Template talk:Infobox television

Adding animation services attribute

I suggest adding an attribute for animation services for animated shows, as opposed to adding non-standard parameters to do that. Raymondsze (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. A number of articles already include them under "animators" or "production companies" or add an attribute for "animation studio" (see The Legend of Korra). An animation studio is comparable, concise, and materially relevant (Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain?). And it's important information, animation studios do skilled work and it's reflected in the quality of the show. DA39A3 (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with this motion of having an actual attribute for animation services in animated shows instead of removing them completely as a "non-definable" attribute in info-boxes.-Prince Silversaddle (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it is "Materially relevant to the subject" and it is seldom info that is "Already cited elsewhere in the article" - that supports that it is not materially relevant. This is generally skilled labor work that is implementing the creative output of the production companies listed in "Company". The arguments in the infobox instructions for "Company" really apply to not listing animation services at all in the infobox. If an attribute has not been added by consensus to the standard set, using infobox construction work-arounds to add it as a non-standard attribute for a specific infobox is inappropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

"Producer" entry

Since the "producer" title tends to refer to as a pay scale of the writing room staff (which changes per season), I was thinking if for the "producer" entry, it appeared as "produced by" in the infobox template to refer to the production facilities/logistics producer(s). 2600:1700:B331:50F0:C9F3:119E:1837:833 (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The "Producer" field refers to individuals credited as producers on the series. The production facilities are already handled by the "Production company" field via the |company= parameter. I don't think we necessarily need to alter these as they are already accurately descriptive for what they are intended to display, and using simply "produced by" could be misleading. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The production facilities/logistics producers are the producers who facilitate the choreography, stunts, and other physical productions on set during live filming. In this case, if you were to leave the "producer(s)" writing staff template entry, you might as well as also add related redundancy of the payscales: "co-producer", "producer", "supervising producer", and "co-executive producer (aka senior writers)" (which changes every couple of seasons). It's very different in film where the producer(s) are second in seniority below the director, and the film's executive producer oversees investing in the shoot (In tv shows, the EP is either an experienced writing staff or the showrunner who has full creative and management responsibility for the TV show's season or throughout its entire run). 2600:1700:B331:50F0:C9F3:119E:1837:833 (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

As Trailblazer pointed out, the production companies already have their own parameter. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

But how is the production company related to a production facilities producer crew member? Also, the "producer" credit may not be necessary then, as it's just a low-level pay-scale staff writer. 2600:1700:B331:50F0:C9F3:119E:1837:833 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Producers oversee and manage production. I don't think they are low-level pay-scale staff, but they are lower than executive producers. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

In scripted comedy and drama TV shows, “staff writer”, “story editor”, “executive story editor”, “co-producer”, “producer”, “supervising producer”, “co-executive producer” (aka “senior writers” the latter who also assist with other tasks such as supervising the editing room, assisting with negotiating the budget with the showrunner and production office management staff), and “executive producer” is a pay scale of the writers room staff. The only producer credit not affilated with the writers room staff is the line producer (in charge of the production office management staff and determines the budget, coordinates the shooting schedules and recruites below the line crew members for the showrunner to hire) and “produced by” (aka “production facilities/production logistics producer” who facilitates the choreography and stunts live on set). EJA94 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Narrated by

It's come up before and no one has ever given a good reason not to, yet it never happens. Is there a way to make the "narrator" field display "announcer" instead in certain contexts? Certain genres of show, such as talk shows and game shows, have announcers, not narrators, and it looks wrong to have "narrator" on a game show. I'm sure there's a way to make "announcer" override "narrator" where "announcer" is the more commonly used term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an article where you'd want to add this? I'd like to see if these are notable cast members. Gonnym (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

On just about any game show, the announcer is a notable part of the proceedings. GA-class game show articles such as Jeopardy!, Wheel of Fortune (American game show), and Press Your Luck mention the announcers in the lead. The Price Is Right mentions not only the announcers, but also their catch phrase of "come on down!"

Talk shows like Late Show with David Letterman also have a lot of byplay with the announcer. Just about every episode, they'd cut to Alan Kalter for a comedy sketch. The tradition of talk show announcer byplay goes back to Ed McMahon on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson.

I think it's safe to say that for almost every talk show or game show, there is more than enough precedent for the announcer(s) to be considered notable parts of the cast. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that rundown. I'm fine with adding it if no one opposes. Gonnym (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Does the narrator parameter still exist though? As in does it still reads "Narrated by" for using the narrated parameter (when not using the announcer parameter)? — YoungForever^(talk) 23:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Right now, just about every game show and talk show that has had an announcer uses "narrated by". I was just wondering if there was a way to add an "announced by" field that overrides "narrated by" in cases where "announcer" is the more common term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The proposed coding done by Gonnym seen in the sandbox here would make |announcer=/"Announcer" that would replace |presenter=/"Presented by", not |narrator=/"Narrated by". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah sorry, messed that up. Good thing we have sandboxes. Gonnym (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so now that that's sorted, to answer YoungForever's question, the parameter still exists, though it can not be used simultaneously with the new announcer one. Only one or the other (as coded currently) could be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 So "announcer" can be used now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: I see no worthwhile objections or issues to this, so I'm going ahead and implementing this in the template. It should be available to use momentarily. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Template needs to be updated to support night mode

Hi this template doesnt support night theme for transparent images example as it doesn't provide a way for editors to style images either by adding a white background or inverting colors. The [1] is to allow editors to add a class to the image via a template parameter. This is already beimg used in placed like infobox signatures.

Please see my recent attempt to fix this for reference (reverted by User:Gonnym) and application in The_Acolyte_(TV_series) (reverted by User:‪Adamstom.97.‬

This feature is planned for deployment by June 20th so a fix should ideally be applied before then. Thanks in advance for deciding what you want to do about this. I am fixing issues like this at a large scale spanning multiple Wikimedia projects and templates (mostly to raise awareness of this issue) so unfortunately do not have time to discuss on a per-template basis but if you have any general questions you can direct them to the MediaWiki recommendations page.

Thank you! 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the only way to fix these images is on a per-image fix by adding "skin-invert"? Do all .svg files need this same class? Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Not always. Qnother solution might be adding a different class to set background to white. The issue also occurs with png images with transparent background - not just svg.

In fact, the quickest fix to consider here is always defining the background as white globally in the template. E.g. .infobox-television img {background:white;}

Another example I came across today:

Fantasmas_(TV_series). 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

So if we define the background as white like you propose above, would this have any other unintentional effect? Gonnym (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a problem for images that are just white text? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Are there images that are just white text? They would not show on the current white background, so I suspect there aren't any. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

What Jonesy95 says: Images with just white text wouldn't show up in the normal theme so are not a problem. There would be no side effects of such a change other than the image no longer inheriting the background color of the infobox - but that itself would be an accessibility improvement. 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I've added (I think) the rule to the sandbox version. Please add a test to the /testcases and make sure this works as you want. Gonnym (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

LGTM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_television/testcases#Note_about_images 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Paging @User:Gonnym - please go ahead and apply this fix. 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jdlrobson: I've viewed the newly added image to the testcase in dark mode and I don't see any difference between the live template and the sandbox with it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you viewing it with ?vectordarkmode=1 in the URLs per the instructions? Also please disable the dark mode gadget enabled if you have that on. 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The sandbox loads styles in the examples page that also applies to the non sandbox version so you can't reliably test it in that way. It would be better to edit an article like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Acolyte_(TV_series)?useskin=vector-2022&vectornightmode=1 to use the sandbox to see the difference. 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok I see that at The Acolyte. Though switching to the sandbox template it produced this error: Lua error in Module:Infobox_television/sandbox at line 140: attempt to compare number with string. So that will need to be investigated before going live if it is something with the CSS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The error has nothing to do with it. That's some unfinished code I'm working on (which is why it's on the /sandbox). You can switch the template sandbox to use the live version of the module to test the CSS. Gonnym (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

All good. The CSS appeared to work as intended, so if that Lua error isn't part of that, then I think this is fine to make live. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Added. Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Episode counter

I've recently came across Template:Episode counter which was used in the |num_episodes= field of the infobox of an article. Is this something we want used in articles? Since the infobox should have a consistent look across the wiki, a Korean or reality series shouldn't seem that different. Currently all other articles typically just use a simple number for this. Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems a bit excessive. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

{{Episode counter}} is just extraneous details we do not need on the infobox. A simple number is sufficient already for the |num_episodes= parameter. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't see the need either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with the above, unnecessary. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

As the template is now removed and not in use in any mainspace article, should it be delete? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 14:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It has been nominated for deletion. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate field

@Gonnym: In your latest change you added duplicate label54 and related fields. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Fixed. Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Studio section in infobox

Per this talk page discussion, should there be a separate field that lists a studio producing a series live-action or animated? They have nothing to do with production companies, and besides, some shows have logos of companies that are not production companies at all. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the difference between a studio producing a series and a production company? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The studio is responsible for the production of quality of a product, while the production company responsible for supervising the production process. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that an animation studio is not a production company. There is a past discussion about not including animation studios in the infobox. Please see Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 14#Parameter clarification. — YoungForever^(talk) 07:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I know that an animation studio is a studio in all, not a production company. Plus, even in the live-action field the pipelines of a studio and a production company are different. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That should only apply to shows that were subcontracted, not the ones that were actually co-productions. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Besides, it's not fair to assume that every animated show like Arthur, the Beetlejuice cartoon, and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic were subcontracted like The Simpsons and King of the Hill instead of co-production without solid evidence. Because of this unfair new guideline, I can't even watch these shows anymore and I don't mean watching the articles on them. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Should the only exception be 20th Television Animation? they are not a subcontractor animation studio. Jediknight15 (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no exception. A company is or is not the studio producing the show. If it is, add it. If it isn't, do not. Gonnym (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

they technically do count on the same grounds as Searchlight Pictures. Jediknight15 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Starring actors

How to determine starring actors? Is it by opening and ending credits or by billing poster or by official website or by reliable sources? What if there's differences between those? This for Korean dramas by the way. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 15:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

US shows have onscreen credits in the opening. If Korean dramas have the same, use that. Gonnym (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I'm talking about the onscreen credits. Thank you Gonnym. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 15:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Gonnym, a follow up question, so is onscreen credits has more WP:WEIGHT than others? I'm asking this as another user have different point of view of how starring cast list should be in Queen of Tears. See my talk page. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 10:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the country, I guess. In the US market, the on screen credits for television productions is what we go by. If Korea does it differently then follow that. However, I would say that I find it strange that they would have a different order on screen and on a poster. Is there a specific example for this? Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Queen of Tears is an example for it, onscreen credits shows the ensemble cast while the poster shows the names of two main actors only. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 11:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

And are the first two names from the on screen credits, the same two names from the poster? Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 13:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

So there really isn't an issue here. The poster for lack of space lists the 2 top billed cast, the TV episode itself lists the entire cast. They are all starring. Gonnym (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Windborne Rider. I apologize for not noticing this discussion earlier. Starring actors are usually determined by billing poster for Korean dramas, which is why I made the edit. Wheezythewave (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That's alright but as far as I know is that billing poster are mostly use in films rather than in dramas. And that is why I brought up this discussion because of the different approach when there's already a pre-existing guidelines. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I see. I believe it was already discussed back in April that generally only the main cast in the infobox is listed for korean dramas. If you check the other pages as well. Wheezythewave (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)