Template talk:Infobox television episode

Featured music

I'm curious about this template's |music= parameter. The documentation states to "only include the most notable" songs, but I can't think of any television episode where a song is so notable it demands a listing in the infobox alongside the director, writer, etc.; if it's important, it should be mentioned in the article alongside production information, but the infobox seems like overkill to me (and, more often than not, just becomes a dumping ground for every featured song). I'm interested to know what others think. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it makes sense if there is an original song created for that episode, i.e. "A Little Song and Dance", or if there is particular attention in reviews/coverage to how an existing song is used. In shows that use lots of songs I think it is a misuse of the parameter to try list them all. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point but I wonder if, in instances like that, a mention in the lead is more appropriate than the infobox—here's an example that takes that approach (though I'm sure you're familiar). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

A lot of time we are stuck with issues we inherited from past editors. This is one of them. if it's important, it should be mentioned in the article alongside production information - everything listed in the infobox should be mentioned in the article and referenced. To be honest, I really doubt any song for a television episode is that important to the summarize of the show that it needs mentioned in the infobox. It seems to me more trivia than useful. Gonnym (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, my point was that if the song is important, it should be mentioned in the article instead of the infobox. I agree that it seems more like trivia; even in notable instances, as above, a mention in the lead is probably more appropriate. I can't seem to find any discussions about the parameter since it was added 18 years ago, but I'd be curious to know if others feel strongly about its inclusion; otherwise, I'd likely support its removal. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd support it's removal. It bloats the infobox when it's more appropriate/better to discuss that stuff in article anyways. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I've updated the sandbox to remove |music=. Seems like there's mostly support here; do we need a wider consensus for this change? – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 23:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd make a post at WT:TV if you haven't already. If that doesn't yield any additional comments, then we should be go to proceed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I posted there a couple weeks ago, though I just added a follow-up. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 21:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd give it through the weekend maybe, and then we can move ahead with the removal after that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this probably seems fair to remove now, after five weeks with no apparent opposition (and three since the last comment). The parameter currently appears to be used in at least 5,500+ articles, so some cleanup would be necessary. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 23:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Primefac's bot can likely help us. If we go ahead with getting the code set and then implemented, we can give them a ping to have their bot run to outright remove the parameter usage. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The code is set at the sandbox (diff); now it just needs to be implemented here to match. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 00:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

|music= removed. Gonnym (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac, would your bot be willing to assist in removing this parameter? – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 07:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks! – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 22:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Not sure what happened but can we revert this change for the episodes of Glee? It's a musical drama television series based around popular music , and with this new change, the music list in each episode is gone. I understand for other series why this happened but this show revolves around the music used in each episode. Can we have this reversed for the episodes of Glee? Andrewvandekamp (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I can see the argument for shows like Glee, though it would be unwise to restore the parameter here for such limited usage, lest we want to see it misused again. If the information is restored, I see two options: a forked infobox like {{Infobox Glee episode}} (à la The Simpsons, Futurama, Doctor Who); or by using |module= to add a nested infobox (see here for an example). If any editors feel strongly about this, I would recommend starting a discussion at WT:TV (and/or WT:GLEE). – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 23:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding that idea, I will make it my sole purpose to make sure that {{Infobox Glee episode}} is deleted. Gonnym (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I would also be opposed (though perhaps a little less aggressively). – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 07:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Why? Andrewvandekamp (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Because over the years we've been working hard to delete all these random forks and have as little as possible duplicate templates. Just because someone is missing a parameter, does not mean that requires a new infobox. I suggest actually improving the articles first, such as Lights Out (Glee) which does not even mention any music in the body of the article. And as Rhain said, if you really need the music field, use the module parameter. Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, I still feel like what songs were song is not really important (for films such as La La Land we don't mention the names of the songs, and that film won two Oscars for the music). Gonnym (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, that article does actually mention the music in the body, albeit briefly (though the referencing could be improved). The songs being named exclusively in the infobox was obviously one of the reasons we deprecated this parameter, but the Glee articles seem surprisingly good in that regard, for the most part (which is also partly why it doesn't seem like a huge loss here anyway). – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 07:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Primefac: @Gonnym: @Favre1fan93: @Rhain:, et al: Should a Bot really be automating this? It is deleterious to articles where the Music field is populated with Credited Crew responsible for overseeing an entire episode's music direction (i.e., theme music, score, etc.), not just one or more specific Songs. For example, here, notable composer Alex North has been removed, and was not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Unless someone else re-adds him to the article body, that data is now absent, making it less complete (i.e., less encyclopedic). I can only imagine how many more articles will be similarly damaged without any oversight with a bot running loose. In this case it's not such a big deal as I recently added a Music section to include not only the episode's music arranger/conductor, but also an album that was released by the star. I would suggest that the Bot be shut off, and if you don't want Music to include a long list of songs, edit the individual pages on a case by case basis. Now...has the damage already been done to 5,500 articles? If so, can it be Reverted? My 2¢ ~<}:^> GreyElf (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The infobox was never meant to be used to hold information not mentioned anywhere else in the article. If this is the rude awakening editors need to read MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article.) then it a blessing in disguise. Additionaly, pages like Days of Wine and Roses (Playhouse 90) were misusing the parameter. The template documentation said the parameter was for The music of this episode, not the composer.

So in general, I don't see anything of value lost. The edit history is always there so that watchers of a page can take the information from there and restore it to proper sections of the article. Asking for human editors to manually go over 5,500 is insane and I completely oppose that. Gonnym (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I suppose "Music" is too general a term for people unfamiliar with the template documentation to encourage its proper use. I mean, "Director" is a clear term, not requiring specificity. But "Music" (to most casual readers/contributors) can easily be mis-populated. However, it's still a very important field for the IB, if Named *and* Used properly. It would be better to have more specificity in the field name to make it clear to casual contributors, without needing to read the documentation. For instance, there are different fields for the type of writing credits, right? As for "the purpose of the infobox...to summarize, but not supplant..." I completely agree: the "key facts" still need to appear in the article. The problem is, folks are prone to put it into the IB, while neglecting the Body. Also, the IB serves as an "at a glance" quick references, without having to wade into a potentially large volume of prose to find something, such as who composed, or conducted the music. Anyway... I still see bot deletion as destructive, but understand the onerousness of reviewing 5500 articles using the field, although, how many are actually populated? Another article on my watchlist had the field, but it was empty. Perhaps start the bot on empty music fields and then take a count? In any case, I appreciate the reply. ~<}:^> GreyElf (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate your 2¢! I disagree that it's "a very important field for the IB", both for its intended usage and the (understandable) misuse mentioned above: "featured music" (i.e., licensed songs) is too trivial, as discussed above; and the composer/s should already be named in {{Infobox television}} so are a little redundant here (not unlike producers; or, in the case of guest composers, they should be detailed in prose anyway). I'm not sure I'd see the point in starting with empty fields; there's no point maintaining an empty/deprecated parameter. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 21:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that use of the field as "featured music" is trivial when a Music section in the body could better speak, in prose, to notable, popular songs featured in an episode (for example, I recall a Norah Jones song from a particular series). A Soundtrack section could also serve that purpose, especially when there's more than one, or many such songs in the episode. But as a musician, I believe that an IB field defined specifically for Crew Credits like music Composer, and/or another for Arranger/Conductor (for example in Anthology series where a notable classical or jazz or big band conductor may "guest" for that episode), or a more general field noting the person responsible for music as a whole (e.g., Music Director), is just as important as other "filmmaker" roles that we normally see (Director, Screenwriter, etc.), because they all contribute to the episode. ~<}:^> GreyElf (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems like it would have fairly limited usage (i.e., mostly for anthology series or those with frequent guest composers) but I can appreciate why someone would want to propose that as a new parameter with specific uses, especially now that this one is deprecated. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 06:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Limited or not, it goes to my earlier point. If |music= had originally been named more specifically/unambiguously as |featured_music then folks would not as readily populated it with Crew credits, but with actual songs as intended. Whether or not a new field is added for Crew credits, the bot is currently deleting what's already out there for Crew credits, which I consider less trivial than the Songs. Hope that clarifies, and ThanQ for your input. ~<}:^> GreyElf (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand, and agree the parameter name could have been less ambiguous, but I agree with Gonnym's comment above and stand by the bot's actions. It would take much less work to restore crew credits on a limited basis than to re-check all 5,576 articles to match. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 06:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand the need for bots that automate changes, as well as scripts one may run manually to help quickly isolate/fix problems, or deprecate fields/functionality, so yeah, stand by it, no prob. I simply would've like to have seen a more programmatic approach, such as checking, and validating, before automating deletion. I am experienced in validating/scrubbing/converting/fixing/deprecating data in databases. I'm not familiar with building wiki bots in particular, but I am with program logic. For example, there could have been some simple checks beforehand to limit (or altogether eliminate) destruction of data that ONLY appears in the InfoBox (regardless of its _perceived_ value or triviality). Now, it's too late in this case, but going forward, might I suggest adding some simple program logic to your mass deletion tasks? (assuming you haven't already). Using the |music= param as an example, something that, by process of elimination (i.e., divide by halves), reduces overall re-checking workload by humans, allowing bots to automate the no-brainers, might look something like this (and translate it into whatever programming language you prefer or need to use):

Sub Function DepricateIbParamInArticle(Article)
Dim pVal as string
pVal = GetIbParamVal(music)

If IsEmpty(pVal) = TRUE OR IsValuePresentInArticleBody(Article, pVal) = TRUE Then
 RemoveDeprecatedParam(music)
ElseIf IsBlueLinkedPerson(pVal) = TRUE OR IsBlueLinkedSongOrAlbum(pVal) = TRUE OR IsPlainText(pVal) = TRUE Then
  FlagForHumanReview(Article)
Else
 ReportNoChange(Article)
End If
End Sub

The Sub for IsBlueLinkedPerson(pVal) would verify that it links to a Notable Biography containing Infobox person, and IsBlueLinkedSongOrAlbum(pVal) could check Song (or Album) Articles for the appropriate IB. Of course, not all Bios or Songs (Albums) will have an IB, thus the catch-all FlagForHumanReview(ArticleName), for which the sub function could output to a list or something. But, I'm guessing, it would have reduced the 5500+ articles down to something a lot more managable, that is, to Articles where pVal is Only in the IB, and it is unknown whether it refers to a Person, Song (Album), or something else. Hope that helps, but even if not, it's been interesting to consider the process, so whatever you decide going forward, ThanQ. ~<}:^> GreyElf (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing—it's an interesting thought experiment—but I'm not sure I see the benefit. Whether the parameter (correctly) listed featured music or (incorrectly) named the composer, the appropriate action was to remove it. The only instances where the composer names should be copied to prose are with anthology episodes or guest composers—still seems much easier to restore that (very limited) information manually than to check hundreds or thousands of articles sorted by a bot. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 07:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not suggesting that it was not "the appropriate action" but the problem is identifying those articles after the fact. To me, it seems more onerous to go into the change log (View history) for 5500+ articles to manually determine _if_ data for Crew was lost, than it would've been to programmatically identify a subset of articles prior to the bot running. But, "What, me worry?" In the grand scheme of things, "not that much." I only noticed the change because I had all of _three_ watchlisted articles affected. Of those, one val was empty, one val was already safely saved in the article Body, and only one Notable composer was lost. So for me, no biggie. But I do look at the larger picture for other editors, so, in that respect it's more than just "an interesting thought experiment" – it's something that could potentially be done better in the future, so... Happy Coding! cya ~<}:^> GreyElf (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I should add, just as different episodes may have different directors and/or different writers, they may also have different crew in charge of music, so it would affect more than just Anthologies, especially over the course of long-running series, which expands its scope/importance to more than just "limited usage." ~<}:^> GreyElf (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

In that regard, I don't see it as any different than the aforementioned deprecated producers parameter—that information should be covered by {{Infobox television}}, and is almost never actually mentioned in individual episode articles anyway. Still, in the rare case that such information should be reinstated, it should be easy to find it via edit histories (or by simply checking the credits or reliable sources). This decision was more about the infobox than the articles themselves. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and suggestions, though—definitely something to be considered in future related discussions. Happy editing! – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 10:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Image sizes have been modified. See centralized discussion

Centralized discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Image size. Gonnym (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to rename release_date to released

With the recent standardization of a parameter names, is there any opposition to renaming |release_date= to |released= to match the other infoboxes ({{Infobox television}}, {{Infobox television season}}, {{Infobox film}}) Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

None from me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

|released= added and |release_date= set as deprecated. Will be removed when all transclusions are converted. Gonnym (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Featured music, again

I see there was a consensus for removal. However, FYI, this template is used for "Schoolhouse Rock" episodes, where music credits would be important, and it's now an unavailable parameter. Perhaps animation should have its own Infobox, but that doesn't exist right now. I can think of particular Simpsons episodes where music credits would be useful to have as well. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The |module= parameter can be used to add this if it is truly vital for episodes. As was discussed above, generally speaking, the |featured_music= wasn't as it could accurately be covered in the prose of the article and wasn't something a reader would need for a quick overview of the episode, which is the infobox's purpose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Also for what it's worth, the three Schoolhouse Rock episodes that have articles - Three Is a Magic Number, Conjunction Junction, and I'm Just a Bill - didn't have the parameter previously as the bot didn't remove them in it's late June run. So if it never was used up to this point, I don't see why it would now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:front-facing other causing the template page itself to be included in Category:Pages using infobox television episode with nonstandard dates

The use of {{front-facing other}} is causing the template page itself to be included in Category:Pages using infobox television episode with nonstandard dates. This is clearly undesirable. The creator of {{front-facing other}} has stated that inclusion of Template-space pages is intentional, so the best resolution is to restore the status quo use of {{main other}} in this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done after waiting 36 hours for a response from the reverting editor. The status quo has been restored, and discussion can continue here as needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)