Jump to content

Template talk:Episode list/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Please add a new field called "ProductionNotes"

{{editprotected}}

As WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT note, entries about works of fiction should keep the in-universe details to a minimum. To facilitate the inclusion of real-wold context, I'm asking someone to please add an optional field which could be used to add that kind of detail on a per-episode basis. Call it "ProductionNotes" or something similar and if it's present, it would result in a separate row underneath the episode summary, something like this:

#TotalTitleDirector WriterOriginal airdate
149 "The One with the Princess Leia Fantasy"  Gail MancusoMichael Curtis & Gregory S. MalinsSeptember 19, 1996
Ross reveals his sexual fantasy to Rachel, which involves her being dressed up as Princess Leia from Star Wars. Monica suffers from insomnia after her breakup with Richard. And Chandler, back together with Janice, wants Joey to bond with her.
This episode prompted an approving letter from George Lucas for its portrayal of Princess Leia.[citation needed]

Thanks. 69.3.70.75 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

P.S. For the heck of it, the example also shows a separate proposed change in layout, which is to have the first two numeric columns extend to the summary and production note rows. This change would serve to unify an episode entry better.

I don't expect either proposal, particularly the one about ProductionNotes, to be controversial, but if I'm wrong about that I assume that interested editors will comment on this request, identifying the issues with the proposal. 69.3.70.75 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

Strongly oppose. Its ugly, would lend itself to being a glut for silly trivia, and production information should be in the lead and other sections, not in the episode lists themselves. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
What part of it is ugly? It would be hard to believe that having three rows per episode instead of two is ugly since there are lots of wikitables with multiple rows. So I'm guessing what's ugly to you is having the episode number span all three rows of the episode summary. If that's it, all I can say is I disagree about the ugliness. If we're lucky someone else will chime in about that.
As to the change provoking a "glut for silly trivia"...please refer to WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT. The "real-world context" that those guidelines refer to are just the type of detail that Wikipedia is meant to include. Episode summaries are magnets for silly trivia too, yet in many cases those get excised over time, so I would expect that the contents of per-episode production details can be managed the same way that plot summaries are policed.
As to your third point: the lead is a good place for production notes for the series as a whole, the per-season section headings are a good home for a particular season's production notes, and notes that are specific to an episode need a home too. Such notes exist already (you'll find several in the list of Friends episodes for example); the ProductioNotes proposal standardizes the format for their presentation. 68.167.253.65 (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC) (previously known as 69.3.70.75 (talk · contribs)).
Pointing to the one badly formatted list you've edited does not justify this addition at all. The Friends list needs clean up and all those side notes removed from the episodes. If you look at Featured episode lists, you will not find that stuff glutting the summary, which is supposed to be a short plot summary, not the real world details. And by ugly, I meant the whole third row addition looks ugly, and would look absolutely hideous in the good episode lists that have better summaries than a 1-2 line teaser.AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying what you think is ugly. If you can, reference a WP style guide or a more neutral description of what makes three rows per episode a usability problem. I would contend that the use of "LineColor" to delineate each episode means that it is clear when an episode entry ends regardless of the number of table rows it has.
Since you think the example used in the proposal is a bad one, let me list examples of other details that could legitimately be included as a per-episode productionNote:
  1. Mention a notable guest star.
  2. Note an episode's Emmy Award or nomination.
  3. Identify a cross-promotional story arc involving cast members of another show.
  4. Cite the rare occasion where a normally studio-bound show goes on location.
  5. Highlight a ratings milestone for the show.
  6. Cite an FCC controversy.
  7. Mention the last appearance of a major cast member.
  8. Note that the original broadcast of an episode was taped from a live performance.
That's just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head. I continue to think that adding another row for such detail serves to emphasize the "real-world" context that are required by Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT. 68.167.253.65 (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
Again, no, it doesn't belong there period. Anything of relevance goes in the lead. For something like an FCC controversy, the episode would likely be notable enough for its own article anyway. This isn't the place for minute and episode-by-episode trivial details. If it is of real relevance, it can be worked into the lead or related sections, or in the main article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, please cite something from a Manual of Style or other consensus-based WP source to back up your assertions; language like "it doesn't belong there period" (and earlier phrases like "absolutely hideous") simply indicate you've got an apparently inflexible opinion. I'll hold off responding to comments such as "likely be notable enough" until later. 68.165.76.170 (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC) (previously known as 68.167.253.65 (talk · contribs)).
I just stumbled on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. Reading through that case makes me wonder if I picked an inopportune time to make my proposal. 68.165.76.170 (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
You are the only one wanting this change. Back up your claim that "lots" of episode lists already have it and have evidenced a need for it. We have a whole lot of FEATURED episode lists, i.e. quality ones, that don't have such stuff shoved in the summary, and doesn't need it. Anything of value goes in other places. Its called experience, something you don't seem to have, looking at what few edits you've done which show a lack of a basic understanding of our television MoS and the general Wikipedia MoS. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Removing editprotected tag for now since it looks like there won't be a quick consensus. Put it back up if you feel consensus has been reached and I'll look into it again. --CapitalR (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also opposed to this method. The article is required to have real world context, but not each individual list entry. If we had meaningful content on every episode then every episode would have an article, which is not true of most episode lists. The plot summaries don't have to appear in the list (List of The Simpsons episodes), and when they do, they should only be detailed enough to identify the episode. A list without production information in the table can even reach FA/FL, see . Jay32183 (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Smallville (season 1) does include production information: two-thirds of the introduction is real-world context. As a practical matter, some shows get articles on each episode (like the Simpsons), some get per-season articles (e.g. Smallville), and some get episode lists for the entire series (e.g. 30 Rock, which for what it's worth started out with per-episode articles). For those series where there aren't per-episode articles, doesn't it make sense to have a standardized place where real-world context can be placed either per-series, per-season, or per-episode? I am not proposing that every episode have a ProductionNotes field—it's an optional field, included only when there's something significant to include. If a show such as Smallville has been organized on a per-season basis, it can do what Smallville did and put production notes in the season introduction. 68.167.253.65 (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
Not sure on this exact implementation, but I kind of like the idea of finding some way to include or encourage such information into the list on a per-episode basis. On a few lists I've actually used the summary section to also include cast info, and the result wasn't too bad (wish I could remember what list it was..). -- Ned Scott 05:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with other editors, particularly Ned. This information could easily fit into the summary section. If it became too long for that cell then we should probably look to see if the episode is notable and deserves it's own article. At times like these I wish WP used footnotes for more than just inline citations. The sentence about Princess Leia/Lucas would fit nicely in a footnote. Ursasapien (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, you can do footnotes too you know ;) Either as an inline citation, or using the named method. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
One short sentence or other short info can also fit in the normal episode list format, see The Simpsons (season 8) or List of Carnivàle episodes. But I must admit that anon's example doesn't look bad either. When a show gets season articles, and an editor wants to add much episode-specific real-world info, then one can also use formats such as Smallville (season 1) or drop {{episode list}} completely and go for fr:Saison 3 de Friends. Count me as neutral on this whole matter. – sgeureka t•c 16:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing current reactions to ProductionNotes

This is the proposer's summary of the situation
#Title UK airdateUS airdate
3.5 "Tale of Ren and Stumpy"
"Tale of Len and Squiggy" 		 September 14, 2007September 7, 2007
Ren and Stumpy, now three weeks old, venture out of the burrow for the first time. While foraging over a wide area, the Whiskers ends up splitting into two groups. Rocket Dog leads the group that is with the pups.
In the UK, the pups are named Ren and Stumpy, but in the US airing they are called Len and Squiggy, respectively.

Lukewarm support for the ProductionNotes proposal comes from Ned Scott (talk · contribs); Sgeureka (talk · contribs) is neutral, and opposition comes most vehemently from AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) with Jay32183 (talk · contribs) and Ursasapien (talk · contribs) also opposed.

After getting past subjective language ("ugly", "absolutely hideous") and a recent violation of WP:NPA (see "lack of a basic understanding" comment), it's possible to find at least one very specific and objective reason for AnmaFinotera's opposition, which is that there is a lack of per-episode production detail among featured episode lists. That statement is inaccurate, since among the roughly dozen shows having one or more featured episode lists under Category:FL-Class television articles, two of the lists have per-episode production notes (List of Meerkat Manor episodes and List of Press Gang episodes). A cursory glance at other episode lists finds another example: List of Desperate Housewives episodes.

The larger point that AnmaFinotera shares with Jay32183 and Ursasapien is that production information should be in the lead and other sections, not in the episode lists themselves.

As noted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Unclear status (something I wished I had noticed before), Wikipedia:Television episodes is a disputed guideline. That makes it impossible to determine whether the opinion that "production information should be in the lead..." represents anything more than the opinion of three editors. That may also be why, after repeated requests, AnmaFinotera never tried to cite an WP:MOS in support of his/her opinions.

The "Episodes and characters" case and the lack of an accepted guideline means that the productionNotes proposal is unlikely to either attract comments from other editors, or for a consensus to form based on an MOS guideline. As a result, the proposal is tabled indefinitely.

— 67.100.125.19 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC) (previously known as 68.165.76.170 (talk · contribs))

As I'm the one who wrote the Meerkat Manor episode list, please point out the episodes that have production information in their summaries. I see one, which I've fixed. Your summary isn't entirely accurate, or neutral, but I share agree with the conclusion. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It's an incredibly weak argument to say the opposition comes from only three editors when the meaningful support only comes from one editor. You're calling for a change to an existing convention without strong reasoning or support. To make the change you would need very strong reasoning and strong support. The absolute best example of an episode list using production information is in Smallville (season 1), and it isn't in the table. It also seems really odd to me that a user who doesn't bother to register would care so much about changing the conventions, not that it affects your argument. Jay32183 (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Chiming in rather late here. I think a new field is unnecessary. Whatever detail you need to add can be in the summary field. For example on List of The Wire episodes we list the epigraph for each episode in the summary section of the episode list. The episode list template doesn't need to be more complex.--Opark 77 (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Like Opark, I'm rather late, but I agree with him and AnmaFinotera for the most part. Cliff smith (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

ʁ?

Could someone tell me the exact purpose of the character "ʁ" in this template (as well as {{Japanese episode list}})? The character itself is apparently an IPA symbol, and it seems to be used in these templates as a test case of some sort, but I'd like a clarification of exactly why it's in there, and if it's actually being used by anything. I haven't seen it, or anything similar, used in any other template, which only adds to my curiosity. Extremely minimal testing on my part, as well as a careful reading of the source, shows that the character causes certain ParserFunctions (only #ifeq) to return nothing, a behavior more efficiently done with #if. If there are prior discussions on this topic, I wouldn't mind getting links to them, as well. —Dinoguy1000 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I probably should document all the little tricks the template uses one of these days. Here's a copy of an explanation I gave to someone else for a related question:
Long answer short: {{#ifeq:{{{PARAMETER|ʁ}}}|ʁ|IF NOT THERE|IF THERE}}
This is actually the trick that the main Template:Episode list uses to trigger table cells based on the existence of a parameter, rather than if it is filled out or not. I don't think the trick is actually documented anywhere. I figured it out one day when I noticed {{{PARAMETER|DEFAULT if not defined}}} worked when a parameter was listed (|PARAMETER=) but no text was entered for it. When you did that, DEFAULT would not show up, and instead you would get nothing (since nothing was entered). By using #ifeq this can actually be usable to trigger other things. If PARAMETER is not listed then it displays the default "ʁ". ifeq checks to see if ʁ is used, if it is then it will do one thing, if anything else is used (including "nothing") then, it will do something else. ʁ is used because it's unlikely that ʁ would ever be used for a parameter value.
And there you have it. With the ʁ trick one doesn't have to use place holders to keep a cell open when it's not filled out, which is a great help for many in-progress lists. -- Ned Scott 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, that makes sense... Come to think of it, the older version of {{Navbox}} did something similar with a blank {{{state}}} parameter; as I recall, it caused the navbox to always display expanded. It used a different method to achieve it, though (possibly the pipe trick you mentioned above)... —Dinoguy1000 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

11-minute episodes

Is there a way to present episode lists with 11-minute episodes which often have two (or more if the episodes are shorter) airing on the same day using this template instead of a table without them having to look like this or this? They don't look right because the summary ends with a bullet, but I'm referring to the way the former separates each part and the latter lumps them both together. --Squids'and'Chips 03:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried something with the List of Pinky and the Brain episodes, but there's no real trick for multi-short shows. Yet. (Let me canoodle on that now that I know templates a bit better). --MASEM 03:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think those two pages have much bigger issues than looking right with 11 minute episodes. Lordy, I can't even figure out what broke in the code. That said, it might be good to do a template hack for shows like this, rather than making folks go back to tables. Look forward to seeing what Masem "canoodles." AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, figured out the issue on Recess...template no like bullets. I've fixed its format, but yeah, it still isn't nicely clear that they were two episodes aired together as separate eps. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a weird bug. The bullets used to work perfectly, but one day they stopped. I think it has something to do with MediaWiki itself, rather than any change made to the template. I noticed this a little while ago with another list, and another editor found out that the formatting would only break if the bullet was the last line in the ShortSummary field. The solution at the time was to throw & nbsp; in there, though I hope to find something more elegant. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh...probably a result of some upgrade (like the breaking of images, and width settings that don't explicitly have "px" on them). For recess, the bullets were totally unnecessary, so I just axed them out.AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally I like the idea of treating each 11-minute part as it's own episode entry. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice being able to have an episode list for Crayon Shin Chan (that wouldn't have to use a hardcoded table or wierd hacks/layout choices)... That being said, the biggest problem facing a template explicitly for this will be layout/presentation. —Dinoguy1000 20:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the best way to figure this out is to first of all determine, for the majority of such shows which feature these named shorts (most listed above), what elements in the current template list are in common for all shorts in one episode, and what would change. Running down through the eplist parameters, I reckon...
  • Episode Number and secondary Episode Number
  • Original Air Date and Alternative Air date
  • Production code
  • Line color and Top Color, respectively.
The rest, particularly the Titles, Written and Directed by fields, and the summary block, are specific to the sub-segments of the episode. For purposes of being flexible, Aux1 and Aux4 would be at the episode level, while Aux2 and 3 at the segment level.
The way I'm thinking this would work is a set of two templates: one that describes the episode (and includes a parameter for the # of segments as to row-span correctly) and and other that is a subset of this template for the individual segments. It may need to be that this first suggested template require the others as arguments in order to rowspan the production codes. Alternatively, if we're pretty sure that no sub-segmented episode ever contained more than, say, 10 segments, it could be that there would be one template, with fields like "title1" and "WrittenBy2" to set the value for each segment. That would be easier to implement from a programming standpoint but more difficult to write towards as editors to some extent. I think some way is possible, we just need to agree what normal episode entries are specifically limited to segments and what should be set at the episode level. --MASEM 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a little trouble picturing what you're trying to say for the first one. Do you mean something like an Episode template that sandwiches several Segment templates left and right? or an Episode template wraps around Segment templates? I'm thinking it's the former. If other fields were included to rowspan the prod code properly, then why not one template and opt out of using episode number, original airdate, etc. for subsequent summaries from the same episode? --Squids'and'Chips 22:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

add hCalendar microformat

{{editprotected}}

Please add the hCalendar microformat, by simply changing: [changes redacted to save space] I'll then update the documentation, to recommend {{start date}} for the OriginalAirDate; then we're in business.

Optionally, add class="description" to the cell containing the short summary (I can't advise how to do that, sorry).

Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
And working, thank you. Now to get all the dates converted to templates! Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Why not just add seperate year, month, and day parameters to Episode list and have it pass them on to {{start date}} and {{end date}}? it would be simple enough to add without breaking existing usage, and editors wouldn't have to remember two more templates. —Dinoguy1000 20:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
While that could be done, the number of changes it would require, across a vast number of templates to which hCalendar is being added, might make it untenable. {{end date}} isn't being used for whole-day dates, at present, due to the difficulty of (and accessibility issues with) implementing hCalendar's "exclusive end date" Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I should have thought about it more before commenting, but {{end date}} actually wouldn't be necessary for this template (I must have had infoboxes on my mind), it wouldn't require that many changes at all, and I am not suggesting to implement it across all the templates that hCalendar is being deployed to - only this one (if the major editors of other templates also want to, I say let them). With both usages allowed side-by-side, the old method could be phased out and eventually removed entirely, without necessitating anyone to make a run through and update all existing usages at once. --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.22.178 (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To change the short summary cell, change:

{{#ifeq:{{{ShortSummary|ʁ}}}|ʁ| |<tr><td style="

to...

{{#ifeq:{{{ShortSummary|ʁ}}}|ʁ| |<tr><td class="description" style="

Thanks! Sceptre (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S., it might be nice to move the quotes outside the bold marks in the title field, per the MOS (rarely are quotes part of the title). Sceptre (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
[reply in next section Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 00
28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)]

Row Scope and Accessibility

Thank you, Sceptre & MZMcBride. Unfortunately, that doesn't work, because the template has two TRs and the class="description" is on the second, outside the scope of the class="vevent" (unlike class="summary"). From the example in the template documentation: 

<tr class="vevent" style="background: rgb(242, 242, 242) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; text-align: center; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;">
<td id="ep01">01</td>
<td class="summary" style="text-align: left;"><b>"Cartman Gets Probed"</b></td>
<td><a href="/wiki/August_13" title="August 13">13 August</a> <a href="/wiki/1997" title="1997">1997</a><span style="display: none;"> (<span class="dtstart updated">1997-08-13</span>)</span></td><td id="pc101">101</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td class="description" style="border-bottom: 3px solid rgb(51, 51, 51);" colspan="4">Space aliens implant a transmitter in <a href="/wiki/Eric_Cartman" title="Eric Cartman">Cartman</a> and abduct <a href="/wiki/Kyle_Broflovski" title="Kyle Broflovski">Kyle</a>'s brother. </td>
</tr>

This could be solved by wrapping the two rows in a TBODY, were such a thing possible in MediaWiki table mark-up; but it's not just a problem for the microformat; it's an accessibility problem for users, too. The rows need to be merged, but I'll need to think how we could do that; and make sure everyone's happy. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 00:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You want to visually merge the rows? o.O -- Ned Scott 03:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I realise that that needs to be done carefully, so as not to ruin the visual appearance of the tables. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates

I would like to add an optional coordinates property, for episodes, particularly of documentaries, which are from or about one specific place (for example, episodes of Time Team). This should allow as input, or at the least, emit, the {{coord}} template, allowing the coordinates to become part of the hCalendar microformat; and this the page to be mapped on the Wikipedia layer on Google Earth and in similar tools. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We've got four aux parameters. This seems too specific to change the main template, so I'd suggest making a sub template if you really want the parameter named. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Aux seems suitable, so I've added a note to that effect. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Formatting of quotation marks

{{editprotected}}

 Done SkierRMH (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotation marks are not part of an episode's title, and should therefore not be bolded along with the title. This practice is supported by the Manual of Style. Please edit the template so that the automatically generated quotation marks are not bold ("'''{{{Title}}}'''" instead of '''"{{{Title}}}"''', I presume). Waltham, The Duke of 16:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically the bolding is just being done to help give some visual order, but I have no objections to this. I can see where the same logic could still apply. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

Hey,
this thing is fully protected, so some admin should add de:Vorlage:Episodenliste, please. Thanks in advance, --NoCultureIcons (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Added (those go on the doc subpage :-) ) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please add vi:Tiêu bản:Danh sách tập phim. Es.ntp (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Specialty templates

Is there a reason why there are so many series specific sub-templates? The theme we are going for is consistency so if a specific series needs something extra, which is shouldn't, but assuming its something important, it should be added to the main template. There is no need for ten million separate templates that do relatively the same thing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, many of those were made for doing translusions of season lists into a main page because there was no single way to do it. I suspect now many of these series specific template could/should be converted to use the more generic sublist template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked at most of them in detail yet, but I think most or all of them are for season sublists, as AnmaFinotera said. They'd all be taken care of by now if I wasn't so lazy; I ported the sublist template over ages ago (from {{Japanese episode list/sublist}}, if you're curious, Grk1011). =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 06:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Specialty templates evaluation

Comments

Colbert is very unique in the parameters it uses (or at least it was the last time I checked). It's not really worth the effort to make it fit within {{Episode list}}. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the 7th Heaven and Degrassi templates which seem to have the same difference from the main template, which format do we want to stick with? What order for Writer and Director? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I created both those templates, and I made them so the writer goes before the director because that is how credits appear on screen. IMO the main template should do this, but it's too late now. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't be too late. If people would like that order then all you have to do is swap the order in the template and all uses of the template will reflect the change automatically. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not quite that simple; you also have to change the order of the header cells on every list that uses both writer and director fields. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Code updates

{{editprotected}} See Template talk:Japanese episode list#Code updates for background. In short, there are some improvements to {{Japanese episode list}} under discussion that makes the code more efficient and adds a few new features. The most importance one being the elimination of sublist passthroughs that reduces the post-expand include size for both the sublists and the main list. These changes have been incorporated into this template's sandbox, though some tweaking may still be done. --Farix (Talk) 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

With due notice given to both WP:TV[1] and WP:ANIME[2] and no additional comments or objections per the discussion at Template talk:Japanese episode list#Code updates, I'm requesting that the code in the sandbox be copied over and redirecting {{Episode list/sublist}} to the main template. --Farix (Talk) 14:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 Doing... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done. Looks good; can't say I checked every detail though. I'm really not used to that method of code layout, but each to their own I guess. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, seems to be a problem. Lots of upside-down "R"s are appearing. See All Saints (season 1) for example. Shall I revert? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe that is do to the numerous sub-templates which also needs to be updated, most of which are no longer needed. Temporary solution is to replace the "ʁ" with "¬". The latter gave me less issues while working on the template in a local editor. --Farix (Talk) 16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This has be fixed in the sub-templates. I'll be going through these sub-templates and updating their transclusions to use the new code directly. This should cut down on their post-expand include sizes. Only All Saints will need a show specific hack that I know of, and that is only for the most recent seasons. --Farix (Talk) 16:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
An extra empty column is now appearing some places as well. See List of Stargate SG-1 episodes#Movies and List of Stargate Atlantis episodes#Movies. --Pascal666 23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that |EpisodeNumber= is one of three required parameters. It's ill suited for listing movies if you don't want an episode number to display. --Farix (Talk) 00:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The documentation specifically states that EpisodeNumber is optional. Changing the two examples of this problem that I happened to run into does nothing to correct all of the other instances where this template is used without EpisodeNumber. --Pascal666 03:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted for now, till this bug can be fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a bug, it was an intentional change made to help reduce the post-include expand size. {{Episode list}} was never designed with listing films in mind, and doing so amounts (in my opinion, at least) to a hack. Even so, though, there's no reason such usages can't also use EpisodeNumber; see List of One Piece films for instance. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 11:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Which template would you suggest be used in cases such as the two I linked above? If you go around adding episode numbers to movies where none actually exists, you will very quickly find {{uw-error3}} on your talk page. Not sure what you had in mind with your example, I can see no uses of {{episode list}} at List of One Piece films, nor fake episode numbers or even an actual list. --Pascal666 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be my bad, I forgot the list was converted to use sections instead of a template. This is what I was referring to. And BTW, I said nothing about adding episode numbers to lists of films; I was talking about using |EpisodeNumber= (yes, this is splitting hairs =P ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
That breaks other lists that now depend on the template's new functionality, especially for transclusions. The thing is that the template has been misused for things other than episodes list. What should be done is those misuses are tracked down and corrected and not the template continuing to support those misuses. --Farix (Talk) 11:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
If you would like to make a change to this template that is inconsistent with its documentation and breaks the way it has been used in the past, it is your responsibility to track down all of those instances and change them to a template that you feel is more appropriate (and hopefully one that is designed to be used in such a way and would leave the articles looking substantially the way they do now). Why not simply add a #if to check if |EpisodeNumber= actually exists? If you really want to change all instances where this template is used without an EpisodeNumber, the #if could add such articles to a category for this purpose. --Pascal666 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been of the opinion for some time that DVD/VHS releases (the other significant use I've seen for {{Episode list}}/{{Japanese episode list}}) should have their own template; I've just never taken the time to investigate the requirements for such a template and then make it. At this point, I think a similar template should also be created for films, though. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A misuse only on a technical sense. Episode list was designed to be incredibly flexible. The main focus of the template was not to force consistency of style as much as it was an aid to the editor as well as an easy way to metatag things. The consistency that normally came with the template use was just an added bonus.

While Farix's changes appear to be a welcome improvement, Pascal brings up a very good point. These things were added for a reason, the flexibility was part of the reason the template got such widespread adoption. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Farix mentions three required parameters. What would the third one be? The air date one? I'm not sure how I feel about that one being required as well. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the air date field is the third required one. After some reflection, though, I think we probably gain enough from the other improvements that we can sacrifice four more checks per transclusion. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Anchor

For some reason the anchor doesn't work with episode numbers like "1 (1-01)" here. Or I may just be doing it wrong. Can someone help me out? BOVINEBOY2008 03:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You're combining episode and production numbers? Eew... There's a separate |ProdCode= parameter for production codes. As for the anchor, it gets escaped by the software - "1 (1-01)" becomes "ep1_.281-01.29". 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Episodes

In the event of a TBA episode, typically "TBA" is inserted as the episode title. This is ambiguous because TBA is in quotes due to the way this template is written. It is impossible to tell if the literal name of the upcoming episode is "TBA". See List of House Episodes, Season 6.

It would be good to add an optional attribute specifically for unnamed, TBA episodes to turn off the quotes if anyone might find it worth the trouble.

Ben Boldt (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If a given item is unknown, the parameter should be left blank. "TBA" is something new users like to use, I'm guessing, because they don't like seeing the empty fields. It would, however, be easy enough to look into providing default values; I think it warrants further discussion/investigation. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dinoguy1000 that the parameter would best be left blank for unknown titles. However, no further discussion is need as this template already has the option to remove formatting from the title parameter. Just add an R in front of Title to make it RTitle and that will remove the bolding and quotes. When the title is finally published, but the episode is still unaired, you should use the RTitle parameter to reference the title. Of course, you'll have to manually format it. Sarilox (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't remove formatting; Title and RTitle are two different parameters, with two different purposes, and two different uses, and they can be used simultaneously (and are intended to be used together, if RTitle is used at all). Title is formatted like it is per the MOS, and using RTitle to bypass that formatting is inappropriate. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 10:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

TBA is used as just leaving it blank indicates either someone didn't finish editting the page or the information isn't known yet. I don't think leaving it blank is a suitable solution. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Leaving it blank is perfectly acceptable, and TBA also indicates that the information isn't known yet. TBA notices are removed from any list gunning for a decent assessment rating, and are not used at all on well-maintained lists. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 10:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Biography equivalent

Would anyone be interested in making a template, similar to this one, for use on lists of people (such as Members of the Red Army Faction), with one instance per person, and embedding hCard microformats? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sortable?

Is it possible to make this template usable in a sortable table? Nergaal (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

To make a table sortable, should just be an issue of marking the table as sortable. The template itself should not effect this, I'd think (though haven't tried it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Template:S-Episode list is a hacked version that will do this. Basically parameters EpisodeNumber1, EpisodeNumber2, and EpisodeNumber3 are sortable. See List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes for an example of usage. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

New parameters

I would like to see two new parameters

  • "|RAltTitle" for references for the "|AltTitle", now when you add a reference to a title with "|RTitle" it comes next to "|Title", the only way to put it next to "|AltTitle" is to add it in that tag but then it shows within the title "". Example of what it is now, the ref should be next to the second title:
# Title Director(s) Writer(s) Original Airdate
1"Title"[1]
"Title2"		DirectorWriterDate
  • "|ShowEpisodeNumber" for the overall episode number, the number of the episode disregarding the season. Some shows have a different airing order, DVD order and production order, which takes up "|EpisodeNumber" and "|EpisodeNumber2". Example
{{Episode list
 |EpisodeNumber = 1
 |ShowEpisodeNumber = 23
 |Title = Title
 |DirectedBy = Director
 |WrittenBy = Writer
 |OriginalAirDate = Date
 |LineColor = b32323
}}

which would render like this:

# Title Director(s) Writer(s) Original Airdate
1 (23)"Title"DirectorWriterDate

Currently there are a lot of different ways that are being used to display both season and show episode number, Some use "1 (1-01)" with the first number the overall number, others 1 1.01, some use the "|EpisodeNumber2" for this, etc. It would be nice to see them all using the same way to display this. Xeworlebi (t•c) 15:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Season episode numbers are usually equivalent to the series' production codes, and as such, should be provided with |ProdCode=. As for |RAltTitle=, could you provide some actual cases where it is necessary (e.g. where the hack you mentioned is being used)? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Usually yes, but not always. Most (if not all) episode list give the per season number as |EpisodeNumber= a lot also places the total number in the same parameter, some move that to |EpisodeNumber2= which is inconsistent and sometimes even cause for a little confusion if they are reversed. For example, The Fairly OddParents (which needs to be completely redone, on my list to do but busy here) has already three numbers (DVD, production and broadcast), production order should be replaces with |ProdCode= but then both |EpisodeNumber= and |EpisodeNumber2= are filled, just adding the overall number to either one is possible and is what most list use, but it's inconsistent and changes to whatever the articles consensus is (or most persistent editor wants). For the |RAltTitle= hack you speak off, I have no knowledge of some kind of hack or trick that has being used. I wondered about it when I wanted to edit Dark Angel, but for episode 5, |AltTitle= (which is not used and has to be changed) needs a reference, (every once in a while it gets changed to Cash Rules Everything Around Men because it sounds like that in the episode). I was just surprised to see that |RAltTitle= didn't exists as I can't find a reason why |AltTitle= doesn't deserve a reference. Xeworlebi (t•c) 11:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
|EpisodeNumber= should pretty much always be used for the overall episode number - if an editor wants to use it for something else on an article or list, they need to have some really good reason for doing so. If the season number differs from the production code, it should probably simply be omitted, since episode lists should be split into seasons anyways. I'll look into |RAltTitle=; I don't think it'll be that hard to implement. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken #ep anchors with referenced EpisodeNumber

Is there a way to work around the breakage of #ep anchors when the episode number is referenced? For example, the middle link below does not work because the source is: 

| EpisodeNumber= 40<ref>only counted as one episode not two</ref> (15)

The citation anchor List of iCarly episodes#cite ref-50 appears usurp the episode anchor in the resulting html code 

<td id="cite_ref-50">40<sup id="cite_ref-50" class="reference">

-- ToET 04:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way to correct that from the template's end. It's a nonstandard usage of |EpisodeNumber= that I would strongly discourage, but I take it the ref is necessary in this case to stop people from changing it to say it's two episodes? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Would a simple <!-- --> setup work? — Huntster (t @ c) 01:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not involved with this article beyond fixing some redirects, so I don't know the intention behind that reference. If it is only to keep editors from changing it without discussion, then a <!-- comment --> would certainly work, and that's probably what I will do. Thanks. -- ToET 03:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(←)Here is an example where it would make even less sense to turn the reference into a comment as it's meant not just to dissuade editing but also to inform the reader.

|EpisodeNumber=77<ref>[http://www.ninjaturtles.com/cartoon/1990.htm TMNT Cartoon Episode Guide 1990!] "There's no episode #76 due to numbering changes."</ref>

How evil is it to explicitly use an {{anchor}} to mimic the desired behavior, as I've just done in the iCarly example at the top of the page? It seems to work.-- ToET 12:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think in that case, a specific note in the lead would be better, maybe with a hidden comment for any quizzical editors who didn't bother reading the lead first. *coming to the dreadful realization that, maybe, an REpisodeNumber parameter for ep# refs might be called for* 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, EpisodeNumber parameters are referenced in only 10 articles (or 0.5% of all {{Episode list}} using articles). Here are the other eight (linked directly before the first instance, where possible).
-- ToET 23:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Line Color

Ive noticed that as many episode lists are removing summaries to be put on season pages that when you remove the summary field the line color doesn't show up on the table, even if its still in the wiki code. Anyway to still have a color of line seperating the episodes even when their is no summary. One example is the office (US) but there are many other shows that have this same problem as well Grande13 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This was an intentional choice. In a full episode list (one with the summaries in place), the line color serves to help delineate between different episode entries. However, in the highly-reduced, single-line transcluded version (e.g. where there are individual season pages transcluded onto a main list), it becomes much easier to distinguish between episode entries, to the point where having the lines (especially with custom colors) would simply be a distraction from the content. In place of the lines, though, alternating rows use different background colors to help distinguish each episode entry. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

episode #

I would like to add a EpisodeNumber3 to the list of iCarly episodes. Is there a way to get one added to this so I can add it. Okay Here the problem, there were 45 episodes ordered for season two but nick split the season. For example if you look at iQuite iCarly, The production codes are 233-234 that is really two episodes. Also, 25 episodes for season 1, Now this were it gets tricky, about 20 episodes for season 2 if you count the movies as one episode and about 18 episodes for season 3. If you add that up you will get about 65 episodes for the series. Now They way I am looking at this is that 25 episodes for season 1, 25 episodes for season 2 and 20 episodes for season 3, wtitch add up to 70 episodes. Now dan mentioned that there were 70 episodes produced by the end of the season. I think he mentioned this on one of his posts on danwarp.com or his twitter ( really don't want to go back and look through) By the look of things he is counting iGo to Japan as 3 episodes, iDate a bad boy as 2 episodes (normally going to be (2) seperate episodes, ifight Shelby Marx as 2 episodes, iQuite iCarly as 2 episodes, and iPshoo as two episodes (has not aired yet). So that adds up to 70 episodes. Sites like tvguide msntv are counting the the movies as episodes. tv.com is just a mess witch is trying to get fixed. tvRage is counting the Just the episodes not movies as specials. So by the end of the third season all of the episodes add uo to 70 episodes for the series. Now I was thing to do this Have iGot to Japan would be 29/30/31 or just have one spot Like iGot to Japan 29/30/31. I also thought of this: Season 2: 2008-2009

Wiki's episode # Other sites episode # episode # Not including movies Counting episodes as 2 or 3 seperate episodes Title Director Writer(s) Original Airdate Code
262626"iSaw Him First"[2]Adam WeissmanAndrew Hill Newman & Steven MolaroSeptember 27, 2008 (2008-09-27)204

In the second-season opener, Carly and Sam both develop a crush on Freddie's "nerd" pal, Shane. When they cannot decide who should date him, they decide to go by the first one to kiss him. They constantly try to kiss him, and always become unseccessful. Meanwhile, Spencer hires a repairman to fix the elevator, but the repairman proves to be no help at all, just a dancer. Because of the broken elevator, Shane accidentally falls from the iCarly studio to the basement when he finds out that Sam and Carly are competing for him. When the gang visits him at the hospital Carly kisses him.

Guest Star: James Maslow as Shane
272727"iStage an Intervention"[3]Jonathan GoldsteinKarey DornettoOctober 4, 2008 (2008-10-04)205

Spencer finds a Pak-Rat video game cabinet in a junkyard and becomes addicted to it, whilst procrastinating on a commissioned Labradoodle sculpture. To curb his addiction, Carly brings Sasha Striker, the top Pak-Rat player in the world, to compete against Spencer to defend her title as the world champion of Pak-Rat. Meanwhile, Freddie experiences a streak of "bad luck" after deleting and not forwarding a chain email, passing it off as a superstition.

Guest Star: Lorena York as Sasha Striker
282828"iOwe You"[4]David KendallJake FarrowOctober 11, 2008 (2008-10-11)206
Sam owes Carly and Freddie $526, so she gets a job to earn the money, and pay them back. Carly, Sam, and Freddie make a broadcast on iCarly to all their fans to donate money to Sam. However, they find out its illegal to solicit money over the internet. Meanwhile Spencer tries to impress an attractive single mom by helping her daughter sell fudgeballs, an equivalent to Girl Scout cookies, but two scouts stole Spencer's place at the market. Spencer comes up with the idea to send every iCarly fan who sent them money to send them fudgeballs. Carly and Freddie then hire someone to give the money they earned to Sam in a tip. At the end, everyone enjoys what Sam got with her money except Spencer.
292929"iHurt Lewbert"[5]Russ ReinselEthan BanvilleOctober 18, 2008 (2008-10-18)207

Lewbert, Carly's doorman, is injured during an exploding muffin basket prank. Spencer suggests that Carly, Sam, and Freddie help him until he's back on his feet, but it is more easily said than done. When Freddie's mother takes over, she makes it look easy, but leaves the group extremely concerned. Freddie's mother and Lewbert fall in love. Meanwhile, while using a CB radio, Spencer upsets two truckers nicknamed Porkchop and Sledgehammer.

Guest Stars: Ryan Ochoa as Chuck, Matt Willig as Sledgehammer, and Joel McCrary as Porkchop
TV–Movie3030,31,32"iGo to Japan "[6]Steve HoeferDan Schneider & Andrew Hill NewmanNovember 8, 2008 (2008-11-08)201–203[7]

The team, along with Spencer and Mrs. Benson, go to Japan when iCarly is nominated for the iWeb Awards. After an intensely dangerous ride (where they jump out of the plane but make it out safely), they are all sabotaged by 2 competing Web Show Nominee's; Kyoko and Yuki. Their cousin's wrap them up in seaweed in a massage room and lock the door while Kyoko and Yuki ditch the trio in the middle of nowhere and flee. Carly, Sam and Freddie must each return to Specner and Mrs. Benson -- in time for the iWeb Awards. Guest Star: Good Charlotte as themselves.

Note: This can be shown as a three part episode or a movie with all parts together.
303133"iPie"[8]Roger ChristiansenAndrew Hill NewmanNovember 15, 2008 (2008-11-15)208
When the group's favorite pie shop closes down due to the death of the head chef, they go out to find the recipe for their favorite pie. The only person believed to have the recipe is the chef's granddaughter. She agrees to give them the recipe if she can go on a date with Spencer. She takes it a bit too far, and confesses that she never owned the recipe. Carly, Sam and Freddie hatch a plan to find the recipe. Meanwhile, Mrs. Benson's cousin's baby visits for a few days, making Freddie uneasy about it because his cousin always has a blank expression when she sees Freddie. Freddie tries finding a way to succeed in making his cousin laugh.
313233"iChristmas"[9]Steve HoeferDan SchneiderDecember 13, 2008 (2008-12-13)209

When Spencer makes an electromagnetic Christmas tree, the tree bursts into flames, which makes Carly furious at him because the fire mauled the presents Carly got for Spencer. Carly then wishes that Spencer was born normal. Carly's guardian angel, Mitch, makes this wish come true, surprising Carly. The next day, at school, Sam is absent, Freddie was never friends with Carly, and to make things worse -- Nevel Papperman is Carly's boyfriend. Carly questions Mitch about Sam's disappearance, and Carly is taken to the Juvenile Detention Center, where Sam is being held. Carly finds out that Sam was never her friend, either. Carly returns home and then is told that Mrs. Benson and Spencer are now engaged, making Carly angry at what the world has become. Carly then walks up the stairs and finds out that, because Sam and Freddie were never her friends, iCarly never existed, either. Carly begins to sob, realizing how much the world would change if Spencer was born normal. Mitch turns the world back, making Spencer born abnormal. Carly is now happy with the electromagnetic Christmas tree, and Carly, Sam, Freddie and Spencer have a good Christmas together in the end.

Guest Stars: Danny Woodburn as Mitch and Reed Alexander as Nevel Papperman

Now is there a easier way to fix this problem. There Have been dissucions here: [3](number of episodes)here: [4](old one). Now if this can't be an opition. Is there another way to make this easier and simpler for the other sites and wiki to corraspond with the epsiode numbers. Please let me know if this could work out or what to do about this to make it easier. Checker Fred (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC) ×

As TV.com and the like are not reliable sources, I see absolutely no valid reason to butcher this template for a single series. If there absolutely has to be yet another episode, use one fo the many ALTs. As it is, Wiki should be using the official episode numbers only, not what "other sites" randomly do. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay then what's another way do it.Checker Fred (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Need Some Help!

Hey guys, I need some help regarding Winx Club article. I want to add the Pakistani airing dates in it too because it will be the second channel to air Winx Club Season 4 (even before US). So, can anybody help me in creating a new column for Pakistani airing? One more thing, the first episode of season 4 will air on March 08, 2010. Please help me out in adding new column for Pakistani airing. Thank you. --♫♪Adyniz♪♫ 19:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See no reason to add that at all, unless they are the English episodes. However, if folks feel its relevant, just use the ALTs. See List of Meerkat Manor episodes for an example. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Got it :D --♫♪Adyniz♪♫ 03:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey buddy, it premiered today and the titles were english. So, as you said that I can add a new country airing section "Pakistani air date" in this article but the problem is that when ever I tried to add a new section/box for pakistani airing, the page got messed up (thank God I just previewed the page instead of saving). So, can you please help me out in adding a new box in it? It's not premiered in US yet so that's why I want to make a seperate "Pakistani airing date" box for it because the episodes are airing in english. Sorry about the bad english. So, can you please add a new box in it as I can't do it. Thank you. ♫♪Adyniz♪♫ 15:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Invalid HTML

Unresolved

This template fails on articles where more than one series is listed, with duplicate episode numbers generating duplicate IDs; this is invalid in HTML. An example is List of Ashes to Ashes episodes. A fix might be to combine the two types of episode number, where both exist; or to use the title. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This was fixed in the June 2009 code overhall, but it was reverted as quickly as it was implemented. —Farix (t | c) 23:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Presumably a bundle of changes? Can the fix be applied on its own? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I would rather reapply the June 2009 code changes as a whole as the template's code was much more efferent. Unfortunately, one editor complained about the episode number being a requirement. —Farix (t | c) 23:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, if that issue can be resolved promptly, all well and good; otherwise, the HTML issue needs to be addressed soonest Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be addressed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Generic version?

Is there a generic version of this template available? I am organizing information that is not an episode list, but the style of the list fits this template perfectly. Since the list is not episode related it could be confusing to editors to see each entry as "Episode list", though typing out everything manually looks even more cluttered and I am wary of copy/pasting this template to a new one that may only be used for the one article. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 02:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...not really. There are some similar templates, but nothing that is really generic. What kind of article is it? There may be another similar that works. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction (with template demonstrated on talk page entries near this date). It's not that I can't do it this way; I have no difficulty in creating anything that is needed, but for those who come along behind me and want to edit. . .

. . .This. . .

{{Generic list
 |Name=
 |Description=
 |Examples=
 |Further reading=
 |LineColor=
}}
{{Generic list
 |Name=
 |Description=
 |Examples=
 |Further reading=
 |LineColor=
}}

. . .Looks a lot less complicated and less difficult to follow than this.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! style="background: #F2F2F2;" | Type
! style="background: #F2F2F2;" | Examples
! style="background: #F2F2F2;" | See also
|-
| style="text-align: center;" | '''TYPE''' here
| style="text-align: center;" | EXAMPLES HERE
| style="text-align: center;" | "SEE ALSO" LINK
|-
| colspan="3" | DESCRIPTION
|-
| colspan="3" style="background: #FF0000;" |
|-
| style="text-align: center;" | '''TYPE''' here
| style="text-align: center;" | EXAMPLES HERE
| style="text-align: center;" | "SEE ALSO" LINK
|-
| colspan="3" | DESCRIPTION
|-
| colspan="3" style="background: #FF0000;" |
|}
— CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 06:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah...no, don't really know of another one that would work for that. I suspect, though, that while the table is a little more complex, it would be best to use it since it would be very specific to just that and I'm not sure there are really a lot of places such a template might be useful besides that one list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
That's what I figured in the first place, but asking was better than not having a clue. I may end up creating a template in the future with many more optional customizations for rare situations like these. . . but not today. Thanks for the help. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Transclusion problem

I started splitting List of That '70s Show episodes due to the page being 110K, the first season is now on List of That '70s Show episodes (season 1) and the I've replaced the table with {{:List of That '70s Show episodes (season 1)}} on the main episode list, but all the summaries are still visible. Possebly an error with the '70s part of the title, I've tried to use {{Episode list/sublist|Template talk:Episode list/Archive 2}}

Fixed. You can see how it was done here. —Farix (t | c) 18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Using the HTML code, could have known. Thanks. Xeworlebi (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
There are strong arguments against transclusion, which you'll find at many FLC nominations of episode lists. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
When did this start? I thought the issue had finally been resolved? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh! Okay. To be honest it's been a while since I've seen anything at FLC, but I remember the last one I saw did discourage it. I know WP:TRANS says it's okay. Where is the discussion where it got resolved? I need to get updated! Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember if there was a central discussion. I know it was mentioned in some FLCs and the issue against transclusions argued against and the list passed with them just fine. Would need to do a search to find any of the discussions though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. In all honesty I haven't been active at FLC for about 10 months, so it's quite possible I've missed something Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"TBA" episode titles

As seen here:

# # Title Directed by Written by US viewers
(million) 		Rank (week) Original air date
1331TBAUnknownUnknownTBATBASeptember 20, 2010 (2010-09-20)[10]

You can not specify a TBA title that does not appear in quotes with this template. When "TBA" is in quotes like this, it appears to be the actual title of the episode. It would be good to put in a boolean-type parameter that would insert TBA for the title without quotes when some information about the episode is known, but not the title. Does anyone else think this is a good idea?

Ben Boldt 01:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


I just figured it out by using RTitle!
# # Title Directed by Written by US viewers
(million) 		Rank (week) Original air date
1331TBAUnknownUnknownTBATBASeptember 20, 2010 (2010-09-20)[10]
Ben Boldt 01:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
No, as TBA episodes should not be included in lists unless they can be sourced with title and airdate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to put user filler "TBA" in every cell, if you don't have to information don't show the episode, if it's only partial leave the rest empty. Xeworlebi (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Episode number column headings

As per the debate here, how are the column headings generated on the table (e.g. the headings in the first two columns here)? Personally, I find the headings "Series #" and "Season #" awkward. It's a rare case when the numbers in a column have nothing to do with the literal meaning of the heading (e.g. "Season #"). In that case it would make more sense to have "Season Ep. #". Does the template impose the headings, or can they be changed? Has this debate happened before (sorry if it has).  HWV258.  11:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The template does not do the headings at all. Those are added in the list itself (if you check the top of the list when editing you'll see the table heading code). "Season #" is odd, and it is not the heading most commonly used. Most lists use just plain "#" or "Ep #" and then "Season Ep #" for the season number if both sets of numbers are included. Many lists, however, just do the series # and do not include individual season episode numbers at all. Hope this helps. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
As I indicated to HWV258, on the occasions when I've tried to use "Season Ep #", it has always been changed to "Season #". When I looked through the featured lists, I don't think I saw "Season Ep #" in any article. Just plain "#" is ambiguous, especially when the heading is assigned to both the series and season episode number columns. There doesn't seem to be any real consensus on what to use. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Best solution I've ever come up with is "Ep. #(break)(Series)" and "Ep. #(break)(Season)". I was just always worried about the content (and subsequent width) it would add to the column, which you know is why so many pages abandoned text in favor of a mere "#/#". KnownAlias contact 14:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I always found Season #/Series #, redundant, it's quite self explanatory and falls under over-explaining things. Along with that it takes up a considerable amount of space witch deforms the entire table and leaves other, more filled columns, like writers etc., cramped for space. There are some official and global characters that mean number, #, № and derivations thereof. "Ep" is discourages as it's an abbreviation for the word "episode", which are, like "min.", "approx." (which are frequently found in the infobox's runtime parameter), etc., depreciated.
I was working on a template that would do the heading, mostly to standardize the 100% width and for ease of use, it would use the number sign # if only |EpisodeNumber= is defined, if both are defined it would use № for the first column and # for the second. This to differentiate the columns but keep them simple and thin. I was actually finishing the documentation right now. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you use "#" or "№", they're both ambiguous without a qualifier. We (editors) might know what they mean but the average reader won't. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It's self explanatory for you, me and other regular editors, but not, apparently, to the host of IP users we end up having to revert because they don't get it, changing the season column to a single season number, or the countless others who keep dropping messages on the talk pages asking what it means, or the countless others yet who probably don't know how to even address the question, and just stare at their monitors in confusion. Part of our job as editors is to make the information accessable to them as well as ourselves, and given how often it comes up as a problem, it's not. I've only really been editing since this winter, but I know I've personally answered that question on at least three talk pages, and that's just me. KnownAlias contact 15:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I've only seen one IP ask why there were two columns with the same numbers in them an that was because it was season one. For those that don't get it I've seen a number of pages add an explanatory line before the table to clarify this. Which I find better than mess up the table itself. Xeworlebi (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
That you've only seen one ask is not an indication of how many might find it confusing. Most readers never ask anything. An explanatory line is not a good substitute for a column with appropriate headings in each column. It's a poor substitute at best. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It is also not an indication that people find it confusing. The fact remains that both columns need more than a few simple words to properly and unambiguously explain what they mean, which would make then entire heading ridiculous, and skew the rest of the table out of proportion. You would need something along the lines of "Episode number in this season", "Episode number over the entire show", and even when you would explain it with an entire essay, there will still be people who don't get it. An explanatory line remains a better substitute than unnecessarily cramping the rest of the column for the few who don't get it, and don't even seem to care enough to ask. And most episode lists use simply "#" for both, which could be more distinct with №/#. Now more recently this rise of unnecessarily long lines has started, which remain just as confusing to some, pointed out by the fact that this discussion even started. Xeworlebi (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. With the following three edits ([5], [6], and [7]), I've (boldly) had a go at fixing the misleading column headings on the three tables at List_of_The_Big_Bang_Theory_episodes. Could I ask that these remain for a while in order to see what sort of interest or comments they generate? If there is a supporting consensus, I'm happy to apply them to other articles that have similar problems. I believe these headings deliver a better experience for the casual visitor (and don't detract for the experienced editor).  HWV258.  22:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "supporting consensus" and over what period of time will you be conducting this experiment? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think what HWV258 is trying to do, as exemplified here in List of The Big Bang Theory episodes, is clearly the best way to show the data. The organization he is advocating is A) what we commonly see elsewhere on Wikipedia, as exemplified by List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, and B) is how TV viewers would expect to see the information organized. The Wikipedia convention follows that used by TV-trade rags, which have used this logical organization for decades; it is not by accident. Often, Wikipedians become too close, I think, to the subject matter and get used to an odd way of accomplishing something (and think it to be easier to grasp than it really is). But organizing tabular data as shown here on List of Lost episodes is, IMHO, far too confusing—and needlessly so. I hate to see these battles being fought on templates, where individual editors can greatly magnify short-sighted shortcomings. When in doubt, Wikipedia should default to time-tested methods used by TV-related periodicals and trade rags and should definitely avoid baffling techniques as seen on Lost. Greg L (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
As someone who works with featured lists a lot, I've seen a lot of TV episode lists, and I agree that HWV258's is among the easiest to understand and the most logical. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The headings used by HWV258 at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes are certainly less confusing and I'm pleased he didn't go with his earlier suggestions. If there is enough support here, can they be strongly recommended in the template instructions, as consistency would be beneficial. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes case is interesting. They have avoided the problem of becoming misleading by going with the (minimalist) "#", "#" approach. They are really saying: "you better figure this out for yourself" (which I guess is one way to approach the problem). Instead of "#", "#" I would still prefer to see something like "Overall episode #", "Season episode #". Incidentally, I'm not welded to the word "Overall", but I do feel that as soon as more than "#" is used, it is important to mention "episode". Perhaps this issue needs to be taken to a wider audience so that the editors of all episode list pages can contribute to a solution?  HWV258.  22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any reason not to change the column headings. Last request for a reason before I start making changes.  HWV258.  20:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean in the docs or in that one article? If it is the docs, yeah, there is a reason, namely there is no consensus for it and honestly, there seems to be no agreement that it is that confusing. In that one article, that's a local issue to be discussed there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to go through all the articles that use this template and change the headings on the two columns as indicated above. The headings are misleading. As AussieLegend points out above, the template instructions should be changed to reflect what now has strong support.  HWV258.  21:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be unwise as there is no consensus to change hundreds of pages that use the template to your preferred format. This should instead be done on a case by case bases. And frankly, there isn't a whole slew of people keeping an eye on this discussion. I have been paying very little attention to your discussion until now because didn't involve any of the episode lists I've helped construct. However, I would be opposed to a widespread change to your format because episode column to too wide and therefore takes up more space than needed. Besides, the heading code in the template's documentation is just a suggestion of how the heading may be formatted, it is not a requirement of how all headings must be formatted.—Farix (t | c) 21:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I have demonstrated (here) that the width of the revised column headings are not a problem. For example, the difference in width of "Season" (which is the widest part of the wrapped "Season<br />#") and "episode #" (which is the widest part of the wrapped "Season<br />episode #") is three millimetres. Such a trivial increase is worth the removal of a heading that doesn't literally correspond with the data its column contains. Content and accuracy at WP must be more important than layout and "prettiness".  HWV258.  21:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
That is simply your opinion, one that I don't share or see as a reason to engage in a Wikipedia-wide change across hundreds of pages. To me those columns are overly bloated compared to the information that is contained within them while other columns, such as "Directed by" and "Original air date" are constricted. It simply doesn't look good. —Farix (t | c) 23:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You're worried about "your opinion" and finish with the comment "It simply doesn't look good"? I feel I've moved into a parallel universe if we have descended to the point where we are more worried about layout than content. No one has yet demonstrated why the current headings are more accurate than the suggested change. How about we stick to content-based discussion? As I pointed out, the suggested change is three millimetres wider. If you would like to push for change to other columns headings, then fine; but the current state of other column headings is not a reason for not changing the headings proposed in this debate.  HWV258.  00:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Which clearly demonstrates that what you think is an improvement is only a matter of opinion.—Farix (t | c) 13:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I addressed the points and only stated facts (not opinions).  HWV258.  22:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Sorry, but I think that would be grossly inappropriate to do. There is no "strong support" for your preferred headings, and many many articles have headings that are based on the local consensus at those articles, FL reviews, etc. If you wish to change the specific article you are working on and you have local consensus to do so, that is fine, but that is not a valid reason to go whole scale changing all articles to match your personal preferences without far more extensive discussion and without the minor support a few have voiced here for your specific change to a specific article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
(To the above two posts) I don't believe the suggestion that requiring local consensus on hundreds of articles is practical or necessary. The column contents are identical on all the pages, so the only local issue that could arise on a particular page is: ownership. I have posted the suggestion of change on about six list pages (all with a link back to this page). Notification of this debate has also been placed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Renaming_episode_number_column_headings. After sufficient debate, it will either be right for all, or wrong for all. So far, no one has proffered a reason as to why the current "Season #" is better than the proposed "Season episode #". On the other hand, there has been support for the change.  HWV258.  22:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It does require much broader consensus than two of three editors on an obscure template talk page to affect a Wikipedia-wide change that affects multiple projects few of which are even aware of your proposal. And in fact, I would contest any such change without a broad consensus. Especially when there is already expressed opposition to such a mass change like the one you are proposing. You have not presented a sufficient argument as to why your personal preferences is necessary across all episode articles over the objections of other editors. —Farix (t | c) 23:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
"It does require much broader consensus than two of three editors on an obscure template talk page..."—fine; could you please suggest other forums that this should be raised? It is not feasible to raise this on hundreds of individual talk pages—there must be a better way to effect change in this area. Please try to work with me on this—I'm not trying to belligerently push through some sort of kooky change here. I believe the current situation is misleading, and I'm genuinely trying to push for a beneficial change to WP. Let's work together on this. By the way, of the six list pages I "advertised" this debate, there has only been one question raised (and that wasn't a question that suggested the change wasn't a good one).  HWV258.  00:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
A RfC would be a starting place. And since you want this to be a Wikipedia-wide standard, it should be in a highly viable place, such as the Village Pump. Putting notices on just a handful of episode lists isn't appropriate notification as there is a possibility that this lists aren't highly watched. But I still don't see why how the table headings are format can't be handled on a case-by-base bases. Different episode lists have different needs, it's one of the reasons why this template is as flexible as it is. And frankly, your "improvement" is for something that really hasn't presented itself to be a problem. It's simply your personal preference which should not be enforced on all episode lists. —Farix (t | c) 13:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a "kooky" change, IMHO, as it is both unnecessary and excessively strict. There is a REASON that there is no set, "you must use these headers" on all lists, and that is because every list is different. There are a very large number of lists that do not have the whole "series #/season #", and adding "overall" to it doesn't make it any different in meaning. Adding "episode" is just redundant as it is very clear what the column is and it just makes it unnecessarily wide. Thus far, you seem to be the only one to actually find it any kind of confusing, and despite having absolutely no consensus, you you are now claiming the change should be made wholescale? No. If you want to decide that there must now be only one or two sets of headers usable on all regular episode lists:
  1. set out proposed guidelines that affect the four major kinds of episode lists, not just your pet list
  2. clearly explain how you will implement this change when we have many lists that don't even use the template
  3. fully explain exactly how adding the word "episode" versus just "#" or "Ep #", the latter of which is used so that the column is not ridiculously wide for a small bit of data, taking away space better used by titles, directors, etc
  4. give actual evidence that this would solve a legitimate problem experienced by numerous users, not just yourself and one or two people, rather than the dozens upon dozens of editors who have reviewed FLCs of episode lists and approved of those lists headers which do not follow your ideal
  5. write up a proper RfC with all that and then get actual community consensus.
-- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 17:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I largely agree with these points, but not with the idea of a standardising change being "kooky". If you randomly select entries from the list of articles that use this template, you will find a wide variety of ways that column headings have been constructed. (Go on, try it—you'll soon be amazed that such a wide variety could have evolved.) As the columns involved generally contain identical types of information, there is no need to have such wide variations. I don't necessarily think there should be only one standard heading, but it can't hinder the readers of WP to have some conformity. A more professional publication would not have the disparate headings we have let evolve. I have no intention of editing against consensus, but I would be very keen to help try to establish some consensus for a more standardised approach to column headings on episode list pages. A RfC would be a good idea, and I'm happy to help with that.  HWV258.  22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I will add that I made my suggested change to the three lists at List_of_The_Big_Bang_Theory_episodes about twelve days ago, and:

  • The headings now accurately indicate the information in the columns.
  • There has been no issue with formatting (e.g. width).
  • No one has complained about the heading text on the page's talk page (in fact, as above on this page, there has been some support). Certainly no one has reverted.
  • There are about 350 visits a day on that page, so with over 4,000 visits in the twelve days, there's been plenty of opportunity for people to revert (e.g. it isn't an obscure episode list page).

If nothing else, that example page does indicate that the suggested change can work, and that it doesn't produce immediate dramas.
 HWV258.  22:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify a comment made in this post, I did not say the template instructions should be changed to reflect what now has strong support. I merely asked if they could be "strongly recommended" in the template instructions if there was sufficient support. Recommending a particular heading style is one thing, forcing it on everyone is another altogether. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologise. My poor grammar imparted a second meaning I didn't intend.  HWV258.  08:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Now wait, let me ponder this: gaining "consensus" really means getting Ausielegend to agree. Riiiight. Tony (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Please, Comment on the content, not the contributor. Personal attacks are not appropriate. --08:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not an attack, but a statement of the obvious. I wonder whether you might explain your actions and justify your treatment of HWV258 during your dispute with him. I can only comment as an observer that it looks like ownership. As I've said in my response to what appears to be an aggressive post on my talk page, I'm quite open to explanations to the contrary. Tony (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It might be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to anyone else. Your post is an implication that I can't agree to anything and clearly, you are incorrect, again. Since your unfounded accusation was clearly directed at me, it constitutes a personal attack and I would ask to to refrain from doing so. Please feel free to comment on the subject of the discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm now very confused at how things work around here. I found a solution for an obvious problem, and took the time to go through the proper WP processes to get the necessary change enacted. I met intense resistance from user AussieLegend (who was against the nature of my suggestion), and a couple of other users who (quite correctly) stated that I need to go through the proper consensus-gathering process before the suggested change could be implemented. With the wind removed from my sails, I relented until others could help with the consensus-process. Amazingly, user AussieLegend has decided to adopt my suggested change without the consensus that everyone else here said was essential for me (e.g. here). I'm dismayed that the highly respected editor Tony1 points this out and is attacked (see above). I agree with the edits AussieLegend is making, but I'm distressed with how there is a differing set of rules around here for different users. This is a totally demoralising episode for me at WP.  HWV258.  09:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to go back over the discussions here and at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes since you seem to have forgotten some key points and are mixing up two related but different discussions. At Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory episodes you initially wanted to leave the "Series #" heading alone and change "Season #" to "Episode #",[8] when both columns list episode numbers. That change would have made the column headings misleading, which is why I opposed your attempts. After making a couple of more, slightly less misleading suggestions, you changed the headings anyway, effectively saying, "Regardless of the outcome of this discussion I'm going to put my headings in and I'll get around it by saying that it's an experiment, but I won't specify a time-frame for the experiment". Fortunately, the headings you chose were a marked improvement over what you originally proposed. Here, you wanted to obtain consensus to make your changes at multiple articles. Wide consensus is required for that but heading selection at an individual article does not require such wide consensus, and the example that you've chosen was to fix the ambiguous headings added only two days earlier by another editor.[9] As for Tony1, he didn't "point out" what you've said. He accused me of not being able to agree, which is clearly wrong in the circumstances. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
So it is okay to apply the change I suggested at any one of hundreds of "individual" articles, but not for "all" of them? I just wish you could admit that you are at fault once—I would have much greater respect for you. This is an episode that does nothing for the dignity of process at WP. I'm done with attempting to help out in this forum. Shame on everyone else here for rallying around an intellectually-dishonest flag.  HWV258.  10:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Essentially it is okay to make any edit that improves the encyclopaedia but if the edit is opposed then it needs to be discussed. Wikipedia:Be bold is an important editing guideline. However, making sweeping changes across the encyclopaedia can cause all end of troubles; ask Tony1 what happened with date unlinking when editors started unlinking dates without wide consensus, even though we now don't link dates. I can't see how I'm at fault here. We discussed the matter at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes and when you added your headings anyway, despite opposition to the headings you proposed, I didn't revert. Nor have I accused anyone of ownership, as you have, of not being able to agree as Tony1 has, or falsely of reverting your changes, also as Tony has.[10] The only fault I can see is perhaps supporting you,[11][12][13] because you now seem to be taking issue with the fact that not only have I supported you, I've implemented your headings at a single set of articles. If anyone is at fault here, it's the person who has forced us down this path, away from the subject by making snide comments. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I accept your apology.  HWV258.  11:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a rather arrogant thing to do when no apology was offered. This and your obvious misreading of what you've been told here makes it hard to progress from this point. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Episodes without titles

I'm currently working on a list of episodes for EastEnders in my userspace, but the episodes don't have titles because it's a continuing soap opera, they just go by airdate. Can the title parameter be made optional, or is there another way around it? AnemoneProjectors 18:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've solved the problem. I'm going to use "RTitle" and put the original airdate in that column instead. AnemoneProjectors 18:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2-or-3-parted episodes

Why not adopt some feature from Template:Japanese episode list multi-part for the multi-parted episodes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSH-alive (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Seasonal episode lists

There is currently a discussion going at WP:TV-NC about the current template guidelines pertaining naming of seasonal episode list articles. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Even though that discussion was dormant for a month, it is now back on. Changes supported there will affect this template. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thumbnails?

How about including thumbnails in episode lists? Typically as screenshots or promotional artwork of an episode and such. They can be used to better identify an episode. If not, then please explain.--NGMan62 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There used to be one, but it was removed due to WP:NFC concerns. See Template talk:Episode list/Archive 2#Image field removed for further information. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Adding multiple screenshots would also not comply with WP:NFCC requirements to keep copyrighted images to a minimum. —Farix (t | c) 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Codes wrong?

I am currently working on this User:AJona1992/Sandbox9 and this template isn't working very good. Can anyone tell me what am I doing wrong, so I can fix this problem? AJona1992 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, nevermind. AJona1992 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Short summary

The explanation for this parameter says "100-300 summary". 100-300 what? Characters? Words?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be words, and is now fixed. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems kind of long, but thanks for clarifying it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Add |RAltTitle= and |Viewers=

Reference field for AltTitle, change line to:

{{#if:{{{Title|}}}|"'''{{{Title}}}'''"}}{{{RTitle|}}} {{#if:{{{AltTitle|}}}|<br />"{{{AltTitle}}}"}}{{{RAltTitle|}}}

Dedicated viewers column, add line:

#ifeq:{{{Viewers|ʁ}}}|ʁ| |<td>{{{Viewers}}}</td>}}{{

To make |ShortSummary= still work properly, change line to:

#ifeq:{{{Aux4|ʁ}}}|ʁ| |<td>{{{Aux4}}}</td>}}</tr>{{#ifeq:{{{ShortSummary|ʁ}}}|ʁ| |<tr><td class="description" style="border-bottom:3px solid #{{#if:{{{LineColor|}}}|{{{LineColor}}}|CCCCFF}}" colspan="{{#expr:{{#ifeq:{{{Title|ʁ}}}|ʁ|{{#ifeq:{{{AltTitle|ʁ}}}|ʁ|{{#ifeq:{{{RTitle|ʁ}}}|ʁ|{{#ifeq:{{{RAltTitle|ʁ}}}|ʁ|0|1}}|1}}|1}}|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{DirectedBy|ʁ}}}|ʁ|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{WrittenBy|ʁ}}}|ʁ|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{Aux1|ʁ}}}|ʁ|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{Aux2|ʁ}}}|ʁ|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{Aux3|ʁ}}}|ʁ|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{Aux4|ʁ}}}|ʁ|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{AltDate|ʁ}}}|ʁ|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{OriginalAirDate|ʁ}}}|ʁ|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{ProdCode|ʁ}}}|ʁ|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{EpisodeNumber|ʁ}}}|ʁ|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{EpisodeNumber2|ʁ}}}|ʁ|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{Viewers|ʁ}}}|ʁ|0|1}}}}">

|RAltTitle= was requested in March 2008, as well in September 2009 (previus request unknown by me at the time), both were received as a good idea but were never implemented. It actually makes more sense to have the alt titles references than the titles, which are removed after their initial broadcast, as primary source.

|Viewers=, more and more episode lists put the viewers ratings in the episode list, I personally don't care were it's placed, as long as it is places directly before an optional parameter, certain episode lists put additional ratings info in, like Rank, AI, or ratings from US/UK in different columns, for which they now use {{{Aux2}}} and {{{Aux3}}}, those only using a single one are split between {{{Aux2/3}}} and {{{Aux4}}}. A defined parameter to standardize its placement would be a good thing. There is currently a discussion going on about removing additional ratings in separate tables and only have the total viewers in the episode list itself, which would push more ratings in the episode lists. This would aid standardize its position in the table. Xeworlebi (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I still believe this to be a good request, and no-one has objected to them, so I pulled this out of the archive. Xeworlebi (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ref order

This template causes references to appear in the incorrect order. For example see test case 4. I propose a null if statement at the beginning of this template, with all parameters, in the correct sequence, to be added. 117Avenue (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It should not be a problem as the plot summary does not need a citation as it can be verified by the episode itself. —Farix (t | c) 02:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
For future episodes, everything needs to be referenced. 117Avenue (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The plot summaries of unaired episodes are almost always unverifiable. And "previews" shouldn't be in the templates to begin with as they are not actual summaries. —Farix (t | c) 03:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Production codes

Production codes continue to be an ongoing issue in many articles. Many TV programs don't use them but production codes are still added to the articles. A lot seem to be sourced from tv.com while others are allegedly from reliable sources like iTunes but even those fail WP:V because citations are never provided. The Futon Critic publishes press releases with episode titles in the form "(#<number>) "<Title>"[14] and "<number>" is being used as the production code,[15] while others are just being added in sequential order from the last episode listed.[16] I'm quite aware that there are programs that use valid production codes but, from numerous discussions that I've read and participated in over the years, the general consensus seems to be that they only ever have any use when episodes are aired out of sequence. List of Firefly episodes is one example of this, but even in these cases, this is probably better covered in prose. I've tried removing uncited production codes from articles but there seems to be some resistance to that. As a way of resolving the issue I looked at various solutions and came up with the following:

  1. add {{citation needed}} to uncited production codes
  2. add "|RProdCode=" (Reference for |ProdCode=) to this template
  3. remove |ProdCode= entirely

Of these the first seems the most obvious but, unfortunately, doing so results in this:

Series # Season # Title Directed by Written by Original airdate Prod. # Viewers
(millions)
3713"Archangel"Tony WharmbyR. Scott Gemmill & Shane BrennanJanuary 18, 2011 (2011-01-18)#213[citation needed]13.84

If the template can't be modified to accommodate {{citation needed}}, perhaps we need to go to the second option, adding the "|RProdCode=" parameter. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Entirely support option 3. Usually uncited, and really not of much use except for collecting every scrap of information about the episode. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Production codes come usually from the episodes themselves, for those who have a production code it is usually visible on the copyright screen. Just because in some places something is wrongly used is not a reason to go and mass remove it. While not always, in several cases TFC gives the actual production codes (It's always Sunny in Philadelphia, The Mentalist), DocStock gives for several shows the actual production codes. So the production codes are mostly sourced by primary source or by the reference in |RTitle= along with all the info from the episode. So I don't see the need for either option, I guess option two can't hurt for those couple of exceptions of wrong/unsourced future episodes. Xeworlebi (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
It's far more than a "couple" of exceptions. There are many, many cases where the codes are wrong. The codes at the Futon Critic link that you provided appear to be production codes but the example that I gave doesn't. Without a specific source that says these are actually production codes, it's WP:SYNTH to claim that they are, because they are only listed at the source as the episode title. If they're in the episodes, the episodes can be used as a primary source, but there are many that do not include production codes at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
There are also many, many cases where the codes are correct. Partial misuse is not a reason to remove all of them, proper use should not be punished because there are those that are incorrectly used. Xeworlebi (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
So, is there any opposition to option 2? --AussieLegend (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
As long as it isn't over- or abused. I've made a sandbox version which includes the new |RAltTitle= (from my earlier proposal which no-one has opposed) and |RProdCode=. As well as a sublist sandbox version. I did some basic testing and it seems to work properly. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't get why an |RProdCode= is needed. Can't you reference the production code directly in |ProdCode=? You're not dealing with a format issues, like you are with titles where the reference should be outside the quotes. —Farix (t | c) 21:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
(←) Yes and no, because |ProdCode= is also pasted as an anchor ID. Putting in a ref will break the anchor, and putting any kind of special formatting (like the given example: {{Citation needed}}) will cause the column to go belly up as seen in the example above. Xeworlebi (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I see, but perhaps this is a case where we should have an override for the anchor instead or in addition to. —Farix (t | c) 22:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ reference
  2. ^ "iCarly Episodes - iSaw Him First". TV Guide. Retrieved 2009-07-13.
  3. ^ "iCarly Episodes - iStage an Intervention". TV Guide. Retrieved 2009-07-13.
  4. ^ "iCarly Episodes - iOwe You". TV Guide. Retrieved 2009-07-13.
  5. ^ "iCarly Episodes - iHurt Lewbert". TV Guide. Retrieved 2009-07-13.
  6. ^ "iCarly Episodes - iGo to Japan". TV Guide. Retrieved 2009-07-13.
  7. ^ http://aries.galacgallery.com/seddie/displayimage.php?album=23&pos=7
  8. ^ "iCarly Episodes - iPie". TV Guide. Retrieved 2009-07-13.
  9. ^ "iCarly Episodes - iChristmas". TV Guide. Retrieved 2009-07-13.
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference houseseason7 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Episode_list/Archive_2&oldid=1117041933"