Talk:List of Air episodes/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Please, no edit warring

If there are differences of opinion, please hash them out here rather than filling the edit history of the main article with pointless reverts. Thank you both. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a diference in taste. I prefer the format I use on all other featured lists, one of them passed regardless of Ned's objection. --Cat out 15:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:3RR violation. -- Ned Scott 19:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Negative. It was not within 24 hours. I have no intention of allowing you to dictate how I am supposed to be writing lists. I will be using dvd covers, I will not comprimise from that. I will be using the table markup identical to the Oh My Goddess, Planetes, and Fullmetal featured lists.
As a result the lock, I will be unable to improve the list. I will wait till lock is lifted.
--Cat out 22:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
How YOU will be writing the article? Excuse me, but I started on this list (via the main article) before you did. You are NOT the only editor of these articles, your personal preference has no more significance than my personal preference (although I have stated reasons to use the other format for reasons OTHER than my personal preference). -- Ned Scott 02:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Err? I have been writing the episode summaries. I have initiated the list article etc. Now I however understand why are you this hostile towards my presence here. You have been blabering about policy and standards to promote your personal preferance (as you put it). I find that interesting as per WP:OWN. --Cat out 11:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The movie

This is a list for the Air TV series, why is one entry about the movie in here? I could see if the two were related, but they are both very different with their story, done by different groups of people. Not only is this confusing to the reader, but it seems sloppy, like the list isn't enough on it's own that we have to add something unrelated. -- Ned Scott 02:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be partially because other similar lists have the movie(s) listed as well (see List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes for example). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
But in that case, would that mean they consider the movies as "episodes" or should the article title be changed more to "List of (Series) animation"?--Juhachi 02:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
But, story wise, the FMA movie is related to the episodes. Here it is not. Also, Cool Cat, who formatted that article, is probably why it's listed there. -- Ned Scott 03:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, it is true that the series and movie for FMA do follow each other closely (and I've heard the movie called the unofficial 52nd episode since there were only 51 and 1 missing in the final season), so that sort of makes sense. But I do agree with the Air movie and it is of my opinion it should have never been made since it does nothing for the main story except tell it the same way with different circumstances; therefore they can be seen as alternate universes of each other, which is sometimes seen in anime (like in Gundam or Tenchi Muyo). If the Air movie stays, then I believe the article title should be changed to reflect that.--Juhachi 03:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The Ah! My Goddess OVA and movie as well as mini series detach from the plot. Yet they exist on the featured list. There is absolutely no harm putting explanation to the movie to the article. I really hate to discuss every minor point of my edits on air related articles. --Cat out 11:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. says that right on the bottom of the edit screen. -- Ned Scott 18:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Which doesnt mean the movie can't be on the article. What I ment was maybe we should cooperate? --Cat out 13:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The movie is basically unrelated to the TV series and the movie now has it's own article. This is confusing to the reader and inappropriate. The information is just being placed here to look pretty, instead of being useful. -- Ned Scott 19:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I give list of oh my goddess episodes as example. none of the series are related including the movie. Air movie and tv series are somewhat related (they have a similar yet distant plot). It is perfectly usefull to link the movie. I do not see a reason why it is inaproporate. --Cat out 03:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I say we move the movie mention to its own article and make a link there from here. The reason: this is a list of Air episodes, and the movie is not an episode. Especially given that the movie has its own article. _dk 03:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, strongly. For one, a movie is not an episode. Of course it's related, that's why we have links and nav templates and the main article mentioning both. But this is a list for the Air TV series, not non-TV-series-canon movies that were done by a different group! If you wish to link to it, then fine, but do not include it. List of Stargate SG-1 episodes doesn't include Stargate (film), and they're more related to each other than the Air TV series and Air movie! If this was List of Air media, then maybe it'd make sense. Cooperation doesn't mean ignoring simple and painfully clear logic. If no one has a strong reason to include it then it goes off the article and gets a sentence that mentions it, but makes it clear that it is not apart of the series. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Stargate is not an anime list and unlike Air that thing has ten seasons. A featured list, (OMG list) has dvd covers and comunity has not objected its presence during candidacy. I do not see any reason why this anime list should be treated any more diferently than OMG list. Since movie has its own article we just give a very brief summary. Just because something has its onw article disqualifies it from being on this list. There is nothing logical about removing information from wikipedia. --Cat out 15:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Stargate being animated or not doesn't matter. Being animated doesn't change the fact that it's a list of episodes from a TV series. I understand your words, but I disagree with your reasons, and I am not the only one (see above). See where I'm going with this? -- Ned Scott 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Lets see. Nihonjoe agrees with me (thats one other person). Two featured lists (articles surviving heavy peer review) have a movie section (meaning its not problematic). Do we not consider Star Wars movies to be "epidoes"? (somehwat). Perhaps stargate can have a movie section. The place it aired (big theater, tv screen) doesnt really matter. --Cat out 17:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
No.. no he didn't agree with you. I think he was trying to explain to me why you added the movie to the article. "Two featured lists", those are articles YOU edited, there's no weight in that argument. And, again, featured list criteria says nothing about these types of issues, so the issue is not likely to come up during the candidacy. I agree that where something was shown doesn't matter, but that's not my point. The point is these are two very different works both based on the same game. This is not like a movie based off the anime series. If it was a movie based off the Air TV series then I wouldn't have a problem listing a movie with a group of episodes. Unlike our style disputes, this is actually harmful in that it is very confusing to the reader and is needlessly redundant. This is not.. lets mention every work based on Air game on every Air article. This is nothing more than article filler to make it seem larger. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Every featured list goes through heavy peer review. If such an issue does not come up on a FAC (enough to prevent promotion), it probably is not a big deal (nothing harmfull).
This article should be and is about the anime Air. Game, Manga as well as soundtracks disqualify to be on the list. Movie, OVA, TV episodes do qualify. Both (movie and anime) have a similar plot, identical characters (though few only make cammo appearances), identical title. We are not mentioning every work based on air game on every article, we are mentioning every anime based on the air game. There is no harm in multiple referances whenever relevant.
--Cat out 09:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Just because something didn't come up during an FLC doesn't make it a non-issue for all lists of episodes. In all honestly, Featured lists should be renamed to Good lists, as they are more inline with a Good article than a Featured article. OMG, Planetes, and FMA definitely did NOT go thought a "heavy peer review". This is not an article about the Air anime, but about the Air TV series. The OMG list could be renamed, but because it so clearly covers the topics of several different works it's not as confusing. FMA's movie was apart of the same plot as the episodes, so it would make sense to include it. These articles should make it extra clear that these two stories are unrelated as far as being canon to each other. It's confusing, it's unnecessary, and it only serves to "fluff" the article. -- Ned Scott 19:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not see any fluffing. But as other examples exist (of a movie being posted on an episode list) I do not see the problem. Why is it imposible for you to agree with me on any point? --Cat out 09:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Did.. you not read my message? I addressed when it was logical to include a movie entry and when it was not. It's impossible for me to agree with you because you lack basic logic in this issue. It's confusing to the reader, it's harmful to the article, and it looks sloppy. Why would I go back on my editing "morals" just to get along with an editor who only wants to do things his way, regardless of logic? -- Ned Scott 21:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I see happening (that makes sense): One, we remove the Air movie listing. Or, two, we keep it, merge the soundtrack listing, make a manga listing, and then rename the article to List of Air media. It might be nice to have a manga listing. -- Ned Scott 02:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Negative on that. You can start a list for media, that I wont object. But I prefer having a seperate list-article strictly confined to anime (tv episodes/movies/ovas). --Cat out 17:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
We're not talking about your preference.. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll for which episode table to use

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was 80% for using an WP:LOE maintained template, 20% for using Cool Cat's original template. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So it's come to this. We all know why polls are evil, but seeing as how Cool Cat is not open to discussion or forming a consesnous I feel this is the best way to quickly resolve this matter. The messages on this talk page as well as on Talk:Air (series) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Air dispute, pretty much give you an idea of the dispute between Cool Cat and I. In a nutshell, I think the list, as well as most lists of this nature, should use WikiProject List of Television Episodes's style guidelines and it's episode template, Template:Japanese episode list. This style can be seen on 3 of the 6 Featured lists about episodes. Cool Cat wishes to use his OMG inspired style and template, Template:List of Anime Ep TV. This style is also seen on 3 of the 6 Featured lists about episodes.

Examples

WP:LOE's style and Japanese episode template

  1. Support, I not only think this looks better, but I think it's easier to read. I'll repeat some of my reasonings from my past comments, "WP:LOE's template itself is used in over 20 articles already (Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Japanese episode list, Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Japanese episode list (no image)), and has been very well received so far. Meanwhile, the OMG inspired/Cool Cat episode template has some objections (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2006#List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, Talk:List of Naruto episodes#Reorganisation, User talk:Cool Cat/Archive/2006/06#Air). WP's LOE episode templates are easy to use, with clearly marked parameters. The template also makes use of individual episode screenshots seen on most lists of episodes." Also, style layout is not a factor for Featured lists (although I think it should be). Featured list status seems to be the only pro-argument I can see for the other template and style. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support: I think it goes along better with the page and is more compact and thus easier to scan the page. It's not always about the eye candy since this is an encyclopedia after all and thus shouldn't the information about the actual episodes be more important than the way they are displayed? That being said, I'd say just stick with the current standard format using the Japanese episode template. Besides, I already hate how warped this discussion and article have gotten.--Juhachi 05:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support: Looking strictly from the standpoint of someone who may edit this article in the future, using one of the WP:LOE templates would be easier to understand and edit. I also don't buy Cool Cat's argument that this list won't be able to achieve Featured list status by using one of the templates. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    I never gave such an argument. My argument is that TV scren shots are bad and DVD covers should be used instead. This is what the whole thing is about. --Cat out 12:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    You may not have directly stated it, but your arguments clearly imply it. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    Do not imply things from my statements. I despise that... --Cat out 13:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    I don't see why you can't use the DVD covers as the episode screenshots? Or use one table for the DVDs and then use (or don't use) screenshots for the episodes in a different table ala List of South Park episodes.--Will2k 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    Well. for one I really really am tired of the changing concensus. Few months ago people almost crucified me for using episode screenshots on lists, now I get crucified for using DVD covers. --Cat out 16:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. I've switched the Excel Saga episode list from the OMG format to the LOE-Japanese template. I have issues with how the template gives pride of place to unofficial romaji titles and how the official Japanese titles are a little small, but its aesthetic value outweighs those concerns.--Monocrat 14:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    Err.. The POINT of romaji is that english speaking people are able to read it. The template as is does NOT give pride to anything. How the heck can it gove pride? --Cat out 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    "Giving pride of place" means, loosely, giving priority. I understand the point of romaji titles, so please don't lecture me. Perhaps my comments were ambiguous, but when I refered to "template," I meant that what I would like from the LOE-Japanese template is that the official titles used in Japan (in whatever script or language) be listed before unofficial transliterations provided for anglophones' benefit.--Monocrat 17:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    I do not think I was lecturing. On my version of the template, kanji is given priority on the proposed version its at the second line and is ambigious. It may very well be kana. My version clearly identifies it. I frankly am not certan of the issue here, both templates present the same amount of information only its just that my version presents it in a more organised manner which you consider bad... --Cat out 17:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support but... I was shocked to see these two side by side and realize how very little difference there is. With this conflict escalating to the point of a vote, I was expecting something drastically different. In the past I have commented that I like the OMG style list, and was rather confused when I clicked the first link to find... it looks exactly the same? So after comparing it turns out it doesn't, but it is very, very close. So on that note, I would say I prefer this style by a very, very small amount. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    It came to a vote because one person's work will be wiped out.--Will2k 15:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    The "drastic difference" is in the underlying markup of the list and is what is in dispute. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    That no longer is the case though, the markup has been made identical. --Cat out 16:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    That, the chunky looking borders, and positions of the romaji and kanji and such. -- Ned Scott 18:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    The "chunky" looking borders are good enough to make it through FAC. positions of the romaji and kanji are easy to follow and organised unle your version. A straw poll and hours of discussion just for how a table looks should be a first on wikipedia. --Cat out 19:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    ill-relevant, the borders were not a factor in the Featured list candidacy. If one wishes to make it clearer about what titles are what, they could do this or what's used in List of Digimon Adventure episodes, etc. Not all data should be given columns. Note the transition of writer and director notes on Talk:List of Sex and the City episodes. -- Ned Scott 19:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    So we are talking about minor diferences now, since original argument of easy use is no longer relevant.
    The table header is irrelevant to this poll. We can use either one regardless of the outcome, both tables headers would work. I actualy do not like thick borders all that much either but any other style I tried does not work well on firefox. I welcome alternatives but so far I have not seen any.
    Not all data should be presented in columns, but episode names should. It is much more easier to follow it. I do not see the relevance of List of Sex and the City episodes to this topic.
    --Cat out 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per TheFarix's example as my concerns were addressed. Now that the tables are basically the same, I vote for this because this one just looks so much better. _dk 22:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. The Japanese version looks better and is compatible with WP:LOE and thus better maintainable in the future. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. As above. --Kunzite 00:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat's List of Anime Ep TV style and template

  • Support, I think this one looks better, especially with Air's beautiful DVD covers....but that's beside the point. I'm still concerned about image cluttering, and I don't think an image for every episode is necessary. And precedence is not an issue here. _dk 05:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote. _dk 22:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The style I recommend also has a no image format (Template:Japanese episode list (no image)), and the DVD covers can be placed on their own little table above, like what is done in many lists. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
An example of what this page would look like using {{Japanese episode list (no image)}} --TheFarix (Talk) 14:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Which also clearly shows the unnecesary amout of whitespace. (2 lines of them). On Naruto list people were complaining about one extra line (which is temporarily blank). Large tables break wikitable on firefox borwser. On your example several of the verticle vertical lines are missing. That fails to meet a featured list criteria IIRC. --Cat out 14:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Firefox's bugs are apart of the criteria? I think not. I've looked at the list under Firefox, it doesn't break. -- Ned Scott 18:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Discussed below as I am sure you know. :) --Cat out 07:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Support. I'd like to note I oppose the exitance of this poll. Don't vote for everything. Having said that here are my rationale:
    1. The TV screen shots of individual episodes are really not the right way. If you look at the various star Trek lists for instance, you will see that most of the screencaps are unintelligable. At best, you can tell there is a peson or a ship but it isnt any more significant. Furthermore LEGALLY speaking, I am not sure we can claim fair-use on episode screenshots used like this. DVD covers on the other hand are from amazon.com and are promotional by nature. It is less likely for companies to complain.
    2. Both of the LOE templates make heavy use of meta temlates. Meta templates should be avoided if they are not making peoples and/or coders life any easier. My version (as of now) has a similar usage (same parameters) while using less code. I intend to overide the Template:List of Anime Ep TV as soon as this page is unlocked.
    --Cat out 12:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    2 Points of contention:
    1. Both you and Ned Scott have personal attachments to your respective templates. As such, neither of your two opinions should contribute to the final decision on account of bias. I have personal attachments to the LOE template and the wikiproject it's associated with as well. This is why I am not contributing a support for either.
    2. Featured lists are (or at least should be) determined based on content and not layout. Any discussions on what is featured and what is not should have no bearing on which template was/is used.--Will2k 15:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with that assesment and have modified my argument accordingly, However I think it is safe to conclude that neither markup "sucks" as both have been used in featured lists. Fearued lists are "the best wikipedia has to offer". --Cat out 16:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    Both of the LOE templates make heavy use of meta temlates. This isn't true, neither of the WP:LOE templates use meta-templates. Yours, on the other hand, uses one (1). --TheFarix (Talk) 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    [1] I count a serious amount of if/else statements there, what are you talking about? --Cat out 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    There's a huge difference between ParserFunctions and meta-tempaltes. The former is much easier on the servers then the latter. But your new template really is nothing more then a fork of the WP:LOE template. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    I see no evidence of a fork, but since you have a predetermined opinion I wont discuss this any further with you. --Cat out 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support: My major reason for supporting this format is that the seperation between English, kanji, and romaji titles is much more clear and is better. Also though, the reason that anime episode lists are more able to use DVD covers instead of American TV series is because anime is commonly only released a couple of episodes per DVD. With American shows, you have them released as complete seasons, so it's much harder to use a DVD cover image as 24 epiodes might be using the same cover. --SeizureDog 17:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Please post a list of links to these lists and indicate which lists use which template. This will make it easier to do a comparison between them. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For the featured lists? For the WP:LOE style, List of South Park episodes, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes. For the OMG/Cool Cat style, List of Oh My Goddess episodes, List of Planetes episodes, List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes. For examples one can use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Japanese episode list and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:List of Anime Ep TV. -- Ned Scott 03:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems the Cool Cat template got renamed Template:List of Anime Episodes TV, and examples Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:List of Anime Episodes TV. -- Ned Scott 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Last night, I placed a notification over at Wikipedia:Current surveys. This should help bring more attention to this straw poll beyond the partys involved. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Okay, it seems that the only real difference between the two templates is the placement of the episode number, and the placement of the romaji and kanji/kana titles. Outside of that, they are pretty much the same. Perhaps one (Cool Cat's) could be used for lists using the DVD cover shots, and the other could be used for episode lists with screenshots for each episode? Cool Cat's seems to be designed more for using the DVD cover with multiple episodes (or that's what it's mostly been used for, anyway). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is also about the format of using DVD covers on the side vs no images or individual screenshots, as well as the THICK lines. DVD covers only help identify an episode if you own the DVD.. Also, the Japanese episode list template is in the care of WP:LOE, where I believe suggestions, changes, and growth will be more welcome, considering Cool Cat's reactions to people "editing his work". -- Ned Scott 20:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that should be part of this poll. Basic format should be decided first, and then we can worry about DVD covers vs. episode screenshots, IMHO. As it is, I prefer elements found in both, and think a hybrid would be fine. I used the FMA episode list as the basis for creating the List of Highschool! Kimen-gumi episodes page, though I didn't use any templates as I didn't know about all of them at the time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Although, if the straw poll fails, I wouldn't object to TheFarix's compromise format being used. I made the same suggestion on the 9th, during List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes's Featured list candidacy, as shown here. -- Ned Scott 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
As my example shows, the WP:LOE templates are adaptable with some minor tweaking of the templates. But that should be part of the evolution of the WP:LOE templates as new demands come up. But instead of working within the existing templates and help improve them, Cool Out fights them outright and has now resorted to creating his own replacement. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
So it is completely unnaceptable to use my format? Also please dont talk about me in 3rd person on the thread I am involved. I do not mind people editing my work. It has been done before. See history of Oh My Goddess!. Note how many edits preceed mine. --Cat out 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
When all you ended up doing is just reinvent the wheel, yes. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The wheel (my template) predates the LOE one. I merely modifed it to be compatible with LOE as a gesture of good faith and as a comprimise. Not a whole lot of good faith is leaking from you with that comment. --Cat out 12:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Ned the thick lines are not my favorite peice of work nor do they bother me as much as they bother you (I just dont care either way) but any border with less than 5px thickness breaks on firefox. Find a way to fix that and I will live with that. The only fix I currently know is thick borders. --Cat out 21:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This isn't true. I frequently see (and have created) wikitables with borders of 1px, and they appear fine in Firefox on both Mac OS X and Windows XP SP2. Perhaps you have a corrupted version of Firefox. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Same here, works great on Firefox 1.0.5.4 and Safari 2.0.3 on Mac OS 10.4.6. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It is true. A strange bug that can be resolved with a reinstaling firefox. We both are right. --Cat out 06:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I've seen that before too and it just seems to be flaky in firefox (comes and goes). I wonder if enforcing a border (say border: 1px solid black !important;) would help?--Will2k 18:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
My belief is "border colapse" was/is one of the things firefox doesn't like. This may be a mediawiki bug as well. After all the css send to firefox is different from ie IIRC. --Cat out 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Template idea

  • Perhaps it would be good to go the route of the {{Infobox animanga}} and use template "pieces" that fit a specific need: header, footer, episode w/screenshot (or DVD cover), episode w/o screenshot, etc. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Well. the header is the standard wikitable and the foother is just "|}". Really unnecesary. IMHO --Cat out 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Sure, why not. --Cat out 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
This was something that was considered for the forerunner of Template:Japanese episode list, Template:Digimon episode. It seemed... pointless. One thing I don't want to do is needlessly hide wikicode. The table header really only would need to be written once, while episode entries could easily be added and reworded many many times. So really, only episode entries, which will get much more editing traffic, need the simple "interface" as well as being able to easily convert/ update/ change formats in the future without having to do a lot of editing on the episode entry level. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
We could give it optional parameters. It wouldn't save time since we would copy paste anyways... But code would be less misterious to a newbie. I particularly do not care either way. --Cat out 12:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lets move on

Ok, this poll is now pretty much pointless since the original gap is no longer present. This poll no longer is being helpfull.

I acknowlege the result of the poll and have adjusted "my version" of the template to follow the markup and appearance of the LOE templates. I comprimised everything but the place where episode names and numbers appear. I think such a minor diference isn't worth a discussion. We all have better things to do than discuss this to death.

I believe on this list "my version" (not that it is any more different than the other version now) is preferable as episode titles are ridiclously short.

I am eager to archive this discussion, get the article unlocked and continue with episode summaries.

--Cat out 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even those minor details seem to be apart of which style and template editors wish to use in the poll. And one other thing, I still wish to discuss the idea of not using DVD covers beside the episode entries, but rather, using them in their own table with information about the DVDs. I was hoping that would have been apart of this poll, but it was suggested to take this one step at a time and just choose a template first. I understand that you've updated your template to mimic the Japanese episode template, but there are still other concerns, such as the template being in the "care" of a WikiProject, where more editors are likely to voice future input. And even the episode title formatting is apart of this, although minor to some. Ending the poll now means using the Japanese episode template, according to consensus, it does not mean that we forget about this and you keep getting to "run the show". Sure, you considered our input now when you were under pressure from this poll, but what about later? -- Ned Scott 06:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we discuss this issue about the show via user talk pages. --Cat out 11:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
This concerns everyone who wishes to edit the Air articles. -- Ned Scott 12:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
my responce to your deleted comments:
It's not up to me alone, as you can see there are several other editors who are agreeing with the reasons behind what I am suggesting. I cannot decide for them, even if I wanted to. If you ignore the results of this straw poll it will be you who is blocked, not because a poll is final, but because it's obvious now that you are not willing to work with other editors. You have serious ownership issues. You have a failing argument and want me to compromise? All I have to do is stand back and let other people tell you the same thing I've told you. There's nothing to compromise. -- Ned Scott 12:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
When I deleted my own comments, I did so because I feel they are inaproporate mostly to the spirit of what we want to achiev and to evade an unnecesary confrontation. Hence I will not comment on the response. --Cat out 19:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh good grief, exactly what is wrong with the example I gave? It achieves 90% of the things you originally wanted while using a WP:LOE template. That is what is called a compromise. I've even proposed new parameters to make the WP:LOE templates better and easier to use in a situation like this.
Wasn't the originally reason you were against the WP:LOE templates was because you couldn't achieve the layout you originally wanted? But instead of looking at the example as a compromise, you created a new template—and no, it is not an "old" template but a brand new template you created as a reaction to this poll—that behaves almost exactly like the WP:LOE templates, thus a fork of the original, and then call it a compromise. But you only did that after I presented the example. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It achieves 90% of the things I want because the templates were never all that diferent. They are much more similar since my modifications to my version.
I did not want to edit the old version so as not to break the existing usage (on this very article for instance) Template:List of Anime Ep TV was created 5 december 2005. The current version of my template is a copy paste of it. The main two differences is that the parameters passed now have variables, and other is that image is now passed to the template. The cols and rows parameter does not exist on LOE templates. Those parameters make the dvd covers more managable. See usage on List of Planetes episodes. Is this illogical and unreasonable?
I also feel it is more aproporate to sort animes titles in 3 scripts (english, kanji, romaji) in a vertical format as all of them are just too short and can easily fit a single line even on very low resolutions. Is this illogical and unreasonable?
Your example was most insightful. Based on that I have attemped something new in hopes that it could be something we all could agree on. I call it a coprimise because it is more like what you want than it was before. Is it not? By doing so, I have pulled back some of the conditions I seeked. Hence comprimised. I thought by making it more like LOE template would make it eaiser to resolve the issue.
As unlikely as this sounds, we can agree on how this should be. In fact, so far we have actualy agreed on certain points such as the templates markup, and tables header.
--Cat out 18:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The cols and rows parameter does not exist on LOE templates. Those parameters make the dvd covers more managable.
LineSpan now exist in the templates and it is far less ambiguous then Row. And if you see my posts to the Template talk:Japanese episode list, I'm trying to get some new parameters installed, including one called ImageRowSpan, which can probably be shortened to just ImageSpan. By supporting these changes, I am trying to help WP:LOE compromise. I honestly don't see the need to create a new template for something that can be incorporated into the existing template.
  • I also feel it is more aproporate to sort animes titles in 3 scripts (english, kanji, romaji) in a vertical format as all of them are just too short and can easily fit a single line even on very low resolutions. Is this illogical and unreasonable?
This is one issue you may just have to give up in order to reach a compromise. After all, there is absolutely no need for there to be two templates that essentially does the same thing with the same parameters. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Very well we can go that direction. I did not suggest modifying the LOE template to meet my demands as I felt that would be me being way out of line. I also did not want to add aditional complexity to the template. Since that is not an issue I can gladly accept that.
TheFarix, second line should be for additional info. The official title (which often is in kanji) should be on the first line along with airdate and episode number. Everything else can be considered "trivia" (no insult intended, just being blunt). Allow me to explain:
  • It would be easier to follow. On some anime episode names can be rather in consistant in length. When placed in individual cells, this issue is compensated.
  • It is more likely for an anime episode to have a kanji/romaji title than an english air date. Most anime never air in the US. At the very least this one (AIR TV) hasn't. The first line should be reserved for information that is more likely to apply to all anime lists and second line for optional info.
  • How do we clarify what the script is. Is it Kanji? Katakana? Traditional chineese? Simplified chineese? Ancient Greek? Romaji? I for one can't necesarily tell the diffrence between katakana from kanji. I really want to avoid an ugly disclaimer.
May I ask the logic why kanji, and romanji is placed on the second line?
--Cat out 20:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The WP:MOS-JA states that the English form should come first followed by kanji or kana and then the romanization if it is different then the English form. This order should also apply to episode titles and it appears that is what WP:LOE did. As for why they put the kanji/kana and romanization on the line below the English title, I can only guess that it is because anime titles can sometime be very long and this way just looks cleaner when that's the case. I also don't think there is a need to distinguish between kanji and kana; it is usually not specify anywhere else on Wikipedia and it hasn't presented a problem that I know of. But this issue should probably be taken over to the templates' talk page for further discussion. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hai! I have responded to you there. --Cat out 22:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
You can count me out of that argument. I don't have a particular interest in how the title information is formatted, just that it is consistent with WP:MOS-JA, makes sense, and done using a WP:LOE template. ;) --TheFarix (Talk) 22:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think what I propose is consistant with that. Nihongo template occupies one line by default. --Cat out 23:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)