User talk:Xeworlebi/Archive 1

Flags in television boxes

Per comments in House (TV series)... While I have no opposition to having the flags in TV infoboxes, I must point out that MOS:FLAG frowns on their use (though does not prohibit them), and that the discussion you pointed out is clearly archived as having reached no consensus. BAPACop (converse) 22:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that no consensus was reached, the discussion ended in an annoying situation where both are allowed, ending in a article per article discussion. I like them because they give a faster indication of the origin of the series. As for the MOS:FLAG I can't really see where it frowns upon the use, I might be reading over it as I just looked over the page. The main problem (to me at least) with the whole WP:MOS is that a lot of it is open to personal view. Ex.: Is it cluttered, relevant or necessary, etc. I have already contacted Islander (he was on the frontline of the flag discussion of 2008) to ask what the outcome of that discussion was, since it seemed to have continued on the admins discussion page. Current situation: A new discussion should be started and a consensus must be reached. I'll probably start one within the next week on the Television Infobox Template page, (really busy over here) if you don't mind you can always start one. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to frown on using the flag where it is unnecessary. My interpretation of that is any situation where you're not trying to point out what the flag of a country looks like. Again, though, it's subject to interpretation by individual users and it's never actually that specific. I read it as "frowns upon" because it seems to be the general tone... But I have no problem with it being in the infobox. Unfortunately, I'm still relatively inexperienced with the starting of the processes and would prefer to have someone more experienced start the process. I'm not lazy or anything, and I understand you're busy, it's just I don't want to start something like this, especially something that will be wide-ranging, and take the chance of doing it wrong because I don't know what I'm doing. BAPACop (converse) 23:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name of a country is much more recognizable than the flag of a country. I don't think anyone would know what a country's flag looks like and not know the name of country also. Therefore flag icons are useless graphics. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you underestimate people, a flag is one of a country's most recognizable items. Most shows are from either the United States, United Kingdom or Canada (or some mix of them). Three flags that are quite distinguishable, I would say most people recognize the flags of these three countries. Adding the flag next to the name offers the same information but only quicker. The flags in the infobox was never about only the flags, always the flag and the name of the country, ex. {{USA}} which would result in

United States not just {{flagicon|USA}} which would result in only the flag;

. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might convey the information perhaps one second at the most quicker, but if someone is looking at the flag they can see the name of the country at the same time, therefore making the flag just a graphic that doesn't convey any extra pertinent information. I think flag icons in lists can be useful, because it's easier to identify each country faster in the list, which is the point you are making, but in an infobox with only one country listed it doesn't seem necessary to me. And for TV infoboxes for example, it puts undue emphasis on the country of origin since it's the only parameter usually with a graphic, and I don't think that subtle undue weight is needed. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your view, especially on the emphasis on the country. But for me a flag results in a much easier and quicker recognition than reading the name. Especially when your sight is not that good a flag (USA & UK) gives a much easier to see difference between the countries (United States & United Kingdom). I guess this discussion will keep going even if a consensus would reached, but at least it would be clear then. This discussion should be started on the discussion page of the infobox template, but for now I'm way to busy with school. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was already done at length and in detail, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) and its predecessor. Unproven sub-second improvement in the recognition time of minor factoids does not outweigh the misleading and shallow effects of these uses of images. —Centrx→talk • 07:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion that reached consensus so leave as is until there is. "There basically is no ruling - including flags is fine, and included flags should not be removed. Equally infoboxes without flags need not have them added. It's an issue that should really be discussed again, and consensus obtained." as stated by admin. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* That directly contradicts the Manual of Style.

* There are no "rulings" on these matters on Wikipedia. If there were such a system, I would outrank User:Islander many different ways. You need to explain why these flags should be used, contrary to to the reasons previously discussed, not make bogus appeals to minor authorities in patent misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. —Centrx→talk • 22:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no contradiction to icon use in infoboxes, I also do not see any ruling on it in MOS:ICON or WP:IBX. The last discussion ended without a consensus, meaning that there is no ruling on the matter and should be left as it is or until an article based consensus is reached, changed. Also, Stargate SG-1 has had them for some time and Stargate Atlantis since late 2006, which would indicate, since it's all Stargate, consensus as a result of the editing process. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A distinct subset of users massively adding flags does not constitute editing consensus. I can use a bot to remove all the flags, just as others have in the past to add them. MOS:ICON specifically says "Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration." The latest parochial discussion does not change that. For every article with a flag, it is easy to find dozens with locations without flags. You need to explain why the flag belongs, with reasons, not selectively cite occasions that support you. —Centrx→talk • 19:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but an article that has had a flag for nearly three years does, a bot can't go back in time. You can read my disagreement with flags being decorative above you and you can read all other peoples reasons in the actual discussion that was done. The reason why there even was a discussion is because people don't see them as decorative. The only reason I have heard to date against flags all boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

All I did was keep the article as it has been for nearly a year (since the US was added as a country of origin), which would also here indicate consensus as a result of the editing process. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to summarize your particular reasons, rather than asking me to respond to sundry reasons you may not agree with. —Centrx→talk • 22:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you want to have a discussion and reach a consensus please start one at the infobox television talk page, like they once tried. As for Stargate Universe what my preference is actually doesn't matter, as consensus as a result of the editing process is in effect. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your objection to removing the flags? —Centrx→talk • 05:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't add flags merely for decoration nor do we use them to emphasize nationalism with no good reason. Writing the name of said country is sufficient enought for identification.

Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's troubling that you'll apply certain aspects of WP:MOS in your edits (with regards to capitalization, external links, etc.), yet condone a misapplication of another i.e., WP:MOSFLAG. WP:MOSFLAG explcitly states that we can only apply flag icons in some circumstances. Applying to them every and all TV infoboxes, with no due reason isn't really appropriate.
Also stating no global consensus or ruling available is a tad misleading - said consensus was already reached at WP:MOSFLAG over many, many months (if not years) of discussion. By your logic, editors shouldn't have to follow WP:SPOILER as it's only a guideline - yet your edits indicate that you have no problems following it to a tee --Madchester (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:MOSFLAG is unclear about this, what you call decorative is not to others. This discussion was held before but was unable to reach a concensus. Do not change this before there is a new discussion and a consensus is reached. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 06:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While each WikiProject has their own set of rules and guidelines, they are ultimately held accountable by a higher set of rules, namely Wiki's general policies and guidelines, with WP:MOS being the primary example of the latter. WP:FILM has followed WP:MOSFLAG for some time. Even WP:HOCKEY which for many years condoned editors slapping a flag icon to every player article finally adopted WP:MOSFLAG by limiting said icons to players who have represented their country at an international tournament.

WP:MOS works as one cohesive policy with many working parts. Again, it's disigenuous to be following the parts of MOS you agree with, while ignoring those you don't.

If you want to argue along the lines that "there is no current consensus" - then you don't really have an argument to revert. "No consensus" implies that articles with and without flag icons are both permissible. Note I haven't reverted any of your reverts...as WP:MOS states that editors shouldn't engage in revert/edit wars over stylistic differences.... --Madchester (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings table on Castle

Rosie has made a first attempt at discussing the ratings table on the Castle article, should you want to weigh in. But gently, gently - we want her to keep doing this, not edit warring!! Drmargi (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Padding in tables

I'm trying to learn to do the padding on tables that you do, so a few more tables can be tidied and made easier to read. How do you determine the number of pixels worth of padding? Or is it just trial-and-error? Thanks! Drmargi (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally it's 8 px on either side, but when the content of the cell is wider then the header more are needed, then it's trial-and-error. It might be even more appropriate to use a fixed width for those columns that use wider content, like dates, as "May 8, 2009" is not as wide as "November 26, 2009" and when a new row is created with a wider content the padding needs to be adjusted and that can be a cumbersome job. Additionally when someone would change the header to a lengthier (say better) header it can become way to wide. Technically, style="padding: 0px 8px" could be added at the widest cell, or every cell, which would automate it. But I tend to find that this creates a lot of additional markup info that can make it harder to scan the table contents in editing view. I tried to add it to the main style (adding it to the first line; {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center") without succes, maybe I did it wrong. So, 8 px standard, for longer I try to get it around the same for the widest cell in that column. Hope this explains it a bit, I'm still looking for a one-line-for-the-entire-table like style="text-align:center" on the primary line achieves this for centering everything. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That explains it nicely. I'd come to the conclusion you either counted characters and converted that somehow or it was trial-and-error. I appreciate the help. Now to fix that darned FlashForward table. Drmargi (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Bay

Happy New Year! Take a peek at the edit history for Coral Bay, who just moved your TOC right and made another very familiar edit to Leverage episodes. Do we have our friend Rosie with a new user ID? Rosie went silent the day Coral Bay, who seems to be a fairly experienced editor for a newbie, appeared. I can see her using a new ID for the purposes of a second chance, and I'm really just curious what you think. Drmargi (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought, and still think, when Carol Bay first showed up. Same edit behavior, same articles, the use of German links (2 first edits), German account, poor English, etc. There is an overlap in December where both edited on the same days. Someone with the authority to see IP addresses might be able to verify if it's the same person. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit patterns caught my eye almost immediately, and the German links cinched it for me as well -- it's Rosie. I do see the overlap now; when I first sussed her, there wasn't much, if any. I seem to recall a policy that allows more than one account, and she's generally only using one now. But the potential for sockpuppetry is there, and knowing Rosie, a real possibility. I checked her talk page today, and noticed the old patterns are beginning to emerge, so no doubt she'll draw plenty of attention to herself in short order. All the same, I think it's useful we both keep an eye on her. Drmargi (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The TV Barnstar
		Nice work with the redesign and standardization of List of Las Vegas episodes. Thanks! travisl (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human Target

1st: MSN and TVGuide have reliable short summaries that are NOT copyright protected because, well, there short summaries. Do you have a Guideline link for this? 2nd: WP:RED states not to create a redlink in a Navboxes, or templates, so I will remove them in the info box, and keep them in the article.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16[reply]

Furthermore:

Linking to copyrighted works Shortcuts: WP:COPYLINK WP:COPYLINKS WP:LINKVIO Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC-BY-SA or open-source content.

However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site.

Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16[reply]

Both MSN and TVguide are websites that have their own copyright rules and regulations, just because they are summaries doesn't mean that they can't be copyrighted. Someone wrote them and someone owns them. You copied a nice piece out WP:COPY Unfortunately this is not about linking, it is about blatantly copy pasting the content of others. Saying what's in a movie is perfectly acceptable, just taking the movie out the store however is not. In other words "You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images." What you did was taking the content from another and then say, "hey, I got it from here". The point being there is a huge difference between linking and copying. Maybe WP:COPYEDIT might interest you.

WP:RED states that they are not included in See also and navigational boxes because the sole purpose of those is to link to other articles. the infobox on the other hand is a summarie-tool.

Also please let the other party actually have a chance to reply to you. "I disagree so I reverted it again" is not the the way wikipedia works. You already got banned for your disruptive editing and misinterpretations of the guidelines once.

As for the airdates in the episode list please see other shows that have had episodes air earlier in other countries like Stargate Atlantis, Sanctuary, Stargate SG-1, Defying Gravity, … _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human Target is syndicated in Canada, therefore, like 24, Smallville, FlashFoward, Lost, and many other notible TV series, does not list it's Canadian, UK, France, Mexican, or any other premiere first, whether it aired a week or twenty four hours before the USA premiere. The series premiere refers to the United States as it is a United Stated produced and broadcasted company. We can make a table stating International Distribution, with the Canadian premiere in the table, but that would be mor eappropriate when we see more countries' premiere dates. For right now, having a "Notes" section in the episode list would be approrpiate. The dates in the episode table will be American based, so there is no need to put a Canadian airdate there. We may have to put a note stating if the show is broadcast in Canada on Fridays, or something similar, but it is redundant to add information that we have in the lead of both pages in the article as it is not a Canadin television show.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16[reply]

That doesn't matter, if the show airs in China first that would be the original air date. Take a look at Sanctuary, a Canadian show. Though the episode list correctly displays the original air date. None of the episodes have had a Canadian premiere.

Human Target is made by Bonanza Productions Inc., Wonderland Sound and Vision, DC Comics, Warner Bros. Television. and then sold for broadcasting to both Fox and CTV. This is first run syndication for both parties.

And please learn to have some courtesy and let us actually have a discussion without the constant reverting of the page. What the page says now is correct but might give the wrong impression if the person would not read the references.

I have undone two of you latest edits, but those have nothing to do with this discussion but thefutoncritic being unreliable for air dates and episode count. I have left your removal of CTV and Fox behind the air dates. Please stop editing to the article in question until this discussion has come to an and. Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there somewhere where we could post to see which one should be on the page, rather than arguing about it?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16[reply]

When in disagreement one should discuss it with the other party until a resolution is made. I saw your post to Bignole, I really don't see how it is confusing to people. Nor why the rest of the episodes would need to be the canadian airdate either, when putting the channel it aired on after the date it's clear. See how Sanctuary, Stargate SG-1, Defying Gravity, Stargate Atlantis, Drive, … handle this. It is clear, gives the correct information and there is no need to stick to a single channel.

I'll copy this discussion from my talk page to the discussion page, so that other users might pitch in more easily. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

I was thinking, why do we even have the ratings for The Mentalist episodes? The viewers I can see, but what purpose does including the ratings have? As I've looked around, most high ranked season pages do not include ratings. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really know, I never got the 18–49 Rating/Share myself. Personally I find viewers and rank interesting, the rest; 18–49, Share, …; not that much. But people like them, they add them and I just help in completing and cleaning them up as they are there anyway. In the MOS it says that broadcast ratings should be included in the "Reception" section (maybe "Ratings" should be renamed "Reception" and more reviews and prose should be added). With season average on main article, episodic on season specific or episode articles themselves, but few shows have articles for each episode. As long as they are sourced properly I see no real problem with them. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am going to remove the ratings/share columns then. I agree that rank and viewers are the most important and interesting. But the fact that 5% of teens watched the show however is getting a little too specific, not to mention a pain to keep track of. A fellow tv editor told me that foreign ratings are usually never included, so it might me best to axe those too. A reception section where there is a summary of the ratings would be best. Like the show averaged 12 million viewers in France and was consistently the number one show. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really have a problem with that myself. You might want to; announce it before, explain why you did it on the main talk page; because more than likely someone is not going to like that. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 00:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

You are edit warring and it is not appropriate. Your bold changes have been reverted. Now discuss them or move on. Your whole scale changes to List of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes are not in line with MoS, not inline with featured episode list formatting, and do not improve the article. If you feel specific changes need to be made, talk it to the damn talk page like a proper editor instead of just continuing to wholescale restoring YOUR preferred version just because you somehow think you are the only one allowed a view and who can be write. The few appropriate changes you made were kept, the rest you should discuss instead of continuing to edit war and being disruptive. I have no problems DISCUSSING changes in a polite, adult fashion, rather than this stupid edit warring when you have already conceded that several of your edits were wrong. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forcing the table width is inappropriate, it scales to take the best size for all screen sizes. Not using 100% width is a waste of space and useless. Take a look at List of Heroes episodes, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of Numb3rs episodes, … The only edit I have removed was the addition of the production codes, so I have not conceded that "several" edits were wrong. I see nothing wrong with my edits, nor that they are not in line with MOS or FA lists. The addition of per season episode number, expansion of series overview, width and expansion of intro do improve the article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already put back the 100%, as well as the missing background color (which should be added). Pointing to other lists you yourself modified does not really argue your case well. List of Meerkat Manor episodes is also an FL episode list, and it has no such "season episode numbers" which can be seen as OR as they are not sourced nor sourcable. Again, if you had looked you'd see I MERGED both leads, and fixed it to remove the "list of" but per current guidelines. The series overview really isn't necessary for this short a series, however I am open to discussion its readdition, though I see no need to change the first season color to that dark maroon color. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited on those and those I knew out of my head, so I linked to them (As for SG-1, I haven't actually edited on). How are season episode numbers OR? If you split the show into seasons by definition you have season numbers, if you don't than you can't split them into seasons. The series overview is handy as it gives, just like an infobox, quick info about the seasons, how many episodes, when they started, ended etc. The color change was to more clearly have the lines between episodes visible, they are there for that and with the basic Wiki blue they are barely visible and loose their point of being there. Forcing 5% and 20% on columns has no added value, the table scales to the most appropriate size. As per MOS ndash should to be used for ranges. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THe table does not scale appropriately for some columns. It frequently makes the air date and episode columns too wide which does not look nice. It is fully appropriate, and extremely common to resize the ones that should be smaller. There is nothing wrong with it and there is no harm in the code, and users of widescreen monitors are not seeing laughably huge columns for small, measurably-sized fields. I guess the visibility of the blue depends on your monitor. I find it quite visible myself. Good point, on the season numbers not being OR. However, the season numbers do not add "value" either as anyone can just as easily count them or total up the numbers. The lines are not necessary nor is color coding (by your own argument, they have no "value" so they shouldn't be included either...just because it doesn't add content doesn't make it useful or good). The series overview has been disputed in value and purpose and has been removed from more recent lists up for FLC because of it. Can you point to a more recent discussion giving them the go ahead in a high quality list? What ranges are you claiming need ndashes? There are none in the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's either the air date column or the title that is oversized. Besides that, I was planning on adding writers and directors, which would basically eliminate that problem.

The season number adds value in the sense that most people refer to an episode by its name or its season and its episode number in that season. While one can perfectly count which episode is episode 28 of season 2, by adding it to the table one can instantly see it's "One Upsman-Chip". Why not just remove the episode number completely? You can just count them anyway… to pull your reasoning to the extreme.

The colored lines are not necessary when there is no summary, when there is one they are very helpful in separating the episodes from each-other, my argument was that they are there so you can better use them optimally. On my monitor they are visible but they fail there main goal: clear separation.

The section title for season 2 has a range in it: 1989–1990. On that note, why did you change it from "Season 1 (1989)" to "Season 1: 1989", to me the first one makes more sense. A colon is normally followed by either a summation or an explanation/specification. For example the second season of 24 is also called "Day 2", which would make "Season 2: Day 2" a valid title (I know it isn't what is used on the 24 article, it's just an example), but the year is not the name of the season. It just seems illogical to me. As wel as guidelines for born/start–death/end say that they should be between parentheses after the name.

I have not seen a discussion on the series overview notability, but I compare them to infoboxes, they give basic info that is also in the article as an quick overview, and such are handy for people to overview the series.

You named the number column Ep #, which only makes the column wider, "#" is the universal number sign and gives all the information needed, using abbreviation such as "Ep", "min.", "approx." are depreciated.

I did not know that "episode list" in the lead is against current guidelines, it is used in a lot of episode lists and still used in some of the FA-L's I have seen, besides that there is a guideline that says you shouldn't bold "episode list" in the lead, which would mean nothing if it shouldn't even be in there.

I strikes me as funny that you criticize me for linking to an article which I have edited, and in the next sentence, link to an article you created and basically wrote yourself. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of the Seeker. Nicci.

Well, how do I put sources on the page? Seekeroftruth469 (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of all citation templates, presumably your source is a website, in that case use {{Cite web}}. You put this template between <ref></ref> tags. Keep in mind that the sources need to be reliable, this means no fan-sites or other info that is of questionable origin. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caprica Spam

Thanks for fixing that; no idea how I managed to add it back in. I think he's confusing me because he's posting it bloody everywhere. I've given the IP who keeps posting it two warnings so far. If he posts it again I'll go ahead and report him. Millahnna (mouse)talk 20:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Episode list

One of the main objectives of {{Episode list}} was to add blank spaces even when data wasn't filled out, in order to convey that the list was incomplete and that something should eventually go in that table cell. I'm not sure who started this convention of removing the cells for future episodes, but as far as I know it is not the norm. I've been thinking about it, and I'm interested in hearing your thoughts (and possibly others) about the style issue. If it is something that is desired/has support behind it (removing the summary cell) then we can edit the template to prevent the gray shading form getting out of whack when it's hidden. -- Ned Scott 16:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that the blank lines were just there because |ShortSummary= was used. It seems weird to me to have them, it creates a lot of blank space and makes the episode list look less organized, like someone just removed half of it. From the first line on the template documentation: "For lists that include only titles, air dates, etc, with no summary, remove |ShortSummary=, which removes cell and line separator colouring.", which seems to encourage to have empty summaries not shown. Having |ShortSummary= hidden is just that bit more accessible than completely removing it from the page. It also seems to encourage people to put fillers in like "TBA" (which I'm really against, as it implies it was announced that it will be announced and should coincide with a source in that case), "Coming soon", "This episode has not yet aired.", etc. which provides no real information. Overall, I find that the episode list looks a lot cleaner when having empty summaries hidden, I always thought that it was a "side effect" of having the parameter already in place. For all the other parameters, the columns, it seems kind off impossible to have them not shown up if not used as it would create the table to get completely messed up if on row doesn't have the info, having it empty or a simple "N/A" in that case is much fine, me being against the fillers that you can't clearly differentiate by a quick glance from real info. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, Drmargi seems to have removed the Part 1/Part 2 from List of Castle episodes again. I thought your approach was a good compromise, additionally if you would extend it to other articles, like the Stargate Universe episode list would you move the Part 1/2/3 from "Air" outside quotes as well or only for those multi-parters that have a different title? Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my slow response, I saw your reply and totally forgot to respond and got caught up in a bunch of other stuff. I can see your point that it does look cleaner rather than having "TBA" and all that. The idea of having it unfilled wasn't really made with in-progress lists in mind. Personally I have no real preference either way, so maybe we should throw this up on the template's talk page or a wikiproject page for input? Whatever's cool with me. -- Ned Scott 10:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That sounds good to me. Also, would you mind responding to this? As usual with Drmargi the discussion is going nowhere. Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]