Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 7

More than one official website
For a TV show that is airing on two networks (US and UK) very near to the same time (premiering within a week of each other) is it possible to have more than one official website in the infobox? And if so, what is the string? Entering 2 "website" and "website_title" merely displays the last one entered. Thanks Springhill40 (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. You should have the website for which ever network is the "original" (ie where the production company first intended it to air), and then possibly put the second at the bottom of the article. Which show are you asking about? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Older programs with multiple distributors
I'm asking specifically for articles like those on the Hanna-Barbera programs like Scooby-Doo, Where are You! and the like. A number of TV shows and/or companies have changed hands multiple times over the years; should the "distributor" section of the infobox reflect the original company (in Scooby's case, Taft Broadcasting), the current distributor (Warner Bros. Television), or the enumerated list of all of the distributors over the years? Would it be better in these cases to simply list the first or last distributor and relegate everything else to prose in the article itself? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say original. Distributors are straining importance at best anyway but it's not realistic to list every possible distributor, and many of them are just in single countries. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of other countries, we're only sticking to distributors in the country of origin in these infoboxes, correct? The Hanna-Barbera shows I'm speaking of would have no less than five American distributors over the years (Taft, Great American, Worldvision - a Taft subsidiary - Turner, and Warner Bros. The pre-1967 shows will also have Screen Gems as well). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see a need for this parameter due to multiple distributor changes over the years for old programmes; that for many articles is probably out of date. REVUpminster (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Purpose of director parameter
Hey all. The director parameter of this infobox is intended for people who are directing episodes, right? Like, behind the camera (live-action) or overseeing the storyboardng (animation)? That's my interpretation anyway. I keep seeing editors adding supervising directors, art directors, and other people with "director" in their titles to this parameter and I'm wondering if maybe the intention of the parameter isn't presented quite clear enough for these editors. Examples:, The Problem Solverz, Secret Mountain Fort Awesome Art directors seem to be more appropriately placed under creative_director. What about these other people with director titles? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation is correct. It should be blatantly obvious what is meant by the parameter. We have director and creative_director. If we wanted to list "supervising directors" we'd have a parameter called supervising_director but we don't! Note that, unlike writer, which is for "the show's writer or writers" (note use of plural form), "director" is for "the show's director" (singular). I've boldly tightened the wording for this parameter by adding a link. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The director aspect seemed obvious to me. I will admit that I didn't find the singular nature of director to be intuitive. Cartoons often cycle through directors during a season. Assuming it's a reasonable number of directors (5 max?) why wouldn't we list them as we would writers? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed on company parameter
Is the purpose of company to list all the various sub-contractors who might have been involved in the literal, physical production of the series, or is it intended to list the main company/companies that funded the venture? For example at Avatar: The Last Airbender are Nickelodeon Animation Studios, DR Movie, JM Animation, MOI Animation, and a user recently added Titmouse because they produced the opening credit sequence. The scope is vague and needs clarification. And, does that mean under country we'd add United States, Korea, and Canada and adjust the lede accordingly? (i.e., "The Legend of Korra is an American—Korean—Canadian animated television series...) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion in Infobox film seems to be relevant here; it may be helpful. Raamin (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tended towards main companies only, because to list all of the subcontractors in the infobox would prove unwieldy for shows like Animaniacs that farmed out individual episodes to various studios across the planet. Unless the list is very, very short (i.e. A Pup Named Scooby-Doo, produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions who subcontracted to Wang Film Productions and Fil-Cartoons) It would be better to list the main companies in the infobox and discuss the subcontractors in the body of the article. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Musical director/house band
Can an entry be added to the template for "Musical director" and/or "house band" which is a feature on many variety/talk shows? Downwoody (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Format
Why has the "Format" section been removed? Thanks, Fort esc (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, the short answer is that there was no clear explanation of what constitutes a "format". Is it a medium like tape, or film? Is multi-camera and single-camera a format? Is it a shape like reality TV or magazine news program? Is soap opera a genre or a format? It seems easier to describe the noteworthy attributes in prose than to attempt to cram the information into one nebulous parameter. For more info, see the RFC. Hope that helps, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Date range formatting
MOS:ENDASH states:

MOS:DATERANGE states:

However, as can be seen at Supermarket Sweep Australia, including only years in the Infobox television template formats the date range incorrectly with a spaced en dash between the full years:

This is incorrect. The dates should be formatted without a space where only years are stated (and ideally omitting the century on the end date where they occur in the same century, i.e., 1992–94).

A spaced en dash should still be used where the start and end dates are given in full (and the year can be omitted from the start date where both dates fall in the same year, e.g., 14 February – 30 June 2014). —sroc &#x1F4AC; 19:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are relatively few articles where this is a problem and there is a very simple workaround, which I've implemented at Supermarket Sweep Australia. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Why the "first_run" parameter should be removed
Infoboxes are intended to provide quick, at-a-glance information for Wikipedia readers. It is exceedingly unlikely that a Wikipedia reader opening an article on a TV show will be primarily concerned with which country a show happened to air in first, as opposed to the country or countries of production. This is because unlike the latter the former is almost invariably merely circumstantial and so does not affect the actual show in any significant way.

Furthermore, the presence of the parameter causes confusion, especially for novice Wikipedia readers. One might be tempted to ask why the country a show first aired in may be listed in such an infobox while the corresponding airdate may not. It has previously been proposed to add extra parameters in response to this, which sounds ridiculous not only because of the potential for even more confusion but also because it is difficult to imagine a layout for such fields which looks even remotely decent.

Finally, TV show infoboxes are already extremely cluttered. On the other hand, there is a "Broadcast" section listed at WP:TVINTL which is often highly devoid of information because of its very strict requirements for inclusion of foreign airings. Why not simply have this information only in this section and leave these infoboxes for the more important stuff?

Hopefully, these arguments will be met with actual discussion as opposed to the blanket dismissal of similar comments on previous occasions. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The first_run parameter is necessary because, if the series is first shown in a country that is not the country of origin, dates from that country and not the country of origin are usually shown. It is necessary to identify this to avoid confusion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? The infobox documentation says that the dates in the infobox must be from the country or countries of origin – regardless of where the show first aired. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what it says at all. The documentation says "original channel or network", which may not be in the country of origin. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The original channel or network is defined as being the channel or network that was involved in the production of the show, which is necessarily in the country of origin. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you reading the instructions for this infobox? The documentation defines  or   as The original channel(s) or network(s) on which the show has appeared. Production doesn't appear anywhere in that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about the definition of "original channel". It's not written in the documentation but rather taken from common sense, as well as how the parameter is actually used on Wikipedia. Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Edits to this infobox are made based on the documentation, not personal opinion and is how the parameter is supposed to be used. If it is not being used that way it should be corrected. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't "personal opinion" – we're basically talking about the dictionary definition of a term here. Your interpretation of the term is bizarre and more importantly not in line with actual practice (which is supposed to be reflected by policy, if you recall, not the other way around). Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ye it is personal opinion. The fields are  and  . The dictionary definition doesn't define either of these as you state them to be. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with anything? It's the definition of "original" that's at issue here, not "channel" or "network". Mdrnpndr (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Dogma, you seem to be going around in circles here and not getting the point at all. You claimed that The original channel or network is defined as being the channel or network that was involved in the production of the show, which is necessarily in the country of origin, which is incorrect because the documentation says that  and , which are the relevant parameters, are The original channel(s) or network(s) on which the show has appeared. You're the one who brought up dictionary definitions, which are irrelevant, because dictionary definitions do not apply here. For the purposes of this template, the definition of "original" relates to "appearance" not "production". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your talent for manipulating discussion to your advantage is noted (although it's certainly not unique around here – sorry to disappoint). Perhaps this is one of those cases when, as the saying goes, the only winning move is not to play. Unless someone else wants to join in, I'm done here, at least for now. (Well, except to note that I find calling me any names of the type you just did unacceptable and may consider it a personal attack if it happens again.) Mdrnpndr (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What names did I call you? Really, this attitude of always claiming to be the victim when you give more than you get is really unbecoming. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

We were attempting to clean up/expand these parameters a bit back (Here's the discussion.) Maybe we should get a template editor to go ahead with this?? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Without consensus? I don't think so... Mdrnpndr (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The matter was under discussion for over 3 months with support and no opposition, and the discussion was advertised at WT:TV. Even you didn't disagree. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No opposition (besides my own – I disagreed with it contrary to your assertion), perhaps, but where's the consensus regarding implementation? Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yours was the only dissenting voice, but your proposal was to drop "first_run" and you noted that additional parameters would serve to clutter, so it wasn't a strong opposition. Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop ignoring my questions! I repeat: where's the consensus regarding implementation? Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I answered your question, immediately above. How about you answer mine? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Show on Hiatus
Is there an appropriate parameter to note that the show is currently on Hiatus? I see the old Status parameter has been removed but should it be noted in last aired? Or somewhere else? Or not at all? SPACKlick (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you define what you mean by "hiatus"? All shows (at least ones 20+ episodes) take breaks throughout the season. It's still "currently airing".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This weekly show has announced that the next three episodes will not be aired, that the remaining episodes of the season are in doubt and that the season finale will probably not be aired. In the current position (3 episode break) it may or may not be worth mentioning but this decision could well come down to no more of the rest of the season will be broadcast, but they intend to return next season or even that the rest of this season and the following season will not be broadcast and they will return in 2017. In any of these cases, is there an appropriate part of the infobox to note that "The show exists, and may have a future but has declared that it will not be currently airing despite being midseason". SPACKlick (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There isn't as far as creating a whole section for it. I would say there are a couple of ways you could present it. First, leave it as "present" until it is confirmed that it is cancelled (or returning), and then put all the prose information down in the broadcast section. That, or you could say "Present (currently suspended)", and then leave all the prose information in the Broadcast section explaining what "suspended" means. I don't think we need a section for it, and I certainly wouldn't say "hiatus". Hiatus means that you're taking an extended break but will return. This sounds like they may be cancelling the show, but won't officially announce that until around May when they know what their scheduling for next season will look like.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - The series in question is Top Gear (2002 TV series). Jeremy Clarkson has been suspended and 2, possibly 3, episodes have been pulled, but there is no confirmation of cancellation of the entire series, just a lot of speculation. Using Present (currently suspended) is just getting around removal of the old status parameter, which was removed specifically because it wasn't supported. We've had a lot of discussion about what to do with last_aired and the current consensus is that we use "present" while the series is airing. If a series has a confirmed cancellation date then that is added when the series has (note past tense) ended. In a situation like this, where cancellation is not confirmed and we just have a lot of speculation, "present" stays until 12 months after the last episode aired and then we add a date. At the moment all we have is word that the next two episodes will not air and the third may also not air. That's actually a fairly common occurrence. There is no word on the series as a whole and, most importantly, Clarkson is only suspended at this point. All things taken into account, mention in the prose is all that is needed but last_aired should remain as "present" until there's something that is verifiable. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we get a bot to do this?
The format parameter is still used by thousands of pages months after it was removed, as can be seen at Category:Articles passing format parameter to Infobox television. Can we get a bot to remove the entire parameter from said pages (including the parameter itself and its values, the latter of which can of course later be manually restored for other parameters if desired)? Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be better maybe to have the bot move the contents of the format parameter to the genre parameter, since the format parameter was often mistakenly used? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, among other reasons because the format parameter was almost invariably uncited, while the genre parameter explicitly requires reliable sourcing. Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a small observation, I've been watching for some time and the number of articles in it is increasing. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 22:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've personally removed the parameter entirely from quite a few articles, so if that's the case the situation is even worse than it appears at first glance. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A possible reason for the increase, is if a user is creating a new article with the template, they may choose to copy the template from an existing page, as opposed to the blank one here, and just update the info for the new show. So if the old show still has the parameter in it, the new one will as well, even if content is never added to it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to get a bot to do this pronto then. Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I took care of all the 9s. About five in total. AWB might help, but naw, a bot would be nice. How do we get one? Do we have to raise moneys?! How 'bout a bake sale or a car wash! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We need to make a request at WP:BOTR. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Were there any objections to this? Having a bot delete the format parameter and its contents? I'm happy to make the bot request. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any objections so, since I'm too lazy too and don't trust bots, please make that request. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Request has been made. Good idea, Mdrnpndr. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * before I saw the note posted on the Bot requests page questioning the need for a bot. GoingBatty (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well there was light pushback. Nyttend made a valid point that similar to how we shouldn't use AWB for behind-the-scenes cosmetic changes, we probably shouldn't be using bots in this way. Another suggestion was to make an AWB feature request so that it could be repaired more gradually along with beefier changes. Something to think about for the future, as the bot appears to be running. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see a contradiction where there is an argument that "we shouldn't use AWB for behind-the-scenes cosmetic changes" but that's exactly one of the things that AWB's genfixes does. Arguing that the bot will just add extraneous revisions is silly. We have people adding "extraneous revisions" every day in thousands of articles. Nobody seems to care about those, because they're being done manually. One problem we have everywhere on Wikipedia is that people copy and paste infoboxes, errors and all, instead of using a fresh copy and I've found a number of new TV articles that included status because somebody had copied and pasted a flawed copy of a template. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah...I know. Magioladitis seemed to be saying that it was about economy of edits—if we can incorporate these changes along with other changes, it's more efficient. Anyhow, I don't see a problem with circumventing the problem if we're not in a hurry, but your opinions may vary. :) The good news is that as of my last check of Category:Articles passing format parameter to Infobox television, we were down to 11,601 articles! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are now no articles in the category. When you're ready, feel free to request for the category to be deleted and the infobox template to be updated.  GoingBatty (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. We can probably keep the category for a short while, just to track for any additions. I found a couple of articles where BattyBot's edits were reverted because of minor errors. I fixed the ones that I found, but may have missed some. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I caught a couple too. Might help us to understand who's adding them. Educational! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BattyBot was the culprit in some. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, was the bot instructed to remove format parameters with no content? I found that a user added content to a blank, but existing, field here, which caused the article to appear in the tracking category. If there are still blank parameters out there, we're going to keep having this problem. Thoughts? Thank, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't, but that's easily done. GoingBatty (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Much obliged! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems rather ironic. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha - good catch! I just checked the category and removed the parameter from El Dandy (TV series), which was created a few hours ago.  GoingBatty (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The fish are really biting today. El Dandy (TV series) is another good catch. The article creator doesn't appear to have copied the infobox from another article, he appears to have used a fresh copy. BUT, it's a copy from prior to this edit. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The fish are really biting today. El Dandy (TV series) is another good catch. The article creator doesn't appear to have copied the infobox from another article, he appears to have used a fresh copy. BUT, it's a copy from prior to this edit. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Runtime
After reading what there is in this template's talk-page archive, I can see no consensus has been reached on an issue that's creating confusion because there's no consistant standard or specific direction, and that is: What constitutes "runtime." Some editors feel a program's length is given in common use as a half-hour, an hour, etc. Others say it should be the running time without commercials, since programs are seen not only on commercial TV but also on DVD, etc. without commercials. What's tricky here is that different episodes run different lengths &mdash; it's not unusual for The Simpsons to run between 30 (rounding up to a minute) to 60 seconds longer than generally, for instance. And it's difficult to get non-OR, third-party-cited non-commercial running times for specific episodes.

I'd like to propose a name-change to the parameter that may address these issues, in that we'll have a single consistent standard: "timeslot." I Love Lucy and Seinfeld are designed for a half-hour timeslot, regardless of how many minutes of actual programming (which as noted isn't necessarily consistent episode-to-episode). Criminal Minds and The Sopranos are designed for a one-hour timeslot. That's why even on commercial-free cable you'll see non-movie, TV-show program schedules broken up into half-hour and hour timeslots.

For shows originating in non-commercial networks, which may fill an hour slot in, say, the UK, but a 90-minute slot with commercials when rerun in the US, we simply go with the original, first-run timeslot. We can't, after all, account for how every single country cuts (or even speeds up) the time for any single given episode it reruns.

Hopefully, this will begin discussion on finding some consistent language for the runtime / timeslot infobox field. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick with the actual run time with no regard to timeslot and then, as now, an approximation to allow for local cutting or censorship for a programme being shown at certain times of the day. The BBC make Doctor Who 45 mins and show it in a 45 min slot. They make The Musketeers 59/60 minutes and show it in an hour slot. Also countries have regulations on how many adverts in an hour can be broadcast and even if they can interrupt the programme or be held over to the end of the show. Moving away from an approximation of actual running time would lead to even more anomalies. REVUpminster (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting pitch, Tenebrae. It would certainly resolve issues when editors add ranges like, "22-24 minutes". Is that specificity so important as knowing that a show fits in a 30-minute block? Probably not. The proposed parameter name of "timeslot" I find problematic, because this will no doubt yield "8:00 PM EST" and similar, so I wonder if there's a different name we could use. REV, I'm not sure that I understand your objection, but I'm also not very bright. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My biggest concern is all the uncited claims, and people edit-wartring to add different runtime numbers -- 50, 52, 54 -- but never with a verifying citation. A timeslot field, by whatever name, is quantifiable and verifiable. I can't trust any of the uncited numbers in the field &mdash; no one can. They're uncited, varying, fought-over, OR guesses. And they violate two of our core principles: WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Compare this to WP:FILM, where runtime is meticulously cited.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Most editors don't seem to bother reading infobox instructions so timeslot would be hideously problematic as we'd start seeing things like "8:30 - 9:30 pm". Runtime is unambiguously the run time of the episode and the less problematic of the two. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What precision do we care about? Cartoons are typically described by their 11 minute, 22 minute formats. Do we care that an episode might occasionally be 12 minutes or 24 minutes? And if so, do we allow ranges? And if there is a two parter, would the runtime parameter be changed to 22-44 minutes, or do we only care about the general time format the series was presented in? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We see figures like "22-24 minutes" because episode times are not consistent. Many series change over time too. Since we're talking about the normal episode length, the occasional two-parter shouldn't make a difference, since a two-parter is usually still two episodes. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It still comes down to verifiability. We can verify that a show is a half-hour sitcom or an hour-long drama. That's citable. In most cases we cannot verifiably site "22 minutes" or "53 minutes" or whatever. Whatever our policy about the runtime field, unless the figure there is reliably cited, it should not be there.


 * My personal feeling remains that someone researching television wants to know if something was a half-hour show or an hour show or a 90-minute show or whatever. Leaving my personal feeling aside, however, we can only put the number of minutes &mdash; with or without without commercials &mdash; if we can cite it. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's easy to verify the length of an episode by watching it and timing it. That's permissible under WP:PRIMARY. Calling something a "half-hour" when it only runs for 22 minutes is misleading. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it is not &mdash; this is why we're required to cite sources for movie running times. WP:PRIMARY applies to the plot, not to runtimes &mdash; stopwatching the time ourselves is original research and disallowed. So again: Without a verifiable source, either for times with commercials or without, we cannot state runtimes. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:PRIMARY says primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Last time I checked, how to use a timer is not specialised knowledge. Everyone with an iphone has one. cite episode has  and   parameters specifically so times can be included in the citation. Simple calculations are allowed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What can we cite: as an example Midsomer Murders on iplayer is listed at 2hrs but when you watch the actual programme it's running time comes up as 1hr 30mins. The dvd for series 17 lists the four episodes as 360 minutes ie 90 minutes. I don't think you can cite in info boxes so what is the solution. REVUpminster (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You're misreading WP:PRIMARY, as any editor of WikiProject Film could tell you. Tell me: Why do you think WikiProject Film requires citations for movies' running time? Descriptive statements of facts refers to the plot of the movie, which is up there on the screen. Stopwatching the running time is original research. It's not a "calculation" but a measurement. Measuring and calculating are two different things: We're allowed to calculate to X number of acres devoted to corn each year totals such-and-such in the 1990s and this percentage more or less in the 2000s. But we're not measuring the corn acreage ourselves. Everyone having access to a stopwatch is irrelevant.


 * This clearly needs to go to an RfC for broader discussion. I'll start one. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Done, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've posted a neutral notice of RfC to all registered users who have posted at Template talk:Infobox television in 2015, and to members of WikiProject Film, who might not know of the RfC otherwise. Any other party to this RfC wishing to provide neutral notice to other members of the involved WikiProjects should do so. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, members of WP:FILM are not recognised as Wikipedia's experts on use of primary sources. Film has nothing to do with this issue. As I've explained at the RFC, there are big differences between films and TV episodes. A film is an individual production that is designed to be shown from start to finish without interruptions and, as an individual production, has an individual runtime. A TV series consists of many (often 80-100+) episodes that are designed to be broken up with ad breaks and episodes have widely varying runtimes, which is why the instructions for this infobox only require that the figure "should be approximated". Citing an individual film is easy, as film runtimes are widely published. TV episodes are not because they vary so widely. Citing an approximated episode length, which is something that is easily verifiable is unnecessary. Your argument that calculating the runtime is not permitted, but this is not supported by WP:CALC, which gives as examples "adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age". Calculating a person's age is the most applicable here. To calculate a person's age you need a start date and an end date. Calculating runtime requires a start time and an end time - it's no different to calculating a person's age and is actually easier. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Runtime is runtime, and how we handle film runtimes is an example of the status quo.


 * "Citing an approximated episode length, which is something that is easily verifiable...." How? How exactly is it easily verifiable? Personal observation? "[I]t's no different to calculating a person's age" &mdash; and with a person's age, a cite for birth date is required. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "how we handle film runtimes is an example of the status quo" This, and other similar comments made by you, make me wonder whether you really understand "status quo". "How we handle film runtimes" is most definitely not the status quo as it applies to the TV project. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:AussieLegend, it is in fact you who misunderstands the definition of "status quo", or at least the part of that definition that states that it is everywhere and always subordinate to policy. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Where in the definition of status quo does it state that? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh... do I really need to add "on Wikipedia" to all my statements of this type? Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An actual answer to the question would be nice, and is necessary to prove your claim which, until that happens, is completely wrong. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, in my estimation, Mdrnpndr is correct. Running time is running time, no matter if it's on film, on stage, or on TV. To say different is like saying that height is something different in articles about humans than it is in articles about animals or cars. Height is height and running time is running time. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Your estimation is in error. Mdrnpndr didn't even mention runtimes. He just made some unsupported statement about the definition of status quo and then refused to back it up. Whether "running time is running time" is not relevent to status quo discussions. If citations are required by WP:FILM for running times that's the status quo for WP:FILM. The status quo for WP:TV is that we don't require citations. I note that the runtime parameter of Infobox film doesn't require citations and The Big Lebowski, which is GA, doesn't include a citation for the runtime, so maybe it's not the status quo after all. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, now you've stopped even debating in good faith. You know perfectly well that if one particular movie doesn't have a cite for one particular thing, that that means absolutely nothing in terms of [{WP:FILM]] guidelines and MOS, other than that the particular film's runtime requires a citation. A responsible editor acting in good faith would have added a cite-request tag.
 * The status quo is that claims in Wikipedia need to be cited for verification. You want to be able to put in any running time you, personally, feel is appropriate, without any sourcing for your claim whatsoever. You want to be allowed to do original research. That's not how Wikipedia works. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The status quo is that claims in Wikipedia need to be cited for verification - Incorrect. WP:V only requires that All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. It does not require that everything be cited. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So answer the question: How will you verify running times, if not by citing a source? Measuring it yourself is original research. And if you're not measuring it yourself, why can't you cite a source?--Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already answered the question, as I indicated above. WP:OR only applies to content being added to Wikipedia. It doesn't apply to content already in Wikipedia that you're verifying is correct. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a circular argument, and doesn't make sense. First, whether something is WP:OR or not has got nothing to do with whether it's newly added content or existing content. Second, if it's verified, then it's not OR.
 * And as I've said on another page, I don't even know why you're arguing against providing citations since you yourself said: "for new programmes the iplayer has a running time, and for old TV a dvd on it's cover usually has the total running time." So you can provide citations, but you say you're refusing to.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Runtime parameter as per RfC close and subsequent admin reiteration
Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR. Admin: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases". It was reiterated here: "A reliable third party source is required. ... I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get...."

Based on this, the directions for the infobox's runtime parameter need to include this decision, which follows Wikipedia WP:OR policy. This would be, to quote, the admin: "third-party source required." I would ask that the editors who argued against this in the RfC to please abide by the RfC close, the admin reiterations, and Wikipedia OR policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As I've explained on your talk page, you've misinterpreted the closer's comments. As I explained at WT:TV, you asked two questions:
 * Do we need to cite everything
 * Can we use a stopwatch to time episodes
 * The closer has ignored the first question and concentrated on the second. This is reinforced by his statement on his talk page: If someone wants to start an RfC to discuss whether inline citation is required in the infobox or not, always assuming that the source of the figure is established from reliable independent sources, then that is a different question (emphasis added) That is why I asked the question on his talk page, but he didn't seem to get what I was asking. For the record, you'll note that his edit summary for the close said Sadly, this cannot end in anything that will be enforceable. There's certainly nothing in what he has said to justify this edit, which is redundant at best, as sources are supposed to be third party anyway. In reality what he said about it "a different question" is not correct, as you actually asked that question, but it was not supported. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"related"
I think we need to be more specific about the  parameter. Many editors are adding articles, and have been for years, that do not fit the parameter instructions that the field is for "remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc". I removed an example of this today. First Monday's only link to JAG was that a character from that short-lived series appeared as a recurring character in JAG after First Monday was cancelled. The link to Hawaii Five-0 is even more tenuous. In 2012, 7 years after JAG ended, Hawaii Five-0 had a crossover with NCIS: Los Angeles, which was a spin-off from NCIS (TV series) which itself was a spin-off from JAG. I can't explain Scorpion. The only link seems to be that David James Elliott appeared on Scorpion as a guest star. Unfortunately, this is all too common but I don't think that the resolution is all that difficult. I propose simply changing the label for the parameter from "Related shows" to "Spin-offs or remakes". I believe that "remakes" covers adaptations. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree we need to be more specific... frankly I am unclear as to what it means.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally thing the current parameter name is fine and the template instructions are fine. People just need to learn to read. This is probably just a matter of better broadcasting what the field is for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with "Related shows", but if the name has to change what about "Connected series/shows"? Maybe the instructions could be tightened up a bit. Whether that's a spin-off or a remake, it's still a connection. Some shows are not direct spin-offs or remakes, but are connected. For example, although they call it a "spin-off" in the article, Caprica isn't really a spin-off in the sense that we generally use it. It isn't based on something specific within Battlestar Galactica, but the history from that show, it's a prequel. In other words, I don't want people to think that if it isn't like The Flash, where the character originated on Arrow, then it's not supposed to be there. Like the upcoming Vixen will feature the Flash and Arrow, but it will not have started from either show.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely, 100% correct. Unfortunately, as this discussion demonstrates, even those who should know better don't read instructions, and if we can't get it right, how can we expect the average editor to do so?
 * Crossovers make shows connected too. Don't say they don't, because that's what is causing the problem. We need to hit people in the face with something that is obvious. For situations like Caprica, we can cover that in the instructions, which some people read. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, and I would say that Last Man Standing is not really connected to Cristela, even though they had a crossover episode as a promotional thing. Not a real connection, and not a true relation. That is where the description should be tightened up a bit.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The instructions do say "Note that simply sharing crossover episodes does not make series related", but it gets ignored because editors don't bother with the instructions. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Shows how much I pay attention to what it already says. :) So, does the description really need to be fixed, or do we need to do a better job of enforcing what it says?    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the first step is to make the label less ambiguous, which is why I suggested "Spin-offs or remakes", but I'm open to suggestions. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd be open to changing the field name, but I'm not sure "Spin-offs or remakes" is the best. My feeling, similar to what Big mentioned above with his example, is an instance say with Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter. Carter is not really a "Spin-off or remake" of SHIELD, but it is related and used in the field correctly per the current instructions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion for a better label? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Related really is the best term in my opinion, because it encompasses the spin-offs and remakes, as well as "sister series" (if you will). So I think it's just a matter of clarifying wording somewhere, maybe creating a tracking category to see which articles use the field, and see if it is being used correctly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Related" has been demonstrated to be a bad term. Editors think crossovers are enough to make a series related. In the case of "Scorpion", David James Elliot's appearance as a character totally unrelated to his JAG character was enough to make it related to JAG. Changing the instructions won't help because people don't read them. It really needs a new label. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm fine with trying to change it. I just want to make sure that a term exists somewhere to still validate series relationships like SHIELD and Carter (that do properly use the field now). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

New "header" wording parameter
I'd like to propose a new parameter to change the wording of one of the infobox headings. The parameter would change "Broadcast" to "Release". With many series now being distributed on streaming services, "broadcast" is not necessarily the correct term. "Release" is more applicable, because in most cases, these series don't have any chance of "ending" per se and all episodes are released at once. Here is the current code for this heading: | header34   =  My proposal would be to have a new parameter , which would be a simple "y"/"Y"/"yes" field and it would be a "but-if" case to the previous code (not exactly sure how to do that on here). Here are the layman's terms: If any of the fields under the headings are used, add the "Broadcast" heading, but if  is flagged, it would be "Release" over "Broadcast". What are other's thoughts on this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this what you're aiming at? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup that's it! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also for my documentation edit, I had a lapse. Thought genre was format for a second... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But on the inclusion of this, does this make sense to make the change? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Can a template editor please implement the change made to the sandbox in the live template? This should be a non-issue, as it is a help to the template, not really a deterrent.

Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Please update the documentation. Alakzi (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 April 2015
Revert this edit by, which was made without any discussion, consultation or other attempt to gain consensus for edits to a template used in 32,000 articles. No attempt was made to test these edits in the sandbox. By replacing "No." with "Number" the change has made a generally long infobox longer. Such edits should always be the subject of discussion. See discussions immediately above for examples.

 Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Partially undone. I've used  to provide a  for accessibility purposes. Alakzi (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. Thank you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, whatever changes were made, can someone please double-check them, as the List of episodes link is displaying all wonky in the infobox, for instance at Little Charmers I see:
 * Number of episodes: 13
 * (}ist of episodes).
 * Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a vestigial phenomenon, coming from an old version of the template. I checked, it has no reason to happen now, ...except failing temporarily to use the up-to-date version of the template. If you see again such bad display, purge the page. To do so, on the page, click on "View history" and then, at the end of the address, replace "history" with "purge". --Nnemo (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When does the "l" in "lists" need to be in uppercase? Alakzi (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When there is only the part "(List of episodes)", without number before. Before my edits, the L was always in uppercase. So I wanted to respect the edge cases. But the main issue I that wanted to correct was the cases like "7 (List of episodes)", in which the uppercase L was absurd. --Nnemo (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 April 2015
I don't see any consensus for the recent addition of an extremely ugly abbreviation tooltip. Please remove it immediately.

Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See previous section. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Redrose64, what exactly are you talking about? I'm requesting a revert of an edit that did not have consensus for it in the first place. Are you unfamiliar with WP:BRD? Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend, EvergreenFir and Nnemo all seem to agree to what is a common-sense accessibility enhancement. Please don't waste our time with vexatious wikilaweyring because you just don't like the look of it. Alakzi (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Alakzi: Do you realize that you've forcefully added an incredibly ugly dotted underline to the very beginning of thousands upon thousands of pages? I think that goes a little beyond a mere "common-sense enhancement". Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not "forcefully" add anything; I would've reverted if there was protestation. On the contrary, I was thanked by the three aforementioned editors. "No." is widely understood to mean "number"; this enhancement is for the sole benefit of screen readers. Therefore, I think it'd be uncontroversial to hide the underline - though, I note, Discreet abbreviation no longer functions. Alakzi (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ACCESS would seem more important than anyone's aesthetic tastes when it's something this minor. Hide the underline if possible, but I will point to WP:NOSTRIKE.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the underline looks crappy, but I'm OK with the change, as this is what is suggested by MOS:NUMERO. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 May 2015
This template was recently nominated for merge with Infobox television film and the TfM discussion has now closed with unanimous support for a merge. Please replace the existing infobox code with this version from the sandbox which incorporates these changes to the existing code. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

 Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We're missing a few parameter aliases: "alt" for "image_alt"; "italic title" for "italic_title"; and "image size" for "image_size". Do we want to add these here or update the parameter names in all of the TV film articles? Alakzi (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The articles that I tested didn't reveal any issues with those aliases so I'm not sure whether it's going to be an issue. Most of the articles still use the image formatting syntax from the pre-Module:InfoboxImage days, so that may be why no errors appeared. I intended running through all of the articles using infobox television film with AWB to update parameter names anyway, so I can incorporate this into the changes. Once I've been through all of the articles, I'll be removing the added aliases as they'll no longer be necessary. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Alakzi (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Please update the documentation accordingly and let me know if I need to run through with AWB and convert the old template uses to the new template. —  01:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 May 2015
Please replace the live code for this template with this version from the sandbox.

In order to merge Infobox television film into this template several aliases were added as a temporary measure. These were,  ,   and. As indicated in the above edit request, I have now run through all articles that used Infobox television film with AWB and have converted them to use this template and its parameters. Subsequently, these aliases no longer serve any purpose and should be removed.

 Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Announcer field
Hey,

There is currently a revamp discussion going on at Template:Infobox television season. One field that I asked adding was an "Announcer(s)" field. My rationale: Late night talkshows, such as The Tonight Show, have a special place for the announcer. Ed McMahon, for example, is famous as The Tonight Show announcer. Currently these people are already in the infobox, but under a "Narrator" field which is semantically incorrect. An announcer is not a presenter, a host nor a narrator. Clarification, What I'm asking does not add another name to the infobox, as that name is anyways listed, it just lists it under the correct name. This is a similar issue to having a narrator being placed under "Voiced by" or reality show judges being placed under "Starring". --Gonnym (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Friendly reminder to anyone watching this page. Another example The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) where the announcers are listed as narrators. --Gonnym (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Runtime parameter as per RfC close and subsequent admin reiteration
Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR. Admin: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases". It was reiterated here: "A reliable third party source is required. ... I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get...."

Based on this, the directions for the infobox's runtime parameter need to include this decision, which follows Wikipedia WP:OR policy. This would be, to quote, the admin: "third-party source required." I would ask that the editors who argued against this in the RfC to please abide by the RfC close, the admin reiterations, and Wikipedia OR policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to make clear, since another editor expressed concern: "Third-party sourcing required" at runtime does not mean an inline citation necessarily. If a running time is verified in the article body, for example, that fulfills WP:VERIFY. And as we all know, personal time-measurements are impermissible OR. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is inappropriate. People using the infobox don't necessarily look at this talk page and we don't include redundant notes in infobox instructions, especially when they've been added under false pretenses. The RfC closer has quite clearly stated that the RfC close was procedural and related to use of original research. At no point in the RfC close did the closer say or even recommend that the redundant note be added. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow. I would have to say what's inappropriate is your response to a gesture of good will. The closing admin stated in no uncertain terms that OR is not allowed. And OR is rampant in the infobox runtime parameter. The RfC took place on the Infobox Template's talk page and not the general project talk page precisely because that's where we discuss edits to the Infobox Template.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please show me where this RfC took place. The only recent RfC was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. That is not the infobox talk page and the closer wrote Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind. That RfC has nothing to do with infobox. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize; I transposed the two pages in my mind. You are correct: The RfC took place Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television.


 * Regardless, the closing admin said that the runtime parameter required third-party sourcing. I'm not sure why anyone would object to stating that in the infobox when OR &mdash; editors making educated guesses &mdash; is rampant. The only reason I can think of is that someone is OK with educated guesses and doesn't want to go to the trouble of verifying.


 * I have an idea: Why don't we present the issue to the closing admin, neutrally, and ask him to decide? That would save us a lot of time debating and possibly edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The closer said what he said in relation to the original research aspect of your nomination which is why he has subsequently went to the extremes of stating The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes. He stated that "A reliable third party source is required" was in relation to the close, which was about OR. Nothing he said was about the runtime parameter. I can't see why you don't get that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And honesty, I'm not sure how you, in turn, can't see that the entire RfC was about the runtime parameter: "TV-show running times in the TV infobox". The admin said very specifically that "third-party sources are required". Since this basic Wikipedia policy is being flagrantly flouted in TV Project infoboxes, what reasonable individual who cares about Wikipedia's accuracy would not want to alert people that they can't just put in OR claims?


 * Look, if you think I'm off-base, then you should welcome having a disinterested third-party admin who knows the issue make the call. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The RfC was closed because it asked if we could use original research. The arguments made had no effect. I don't know what you're expecting to achieve by further annoying . He's already said that the outcome of the RfC had nothing to do with the parameter but if you must, annoy him some more. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If we're all agreed that we can't use original research, then I don't see why you and I are not on the same page. In any event, here is proposed wording to ask him. It is just a draft, and we'll tweak it so that we both think it's fair before asking him. So, first draft:  "Are we allowed to embed in the infobox template the phrase 'third-party sourcing required'?" --Tenebrae (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me as if you are in violent agreement: OR is not allowed. It's fair to clarify this in the infobox /Doc or some similar location, or even to link to a general page wihtin the wikiproject that details how to use the infobox properly. You can fight out the issue fo inline cites between yourselves :-) Guy (Help!) 22:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, and, geez, thank you again for all the time you've taken on what I would have imagined was a non-controversial thing. It's been very nice of you to have so much patience.


 * Just to clarity to  Aussie Legend , I have not been talking about inline cites, and I won't even comment on them unless an RfC or other discussion is brought up &mdash; I'm certainly not planning to push for them. But as Guy (Help!) says, it's fair to clarify the OR issue in the infobox template. Could we leave it at that and move on? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Change of wording on May 6
Per the above discussion, and with an admin's help, the agreed-upon, compromise wording was "third-party source required," added on March 22. In fact, User:AussieLegend appeared to agree to that when he left it in his edits of April 2 of and going forward.

But then, today, he unilaterally removed that wording, and when I pointed this out, he included different phrasing to reflect his own personal position rather than the one we all agreed to. I've restored the agreed-upon version, .--Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We didn't all agree to the wording. The RfC was procedurally closed with no outcome either way because because the wording of the RfC question was faulty. You took it upon yourself to add wording to the documentation, which I opposed. I subsequently left it in the documentation because attempts to remove it were reverted by you. What you "pointed out" was false. Your edit summary claimed This was added after a protracted RfC and discussion, at the direction of an admin. However, the RfC outcome was not consensus to add any such text. The RfC was closed procedurally without consensus either way. Nor did an admin direct that the text be added. You wanted it added and when you sought clarification after I opposed inclusion, you asked the admin if it should be added, his response was that it was reasonable. He did not "direct" that it be included. An admin has no more power than any other editor to direct that content be changed. Such changes come about by consensus, as you should be aware. The note is entirely redundant. Per WP:V, all content must be verifiable by reliable independent source required. That note could be added to all parameters but, because it is standard procedure, it is not required in any. Adding it gives unnecessary prominence to that particular parameter, and there is no justification for that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User:AussieLegend, comments are often left in Wikipedia source to help editors avoid making common mistakes (not providing a reliable source for this parameter in this case). "Prominence" has nothing to do with it. Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement to provide a citation for the the runtime parameter. There still isn't. The aim of the RfC was to gain consensus to require citations, but the RfC was closed before consensus could be determined. The closer had to state several times not to read anything beyond the outcome being procedural. That being the case there is no consensus for the added text. Stating that a third-party source is "required" for that specific parameter misleads the reader into believing that one must be provided and there is no consensus for that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User:AussieLegend, the RfC close was not one of "no consensus", but rather one of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, more precisely that WP:V overrides any possible local consensus and that a reliable source is therefore indeed required regardless of the opinions expressed there. Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:V requires that content be reliably sourced, not that citations be provided for everything. Adding this content to only this specific parameter gives the impression that a citation is required for this specific parameter, which was not the outcome of the RfC. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I've been reading of previous discussions, I don't see anywhere where it was agreed upon that "third-party source" had to be required wording in this documentation. Now, going off of what (I think) you are both getting at, if there is something in the infobox that is not represented in the body of the article, then in theory it should have reliable source attributed to it, if it is likely to be challenged (as WP:V states). And while we can't police all articles in this Wikiproject to ensure this happens, more times than not, the runtimes added are not going to be challenged material because the episodes themselves act as the reliable source. But in the cases where editors have issue with the given runtimes, then sources should be used to state why those times are in the article. Now, I'm not trying to bring back anything from the RfC, but pertinent to here, I don't see the need to single out this parameter as needing a source, when all of them (in theory) need it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the episodes themselves are emphatically not a reliable source: that is in fact WP:OR. If the runtime is to be included, a reliable independent source must be provided. The entire point of the RfC was that runtimes were being added by users who had timed the shows themselves, which is impermissible by policy. A runtime without a source is contentious, as evidence the existence of the RfC and the arguments advanced within it, and therefore runtimes cannot be used unless reliably sourced. This is, as you point out, merely the routine application of WP:V. The source does not have to be linked inline in the infobox, but it has to be provided within the article. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Television episodes are regarded to be acceptable primary sources, and are used per WP:PRIMARY, so a blanket claim that the episodes themselves are emphatically not a reliable source is not correct. Favre1fan93 is correct that more times than not, the runtimes added are not going to be challenged material. This is actually the case and has been for years, until Tenebrae started making a fuss. However, the primary concern here is whether we really need that note in the instructions, and we don't, as it applies to all content any way. If we add it here then we should add it to every parameter in every infobox that is used on Wikipedia. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is simply not true. The episode is not a source for the length of the episode. Read WP:NOR. The episode does not include its runtime as a piece of on-screen information. Many sources exist for run times, this counts as information liable to be challenged (self-evidently, given this conversation) so needs a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree that we are not here to rehash the RfC discussion. As pertaining to this discussion, no that wording should not be used specifically for this parameter, because all fields in the infobox need to be sourced if not doubled again in the prose. Now if we have to rehash exactly what constitutes needing a source for runtimes (do episodes themselves count or not), I suggest we retake that discussion elsewhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether episodes themselves count is the point already settled by the RfC. The answer is: no they don't, because that is WP:OR. Consider: a monument exists, we have an article on it. A Wikipedia editor measures the monument and adds the measurements to the article. Is that original research? Yes. It cannot be verified by other editors from reliable sources. Any fact liable to be challenged must be sources, and it is self-evident that runtimes are being challenged, so need to be sourced. I am reminded of arguments past where people argued to include OR because it was really hard to find a reliable source for something and it's "useful". Guy (Help!) 12:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That one editor has chosen to question runtimes is not an indication that runtimes are likely to be challenged and the evidence to date is that they are not. In fact Tenebrae's intial concern was simply What constitutes "runtime.", even though the template instructions explain that it is the Episode duration. Should not include commercials and should be approximated, e.g. "22–26 minutes" for most half-hour shows.. However, as has been pointed out, this is irrelevant to this discussion, which is all about whether a redundant note should be included in the instructions. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This issue already was settled in an RfC in which an admin specifically gave clarification for the wording, and specifically inserted wording to avoid any confusion over the issue. I would ask AussieLegend to accept the RfC closing and subsequent clarifications and reiterations. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No it was not settled in the RfC. The RfC was procedurally closed because your question asked if we could OR to source runtimes and WP:NOR says we can't. The RfC closer has specifically stated, do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind, yet you have taken the close to mean that we need to add a redundant note to the instructions, which was never part of the close. The clarification of the close also specifically stated The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, yet that is exactly what your note implies. You have clearly read far more into the procedural close of the RfC than the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research. Claiming that an admin specifically inserted wording to avoid any confusion over the issue is, at the very best, misleading. You were the one who added the note and that admin said you were wrong. He only changed what you added, and even that was subsequently changed by someone else, amking the note even more redundant than it already was. Your claims regarding the outcome of the RfC have been quite ridiculous, including the claim that the RfC didn't go my way. I didn't start the RfC, you did. Your aim was that runtimes be cited but the RfC comments didn't support that and it wasn't an outcome of the RfC, as clearly stated by the closer, so the RfC clearly didn't go your way, yet you are acting as if it had, and fighting to keep a clearly redundant note in the instructions. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Director"
Just a quick question on the Directors. Do you list just the main directors or each director that was ever on the show. Thanks --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  11:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On every series I've edited, I've only seen the main directors listed. If it was the latter option, and you had four seasons, twenty-two episodes each seasons, that's a hell of a lot of directors you're going to list. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  11:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am just referring to Seinfeld as

are listed Tom Cherones and Andy Ackerman are the main directors. Cherones directed all of seasons 1-5 bar 4 episodes. Ackerman directed all of seasons 6-9 bar 2 episodes. The other 3 listed directed at the most of 3 episodes each. You can see the list of episodes here. Thanks --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  11:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Art Wolff
 * Tom Cherones
 * Andy Ackerman
 * David Steinberg
 * David Owen Trainor
 * @JohnGormleyJG, I'm not sure if there is a general consensus on this (as we were debating the Directors field in a similar template). @AlexTheWhovian, Unless one director does most/all of the directing on a show, how do you decide who the "main" directors are? --Gonnym (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Each series of a show has a main director for that season, sometimes if the main director is too busy or unavailable there might be a "guest director" for an episode. The show might change main director each season or keep the same one throughout. In this case for seasons 1-5 the main director was Tom Cherones and seasons 6-9 it was Andy Ackerman. The other 3 that are currently listed in the infobox were guest directors. I suggest have only main directors listed in infobox as some shows have a lot of guest directors. --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  12:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The general rule of thumb is that if there are too many to list, they're better listed in the prose. This applies to everything in the infobox not just directors. Although it's not mandated, "too many" is generally regarded to be more than 5, or 5 or more - it's left up to editor discretion. In a situation like Seinfeld where there are apparently only 5 directors they can all be accommodated in the infobox. However, because there are so many writers it's best not to include any in the infobox. Remember, even if there is a field, there is no actual requirement to populate it. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you think with Seinfeld should it be those 2 main ones or all 5 (even the ones who just directed 1 episodes) or should I leave that up for discussion on the Seinfeld talk page. --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  12:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, you'll end up wasting your time arguing over 3 directors as there is no limit on how many or how important they are to be included, but its your time to do with it as you please. --Gonnym (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just using Seinfeld as an example, there are many other shows with this. I was just requesting if the wording in the template could be changed to main directors (a.k.a. series directors) only to save me a lot of time. --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  12:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If its a general request, then I'll be against it. I'd much rather have them all listed with Collapsible list if the entries are "too many" (more than 5 seems a good number). Having a "main" critera will lead to endless debates regarding who should be considered a main director (Example 1: 2 directors are main for season 1, they are replaced in season 2 by 2 different directors. This happens for each season and the show has 8 seasons. Who are the "main" directors? Example 2: one director directed 3 episodes of a season and 3 others 2. Is he the (only) main because he has 1 episode more?) Regarding "guest directors", if you mean a situation like Quentin Tarantino directing 2 CSI episodes, then for a situation like that I could agree that they shouldn't be listed (but deciding who is a "guest director" would need to be based on sources as to not be OR). --Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Theme music composer
Can someone change "theme music composer" to "theme music by" in this infobox. I think that "by" is totally enough (we all know it means the person who composed the theme). Beside, the word "composer" is now mentioned two times in this infobox, could be confusing. Thank you very much. Sportomanokin (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your changes to the documentation. Until there is consensus to change the field it is  and your edits do not change that. All you achieved was to introduce errors into the documentation. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"content_rating"
TV Parental Guidelines - content rating to be mentioned in the infobox television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuveerappan (talk • contribs) 06:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Manual of Style/Television for why this will not be considered for an addition to the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)