Talk:List of Loveline episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Radio (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.



Thanks to the people that have contributed to this article so far. If you'd like to contribute but aren't sure where to start or what you can do to help, please post here and I'll list a few things you could do to help. Cricket boy4 (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible to reduce the size of the list[edit]

I believe it is possible to reduce the size of this page significantly. For years at a time, the regular hosts of the show were Dr. Drew and Adam Carolla, and for the last few years the regular hosts have been Dr. Drew and Stryker. Therefore, I don't think that a separate column is needed to indicate the hosts. Rather, any host substitutions could appear in the Notes column (for example, "Dr. Marcel substitutes for Dr. Drew" or "Dr. Drew hosts alone").

As a separate issue, I wonder if it is necessary to include in the Notes column all the television shows, movies, etc. that the guests were promoting. I tend to think not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to put the host information into a separate column when it differs from the regular hosts. Something like "All shows in 2000 were hosted by Adam Carolla and Dr. Drew except where otherwise noted" would work.
I was thinking it might be a good idea to split the article into separate articles for each year and then transclude (is that the right term?) them all into the main article. However, I'm not sure how to do that or if it is even the right thing to do.
Regarding the promotion items, no it isn't necessary, but it is very useful for people trying to date specific episodes, so I'd like to keep it. Cricket boy4 (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I agree with you about using phrasing such as "all shows in [year] were hosted by Dr. Drew and [cohost] except as noted." The actual editing of the page for that is likely to take a while so I personally am not going to start doing that right away. The promotional items can stay as they are for now. I don't think that splitting the article into separate articles for each year and transcluding them onto one page would provide any clear benefit at this time, so I wouldn't recommend it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change. Search-and-Replace made it pretty straightforward. This reduced the size of the page from ~336KB to ~250KB. Let me know what you think. --Cricket boy4 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I appreciate your willingness to reorganize the content and reduce the article size without losing substantive information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Guests that were scheduled but not confirmed[edit]

This heading is for guests that were scheduled to come in (i.e. "Next Sunday, Fastball will be in the studio.") but are not confirmed as actually coming in. I'm going to go ahead and add scheduled guests as I find out about them and if they don't show up, they can be deleted. I think a "(no guest)" in the "guest" column would be a good idea, to help us with matching guests to shows. Alternatively, there could be a note like "Jenny McCarthy cancelled" in the "notes" column.

1997-12-09 || Jamie Kennedy
1998-3-1 Fastball
1998-11-22 Rob Blake and Luc Robitaille from the Kings
1999-04-29 Ali Landry
Camerajohn (talk) 05:37, 5/24 2009 (UTC)


According to the episode I have, Nicholle Tom and Andrew Levitas were in on 1998-12-5. I'm assuming the 1998-12-6 date is a typo and am correcting it. Edit: 1998-12-5 was a Saturday, changing back. Camerajohn (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Background colors[edit]

What is the purpose of the different background colors in the tables? On my computer they all appear as white anyway. Camerajohn (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the notes section:

Sunday episodes are identified in the tables below by a pale blue shading to make it easier to identify obviously mis-dated shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Anyway, the whole thing looks white to me. If there are no objections within a week or so, I'd like to darken those cells a little.

white background
Current shading #F2F2F2 sample
proposed shading #DDDDDD sample

Camerajohn (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cells darkened. Camerajohn (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


This was a Saturday. I'm removing it.
Camerajohn (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


This page is 268 KB long. Think that's long enough, or are you going to add more to it so that it crashes every browser on the planet? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 19:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We should split it into Pre-Adam, Adam and Drew, Post-Adam, and Post-Stryker.
Camerajohn (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Camerajohn (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow Hammer, way to give thanks to everybody contributing to this article. Maybe you could contribute by splitting it eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


This page was recently arbitrarily split into with/without Adam Carolla pages without discussion. The middle of the page was gutted and now contains nothing but links to the page describing the episodes where Adam was hosting.

This seems arbitrary and is even ineffective - since then, this page has again been tagged with the "page too long" flag.

It seems that the only realistic way to address this is to have this page link to individual pages for each year. Only on pages where little information is currently available (eg early 1990s) could a page contain episodes from more than one year.

Please discuss this suggestion here; if folks think it is worthwhile I am happy to do the legwork. However, please do not make structural changes without at least a heads-up on this talk page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead.
Camerajohn (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There were two immediate reasons for the creation of the wiki: for people to find episodes with guests they want (and what they were promoting at the time) & to give the 'episode daters' among us a fixed point of reference to work off of for figuring out the chronology of the unconfirmed-date episodes. Splitting up the wiki into ranges doesn't work contrary to any of the reasons it was created, and there is a valid point to be made that there are tons of episodes which results in a very long page. If we were to fill in each year completely, with no guest episodes included, we'd probably end up with a 600kb+ webpage. However, I feel like in this day & age in computer technology that since we have http compression, widespread access to broadband, advanced web browsers, and fast computers that pretty much any user that wants to view the page could do so regardless of its large size. With that in mind, I feel that splitting it up detracts from its overall usability. A simple use case would be if a user was looking for an episode with a particular guest (doesn't care about host), he/she would have to search 3 pages instead of 1 to find the instances of that guest. At the very least, if there has to be a split, the split should probably be done in a better way than it is right now. It looks like crap with the empty year headings in there. I think a decade based split makes more sense, but I'd still prefer no split. --Jds86930 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the wikipedia guidelines for length, and unless someone can do some smooth talking to a moderator, odds are we'll probably have to split it up into multiple sections. Based off their '100kb is too big' rule, we're basically looking at a split of every year gets its page. I suggest the 'every year' split because given that the page is already huge, there's no good way to hack it up in a way that makes sense other than each year being independent. It'd be a pain for users looking for a particular guest, but it would at least ensure that the guest listings remain intact & the mods would (most likely) find it acceptable. Your thoughts? --Jds86930 (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

While I think the length restrictions are kinda silly, we do need to stick by Wikipedia's rules if we're going to play here. So I think you're right, it only really makes sense to split this into separate pages for each year and then to have this page be an index into each of the years.

It should still be relatively easy to find when guests appears via Google. I admit, it would be easier if everything was on one page, but there you go.

I support your proposal, jds. Cricket boy4 (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The basic argument that wikipedia makes for keeping page sizes small (that I didn't consider in my first post) is that these pages need to be mobile-accessible, and to do so we must keep them of reasonable length. If there aren't any objections, let's start splitting it up by year - using the current main page as a launching point to each year. I see no reason to abandon the current table structure, so copying & pasting them should work. I could do this myself when I get a little free time (couldn't say exactly when I'd have a big enough block to do this), or I can finish off whatever someone else (ie cricket or john) starts. --Jds86930 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I keep trying to do the splits & the wikipedia edit-bots keep reverting them because they think i'm trying to vandalize the pages. very frusterating. --Jds86930 (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"no guest" notation[edit]

I mentioned this in the "Guests that were scheduled but not confirmed" section back in May, but I should have made it its own section. I think a "(no guest)" in the "guest" column would be a good idea, to help us with matching guests to shows. Many of those days are already there and just blank. If there are no objections within a week, I'll start doing it. Camerajohn (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I far prefer having full yearly tables (meaning every day of the year, excluding fridays and saturdays, should be in the table) that just have empty listing on no-guest nights. It gives people the option to add notes/comments to episodes, but keeps page size down in that we don't have tons of 'no-guest' listings eating up space. The 2005-2009 pages are setup this way & I think it works well for them. Perhaps a note could be added to the top of each page that says 'empty entries have no guests unless otherwise noted', but I think adding 'no-guest' to all no guest nights is ultimately unnecessary. --Jds86930 (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as space for notes and comments, it wouldn't take away any space because "no guest" would be in the "guest" column and not the "notes" column. That being said, how about changing the color of the "guest" cell, or putting an asterisk in the cell, or putting the date in bold? Would that work for you? I'm trying to date some shows and the problem is that some dates with nothing in the "guest" cell may actually have guests. It's getting confusing and I need a way to identify the dates that are confirmed no guest shows. Camerajohn (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, it really helps to have Sundays in because they are gray, even if we don't know whether there are guests on that day.Camerajohn (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I do recognize how hard it can be to keep all this stuff straight, and I don't have a problem keeping track of no guest nights. My basic feeling that I commented on above is that I didn't want to inflate page size any more than it needed to. Would you be up for a solution that puts an asterisk (or other marker) in the guest column of dates that you are not sure of (be it no guest or unsure of guest)? This would allow for confirmed 'no guest' days have empty cells, confirmed guest cells to have the guests, and unsure days to have asterisk markers. That would solve the problem of separating out the 'sure' and 'unsure' days, and would send a clearer indicator to the average wikipedia reader that the dates with asterisks are not confirmed. It also means that the later years with well recorded guest lists (2002+) don't need to have lots of unnecessary 'no guest' listing. --Jds86930 (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This solution is fine, but I would prefer having the confirmed no guest days having the asterisks and the unconfirmed days having nothing because 1. there are more unconfirmed days than no guest days and 2. many unconfirmed days are already in there with blank cells and as we confirm no guest days, we can add the asterisk in. Camerajohn (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it over & if we're going to do any 'no guest' notations, might as well just put 'no guest' in the comments section of the appropriate date. It's the least confusing of the options. I started changing the more recent years & I'll work my way down as I get time.--Jds86930 (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)