This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Maybe we could change "Original air date" to read "Release date" or "Original release date" or something along those lines. Becuase then it would be in sync with Template:Infobox television and Template:Infobox television season. Also with the growing trends of programming being released through streaming services a lot of newer television episodes never technically "air" on television like this for example. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure the folk at the tech pump will be glad if you can fix this one too. I'll leave it to you. I have to go AFK for a while. :-) fredgandt 15:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
appears to be fixed after a hack to the colour subtemplate. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
We should put the "s" in "Guest actors" in parentheses on header 24. There are several cases were an episode only has one guest actor, like wise there are several episodes that feature several guest stars. Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Grapesoda22: There appears to be a large number of undocumented params that allow this sort of customization. But you can currently use the param |guests title= to override the default "Guest actors", i.e. |guests title=Guest actor when needed. — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 04:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: I still say we should consider it. I've seen tons of episode pages with only one guest actor that does not utilize this. It would be a huge pain trying to find and fix every instance its needed. I also doubt people will remember to do this with future episodes. Grapesoda22 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, done. (Request seemed reasonable. Found a precedence "Demonym(s)" in {{Infobox settlement}}.) I was reading over style guidelines about when/when not to use "(s)", and couldn't find any. — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 21:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I also suggest that we change "Presenter" in label 23 to "Presented by" to match the other fields. We should also move the "Awards" label out of the "Guest actor(s)" section becasue its out of place there and it looks awkward. Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI I'm not watching this page, but I happened to see your follow-up here. Doesn't look controversial, but I'm toggling this for a bit of visibility before a change is made, perhaps there'll be some feedback. I've updated the sandbox with the suggestions. The placement of both "Presenter" and "Awards" might be questionable. They were added by Pigsonthewing in May 2015 and Oct 2012 respectively. — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 06:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 06:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: I don't see the "Presenter" and "Awards" labels being used to often. I've maybe seen them less then five times ever. I don't have an opinion of them, I just thought they could have been written out better. I hate to keep buggin you here, but I have one more suggestion. I think we should change to wording in the "Guest actor(s)" header. I was thinking with should change it to "Guest appearance(s)". Because the term "Actor" really only applies to men. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Grapesoda22: Not inclined to make the change for now, and am also not ready to debate if "Actor" is gender-neutral. It would have been best to get the wording done on the first request. Please consider getting consensus for the change before making the suggestion. Also, note that frequent changes to highly-transcluded templates can be costly. If there is a good amount of support for the change, consider making an official edit request. — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 01:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: I've only submitted a few minor tweaks to the wording. I wouldn't say the term "actor" is gender-neutral. Wikipedia itself says that actress is the female word for actor in the first line of the Actor page. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Grapesoda22: A "guest appearance" seems to be an event, whereas "guest star", "guest actor", or "guest actress" is referring to people. If we're really gonna be nit-picky about this field, perhaps "Guest appearance(s) by" is most appropriate. See the test cases. — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 01:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: I still suggest "Guest appearance(s)", without the word "by". The word "by" isn't totally necessary in its context and its just plain cleaner without it. Also both Guest actor and Guest star redirect to Guest appearance, meaning its the preferred phase on Wikipedia. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 17 September 2016
I have added a |release_date= parameter to display "Original release date" instead of "Original air date", for shows that are released online, e.g. on Netflix. Please implement the changes from the sandbox.
it's work, but can we standardise the use and requirement of the line entries ? Dave Rave (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dave Rave: I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about? Alex|The|Whovian? 01:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
module = embed = so many sub modules that can/can't be embedded/moduled Dave Rave (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Like what? What modules need embedding? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
sometimes it is embed = the module with embed = yes for the sub - and sometimes it is "module = the module but still with embed = yesDave Rave (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 12 December 2016
Please add the code from the sandbox here to the live version. These changes adjust the class styling for the above and header sections, so they properly implement on mobile view. See similar discussion for Template:Infobox television here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Why isn't there a space in the infobox for starring characters?
It seems absurd that only guest actors appear in the infobox, since with series such as Game of Thrones, the starring actors appear in most episodes but not some, and there is no way of telling in the infobox which episodes the starring actors appeared in. TedEdwards (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree to a point. That is, many infoboxes allow us to customize the template and they keep some free fields like "data 1" "data 2" "data 3" and we can use those spaces for whatever we want. I don't understand why this cannot be done here. For example, if I start working on Undercover Boss episodes, there is not such thing as a "guest" in each episode. That too is absurd. Every member we see on the TV is a guest. What we need is "Boss" which would include his name and title and then list the "Employees" in the same way. I find it a daunting task to have to design an entirely new infobox (Help:Designing infoboxes) just to get this to work. MagnoliaSouth(talk) 06:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Can we have some fields so that other shows can be better customized?
Let's look at Undercover Boss because that's what I'm finding is a problem. The word "Guests" is not a good word since there are zero regulars on the program and everyone is a guest. However each episode, as I mentioned somewhere else here, focuses on one particular boss who has a specific job title (it's not always CEO) and then 3-5 employees with their own job titles. It makes absolutely perfect sense to include these in the infobox. Now I cannot right off recall which ones they were, but I have seen infobox templates that create extra customizable-ish fields such as "data 1" then "data 2" then "data 3" and so forth. I think the datas are actually infobox subtitles. I'm not positive though. Still, that would be great! I just don't think I should have design > propose > prototype > wait for comments > then use my own infobox design. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing we could simply customize these for each television episode, since there are many variables that end up being consistent as in my example. It's a simple change that would make life easier for everyone. MagnoliaSouth(talk) 07:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Deprecating uppercase parameters
I've been recommended to start a discussion here, per Wikipedia:Bot requests § Corrections to usages of Template:Infobox television episode. To use the same initial post as I did there: Many occurrences of {{Infobox television episode}} use the uppercase form of parameters rather than lowercase, and spaces in parameters rather than underscores (for example, |Series no= instead of |series_no=). This should be updated to use the lowercase/underscore format to match the usages of {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox television season}}, so that the uppercase/spaced formats can be deprecated in the episode infobox template. Thoughts? Alex|The|Whovian? 00:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm in support of this. I noticed this recently and was questioning why it was different. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Support, in the interests of standardisation across templates, which makes life easier for editors and bot-authors alike. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Generally support consistency. I prefer spaces to underscores personally, but I think I'm in the minority there. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I support this too. Consistency across the templates should always be the aim. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I support the deprecation of caps, but prefer spaces to underscores. Spaces are simpler to type, and less confusing and deterring to new editors. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 23:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC).
This seems to now be spanning two discussions, but I'm not sure how an underscore is harder to understand for new editors. It's a single character that is already being used in two similar templates, that haven't had any related issues or hardness to understand. If this template were to use spaces, then the other two would need to be adjusted as well, and that's just unnecessary. In my view, at least. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The above is now done. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 12 February 2017
The |story= parameter should come before |teleplay=, since story credit is generally given before teleplay credit (and natural progression of crafting the episodes is story created first, then made into a teleplay). Additional, both of these parameters should come after |writer=, as both cover the same aspect of the episode. Having them separated does not make sense. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's leave this for a few days and see what the community thinks. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this will be anything contentious, but I've left a message at WT:TV if anyone wants to weigh in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe the request, in both its parts, is a reasonable one because the logic seems sound to me. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Support story before teleplay. Proposed ordering makes logical sense -- Whats new?(talk) 00:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Thanks for the adjustment, but the main point of the request was to move these two under the |writer= parameter. Sorry if that was not clear. The order of story and teleplay was just supplemental to the fact that they both were moving. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Done Writer, then story, then teleplay. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Season list template
There's an issue with the documentation, which states that the parameter | season_list = is for "A template containing a list of episodes in that season." The example doesn't have a template but a piped link to season article.
If this is intended to have a link to a season episode list article, I propose its description/explanation be changed to "Wikilink to the "List of <showname> episodes (season #)" article." (And, of course, "Use either Season list or Prev/Next, but not both.")
Thanks – Reidgreg (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I actually don't think this parameter is used widely anymore. And if articles still do, it probably should be depreciated, because the more common practice is to list the Prev and Next episodes, as well as the list of episodes, which would supersede the use of a season list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Should we officially deprecate this parameter and update the necessary articles to the standard format of using the previous/next links? -- AlexTW 02:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
We should make sure users are aware of the intention to depreciate it, but yes we should. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
That's why I disabled the validity of it as a known parameter, so that articles that use the parameter would appear at Category:Pages using infobox television episode with unknown parameters, without needing another category, and so far, it lists over a thousand articles. Given the success of listing all of these articles via the initial method, I would recommend reverting back to it. -- AlexTW 11:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The articles weren't showing up in the category when I checked. Category:Pages using infobox television episode with unknown parameters should only contain articles that use invalid parameters. It shouldn't be polluted with 1,000 articles that don't actually have any errors. Doing that makes it hard to identify articles that actually do need fixing. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Really? I checked when I first made the edit, and it was already populating... Huh. And not really; anything under S is "season_list", which requires removing. Either way, may need to get AWB onto it. -- AlexTW 01:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Given that there are apparently over 1,000 articles, a not insigificant number, I think we need a bit more discussion before changing any articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay. What would you like to discuss about it? -- AlexTW 23:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I think we're only dealing with 11 series that have episodes using this parameter, as seen by Category:Television episode list templates. So really only a small fraction of articles within these 11 series, plus maybe a couple stragglers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
That would seem to be the case but Alex identified over a thousand articles with his edit. I'm going to restore that edit to try to find out the real number. If there are templates that are not in the category, we should try to identify those templates so they can be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to matter now. Both categories seem synchronised. As I type, both have 1,079 articles in them. One of the issues I see already is demonstrated in 97 Seconds. That article uses |season_list= instead of |prev= and |next=. If we deprecate season_list, somebody will have to add |prev= and |next= to articles like this one and populate the fields with the correct article links. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The Previous/Next option assumes that every (or most) episodes of a season are going to be notable enough to have their own articles. That can't always be the case. Reidgreg (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
In that case, follow the instructions given in the template's documentation: If an article does not exist, link to the season with an anchor to that episode. For example, "Sins of the Father" should have its previous link to Unchained (Arrow), and its next link to List of Arrow episodes#ep83. -- AlexTW 15:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, though that sounds like WP:OVERLINKING if the Prev and Next both link to the same season article (and almost the same place in it). Reidgreg (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
You need to get consensus from fans of these series to deprecate? wbm1058 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that rather illuminating breakdown. Category:Infobox television episode articles that use the season list parameter was only meant to be a temporary red-linked cat but it was created without checking here first. No point crying over spilled milk though. It exists now, so let's use it. If we have to add |prev= and |next= to articles, I'd like to know who plans doing that if we deprecate. Is it really worth the effort? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll do it, I'd be happy to. Might even be able to create a script for it. I mean, it's not my first time; I manually cleared out the 2,700+ articles that used to reside in Category:Episode lists with invalid line colors in December 2015. -- AlexTW 11:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Created a script in the same manner as my other scripts. Removes season_list, replaces with prev/next. (Except in the cases of a premiere/finale where the previous/next links don't exist - these need to be done manually.) Example. Now, I would note that there's a number of custom infobox-episode templates, as can be seen at {{Film- and television-related infobox templates}}, which use season_list within themselves; if the parameter was removed from those few templates, the tracking category would empty out rapidly. However, this needs to be done after the script is run on all articles, to gather the previous and next episodes, meaning that the category will still show those articles even after the script is run. -- AlexTW 13:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
So I just tried working on some. For example, Red Dwarf has a custom template. The episodes, at least for this series, need to be converted to the normal episode infobox, and then have the script run. There is nothing inherently different with the Red Drawf infobox than this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I have completed all of the episodes pertaining to The Wire. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
HIMYM is also done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian:, don't know if you did this too when you went through, and it is a bit separate, but as I mentioned above, there is nothing inherently different/exclusive about the Red Dwarf infobox. Those episodes that use it should all be converted to the normal episode infobox at some point and the Red Dwarf one deleted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense. I'll run through with AWB to make it quicker, then request a speedy delete for the template. -- AlexTW 23:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good! Also, The West Wing is done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
1,193 episodes, but as of this post, 552 in the category. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Modern Family done. 374 left between House, Goodies, Futurama and Simpsons (and any outliers). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Category emptied, finished the last several hundred listed in the category today. Deprecated the parameter in the template, speedy deletions requested for the templates. Only The Simpsons is left, as the articles didn't appear in the category given that {{Infobox Simpsons episode}} uses {{Infobox}} directly, not this particular template. -- AlexTW 08:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Add a new "multi_episode" parameter
I'd like to implement a new parameter |multi_episode=, which, when triggered, will adjust some of the text of the infobox to be more correct when it is used on a television episode that is two parts, but aired under the same episode name (sometimes in one airing). Examples include S.O.S. (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), Last Forever, The Wedding (Modern Family), etc., to name a few I could find quickly. The code for such implementation is in the template's sandbox and a test case can be seen here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Done I see no issue with it. -- AlexTW 07:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: The parameter needs to be added too to the bottom tracking category so it does not trigger the categorization of unknown parameters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there does anyone else agree that there should be an executive producer field like there is on Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode. I can currently only see the field producer. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
How can I suggest an executive producer field are many television shows the have executive producer but there's no field to enter it onto the infobox. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
If it's utilised by a plain text list wouldn't adding some text solve the issue ? Dave Rave (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Guest header
Hey @AlexTheWhovian:. I understand what you did with this change, but I think you are incorrect. Disregarding multi-part episodes, for a singular episode, a non-starring actor cannot be recurring with only one appearance (and they are only credited as guest anyways). In the scope of a season or a series, that actor/character can be recurring and it might be helpful to mention in prose in the episode article, but for the scope of a singular episode and its infobox, they are only a guest star. Does that make sense? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Not especially. Does that section not list recurring and guest actors? Recurring and guest should mean the same thing through the television project, whether it be in relation to a season infobox or episode infobox. -- AlexTW 13:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
On an episode, a person can only be credited as starring/main or a guest star, they can't be credited as recurring. So I think it would be confusing to have the infobox heading state that. But as I said, the article prose can list. For example, if the infobox of an Agents of SHIELD listed Natalia Cordova-Buckley as guest (because that is the credit she received for this one episode), the prose info could say something like "Guests in the episode include Natalia Cordova-Buckley as Yo-Yo, a recurring character for the season/series". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Favre, since an actor cannot recur within a single episode. If a guest actor happens to be a recurring actor throughout a season or series then that can be explained in prose, but in terms of the scope of the infobox guests are just actors (who are not series regulars) that appear in the episode, and generally credited as a "guest star". Also, an actor that is not recurring for a season and so not usually mentioned at a season article could still be notable in terms of the scope of a certain episode. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Merging of episode infoboxes
This is not a formal merge request, but want to hear input on this to fully understand this issue.
Currently, most TV episode articles use this template, while others use a wrapper version (like Template:Infobox Futurama episode) and others use their own unconnected version (like Template:Infobox Simpsons episode). Both of those template styles have big issues though.
Wrapper functions - if we look at the Futurama example, there are several big issues with it.
It does not have all the fields which this infobox has. Such as an "alt" or "image_size", no writing credit other than "writer" (The Problem with Popplers needs this) and others.
It does not have feature fixes that have been added to this template. AlexTheWhovian changed the code here in 2017 that placed pages into Category:Pages using infobox television episode with incorrectly formatted episode list, but since the Futurama code is hard-coded, and wasn't fixed, all episodes, current and future, will always be placed there.
It tried adding two new fields and just throw them at the end of the "airdate" line as whoever did it, couldn't find out how to create a proper new line.
Seperate infoboxes - if we look at The Simpsons example, it has its own issues.
It does not have all fields which this infobox has. Such as "multi_episodes" (The Great Phatsby would have used it) and similar to the previous example, this too only has only "writer" credit (Left Behind (The Simpsons) needs this).
It does not have any feature update. So as an example, the code I just added for a short description would not be added to any Simpsons episodes.
Now, looking into these specific examples, the only -real- difference are the two special fields for each show ("Opening caption" and "Opening cartoon" / "Chalkboard gag" and "Couch gag") which would have probably be classified as trivia in any other show, but I personally don't mind them. So if these two fields are the only reason for creating a separate infobox, taking into account all the costs of maintaining the same code multiple times (which even maintaining the live and sandbox versions for the same template, does not seem to be really happening), wouldn't a merge be a better option? The merge would add the required fields for each show and solve all these issues. --Gonnym (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2018
This request should fix the error described above. Please replace the first line with the one from the sandbox (<includeonly>{{Television episode short description|episode_num={{{episode|}}}|season_num={{{season|}}}|season_num_uk={{{series_no|}}}|series_name={{{series|}}}|multi_episodes={{{multi_episodes|}}}|not_dab={{{not_dab|}}}}}</includeonly>). Please note not to include the "/sandbox" part. When this is completed an immediate secondary update should be done on Module:Television episode short description, moving the version in the sandbox to the live version or errors will appear. Gonnym (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done: You can do it yourself now :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Done now. --Gonnym (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Missing "noreplace" parameter in short description invocation
This template, and the others in this family, needs to add |noreplace as the second parameter to its invocation of {{short description}}. See T193857 for details.
The automatically generated short description from this template overrides the locally defined short description given in the article (or rather, it typically does because the infobox typically comes after the local short description). So for example, Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954) currently displays "8th episode of the fourth season of Hallmark Hall of Fame[[Category:Television episode articles with short description for single episodes]]" from the infobox code rather than the output from {{short description|1954 live television adaptation by George Schaefer}}. (Note, incidentally, that it also exhibits the category problem mentioned in the thread above; not sure what's going on there).
Adding |noreplace lets the local short description in the article take precedence. --Xover (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Should be fixed when the previous request gets completed. --Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Xover: this should be fixed. Let me know if you run into issues. The page might need to be updated for the changes to work, so try updating the infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Short description
Can Template:Short description be implemented in this template to automatically generate a standardized short description with data from this template? --Gonnym (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Probably definitely possible. Do we know if any other infobox template has done this already? If not, might this be something to suggest at the Short description talk for great implementation across all infoboxes? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
It has been implemented in several infoboxes. To be honest, I don't understand what it's supposed to achieve though. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: the short description itself or the request to get this template to generate it? --Gonnym (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The short description itself. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Short description it's supposed to show up on mobile under the title when viewing an article (see image on right) and also for searches. In any rate, according to that page, if we don't add one manually or via the infobox the data will be taken from WikiData so it's still better to get ahead of this. Favre1fan93, seems the list of infoboxs that have done this is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions#Auto-generated and bot generated Descriptions. --Gonnym (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I can't see the description on mobile on the article, but I do see it when I search on mobile. I think this can be done. Since this is the episode infobox, I would suggest the descriptions be something like "[number] episode of the [number] season of [tv series]". So for say Maternity Leave (Lost), it would be "15th episode of the second season of Lost". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Exactly what I was thinking. Also +10 for a Lost example. Question, TV series in italics right? --Gonnym (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Haha no problem! And yeah italics for TV series names. Actually had a better order of info: "Episode/s [number] of season/series [number] of [tv series]". So the code would be
{{short description|{{#if:{{{multi_episodes|}}}|Episodes|Episode}} {{{episode|}}} of {{#if:{{{season|}}}|season {{{season|}}}}}{{#if:{{{series_no|}}}|series {{{series_no|}}}}} of ''{{series|}}}''.}}
The first is 41 characters long, while the second one is 30 (length will vary depending on params). So if the character upper limit target per Wikipedia:Short description should be at 40 characters, then the 2nd one is better, though personally the wording of the first example sounds smoother when read with the title - "Maternity Leave (the) 15th episode..." vs "Maternity Leave, episode 15...". Anyways, I'll support the second option as well. --Gonnym (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Correct. I also adjusted to the second version just from a pure coding standpoint. In the first, we'd have to do more coding to add the ordinals and change the season number to prose. That's because if we pull the info from parameters, that'd just be numbers, not prose. Unless AlexTheWhovian knows of something I don't that could help with that, because I do agree that the first option I presented is smoother. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I was hoping that Template:Template parameter value or a similar template could be used to access the short description and use it for disambiguation pages, but it turns out that (currently) that won't work. --Gonnym (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Cool! This all looks good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Does multi_episodes's value have a specific word? I need to know how to recognize when an episode is marked as such. --Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
No, it just needs to be triggered. So it would usually be "y"/"Y"/"yes"/"Yes". But really, any text entered (it could be "Hello world!") will trigger it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I guess I can check if it has any text. Not the best solution as it isn't fail safe, but not really a high risk either as it can be easily fixed in the infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so after some setbacks, code now works for this as well. If a value is set to it (except for "no") it takes the first episode value and adds one so you get - "23rd and 24th episode of the first season of Lost". So, this so far works for single, or double episodes, up until episode 1000. Any other comments/needs? --Gonnym (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: when multi episodes are entered, is there another episode field or is just text in various formats? --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The parameter is just meant to adjust some of the fields in the infobox. See S.O.S. (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) as an example for its use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, like I thought. I would like input on how to handle missing information. Currently if there is no episode entered than there is no short description, but it does work if there is no TV show or season. Would you like me to prevent a short description if there is no data in those fields as well? --Gonnym (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Well I think, depending on what is or isn't entered, the short description should change. If no episode entered, then it becomes "An episode of the first season of Lost", no season: "# episode of Lost", neither episode or season: "An episode of Lost". I think it shouldn't work at all if the TV series is omitted, but if it does, it should just default to "An episode of television" until the parameters are filled in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I like the no episode one; the season one might lead to situations where S1E1 and S1E2 will both have "1st episode of Lost" if no season is entered. Is that ok? And for no-series, which would you prefer no description or the default one you suggested? Need to know what to implement. --Gonnym (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so what I'm working on and hopefully done soon is this system:
Check if there is a TV series name, if there is none -> "A television episode"
TV series entered; Check if there is a season number, if there is none -> "An episode of Lost"
Season entered; Check if an episode was entered, if there is none -> "An episode of the first season of Lost"
Episode entered; If multi -> "1st and 2nd episodes of the first season of Lost"
Episode entered; single -> "1st episode of the first season of Lost"
Not added atm, is TV series with episode -> "1st episode of Lost" as that would be true for S1E1 and S2E1, etc. In that situation it fails in the season part and will become -> "An episode of Lost". Comments? --Gonnym (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, found one issue which I don't think can be solved with the current infobox setup. Articles with disambiguation get their diambiguation removed - so "NCIS (TV series)" becomes "NCIS" (this also includes [[NCIS (TV series)|NCIS]] becoming NCIS). However, this means that a show like Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) will become "Randall and Hopkirk". For those shows a manual {{short description}} will have to be added to the article, until such a time that this infobox changes to more granularity of data. --Gonnym (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
That issue is also now fixed. Added a field which if set takes care of those edge-case titles. There shouldn't be an episode style not taken care of now.* (*I'm sure now 5 new cases will pop up). --Gonnym (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
On the first line, add: {{Short description|{{Television episode short description|episode_num={{{episode|}}}|season_num={{{season|}}}|season_num_uk={{{series_no|}}}|series_name={{{series|}}}|multi_episodes={{{multi_episodes|}}}|not_dab={{{not_dab|}}}}}}}
Near the end at the "Check for unknown parameters" section, after the "next" param add: "not_dab"
@Gonnym: It appears the sandbox has other changes going on in there in addition to what you mentioned. Am I carrying those over too?—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 14:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Double-checked to make sure I didn't add anything else and confirmed by looking at the edit history that if there are any changes, those aren't mine. Please note that make sure you use the code I wrote here as the sandbox one has "Television episode short description/sandbox" in it. --Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
So over 10k (less if some of these are from user-spaces) articles now have one. If you encounter an episode that has a bad short description, check if:
The infobox is Infobox television episode or using a different one that calls it;
The parameter names are written correctly;
There isn't a missing param (such as "multi_episodes");
If all else fails, contact me so we can figure it out. --Gonnym (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: There is a problem in Module:Television episode short description which is seen at Tricks and Treats (Hokey Wolf) which currently is displaying errors: "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." That article has "episode = 1.2" in {{Infobox Television episode}} and that is causing getOrdinalIndicatorLessThan100 to blow up. I might have suggestions later but that's all I can do at the moment. Possibly this article is at fault (I don't know the expected syntax) but the module should detect the invalid input and not go into an infinite loop. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. You are correct and I'll fix it now. --Gonnym (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: That issue is fixed. If you find more let me know. That said, you should really change those numbers when you do see them as they should just be a regular number. "1.2" means to me episode 1 of season 2, but that infobox says it's season 3, so that makes no sense. --Gonnym (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Short descriptions broken
This infobox is currently generating broken short descriptions. All episode articles now have "[[Category:Television episode articles with short description for single episodes]]" appended to the end of the short description. I think it may have been caused by this edit. Thanks —Bruce1eetalk 06:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bruce1ee: - that probably isn't the edit that caused it as it probably has to do with my recent change. Can you give me a page that has this issue? As all the ones I'm seeing are not showing what you are describing. --Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, could you tell me what browser and Wikipedia skin you are using? Are you seeing this issue on mobile or desktop? Trying to understand why I can't view this issue. --Gonnym (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: I've looked through all those test cases and they look fine. NotTheFakeJTP appears to also be seeing this "problem" because an attempt was made to fix it here. I'm using Firefox (latest) on Win10 in the Vector skin. When I search for "Dinner Party" in the Wikipedia app on my Android phone that category is also appended to the short description in the search results. —Bruce1eetalk 06:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I've been able to recreate the search results issue and investigating it now. I've tried viewing the page itself with Firefox (Win 10 and Vector) but can't seem to see the category on the page itself. --Gonnym (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@NotTheFakeJTP and Bruce1ee: - this should be fixed. The page will need to be updated for the changes to show. I tested this by updating the page's infobox, so give it a try. --Gonnym (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Yes, it's working now, both on the desktop and in the mobile search results. But as you said, the page has to be updated first. I tried it on Safety Training; bypassing my browser cache and purging the server cache didn't help, I had to do a null edit on the page to get it to work. What this means is that the problem will persist on all pages using Infobox television episode until they are changed. Is there a bot that could do null edits on all those pages? —Bruce1eetalk 07:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea regarding bot usage. --Gonnym (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: That was just an idea I had. Anyway, thanks for fixing this problem. I've restored the Infobox television episode template in Dinner Party (The Office). —Bruce1eetalk 07:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 24 October 2017
Could we get an optional "Based on" field for this template, similar to the ones on Template:Infobox television, Template:Infobox film etc? This is particularly common in anthology series like The Twilight Zone, which has 27 episodes based on previously-published stories in the original show alone, with editors finding all sorts of awkward compromises to convey this information in the current infobox. Between "Story" and "Director" is probably the best spot. —Flax5 13:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against this. Though we should just make the documentation clear that it should only be used in situations like you stated, for things like The Twilight Zone or maybe Sherlock, but not things like The Flash or Arrow, where the series are just based on general DC Comics material, not one specific adaption per episode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this addition, as long as the episode itself is based on something specific rather than just the show. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The idea does have merit but it's going to have to be closely monitored because it's bound to be abused. We need to come up with some pretty clear wording for the documentation. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for not sorting the consensus first – got a couple steps in the procedure mixed up. How about something like, "The source material of this episode and name(s) of the source material's writer(s). Use the {{based on}} template for formatting. This field should generally not be used for episodes in a series based on an existing work or character, only for episodes which credit their own individual source material." Maybe calling the field "episode_basis" instead of "based_on" would help hammer the point home.
I agree with Favre1fan93's point, though I think it's worth making an exception for those rare episodes in franchise-based shows which credit specific stories as their basis, or can be verified by third parties as adaptations of specific stories – for example, the Justice League Unlimited episode "For the Man Who Has Everything", which is clearly based on an issue by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. (It doesn't have an article, but you get the idea.)
BTW, I see I got the "television" and "television episode" infoboxes confused earlier – the new field should probably be inserted between "Teleplay by" and "Narrated by", since the source material is closely related to the scripting process but its writer generally doesn't participate directly in an episode's production. (Unless we want to put it before "Story by", since "source material → story → teleplay" is the order in which episodes are written? This would be inconsistent with Template:Infobox film's "screenplay → story → source material" order, but this infobox already has story and script credits the other way round compared to it, so I don't know what the priority is.) —Flax5 09:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
A tracking category is a start but we still need to have very clear criteria for inclusion in the documentation and somebody actually monitoring the category. Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters is a tracking category that monitors use of incorrect parameters and that category usually ends up with at least 4-6 articles in it every day. The only reason that it's empty right now is because I watch it. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd assume the criteria shouldn't be any more strict than what Template:Infobox television and Template:Infobox film have - Insert the title of the source material and the name(s) of the source material writer(s). Use this field in conjunction with screenplay and story where applicable (i.e. "Screen story") if films are based on previously produced or published material, such as books, plays, articles, old screenplays etc. Use {{based on}} or similar formatting where possible. Do not use this field where the source material is ambiguous. (they both use the same text, even using the phrase "films" "instead of television series" in the television infobox). As for actively monitoring, the best we can ask for is the tracking category, as none of us gets paid for our work, but this field shouldn't be any different than the other ones which should have correct information. Below GA level articles would probably have sometimes wrong information, while GA and FA articles will have this correct. Also, unrelated, I didn't know you did that AussieL, good job! --Gonnym (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I still stand by my original comment, so no issue from me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've done some work based on the guiding description in the other templates and on the comments here. I've written two versions - the first sounded too much "do, don't, do, don't" so I've re-ordered it for the second. Not married on either, so feel free to comment and fix.
The original work the episode is based on. Use {{based on}} to add the title of the source material and the name(s) of the source material writer(s). Use this field in conjunction with teleplay and story where applicable. This field should be used if the episode is based on previously produced or published material, such as books, plays, articles, old screenplays, etc. and not on general adaptations such as The Flash episodes being based on characters from DC Comics. Do use it however, if a specific episode of that series is a direct adaptation of a specific comic. Do not use this field where the source material is ambiguous.
The original work the episode is based on. Use {{based on}} to add the title of the source material and the name(s) of the source material writer(s). Use this field in conjunction with teleplay and story where applicable. This field should be used if the episode is based on previously produced or published material, such as books, plays, articles, old screenplays, etc. and should not be used where the source material is ambiguous. This field should not be used for general adaptations, such as The Flash episodes being based on characters from DC Comics, however, do use it if a specific episode of that series is a direct adaptation of a specific comic.
Any comments on the text? --Gonnym (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Based_on code is now available on the sandbox version. It's placed under the teleplay credit, similar to how it is listed in Template:Infobox film. Template:Infobox television is really different in style so I choose to follow the film infobox instead. --Gonnym (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Official request (23 October 2018)
Since there were no objections, I'll summarise the feature and leave it up for a few days. If no objections are raised, I'll move it to live.
The param name is based_on.
It is placed under the teleplay param.
The documentation will be: The original work the episode is based on. Use {{based on}} to add the title of the source material and the name(s) of the source material writer(s). Use this field in conjunction with teleplay and story where applicable. This field should be used if the episode is based on previously produced or published material, such as books, plays, articles, old screenplays, etc. and should not be used where the source material is ambiguous. This field should not be used for general adaptations, such as The Flash episodes being based on characters from DC Comics, however, do use it if a specific episode of that series is a direct adaptation of a specific comic.
The "(s)" is just awkward and the plural case works just fine even if there was only one appearance. Opencooper (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support this, as I see no issue with this. --Gonnym (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this has suddenly come up. For years, in multiple different infoboxes across different projects this has been an accepted use. "Guest appearance(s)" refers to one guest or more than one while "Guest appearances" means more than one guest. This has actually caused confusion, more than having "(s)", which is why "(s)" is used. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Have any example of confusion this has caused? --Gonnym (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I knew somebody would ask. I've made 156,890 edits to 35,372 pages in the 12 years, 11 months and 5 days that I've been editing Wikipedia. I have a good recollection of what I've seen and done in that time but my memory is not photographic so I don't have specific examples of what happened years ago. You're the first person in a very, very long time who has had issue with using "(s)". Do you have specific examples of anyone else with this problem? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Aussie, your history means nothing to me. I've head dealings with you for the past few years and they've never been pleasent. I wasn't the one raising this issue, but Opencooper did, which I agree with him. You were the one who argued it has caused confusion, so back it up with actual cases. --Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Marking inactive while discussion continues. Cabayi (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Done Alex|The|Whovian? 09:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
