Jump to content

Template talk:Series overview

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alex 21 (talk | contribs) at 23:38, 18 December 2018 (→‎Requested move 18 December 2018: Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconTelevision Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

"Series" vs "Season" based on first date's format?

Stumbled over this while editing Money Heist. In this code excerpt 

-- Base series/season content on the format of the first date; Series = D M Y, Season = M D, Y
local matchDMY = false
local thisStart = firstRow.start or firstRow.startA
if thisStart then
	if string.match(thisStart:gsub(" "," "), '(%d+)%s(%a+)%s(%d+)') then
		matchDMY = true
	end
end

-- Season header
headerRow:tag('th')
	:attr('scope', 'col')
	:attr('rowspan', allReleased and numInfoCells == 0 and 1 or 2)
	:attr('colspan', 2)
	:css('padding', cellPadding)
	:wikitext(args.seriesT or args.seasonT or (matchDMY and 'Series') or 'Season')

it is looked up which format is used for the first date in the template, based on which the title is set to "Series" instead of "Season". Why is that? Why should a table's date format dictate the terminlogy used in that table?

I propose that a simple parameter |series= should be used to clarify which terminlogy should be used when not identifiable through other paremters. I arranged a simple sandboxed version and prepared two testcases. If you think that this is a good idea, I can make the changes go live. Lordtobi (✉) 20:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed this issue at Money Heist. The code here is beyond me, but I'm for whatever solution can fix the date format not changing the terminology from season to series, as that is inaccurate. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Already exists. Use |seriesT=series or |seasonT=season. Thanks for your work anyways, no need for any changes. -- AlexTW 01:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: I see, but is therr any reason there is two of them? We could just as well use |term=Series or something in that direction. Furthermore, would you agree that the format=terminology logic is useless? Case example: Doctor Who formerly used Seasons (pre-2005) but also dmy formats. Lordtobi (✉) 10:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Backup parameter. More articles exist where its DMY format and "Series" (i.e. UK series) than DMY format and season. See List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present): It uses "Season / Series". -- AlexTW 16:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Related, Australia uses dmy format but we use both "series" and "season". --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do indeed, hence the two parameters, for those who want to use either, and the ability to change it. -- AlexTW 01:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AlexTheWhovian, I see what you mean, and yes we don't need a new parameter indeed (which I didn't realize before). But do you think it'd still make sense to remove the altering of the term based on the date format one single cell in the entire has? This way people using dmy formatting don't have to use |seasonT= just to get the standard output. The module sandbox is up-to-date with said "feature" removed if you just want to copy-paste. Lordtobi (✉) 17:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lordtobi, yes, I do. Put simply, there are more articles that use DMY/Series (as this is typically the default for the UK and its series) than those that use the alternative DMY/Season or MDY/Series. So it makes sense to accommodate for this situation first, as it applies to more articles, and then provide an alternative for the alternative case. -- AlexTW 01:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

bug?

I think there might be a bug in the code that deals with the "info" params.

At Once (TV series), I had to explicitly add the |infoB2A={{N/A|TBA}} in the following to get the table to render properly: 

{{Series overview
| infoheader  = Originally aired (UK & Ireland)
| infoA       = First aired
| infoB       = Last aired
| link1       = #Season 1 (2017)
| episodes1   = 80

| color1A     = #A52A2A
| episodes1A  = 40
| start1A     = {{Start date|2017|3|13}}
| end1A       = {{End date|2017|5|5}}
| infoA1A     = {{Start date|2018|6|5}}
| infoB1A     = {{End date|2018|7|13}}

| color1B     = #F5C71A
| episodes1B  = 40
| start1B     = {{Start date|2017|7|3}}
| end1B       = {{End date|2017|8|25}}
| infoA1B     = {{Start date|2018|7|16}}
| infoB1B     = {{End date|2018|8|24}}

| link2       = #Season 2 (2018)
| episodes2   = 80

| color2A     = #006400
| episodes2A  = 40 
| start2A     = {{Start date|2018|4|30}}<ref>{{cite web|title=Soy Luna y O11CE anuncian fechas para sus nuevas temporadas|url=http://www.todotvnews.com/news/Soy-Luna-y-O11CE-anuncian-fechas-para-sus-nuevas-temporadas.html|website=todotvnews.com|accessdate=25 February 2018|language=Spanish}}</ref>
| end2A       = {{end date|2018|6|22}}
| infoA2A     = {{Start date|2018|9|24}}
| infoB2A     = {{N/A|TBA}}

| color2B     = #2F4F4F
| episodes2B  = 40 
| start2B     = {{Start date|2018|8|20}}
}}

But from reading the documentation and checking the examples, my understanding is that if infoB is defined for previous seasons (which it is, for 1A and 1B), then |infoB2A= should have been able to be skipped/omitted and the template should have automatically put in the {{N/A|TBA}}. Which it doesn't... instead you get what's showing at this example. So... legit bug? —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyconnick, it does seem to be a bug. You're right, it should be able to be omitted and added automatically. I'll take a look at it tonight for you. Thanks for reporting this! -- AlexTW 04:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Joeyconnick, I believe it to be fixed now. Cheers. -- AlexTW 12:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey AlexTheWhovian... yes, it is working as intended now, from what I can tell. Thanks for the speedy fix! —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 December 2018

Template:Series overview → Template:Television series overview – For clarity Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). -- AlexTW 11:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is the subject of partisan canvassing, contrary to WP:CANVASS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Informing a WikiProject of a discussion that relates to said Project is not canvassing. I recommend you learn about informing Projects about discussions that relate to them - you've already been requested by other editors to do so. -- AlexTW 13:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Had I said that "informing a WikiProject of a discussion that relates to said Project is canvassing" you may have had a point. You are aware of WP:CANVASS from previous discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have not canvassed on or for this discussion. The diff that you linked is my informing the WikiProject, as you should have done for this template and the infoboxes. -- AlexTW 13:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your post is clearly in breach of WP:CANVAS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
State the part that it is in violation of. Per WP:APPNOTE: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. -- AlexTW 13:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The part that prohibits partisan canvassing. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot directly quote any part that prohibits informing a Project. Your accusation is mute. -- AlexTW 13:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man; for the reason I have already indicated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you strike your statement; you have already been reported for edit-warring over this issue. No canvassing has occurred. -- AlexTW 13:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: it's not clear why this would be an improvement. Based on its documentation and parameters, I doubt anyone would try to use this on Grandi's series, Quercus ser. Virentes or any other non-television types of series. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it's not clear why this would be an improvement" Because there are other types of series: book series, sports series, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: this would be unnecessary disambiguation which would potentially confuse editors with no benefit. What has changed since the last time the nominator made exactly the same nomination? Why did he think it would be uncontroversial after the reaction to his merge proposal? Matt14451 (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above and Template talk:Series overview/Archive 1#Requested move 27 July 2015. -- AlexTW 13:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The word "series" is indeed not an only-television word and has been an argument that has been used against editors of WP:NCGAMES for them using it for disambiguation without the additional phrase "video game". The addition of "Television" will make the name more WP:PRECISE and more WP:CONSISTENT with other templates that identify their scope (including other television templates). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 14:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The title of this template has never been a problem, not before the last RM and not since. The proposed name is unnecessarily lengthy and I don't see how it would be an improvement. This should NEVER have been listed as an uncontroversial technical request since the move is clearly controversial and the nominator should know this since he was the nominator at the previous, failed, RM discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In addition to the comments above, this template is also used for digital and streaming series, so don't see any reason nor benefit to concentrating the template's scope in this way. Also, that the nominator, a longstanding Wikipedia editor, re-requested this template for a page move as 'noncontroversial' is pretty absurd. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - My !vote is neutral here as I became aware of this discussion from WT:TV and the nom is worried about WP:CANVASS as such my comments here are my own and should not be taken into account when this discussion is closed due to canvassing concerns. Had I would come across this discussion on my own or had Pigsonthewing left a neutral {{Please see}} message on WT:TV about this discussion then I would have supported the move for consistency reasons since other templates that relate to TV have "Television" in the name. However Pigsonthewing as the nominator should have left a neutral message over at WT:TV especially after this discussion was called out for similar canvassing concerns to prevent this discussion being plagued from similar issues. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 21:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The template has been in used for well over three years now, and as far as I can tell, there has never been confusion over the title. Concerning the comment that there are other types of series: book series, sports series, is there a {{Book series overview}} or {{Sports series overview}}? No? Then no such other series exist that require an overview. -- AlexTW 23:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Series_overview&oldid=874392240"