Talk:List of Shadowhunters episodes

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article 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. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Shadowhunters was copied or moved into List of Shadowhunters episodes with this edit on October 15, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Requested move 28 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. duplicate request (non-admin closure) Ppp ery 13:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shadowhunters episodes → List of Shadowhunters: The Mortal Instruments episodes – The title of the show is Shadowhunters: The Mortal Instruments not Shadowhunters, because it was used in the show and the same from the IMDb website — it instead appears to be an original research addition for some reason other than actual title accuracy. On more than one occasion now, an anonymous IP has gone around Wikipedia actively breaking links to this article by prematurely rewording them to the correct title despite the fact that it makes them redlinks, so I'm submitting this for discussion on their behalf since they likely don't know how to do it themselves — but if this is going to keep happening, then the title needs to be fixed. 110.159.10.127 (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate discussion at Talk:Shadowhunters § Requested move 28 October 2016 - please discuss at the linked discussion. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Shadowhunters which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowhunters list colors

(moved from my talk page —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Quote: Colours are not chosen for good printing results; they are chosen for good accessibility and to match promotion material colours

Per the wikis Print/export option, all articles must be printable for transfer off-line. Also light text on dark backgrounds is less readable and causes eye strain. As for matching promotional colors, it's a list and NOT some kind of cover artwork. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@101.98.165.25: I'm not seeing anything in the "Print/export" option that specifies colours or contrast guidelines... can you provide a link to what you're referencing? To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia is primarily screen-based/online so it's not specifically concerned with how much toner printing its content might use up or who readable printed copies of its material is.

It's an option on the wiki sidebar. List of Shadowhunters episodes collapses the sidebar. Wikis are suppose to be exportable. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know where the option is... I just have yet to be presented with anything that specifies how Wikipedia must looked when printed. "exportable" can mean a lot of things... and even there, you aren't pointing to any resources to back up your claim. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for it being a list and not cover artwork, well, I'll just let AlexTheWhovian chime in on that since apparently matching the colours of the episode list to promotional materials is very standard practice for articles covered by WP:Television. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the user that started the accessibility issue with the hack "black to white switching" that occurs on the template when the luma that's derived from the RGB value falls below a fixed minimum. White on dark backgrounds is harder to read that black on light backgrounds. It's something old teletypes, terminals and legacy captioning systems do, due to simple display systems. There is no sane reason for it on modern font rendering environments. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR even state the use of color should not make reading difficult or harder. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to get into casting personal aspersions... all I know is that when I've tried to change episode list colours because they aren't distinct enough over the course of several seasons (see Teen Wolf (2011 TV series) or Arrow (TV series)), I've been reverted on numerous occasions by more than one person who have insisted colours ought to be based on promotional materials.

Is there some evidence indicating white text on a coloured background is significantly harder to read than black text on a light background to the point where it constitutes an accessibility concern?

It's common knowledge in fontography that paged text is more legible as black text on a lite or white background. As stated, the only time it's not is on inverted terminal displays or when text is rendered over video. 119.224.86.132 (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And is there a reason you're editing from an IP address and not as a logged-in user? That's a bit odd given the knowledge claims you're making. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prod. codes are redundant here

For series that air in the exact same order as the production order of the episodes (i.e. the episode airing order exactly matches the production code order), including the production codes in the episodes tables is redundant. As such, any editor would be justified in removing the 'Prod. codes' column from the tables here... Just sayin'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention they don't even appear in any episode. 1.42.27.155 (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't each season have their own page?

Most television shows have separate pages for each season, having all of the summaries on one page looks very cluttered. Is there a specific reason why there aren't separate pages for each season? I would like to try to create them. Melissa Hastings (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most don't, it's more common for them to not then for them to have separate articles. Separate season articles are only created if enough real-life information can be provided, such as critic reviews, production information, casting news, etc. We don't support splits where the article simply consists of a table or two. If you aim to create them, do so in the draft space first. -- Alex^TW 09:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3 prod. codes?

Am I missing something? Where are the season 3 prod. codes for the upcoming episodes coming from? I am not seeing them in the ISAN sources used for the episode titles, nor in the tweet sources used for the writers and directors (which themselves look to be iffy WP:SYNTHs to me...). Are the listed prod. codes "assumed", and therefore WP:SYNTHs?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The production codes do come from the ISAN sources; there's a method to getting them, I'll see if I can find it again. -- Alex^TW 04:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... Let us know if you figure it out: another source for prod. codes aside from the U.S. Copyright Office would be quite useful. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]