Template talk:Episode list

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Episode list is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating.
WikiProject Lists This page is part of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Archive
Archives
  1. May 06 - early August 06
  2. August 06 - early December 07

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television and Template talk:Japanese episode list.

Contents


[edit] The title= field

{{editprotected}} Can the title= field be made optional?

When trying to add references the titles of some episodes the <ref></ref> tag is rendered inside the double-quoted around the episode title. I found one way around it, by placing the title in the Aux1= field and manually bolding and double-quoting, but becuase the title field is required, the list has an empty box. Thankyou -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 00:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The actual solution to this problem is to remove the automatic quotes and bolding from titles. Jay32183 (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really. Every single episode title on every single episode list would have to be manually changed. It's much simpler to do it the way I suggested, especially given the yet-to-be-created episode lists that wouldn't include a title under the "title=" field. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 07:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was already planned to remove the automatic quotes, but "subst" them via a bot. We could still make the title field optional, and there even are some rare cases where that could be desired (lists when there are no title, but where dates are used instead). -- Ned Scott 08:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm for both making it optional, and removing the quotes and bold.
Until that time, is there a way around it? For right now I'm referring to Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1), I'd like to remove the Aux1 field (titular reference), and actually cite the title. The one thing I can think of iis just a straight forward, plain wikitable. But to change everything now, then change it back if my suggestion is applied would be a real ball-ache. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 08:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You can use {{Episode list/Degrassi}} as a temp fix. Also, since you're using season pages and an episode page, we can make this sub-template work like {{Episode list/Lost}} later on, and allow for season page transclusion like on List of Lost episodes, if it is desired. -- Ned Scott 08:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
How does that work, are the fields rendered in the same order as the main episode list template? Will I have to bold and double quote the title now? Would it be possible for you to put an example on the page, like there is at Lost's? Thanks -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Everything works exactly the same except that title no longer quotes automatically. In the next few days, we'll apply the change to the greater template (with bot assistance so that there will still be manual quotes.) Unsure on if bolding should still be automatic or not, but at least the quotes is an easy one. In any case, the temporary template will soon be in-sync with the main template, and we can either delete the temp-template or explore a new method found on List of Lost episodes (which I'll explain in a bit). In either case, this will allow you to make minimal changes, since the only thing that will need to be changed is the title of the template, which can easily be done via hide/replace in an editing program. -- Ned Scott 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I think I get a little of it now! With the changes to the original template, if an editor leaves off the quotes, a bot will put them in, unless they're put in manually? So, for example if I type «Title» it will put them in, if I type «"Title"» it won't, but if I do «"Title"[1]» is that how it's rendered, or will the bot put extra ones in, like «""Title"[1]"»?
As for exploring a new method, you'll definitely have to explain, sorry.
I'm actually undecided what to do with List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes after I fix up each season page. Either turn it into a list like List of The Simpsons episodes or like List of Lost episodes, all three being Featured status right now. A consensus discussion on the list's talk page wouldn't do too much - there's not enough editors! -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 03:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The bot will only make the first edit, so that when we change the template we don't suddenly lose the appearance of the quotes. After that, editors will have to include quotes manually. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
A-ha! I get it :) -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 03:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've usually just dealt with the problem by putting the reference on the column header, since usually one reference is used for all the titles :P I can see the desire to change, it though it will increase the work load in using it. One reason I like this one now is it does take care of that auto formatting. Don't suppose there is anyway to put in some kind of flag for "auto format" yes or no? Collectonian (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


The other thing I mentioned, the season page transclusion from List of Lost episodes is pretty easy. Basically, each season page becomes a template (but only the episode table shows up) and is included on the list of episodes page. That way editors only have to update one episode box, and the changes are seen on both season and list page. For longer shows there's also the option of hiding the summary on the List of episodes page, but changes to title, air date, and other fields are still updated. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so that's what is happening at the List of Lost eps, but how do they do it at The Simpsons ep list? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 04:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The Simpsons page does it manually right now. The trick we used for the Lost list was a somewhat recent idea, and is currently only being used on two shows (the other being List of The Wire episodes). I'm also trying to figure out a way to preserve the alternate coloring of the rows. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hate to be a bug, but can you un-bold the title at {{Episode list/Degrassi}}? (Probably not best to do it to the parent template, though.) Thanks -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 05:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure whether this relates to the current discussion: I don't think the quotation marks should be bolded for the same reason they aren't bolded in article leads. –Pomte 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My original thinking behind bolding the title was just to make it stand out more, so that people's eyes are drawn to it first, so what is done in article leads really isn't related. I don't feel strongly about this, though, but I thought I would point out why it was bolded in the first place. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've been away a while, so sorry for the lateness of this reply. The only reason I wanted the title un-bolded in the {{Episode list/Degrassi}} template is so that the [ref] tag wouldn't be bolded. It can be done manually now. Anyway, all my issues have now been resolved, so thanks for your help and fixing the Degrassi template. Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 05:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support for "LineColour"

{{editprotected}} I've noticed that a significant number of people type this template out manually, and those to whom "colour" is the native spelling often use that instead of "color", which causes the wrong colour to be displayed. So, an easy fix:

Change:
{{#if:{{{LineColor|}}}|{{{LineColor}}}|CCCCFF}}
to
{{#if:{{{LineColor|}}}{{{LineColour|}}}|{{{LineColor|}}}{{{LineColour|}}}|CCCCFF}}

-- Huntster T • @ • C 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not done. Increasing the size of this template may break articles due to template limits. Educating users to use this correctly is probably a much better solution. --- RockMFR 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
We saved a lot of space back when we took the image option out. It's been a while since I've tested the limits of the template, so I'm not sure how much of a concern this still is. Although, given how minor it is, it would likely just be easier to tell other users how to fix the problem. We could even have a bot occasionally check and make corrections, if it really is a big problem. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, though I'm not certain how much value would be in "educating users" when native tongues have a habit of unconsciously overriding such considerations. Was just a thought; however, on List of Charmed episodes, where this template is fully utilized across eight seasons, it appears to have very little impact:
<!-- 
Pre-expand include size: 319342/2048000 bytes
Post-expand include size: 175402/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 165370/2048000 bytes
#ifexist count: 0/500
-->
This is a very nicely designed template...always a pleasure to see one such as this. I have to admit, though, I'm confused as to exactly what these "ʁ" symbols are...I've never encountered them before. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It's part of a trick to keep a table cell open if a field is listed, but not filled out. We needed a value that could be used as a trigger, but would not be a likely use of any of the fields. So unless someone names an episode ʁ, we should be ok :) -- Ned Scott 05:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TopColor

{{Editprotected}} Please edit the very first line of the template and replace it with:

<tr style="text-align: center; {{#if:{{{TopColor|}}}|background:#{{{TopColor}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{ShortSummary|ʁ}}}|ʁ| |background:#F2F2F2}} }}">{{

This brings back TopColor, which was originally removed to make the template smaller and because no one used it. Since then we've removed the code for images and other tricks, there is more "room", and there are a few new situations where TopColor can now be used. Basically, it will be used to add alternating coloring for lists such as List of Lost episodes, and used to highlight special episodes within the list. I've tested this in my sandbox before hand (at User:Ned Scott/sandbox5 and User:Ned Scott/sandbox8. (userfied template at User:Ned Scott/sandbox4) This will have no effect on any list unless someone defines TopColor= for an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ned Scott (talk • contribs) 08:15, 12 January 2008

Done. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revamp

[edit] updates to the template itself

Here's what I'd like to do:

Add two new parameters/fields: "Director" and "Writer" (maybe "Ratings", but definitely director and writer)

They're used a lot, and probably more than things like AltTitle or AltAirDate. This would not replace any of the Aux fields (though guidelines suggesting that people shouldn't use a ton of fields would be good), but make a named field an option. The logic behind this is similar to the template's core goal, to make common fields easy to label, and to encourage their addition. Though, in lists where director(s) or writer(s) don't change often or at all, guidelines might suggest not needing them. People would have to start adopting this manually for it to catch on, but the find/replace functions of most text editors makes this an easy task.

and

One of the following: Remove automatic quotes or make another field for refs.

The logic behind this is that the template ideally is just like a database entry, and everything in "Title" should just be the title. Even if the formatting was changed so that ref links looked better, having the ref link in there could theoretically confuse things in the future. However, I might be thinking too much about it. KISS?

If the automatic quotes are removed, a bot will need to go through all the templates and add them in "manually", since most lists call for them.

Since the bot will basically be touching every single template, it would be the ideal time to do any other adjustments, such as naming of parameters. This is really a minor concern, but if anyone felt strongly about it, we could place underscores in the parameters. Basically "OriginalAirDate" vs "Original_air_date". Another minor thing, might not be worth worrying about, but I thought I would throw it out there.

And of course, making sure that the new size of the episode template doesn't break on large lists. Although, it might just be easier to make a second "light" version for those very large uses, since they are in the minority.

Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree on Director/Writer as it is often called for and it would free up the Alt slots for other uses. For the quotes, make a field for refs. Without auto quotes, I suspect we'd have a lot of new lists without them because editors wouldn't remember to put them in (I honestly know I wouldn't :P). Episode titles don't usually need referencing anyway, so I'd rather have a field to deal with the unique situations than mess up the majority. I don't think there is any need to mess with the parameter names by adding underscores or the like. Of possible, it would be nice if the bot could check date formats. I've seen a few lists with improperly formatted dates, or dates that are not properly wikified. Would the bot be able to look for existing Director/Writer Aux fields and automatically replace with these new fields?Collectonian (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Depends on how consistent Aux1=Director, Aux2=Writer, etc would be. It might be possible to evaluate this from the table header, but for that we'd need someone who's pretty good with scripts/bots. We could also easily group up ones we know for sure are consistent and do those in batches, with could get a lot of the work done. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Additional, would oppose a named ratings field. A few lists may have them, but for the vast majority, such information is unnecessary and unavailable. It would just clutter, especially if this transcends down to the Japanese episode list. Collectonian (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
An existing field doesn't have to be in wide use to be useful. AltTitle, AltDate and ProdCode are rarely to never used in non-anime shows, and are still included in the template. Just as a side note. – sgeureka t•c 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like HTML anchors. That way when people redirect the episodes to the lists, they can still go directly to information about a particular episode. (→Zachary) 07:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There already are anchors; the anchor name is "ep" followed by EpisodeNumber. ProdCode, when defined, also produces an anchor ("pc").
On that note: how about a non-printing parameter to disambiguate multiple lists on the same page where the episode count resets? I've done such a thing at List of Sayonara Zetsubō Sensei episodes (transcluding a customized version of {{Japanese episode list}}). —TangentCube, Dialogues 07:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the anchors would be more useful without the prefixes, per below. Superm401 - Talk 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Definite support for writer and director. Since the episode lists I edit (will) also list the ratings, I am also in favor of a ratings column (for which I previously misused ProdC because Aux1-3 were already in use). – sgeureka t•c 09:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Added: IMO, get rid of the quotes. Whenever there are TV movies for a series, you have the choice to misapply MOS:T, or mimick {{Episode list}} with hard code (see List_of_Stargate_SG-1_episodes#Movies). Also, at least in the case of Stargate, the producers reveal episode titles months before the official channels make note of them, putting the references within the quotes (see List_of_Stargate_Atlantis_episodes#Season_5), which is ugly. – sgeureka t•c 11:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the quotes should be left in. If we're using a template, we should make it do as much of the formatting as possible. —TangentCube, Dialogues 10:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep the quotes, but allow a "title_ref" field (so it would look like "{{{title}}}"{{{title_ref}}} and allow people to change the quotes to italics if they need to, e.g. List of The Sarah Jane Adventures stories (so it would be: {{#ifeq:{{{italics}}}|yes|''{{{title}}}''|"{{{title}}}"}}. Also support the use of writer and director fields. Will (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Support the writer/director fields since I tend to use those. I don't mind the quotes, but I would also like the option to use Italics as per Will if it can be done without too much hassle. Hewinsj (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New system/method for season and LOE articles

See List of Lost episodes and Template:Episode list/Lost. Individual season LOEs are transcluded onto the main LOE. There's a few things this system does..

  • Some lists, such as List of The Simpsons episodes, are so long that they can't practically list the summaries with the episodes themselves. Instead, individual season pages are used, with the main list only having titles and basic data. This is basically what inspired this new system.
  • Even if both LOE and season pages retain their summaries, you have two identical versions to update for each episode entry. For LOEs without summaries, you still have much of the same top row data to maintain (title, air date, etc).
  • This is simple enough to work on more than one LOE, making it useful for groups of shows, like Stargate or Degrassi.

I really wanted to avoid using a separate template to make this work, but so far this seems to be the easiest and most practical way to make the trick work. The main reason for requiring the sub-tempalte is two things: one is that it needs to be defined what specific article will exclude either summaries and/or any other fields/paramaters, and two, actually configuring the displayed fields. All of these sub-templates are still using the main episode template, and any updates to the main template are carried over to them, decreasing maintenance. Making them a sub-page will make them easier to track. For many shows that's one template being used for five or even ten articles.

Another possible benefit is that people could define LineColor once, instead of for every entry. By default it would look the same for each season table, but there might be tricks to allow further customization (I have some stuff in mind, but haven't tried them out).

One cool thing feature of season/LOE trick is that it can make the every other line a varying color (like what's seen on List of The Simpsons episodes). This is done on the sub-tempalte level (as see on Template:Episode list/Lost) and works automatically based on odd and even numbers from EpisodeNumber. The two colors are definable, or that variation of two BG colors can be taken out completely.

A few other lists have tried this out as well, as seen on List of The Wire episodes and List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, so I thought it would be a good time to get some feedback on it, as well as any suggestions about this method. I'm not sure what strain this does on the servers, or if that even is a concern. If everything is okay, then we should be good with writing up some instructions and trying this on a larger scale. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...this might be good for some really big shows, but it also seems extremely cumbersome and overly complicated, particularly for editors who are not well versed in template code. I'm decent with templates and I couldn't quite figure it all out from looking at the code and I'm still kinda scratching me head over it. Collectonian (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
True, but basic entry would pretty much be the same. When you go to make an episode entry for Lost you use {{Episode list/Lost}} and all the same parameters. It does still make things more complicated, and I'd really like to simplify this even more, if possible. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My template editing/programming skills are still poor, so I can only use what others have already tried (like the Lost-specific ep template, which I used as the basis of the SG-1 ep template). My feedback: SG-1, as you already stated, is on the move to go with season articles with longer episode summaries (work in progress), and although I originally wanted the real LoE to not use any episode summaries, someone stated his concerns that the ep summaries are needed in the LoE. So I was thinking to add a second parameter, LongSummary, and transclude a one-line ShortSummary in the LoE, and a 4-to-6-line LongSummary in the season article. I haven't done any tests yet, but this should be possible even now ( |ShortSummary={{{ShortSummary}}} needs to be tweaked into |ShortSummary={{{LongSummary}}} in Template:Episode list/Stargate, I think). – sgeureka t•c 09:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking something similar, but thought it might be too messy, but the way you put it I think it could really work. I was originally thinking of taking the same "summary" but only transcluding part of it. Making two summary fields is a much better idea. I gotta hit the sack right now (I should have a few hours ago), but I think it would be great just to go ahead and try that idea out for the Stargate list as a test. -- Ned Scott 10:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to include [show] and [hide] tags to each episode on the episode list? That way, each episode list would look like List of The Simpsons episodes (which I think looks far neater than something like List of Stargate SG-1 episodes), but clicking on [show] would reveal the episode summary?
Ned, after making template:Episode list/Degrassi and carrying out all my requests, you know I'm working on the Degrassi episodes and I'm going through the individual season pages right now. My plan is to get the episode summaries top-notch on the individual season pages, thus removing the need for them at the main List of D:TNG episodes article and editing it to look like The Simpsons episode list, but for those users who still would like to see summaries on the main list page they could click [show] for the episode(s) they want. If it's not something that can be done template-wide, could it be done on an individual basis (ie. for me :D)? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 05:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable. While we do try to standardize things in general, making forks like this is beneficial because it allows us to consider different options and approaches. Plus I like the idea, and think it would be cool to try out :) -- Ned Scott 06:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style concerns

Another thought for this method is simply what may or may not be preferred, from a stylistic approach. Not all shows use season pages, and even some that do, people often still like seeing a summary on the main LOE. Season pages are good because, from a size perspective, you can have a little more summary without it looking weird, for those lists without individual episode articles. As many of you know, individual episodes (WP:EPISODE) is its own debate right now. I hope to approach this from a neutral position for the template's sake, so regardless of episode notability, we have some discussion on how this template might work in either situation. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] other stuff

Several lists are still using light color line separators, which used to look fine with an older version of the template, but are kind of an eyesore now. Another minor issue, but we might want to throw together simple little "pallets" of colors that look good, and place those suggestions on the doc page (or something). As well as fixing the ones already being used.

Another change from an older version is that backgrounds for tables are no longer white (this was done a while ago). The idea is that by not forcing white, people can be more flexible with the template, and it makes more sense to define that value for the whole table at the table header. However, most lists still look better with the white contrast, so another possible to-do (in addition to the adjustment of light-color LineColor) is to insert these into articles as well.

Not asking anyone to do these things, necessarily, but just making people aware of them. I plan to do as much as I can myself for these little updates. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the need for some "standard" pallets. I know it was frustrating for me to find set of colors when I first started working, so now I just reuse them over and over. Also updating the instructions to have it standard to have color coded headers for seasons would be nice. Collectonian (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No opinion, as I choose a linecolor that works best for each specific LoE/season article. But a basic pallette would certainly help newbies. – sgeureka t•c 09:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template draft

I did some testing in my sandbox, and as far as I can tell Template:Episode list/draft won't break anything, and should work with new DirectedBy and WrittenBy fields. In addition, I had a clever idea for what to do about the refs in titles, as well as any other options one might want for a title: RTitle. When trying to think of a name for a parameter, I kept thinking of "RawTitle", which, as it sounds, would be a title without any formatting. But at the same time many people would want something like "ReferenceTitle", because they don't want to loose the formatting, they just want an additional option for references. The result was "RTitle". If you don't define "Title", you can use "RTitle" instead to replace the title, or you can use "RTitle" with "Title" for references after the formatting.

Also, right now I have the order DirectedBy then WrittenBy. I'm not sure what order is used more, or if it matters or not.

If there are no objections/comments/whatever then we should be clear to make an edit request. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No objection from me. The order of the writer and director doesn't really matter to me; the LoEs at WP:FL give a slight preference (60 percent?) to list the director first. – sgeureka t•c 17:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please replace the entire contents of Template:Episode list with this. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Holding again. Nothing is broken, but I had an idea when working with Template:Japanese episode list. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aux order

Ok, something I didn't think about, besides the order of DirectedBy and WrittenBy, there is the order with the Aux. For example:

Aux1 | Aux2 | Aux3 | DirectedBy | WrittenBy

or

DirectedBy | WrittenBy | Aux1 | Aux2 | Aux3

or.. we can split them, to give an option

Aux1 | DirectedBy | WrittenBy | Aux2 | Aux3

I bring this up because I did find one page that would need to use an Aux before a WrittenBy, List of RahXephon media. Granted it's probably out of the ordinary, it made me think if there are any other concerns regarding if Aux should go in front or behind. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 05:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the third option (split, A1-D-W-A2-A3, but not A1-A2-D-W-A3). Sometimes, an extra column is required right behind the ep title (e.g. List of Carnivàle episodes), sometimes after the director/writer or it doesn't matter (e.g. List of Lost episodes), so giving the editor the the choice would allow that. – sgeureka t•c 08:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
On that note, while understanding we are trying to keep the template code and complexity to a minimal (though that recent prep processor upgrade apparently has made this less of an issue now), we could also make an Aux4 after ProdCode, for similar reasons of placement. It would be easier than making another parameter that defines placement of each one. Hmm. -- Ned Scott 02:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Please replace the entire contents of Template:Episode list with this.

Retested, and it doesn't break anything. I think at most we'll just need to advice people to never use all 12 possible cells at once, but I doubt that will ever be a problem. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done

[edit] Minor update

{{editprotected}}

Please replace the entire contents of Template:Episode list with this. This is a minor update to fix some extra padding in the ShortSummary cell, and to also add {{Documentation}}. -- Ned Scott 08:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it will correctly place {{Pp-template}} on the main template (since size isn't a major concern right now, thanks to the prep-processor update). -- Ned Scott 12:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Y Done DMacks (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of DirectedBy and WrittenBy

Not sure how widespread the use of these new parameters are yet, but Matthewedwards left this note on my talk page that might be worth considering:

Hi Ned. I think that the "Written by" field should appear before the "directed by" field, because that is how they are usually billed on the TV shows, whether it's during the action after the opening credits, or on the scrolling end credits. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So far it's just been a toss up on the order, so I can go either way myself. If this is a good indication on a better order, and it wouldn't cause too much clean up, then I'd be fine with making another change, but I thought I would see what others thought first. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed this on my talk page! Yeah, it just made sense to me. The only problem is with any episode lists that now include real director or writer fields. It would mean finding them and correcting the table headers. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 14:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have already used DirectedBy and WrittenBy in List of Carnivàle episodes, List of Stargate Atlantis episodes, and Stargate SG-1 (season 1) through Stargate SG-1 (season 10). It's not a big deal to change the headers, but if we want to swap these two parameters, we should be doing it really soon or never. As I said in another thread, wikipedia has so far not shown any preference, and I can live with either order. – sgeureka t•c 14:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AltTitle reference

I think there needs to be a field to reference the AltTitle outside of the quotes. -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simpler HTML anchors

Currently, the template has HTML anchors of form ep{{{EpisodeNumber}}} and pc{{{ProdCode}}}. I think these would be more likely to be used without the prefix, like {{{EpisodeNumber}}} and {{{ProdCode}}} . Superm401 - Talk 19:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason we put in the prefix was to avoid a situation where both EpisodeNumber and ProdCode could be the same number. While it's rare, it has happened on a few lists. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please add a new field called "ProductionNotes"

{{editprotected}}

As WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT note, entries about works of fiction should keep the in-universe details to a minimum. To facilitate the inclusion of real-wold context, I'm asking someone to please add an optional field which could be used to add that kind of detail on a per-episode basis. Call it "ProductionNotes" or something similar and if it's present, it would result in a separate row underneath the episode summary, something like this:

# Total Title Director Writer Original airdate
1 49 "The One with the Princess Leia Fantasy"  Gail Mancuso Michael Curtis & Gregory S. Malins September 19, 1996
Ross reveals his sexual fantasy to Rachel, which involves her being dressed up as Princess Leia from Star Wars. Monica suffers from insomnia after her breakup with Richard. And Chandler, back together with Janice, wants Joey to bond with her.
This episode prompted an approving letter from George Lucas for its portrayal of Princess Leia.[citation needed]

Thanks. 69.3.70.75 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

P.S. For the heck of it, the example also shows a separate proposed change in layout, which is to have the first two numeric columns extend to the summary and production note rows. This change would serve to unify an episode entry better.

I don't expect either proposal, particularly the one about ProductionNotes, to be controversial, but if I'm wrong about that I assume that interested editors will comment on this request, identifying the issues with the proposal. 69.3.70.75 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

Strongly oppose. Its ugly, would lend itself to being a glut for silly trivia, and production information should be in the lead and other sections, not in the episode lists themselves. Collectonian (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
What part of it is ugly? It would be hard to believe that having three rows per episode instead of two is ugly since there are lots of wikitables with multiple rows. So I'm guessing what's ugly to you is having the episode number span all three rows of the episode summary. If that's it, all I can say is I disagree about the ugliness. If we're lucky someone else will chime in about that.
As to the change provoking a "glut for silly trivia"...please refer to WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT. The "real-world context" that those guidelines refer to are just the type of detail that Wikipedia is meant to include. Episode summaries are magnets for silly trivia too, yet in many cases those get excised over time, so I would expect that the contents of per-episode production details can be managed the same way that plot summaries are policed.
As to your third point: the lead is a good place for production notes for the series as a whole, the per-season section headings are a good home for a particular season's production notes, and notes that are specific to an episode need a home too. Such notes exist already (you'll find several in the list of Friends episodes for example); the ProductioNotes proposal standardizes the format for their presentation. 68.167.253.65 (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC) (previously known as 69.3.70.75 (talk · contribs)).
Pointing to the one badly formatted list you've edited does not justify this addition at all. The Friends list needs clean up and all those side notes removed from the episodes. If you look at Featured episode lists, you will not find that stuff glutting the summary, which is supposed to be a short plot summary, not the real world details. And by ugly, I meant the whole third row addition looks ugly, and would look absolutely hideous in the good episode lists that have better summaries than a 1-2 line teaser.Collectonian (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying what you think is ugly. If you can, reference a WP style guide or a more neutral description of what makes three rows per episode a usability problem. I would contend that the use of "LineColor" to delineate each episode means that it is clear when an episode entry ends regardless of the number of table rows it has.
Since you think the example used in the proposal is a bad one, let me list examples of other details that could legitimately be included as a per-episode productionNote:
  1. Mention a notable guest star.
  2. Note an episode's Emmy Award or nomination.
  3. Identify a cross-promotional story arc involving cast members of another show.
  4. Cite the rare occasion where a normally studio-bound show goes on location.
  5. Highlight a ratings milestone for the show.
  6. Cite an FCC controversy.
  7. Mention the last appearance of a major cast member.
  8. Note that the original broadcast of an episode was taped from a live performance.
That's just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head. I continue to think that adding another row for such detail serves to emphasize the "real-world" context that are required by Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT. 68.167.253.65 (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
Again, no, it doesn't belong there period. Anything of relevance goes in the lead. For something like an FCC controversy, the episode would likely be notable enough for its own article anyway. This isn't the place for minute and episode-by-episode trivial details. If it is of real relevance, it can be worked into the lead or related sections, or in the main article. Collectonian (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, please cite something from a Manual of Style or other consensus-based WP source to back up your assertions; language like "it doesn't belong there period" (and earlier phrases like "absolutely hideous") simply indicate you've got an apparently inflexible opinion. I'll hold off responding to comments such as "likely be notable enough" until later. 68.165.76.170 (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC) (previously known as 68.167.253.65 (talk · contribs)).
I just stumbled on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. Reading through that case makes me wonder if I picked an inopportune time to make my proposal. 68.165.76.170 (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
You are the only one wanting this change. Back up your claim that "lots" of episode lists already have it and have evidenced a need for it. We have a whole lot of FEATURED episode lists, i.e. quality ones, that don't have such stuff shoved in the summary, and doesn't need it. Anything of value goes in other places. Its called experience, something you don't seem to have, looking at what few edits you've done which show a lack of a basic understanding of our television MoS and the general Wikipedia MoS. Collectonian (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Removing editprotected tag for now since it looks like there won't be a quick consensus. Put it back up if you feel consensus has been reached and I'll look into it again. --CapitalR (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also opposed to this method. The article is required to have real world context, but not each individual list entry. If we had meaningful content on every episode then every episode would have an article, which is not true of most episode lists. The plot summaries don't have to appear in the list (List of The Simpsons episodes), and when they do, they should only be detailed enough to identify the episode. A list without production information in the table can even reach FA/FL, see . Jay32183 (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Smallville (season 1) does include production information: two-thirds of the introduction is real-world context. As a practical matter, some shows get articles on each episode (like the Simpsons), some get per-season articles (e.g. Smallville), and some get episode lists for the entire series (e.g. 30 Rock, which for what it's worth started out with per-episode articles). For those series where there aren't per-episode articles, doesn't it make sense to have a standardized place where real-world context can be placed either per-series, per-season, or per-episode? I am not proposing that every episode have a ProductionNotes field—it's an optional field, included only when there's something significant to include. If a show such as Smallville has been organized on a per-season basis, it can do what Smallville did and put production notes in the season introduction. 68.167.253.65 (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
Not sure on this exact implementation, but I kind of like the idea of finding some way to include or encourage such information into the list on a per-episode basis. On a few lists I've actually used the summary section to also include cast info, and the result wasn't too bad (wish I could remember what list it was..). -- Ned Scott 05:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with other editors, particularly Ned. This information could easily fit into the summary section. If it became too long for that cell then we should probably look to see if the episode is notable and deserves it's own article. At times like these I wish WP used footnotes for more than just inline citations. The sentence about Princess Leia/Lucas would fit nicely in a footnote. Ursasapien (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, you can do footnotes too you know ;) Either as an inline citation, or using the named method. Collectonian (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
One short sentence or other short info can also fit in the normal episode list format, see The Simpsons (season 8) or List of Carnivàle episodes. But I must admit that anon's example doesn't look bad either. When a show gets season articles, and an editor wants to add much episode-specific real-world info, then one can also use formats such as Smallville (season 1) or drop {{episode list}} completely and go for fr:Saison 3 de Friends. Count me as neutral on this whole matter. – sgeureka t•c 16:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summarizing current reactions to ProductionNotes

This is the proposer's summary of the situation
# Title UK airdate US airdate
3.5 "Tale of Ren and Stumpy"
"Tale of Len and Squiggy" 		 September 14, 2007 September 7, 2007
Ren and Stumpy, now three weeks old, venture out of the burrow for the first time. While foraging over a wide area, the Whiskers ends up splitting into two groups. Rocket Dog leads the group that is with the pups.
In the UK, the pups are named Ren and Stumpy, but in the US airing they are called Len and Squiggy, respectively.

Lukewarm support for the ProductionNotes proposal comes from Ned Scott (talk · contribs); Sgeureka (talk · contribs) is neutral, and opposition comes most vehemently from Collectonian (talk · contribs) with Jay32183 (talk · contribs) and Ursasapien (talk · contribs) also opposed.

After getting past subjective language ("ugly", "absolutely hideous") and a recent violation of WP:NPA (see "lack of a basic understanding" comment), it's possible to find at least one very specific and objective reason for Collectonian's opposition, which is that there is a lack of per-episode production detail among featured episode lists. That statement is inaccurate, since among the roughly dozen shows having one or more featured episode lists under Category:FL-Class television articles, two of the lists have per-episode production notes (List of Meerkat Manor episodes and List of Press Gang episodes). A cursory glance at other episode lists finds another example: List of Desperate Housewives episodes.

The larger point that Collectonian shares with Jay32183 and Ursasapien is that production information should be in the lead and other sections, not in the episode lists themselves.

As noted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Unclear status (something I wished I had noticed before), Wikipedia:Television episodes is a disputed guideline. That makes it impossible to determine whether the opinion that "production information should be in the lead..." represents anything more than the opinion of three editors. That may also be why, after repeated requests, Collectonian never tried to cite an WP:MOS in support of his/her opinions.

The "Episodes and characters" case and the lack of an accepted guideline means that the productionNotes proposal is unlikely to either attract comments from other editors, or for a consensus to form based on an MOS guideline. As a result, the proposal is tabled indefinitely.

— 67.100.125.19 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC) (previously known as 68.165.76.170 (talk · contribs))

As I'm the one who wrote the Meerkat Manor episode list, please point out the episodes that have production information in their summaries. I see one, which I've fixed. Your summary isn't entirely accurate, or neutral, but I share agree with the conclusion. Collectonian (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It's an incredibly weak argument to say the opposition comes from only three editors when the meaningful support only comes from one editor. You're calling for a change to an existing convention without strong reasoning or support. To make the change you would need very strong reasoning and strong support. The absolute best example of an episode list using production information is in Smallville (season 1), and it isn't in the table. It also seems really odd to me that a user who doesn't bother to register would care so much about changing the conventions, not that it affects your argument. Jay32183 (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Chiming in rather late here. I think a new field is unnecessary. Whatever detail you need to add can be in the summary field. For example on List of The Wire episodes we list the epigraph for each episode in the summary section of the episode list. The episode list template doesn't need to be more complex.--Opark 77 (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Like Opark, I'm rather late, but I agree with him and Collectonian for the most part. Cliff smith (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ʁ?

Could someone tell me the exact purpose of the character "ʁ" in this template (as well as {{Japanese episode list}})? The character itself is apparently an IPA symbol, and it seems to be used in these templates as a test case of some sort, but I'd like a clarification of exactly why it's in there, and if it's actually being used by anything. I haven't seen it, or anything similar, used in any other template, which only adds to my curiosity. Extremely minimal testing on my part, as well as a careful reading of the source, shows that the character causes certain ParserFunctions (only #ifeq) to return nothing, a behavior more efficiently done with #if. If there are prior discussions on this topic, I wouldn't mind getting links to them, as well. —Dinoguy1000 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I probably should document all the little tricks the template uses one of these days. Here's a copy of an explanation I gave to someone else for a related question:
Long answer short: {{#ifeq:{{{PARAMETER|ʁ}}}|ʁ|IF NOT THERE|IF THERE}}
This is actually the trick that the main Template:Episode list uses to trigger table cells based on the existence of a parameter, rather than if it is filled out or not. I don't think the trick is actually documented anywhere. I figured it out one day when I noticed {{{PARAMETER|DEFAULT if not defined}}} worked when a parameter was listed (|PARAMETER=) but no text was entered for it. When you did that, DEFAULT would not show up, and instead you would get nothing (since nothing was entered). By using #ifeq this can actually be usable to trigger other things. If PARAMETER is not listed then it displays the default "ʁ". ifeq checks to see if ʁ is used, if it is then it will do one thing, if anything else is used (including "nothing") then, it will do something else. ʁ is used because it's unlikely that ʁ would ever be used for a parameter value.
And there you have it. With the ʁ trick one doesn't have to use place holders to keep a cell open when it's not filled out, which is a great help for many in-progress lists. -- Ned Scott 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, that makes sense... Come to think of it, the older version of {{Navbox}} did something similar with a blank {{{state}}} parameter; as I recall, it caused the navbox to always display expanded. It used a different method to achieve it, though (possibly the pipe trick you mentioned above)... —Dinoguy1000 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 11-minute episodes

Is there a way to present episode lists with 11-minute episodes which often have two (or more if the episodes are shorter) airing on the same day using this template instead of a table without them having to look like this or this? They don't look right because the summary ends with a bullet, but I'm referring to the way the former separates each part and the latter lumps them both together. --Squids'and'Chips 03:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried something with the List of Pinky and the Brain episodes, but there's no real trick for multi-short shows. Yet. (Let me canoodle on that now that I know templates a bit better). --MASEM 03:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think those two pages have much bigger issues than looking right with 11 minute episodes. Lordy, I can't even figure out what broke in the code. That said, it might be good to do a template hack for shows like this, rather than making folks go back to tables. Look forward to seeing what Masem "canoodles." Collectonian (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, figured out the issue on Recess...template no like bullets. I've fixed its format, but yeah, it still isn't nicely clear that they were two episodes aired together as separate eps. Collectonian (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a weird bug. The bullets used to work perfectly, but one day they stopped. I think it has something to do with MediaWiki itself, rather than any change made to the template. I noticed this a little while ago with another list, and another editor found out that the formatting would only break if the bullet was the last line in the ShortSummary field. The solution at the time was to throw & nbsp; in there, though I hope to find something more elegant. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh...probably a result of some upgrade (like the breaking of images, and width settings that don't explicitly have "px" on them). For recess, the bullets were totally unnecessary, so I just axed them out.Collectonian (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally I like the idea of treating each 11-minute part as it's own episode entry. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice being able to have an episode list for Crayon Shin Chan (that wouldn't have to use a hardcoded table or wierd hacks/layout choices)... That being said, the biggest problem facing a template explicitly for this will be layout/presentation. —Dinoguy1000 20:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the best way to figure this out is to first of all determine, for the majority of such shows which feature these named shorts (most listed above), what elements in the current template list are in common for all shorts in one episode, and what would change. Running down through the eplist parameters, I reckon...
  • Episode Number and secondary Episode Number
  • Original Air Date and Alternative Air date
  • Production code
  • Line color and Top Color, respectively.
The rest, particularly the Titles, Written and Directed by fields, and the summary block, are specific to the sub-segments of the episode. For purposes of being flexible, Aux1 and Aux4 would be at the episode level, while Aux2 and 3 at the segment level.
The way I'm thinking this would work is a set of two templates: one that describes the episode (and includes a parameter for the # of segments as to row-span correctly) and and other that is a subset of this template for the individual segments. It may need to be that this first suggested template require the others as arguments in order to rowspan the production codes. Alternatively, if we're pretty sure that no sub-segmented episode ever contained more than, say, 10 segments, it could be that there would be one template, with fields like "title1" and "WrittenBy2" to set the value for each segment. That would be easier to implement from a programming standpoint but more difficult to write towards as editors to some extent. I think some way is possible, we just need to agree what normal episode entries are specifically limited to segments and what should be set at the episode level. --MASEM 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a little trouble picturing what you're trying to say for the first one. Do you mean something like an Episode template that sandwiches several Segment templates left and right? or an Episode template wraps around Segment templates? I'm thinking it's the former. If other fields were included to rowspan the prod code properly, then why not one template and opt out of using episode number, original airdate, etc. for subsequent summaries from the same episode? --Squids'and'Chips 22:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)