Template talk:Infobox television season/Archive 1

Italic titles
I have started a discussion about the implementation of italic titles in this template at Template talk:Infobox television. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Discussion moved here from Template talk:Infobox television

I thought that I'd raise the issue here, rather than at Template talk:Infobox television season because that template has very few people watching it and this is related to an issue recently addressed here. I'm hoping somebody here will be able to come up with a far better fix for this problem. User:Mhiji has added "italic_title" to Infobox television season resulting in almost all of the title text becoming italicised. For example, List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1) becomes "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)", when the title should be "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)" His method of resolving this is to go to every article that uses Infobox television season (1,156 articles) and add "|italic_title=no" to the infobox. This seems to be the wrong way to fix the issue and I'm sure there is a far better resolution to the problem he has introduced. --AussieLegend(talk) 23:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is better brought up at Italic title infobox, and request that specific markups can be added in that parameter, so that you can placeList of The Big Bang episodes (season 1) and have it auto format that way, or possibly make a season specific way to uselist and have it auto-format using the known List of … episodes (season …) title format and show_name. No idea if thats even possible. On a side note, Infobox television season could use a major overhaul.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, it now appears that where a season article is at "List of X episodes (season y)", as is specified at Template:Episode list, he's moving the articles to "X (season y)" to fix the problem he's introduced. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this for the shows I watch (Numb3rs, Two Guys and a Girl), but looking at the contributions, he's going all in. I've requested on Mhiji's talk page to stop these moves.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If there's a better suggestion that would be great. User:Xeworlebi's idea sounds good. I don't really see the method as "incredibly inefficient". Of the 1156 articles, only 184 are "list of...". And I've changed all of these already and updated the template doc so don't really see why there's an issue. The majority of these titles are incorrect anyway per WP:TV-NC which states for episode lists should be on a single page, e.g. "List of Knight Rider episodes" or organised by season e.g. (24 (season 3), In Bed with Medinner (series 1)). I've stopped these moves for now but I am just following the policy guidelines... Mhiji(talk) 23:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:TV-NC is incredibly outdated and hasn't been updated for a long time, and lacks in quite some things including "List of" pages. Template:Episode list states current use for this. So you're just moving 184 articles? I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous, and should simply not be done without any type of discussion. If 16% of the subject articles are named differently that should be an indicator that it isn't a mistake, but done so purposely. Anything that includes a template wide alteration, as this is, we use this template to achieve italics wiki wide, is way more efficient that going true thousands of articles and adjust it manually, that's why we use these templates, and not just place Italic title on every subject article, that is incredibly inefficient.  X  eworlebi (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * While "only" 184 articles may have been affected now, a look at Mhiji's edit history shows that almost 400 edits were necessary to correct the problem introduced by a single edit to the template. That's not inefficient? As I indicated on my talk page, by default the infobox should display the title in the least troublesome manner. In this case that's using standard formatting for the title, not italicising it. What happens in an article where somebody tries to correct the title? Has that even been checked? When new episode lists are created, users often copy and paste a template from an existing series, rather than using a brand new one. It's not what they should be doing, but they do it anyway. For each new "List of" article that is created, the Mhiji implementation of italic titles is likely to result in an error that somebody will have to fix, an eror that wouldn't be necessary with the correct, or no, implementation. This too is inefficient.--AussieLegend (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree if their is a better way to implement this that would be great. If you have a better ideas please do suggest it. I agree placing Italic title on every subject article would have been incredibly inefficient. That's why instead of doing that (adding it to 972 articles) I added this to the infobox (in the same way it has been done on many others) and then added no to the 184. I figured that was more efficient. No I'm not moving 184 articles. I didn't say that...? I was moving those in the format "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)" to "The Big Bang Theory (season 1)" per WP:TV-NC. I wasn't going to touch those in the format "List of Knight Rider episodes". I usually follow the policy guidelines rather than go to a template I have never used and look half way down the doc there. Mhiji (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also where did you get "almost 400 edits" from? There were only 184 articles which I added no to. That's 184 edits.Mhiji (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at your edit history. There are a lot more than 184 edits involved in this debacle. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two "debacles" here. One is the problem we've been discussing here and the other is that there is an inconsistency in the way articles have been named. Granted, I have made over 400 edits in the last day or so, but only 184 of them (where I added no) were related to the first "debacle".Mhiji (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And with regards to the naming conventions, if you don't like WP:TV-NC then your welcome to discuss changing it. But for now I'm going to follow the guideline there. Mhiji (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The same could be said to you with regard to Template:Episode list, which I noticed that you changed to suit your POV.--AussieLegend (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've not been following this closely, but it does seem very odd to me that an infobox template would affect the title of an article. It breaks the single responsibility principle and the principle of least astonishment. Its good programming practice to have one function performing a single task, in this case producing and infobox. Having a infobox affect the title is also going to confuse editor when they try to work out what caused the title of an article to change. Simply using seems the easiest and most controllable solution.--Salix (talk): 08:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Italic title has been added to lots of high profile infoboxes Infobox film, Infobox album Infobox television, Infobox book,Infobox newspaper, Infobox video game and others, based upon consensus. Surely this makes much more sense than having to add the template to thousands of articles individually? Mhiji (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Template_talk:Italic_title with regards to possibly getting a fix for this. Mhiji (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

For "Infobox television season" the names are nearly all "Show Name (season/series N)". Add italictitle there. The few (List of..) shouldn't really be using that template and can be treated individually. Agreed? Rambo's Revenge (talk)  22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You may also be interested in the discussion here:Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television). Mhiji (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call a fifth of the articles (16%) "a few".  X  eworlebi (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You keep using this figure of 16%... That's just what you've worked out for the articles which use this template. That does not accurately reflect all of the television season articles on Wikipedia. There are lots television season articles which do not use this template. Also depending on the outcome of the discussion atWikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television), this would mean there would be a lot lot less "List of..." articles. Even if the figure was 16% (I'm sure it's not), this is relatively few compared to the other 84% which are in the form "X (season Y)", for whichitalic title would work on. Surely it makes sense to have the default to make the "84%" correct and then sort out the rest? Mhiji (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The 16% came from you… (184/1156) and no, 84% and the half ass the rest is not a good way to approach this.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but, as I said, that 16% does not represent all articles on Wikipedia. What do you mean by half-ass? I added no to all of the articles affected. Meaning that all of the articles in the form "X (season Y)" were italicised correctly and all of the ones in the form "List of X episodes" were not italicised at all (just as they were before I made any edits). I'd say making all of the articles which use this infobox in the format "X (season Y)" and making it so that all the other were unaffected is very successful, not "half assed".... Mhiji (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've readded the italic functionality with a conditional parser so it doesn't use italic title if the page name starts "List of". Compare The X-Files (season 2) (italicised) whereas List of Highlander: The Raven episodes is not. Hopefully this compromise fits all. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  13:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's excellent thanks very much. Mhiji (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew there was a better way. Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

DVD release date
Please note there is a discussion regarding the DVD release date parameter at Template_talk:Infobox_television. Mhiji (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Discussion moved here from Template talk:Infobox television

This is about Infobox television season, but as that place is a ghost town I'm posting here. With the ever-increasing releases of television seasons on formats other than DVD, I propose that we change the "DVD release date" and format fields to something more general. Perhaps "disc release date" or "compilation release date". However, such a change will have to be done in a manner that will prevent breaking every single instance of the template, and I have to admit I'm not 100% how to do that. -- Dorsal  Axe  20:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My proposal in the next section changes the way that this is handled, and I think it eliminates the issue you have with its naming.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Template overhaul
I've created an overhaul of the template in the Sandbox, it's more based of Infobox television season. Mainly because I find the way episodes navigate much nicer than how this template does it now and the ridiculously crammed and overly filled dvd_release_date parameter. On the right a preview of the overhauled template filled out (minus image). Thoughts?  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ~Issues
 * currently does not auto italicizes the data, the proposal does and thus breaks the italics, would require a bot to remove the manual italics everywhere, or a possible auto-detect to eliminate it within the template, can probably be done with Str left, will look into that.
 * I have no idea were to place  (and possibly new  ), right now they are added after   between brackets, but I have to say, I don't think I've seen this parameter used.
 * Not really an issue, but this will blow up the template length wise and push episode lists (further) down.
 * New parameters
 * – and  –  for the DVD's and Blu-ray releases. Would require manual integration,   still works and is placed just under the "Home video release" sub header.
 * link to the episode list.


 * Looking good. The DVD parameters are currently a mess, and this would certainly tidy them up and the inclusion of Blu-ray is a must. What was the  even meant to be used for anyway, the region of the DVD? That parameter should probably just get removed once the template is hopefully updated. Good job. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. In the meantime I found a page which uses : Lost (season 3) (all the seasons use it). I always thought it was to define the number of discs, like "January 1, 2010 (3 disc set)" or something like that, but Lost uses it to say it's a box-set and widescreen, which I can see the use in. The auto/manual italic should be fixed (unless someone manually bolded but not italicized it). I've also updated it that when   and   are used that the subheader says "Series chronology" instead of "Season chronology", but don't combine them, because that will but both in, but I don't think that's an issue just like   and   at Infobox television.   X  eworlebi (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Vilnisr just made some changes to the template which I've reverted, they pertain to the displaying of Blu-ray releases in the same way that the DVD releases are displayed which I find a mess, if the proposed updates are implemented Blu-ray releases would get there place in the infobox. If no-one objects to these changes soon I will go ahead and update the template.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Since no-one objected, I've upgraded the template.  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've updated the template for something I discovered when implementing the template. It will now link the first region shown, so if is not used, the  label will be linked same region for 3, 4 and same for region A, B and C.   X  eworlebi (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Great to have the template updated, good job. Although, I have one comment: I find the  parameter somewhat unnecessary and redundant, as it's placed right under the season name, so it says the same thing twice except which season it is. We already what show it is as that it's a season article, so it seems unnecessary. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair point, although while I can't give currently-in-use examples, for example Babylon 5 seasons have an actual name, season 1 is named "Signs and Portents" I would imagine that that name, if a seasonal article were to be created, would be in, and the name of the show would no longer be in the infobox, which just seems weird. Same for Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Move it back down, under the image, with label "Series" like it was? Or just remove it altogether?   X  eworlebi (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Good job with the updates. I do have two concerns about the current format. Firstly, the "above" parameter is a problem. It is redundant because the header already states the show's name and that this is an article about a season. Additionally, it says "season" even on the British shows where it should say "series". I recommend that the parameter simply be removed. Secondly, the header should not italicize the word "season" or "series", nor should the word "season" or "series" start with a capital "S". Neelix (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Above and Header Parameters


 * Thanks for your input. So that's a second vote for removal of, I did realize the season/series issue a little earlier, solution I can see for that is (either remove it or) create a   in addition to   and have it use "series" when   is used, but that would require a run-through.
 * The second point has always been like that as it's a simple parse form the parameter. Some articles circumvent it by using a half italic . The capitalization of "season" and "series" is entirely up to the editors, the template does not auto insert that. I guess we could change it to combine   and create a new  /  and have it auto fill it, but that would require a run through all the transclusions for updates. But then again, we already need that for the DVD releases, and it can always fall back on current use while awaiting updates like the DVD releases are handled now.
 * To be honest, I've never really known what to do with, some seasons have an actual name so I would assume that would ben that, but most don't and thus use "show name season #", which for some reason never seemed to fit right.   X  eworlebi (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the auto-filling of the header would be a good idea. I'm trying to change the infobox header on The Bill (series 12) so that it won't italicize the word "series", but the standard solution you mention isn't working with the new format. Any idea why that's the case? Neelix (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I forgot I changed that, it used to italicize using manual  signs in the data parameter, I had moved that to the appropriate   parameter, which overrules manual changes. I've changed that back for now.   X  eworlebi (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do we have concensus to remove the "above" parameter? Neelix (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess so, will remove it.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested edits
With a view to using this template in some articles where it doesn't have appropriate fields, I'd like to propose the inclusion of some additional fields: These are as follows: The immediate use for these fields is to modify convert Infobox television Top Chef to be a fork of this template so it uses these custom fields, rather than to force the articles to use this template directly. Other templates can then be modified the same way so that they give the same appearance as this template, but without adding many custom fields to it. The changes are not significant, and don't affect the operation of the template. (See testcases). However, the changes will make it possible to replace four templates used in 85 articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * - date filming started
 * - date filming ended
 * - - custom field labels
 * - - custom data labels
 * - website
 * When  is defined, but   is not, the infobox reads "Filming dates September 23, 2011", making it appear that filming was only one day. Can this be reworded? 117Avenue (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox television Top Chef, Infobox television Chef Academy and Infobox television The Big Break, Infobox The Apprentice all used "Filming dates", which I agree is confusing, but other than "Filmed" I can't think of better wording. I can't see any sources for any of the dates, so perhaps the dates should just be removed. Alternatively, occurrences of  with no date could be filled with "Unknown". --AussieLegend (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's still just as bad. How about  causing there to be a dash, rather than  . Also, to fool proof it, it should not be possible to define , without  . 117Avenue (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Check out Template:Infobox television season/testcases, Top Chef (season 6) and Top Chef (season 8). --AussieLegend (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Should probably be done to the Original run as well. Will there be any adverse affects to presently airing seasons if the dash starts to appear? 117Avenue (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see any adverse effects. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

After converting all of the articles that were using custom templates, only 6 custom fields were required so I have deleted 7 & 8 since there is no need for them. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Regions
For the Blu-ray section, can someone please add a line for region-free releases? Ω pho  is  00:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes that could be merged
Infobox reality dance competition partially duplicates this template. A lot of fields are missing, and only two,  and   are not included in this template so it seems reasonable to merge the two templates. While a fork is possible, it seems far simpler and more logical to include the two addition fields in this template, as is transcluded to 121 articles already and this number will increase for some time, until the infatuation with dance programs is over. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox television Project Runway is another template that is redundant to this template. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

First aired/last aired fix
Whenever data is entered into the 'First aired' field, automatically an ndash appears, awaiting a 'Last aired' field to be entered with a date or the word "present." Now that there are Netflix series that have seasons without any 'end dates', I'm wondering if there's any way to remove the automatic ndash. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * we could change

 |data5 = to  |data5 = which would only show the dash if last_aired is specified. Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * or we could use

 |data5 = which would make that you can remove the dash by completely removing the parameter, but if you have the parameter there, but blank, you would still get the trailing dash. Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really see a problem that needs fixing. If the series hasn't ended, then "present" should be used in the " " field, which is the same as Infobox television. If it has ended, then the end date should be used, which is also the same as . Consensus at MOS:TV is that " " should remain as present until there is confirmation that a series has ended. In a situation where there is nothing in the " " field, absence of an ndash gives the impression that the series aired on a single day (see example). Do you have an example of a series that is in some state other than airing or ended? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My example is Arrested Development (season 4) (and other future Netflix-esque seasons of TV). Once the entire season of Arrested Development is released at once, as it stands now the infobox will read "May __, 2013 –".  At the page, notice how the ndash is present even though nothing is added in the "last_aired" field.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So it's not actually being broadcast, it's being streamed on the internet. (Netflix is actually a subscription based narrowcasting service.) The template is based on the conventional model of broadcasting using radio waves, not via the internet, hence use of "television" in the infobox title. Arrested Development (season 4) is an example of using the template for a purpose that was never considered during its development. The immediate (and best) fix is to use the custom labels, which won't introduce the problem that I highlighted above. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternate Cover
Is there a way to add an alternate DVD cover to the template? I'm wondering because the fifth season of Adventure Time is being divided up into two volumes, and I'd like to add both covers.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   20:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * just put them both in the  parameter? Frietjes (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be the best option. There is currently a discussion at the village pump about the use of DVD covers in season articles. This and previous discussions indicate that while we can probably get away using one image, effectively encouraging the use of multiple images by adding another field would meet opposition as it violates the spirit of WP:NFCC. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox titles
I've been meaning to bring this up for some time. Why would a season infobox title have the season in parentheses? The article is about the season but it's in parentheses? I don't think I need to give the definition of parentheses. I know that the article title has the season in parentheses, but that's a separate issue. The infobox title doesn't have to be the same. I think it should either have a colon or an en-dash. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with the standard then you probably need to discuss this at MOS:TV or at WT:TV, because it's been the standard for a long time. Use of parentheses is not a separate issue at all, it's standard for disambiguation of titles per WP:TVSEASON, which is why it carries over to the infobox, which automatically formats the season title. Other, non-standard formats require manual formatting. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * MOS:INFOBOX says, "It should be named the common name of the article's subject but may contain the full (official) name; this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title". I just thought that I would bring to light here an apparent oversight (?) of allowing the subject to be a parenthetical. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Template name
The template title is in italics which it shouldn't. I looked at the code but I have no idea what to change and didn't want to cause any errors with the actual template. Can someone please change the title? --Gonnym (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Swap DVD info for Cast
Given that DVD release information is the least important information for a series/season, I was wondering what people thought about removing it and putting slightly more relevant information in the infobox. We are placing a lot of importance on what amounts to merchandise and does not impact a show at all by putting it in the infobox. This is even more redundant when this is basically just release dates and there is typically a section that has this exact same information. I was thinking that since readers may want to know cast info for a series' season, we could swap this out. Given that we discourage the basic IMDb type cast listings from articles and season pages are unlikely to have casting info on main characters after the first season, we could have a section in the season infobox that holds that info. If we swap it out, it will save on the space issue that would be created if we just simply added it and did not remove the DVD release info.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good idea. The DVD fields in the infobox are vastly under-utilised and, with the advent of other forms of release, no longer serve a useful purpose. Including a  parameter brings this template closer to Infobox television. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if we need a complete revamp of the template, given a recent editor's comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Thoughts?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would hurt to have a good look at them. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm on board and completely agree. I also agree on removing the home media info from the template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

So, what do we need?
 * 1) Country of Origin
 * 2) Episode count
 * 3) Season count
 * 4) Cast
 * 5) Language
 * 6) Channel broadcast
 * 7) Original release
 * 8) Series chronology
 * 9) Episode list

What else should be there?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's my quick mock up in the sandbox of some stuff I thought to add, remove and others I wasn't sure with (the Additional info stuff). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, if a ravamp is going on with this template, then I think even more drastic changes are needed (which will bring it even closer to the top level template), and I'll explain.


 * The series template has a field of the creative people behind the show (directors, writers, producers, editors, cinematography, etc) as does the episode one. However, for the season one, we have no list, even though each season might have (and a lot of times - does have) different people in those roles (or joining/leaving).


 * That being said, I also believe that these credits should be under the production header as they are all production related (unlike the series template which has them above it).
 * In addition, missing from Favre1fan93's mock up, I'd like to see a "native title" field at the top (above or under also known as), and a link back to the show article.
 * Comment: Even though I see Favre1fan93 added a "language" field in the code I can't see it.
 * Comment: I think in the TV show hierarchy, a Showrunner is above an Executive Producer, as all Showrunners are Executive Producer, but not all Executive Producers are Showrunners. So I think "Showrunner(s)" should be above "Executive Producer(s)"
 * Comment: Is "Presented by" the preferred name for this? I'm more in favor of "Host".
 * Question #1: Is there a reason why the parameters are with an underscore and not a space (like in Template:Infobox film)?
 * Question #2: Is there a way in the code to detect an if argument and switch between singular and plural instead of having the names with a "(s)"? For example, if Template:Plainlist is present in the field then switch to plural.
 * Question #3: (Not sure if these are wrapper templates or not, as I haven't completely understood them yet, but) Do we want AND is there a way to merge Template:Infobox television Amazing Race and Template:Infobox television Survivor into this template (both are season templates)? If we do merge, these are the unique fields:
 * Winner/Winning team - This should go under "Presented by".
 * Question #4: Above or under "Judges" in shows like Dancing with the Stars?
 * Question #5: Do we list other competitors of the show? If so, is it under "Starring" or do we add another field? Does it go above "Judges" or under?
 * Survivor has "number_survivors", "number_days" and "location"
 * "number_survivors" - If we add the list of competitors, I'm not sure if we need it (but I won't be against it).
 * "number_days" and "location" - These are important for a show like this as they are a central feature of it.
 * Amazing Race has "continents_visited", "countries_visited", "states_visited", "provinces_visited", "cities_visited" "municipalities_visited" (Applies to The Amazing Race Philippines only), "territories_visited" "all_stars" "unfinished_business", "miles_traveled", "km_traveled", "number_legs", "all_stars" and "unfinished_business"
 * "all_stars" "unfinished_business", "all_stars" and "unfinished_business" (yes, its listed twice) - These should be removed as they are just direct links to a specific season.
 * "continents_visited", "countries_visited", "states_visited", "provinces_visited", "cities_visited" "municipalities_visited" (Applies to The Amazing Race Philippines only) and "territories_visited" - Some of these should be added in, not sure if they are all needed (but seeing as how not each season uses everyone of these, this might not be a clutter problem).
 * "miles_traveled" and "km_traveled" - If this is something they say on the show then its a central feature of it.
 * "number_legs" - Maybe? Is it a central feature or a trivial aspect?

Sorry for the wall of text --Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If we do merge, we can also merge Template:Infobox reality talent competition into this. The only unique parameters this has that aren't included already in other templates is "coaches" "cohost" "finalsvenue", "image", "winner-name", "winner-origin" "winner-genre", "winner-song", "runner-name" and "runner-image".
 * "winner-name" - We have as winner
 * "winner-origin", "winner-genre" - These seem trivial and should be removed.
 * "image" and "runner-image" - No reason to have the images of the winner and runner up in the infobox.
 * "cohost" - Using Plainlist makes this field redundant.
 * This leaves only "coaches", "winner-song", "runner-name" and "finalsvenue" as new fields.

And also Template:Infobox WWE reality competition which (I think is only used in WWE Diva Search) which has --Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "trainers" - Not sure if that means wrestlers or not.
 * "winner-pro" - Not sure what this is, it might be similar to the "coaches" from reality talent competition.
 * And it has a few more winner fields (however in its only time used, it has only 1 winner listed). This could be easily merged.


 * One thing that needs to be in the back of our minds is that there is a particular editor who nominates lots of infoboxes for merges or deletion. If we make this template too similar to Infobox television, I fully expect to see it nominated for a merge with that template. Infobox television contains a lot of information that doesn't belong in the season articles and this infobox contains a lot of information that doesn't belong in the main series article. A merge would result in a template that would be subject to abuse. You only have to look at how people use location, bgcolour, fgcolour and format. Yes, they still use the last 3 even though they no longer exist. People outside the TV project don't understand the difference between terminology. At a current TfD there's actually an argument that executive producers and producers are the same thing, so we need to have templates that best serve the purposes for which they are designed. I don't think in this template we need fields for "showrunner" and "executive_producer". These are usually the same for several seasons, often an entire series, and these positions are best addressed in the main series article. If there is a change for a particular season, that is best addressed in the prose. Infoboxes aren't repositories for as much information as we can fit in, they're for items significant to the article. In a season article, the EP or showrunner usually isn't significant.
 * Regarding "presenter" vs "host", presenter seems to be more widely used and is the more accurate term in most cases. For example, Clarkson, Hammond & May were presenters for Top Gear, not "hosts", but a host can usually be called a presenter. As for the questions:


 * 1) Use of underscores in parameters dates back to at least the days when I started programming professionally (1980). There are a lot of reasons for this; they stop wrapping and spaces can be confused with other codes are examples. I'm not sure why some people stopped using them.
 * 2) There are ways to determine differences. Some infoboxes just used different parameters while others use complicated code. Using (s) is a lot easier and simplifies the code, but it falls down in some areas like "company(s)".
 * 3) It would be ideal to have one template for all but what you can end up with is an enormous bloated template like Infobox settlement that caters for almost all occasions but is far too complicated for the average editor. I've merged 7 or 8 templates into this one but some I've just left because they overcomplicate the template. We really need to look closely at each template. In some cases it's best to leave separate templates. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Gonnym, we canot simply replicate what is on the series box or episode boxes. We don't want an infobox that goes all the way down the page because you're trying to have everything. There is a reason we have an episode table, so we don't need to include things like directors, writers, etc. That would be like including the episode titles. Additionally, I would not advocating adding every variation of names, like in the WWE template. First, they have a template, so we don't need to include them and second they don't have "seasons". If anything, we can/should have a couple of alternative areas that can be filled in by whatever the community of editors working that show need at the time.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand not wanting to merge the reality based templates with the season one. A few things:

--Gonnym (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Judges" field in the mock up should be removed if we aren't merging, as placing the judges without competitors or winners makes no sense (who are the judges judging? who did the judges award the win?).
 * Regarding not replicating the info on the series template (just a note, if the info should be replicated, not doing so just because it might lead to a merge might mean that a merge is needed. Not saying it is, just pointing out the logic) - Looking at current FA TV series articles such as House (TV series), The Simpsons and Firefly (TV series) - these don't list even 1 director or writer, with only Firefly listing editing and cinematography credits. Other articles such as Lost (TV series) lists only the 5 writers with the most credits and then lists "and others" similar to the directors field. Buffy the Vampire Slayer has no credits for director, writer, editor or cinematography. It seems for one reason or another that the editors don't want to have these fields in the main show one. However, I strongly believe these should be in the season one as they are very much season specific (giving actors (cast) a place in the infobox and not main behind-the-scene credits seems to be related to popularity and less to encyclopedic issues).
 * Regarding top level credits such as E.P and showrunners. I can see your reason for not wanting them in the season one. I'm not against not having them in the season and only having them in the series. One note though, for some TV shows the changing of the credit makes quite a different as in Community season 4 having a completely different showrunner team, or JJ Abrams not being the showrunner past season 1 on Lost.
 * I disagree with the writers and directors. Things in the infobox should be ones that don't change every episode. Main cast stays the same the whole season, even when someone leaves they are still the main cast for that season. EPs and showrunners don't change for a season. Writers and directors change every episode, unless you have something like True Detective that has mainly 1 or 2 people doing everything. I wouldn't want to have a field that people are going to feel the need to fill out and drive the infobox halfway down the page. Especially when there is an episode table that contains all of that information.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * One thing we can look at is including the option of embedding other templates. In the example to the right, Infobox person is used but "Musical career", "Genres", "Instruments" and "Labels" are part of Infobox musical artist. This way we can have this template with a specific parameter set, with the ability to add parameters on a case by case basis. In the case of the Amazing Race template, the code would look something like:


 * That way we don't need to bloat this template with special purpose parameters. In the example that I've given to the right I've had to embed Infobox musical artist, as Infobox television Amazing Race isn't setup for embedding, but you should get the picture. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I definitely like the idea of embedding. I was thinking of that myself, but did not know if templates allowed that or had the ability to. Since they obviously can, I say we make sure this infobox is the "bare essentials" we would like to use on your regular run of the mill season articles. Then we can explore what modules would bring to the table for certain seasons such as reality competitions that could use the extra parameters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I also very much like that idea and agree with Favre1fan93 that we need to first cleanup this template. I'd have to disagree with you Bignole, I do not see the infobox as an only the ones that stay in each episode (starring credit in the series infobox shows that even past starring credit actors stay in the infobox). Also, saying we have tables for stuff is something that can be used as an argument for most of the other stuff there as well (Starring has a table as seen as an example in House (TV series) and House (season 8) / Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2)). And again I bring up the fact that if these credits aren't listed a lot of times in the series level infobox which leaves these (both) infobox with undue weight, as much as I love seeing names i recognize in the infobox, the stars aren't the only people involved in the show. I am not saying or advocating we add the hairstylist or every credit, but writing, directing, editing and cinematography are the main aspects of any show. --Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As there isn't really any reason not to add module to the template (it's not something that affects any articles), I've added it to the live code. Since we all seem to agree on removing the home media stuff, should I do that too? We can then concentrate on revamping the template as necessary. While I'm at it, is there anyone who opposes adding starring? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm good with both of those changes (or all three, including the module code).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good with all changes and just to make it clear that I not only have no problem with starring, as I believe it should be in the box, I just pointed out that acting was just one part of a show and not its central part.--Gonnym (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm good with adding module, removing home media info, and adding starring. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Home media has been removed and "starring" is now a parameter. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1
Didn't know how to use the sandbox so built this for layout discussion proposes. A few things.


 * Template:Infobox says "Text to put in the caption over the top of the table (or as section header before the whole content of this table, if this is a child infobox). For accessibility reasons, this is the most recommended alternative." Seems no infobox does this. Besides it looking less attractive, any reason why?
 * As talked about before, Showrunner(s) and Executive producer(s) can be left out if we decide so.
 * I changed Written by and Directed by (from infobox television) to Writer(s) and Directer(s).
 * I changed Cinematography to Cinematographer(s) for consistency (as its Editor(s) and not Editing and Directer(s) and not Direction).
 * I added a "General" header. This can be removed if its unwanted. I just thought it looked like it was missing a header.
 * I added an image_alt field as it was missing (I think)
 * I added a native title field and placed the language and country fields at the top right under it as (1) it won't make sense for them not being together and (2) it won't make sense for the native title not to be the first parameter.--Gonnym (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, I wouldn't have the writers and directors, because they are in the episode table, and you're going to have people want to add all of them and the infobox will drag down half the page (defeating the purpose of an infobox). It also moves it dangerously close to just being the TV infobox, which it shouldn't be.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) The starring actors are also listed in the season article in a section specially for that and they are also listed in the show template, so being mentioned in one place is apearantly not a disqualifier for being mentioned in the template. (2) I do not see the problem of editors adding all the directors to the infobox, same as I don't have a problem of them adding stars (which is usually more). (3) I've also added to the example the Collapsible list which I hope is a good compromise. It will make all infoboxes 6 lines longer and will only make it bigger than that if you choose to click on the show button. --Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, quite a few infoboxes use "title" instead of "above". It's not really relevant here though. I'm with Bignole regarding writers and directors. We should be concentrating on content that is relevant to all, or most, episodes and writers and directors usually change throughout the season. "Cinematographer(s)" isn't consistent, Infobox television uses "Cinematography". I'm not sure we need it either, it's under-utilised in Infobox television as is. image_alt is already used by the infobox. I dodn't really see the purpose of "native title" in a season infobox. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I really do not understand the reasoning behind only listing credits which are in all or most episodes. I find the behind-the-scene credits an integral part of the season. If this is a MOS choice then fine, but if this is just a personal preferences then I'm against it. If its space issues then that's also not a valid reason. Lost (season 2) has 10 different directors and 15 star billed actors (and with Collapsible list that reason is even less meaningful) (Another example:Game of Thrones (season 4): 27 main actors in the article page, 5 directors and 4 writers). If we want to remove editing and Cinematography from this infobox and its removed from the episode and show ones as well I would be more ok with that (still would sound like a bad idea to me personally). Regarding native title - not all of the shows are English speaking shows. Their title is not and has never been in English. A native title is available in many places including in the film infobox.--Gonnym (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Writers and directors are listed in the episode tables, so there is no need to include them in the infobox as well. We don't normally expand beyond the names, so there is no point listing them twice and, because we don't normally expand beyond their names, they're aren't important enough to include in an infobox. Infoboxes are supposed to summarise key points. Starring cast should certainly be listed. I'm not sure of the relevance of Lost (season 2), since no directors or actors are listed in the infobox. Space does become very relevant in season articles because there is often a lack of content above the episode table and a long infobox increases whitespace significantly. Can you give me an example of a season article where the season name is not in English? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Lost was an example of a TV show season with a lot of actors that when this revamped template adds the starring field will get 15 new lines of actors. Again, I don't understand what the table example means, the main actors are listed in a list in the same page and most aren't expanded upon either (Jorge Garcia in Lost (season 2) is mentioned twice) and some, even though are billed for each episode only appear for a small part of the season. And again, wouldn't the use of Collapsible list solve this? Regarding the native name - each survivor season uses a descriptive name (Survivor: Palau).--Gonnym (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The only production elements I feel we should keep in Gonnym's proposed template would be the EPs and Showrunners and maybe Editors. The Writer, Director and Cinematographer info is better suited for the episode infobox, and I agree with the statements Aussie and Big have said about why it should not be included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Gonnym, just to point something out regarding Lost and Game of Thrones with their long cast lists in the TV infobox: WP:MOSTV actually says that if the list is too long, then it is recommended (not mandated, because it is a guideline after all) that you do a "See below" and just list them all in a cast section. This is specifically because of how long it makes the infobox and how easy it is to just get lost in a giant list of names all crammed together. It makes the list less useful when it's that long. It's the reason the Smallville doesn't list them, because there were 17 series regulars over the course of the show. That's a lot of names, I cannot imagine having 20+ with a show that has been around half as long as Smallville was.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Starring actors are relevant for the whole season, whether they appear in episodes or not, per WP:TVCAST. Writers and directors are only relevant to the episodes that they wrote or directed. Survivor seasons are not examples where native name is required, as seasons are called "Survivor: ", not "Survivor (season x)". Of course, Survivor: The Australian Outback could have been subtitled a number of ways, none of them flattering, but even it didn't need native name. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Bignole, the "See below" option is a good soltuin to that, I agree. A shame there isn't an easy scan one for the behind-the-scene people (the table isn't as easy as names repeat themselves and you need to really search for individual names). While I'm still against leaving them out, I'm pretty exhausted of this and we can better our time with the rest of this template discussion. AussieLegend, a few other examples: Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, Survivor: Redemption Island, Survivor: One World, Survivor: Blood vs. Water, Survivor: Worlds Apart, Survivor: Second Chance. These are just what I quickly found and there might be other shows in non English languages with season titles like Spartacus: War of the Damned.


 * Do we really need EPs and Showrunners in a season article? These are typically positions that are static for large parts of series and are really better addressed in the main article. "Judges", "presenters" and "voices" would seem more impoirtant, as they are often alternates to "starring" and often do change from season to season. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Judges should be removed as it should be part of a module for Reality talent competitions. "Voices of" should be added per your rationale and "Narrated by" should as well be added. Regarding EPs and Showrunners being static, that is pretty much untrue. Its as much as true as actors are static for a full show run and yet we still just added it. Whether or not it should be included, I believe it should, but for some reason you seem to be favoring the infobox being on camera people only.--Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * How can we include starring characters but exclude judges when they are the stars in many programs? The same goes for presenters. Looking at some high profile, long-running shows, The Big Bang Theory has had only 3 EPs in 8 seasons, NCIS (TV series) has had 8 in 12, but some of these have been EPs for many seasons, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit in 16 seasons with one having been EP for 15 seasons and another for 12. That seems pretty static to me. It's not like they change every season. We include stars, or "camera people" people because they are the people we see. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Issue (1) judges: To include judges, you MUST include (at the very least) two other important fields - the people they judge (the competitors) and the person(s) that won (winner(s)). But if you do not want to include them in the main template, and prefer to include them in the module, then the judges should go there with them. There is no TV show that has judges without a winner so what is the point in placing a judges field in the template when you leave out that field? Issue (2) Your examples are good, however, they aren't always the case. Again, Lost (as written currently in its infobox): J. J. Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Bryan Burk, Carlton Cuse, Jack Bender, Jeff Pinkner (season 3), Stephen Williams (seasons 4–5), Edward Kitsis (seasons 5–6), Adam Horowitz (seasons 5–6), Jean Higgins (season 6), Elizabeth Sarnoff (season 6). So season 3 had one join, season 4 had one leave and one join, season 5 had one leave and 2 join, season 6 had one join. (Edited: Community (TV series) has also EP leaving and joining in its 6 seasons). Again, I can argue that stars are also static and changes in season casting can be better served in the prose. I'm sorry, but your argument "We include stars, or "camera people" people because they are the people we see." won't really stand up to any objective criteria. On a related note, I see you didn't add to the template doc in the starring section any note regarding long cast list to add a See Also section instead of adding a long list. --Gonnym (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Forget to mention presenters - I'm in favor of adding it. On a somewhat related issue, "Announcer" in late night talk shows is a field missing. Its not a presenter, a host or a narrator and I'm in favor of adding it. --Gonnym (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm actually going to draw back my opposition to having Judges on the main template as I found a TV show genre that has Judges without a seasonal winner - Shark Tank as an example. They are currently listed as Stars, but if you agree they should be changed to Judges then this example works. --Gonnym (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Are we still trying to move forward with this? We've been dormant for about a week on discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm game for it. I've just been busy in real life. What should be the next step? I'm not sure we were all in complete agreement but everything, but I felt like there was at least a bit of consensus on the main parts to include/remove.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for comments from other people. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm. Well I think most of Gonnym's proposed changes are fine, and then incorporating the module element to include show/genre specific info is the way to go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still here. I didn't want to seem aggressive so just waited polity on the sidelines. --Gonnym (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. So my apologies on not wanting to read back up all the text. Was there something in particular that was holding us up? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll list the standing issues (if I missed one it was by mistake):
 * Announcer(s) (edit:name fixed). Rationale: for Late night talk shows this is important. Its not a presenter, a host nor a narrator. --Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the typo. I know this isn't a field, currently. However once we are done here I will also propose it there. Ed McMahon is famous as The Tonight Show announcer. Edit: I just noticed they are listed under "Narrated" which is just semantically wrong. --Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Native title. Rationale: some shows (some examples are Spartacus: War of the Damned, Survivor: Blood vs. Water and Survivor: Worlds Apart) have season names. Not all shows are in English or even in Latin alphabet and should have the native title in the infobox (as infobox film does, and how the other tv infoboxes should also (Template:Infobox television Amazing Race does this already)). --Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought it was obvious that if there are examples in English then there might be other languages which are imaginative enough to have a season name. Koh-Lanta (season 1) (Les Aventuriers de Koh-Lanta) and Koh-Lanta (special season 3) (Koh-Lanta: La Revanche des héros) as two examples.--Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Position of Native title, Country of origin and Original language(s). Rationale: I believe the Native title should be the first field after the image as its second only to the translated name. Since you'll see a name not in English, you'd like to know from where it came and what language its in. When its in English it should still be on top for consistency. --Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Production field. Rationale: there is a disagreement which fields and if at all this should be added. The fields are Showrunner(s), Executive producer(s), Writer(s), Directer(s), Editor(s) and Cinematographer(s). --Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Starring cast is typically static yet we include them (SR and EP change +- at the same rate as stars do in some shows)--Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit: Seinfeld had the same 4 starring actors for 9 seasons yet there were changes in its EP list throughout the show. Friends was the same - staring cast didn't change yet EP did change. --Gonnym (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As shown in examples given above, some lists have much more stars than writers and directors yet we include them.--Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit: And as also noted, season cast list is also listed as a list in season articles yet we still include them (even-though, visually speaking, the cast list is much easier to read in the article as its in a simple list compared to the writer and director table which is full of other text as well. See as an example Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1)) --Gonnym (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Link back to show name. Rationale: the episode template links back to the show template and this should link back to it as well. Currently there is no link to it in the infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "General" header. More of a question than an issue. Think a header under the image (currently "General" but can change) is a good addition? It just seemed strange to me that it didn't have a header while the others do and I think it looks better. --Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't list those as I thought we had no objection to including starring, presenters, judges and voices. I'll add narrated to that list as well.--Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Announcer" (I assume that's what Gonnym meant) - This is not a field in Infobox television and we really don't want to get bogged down in adding too many non-standard headings.
 * "Native title" - "Native" names are meant for non-English names when the article's subject is an English. All of the examples so far given are English with no native name so don't need a "native_name" field. When TV seasons do have a non-English name, they don't normally have an English name so they use the standard "season_name" field. See for example Gwiezdny cyrk, Jak oni śpiewają (season 1), Mira Quien Baila (U.S.), Season 3, Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 1), Ballando con le Stelle (series 9), Danse avec les stars (France season 1), Dança dos Famosos (season 1) or Gwiazdy tańczą na lodzie (season 1).
 * "Showrunner(s), Executive producer(s)" - These are typically positions that are static for large parts of series and are really better addressed in the main article
 * "Writer(s), Directer(s)" - Writers and directors are listed in the episode tables, so there is no need to include them in the infobox as well. There are normally lots of writers and directors and we don't need to bloat the infobox.
 * For the benefit of those who don't want to search back through the text, I'll again state that if we're including "starring" we should look at some of the equivalents from infobox television, specifically,   and  . We really can't include starring without the others since they're often mutually exclusive and listing somebody in infobox television as a presenter but in this infobox as starring is inconsistent at best. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Announcer" - Don't preempt the outcome of yet to be had discussions. Adding new parameters here and then suggesting we add them to the main infobox is messy. If you want to add announcer to infobox television, suggest it now and then, if the discussion results in a new parameter, we can discuss adding it to this template then. Let's concentrate on one infobox at a time.


 * "Native title" - Koh-Lanta (season 1) already has "Les Aventuriers de Koh-Lanta" in the infobox. The name in the infobox doesn't have to be the same as the article title and we don't need to have both in the infobox. We have differences even with purely English season names. For example, the fourth season of Hannah Montana was marketed as "Hannah Montana Forever" but, because it was still the fourth season of Hannah Montana, the article is titled Hannah Montana (season 4) to maintain consistency with Hannah Montana (season 1), Hannah Montana (season 2) and Hannah Montana (season 3), but we use "Hannah Montana Forever" as the name in the infobox.
 * "As shown in examples given above, some lists have much more stars than writers and directors yet we include them" - As has already been pointed out, if there is a big list of starring characters we generally add a "see below" link. However, the problem in infobox television is that we include starring cast for all seasons. Starring cast in individual seasons is usually a much shorter list. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Announcer. One template discussion has nothing to do with another and there is no policy or procedure saying we have to first fix this issue in template A before fixing it in template B. Because for some reason the revamp started here, I'm asking for it here and when we finish with this template, I can then fix it in other places.--Gonnym (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Native name. I really doubt that having a native non Latin character name as the title of the infobox would help someone. If the Hebrew title "השרדות אול-סטארס" would be entered as the title no one would understand it. I'd much rather have the English, translated title, as the title and a native title field for the native name.
 * Production fields. And as I already replied to that and yet got no response even once, what would be wrong in using Collapsible list for production entries and long cast entries instead of a (in my opinion, a very bad) "see below" link? Also, stating season cast list is not long is just untrue for some shows. Lost has a big cast list (14 in season 1), Oz (9 main cast from season 2) Once Upon a Time (9 main cast)--Gonnym (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * please do not add your replies in the middle of another editor's post. That only makes things confusing for people who subsequently have to read the discussion. Add your post in chronological order, i.e. after the last person who replied. Regarding your request in this edit summary, it's inappropriate for me to edit the content of what you slipped in when you segmented my post.
 * We're trying to make all of these related template's fairly consistent, and chopping and changing from template to template doesn't help. A parameter like announcer is something that should be added to infobox television first and then filtered down to here, not the other way around. As I've already explained, with examples, What you're suggesting with native titles is already possible. We can do what you're suggesting with the existing  parameter, as shown in the infobox example I gave, for the odd occasion that there may be some reason to require a   parameter. None of the examples so far given have demonstrated that need though. Regarding the production fields, infoboxes are not a repository for everything. We don't need to add everything, just the more important stuff. In any cases, MOS:SCROLL does warn about using collapsible lists. If we need to use them in an infobox then the content is probably something best left for the prose. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding about the use of the template. However, MOS:SCROLL says "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, and in navboxes.", which is the case in of an infobox. Regarding being a repository, I agree with you on this, but disagree with you on what constitutes "repository" information and what constitutes relevant infobox information. And regarding native names, I'd like to hear why in your opinion a non-Latin name as the title of the infobox is a better solution. (Regarding my request, WP:TPO says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning", placing it in the "correct" spot without its context changes its meaning. I have no problem with you correcting my mistakes, but don't move it and make it not make sense. And if you can't, just ask me to move and I'll move it.)
 * Okay. Let me see if I can hit all of this: Announcer This seems like a separate discussion that should be had over at Infobox TV and then based on that outcome, brought back here; Native name I agree with Aussie's rationale on how this should be used over how Gonnym is proposing; Production fields I still feel that Showrunner(s) and EP(s) should be included here, because as Gonnym pointed out, there are instances where these fields are not static across the series. I would propose that these be added, and in the documentation state that they should generally be used if multiple season articles exist and the fields would be different. Otherwise the info should just be regulated to the main article as Aussie has stated. I definitely feel that Writer(s) and Director(s) should not be included in the infobox, as those are more episode specific anyways and hardly static (a rare exception that comes to mind for director is The Big Bang Theory). As for Cinematographer and Editor, these are generally static, but I'm neutral on if it should be in the infobox; Link back The only place I would say this would be necessary is if the season has an alternate title (such as the Hannah Montana or Spartacus examples above); General I'm neutral on this. Doesn't do anything for me either way. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Link back, the point is that there isn't interlinking between the templates (edit: I meant between the infobox and the corresponding article page). There is a next season/previous season and even episode list, yet there is no link to the main article (which the episode template does have). I replied above regarding Announcer. There is no place saying this issue can't be started here before (as we are already working on this here) (Edit: I still think there isn't a policy stating it, yet to move this forward I've placed a request over there, please respond there on this issue if you want). Regarding Native name, see my reply to AussieLegend regarding non-latin names. --Gonnym (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Favre1fan93 and AussieLegend, I just noticed that the main article for Hannah Montana uses the "Also known as" field to note the additional season 4 name "Hannah Montana Forever (season 4)" and this is an English variation for an English show. What is the difference in having a native title field compared to having this one? --Gonnym (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

AussieLegend, I placed your comments under the relevant topics so the flow will be easier to follow. I apologize in advance if you do not like it and freely revert it.--Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, please don't edit posts made by others. I've restored mine. Please see Talk page guidelines, specifically WP:TPO. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Related discussion
Since we're discussing parameters, it's worth mentioning that Infobox Paris by Night has been nominated for deletion with a suggestion that parameters be merged into Infobox television episode, or even Infobox television. Since this is directly relevant to the revamps we've started here, comments by interested parties are necessary. The discussion is at Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 6. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding this and my comment on the discussion over there, what I was looking for was an example of a show (as I couldn't fine one) so I can see what we do with those special cases and how the parameters look like. I'm typically against shows having their only specific template and my thought was that if this is not a unique case for Paris by Night and the other 3 templates (show, season, episode) can't help, then maybe we should rename it to a generalize "Infobox special television show" or something.--Gonnym (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, we could create Infobox special television season as a module to be embedded in this one and Infobox special television episode as a module to be used in a revamped Infobox television episode. The main templates would contain basic parameters suitable for all seasons/episodes and the extra parameters would be in the special modules, or something along those lines. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that might do the job. I guess once we start revamping the templates we will see what a special television season module will include. Regarding season modules (from my limited testing), it would seem we will need these three - one for The Amazing Race, one for Reality talent competitions and one for Survivor.--Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is this possibility not being discussed at the TfD? Why split the discussion? Alakzi (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion started about a limited parameter change 7 days ago. The issue of infobox parameters was raised 11 hours after that at WT:TV. Shortly after that Bignole suggested a revamp of the entire template and it has slowly expanded as part of the process. Infobox Paris by Night's nomination has been completely separate until now. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this subsection; it concerns the outcome of the TfD. Alakzi (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand then. This subsection isn't splitting the discussion. The point was to identify a related TfD while we're discussing revamping related infoboxes. Gonnym made a post in response, which I responded to with a suggestion. That's been the only discussion, and it's too early to mention it at the TfD. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're now looking at a modular solution, I'm likely to oppose the TfD proposal. Maybe others would feel the same way. At the very least, participants at the TfD should be made aware of the discussion here. Alakzi (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

title italicization (bug?)
Regardless of the stale discussion above, I noticed a problem with the code and was hoping one of you would be able to fix this.

In the infobox in List of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson episodes (1991), you'll notice that the name has a  '  at the start and the wrong part of the text is being italicized, this is because the text is entered as such. In List of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson episodes (1991), the text appears correct, but the code does not seem to be correct. As you can see, it has unclosed italic signs. My question, is it ok to leave it unclosed (with regards to any html/wiki guidelines)?
 * The problem is simply fixed by entering the name properly. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks AussieLegend. Does the title italic work by italicizing the name before the parentheses and everything inside them leave normal? --Gonnym (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this is alluded to in the template instructions. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd argue its a bit vague as you must use parentheses (and its not just one option out of several) or it won't work and it doesn't say so. --Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)