Template talk:Episode list

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)

2-or-3-parted episodes

Why not adopt some feature from Template:Japanese episode list multi-part for the multi-parted episodes?

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)

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>"[1] and "<number>" is being used as the production code,[2] while others are just being added in sequential order from the last episode listed.[3] 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)
37	13	"Archangel"	Tony Wharmby	R. Scott Gemmill & Shane Brennan	January 18, 2011 (2011-01-18)	#213	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)

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)

LineColor

"Skittlepedia"

{{edit protected}}

The default for LineColor should be the same as for TopColor (which is Wikitable-th's #F2F2F2). This will produce more consistent results when colours are not specified, at all.

• style="border-bottom:3px solid #{{#if:{{{LineColor|}}}|{{{LineColor}}}|CCCCFF}}"

should become:

• style="border-bottom:3px solid #{{#if:{{{LineColor|}}}|{{{LineColor}}}|F2F2F2}}"

and the /doc will need to be tweaked. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, match the default border's colour, #AAAAAA, which is what this line amounts to:

• style="border-bottom:3px solid #{{#if:{{{LineColor|}}}|{{{LineColor}}}|AAAAAA}}"

The #CCCCFF is out of infoboxes, not wikitables. As these are full-width tables, they should by default mimic wikitables, not right-floating infoboxes.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This will "break" hundreds of episode tables which also place a line between the header and the first row/episode matching the default color of |LineColor=. So this shouldn't be done unless you are going to run a bot to correct all of those implementations. —Farix (t | c) 20:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, all of these colours are inappropriate per WP:Deviations, so I don't see breakage, I see improvement in that things will hew closer to site-norms. For a cleaner transition, we could be talking dropping the color support for this suite of templates entirely. Jack Merridew 23:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it wouldn't be major breakage, and we should be striving to use the default here. I could have a bot run through all the transclusions and provide statistics of the colours used. There are under 5000 transclusions, so it shouldn't take more than a couple hours. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Some stats would be interesting; inform things. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's "breakage" because you have one border at the top with one color and other borders in another, leaving a very inconsistent table. I also I don't see how the border line colors is affected by WP:Deviations. It's applied using basic CSS supported by all browsers and is generally consistent from article/list to article/list. If a reader's browser doesn't support CSS, then they have more things to worry about in using Wikipedia then a border color on an episode table. And I don't see any improvement being made by removing color support from the template altogether. —Farix (t | c) 23:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The 'border' at the top being the header row? The inconsistency you're referring to would be the remaining top header colour, not the standard borders (and why is it 3px, not 1px?) I referred to WP:Deviations because all of these colours are gratuitous ornamentation (see 2nd ¶). People are sticking in whatever colour floats their boat. See List of Charmed episodes and the eight pages it is built from, such as Charmed (season 1). Skittles everywhere. This is all unprofessional. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The colors of the table headers on List of Charmed episodes has nothing to do with the border line under each summary section. If you want to complain about the background colors of the headers on List of Charmed episodes, then go to that talk page. But the reason that summary border line exists is to visually separate the episode summary from the information for the next episode, giving the table a cleaner appearance. In many cases, editors, like myself, will add a matching borderline under the header to tie it in with the rest of the table. Use of color in tables is not something that is prohibited by WP:Deviations, especially when the coloring is generally consistent from list to list. But there are cases, such as with The Simpsons and Code Geass were a different color creates a better visual match for the series itself. —Farix (t | c) 00:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Ah, classis Jack Merridew on his lonesome color crusade again stopping by once in a while. I've removed the {{edit protected}} template, this proposal has been contested, and needs consensus to proceed, once that is established, consider placing the template back. (Nice image addition, the colors bright up the place a bit.) _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Having a non-standard default for the LineColor effectively forces the notion that such tables should be coloured somehow, as invoking this suite of templates without any colour parameters still results in the coloured 3px line. To get a standard table, one would have to explicitly provide what should be the default colour of this bottom-border, or, line, or whatever this 3px ornament is supposed to be. Per separation of presentation and content any such meretricious ornamentation should be encapsulated and allowed with only a solid rationale; 'The DVD boxset used those colours' is not very compelling. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems by that statement that you are against any CSS coloring, regardless of where it is. A black and white Wikipedia would be very boring indeed, nor is it a sign of professionalism. But the default color of the border matches those of {{Infobox television}} and the {{Infobox animanga}} family of templates as well as {{navbox}}. It didn't come out of nowhere, as you're implying. —Farix (t | c) 00:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

CSS is awesomely powerful and it is all about site-wide stylesheets. *That* is where CSS belongs. Inline-CSS is a hack, is about deviations from site-wide norms. You cite Naxbox, but these are not Navboxes, they're tables of information and so should follow the site-norms for tables; wikitable. None of these are are black and white. You and Xeworlebi are attacking me, not addressing the issue. The issue of the site's look and feel is not up to individual editors or WikiProjects with ownership issues, it is about taking a WMF-wide look at things, and presenting a consistent look to articles across the project. Have you noticed that the articles most afflicted with gratuitous colouring are those that have large advertising budgets behind their topics? They don't call it television 'programming' without reason. You want a riot of colours in your wiki experience? Go get a Skittle-skin added to preferences. Oh, and all these lurid colours are at odds with appropriate accessibility; many people will have difficulty reading such stuff. Jack Merridew 00:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

First, inline CSS is not a "hack". In fact, your usage of that term in that way shows how much you don't know about CSS or what a hack really is. Second the default color of |LineColor= is standard for Wikipedia and consistent from list to list. Editors, at their discretion, are allowed to override the default color, just like the are allowed to override the default colors of many templates. So you're complaining about lack of "standardization" where there already is "standardization" is nothing but a fares. Third, there is no policy or guideline prohibiting or restricting the use of inline CSS because it would be seen as just silly and counter productive in improving Wikipedia. And in those cases, there is always WP:IAR. —Farix (t | c) 00:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I know quite a bit about CSS and hacks. And I explained that the #CCCCFF has been plucked from another context than what it's is being used for here. Bzzt. You really need to read WP:Deviations; standard conventions, semantic distinctions and gratuitously. Jack Merridew 01:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you called inline CSS a "hack" shows that you don't know much about either, or you are being facetious. Also, the color of the bottom summery border was "plucked" from {{Infobox television}}, {{Infobox television season}} and {{Infobox animanga}}, which already established a standard color convention. Also, the colored border is neither proven to be a distraction or gratuitous. —Farix (t | c) 01:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Attack others, much? The 'SS' in CSS stands for 'StyleSheet', which is where CSS belongs. Note that inline CSS has no selectors, which is core to the concept ('C' as in Cascading). Those are infoboxes, not wikitable; off topic. The burden is on those who wish something included to provide a rationale. Got rationales for all the Skittles? Jack Merridew 01:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I attacked you? I only referenced that you try this every once in a while (and get shot down pretty much every time that I saw it). You're right in that I didn't addressed the issue, my comment was only a note to say that I removed the {{Edit protected}}-template because it's not an uncontroversial edit as it was contested. If you're going to be offended by something I said, at least give me the chance to say something offending first.

I'm pretty sure there is no argument that you would see as a solid rational for colors., anywhere. I would even put some money on that you would like to see every image on Wikipedia be turned into a black and white version of itself, just to get rid of the colors you seem to hate so much. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 01:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Back having reloaded, I see. How about you re-read what I wrote, and then read WP:AGF. I commented on images? Jack Merridew 01:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? playing the WP:AGF-card after you baselessly accuse everyone of attacking you… _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 01:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Episode list articles that use colour

{{editprotected}}

• {{#if:{{{LineColor|}}}{{{TopColor|}}}|{{main other|[[Category:Episode list articles that use colour]]}}}}

This should help get a clearer picture of usages; mebbe a pair of categories, but this is a good start. It should go before the last <noinclude>. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I missed this. Mebbe track both? Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: I have a feeling that Merridew will use the category in order to engage in disruptive editing. See section above. —Farix (t | c) 01:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ABF and

Category:Episode list using the default LineColor

Jack Merridew 01:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I added Category:Episode list using the default LineColor, before I saw your request. I think this is better, since if cleared/checked, would allow for your original request to be enacted with no negative impact. Note that some in this category may be mistakes, like this. It will take some time for the category to fill up. You can always generate the other list by taking the list of transclusions, and subtracting the members of this category. I can give you a toolserver link that does it for you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)