Template talk:Infobox television season/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Other season links

I understand not adding in other seasons until there is something to link to, as most of the time this probably means that another season hasn't even been ordered, but why do we not allow redirect links? It seems to me that this is similar to episode articles, where there may not be an article for every episode so in the prev/next parametres we are allowed to add redirects to the prev/next episode in an episode table so that readers can still follow the normal order of the episodes. I think it makes sense to allow editors to add redirects in the season prev/next parametres to the season heading in a list of episodes, so if not every season in a multi season series has an article, for whatever reason, readers can still move through each one in order and not mistakenly think that there is no 'next season' or that Wikipedia has no information on any such 'next season'. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Has it been discussed before? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Linking to redirects is pointless and confuses readers. In an episode article, a redirect to an episode's entry in the episode list is still a redirect to the next or previous episode, while in a season article the redirect is usually just to the "list of episodes" page. For example, at Vikings (season 3), clicking on the link to Vikings (season 4) would just take the reader to List of Vikings episodes, where this is no season 4 entry. It just doesn't serve any purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that, what I am saying is (to use your example) if a season 4 entry is created at List of Vikings episodes but a season 4 article is not, why is it not acceptable to link to that entry from the season 3 article? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Original release

This is concerning the "Original release" row in the infobox for seasons that have been split into two parts (especially those that are marketed and widely known by their two separate parts). Should the start/end dates of these parts be noted in (A) two date ranges (typically done with Part 1's start date in first_aired, and the other three dates in last_aired), or should there only be a single date range noting the start/end date of the entire season? If the former should be done but not by the manner explained, should there be more variables for these occurrences? Alex|The|Whovian 07:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The infobox is "Infobox television season" and the subject of the article and infobox is always one season so the start and end dates should be the start and end dates of the season, regardless of how many parts the season has. If we were to look at Infobox television as a comparison, we list the start and end dates of the series, not of the individual seasons (i.e. the parts). --AussieLegend (✉) 09:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Episode list variable

I've made some edits at this template's sandbox, and I just wanted some other opinions to see if the idea is worth implementing. Basically, we typically set the "episode_list" parameter to "[[List of NCIS episodes|List of ''NCIS'' episodes]]" (for example), italicizing the series name manually. The edits I've made in the sandbox include a new parameter "episode_list_pln" (short for "plain", should probably be renamed), which you simply set to "List of NCIS episodes" (no links, no italics), and the template automatically adds said links and italics, per the last test cases. If this were added, it'd be easy to use AWB to update the current usages of the template to use this format. And nothing would be broken implementing this: the template implements "episode_list_pln" only if "episode_list" is not set, else if "episode_list" is set, then it is included as-is and nothing further is done. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That definitely seems fine for me. Just clarifying, if someone is not aware of this change (should we make it) and still sets the param as "episode_list = [[List of NCIS episodes|List of ''NCIS'' episodes]]", that will still work for them yeah? That's what your last sentence was saying? If so, I'm fine with changing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. "episode_list" remains a variable and takes precedence over "episode_list_pln". Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Also see no problem with this, though I agree that "episode_list_pln" should probably be renamed. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Agreed. Any suggestions? Perhaps just an adjustment to something like "list_of_episodes"? Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't want to be too confusing. Perhaps something like "episode_list_form" or "episode_list_full"? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Well depending on how much we want to phase out the old one, how about "episode_list_new"? Though that isn't really super descriptive, it's a good alternative. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If it gets to the point where "episode_list" is completely phased out (it'd be a while, though), then "episode_list_new" would need renaming. And "episode_list_full" would indicate something that requires full content, such as a full link, instead of just the text. What of "episode_list_basic" or "episode_list_url" (given that the text is simply a URL for the LoE page)? Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"episode_list_basic" sounds fine to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

episode_list_raw might be better, but I'm sure there must be a way to code this without the need for a new parameter, possibly using #ifexist. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

How would one use "#ifexist" in this? Per its documentation, it concerns page titles. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The code would check for the existence of whatever was specified in |episode_list=. If it exists then it would link to it automatically. I did do some work on this some time ago, with partial success. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so if "List of NCIS episodes" exists, it would be linked to, but if "List of X episodes" does not exist, it doesn't appear? I'm not entirely sure how this fixes the issue of needing a new parameter, given the difference of function between "episode_list" and "episode_list_new". Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It should be possible to include the functionality in |episode_list=, negating the need for |episode_list_new=. I've done something like this in other infoboxes. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The code could check to see if "]]" exists in "episode_list" (as part of a link); if it does, proceed to just list out the link, if it doesn't, then italicize and link the text manually. And per the sandbox and test cases, it works! Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I followed what you all were saying above. And if you've got it working, I don't see the issue implementing it in the live template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Good work Alex. In a very, very weird coincidence, the code process is strangely similar to something I wrote for a satellite tracking program in Z80 Assembler 33 years ago. I should have listened to my heart when I took that computer to the dump in 1997. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. (Noted, you wrote that when my father was younger than I am now...) Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the notice on my talk page about errors existing, I believe I've fixed the issue, per the five examples in my sandbox. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Granularity

On the topic of editing this template, I should look into the old suggestion at Template talk:Infobox television season/Archive 2#Granularity. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I was going to mention that, but felt it best to tackle one thing at a time! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've began editing in the granularity edits, and they seem to be working fine. There are multiple different edge cases at the base of the testcases page. Should these edits be made live, the original parameters will still work as they currently do (just like the linked/basic episode_list parameter per the previous discussion), and it would just take a night of AWB to update them. I'm just not sure how to exclude redirects from the {{#ifexist}} tag, per the last test case. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So there would be no issues with implementing these edits and updating the usages of the template? If anyone has a solution to the last sentence of my previous post, that'd round up everything. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there someway to check if an article is a redirect? That's how I'd approach it. If say Doctor Who (series 11) is a redirect, don't show it. But once it becomes and article, show it. Does that make sense/I don't know if there is wikicode to do that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

{{Draft article check}} may be helpful for you to look at its code Alex, because it does something along the lines of what I was thinking in regards to seeing in an article is a redirect or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It did help, Favre1fan93, thanks for that, it was exactly what I was looking for. Now that the granularity works per the test cases and does not display the next/previous season if it's a redirect, should the granularity edits be deployed? Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. It may be helpful to comment in the original discussion, just so the other editors there are aware of the success you had in implement it, and have the chance to comment if they desire. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It's archived, so I can't comment on it, but I will, however, ping the editors that originally contributed to the original discussion: @Pigsonthewing, AussieLegend, Gonnym, and EvergreenFir: Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Great! Since we all agree, I've implemented the edits, and will whip up an AWB script to update the 3,600+ occurrences of the template. The template will still work with the old variables. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, am I just missing something, but no one else has commented (though I don't think it will be an issue, just want to make sure everyone has a chance to comment if they feel they need too). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I left it for half a week, and three of the four have contributed to Wikipedia, so obviously there were no arguments against them for the change. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I finally got around to updating the documentation, if anyone wants to copy-edit it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Problems at some articles

I tried converting Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 4) but there are some issues with granularity, as well as italicising the article name. I'm not sure whether this is something we should consider "fixing", but it seemed worth noting in case anyone has found similar issues elsewhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The very top of the documentation includes |italic_title=no for this reason; you can subsequently set the title display correctly with an explicit {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles'' (2012 TV series) (season 4)}} at the bottom of the article. That said, renaming the article to season 4 of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (season 4 of 2012 TV series) might be sensible. --Izno (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that it should be Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series, season 4); two bracketed disambiguators isn't necessary. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: You'd think that adding |italic_title=no would work, but it didn't.[1] Renaming as Alex suggested might be the best option. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: You had a typo in your edit. I fixed it just now. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems Izno fixed it. I noticed it too. When you added the DISPLAYTITLE, you forgot the parenthesis around season 4. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Izno. I initially removed that template when I cleaned up the infobox,[2] but restored it when the infobox didn't italicise properly. I should have checked that what I restored was actually correct. Damn WP:AGF! That's one down, but we still have the granularity problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Error message and tracking category for unsupported parameters

I have added error tracking for unsupported parameters. See Category:Pages using infobox television season with unknown parameters. A red error message appears when you Preview the article, between the edit screen and the rendered preview. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: What is the error message, and where exactly does it appear? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Go to Cold Feet (series 5), for example, and click Edit (and Preview, if you do not have auto-preview turned on). At the top of the preview, to the left of the infobox, you should see a red error message that says Warning: Page using Template:Infobox television season with unknown parameter "dvd_release_date" (this message is shown only in preview). – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Got it. I understand now what you meant and the coding you did. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Previous/Next seasons

Weren't the previous and next seasons supposed to be generated by the template automatically now? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

They are, but the parameters are still needed if the next or prev season isn't easily obtained from the granularity. At least that is how I understood it and how the current documentation describes it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Ah that's right. Thank you. The page wasn't updated with the new granulation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion of alt_name

There a way to override the |show_name= with an alternate title (e.g., create |alt_name=), but still include the granulation so the |prev_season= and |next_season= work? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

season_name can still be used.[3] --AussieLegend (✉) 04:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Okay! That works. Thanks! FWIW, most of the Bad Girls Club seasons' "names" are just fan names based on the city it's in... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. There is far too much OR in those articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Granulation of disambig by years

@AlexTheWhovian: How do we want to handle seasons/series disambiguated by year of debut? E.g., Dallas (1978 TV series) (season 7). Do we skip the |season_qualifier=?

Related to the |season_qualifier=, when disambiguating by nation of origin, do we use the country name as an adjective or a noun? WP:NCTVUK seems to suggest as adjective with its example of Canadian, but U.S. and UK are not adjectives. Asking because I've encountered Dancing Stars (Austria season 9) which I think should be moved to Dancing Stars (Austrian season 9) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added a new parameter. Use {{Infobox television season |show_name=Dallas |season_number=7 |pre_season_qualifier=(1978 TV series) }}. As for the second issue, I believe that the country should be used as an adjective, not a noun. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Thank you! Um, can you check out why the next/prev seasons aren't appearing on this page: [4]. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: The only reason I could possibly think of is the use of "cycle" in the dab. Could that be the cause? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian and EvergreenFir: Looking into, it is not working on any article. I think it as to do with Alex's adjustments to {{Infobox television season/fullname}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

They seem to be appearing now. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

New parameters for Doctor Who

As can be seen at Doctor Who (season 1) (and any season article of the same series between 1 and 26), the episode list is grouped into stories (as is normal for the series), and the infobox lists the number of episodes, missing episodes, and stories. I'd like to make separate parameters for these numbers and have them on separate rows (num_missing_episodes and num_stories), though since it would only be for this particular series, should I add them in this template, or create {{Infobox television season/Doctor Who}} as a duplicate of this template with the new parameters (much like how {{Infobox television season/custom}} exists)? Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

If there are only two parameters, why not just add them to {{Infobox television season/custom}}? That said, since the parameters are not being used now, how would they be used? I ask because, since we now have |show_name=, we could add the parameters to this template but make them only available when |show_name=Doctor Who. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't create the Who template. I think there used to be one. I know that we moved away from individual show templates like that. I like Aussie's idea of having a parameter dictated by the show title, so that other people don't try and use it (incorrectly) just because they see it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I did something similar at {{Infobox television}} so that only Doctor Who could use both num_series and num_seasons.[5] --AussieLegend (✉) 19:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Show Ratings

Could we add a feature where you could see the ratings of a show in the infobox? Wikipedia's supposed to be the place to get information for something, but sometimes I have to go to an entirely different site just to see the show's rating. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 14:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about something like "TV-MA" or whatnot, then no. It's not important encyclopedic information about a show. We're not a TV guide or a parental guidance website. That's the focus of the pages. You can see at WP:MOSTV#Parental Ratings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#"Infobox television season" for parted seasons

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#"Infobox television season" for parted seasons. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Number of episodes

The documentation for the |num_episodes= parametre states that we can only add an episode number to season infoboxes once the entire season has completed airing. This is clearly different from the series infobox, for which we increment the episode number after each episode airs. This wording was added by AussieLegend back in 2012 when they first properly expanded the documentation for this template, and as far as I can tell it has not been questioned (either by editors trying to change it, or by a discussion being held here) in the years since. I can't really see why we need to wait until the season has finished when everyone is completely fine with updating season articles after every episode, so is there something I am missing? Does anyone else have thoughts on changing the documentation to reflect how we use the television series infobox? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

At the time the documentation was updated, there was a ridiculous number of anonymous editors adding unsourced season totals to pages using the infobox so, after discussions at multiple pages, we decided the best way to keep this in check was to insist on not adding a total until the season finished. This is why the documentation is worded as it is. The series articles didn't suffer the same problem, as the anonymous editors typically only edited the season pages. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand why you did it then. Do we think this will still be a problem now? Because it seems like a similar situation to the series articles in which we may have to do a bit of reverting to remind people that we have to wait till they air, but should overall be fine. It'll be the same as the few times now that we have to revert edits and say wait until the season is finished airing, except we will be consistent with the series articles. We wouldn't have to go around updating pages either, as waiting till the season is finished is still fine. But for vigilant editors who want to have a season infobox as up to date as the series infobox, I think they should have the option to do so. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that silence is consensus. Were there any further disagreements to this? Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I remember there was some significant discussion on this. I just can't remember where (it was 4 years ago). Maybe asking opinions of some of the more obvious WP:TV members, @Bignole, Favre1fan93, and Cyphoidbomb: etc might be a good idea. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall a specific discussion. I thought the numbers were incremented as new episodes aired and new seasons began. That's kind of the behavioral consensus anyway. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's for {{Infobox television}}; what's being proposed is using the same method as what you just described for {{Infobox television season}}. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine allowing updates to go as episodes air. Just as long as we don't jump to the final intended number, much like has been done. Could there be something done in the coding to add an indicator that the number represents what has already aired, not total? Something like if the end date is equal to "present" this note would be added, if we felt it was necessary. Just a thought. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall the original discussion, but I would agree that it should be fine to keep it in line with the series infobox and update as they are. I think we should be clear that we don't put a future total. That being said, it comes across as hypocritical to say that for the infoboxes, but then put in a (sourced) total for the series overview tables or other similar stuff. The same rules should apply across the board, otherwise it makes them less valid.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Except that we don't add totals in the infoboxes (which is only for what has happened), but we do in the series overview tables (which were created to display the seasons in total specifically), which is why we source them in the latter and not the former. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be no further arguments against Adamstom.97's original proposal, so I suggest that we update the documentation and begin to implement this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Documentation updated; several season pages updated. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Season_type capitalization

Hey all, so I noticed that if I type "Season" in |season_type= or "season", it will display either Season or season in the infobox heading. Shouldn't this be case-insensitive? So that even if I'm incompetent and write SEASON, it will display properly? Seems like we'd want to standardize this across all articles. Also, the pre-season qualifier and season_qualifier instructions are real headscratchers. I pity the noob who attempts to process them. Heck, I pity me, as I'm doing it for the first time here: 24 (Indian TV series season 2) (Can someone please donate a second to double-check that I've formatted the infobox title correctly, please?) Thanks all, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me that you have implemented it correctly (I think it is supposed to line up with the article title), and I agree that |season_type= should probably be case-insensitive. As for the instructions here, I'm not sure how much better they can be made, personally, especially since they come with examples, but I wouldn't be against changing them to clarify. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Thanks for double-checking my work! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 December 2016

The color now defaults to clear white as opposed to lavender. I don't now if that was intentional but if it isn't it should be fixed because it screws up the blank season boxes used for talk shows. Like this. Grapesoda22 04:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Grapesoda22 04:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22:  Done Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

done, using lavender since lavender has a greater contrast ratio (17.1 vs 13.6) Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Showrunner field

Was thinking on this of late, and wanted to know if anyone else would support the inclusion of a "showrunners" field for this infobox, highlighting the executive producers who hold this title for a series/season? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with you there, we could also add the inclusion of a "director" and "writer" field aswell. The Optimistic One (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Are there times when someone gets the EP role and doesn't get designated as one of the showrunners? My only issue with this is that it isn't an actual credited role. When you watch a show, you don't see "Showrunners: John Denver", you only see "Executive Producers". I strain to want to include roles that are not actual credited roles in an infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Yes, most of the times even. Usually between 1 and 2 showrunners, while EP can be much more. Also, while its not credited in the episode itself, some (most?) tv shows have showrunners credited by reliable sources.--Gonnym (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bignole: Since you are correct that an EP will not be credited on screen as "showrunner" the, a stipulation for inclusion in the documentation that the info should only be included if it is sourced by a reliable third-party source (which a vast majority of the time it can be found, at least on the live-action side of things) because that's the only place we would get verification for such a title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not worried about sourcing, we see the term used frequently. I'm concerned with creating a parameter in the infobox that isn't an actual credit that these people get. Most EPs are the showrunners, that's why there are usually only a couple of EPs at a time. The rest are either co-executives (basically a money promotion with no real extra power) or producers (and the all the associated subdivisions of producers). 14:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your numbers are just not true. Look at the wikipedia articles, as a random example I choose Lost (TV series) and Fargo (TV series) as the first to come to mind. Lost has 11 EPs listed, while it had 2 showrunners for seasons 2 and up, while Fargo has 8 EPs, while it had only 1 showrunner. --Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

And yet, they were never created for that role, because that is not an actual role that they receive credit for. It merely identifies who is leading the team. That's why I don't believe it should be in the infobox. Discussed in prose in the body of the article, yes, just not the infobox. Showrunners change in long running series and that should have context, just like anything else. Given that it is NOT an actual credit that is given, but identifies leadership of a team, it shouldn't be in the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"And yet, they were never created for that role" I have no idea to what you are refering to. Showrunners is indeed a role. Everyone working on a TV show knows who that specific person(s) is. Its the person that runs the show and decides where it goes, compared to other EPs which some are just names on a list with no actual duty whatsoever (Coen brothers on Fargo). Not only do industry and non-industry sources talk about it, The Writers Guild of Canada even has an award for it (WGC Showrunner Award) and a documentary was created a few years ago about this (Showrunners: The Art Of Running a TV Show). Also, while Showrunners might change during a series run, this is the season infobox. Rarely, if at all, do they change during a season. To add to that, if personal changes is something that bothers you, the series infobox has EP, Producers and other crew personal that change during a series run. --Gonnym (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Knowing who your leader isn't doesn't make it a credited role. Do you ever see a TV series show "showrunners: John Denver and Haily Joel Osment"? You don't, because although the role is essential to running the show it isn't an actual accredited position. I'm not denying the existence of showrunners, I'm telling you that the infobox has always been used to include roles that are actually credited in the show. That's why we typically never include "unaccredited" positions, even when we know they did the work. We use that for prose content in the body of the article. As you pointed out, this is the season infobox and we don't include any other position in the season infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Director and writer field

• Comment: @Bignole: What about "director" and "writer". The Optimistic One (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

What about them? They are typically identified in every episode, whether at the beginning or at the end.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Should we add the inclusion of a "director" and "writer" field? The Optimistic One (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't do a director and writer field unless you're talking about shows that only have one for an entire season. The reality is, most shows have a dozen per season, or more, so to have those fields opens the infobox up to an extreme length of the page to encompass everyone.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

We could just add a plainlist for their names and beside that in brackets the amount of episodes they directed or wrote. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

We could lay it out like this;

• Directors:
• John Smith (4 episodes)
• Jane Smith (4 episodes)

The Optimistic One (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bignole: Going back to your previous comment, have it in for up to five people and if it's over that amount just list it as various. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of a writer or director field. We do have one in {{Infobox television}} and it rarely gets used because there are so many. The information is already provided in {{Episode list}} so it seems redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You'll always max out on five except for short run shows. Most have at least 5 or more just for the first season. Then you're trying to pick and choose based on who has done more, which makes the list ever changing (and the infobox should not be fluid in information). Not to mention, we typically don't include those ancillary details like number of episodes. That then opens the infobox up to the stars having to have that treatment, executive producers, so forth and so on. That type of thing is hardly relevant, and when it is it should be with context and in prose form.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I just looked at Smallville (season 1) as a quick reference, and there are like 15 different directors (didn't look at the writers). In a 20+ episode season, 80% only directed 1 episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Big and Aussie against including such fields. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Request to change default color to match the default color at Infobox television episode and Infobox Television

I'm requesting a change to the default color from "lavender" to "#CCCCFF" which is the one used in both {{Infobox television episode}} and {{Infobox Television}} for better consistency. --Gonnym (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support That's how it's done in our documentation example, so yeah, let's actually change it in the code. And if anyone else can't visualize the text color, here's boxes of the two:

   Lavender with some sample text   CCCCFF with some sample text 
  

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the colors in the sandbox version and examples can be seen here --Gonnym (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Code clean up

I've done some code cleanup in the sandbox which changed the following:

• I've reduced the amount of expensive parser functions that were used in creating the automatic prev/next links, while retaining the same functionality. This also had the additional advantage of reducing the code in the template and also fixing a hidden bug which showed the "Season chronology" header with no row data.
• Removed undocumented, unused and not able to be used parameters: |cust_label_1= and |cust_data_1=.
• Removed undocumented and unused parameters: |prev_name= and |next_name=.

All changes are on the sandbox and tests can be viewed here. --Gonnym (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Error with season_type

I guess the "{{ucfirst:{{If empty |{{{season_type}}} |season }} }}" (right before the word "chronology") is mistakenly written. GreyDragon (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I know what the issue is, but I've reverted my changes to make sure I found the issue you were referring to. Is it the issue shown on the 2nd example at Template:Infobox television season/testcases, or something else? --Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If the issue was that it said "{{{season_type}} chronology" it is now fixed. Was that the issue? --Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It was, and yes, it looks like it works. GreyDragon (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Adjusting the header title

In a Big Brother related discussion, User:Msalmon raised the issue of the header title used for the infobox. Currently the title uses the whole disambiguation scheme, to me this seems rather pointless, as the disambiguation is used in to distinguish the article title, but inside the article itself we don't reference the seasons by extended disambiguation. I propose we limit it to just: <Series> season/series <#>.

This can be done in a few ways.

• Option 1 - running line: "Arrow season 7" in one line. Cons: some longer named shows will probably cause this to become two lines (such as Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3)), which means that this style doesn't really work.
• Option 2 - separated lines in header: Line 1 - "Arrow"; Line 2 - "Season 7".
• Option 3 - Series in header and season in subheader. Similar to #2 in separation, but visually looks like {{Infobox television episode}} with the title/series style.

Pinging @Alucard 16 who was also involved in the discussion.

Comments/Opinions? --Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Gonnym I like Option 3 as it would look cleaner and we wouldn't have some of these line breaks for long titles especially in weird places. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• If we want adjust, I think option 3 as well might be the best. Also, I've notified the TV project to this proposal to hopefully get some eyes on it and a decision to adjust or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, Gonnym, can you do up visual examples in the /testcases or here so all can see (visualizing would be helpful for me personally)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Template:Infobox_television_season/testcases#Header/Subheader - left side is the live version, but it shows how option #2 will look (part of the reason why option #1, used currently, does not really work); right side is option #3. --Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I personally don't see a big need for change here, but if others want to then I would support option 3. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I also don't really see a need for a change. Although option #3 is the best of the proposed, it seems odd to have the season number as a subheader when that is a pretty important part of the article's title. Also if this is just about removing the disambiguation on the BB season infoboxes, why not just leave season_qualifier blank and adjust show_name/season_name accordingly so there is no disambiguation included? I don't see why it needs to be changed for all series when you can just modify the values in the existing template parameters for those specific articles. - Brojam (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Because it's not only for BB articles. There are two issues here. One, the current style does not present a consistent visual style to readers. Shorter names show it all in one line, while longer names show it on two lines, as can be seen by the Agents of SHIELD example. The second issue is that of the unnecessary extra disambiguation - Hawaii Five-O (1968 TV series, season 1). I personally don't think that the "1968 TV series" should be present in the infobox header. It visually clutters it up and offers no value, as the reader already knows what article they are reading. modify the values in the existing template parameters is exactly what this proposal is about. --Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
            • @Brojam: The BB articles are not the issue like Gonnym pointed out this is for long article titles due to their disambiguation. Using Big Brother as an example for the American version we can fix the problem by simply removing the disambiguation from |season_name= since they use a custom disambiguation. (American example) We can't remove the disambiguation from the infobox for the British version because they use the standard disambiguation and the infobox generates the title. (British example) There's also cases like Saturday Night Live (season 44) that would benefit from a change like this as well. It also looks out of place since {{Infobox reality talent competition}} implements this in some form while the main season infobox does not (see The X Factor (UK series 2)). Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 08:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hover over "no." to see the text "number"?

Anyone else think this looks a bit ridiculous, and the extra underlines are clutter? I don't feel it's the place in an infobox to show extra visual clutter just to explain a hugely common abbreviation known to almost all English speakers. Equinox ◑ 23:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

No, it is the correct use of {{abbr}} per WP:ABBR. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you clarify the part of policy you are referring to? That page is very long. Where does it say that the word "no." must have a dotted line and explanation? Equinox ◑ 04:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

"almost all" is enough for it to stay. --Gonnym (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we not then also link the word "country" in "country of origin" to the country article, for the people who speak a little English but don't know that word? Where does it end? Equinox ◑ 04:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Is "country" an abbreviation? No. Is "No." linked? No. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

True that it's not a link, but I stated in my first comment that the issue is visual clutter. This feels like a newbie Web designer with no real-world UI experience getting too tag-happy: the fact that you can use tags to explain an abbreviation doesn't mean you must. The fact that "country" isn't an abbreviation isn't particularly relevant because this is a case of showing unnecessary extra information that actually bothers the eye of the majority of viewers, even if it may theoretically benefit a very tiny minority. Never mind, one must pick one's battles, I suppose. — Having said that, Alex, please check my comment above and comment re policy: does wiki policy really mandate showing these unnecessary underlines, or are you just saying that it's an okay use of the HTML tag? Equinox ◑ 10:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

In return, I ask: does wiki policy really mandate or support your argument that we shouldn't show these unnecessary underlines, or are you just saying that it shouldn't be there because you don't like it? See how absurd it is to argue that content should only be included if it's supported by policy? If that was the basis of every argument, every article would be empty. Abbreviations are acceptable per MOS:ABBR. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

For the benefit of Equinox, and anyone else who is interested, MOS:ABBR says that words should be spelled out in full on first use before abbreviating. Since it is only used once in each table the column header should therefore be "Number" which is undesirable because it makes the column too wide for the date contained within the column. "No." is not one of the abbreviations that has an exemption so if you want to use it, you must include a way of identifying what it represents. Your opposition to presenting "No." as No. has been addressed for other abbreviations in MOS:ABBR which says Outside of prose, trad. and arr. may be used in song-writing credits to save space. On first usage, use {{trad.}} and {{arr.}}, which will display a mouse-over tooltip expanding the abbreviation. These result in trad. and arr.. The the way that we present No. is accepted practice. In fact, if you look at MOS:NUMBERSIGN it's even more specific, saying When using the abbreviations, write {{abbr|Vol.|Volume}}, {{abbr|No.|Number}}, or {{abbr|Nos.|Numbers}}. The way that we present No. is simply complying with the MOS. If you want this changed you really need to take this up at the appropriate MOS pages. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I still don't like how it looks, but it's good to know that this is a policy that presumably passed under a large number of eyes. Cheers, Equinox ◑ 07:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of parameters

I propose to remove the following parameters form the infobox: |season_type=, |pre_season_qualifier=, |season_qualifier=, |show_name= and |season_name=.

The above parameters are used for 2 sections of the infobox.

1. The |above= field which italicizes the title of the series by figuring out the name of the series.
2. To validate and create the prev/next links.

For #2, I've worked on Module:Infobox television season name/sandbox and it now does that by getting the title from the page name itself, without need of user input. This means that even if the page moves, there will be no editing required for the infobox. This will also prevent any user errors in inputting the correct values to the fields. This can be seen by the misuse of |season_qualifier= when dealing with Dallas (1978 TV series, season 9) title styles. Some input "1978", some "1978 TV series" and some "1978 TV series,". Unnecessary requirements for users when we can do it without any input. See the V2_sandbox versions at Module talk:Infobox television season name/testcases which show them all passing (the tests use |title= instead of the page name).

For #1, {{PAGENAMEBASE}} and {{Title disambig text}} can be used for the |above= field. For example: Dallas (1978 TV series, season 4) -> Dallas (1978 TV series, season 4).

The only reason I think |season_number= should be left, as that we might want it in the future as a user-facing field for TV seasons with names, such as Survivor: Palau, where the season number can be shown on the infobox so a user reading will know its series context. --Gonnym (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to check through all the testcases but I support this in principle if it makes it easier for editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the sandbox version of this template so you can go to any article with the template and change the template name to /sandbox and preview it without the parameters. Here are some different types that work (with the aforementioned changes): Lost (season 2), Doctor Who (series 2), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series, season 2), Big Brother (British series 2) and Big Brother 2 (American season). --Gonnym (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, removal of the parameters has resulted in Category:Pages using infobox television season with unknown parameters being populated with 5,712 articles. A bot is going to have to remove the parameters from all of those articles so this edit should really be reverted until that can be arranged. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

If you revert then it can't happen. There already is a bot that removes deprecated parameters, but the bot needs to have a category and a list to work on. Just need some patience, nothing is wrong if the category is full for a few days. --Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Made the bot request. BTW, there seems to be a page somewhere that has an example of how to use this template with a lot of DVD related fields. That might be something that was already fixed and these might be old pages. If they continue to appear after the bot removes them, it's worth trying to find that page so it can be fixed at the source. --Gonnym (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Or it could be a new page. There are a lot of new articles using parameters that haven't been in the infoboxes for years. This mainly affects {{Infobox television}} but does affect this template as well. Generally they're createdby Indian or Malaysian editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I noticed there were many strange parameters that didn't pop up in the tracking category so I removed the option that ignored empty parameters. If the bot is already cleaning the pages, might as well clean even the empty bad ones. --Gonnym (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Bot run is complete, tracking cat is back down to 27. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• These changes could have used more discussion (say at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television) and I would say have been done overly quickly... in Being Human (North American season 1), |season_name= was used to essentially abbreviate the season title for the infobox, so that it listed "Being Human (season 1)" instead of the super-unwieldy "Being Human (North American season 1)". Given how many articles these templates are present in, waiting more than a week would have been advisable. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If you look at my previous proposal archived at Template talk:Infobox television season/Archive 4#Adjusting the header title, I actually proposed we fix the infobox title consistently across all articles, but was met with "meh" responses. I still stand by my arguments there that the default title is rather pointless and there is no need for all that extra disambiguation in the title. --Gonnym (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree... the infobox title could definitely stand to be simplified and not simply a rehash of the article title. However, the removal of the |season_name= parameter means this can't be done at all, even if there's a general consensus for doing it for a particular program, if {{Infobox television season}} is being used. That is, things are now less flexible than they were before. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
      • That is simply not correct. How do you think the infobox is able to do the next and previous links without any input? We've come a long way from the simple template days and Lua lets us do actual coding (even if in this horrible language). So if the title of the infobox we want is (series) and (season #) that is very easy to extract. So if I go back to my original proposal, the question is what parts of the title do we want and how do we want to present it. --Gonnym (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Quite simply, as pointed out by The Faix below, there should be a way of overriding the automatic infobox titling. After the removed parameters were initially added by Alex 21,[6] there were still articles that had custom headings. I remember going through a lot trying to fix the infobox titles but many just didn't lend themselves to the automation so manual titles were necessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
          • I agree as well that there should be a way of overriding the auto titling. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox titles broken

The title on various episode lists are broken and need to be fixed. Example's List of Shugo Chara! episodes, List of Shugo Chara!! Doki— episodes, etc. —Farix (t | c) 02:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@TheFarix: This Infobox is not intended to be used on list of episode articles. The correct way to fix this would be to remove the Infobox from both of those articles mentioned. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

What, where does it say it cannot be used on an episode list? That doesn't make any sense at all. And why should it not be used on an episode list? —Farix (t | c) 02:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@TheFarix: The lead says Infobox television season is used to create an infobox which summarizes the main information of a particular television season also pointing out the name of the Infobox Infobox television season. Its intended use is for television season articles not episode lists. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Then what infobox should be used to summaries the season/series information for episode lists? And why even break the title field in the first place? —Farix (t | c) 02:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Episode lists don't generally include an Infobox. I'm an active contributor in television articles and those are the first two I've ever seen with an Infobox. Even the episode lists which are featured lists and are considered some of Wikipedias best works (such as List of Lost episodes, List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes, List of Dexter episodes, List of Millennium episodes, and List of Quantico episodes) don't include Infoboxes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @TheFarix: to above response. Also it wasn't necessarily broken but the parameter was removed (see discussion above). TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Several anime lists have been affected. Not just the ones for Shugo Chara. And I still don't see the justification of breaking the infobox title for many anime episode lists. Why shouldn't |show_name= or |season_name= be able to override the title field. Overriding the title field is standard for every other infobox because {{PAGENAMEBASE}} doesn't always give the correct arguments. —Farix (t | c) 02:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@TheFarix: It seems you're avoiding the point here. If you have a problem with the parameters being removed that should be discussed in the section above. Meanwhile, this Infobox should be removed from all List of episode articles as they are used incorrectly on those articles. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox shouldn't be used in LoE pages - we had that discussion long ago. However, The Farix does have a valid point, there should be a way to override the automatic infobox titling. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily saying I didn't agree that there shouldn't be a way to override. I actually think that there should be, just trying to make a point that the Infobox should be removed from LoE pages. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Can you please re-add the "season_name" parameter? The infobox titles for multiple season articles now look messed up because of this change, particularly for anime series. For example, this page was supposed to display a manual title different from the article title. We should be able to manually set the infobox titles for season articles, just like how we can adjust the infobox names on other types of articles, especially since many seasons have their own titles, and without this parameter, not only can we not set the name of the season in the infobox, the current titles just don't look right in many of those articles. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The season articles for iCarly now no longer title the season names properly. See iCarly (season 6) for an example. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A few responses: (1) The list of episodes articles should not have the season infobox. It's not meant for those articles and it shouldn't support those articles. That said, most of those articles (and most of the anime ones I saw) are actually incorrectly titled and should be renamed per WP:NCTV as they aren't List of episode articles, but a stub season articles. (2) |season_name= has been re-added as I don't really know how to auto extract the display title issue of iCarly. I think a more correct solution would be to add a |series= parameter which would then allow linking to the series article from the infobox, which would then also handle iCarly situations. --Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I'm getting an error in which the infobox displays Template:Season name instead of the manual title when I try to use the "season_name" parameter. I think that the issue could be in the "season_name" parameter lying outside of the <includeonly></includeonly> tags (though this could also be caused by a different issue in the coding). Can you please resolve this? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, thanks for the report. Should be fixed now. --Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Glad |season_name= has been added back. For the iCarly case, to automate, would we just look for things that alter the displaytitle and look for an initial lower-cap letter? Also... isn't there a category or hatnote that should be applied when the initial letter is supposed to be lowercased? Ahh yes, the hilariously named {{lowercase title}}. As in, the first letter is lowercased. That should be used, I'm guessing, and could be checked for as well. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That can't be checked without needlessly doing convoluted code (like getting the complete content of the page and searching for that template). Occam's razor's solution is what I said above - adding a |series= parameter which has 2 advantages - (a) fix iCarly-like issues and (b) allow linking to the series article from the infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

When will a |series= parameter be added? Are there any plans for it? -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No plans at the moment as there wasn't really any response to my suggestion. If there is, I can implement what is decided. --Gonnym (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing the implementation of fixes to prevent articles being broken as a result of the changes. Also looking forward to when we can auto-generate previous/next season links again in articles for named seasons that reside between numbered seasons. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

How could you previously auto-generate previous/next season links for non-numbered seasons residing between numbered seasons? Also, what exactly is broken? --Gonnym (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Very easily; see here. With the correct first three parameters in the infobox, the previous/next seasons were linked, while the season in question had an overall name. Now, they've had to be added back manually. Also, I said "in articles for named seasons", not "previous/next season links for non-numbered seasons". -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, for those edge-case examples, you'll have to manually enter the next/prev. As those are a handful of cases, they are a non-issue as the removal of the unnecessary parameters, reduced the need for editors to fill in information the template could already know in thousand of pages. Also, as that example shows, you've already added in a complete link of information, so it really didn't change a lot for those examples. --Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a shame that we've had to get rid of parameters that worked perfectly and even in edge-case examples, all for the sake of updates. Hopefully we see a fix for the several errors soon! -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

num_episodes

The label for |num_episodes= is simply "No. of episodes". Based on this, I updated the value in Homeland (season 8) to 12 to match the episode list in the article, per WP:SURPRISE and the purpose of the infoboxes – to summarize the content of the article. After being reverted by TheVampire, I read the doc for the template and, looking back through talk archives here, found the discussion about setting this value based on the number of episodes aired, the reasoning behind which (edit-war prevention) I do understand. I suggest we change the label to something like "Episodes broadcast" to better reflect the meaning of the number. Thoughts? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The meaning of the number is meant to be the number of episodes that exist, and I think the label reflects that perfectly. The issue is how we confirm if those episodes actually do exist and that is why it is now standard to wait until they have aired before adding them. Also any confusion is only really an issue for the few weeks during a season's airing when the number does not match with the known total for the season. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The instructions say clearly "The number of episodes released in the season." As Adamstom.97 said, we wait until after episodes have been released as the way to confirm that episodes exist, as future episodes can be cancelled, delayed or the guide otherwise may not reflect reality. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

My problem is with the article listing 12 episodes in the table, and even in the lead sentence, but the infobox saying 4. If there are sources (in this case, Showtime itself) that the unaired episodes "exist", the consensus is that we still wouldn't include them in the infobox until they actually air, which I understand. If we don't want to change the lead to 4 and trim the TBA eps from the table, the discrepancy can be resolved by changing the label to reflect exactly what the number means. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Just some logic behind this which might explain further, as said previously, plans change. For example for the fourth season of Grey's Anatomy 23 episodes were ordered but due to the writers guild strike only 16 were produced. So by your logic it would've been okay to put the 23 as soon as it was renewed but that would've been false information in the end. It's also to say that the episodes don't technically "exist" until post-production is complete on an episode. So if a series is renewed for a 25 episode season that starts filming in June the 25th episode won't actually "exist" until April of the following year after writing, filming, editing, etc. is done. Since Wikipedia editors aren't working for the show you don't actually know when all of that is done which is why it's better to wait until the episode is aired. As for the "discrepancy" you're worried about the article could always read "the season is set to contain 15 episodes" so that the infobox would be the number that have aired while the article would say how many episodes are planned. TheDoctorWho (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with what you say, is that the rest of the article is fine stating 23 episodes. Let's take Homeland (season 8) as an example. The infobox says 4 episodes and the list of episodes says 12 episodes. An even worse example is The Flash (season 6). The infobox says 13, the list of episodes 15, and and the season overview at List of The Flash episodes says 22. Any 1 logic is ok (episodes aired, episodes produced, episodes in productions or episodes ordered), but having 3 different logics, which readers will undoubtedly have no way to understand, makes zero sense. --Gonnym (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the list of episodes table is a separate thing. You're going to have numbers that don't match, because the table includes upcoming episodes as we have that information (reliably sourced). The problem is what the lead says and what the infobox lists. I've looked at Homeland and I see the problem, and it isn't the number, it's the wording around it. It currently reads:

"The eighth and final season of the American spy thriller television drama series Homeland premiered on February 9, 2020, on Showtime and consists of 12 episodes." --- That wording indicates that 12 episodes already exist, as opposed to "WILL" exist.

This can be easily fixed to: "The eighth and final season of Homeland, an American spy drama, premiered on February 9, 2020 on Showtime. The final season will consist of 12 episodes, with the series finale anticipated to air on April 26, 20202."

If other pages are struggling with this number issue, it's likely a matter of fixing the wording to the lead to be accurate to the situation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bignole: I agree that may be a good solution for the lead. However, I thought the rationale in the discussion about the number in the infobox was based on verifiability and not wanting to have a sourcing discussion about what actually exists. The lead language could be fixed, as you say, but I believe the label in the infobox needs clarification as well. "No. of episodes" is ambiguous, the plain-language interpretation being "number of episodes there are [that exist]", which may not be true now, or any time in the future. Changing the label to say what the number means – "episodes aired" – makes it clear and correct and explains the discrepancy with the lead and the table. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It currently reads: "The number of episodes released in the season. This parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air. An inline citation is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired, such as in the case of a show being cancelled." - The current wording says "only when new episodes air". So, I'm confused by the confusion people are having with that, or the need to be more clear in the definition. To me, what you're asking for is already there. Almost verbatim.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bignole: That's in the template documentation, which readers of the page (and probably most editors) never see. I'm referring to the label in the infobox, as displayed to readers of the article. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

If people want to rename it, fine ("Episodes released" is probably easier than "Episodes broadcasted" given our streaming providers), but part of the discussion on this page was insinuating that the definition was somehow unclear. I would say it isn't unclear and anyone edit warring over the number should just be pointed to this page where it clearly states they need to have aired first.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Title wrap

Previously the "(season X)" part of the title would wrap together onto the next line if it didn't fit, but at the moment that is not the case. For example, at least on my screen, the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. seasons are showing the title all on one line except for the "X)" at the end, which has wrapped down. I'm not sure what was changed to make this happen, but if someone who understands the code side of the template is watching this page and is able to fix it then that would be great. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There used to be "&nbsp" there, which I can add back, but this was just a hack, as an article such as The Office (American season 9) would previously also not wrap. I previously pointed out the title issue at Template talk:Infobox television season/Archive 4#Adjusting the header title. --Gonnym (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like there was some support for the third option you proposed there, including from myself. I would still support that change if we wanted to revive the discussion, especially since I can see a situation now where there is need of updating it. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym, Alucard 16, Favre1fan93, Brojam, and Alex 21: pinging those involved in the previous discussion as well as Alex due to your template experience. This issue is frustrating me enough to want to be bold and get this sorted myself, but I don't understand the template code used here to be able to suggest a good change. If there is still support from you guys for the 3rd option of the previous discussion (moving the season parenthetical into a sub heading) then I would be happy to give that a go, otherwise it would be nice to have a temporary fix where we don't have the current issue anymore. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I support the 3rd option (which was "Series in header and season in subheader. Similar to #2 in separation, but visually looks like {{Infobox television episode}} with the title/series style."). --Gonnym (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I am exploring a way to implement this currently. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the website parameter

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Website parameter which is relevant to this template. The proposal is for removal of the |website= parameter from the infobox of this and other TV- and media-related infoboxes and move it to the External links section. If you have any opinions, please go to that discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox reality talent competition

Template:Infobox reality talent competition has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox reality competition season. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)