects (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the above, Aspects. That clears things up a fair bit.  I was lurking on this as I have been working on maintenance categories as well (although not this one) but was hesitant to comment until more info was available. I'd like to see  bring an opinion as I believe they are involved in working on defining what the maintenance categories pick up?   Butler Blog   (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If the guidance changes, the module will reflect that. So just ping me whenever this ends with what the outcome is. Gonnym (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding to the above, the module can remove the check completely, or be modified to check if a language is on a "don't link" list. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've updated the documentation so that the advice for languages and countries matches MOS:OVERLINK. Sticking to this rule isn't an imperative: style guidelines allow for exceptions, especially in contexts (like an infobox) that's different from what people had in mind when devising them. So, feel free to make your approach more restrictive or more permissive if that's going to improve the infobox.
 * , I don't think dedicating a lot of code or effort to this would be worth the trouble: slight over- (or under-)linking isn't going to make a lot of difference to readers. If I were you, I'd simply remove the checks for links, just so that editors working on the maintenance category can focus on what I'd imagine are more consequential errors. When that category is eventually emptied, then maybe at that stage it will make sense to revisit the issue and add more nuanced checks depending on how much interest there will be for the resultant clean-up effort. – Uanfala (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The category for that Category:Pages using infobox television with incorrectly formatted values currently tracks usages of language, website, production_website, and italic_title. The last 3 have already been cleared out. So maybe at that stage it will make sense to revisit the issue and add more nuanced checks depending on how much interest there will be for the resultant clean-up effort is apparently now. :) If there is no interest in fine tuning the language (and country which wasn't checked) parameter then I can just remove the tracking. Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this last note, image and image_size were added(?). As far as I can tell, we have cleared out everything from the maintenance category that is not language.  Is there any further clarification on language?  Based on the discussion, it would appear that consensus is for not linking "major" languages, but linking others.  I am just not clear on what constitutes "major".  There are some that are obvious, but a solid line of demarcation would be good if that's the case.    Butler Blog   (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I also don't know what "major" means. If I get a list of languages that should be delinked or linked I can adjust the category to check based off the list. Gonnym (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no such list. "Major" is defined in WP:OL as language most readers are likely to recognize/understand. I would say that includes things like English, Russian, and Chinese but where to draw the line is a judgement call. MB 01:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

(outdent)I spent way more time on this maintenance category then I should have, but I have removed what I consider to be major languages and got the category down to 633 articles. The major languages I removed (in order from List of languages by total number of speakers were: English, Mandarin/Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, French, Arabic, Bengali, Russian, Portuguese, Urdu, Indonesian, Malay, German, Japanese, Marathi, Telugu, Turkish, Tamil, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Korean, Persian, Italian, Punjabi, Thai, Kannada, and Burmese. Ones not on that list I removed (usually based on the number of articles they were linked in): Malayalam, Dutch, Greek, Norwegian, Finnish, Danish, and Swedish. The ones on the list I did not remove were: Nigerian Pidgin (1-10 left), Tagalog (20-30 left), Swahili (1-10 left), Gujarati (1-10 left), Southern Min/Hokkien/Taiwanese (25-50 left), and Hakka (1-10 left). The only other ones that have more than a few were some Eastern European languages like Albian, Bosnian, Croatian, Macedonian, Serbian, etc. This should be a good start for which languages to include/exclude and I will not feel offended if other editors think I went too far or not far enough.

On a side note, I was also removing some major countries from the country field, so would also come up with a list of that and combine the two into one maintenance category if possible. Aspects (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll revisit the code sometime in the next few days and get it to track country links. Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought of a few more languages: I removed Hebrew and I left Irish with 20-30 articles left and Welsh with 10-20 articles left. Aspects (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

No. of episodes
For current series, I think the rule of only adding episodes to the "no. of episodes" field after they have aired is a bit odd. It is extremely rare nowadays that once a season has begun, they don't fulfil the number of episodes announced for that season. So, to make it simpler and less confusing, I suggest we list all episodes of any current season, once the first episode has aired. This would also apply to Template:Infobox television season and anything similar. I can't count the number of times I've briefly checked the Wiki infobox of a show I'm watching to see how many episodes left, only to be totally befuddled for a minute, and I can't be alone in that. Thanks. Jenny Jankel (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It's because we're an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and generally is only concerned with what "has happened" (i.e. can be verified), not what "will happen" (i.e. cannot be verified). Although not explicitly stated, it's kind of related to WP:NOTTVGUIDE.   Butler Blog   (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but for current seasons, the number of episodes doesn't change during the season. Wikipedia is certainly not only concerned with what has happened. And WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply here, because we're not talking about speculation or unverified rumors. We're talking about officially scheduled episodes of an already begun season. And WP:NOTTVGUIDE is a different policy entirely. I guess it goes without saying that my proposal is to include the number of episodes in a current season only when verifiably sourced, just like anything on Wikipedia. The list of episodes within the article includes upcoming episodes, so no reason why the infobox couldn't, too. Jenny Jankel (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but for current seasons, the number of episodes doesn't change during the season - see COVID-19, networks pulling episodes that are sensitive to recent tragedies (at least in America), etc. That's why we don't update number until they've aired, because a lot can happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't re-reply because I did not feel it necessary to repeat myself. But since this question has come up yet again and this may end up being referred back to, let me add a couple of explanations. And WP:NOTTVGUIDE is a different policy entirely - sorry if you interpreted my point other than what was intended.  I specifically said "related to" - meaning that for reasons similar to why we do not list upcoming TV schedules is why we do not include the number of episodes that have not aired; which leads back to And WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply here, because we're not talking about speculation or unverified rumors - Sorry but yes, it absolutely does apply.  When we talk about number of episodes, as far as the infobox is concerned, only those episodes that exist matter.  When a series or season is ordered and reported, none of those episodes exist at that time.  Until they exist, we don't count them because anything can happen between when the source says "so-and-so ordered 10 episodes of such-and-such."  Contracts can be broken and ordered episodes never completed for any number of reasons - it does happen.  The fact that we're not a crystal ball means that we don't know 26 episodes ordered for a new season will actually come to fruition.  Encyclopedias are records of history - what has happened - not what will happen.   Butler Blog   (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I will also point out that the only time Legends of Tomorrow had a consistent season length (where consecutive seasons run the exact same) was seasons 5 and 6, with 15, and even then season 5 is kicked off by the Crisis ender and therefore is split as 1/14 here on Wikipedia, meaning if it's not clarified before the season begins we would not be able to add the new season's number of episodes when it would begin anyway, so there's no point in putting such kind of total CreecregofLife (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Total planned episodes not listed?
I am surprised that the indobox lists episodes aired, but not the expected (announced) total. Rather than saying 10, shouldn't we say 10 of 26 (when we have reliable sources for the total number of episodes)? Focusing on the current rather than total episodes seems rather unencyclopedic, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No, because that would be focusing on a crystal ball. They may expect 26, but that isn't a guarantee. The show could be cancelled before they film 26, or there could be a reason that a particular episode does not air. You're conflating being an encyclopedia (which is about history and you cannot report historic information in a future tense...) and not treating the page like a current events article. The infobox is supposed to summarize the article into essential information. If you want to report that a studio ordered 26 episodes, that can be listed in the body of the article, but it shouldn't be in the infobox because it isn't a reflection of the actual status of the show.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the template documentation specifically states to increment the number of episodes as they air, so you’d be defying that. Considering we have recent example of episodes being moved from one season to another due to production shutdowns it’s kind of confusing why this would be asked. In addition, such tactics would logically therefore extend to the number of seasons, wouldn’t it? Disney Channel shows have gotten second seasons before they even premiere, so how does it make sense to list 2 seasons and every episode that might not even exist yet. When Glee was renewed for seasons 5 and 6, Cory Monteith hadn’t even died yet. Those two seasons were the ones that went sub-22 episodes, but reliable sources immediately following renewal probably went “The season is expected to contain 22 episodes” CreecregofLife (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It has always been value is incremented when new episodes air. There were past discussions about it before and there are absolutely no consensus to change that at all because expected/planned number of episodes would fall under WP:NOTCRYSTAL. — Young Forever (talk)   20:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Any support in removing 'Distributor' parameter?
This isn't exactly a proposal yet – it's more of a taking a "temperature of the room". But I am wondering – is there support for removing distributor from Infobox television once and for all?

There are at least a couple of issues with it:


 * 1) The "distributor" is often not explicitly listed in the credits when a show first aired and I personally think we should mostly get away from including parameters in this IB that aren't explicitly from a TV show's credits.
 * 2) We get far, far too many edits like this from editors that don't read the template docs (i.e. that the distributor at the time the show first aired should be listed in the IB). This parameter is also a magnet for IP vandals, and is basically a 'time sink' even aside from that.

The IB should be a summary of the most important aspects of a TV show – Is the "distributor" really one of these? Or is it something that is fine to cover in prose, but kept out of the IB? FTR, I am definitely in the latter camp. (We recently got rid of the first_run parameter for similar reasons – I believe distributor should join it in being removed.)

Thoughts? Opinions? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty fair argument, and I could get behind that reasoning. More often than not, I think I see it left blank or omitted.   Butler Blog   (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on the matter, because the articles I'm mainly working on (Marvel and Star Wars Disney+ series) have a clear cut distributor in Disney Platform Distribution, so it is an easy/non-controversial inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But does that need to be in the infobox? Or is including that info in the prose good enough?... I think the real question is, is this info "important" enough to need to be in the IB? I really don't think it is, and it is causing problems with vandalism and ignorance and such, esp. with order TV series (which is maybe what I focus on more than a lot of WP:TV editors). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how pretty much any reader needs to know (or would be interested in) who the distributor is. This isn't like films where it is often a major studio who gets their logo on screen, TV distributors are usually just a generally unknown division of the production company or network. The distributor is also often not mentioned in reliable sources, unlike for films, and is therefore being added to articles without any sources by editors who just happen to know who it is. So yeah, I would support removing the parameter. If the distributor does something noteworthy that gets reliable coverage (such as doing a major distribution deal for the show or something) then they can be mentioned in prose. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: I'm all in favor of ridding templates from unnecessary/controversial parameters (see first_run discussion above), but I don't think this is the right param to remove at this time. Studios often make a program for a network that they are not otherwise affiliated with (Disney/Buena Vista comes to mind), and even in those circumstances, distribution rights can vary significantly from broadcast rights. While I wouldn't be staunchly approving of the addition of this param if it were removed, I still feel that it shows value in certain subjects in which it's relevant. —  Paper Luigi  T • C 03:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does this info need to be in the infobox? No one is saying that it wouldn't be good to include distribution info in TV articles – but it belongs in the prose, not in the IB. Distributor is much less relevant info than production companies or broadcast networks/streaming companies. This is especially true of older TV shows which are no longer distributed much of anywhere anymore... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that distribution info is less relevant than production/broadcast details, but I disagree that it is "much less relevant". How does the distributor info fare against the template's other params? What relevance do details about the production's budget, camera setup, audio format, or cinematography have to the casual reader? All of these params could be removed, and in the majority of cases, the article would lose nothing of value.
 * I'd speculate that a good percentage of distributor credits in existing articles come from user-generated sources with fluctuating reliability that aren't suitable for WP (e.g. fan sites or IMDb). With the exception of cinematography, those other params I listed probably are excluded from the credits sequence and are likely sourced from similar websites. You claim that distributor info belongs in the prose, but why is that? I don't see the point in shoehorning in a mention about the distribution company into article bodies when it isn't something that would naturally flow with the existing prose.
 * Then again, I could be all wrong about this. That last sentence sure tries to defeat the point about distributors being relevant, which is basically what I was claiming in the first sentence. Keep the param or remove it—I don't have a strong or apparently consistent opinion either way—so I'm sticking with weak oppose on this topic. —  Paper Luigi  T • C 01:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove it Most of the time it isn't mentioned in the article or sourced in the credits. People put in what they know is the distributor without sourcing it generally. Then there is the rash of edits to whatever the current distributor is based on name changes and ownership changes, again usually unsourced and based on what people know. If it matters, it will be discussed in the article, which is rare. If it doesn't matter it won't be in the article and shouldn't be in the infobox either. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove it - The info is unsourced 95% of the time and relatively useless for an historical record about a series. Moreover, it's the source of thousands of (useless) edits by obsessives who want to make Wikipedia a TV guide.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of the time Distributor means series copyright owner. I suggest two areas called as current distributor and former distributor because in the defunct Television companies. For example: Saban Entertainment makes things difficult to associate with valid rights holders. Extormophie Exolus (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

For example I want to change all Distributor: Saban Entertainment areas with Disney Platform Distribution and trying make more Digital Tracking for former Fox Kids International properties but I can't Extormophie Exolus (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Template:Infobox television Lua errors on uncreated pages== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Template:Infobox television Lua errors on uncreated pages. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC) — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Episode numbers (again)
Taking into example Only Murders in the Building as of today. The infobox says there are 19 episodes but the Episodes section says there are 20. Which is correct? Both CANNOT be correct. Either the figure in the episodes section should say 19 or the infobox should say "No. of episodes aired" not "No. of episodes". Besides an episode exists if it is not aired. It needs changing one way or the other Sirhissofloxley (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The episodes parameter does effectively mean "No. of episodes aired", so they can both be correct. That is so standard now, and only an issue while series are airing, that I don't think a name change is required, but I wouldn't be against it if others saw value in that change. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Value of image_upright for upright posters
As explained in the template documentation, the image_upright parameter in this template is set to 1.13 by default. This appears to be intended for articles that use title cards in the infobox (like Stranger Things or Game of Thrones) or logos (like Better Call Saul), but it unnecessarily widens the image in ones that use upright posters, like Squid Game or Chernobyl (miniseries). In my opinion, image_upright should be set to 1 in these cases, which matches the default image size in other media infoboxes like for films or books. Is there consensus for adding a rule (or recommendation) to this effect to the documentation? — Goszei (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added this recommendation to the parameter's explanation in the template doc. — Goszei (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

New alias parameter
teleplay should be an alias of screenplay and, if used, would replace the "Screenplay by" text with "Teleplay by" text. This is useful for television films or specials that may use episode credit of "Story by" and "Teleplay by". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I support this, we already allow this for the writing credit template that is sometimes used in episode tables. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add this version of the sandbox to the live template. It implements two changes: the Teleplay/Screenplay change as discussed above, as well as the support of the parameter num_specials to change "No. of episodes" to "No. of specials" in instances where "specials" is a more proper terminology than "episodes". Both have been checked in testcases. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please update the template documentation as necessary.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 07:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Short description?
I see this template does not generate a short description. I like the code at Infobox film/short description... The main thing I think would have to be added is something to differentiate series/program/programme. Any thoughts on what might be useful? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * About half of the articles using this template do not have a short description, so a generic one would be useful. Something generic like "Television program or series" would probably work as a placeholder, and people could use the short description tool to improve the descriptions as needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Would adding the year be useful as well, ? Then we could have automated ones, say, "1992 American television program or series". Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 08:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably. We would need code to pull year ranges from "Original release" when they are present. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there any other SD templates that extract the year from a Start date or End date? Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 18:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably, but I don't know which one(s). You could browse through . – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I made some progress: Template:Infobox television/Short description. I also have a test version at Template:Infobox television/Short description/test to generate the code as text and six nine examples at User:Sammi Brie/sandbox2. If these are viable, the code below would be added to the front of the template. It passes through some of the infobox params, much like Infobox film. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 19:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand you're busy, so I want you to see this. I believe I've accounted for all possible inputs. Could you or someone else check my code before I push it to the template? Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 20:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * you have some sort of additional white space in your last example in your sandbox. Otherwise I think your examples look correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Favre1fan93 That one is a gibberish test. It looks like it generates the white space even if there is no string of four numbers (read: year). That should be rare in context. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 19:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am going through with pushing this into template code. If there are any issues, let me know here. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 21:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am going through with pushing this into template code. If there are any issues, let me know here. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 21:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

International Distributors
Just wondering what the opinion is on international distributors in the Infobox? The question came up over at Doctor Who after the BBC struck a deal with Disney to distribute the series worldwide outside of the UK and Northern Ireland. I've found a number of series that list international distributors in the field (The Rookie, Magnum P.I., The Walking Dead, Designated Survivor, and I'm sure there's more that I weren't able to find), but the specific question was whether these are "original distributors" as the instruction reads? The Doctor Who (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll just reiterate again that I think we should simply remove/deprecate the distributor parameter from Infobox television (see several topics above this one, up-page) – it's relatively minor info that doesn't need to be included in the infobox (summary of info), and it's a magnet for bad and disruptive editing (as this most recent topic here shows). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The advice on the template is correct. Wikipedia isn't a directory or database. Articles shouldn't include an exhaustive list of every distribution, in every region, at every time. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If a show isn't being released concurrently outside its original country through other means, then we shouldn't be listed international distributors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case, I believe it is. The only difference is that BBC Studios in its country of origin and Disney is handling it everywhere else. The Doctor Who  (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I think it's warranted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Question: Template:Film date and TV films
Question: Should the Film date template, with the parameter yes set up, be used for television films for the first_aired parameter in Infobox television? And, if so, shouldn't the template docs make mention of this? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm always in favor of automation. I just don't think that using that template in its current non-Lua state, is a good idea. Also, not a fan of 19(!) unnamed parameters, bundled in with named parameters. So that would be a no from me. Gonnym (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Then the alternatives would be:
 * To change the Infobox television template itself to somehow differentiate TV films from regular TV series premieres in that parameter (or by use of a different parameter?), or
 * To "fix" the code of the Film date parameter (which, FTR, is widely used by WP:FILM).
 * Doesn't necessarily matter to me which route we go with, but one or the other should happen IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be widely used, but it is still sub-par. Anyways, I'm just one voice and don't have any final say here, so no need to convince me. For what it's worth (and I think I stated this in the past somewhere), the current setup of having this template handle TV films is also bad (the only difference would be network missing from the film template). Gonnym (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Status Parameter in the info-box
This has been discussed once previously in Archive 12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_television/Archive_12#Status_parameter

That being said I think its worth discussing again. Not in regards to the subjective reasoning put forward in Archive 12, but purely using a subjective premise. "Ended" the show finished its planned production. "Cancelled" the show did not finish its planned production run.

I don't feel "ongoing" is necessary given the arguments presented in archive 12 being that the date being open ended already makes this point. I feel there is still value in displaying the above 2 options as it shows whether a show was able to complete its planned seasons or not. Furthermore, this metadata used to exist on certain TV databases such as IMDB but for some reason was removed in late 2017 so there is no location to find this information anymore without crowdsourcing it thus giving material value to having it present on the page.

This information is easy enough to find with Hollywood releasing statements before final seasons regularly stating that the show will finish its planned run such as with the expanse (post amazon acquisition [yes i know its coming back though]) and Breaking Bad. They do the same for a show that has been cancelled.. Therefore its an easily hunt-able and subjective parameter that can be included in wiki as an additional data point that doesn't exist in the TV or Movie metadatasphere anywhere else. 69.24.178.178 (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This was published by me before logging in on accident, not sure how to delete and re-post if necessary. Or we can just discuss from here regardless. Us.shadow.op (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about the not-logged in post, since you've noted it. It's fine to leave it as is.  That said, I don't think you'll find all that much support for adding such a parameter. By the discussions immediately above, you should be able to see that we're trying to "de-bloat" the infobox, not the other way around.  I would reiterate everything Bignole said in the previous discussion, and go a step further to say that we already have chronology parameters that essentially cover what most editors agree to be necessary in this area.  The first_aired/last_aired parameters indicate the dates a show ran or is running.  last_aired is either a date (if it's done) or "present".  To go beyond that to determine whether a show "ended" as planned, or was "cancelled" and didn't finish its planned run would be difficult to properly source (and it must be reliably sourced), and (as Bignole stated in the other discussion) would ultimately be confusing to the reader without context.   Butler Blog   (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree with the "difficult to source aspect" at least in my early research. I picked 20 shows from a random imdb popular sci-fi shows since 2000 list and was able to find articles referencing studio released references to cancellation or concluding seasons. That being said I understand the de-bloating process so agree that maybe this would be better served as a separate list style page like List of video games featuring Spider-Man. I still think there is intrinsic value in something like this existing in the wikisphere but can agree that the infobox may not be the place for it. Thank you for the response. Us.shadow.op (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Composer parameter in anthologies
Came across a couple of rather unwieldy lists in Amazing Stories (1985 TV series) and Guillermo del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities, and I suspect others like those exist. Am I correct in assuming that unless any of the composers featured there make a significant percentage of contributions to the individual episodes, these should be cut? -- 2803:4600:1116:12E7:858B:CD43:F1AE:C28F (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * My rule-of-thumb on television infobox lists is based on the documentation for the writers parameter, which says if it's 5 or more, don't use it. You can see this is discussed above under "Deleting some Chronology parameters".  Also, if you look at that discussion as well as "Distributor parameter: is it needed" (and similar discussions in the archives), you'll see that the purpose of the infobox is to summarize content in the article.  If it's not in the article, then why is it in the infobox?  (This is also why we don't get nitpicky about citing infobox data - properly used, it should already be in the article with the appropriate citation.)   Butler Blog   (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Distributor parameter
Can someone add distributor to Template:Infobox_television? Thanks. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sure that or another template editor can answer that for you. I am sure it wouldn't an issue since the consensus was to remove distributor, making it deprecated parameter already. —  Young Forever (talk)   02:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it shouldn't be that difficult. FlapjackRulez (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  Butler Blog   (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Put the distributor back please. 187.255.220.214 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not to include it anymore given how vastly misused it has become or in many cases, difficult to source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Just coming in to say thank you for finally nuking this parameter. It's given us nothing but hiccups and WP:LAME edit wars over the years (especially for shows which have never entered syndication because they bombed in first-run), and just became places for 'studio fans' and logo weirdos to have it out as to which whatever thing was better. And of course, because they were 97% never sourced (or done to an internal page no normal person should ever have access to). There is no compelling reason for anyone outside the industry or enthusiasts to ever need this.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 13:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Now that the distributor parameter has been nuked, keep an eye out for (IP) editors trying to shift distributors into the production company parameter – I've just seen the first attempt at something like this at H2O: Just Add Water. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)