Template talk:Infobox television

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Distributon

[edit]

When was the distribution part deleted and removed? May I request the section to be restored fairly? Many of the show have home video rights. -- 184.144.90.165 (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Infobox_television/Archive_14#Distributor_parameter:_is_it_needed?. Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starring

[edit]

In the starring parameter, is it necessary to list all the cast? I think just the five main casts are enough. Listing all the cast is a waste of time. The infobox becomes very long. 125.164.24.203 (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Determining the importance of any particular main cast over another would be WP:OR. If a member is credited as main cast, then they're main cast, and just as important as any main cast. If the list becomes too excessive, see examples like Game of Thrones or Grey's Anatomy. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about image parameter

[edit]

Can I use multiple images in the image parameter? I did so here using {{Multiple image}} on the article for Weekend Today because they quite literally have two separate logos, but then someone removed it citing the template doc. I don't see anything written that says I can't or shouldn't. Limmidy (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template docs are not explicit, but they imply a single image. Your edit seems to be bold and in good faith, but the content discussion should be had at the article itself - at least as a starting point. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In that case, I'll leave it at that. Thank you! Limmidy (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave the Saturday logo in the infobox with the caption saying such, and the other logo for the body of the article. Single images should be used for the infobox, unless you create a custom single image with both in them (so one file name with both files). As they are both commons files, that should be no problem if you truly need both in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebranded networks

[edit]

Is it appropriate to use two networks when a network rebranded to a different name such as CBS All Access to Paramount+ or more recently Max to HBO Max? For an example like, Star Trek: Picard using |network= alongside |first_aired= and |last_aired= as for the first network CBS All Access; using |network2= alongside |first_aired2= and |last_aired2= as for second network Paramount+. Another example is Our Flag Means Death it first released on HBO Max for first season and then second season was released on Max. — YoungForever(talk) 00:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely believe it to be appropriate. In both of the example articles, it matches exactly what we show in the series overview table as well. How else would we differentiate between them? -- Alex_21 TALK 00:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is appropriate, shouldn't "Rebranded networks" being included under the explanation on Template:Infobox television#Parameters specifically for |network[2-8]= in which it states, If the show was canceled and revived or moved to another network, use the additional parameters. See #network for additional information.?
I am asking because some editors seemed to think it doesn't include rebranded networks because it does not explicitly says so under the explanation on the template and argued that they don't need to be differentiated because they just got rebranded, not the same as "canceled, or revived, or moved to another network". — YoungForever(talk) 00:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Added -- Alex_21 TALK 00:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding it in. Now it is clear. — YoungForever(talk) 01:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've undone the change. This needs more of a consensus than two editors and should probably be discussed at WP:TV instead. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a consensus between two editors. It is a standard and common practice for years. Also, this discussion is about the template, so I started the discussion in the correct place. — YoungForever(talk) 18:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion on the template talk page is perfectly fine if it gains enough traction, especially since it only applies to this Infobox and not the project as a whole (episode pages, season pages, character pages, etc.). That said, I believe this has been the norm for years. Cobra Kai is another example, that has listed separate networks for YouTube Premium and YouTube Red (also merely a rebrand). I see no issue with putting something that has been common practice into text for others to reference. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly what I thought because it doesn't applies to the project as a whole, it just applies to this template only. — YoungForever(talk) 18:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-done the change. I don't want to minimize @Jessintime's undo - I'm sure it was in good faith. However, separating rebrands is standard practice. It was part of the reason we put the multiple network (and air date) variables into the template in the first place. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur this is just codifying the standard practice for years, adding it here where it wasn't listed previously. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the first network a show was released necessarily the original network

[edit]

Say Incognito (TV series) was released on January 20, 2025 in ABS-CBN's Kapamilya Channel, Jeepney TV, TV5, and A2Z.

However the series has an advanced release on Netflix on January 17 or three days earlier. Do note that this is not an all-at-once release and they are just releasing episodes ahead of the traditional television broadcast.

So in this case, would Netflix be the original network and the release date on January 17 instead of January 20.

Or is it acceptable to list both Netflix and Kapamilya Channel (the main network of ABS-CBN) as the original network and a release date with footnotes? Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, we would generally want to list the main / home network and use notes to explain that the Netflix release was a few days earlier. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Adam. For example, Star Trek: Prodigy season 2 was released on its home network (Netflix) on July 1. However, it had been released entirely on france.tv in March, but this doesn't make it the home network. Same for the Walking Dead series' - (if I remember correctly) the episodes are released on AMC+ online a day or two before their AMC broadcast, but AMC still remains the home network. -- Alex_21 TALK 22:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What the above have said seems to be the norm. High School Musical: The Musical: The Series first premiered on ABC and Freeform four days before Disney+ (it's home "network" even launched), yet it's the only one listed in the Infobox. Note that in this case however, the episode table uses the date of the ABC/Freeform release rather than Disney+.
I see so that the IP was right about leaving Netflix out and the notes should explain any special casesHariboneagle927 (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

edit request: seasons and episodes aired

[edit]

i'm told num_episodes (and presumably num_seasons) is for aired count, not how many have been scheduled, but the infobox only says No. of seasons, No. of episodes. Could we change the template to say No. of seasons aired and No. of episodes aired? so editors like me don't put the wrong number, and readers like me won't misunderstand what the infobox means to say?

Actually, No. of seasons aired could imply whole seasons, not counting a current season which hasn't finished airing in its entirety. Maybe Current or most recently aired season?

Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing. --70.22.1.45 (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common issue, but it is only really an issue while a season is being released. I'm not sure it makes sense to make the wording more complicated for a temporary issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Will @Adamstom.97: and @Adamstom97: both work?)
Some shows go on summer break, so the "temporary issue" while a season is being released lasts 9 months per year. Other shows do not take a summer hiatus: for example, don't Sesame Street, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and soap operas air new episodes year round?
Wikipedia:The deadline is now.
Wikipedia:There is no deadline.
G2G
Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing. --70.22.1.45 (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is expanded upon in the documentation. I don't think we should add to the infobox parameter name. We can keep it concise to how it is listed currently. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It already says on the documentation The parameter should only be incremented once the first episode of that season or series has aired, or if a reliable source confirms production has commenced. for |num_seasons= and This parameter should only be incremented when new episodes or specials air. for |num_episodes=. They both very clear. — YoungForever(talk) 22:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@YoungForever:@Favre1fan93:
But that documentation is not where the reader or editor is likely to find it. It's like a clear, easy-to-read stop sign in a traffic cop's pocket. i saw an infobox listing a No. of episodes different from what the ==Episodes== section showed, and i changed the infobox to match the article body because nothing where i was reading or editing made it clear No. of episodes meant No. of episodes released. Which brings to mind another question: What about episodes that never air but are officially released some other way, such as DVD or YouTube? The only example that comes to mind right now is Echo (Dollhouse episode) (mentioned in the List of Dollhouse episodes but not counted in the Dollhouse (TV series) infobox), but i suspect others exist.
Changing No. of episodes to No. of episodes aired only adds 6 characters (and for that matter isn't No. of superfluous, made clear by the fact that the info filling that field is a number?), yet removes confusion from every page using the template. Changing No. of seasons to Latest season actually subtracts a character.
Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing. --70.22.1.45 (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Echo" seems more like a special feature released as part of the DVD release, like other featurettes. So not including it in the episode numbering is correct. Including it in List of Dollhouse episodes under "Season 1 (2009)" in my opinion is incorrect, as it isn't part of that season. It's an unaired pilot. If adding it to the episode list article is wanted, it should be its own section. List of Legends of Tomorrow episodes#Season 5 (2020) has an episode that is part of the season but not part of the season numbering. List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes on the other hand, does not list Unaired Buffy the Vampire Slayer pilot in its episode list. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New parameter: "animation_studio"

[edit]
Proposal: Adding "animation_studio" as an optional parameter


Hello everyone,

I would like to propose the inclusion of a new optional parameter to the television infobox template: "animation_studio".

While the current template includes fields such as "production_company" and "distributor", it lacks a dedicated field for the animation studio, which is a distinct and relevant aspect for animated television series. The animation studio often differs from the production company and plays a significant creative and technical role —particularly in cases where a studio’s unique style or contribution is recognizable and consistent across episodes.

Suggested implementation:

  • Parameter name: "animation_studio"
  • Position in the infobox: After "production_company"
  • Purpose: To identify the main animation studio involved in the actual animation production of the series.


Suggested usage guidelines:

The "animation_studio" parameter should be used only when the animated series is primarily animated by a single studio, or when a fixed studio handles a substantial portion of the animation —such as an entire season or the entire series.


Examples of appropriate usage:


Examples where the parameter should not be used:

  • Care Bears — animated by multiple outsourced studios, varying by episode
  • The Mask: Animated Series — outsourced to multiple animation studios without a consistent lead studio across the series

This limitation would help ensure consistency and prevent clutter in the infoboxes of shows where no single studio is clearly responsible for the animation.

If there is community support for this proposal, I would be happy to help with documentation and implementation.

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:EBC:B335:D000:FA8D:429F:E919:25E0 (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: FYI, |distributor= parameter was removed in March 2023. — YoungForever(talk) 21:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the creation of this parameter. It would only serve to demonstrate that American animation is outsourced to foreign studios, thereby diminishing the importance of the US in the animation industry. This would make it seem like the United States isn't that important in this segment of the industry, which would jeopardize the sovereignty of American animation. And the English Wikipedia cannot attempt to demean any segment of American cultural sovereignty. 2804:214:88F4:747B:1859:1FF9:FEFE:8CBA (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has absolutely zero bearing on this project. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering why such a parameter doesn't exist for a while now. I 100% agree with this proposal. —theMainLogan (t•c) 05:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest adding the parameter |animation_studio= and removing the parameter |animator= so that the infobox doesn't become too overloaded with parameters. The studio behind the animation of an animated series is more important than the animators themselves. 2804:EBC:B21A:4100:E741:359E:BCB:3591 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The |animator= parameter is very useful for older animation, such as Looney Tunes cartoons where there was generally one person animating each short. Modern animation obviously has studios so I don't know if one should replace the other should this proceed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69: Are you talking about the end credits the says Animation produced by on a lot of TV series such as Bob's Burgers, Universal Basic Guys, and The Great North? I don't really see the use of listing a bunch of animation studios. Your examples are too vague, it is an invitation to misuse the parameter in the long run. — YoungForever(talk) 15:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the potential for misuse would be my primary concern as well. Misused/abused parameters are exactly what we've been working to remove. And as the the discussion below indicates, there's a general disconnect in the community on the purpose of the infobox. It is not to list minutia that we don't cover in the article. It's exactly the opposite of that - to summarize limited info from the article itself. If the information is important, then cover it in the article. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I didn't open this discussion, my signature was forged by the anonymous user that did. I've switched it back now. They seem like the same user that "disagreed" above. I'm not sure what they're trying to do here, but given that the proposal was very likely LLM-generated, I think this section should be closed to prevent further disruption. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then... I felt this whole thing was rather odd, given the barrage of IPs involved, trying to give the impression of legitimate discourse. Given that insight and the current direction of the discussion, can we get a WP:SNOWBALL close from someone uninvolved? ButlerBlog (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an uninvolved editor should close this. This proposal is possibly an attempt to add |animation services/companies= parameter which was discussion before and the general consensus is not to include the animation services/companies on the infobox. — YoungForever(talk) 22:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are cases where companies don't outsource their animation services to multiple animation studios. There are cases where only one specific studio is responsible for the animation. There are many people who tend to confuse production companies and animation studios; many think that the company itself does the animation work. But what I find strangest is why they don't credit the animation studio on Infobox Television, but they do credit the animation studio on Infobox Animanga? Why do they credit animation studios of animes on the Infobox, but not the animation studios of other animated series on the Infobox? 2804:214:8900:FEF4:1859:E5B8:7287:3F3F (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the parameter |animation_studio= would only be used in infoboxes for animated series that have only one or two main animation studios. For example: Voltron: Legendary Defender was entirely animated by Studio Mir, while Street Sharks has its animation outsourced to at least five different animation studios. In this case, the parameter would be used in the Voltron: Legendary Defender infobox but not in the Street Sharks infobox. 2804:EBC:B21A:4100:6AA7:3A08:B0E6:8869 (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Distributor" parameter needs to be brought back ASAP.

[edit]

Words cannot describe how tiresome it is to stop by an article, find distributor information in the "Production company" section, and have to remove it. Arguably, the most interesting part is that this isn't even non-Infobox-worthy information. Video game articles list the publisher, film articles list the film's distributor, and so on and so forth—so why exclude such a parameter here? —theMainLogan (t•c) 05:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions at Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 13#Any support in removing 'Distributor' parameter? and Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 14#Distributor parameter: is it needed? may help answer your question. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The gist of the discussion that Alex_21 referenced can be summed up by responding to your comment that it isn't non-Infobox-worthy information. If that's the case, then it doesn't belong in the infobox, either. The purpose of the infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Too much info in the infobox results in an infobox not serving its intended purpose. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck getting a consensus to bring it back. There is clear consensus to get it remove a little over 2 years ago. — YoungForever(talk) 15:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Upcoming" in release parameter for Category:Pages using infobox television with missing dates

[edit]

Hello, I just reverted this edit that added "Upcoming" text to the |first_aired= parameter of this infobox at the article 12 12 12. That was added because Category:Pages using infobox television with missing dates presently states that "If the show hasn't been released yet, use |first_aired=Upcoming". I reverted the edit because I have never seen an upcoming TV show without a known release date, such as 12 12 12 use "Upcoming" for the "Release" parameter in the infobox. This field is supposed to not be filled or displayed until after it premieres, so I am inquiring about this template's support, or lack thereof, of this option. Courtesy ping to @Gonnym as they were the one who added this line of text to the category last year. I cannot find any discussion about this usage, so I am bringing it up here. I can understand the urge to cleanup the maintenance category, although the use of "Upcoming" in the infobox does not feel encyclopedic and I do not think such changes should be made to justify emptying such a category. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 05:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything needs to have a major discussion. If you don't like it, just revert it as you did. Gonnym (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As to the question, I personally find no release information the worse option. The infobox is supposed to give fast summary information. What does a casual reader who doesn't know infobox guidelines supposed to understand when they don't see any release information? Canceled? Not yet released? We just don't know when it was released? Gonnym (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we transition over to how the WP:FILM does it, and just start putting the release date or timeframes in the infobox instead of nothing? I know the TV project did not do this for the longest time because of the more "volatile/uncertain" nature I guess of TV of things moving, being cancelled, delayed, etc. But I would argue films these days also go through a lot of that, and it isn't a problem within that project to have a confirmed upcoming date (or simply a year) in the that infobox and just changing it along with the prose if that gets altered for some reason. Having the TV project start doing this has felt a little overdue in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. If we have a reliable source for a scheduled date then I see no problem with listing that in the infobox, just as we do in prose. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose to this because it is still yet to release, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. You cannot claimed to be released when it is not even released yet. This is equivalent to the |num_episodes= where some editors decided it is ok to put the total number of episodes for the season instead of the number of episodes released. TV series premiere dates are on the lede of the each TV series articles so, an average reader can easily see the premiere date. However, I support a quasi-alias parameter for |first_aired= that specifically for yet to premiere TV series with a scheduled premiere date. Film dates are completely different. — YoungForever(talk) 20:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in how film dates are completely different. Let's use Avengers: Doomsday as an example; is December 18, 2026 still not a future date that is listed in the lead and the infobox? How would a television series doing this violate CRYSTAL but film does not? -- Alex_21 TALK 00:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why CRYSTAL is such a concern for TV articles and not film articles in the infobox, but I think noting the intended premiere of a TV series would suffice while excluding an end date or the total episode count. As for my concerns wit the "upcoming" field when no release date is known, that is just a poor substitute. If there is no data for a parameter, it should be left empty and we should not be encouraging other editors to add this to a parameter just based on the sole discretion of a single editor without consensus. That is why I brought this to the talk page, because I have concerns about its application. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 01:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with removing the Upcoming feature. I've also been happy for the past 10-12 years just listing the date once the series premieres, but we could add an "Expected release date" row for future release dates, in the vein of an alias parameter for |first_aired= as suggested above. It wouldn't violate CRYSTAL at all, as it would be sourced content; adding the date does not claim that it has been released, exactly the same for films. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That all sounds good to me. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 01:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be opposed to adding any future date. Gonnym (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet adding "Upcoming" when no date is known is somehow better? I don't see it. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 15:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A TV series contains episodes while film contains the just the film itself. It is open invitation to include |last_aired= and |num_episodes= for TV series when it is yet to release. Can you claimed a TV series have released when it is clearly not released yet? When it is in prose format, it is different because it is usually stated like set to premiere on September 22, 2025 or something indicating that it hasn’t been release. — YoungForever(talk) 01:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I agreed with Alex's suggestion to have an expected release field instead, to avoid this very ambiguity and point of contention. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 01:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with Expected release date parameter as a quasi-alias parameter for |first_aired=. — YoungForever(talk) 02:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a horrible idea. Gonnym (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be as a quasi-alias parameter for |last_aired= as Alex 21 suggested below. — YoungForever(talk) 15:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you claimed a film has released when it is clearly not released yet? Yet we still list the date, exactly the same way Doomsday above says it is scheduled to be released in the United States on December 18, 2026. There's no difference between the two, we can still set standard for the parameters you've listed and add the standard comment notes like we always do. Instead of |first_aired=, we can just as well use |expected_aired= that doesn't work with |last_aired=. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with using |expected_aired= for scheduled release date that that doesn't work with |last_aired=. — YoungForever(talk) 02:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easy, works for me. I'm still curious, how would this be any different than |released= in film articles? How is television and film any different in their display of infobox dates? -- Alex_21 TALK 05:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Television series are tie to multiple episodes whereas film is tie to just the film itself as nothing to increment in terms of episodes for film. Television series have more ambiguity. — YoungForever(talk) 15:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a date check we could implement in the coding? So it takes what's put in |first_aired= or |released= and compares it to today's date and if the date is a future date, then |last_aired= (should any series have that info before release) wouldn't show? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with the Infobox

[edit]

When you put the infobox on a page, it has the show's title automatically, which is useful for most pages, but not for all pages. For an example, The Life of Larry and Larry & Steve page has a section just for Larry & Steve, and it uses this infobox, and because of that, the title says "The Life of Larry and Larry & Steve" and not just "Larry & Steve". Thomasfan1000 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like that shouldn't use infobox for sections. Gonnym (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then what should they do? Thomasfan1000 (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This feature can be overriden by using the name= parameter in the Infobox. So in this case add name=Larry & Steve and it should solve your issue. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't work Thomasfan1000 (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno what's going on here. It works in preview mode when editing the section, but defaults to the article title when published. Is the "name=" parameter definitely supported in the television infobox? Barry Wom (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's because of the use of DISPLAYTITLE on the article. This infobox for some reason is pulling the text from that and not taking |name= as an override. Likely something within Module:Infobox television as that's where the above title styling/adding is happening. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can gather, the module is looking at BASEPAGENAME (sans disambiguation) to generate the above title of the infobox. Should DISPLAYTITLE or {{italic title}} be used, it will pull from that text. It doesn't then check if |name= is also used and doesn't match the article title to then go with |name=. Should the module account for this? Maybe. But I can't think of many other valid use cases where all these variables would factor in. I stand by my comment below that the infoboxes should probably be removed from this article given its structure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree to some extent that having two infobox back to back like that for each section isn't the best. I'd actually remove the infoboxes and put all the info (sourced) in prose, and then just have each section feature the images. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right so what should we do? Thomasfan1000 (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomasfan1000: remove both infoboxes from the article and put any info from them in prose in each section. That will be more than sufficient for this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you add an extra parameter to the television Infobox in an article?

[edit]

Not to the actual template, just to the version of the template used in an article. —theMainLogan (t•c) 04:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can use any of the parameters that are listed here: {{Infobox television}}. The documentation tells you the available parameters and how they should be formatted. If a parameter is not listed, then it doesn't exist in this infobox - you can't add parameters that do not exist. That would require editing the template, which would generally require discussion and consensus. ButlerBlog (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]