Television Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:CompactDocToc

{{Infobox Television episode
| Title        =
| Series       =
| Image        =
| Caption      =
| Season       =
| Episode      =
| Airdate      =
| Production   =
| Writer       =
| Director     =
| Guests       =
| Episode list =
| Prev         =
| Next         =
}}

Parameters in bold are required fields.

{{Infobox Television episode
| Title        = Midnight on the Firing Line
| Series       = [[Babylon 5]]
| Image        = [[Image:Midnight on the firing line 1.jpg|256px]]
| Caption      = Garibaldi and Ivanova, with Londo in the background
| Season       = 1
| Episode      = 1
| Airdate      = [[26 January]], [[1994]]
| Production   = 103
| Writer       = [[J. Michael Straczynski]]
| Director     = [[Richard Compton]]
| Guests       = [[Paul Hampton]]<br/>   (The Senator)
| Episode list = [[List of Babylon 5 episodes]]
| Prev         = [[The Gathering]]
| Next         = [[Soul Hunter (Babylon 5)|Soul Hunter]]
}}

I thought the infobox looked ugly, so I edited it. Extraordinary Machine 04:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Episode list parameter. Change this to a PIPED link (ie in [[]]) to the page which lists the episode chronology, like eg List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. So: Episode chronology -- Alfakim --  talk  16:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Episode list parameter be better rendered as:

[[{{{Episode list|Episode}}}|Episode chronology]]

? This would cause the "Episode chronology" to always be a link, but never an incorrectly piped one.-- Alfakim --  talk  16:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Image parameter. Change this to [[Image:Example.jpg|300px]] to put an image at the top of your infobox (like a screenshot of the episode). Remember to add the |300px or you'll ruin your page. -- Alfakim --  talk  22:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer the case. The infobox stretches now, so smaller or larger infoboxes won't mess up a page. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 09:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea. Some shows waver inbetween supernatural and natural content, and it's not always clear if something supernatural has just occured. This happens in shows like The X-Files or Lost. It doesn't happen so much in a sit-com like Friends. But I think it would be helpful for viewers and people interested if those who know the stories behind the episode mark a show (one that would be relevant) with a symbol if something supernatural has occured in the episode. Might be a bit of a spoiler, but then if someone is looking up information on an episode, there are going to be spoilers anyhow and I think that an article on a show should be comprehenisive and I think a clear label like this will clearly help people understand what is going on in the show. What do you all think? I know answers may take awhile (sometimes months, I'll watch the page). (Bjorn Tipling 05:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

this seems too specific an idea, and i really dont see its worth. -- Alfakim --  talk  14:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well say for instance that you just watched an episode of Lost on DVD and something happened like someone was killed by a monster in the jungle that was never actually shown to the viewers. The episode ends and you're not sure just what happened and you are dying to know if it was supernatural or a natural thing (the difference between the two would drastically change the nature of the plot). I believe people want to know, because there are people who want to watch Ghost/Alien/Monster Fantasy/Sci-fi and people who don't. Some people just want to know, and so I think this notice (only on shows that have 'supernatural' (I hate using this term, but it's better than 'fantasy') would go a long way to inform people about the nature of a TV episode. (Bjorn Tipling 04:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

That's not really useful for this template, which is a general info template. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed US airdate to Airdate since not all the series air in the US first. --Tone 18:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of changing the navbox part of the episode box. But i'm not real sure yet if i actually like it. Still I'm also not 100% satisfied with the way it is now. Does anyone else have good ideas on how to do the Prev/Next/Index thing ? The DJ 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at it. I guess we'll soon find out how people like it... —Down10 ^TACO 09:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The episode lists are being squished to the right instead of centered at the bottom, can this be fixed? Jay32183 15:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks. Have there any precedent TFDs concerning deleting templates created for individual shows in favour of this one. I ask, becasue Template:Infobox Fawlty Towers has been created for Fawlty Towers, which doesn't seem to do anything that this template doesn't do. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The default colour is still the tag as before, however an optional parameter has been added so the background can be changed. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any background colouring should convey some information, so use data templates if you are using a colour to represent a certain genre for example, such as {{tl:Infobox Television episdode/sci-fi colour}}, then have | genre = sci-fi. Ideally the background should be invariant and declared in the stylesheet. ed g2s • talk 02:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do, some shows have projects associated with them or templates. The project colour visualy identfies them and links them together. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This is used so please do not remove it without a concensous. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting we should seek concensus for reverting something you implemented today? Combination 11:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt implement it today i implemented it 3 days ago. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Combination 11:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove it feel free to, i wont revert again. However it is used and does have a purpose as some articles have projects or templates associated with them and have "there" own colour. and thus this template associates the episode with the series. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that this tag shouldnt be removed as it is used succesfully in hundreds of articles. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 08:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to do this, then please explain where it is neccessary and then implement it per my suggestion, using templates to store the colour values, so instead of colour = black you use colour = prison break colour. Just because you implemented this and set it up of a few series, doesn't make it worthwhile or necessary. ed g2s • talk 12:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its purpose is association, and do not remove it as it is used in hundreds of articles, which you mess up when you remove it. Also, template colours are used and it doesnt have to be done "eds way" Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also it has been in use for numerous weeks now with no problems. The only problem encounterd so far is your silly reverts. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ability to use hexs is there for ease, however some telvision series do use templated colours. (ref: stargate) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No pages have been "messed up", they merely look how they did before. Would you like to explain the significance of these colour associations, and what they add beyond the text on the page. ed g2s • talk 12:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous projects use there own colours, using the colours in the tpl visually links them. Also some projects have there own templates which usual difference is only colour. It is better to have one template then 10 templates all doing the same thing. It also adds greater functionality. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be well if it actually applied to individual television episodes. Why, for example, did you colour in the Prison Break episodes black? ed g2s • talk 12:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt choose that colour, it was choosen by previou editors. And i assume its because black si associated with the "project" and the show. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there isn't actually a project, nor are there any other infoboxes for it to homogenise with. Basically you're just applying per-show colourings which will only lead to unnecessary colour clashes, reduced readability in some skins, and serve to benefit whatsoever. One assumes that if you navigate between that if you are browsing episodes of a given show, you will already be expecting the same show, without a colour bar to confirm it. If you navigate between shows, you will not recognise which show you are looking at by seeing the colour. ed g2s • talk 19:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For an example see stargate wikiproject. In the O.C. we use orange colours in veronica mars green (ie: its template and sub pages follows suite and thus episodes should to) please do not mess up pages. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is used, do not remove without discussion! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that i am writing a template now and so it would help if you dont revert so i can implement it succesfully over the span of a few hundred pages. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Colour and TColour should be left there at least temp anyway. I do plan on implementing widescale template useage but it will take a short while.

Until then there serving a purpose (in hundreds of articles) and should be left, note hat some articles already use templates (ie. stargate eps.) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 21:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also read here (specificly the colour part) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 21:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war over this template - if you need to arrive to some sort of consensus about what should be used, you may want to consider leaving a message in the village pump. If it continues, protection of the template until the some sort of consensus is reached may be used. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 20:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why Ed has a problem with the template, but either way i am trying to implement his ideas now. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to gather some concensus on the background colouring tag, now first of let me point out that it modifies the appearance in no way unless it is called and retains the default gray unless called.

Secondly some projects like the Stargate Wikiproject have there own colours (see: Template:SGColor) which is used in articles related to Stargate, also some articles use navigation templates with a primary colour on all pages related to the subject (IE: The O.C. or Veronica Mars) -- The colour chosen to be used has already been selected by participants actively editing those pages and thus if it has proven to cause no harm why would it in the infobox.

Thirdly if you can see the gray navbar fine why would you not be able to see black, blue or green etc? Wikipedia pages generally use an assortment of colours and so this cannot be really a basis for argument.

Fourth, Wikipedia is not paper, we do not have to worry about ink. Fifth, Wikipedia should be aesthetically pleasing as well (thus why we use the nice monobook skin vs. default?) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it was suggested that colours be called via a template, which is a good idea.. however the ability to still call it via manual hex is still good. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore note that on the other skins colours cause no harm or problems. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no harm in this or bad, just the good. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It would be silly not to have this, how Ed can call it major is well, beyond me.Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See no harm in this. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from user talk:

No, applying colour to inline text when it is not necessary is Bad. What looks good on the monobook skin may not look good another skin, or visually impaired users who have their browsers set up with a specified colours for suitable contrast. Furthermore the reason we use a skin at all is to give pages a consistent look. If we start colouring pages by topic just for aesthetic reasons, we'll end up looking like myspace. This may be acceptable on users pages, but the article space is supposed to look professional. ed g2s • talk 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The colours chosen are generally already used, we use colour in other boxes/infoboxes. Now unless you wish to be reported for your disruptive behaviour i expect you to converse. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 08:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the appearance is changed no way unless the tag is called. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 08:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support availability of tag. Default will work for most circumstances; ugly, unprofessional, or inconsistent usage within a TV series can be dealt with on a series-by-series level. Use of color to represent groupings (see, e.g., Google News) is not in itself unprofessional. Travisl 17:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Please don't implement series-by-series coloring; it's not as useful as people seem to think for identification (since only those who work on a series are going to know what the colors mean), and it just ends up looking crappy in some skins and setups. This isn't useful in 100% of cases, and has the possibility to damage readability in a percentage of cases. Just no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as for the bolded votes, voting is useless and divisive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does nobody understand the fact that this is being used right now on hundreds of pages? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 07:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I do understand that fact. Why are you edit warring using a revert tool to reinsert a controversial edit into a highly-transcluded template? Don't do that. Get consensus and then make your changes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current cocnensous SUPPORTS it (4/0), You dont seem to realise that it is high visibility and removing this messes up content on some pages. I will allow you to self revert if yu wish, and it is only controversial as ed tried to make it contriversial, there would be no edit war if you all discussed before mesing up hundreds of pages.. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 07:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is useless and divisive, and your vote count seems to discount me, Combination, and ed g2s. Get support for the colors, then add them to the template. Revert with vandalism-reversion tools and I will block you, and recommend that your AWB/VP/whatever access be stripped. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are all in the support section, Ed has made comments (note he also removed the oppose sect.) and there seems to be support, and for making threats saying i cannot revert i intend to report that. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 07:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is "Ugh. Please don't implement series-by-series coloring" ambiguous? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tag serves a purpose, removing causes disruption. Insanity13 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support wow I can't believe there is actually controversy around this. There is absolutely no harm by including the option as most series have color schemes that make sense. If it doesn't then it can be looked at. Not to mention color often times makes items easier to read and stand out more! --Argash 09:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- I stand by A Man In Bl♟ck on this one. In general, I tend to trust a work like what he has done more than attempts to pass opposition off as support just because of a silly section head. --Chris Griswold 11:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One assumes that if you navigate between that if you are browsing episodes of a given show, you will already be expecting the same show, without a colour bar to confirm it. If you navigate between shows, you will not recognise which show you are looking at by seeing the colour.

This is why the colors aren't useful.

What looks good on the monobook skin may not look good another skin, or visually impaired users who have their browsers set up with a specified colours for suitable contrast. Furthermore the reason we use a skin at all is to give pages a consistent look. If we start colouring pages by topic just for aesthetic reasons, we'll end up looking like myspace.

This is why the color are harmful.

Colors are harmful and not useful. Adding them to this template is a net negative. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying we should just use black and white.. *sigh* Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think we should leave it to the style sheets. If you'd like white-on-black or bright orange or whatever (both of which have been used in unfortunate infoboxes), you can edit your monobook instead of inflicting it on the wiki at large. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dissagree many shows color code their seasons and if your a regular reader of a particular show then you become accostomed to that shows color scheme and can identify a particular episodes season just by it's color. Seriously there is no reason NOT to include the option for color and if you continuously revert to the version without that option all that will happen is the shows that want color will make their own custom templates. Is that what you want one template per show? -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think users can be trusted just to identify particular episodes of a particular show by the first sentence of the article or the first line of the infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they can but your not listening. Some shows like their color schemes (Stargate and The Simpsons come to mind. If the default template can't support that color scheme then they will just make their own template. By denying this very simply option that doesn't have to be used you could very well end up with hundreds of extranious templates.

BTW by my count its currently 6-3 in favor of the color option. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  12:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing it's not a vote. I think it's ridiculous that Wikiprojects for various TV series are declaring that they have "their" colors, and anything to nip that nonsense in the bud is good. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if you use a screenreader? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...then you can't see the color anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty wrong really, you may use a screenreader if your partialy blind (ie: a blur) so you can make out colours but not text.. thus its more efficent to also offer colours. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! One of the reasons why i added optional colouring so that we [wikipedia] didnt have to have hundreds of episode templates, if we can have one instead of 10 it is much better! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need ten different colors? Unified infoboxes good, unified apperances even better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Way to be a conformist! Seriously thats your reason for being against a color option? -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...you're accusing me of being a conformist for suggesting that a standardized infobox have standardized colors? Um. Kay.

My argument is up the page, with that "not useful" and "harmful" bit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a standardised template is so that there is an easy way to enter and display standard information that does not mean that there has to be a standard color scheme. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, you caught me conflating a standard template with standard appearance (which could vary greatly if there were a productive purpose). There still isn't a productive purpose, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is and you've been told them [numerous times] so dont dismiss them. thanks. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One assumes that if you navigate between that if you are browsing episodes of a given show, you will already be expecting the same show, without a colour bar to confirm it. If you navigate between shows, you will not recognise which show you are looking at by seeing the colour.

This is why the colors aren't useful.

What looks good on the monobook skin may not look good another skin, or visually impaired users who have their browsers set up with a specified colours for suitable contrast. Furthermore the reason we use a skin at all is to give pages a consistent look. If we start colouring pages by topic just for aesthetic reasons, we'll end up looking like myspace.

This is why the color are harmful.

These points remain unaddressed.

It has been argued that such-and-such Wikiproject is unwilling to use this unified template without a color variable. I can understand the difficulty of getting people to adopy a unified infobox (being a bit of a template wonk at times myself); can you point me to an example of this reticence? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you going on about? One of the whole points of teh adition of a optional condition was so that all these shows did not have to use differnt templates and so they could use THIS ONE! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they need a color variable to use this template? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just aint listening are ya? (numerous (repated) reasons below)

• Association.
• Aesthetics
• Helps the disabled
• That projects colour scheme should not be limited when it doesnt have to be.
• Colour shuld be used, wikipedia is not paper.
• Colour is pleasing.
• Wikipedia shouldnt aim to be bland.
• If you can see a gray infobox why would you not be able to see a blue infobox?
• The colours choen are generally already used in associated projects/artcles/templates etc

Need i write more? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The title covers association.
• Most of the color schemes were plug-ugly. (White text on black? Ugh!)
• How does it help the disabled?
• Is there a project that has complained? Where?
• Color shouldn't be used for color's sake. This is Wikipedia, not Myspace. Color should be used when it serves a productive, not merely aesthetic use.
• Wikipedia shouldn't aim to make readers blind.
• Blue is fine. Let's pick a color and stick with it. I don't care what color, as long as it's low-key.
• Is there a project that has complained? Where?

I'd appreciate it if you'd write more, to address these answers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to justify wasting my time to replying as your answers are laughable, since when was wikipedia a blog? Since when did it make them blind. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't willing to discuss your changes, I wouldn't expect to find wide consensus supporting them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know that Stargate makes use of the color option (well it did until you reverted it). As for the two points you say are unresolved:

• many shows color code their seasons and if your a regular reader of a particular show then you become accostomed to that shows color scheme and can identify a particular episodes season just by it's color
• lynx is not the standard browser of choice these days, it will seriously not adversly affect more than a miniscule ammount of readers to implement a color option. If a color scheme that is hard to read gets implemented (say something hard to read for those who are colorblind, then im sure someone will be quick to point it out and fix it. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Stargate project particularly unwilling to accept a neutral color? Can you link me to this discussion?

Again, I've answered the point of identifying by color; the name of the series is right there up top, as well as in the lead. Illiterates won't be using Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you may wish to be civil and stop making attacks. they may be aprt blind. Furthermore the stargate project uses a neutral colour already (#7F8EB7) and this is the concensous of the many of which colour should be used. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who was I attacking? These articles are already cut off from anyone who lacks the visual or English reading ability to understand the titles; the colors serve no purpose. What disability are we serving here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some disabled people use "readers" (i know a child did at my old school, he would hoover text and it would be spoken to him) if you can see colours you can associate, thus its also a time saver. PS: You atatcked the "illiterate" Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack them, merely noted that anyone who isn't able to understand the first thing said in any article is unlikely to be able to gain any use from Wikipedia. Even someone using a reader is going to hear the series name in the first sentence, no matter what. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they? they wouldnt have to listen to it if they already knew what it was. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they know what the article is about in the first place without hearing a single word of it? This is a silly argument; get someone who knows something about usability for the disabled in here if you want to continue it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been keeping up with the stargate project much myself lately I just know they make use of it, couldn't point you to a specific discussion though. I'm leading up the charge for the Entourage project and I want to make use of colors there I can tell you that. I did just dig up another template that is almost an exact copy and does have the color option so if your going to piss in moan about it I guess we'll just switch over to that template. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  13:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I also diagree with the use of series-specific colored infoboxes. This is not Skittlepedia, nor is it myspace or tvtome or any other place. The reasons to keep a consistent look have already been listed above (professionalism, consistency, special needs readers). Color schemes, whether templated or not, should not be customized according to the whims of the editors who work on particular series, and if this has already happened on some projects, it needs to be stopped, not encouraged or expanded. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but have you taken a look at Main Page recently? -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  14:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The special needs argument is FOR colours! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How will they know what color to look for if there's not a consistent color? --Interiot 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There generly is i believe, a purple/blue for stargate, black for prison break, green for veronica mars, ornage for The O.C., orangey/gray for entourage. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]