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 articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

We really, really need to split this up by country. Kirjtc2 15:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I definitely agree, It's huge and difficult to read. I propose the template be split into multiple templates. Perhaps by continent and providers or, as suggested below, provider with continent? It will, of course, take some work to replace the template on the over 100 television providers currently on it.-- Squeak 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have done one for the Americas, Europe and the rest of the World, what do you think. London UK (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks great, except that Globalsat belongs in the Americas template, not Europe (it's a Beasilian company). -- azumanga 23:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And Bearcat mentions below that he has done one for ((CATV Canada)).Riick 03:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To ease maintenance, I advise against splitting both by continent and by country. To see why: suppose a user wants to add a Canadian cable TV company. As it stands now, he has to update the CATV Canada template, the CATV Americas template, and the CATV template. If he fails to do all three, who is going to catch it? It sounds like a maintenance nightmare! Riick 03:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think your assumption here is a bit faulty — not all three sets of templates are actually needed. We only need one of three things: a set of "cable companies by country" templates, or a set of "cable companies by continent" templates", or a single international "all cable companies worldwide" template. Yeah, sure, we've got a lot of alternative proposals going on at the moment, but you're incorrectly assuming that they will necessarily all continue to exist and be used. In reality, whichever one we decide to go with, the other two would no longer be needed, and therefore could be discontinued or even deleted — so there are no maintenance nightmares to worry about. If we had separate templates for each country or continent, what actual need would a merged worldwide template serve anymore? And accordingly why would it matter if that one wasn't getting updated? Or, alternatively, if it was still needed, say, as a master list on cable television, why couldn't it just provide links to the individual country or continent templates instead of listing every individual cable company? And I'll quite happily delete the Canada template if the by-continent approach is preferred. But I do agree that the single worldwide template is getting too huge and out of control to be useful anymore. Bearcat 17:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think these templates are going to get huge even if they are split. Consider for example the scores of fiber optic providers listed in Fiber_to_the_premises#Deployment_History. I'm sure these are just a fraction of the the actual number of providers in existence, yet only one is listed on this template. If we extrapolate and assume that this template can grow that much in every category, then it seems possible that merely splitting may not quite do the trick. Instead of splitting (or in addition to splitting), perhaps these could be "folded" into some sort of tree display, like the one used in the "Template messages" template? Alternatively, would it be appropriate to implement these as a portal? Riick 03:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CaribDigita has implemented a possible alternative to splitting. Please see discussion under the heading "I just posted one suggestion. Re: the complaint about the size of this template". Riick 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone else think we should put other categories such as fiber (like Verizon's FIOS) on the template? Masterpjz9 04:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Since nobody has said anything, I'm going to add Verizon under Cable television Masterpjz9 20:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since VOOM is now defunct, should it still be included in this template? - AlexDW 19:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't need to split this page. It will be ugly and messy. - Jet123 5:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

How about a separation of cable and satellite into two separate templates.... the list is getting a bit big... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expediter (talk • contribs) 2006-10-20T06:13:14

I'd suggest that it would be better for each country or region to have its own separate template; I don't see why that has to any be "uglier" or "messier" than this template is going to be if we expand it any further. I've already created a Canadian template at ((CATV Canada)). Bearcat 02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please continue this discussion under the "Template talk:CATV#Split" category on this talk page. Riick 03:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just posted something I've come up with that I think might be able to help fix the "template size" complaint regarding the amount of information within this template. The template I just posted I had gotten the idea from the Template:Territories of the British Empire template which I reworked slightly to be relivent for this topic. So now I'm wondering if anyone thinks this type of design would help this template as well? If not should it really be split up? If so how should the previous template be split up. By country? Continent? Hemisphere, etc? Anyway I urge others to check out the change I made (only temporarily) because I'm hoping it will help reach an idea about what should be done to deal with the size of the CATV template overall.

P.S. If this template is out of the question feel free to revert me-- in favor of the previous one! I haven't (intentionally) removed any providers from the CATV template. As far as I know I've kept all providers that were on the previous CATV template. If don't hear anything back from anyone, I'm going to revert myself in one week's time (March 19th, 2007) and return the template to the way it was because I really haven't gotten any Wikipedia consensus/mandate to unilaterally change this in the first place. I'm just trying to see if this suggestion helps other people or not. CaribDigita 00:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: CaribDigita is talking about this version. Once there, click "show" to see how it works.Riick 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for trying this. I really like the idea, but I do have two small suggestions. 1) Show more detail initially. The five menu choices should be visible initially; the user should not have to click the "show" button in order to see them. (See "Template messages" for an example.) 2) Make it a little narrower. Users with wide screens currently have a huge confusing gap between the text and the "show" button. Riick 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like this has already been split... Kind of a moot discussion now no? lol CaribDigita 17:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See: Template:CATV America Template:CATV Africa, Asia and Oceania. Template:CATV Europe

It is not a moot discussion yet, although it may be in the future. As of 2007-03-19, about 80 articles are still using this template. (That is in comparison to about 30 using the split-by-continent system and about 25 using Template:CATV Canada.)

Let me be clear that I am not at all opposed to the split. I merely believe that any page split should include discussion of alternatives. Hence my several comments on this page. Riick 05:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No point splitting. You want to split it by country. That would make it difficult to manage, and if a certain company has a base in MORE that ONE country??? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, a split would be messy and simply create a multiude of new templates, with some articles requiring a number rather than the current one. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]