User talk:Alex 21/Archive 19

Good afternoon!

Hiya, Alex! Hope all's well! Just wanted to ask if you have made any progress on the ratings template with regard to specials? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Sorry about that. I'm not entirely sure on whether to proceed on it or not, as the template is meant to be a summation of a season, with its premiere, finale and average, but these last two don't exist for a special, so I don't believe it would work in the template. Might be better to get consensus from more editors with a discussion at WP:TV/MOS:TV. Cheers. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Might not be worth the trouble, but any way we could test it in a sandbox just to see how it'd work? Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

New to Editing Wikipedia

Thank you for the heads up on my excessive links. I understand your reasoning behind "American", but not the GCPD link. It seems far enough from the rest of the links and it's relevant to the topic. Why do you feel that link is excessive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awat81 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Awat81: Fair enough that, I actually missed that link and only noticed your linking of "American"; I've re-implemented the GCPD link. Happy editing! Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"Nowhere near enough information"

Remind me to stay away from the internet when said information arrives, going to try and surprise myself when Peter regenerates, I probably have a 0.01% success rate for this. Corabal (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Corabal: If you're actually planning on staying away, then best of luck with that! Pretty much everything comes from the internet now - I mean, editing articles here was how I found out about Capaldi leaving the series. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No idea how I'll manage it, I can try. I did somehow watch Breaking Bad spoiler free after it ended, in saying that.Corabal (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

arrow volume 2

http://www.dccomics.com/graphic-novels/arrow-vol-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.225.39.88 (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Per the other articles, we don't use 3 digits

The figures from ratings sources should not be rounded by the editor as the rounded figures no longer reflect the quoted source. And the only source that uses two places are misleading Screener/Zap2it broadcast finals. Also there is no rule or guideline that mandates forced rounding to what you think it should be. Do like trying to force edit wars and then threatening other editors with disciplinary actions for non-compliance? 101.98.165.25 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please allow the status quo to remain while this discussion is in place. Thank you. There is a local consensus to stick to conformity between articles, and continue use the same format that is used in previous season articles, in present season articles. Every other article uses two decimal places, so why does Season 6 need to use three? It doesn't. You can see this at almost every television article - the only occurrences of using three decimal places are for series that have never reached 1 million viewers through the entire course of their broadcast. Checking the sources to other series will also show 3 decimal places within the source, but 2 decimal places within Wikipedia, a good number of which have been promoted to good articles without issue. Hope that clears things up! Cheers. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Re:Febraury 2017

Hi AlexTheWhovian. My edit on List of Johnny Bravo episodes, since I had completed all the tables with writers/directors/storyboard artists, is really constructive. In your edit is not necessary that you change that little notes because you've made them bulky. Luigi1090 (talk) 18:1, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Luigi1090: I'll let it stand as is to prevent any edit-warring, but simply because you created the tables, it does not mean that you get to dictate what is in those tables and what is not (see WP:OWN). The standard practice is to use {{StoryTeleplay}}, due to its formatting within the template; can you provide any other reason as to why that particular format is preferred, other than for how it looks? Alex|The|Whovian^? 19:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you remember?

I saw this and had a flashback. The comic in Dr Who Monthly used "Vworp Vworp" to illustrate the TARDIS sound :-) With today's CGI I'd enjoy seeing Frobisher worked into the show :-D Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Redlinks script won't run

I followed the instructions at User:AlexTheWhovian/script-redlinks.

"TV Tools" shows up in the left sidebar, with nothing underneath it.

And "Remove redlinks" doesn't show up anywhere.

I've uninstalled all gadgets and beta features in case those conflicted, but no improvement.

Any insight you could provide, would be most appreciated.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: I commented out the imports on my common.js page, for now. (So, that's not the problem, in case you look there).

@The Transhumanist: The functions script isn't especially required for the redlink script, so you shouldn't need to use it to create the "TV Tools" section. The "Remove redlinks" should just appear under Tools. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I tried it under another account, in common.js and in monobook.js, and it still does not work. What browser are you using? Go for it (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Chrome. Interesting, I did just log in via Firefox, and am having trouble with some of the script links appearing on Firefox. I wonder if that happens with all scripts or just mine. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I use Firefox. and have another script that uses mw.util.addPortletLink to put an item on that menu, and it works fine. See User:The Transhumanist/anno.js. By the way, I deactivated all my scripts and tried yours alone, and it still didn't show up in the menu.

If you figure out how to fix it, please let me know! The Transhumanist 02:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm now in Internet Explorer, and "Remove redlinks" does not show up in here either. The Transhumanist 03:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I installed Chrome, and it's not showing up under the tools menu in there either. The Transhumanist 03:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Redlinks script is working intermittently

It worked on two machines. Then I turned one off for the night.

The next morning the script worked on the machine that had remained on, but not on the one that was cold booted.

What libraries does the script use?

What mw:ResourceLoader/Modules does the script rely on? The Transhumanist 23:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Just "mw.util.addPortletLink". Once the link is clicked, it's just pure Javascript. Not sure why it' erroring as such, I haven't had any reports on my other scripts. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A Message from a fellow whovian

Sorry I can't find the place to talk on your page so I am disturbing it here. I recently made an edit to the twelfth doctors companions that you instantly reversed. I would like to have you know that nardole did first appear in the special for 2015 as I have seen it and have seen nardole and haven't gotten to watch the 2016 special, also according to other Wikipedia pages, such as list of Doctor who serials, the 2015 special is a season 9 episode and the 2016 special is a season 10 episode. If I am wrong please thuroughly explain to me why and also change the Wikipedia page I just linked above with my evidence. Thank you.

- Pants Dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantsdogreturns (talk • contribs) 08:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pantsdogreturns: I know that he appeared in that episode, I've seen it too. However, he was not a companion in it. He was/will be a companion from "The Return of Doctor Mysterio" onwards. Note that the article is for the Companions of the series, not a list of characters and when they first appeared. Specials are also not a part of any series/season (note, it's Series 9 and 10, not Season 9 and 10); we just list them as such for convenience. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information -Pants dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantsdogreturns (talk • contribs) 08:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A Message about differing fictional universes

I'm concerned about your reversal of the edits I made at Legion (TV series). There is no evidence in the television show that the character David Haller is the son of Charles Xavier. This conflates the comic books with the television show. You have reversed every edit I have attempted to make that would clarify this point. Even if it is revealed that Xavier is Haller's father, it has not been revealed in the television show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnesotasteve (talk • contribs)

@Minnesotasteve: When posting on my talk page, please sign your posts with ~~~~. This should have been taken to the article's talk page, but please review the sources used in the article, and you'll find the information you are looking for. Alex|The|Whovian^? 18:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Horseman/Horsemen

I'm not sure I understand this edit summary. The press release at the Futon Critic mentions the episode title twice, firstly in the press release title, and then in the press release itself:[1]

• Episode Title: (#403) "The Four Horseman"
• "The Four Horseman" - (9:00-10:00 p.m. ET) (TV-14, V) (HDTV)

In both instances it's "Horseman", not "Horsemen". --AussieLegend (✉) 19:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

And they they added a revised listing: "The Four Horsemen" - (9:00-10:00 p.m. ET) (TV-14, V) (HDTV). Alex|The|Whovian^? 19:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't see that. I just looked at what was used as a reference in the article. The CW mobile website uses "Horsemen", so it shouldn't be an issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the title and reference probably should have been updated when the revised press released came out. Only noticed when I thought that "The Four Horseman" might have been a typo; "The Four Horsemen" makes more sense. Alex|The|Whovian^? 19:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time

Hi, for a citation, is the link to the existing article on Fables not enough? Thanks.

No. It needs an actual source, that states why the relationship between the two is notable. So, it's similar to something else. And? There's nothing else to add to this. No notability. And how is it criticism (per the label you put it under)? Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop your Speedy deletion CSDs of actor redirects if the target article mention them

Many editors redirect the actor/actress/director title to the movie/TV series.

Just check the redirects one of the best film editor in Wikipedia, Captain Assassin!:

Tremaine Brown Jr.

Deric McCabe

Brian Marc

Tom_Bateman_(actor)

Michael Gracey

Jorge_Lendeborg_Jr.

Billy_Howle Marvellous Spider-Man 18:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: RfD'ed it. Will probably do the same for the ones you linked, thanks for that. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I checked only his recent contribution. These are just a few, there are many such redirects. These redirects are created when there is a chance that the redirect can become article in future. Captain Assassin probably has hundreds of such redirects. I see that people nominate his movie title redirect for nomination, but his actor name redirects are never nominated for deletion. If the actor has been mentioned in third party independent sources and the target article has mention of the actor, then I suggest you shouldn't nominate these redirects. Marvellous Spider-Man 02:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

They are misleading, given that an actor/actress typically has starred in multiple works of media, and redirecting them to a specific one is misleading and gives undue weight to that particular work. This is why I request deletions for them. If it's going o be made into an article, then do just that. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The Crown

Thanks for reverting back. But I feel Softlavender doesn't fully grasp why it's being discussed, and Drmargi will likely reinstate it at some point tomorrow as they feel the matter is settled. Rusted AutoParts 07:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No problems. I respect Drmargi, having worked with her before; what I don't respect is the edit-warring away from the version of consensus while a discussion is in place. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems it just doesn't matter to them. How many times has the edit been undone in the past ten minutes? Rusted AutoParts 07:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And how many times has Softlavender repeated herself? I've requested the page to be protected from all editors until a consensus is reached. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmargi registers revert #lost count. Seems she doesn't have the same respect for you that you have for her. Rusted AutoParts 07:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The edit war discussion and her talk page seems to have deteriorated into nothing but ignoring her behaviour. Seeing that the blocker is willing to let her off the hook. I hate this site sometimes. Rusted AutoParts 18:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

X-Men (film series)

Hey there. Noticed your ideas on the X-Men (film series) talk page. I back your argument that the individual films should be listed with headings. Given the other examples, I think that the consensus should be to change the page. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to hear your opinion on the topic I listed on the talk page TV series are not Tie-in material. Thanks!

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race (season 1)

Hey there, thought I'd message you ask how the red color on RuPaul's Drag Race season 1 page (for the episodes), how is that a non-compliant colors? I'm just curious, and don't want to start an edit war. Thanks! MSMRHurricane (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@MSMRHurricane: No problems, thanks for the question; white on red and black on red both fail the WCAG 2 AAA Compliant check. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for the reply and informing me of this rule. I had no idea, haha. MSMRHurricane (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@MSMRHurricane: No problems! There's more information at WP:COLOR; while AA compliance (contrast ratio of 4) is required at a minimum, articles are placed in Category:Episode lists with non-compliant line colors if they are not AAA compliant (contrast ratio of 7), so it's best to stick to the best version of the guideline. The discussion on conformity in television articles can be found at Template talk:Infobox television season/Archive 3. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Minor Barnstar is awarded for making minor edits of the utmost quality. Minor edits are often overlooked, but are essential contributions to Wikipedia.

	The Minor barnstar
	I do hope we can put recent events behind us. Looking forward to our working together again. Cheers! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  11:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

People Just Do Nothing

Hi User:AlexTheWhovian, just wondered if the new PJDN Comic Relief episode counts as an episode. It is here [2] and here [3], thanks.

Also: is PJDN series 2 colour compliant or has that finished?--Theo Mandela (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: I've adjusted the colours. I'm not sure about the CR episode, as I'm not familiar with the series. -- Alex^TW 09:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

About the episode table template

Hello, Alex. I hope I am not disturbing. I was wondering, how did the last edit/revision, which was done on 14 July 2016, actually improve the template itself? I am just curious, also, I am trying to bring it to the Romanian Wikipedia, so, I need to pretty much understand all the lines in the code. Also, could you explain what is the difference between the "release date" of an episode and the "original air date"? (so that I would know what would be the best translation to Romanian). Oh, and by the way, it seems that the contrast "If" clause doesn't work on the Romanian Wikipedia for some reason (check this article on the English and Romanian version) - Victor P. (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can't speak much to the coding, but I can answer the "release date" versus "original air date" question. "Release date" is used for a series in which all episodes are released at one point. (So think all Netflix series, such as House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, etc.) "Original air date" is when each episode releases individually (ie your "standard" TV series like your examples above, Samurai Jack). Hope that helps you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Victor P.: Never a bother to help out. You are talking about this edit? It didn't exactly improve upon the template itself, it just made the back-end coding and implementation of it a lot easier to handle and deal with. View the edit page linked. Note on the left, how the original version of the template was implemented in Wikicode; see the number of nested brackets used, and how complicated it appears. The edit on the right implemented the Lua code now stored at Module:Episode table - see how simpler that looks, and how much more advanced coding we can add into it (see the edit history of the module for some further details of features that have been added).

Concerning the differences, I point to what Favre1fan93 has said, with one small modification: "release date" is for web series that have had their episodes released online rather than being broadcast (whether it's all at the same time like Luke Cage, or weekly like 11.22.63), and "air date" is for the cases left over, where the episodes have been initially broadcast on television. Hope that helps! -- Alex^TW 21:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, both answers have helped a lot. Thank you for letting me know that coding can actually go further in the module, I will actually check it out to see how I can manage to translate and adapt it to the needs of local Wikis (at least one). - Victor P. (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Victor P.: Glad to help, of course! I would recommend reading up on Lua and modules; Wikicode-d templates are sufficient enough for a basic need, but once the template needs to become more dynamic advanced, Lua's the way to go. Good luck with the translation and adaptation of the template and module. Always glad to see the work spread to where it's needed. -- Alex^TW 12:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there actually a difference between "No. overall" and "No. in series"? I mean, I've seen "No. overall" used in TV series. But, is "No. in series" used for shorter series, that had around 10 episodes in total or less (miniseries)? - Victor P. (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference, as it's not "No. overall" and "No. in series" that are interchangeable, but rather "No. in season" and "No. in series". This is due to British English, where they call the show overall a "programme" and the subsections of the show's episodes "series", where American English uses "series" for the whole show and "season" for the grouping of episodes. The "series" and "season" cells also cannot be included in the same table (that is, it's either one or the other, not both), and "overall" applies regardless of the show's origin country. -- Alex^TW 10:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on Legion

How on earth is there consensus? Precisely three people (not including you, who, so far as I can tell, have not actually expressed your own personal opinion on this) have discussed the issue. Two of us have questioned the inclusion of that information, and one has supported it. You are not even discussing the issue on the merits, so I don't see why you're reverting. If adamstom97 were reverting me, that would be one thing, but "wait for the discussion to conclude" just means nothing ever gets changed, given the speed of discussions on Wikipedia over the last five years. If you care about this, make an argument for why we should include this. Don't give me a bunch of procedural BS based on nothing. john k (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

white text on dark backgrounds has readability issue

Articles are violating MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR and basic fontography rules for legible paged text. 119.224.86.132 (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You have had this discussion before, and there was no consensus for any changes. Respect that. -- Alex^TW 05:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't respect MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR. 119.224.86.132 (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That is a guideline, not a policy; the colours currently used respect both MOS:TV and WP:COLOR. Again: there have been multiple discussions on this, and the consensus is to continue per the current usage. Continuing to force your edits will result in a prompt report against for you mass edit-warring. -- Alex^TW 05:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR is there to ensure paged text is legible for all readers. You are violating that and will be reported. 119.224.86.132 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

All of your edits are not in violation of the guideline MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR. As Alex has stated, respect consensus or you are going to be blocked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

To further breakdown each point of NAVBOXCOLOR:

1. Colors used on TV articles that use {{Episode table}} or the TV infoboxes do not make it difficult for readers to read per the WP:ACCESS code implementations.
2. Colors used are based on marketing material which can be used to identify a particular season of a TV series. Again, these comply with ACCESS if using the correct templates, and the text is only ever black or white, beyond hyperlinks, and those are helped with readability by adding a white background behind it if the hyperlink color on top of the table color will produce ACCESS issues.
3. Same as number 2. Color picked based on marketing and adjusted to comply with ACCESS
4. Non-applicable.

So please tell me how any of what you have issue with is in violation of the guideline NAVBOXCOLOR, because it isn't there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Since vs. Because

"Since" is okay but more often refers to passage of time. So "because" is preferred when the word needs to refer to causation because "because" only means "because." When "Since" means "because" at the start of a sentence, readers must then read several words before they know which is meant. In some cases, it is quickly obvious, but in other cases, it is not clear for a bit if ever. Either way, "because" is clear from the word "because" immediately with no mental backtracking.

http://www.prnewswire.com/blog/grammar-hammer-since-vs-because-4490.html

http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/since-vs-because

http://grammarist.com/grammar/since-vs-because/

http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2011/05/since-versus-because.html

Continuum

Hello Sire, okay, I do get your point after reading Wikipedia's guidelines. My apologies for not understanding that earlier. But rather conveniently reverting the whole edit [I spent about an hour for making relevant] through an automated-tool, at least you should keep the Netflix availability addition. And may I ask what did you meant by "primary language", as in what's the context? Because I found nothing on Wikipedia defining a thing as "primary language". Also, not to make an emotional-appeal but to reason that I occasionally do make changes on Wikipedia but completely reverting edits of someone, even if it's properly referenced will most likely dissuade editors from Wikipedia who contribute to the subjects of their interests but are still not "pro" at making edits. Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mohd.maaz864: Primary language means the first official language of the country. Additions for Indian broadcasts have been reverted across the Television WikiProject, per WP:TVINTL; if you are interested in past discussions, search the archives at WT:TV and WT:MOSTV. And your addition of the word "interestingly" into the prose of the article does not satisfy WP:NEUTRAL. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 23:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Episode templates

Hi User:AlexTheWhovian, would you say the episode templates on Planet Dinosaur and Walking with Dinosaurs pages are acceptable with the yellow sublines?--Theo Mandela (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: I would say that they are unnecessary, so I've removed them. Per Template:Episode list and the TopColor parameter, "the excessive use of the parameter is discouraged by Wikipedia's guideline on styles and markup options". -- Alex^TW 23:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice, but unfortunately almost all dinosaur TV show articles on Wikipedia adopted this episode list, so these articles, Dinosaur Britain, Lost Worlds, Vanished Lives, to name a few still use them.--Theo Mandela (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela:  Done -- Alex^TW 23:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Good job, but I should say you'd have to look at all dinosaur/prehistoric life TV articles to catch them all, think it started with Paleoworld, then spread to Chased by Dinosaurs, Walking with Beasts, Walking with Monsters, Sea Monsters (TV series), Dinosaur Revolution, Dinosaur Planet (TV series).👍--Theo Mandela (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 10)

Well, isn't the written message above the episode table satisfactory saying which episodes are part of the three parter good enough, until its confirmed what episode number the three part episodes will be. TedEdwards (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Yes, but how would the information then be displayed in the table's transclusion to List of Doctor Who serials? We know it's a three parter now; there's no guidelines or policies stating that we cannot implement this if we don't know the story numbers. (Honestly, it'd be so much easier though if we used overall episode numbers, like every other television article...) -- Alex^TW 23:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You could move the <onlyinclude> above the text saying its a three parter, so it's included on List of Doctor Who serials. TedEdwards (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No other season or series has such information relating to episodes on the serials page; that is just complicating matters more than it needs to be. Why do we need to wait for the story numbers for the table but not the prose? -- Alex^TW 13:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Have it your way, or change the story number to the episode number in the episode tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedEdwards (talk • contribs)

I want to, but there was a (vague) discussion on it and most seemed to disagree with it. Such is life. -- Alex^TW 13:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

When and where was this discussion held? TedEdwards (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of Doctor Who serials/Archive 14 § Story Number / Total Episode Number; about 14 months ago. -- Alex^TW 13:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You could always give it another go, since it was over a year ago so vies on the matter may have changed. TedEdwards (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

DW series 1&2 colours

Hi User:AlexTheWhovian, every Doctor Who season and series other than series 1 (2005) and series 2 (2006) use the primary colour on the cover image as it's colour, just wondered why they need to use background colours.--Theo Mandela (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Really? The colour used in the infobox and episode table for both articles appear to be the primary colours of the cover arts to me. As for the used of background colours, per MOS:TV#Formatting: Colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD artwork, or for other reasons. -- Alex^TW 16:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, no problem.--Theo Mandela (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Italic titles on "List of <<Italic TV Show>> episodes"

Hi, @AlexTheWhovian:, I was wondering if you could tell me how or why are TV shows made italic on the Wikimedia list articles called "List of ... episodes" (example:List of Futurama episodes. Probably I would add it to the Romanian Wikipedia, as well, even though it is just an insignificant and unimportant thing to have, but it is pretty nice. - Victor P. (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Television show titles are made italic per MOS:MAJORWORK. All sister articles related to any television show that uses its name in the article title should be in italics. On "List of" articles, where the show title is in between non-italicized words, you can achieve italics with either {{italic title}} or {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Victor P.: Exactly as Favre1fan93 said, couldn't have put it better myself. -- Alex^TW 08:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

"Not typically required"

This is not mentioned any-damn-where at {{Episode table}}. — Wyliepedia 08:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Over my almost-three years of editing here, the consensus I have found is that we include the two columns of of episode numbers once there's more than one episode table to disambiguate between, just like how we include the "Season X (YEAR)" headers only once there's more than one table. By all means, I wouldn't oppose you re-implementing it or taking the discussion further, I'm just doing what I myself have done and seen for so long. The template's documentation is simply how to use it, and doesn't like guidelines on it. Perhaps a discussion on this should happen in the near future? Cheers. -- Alex^TW 08:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)