Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:27, 28 April 2012

Template:Episode list is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Television: Episode coverage Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Template This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This template is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

	Lists Template‑class
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Episode list template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 4 months

2-or-3-parted episodes

Why not adopt some feature from Template:Japanese episode list multi-part for the multi-parted episodes?

Bolded episode names

Is there a reason why the episode names in the |Title= parameter are bolded? MOS:BOLD advises to use boldface in the article body only in a few special cases, and it doesn't list this case as an exception. --213.196.219.104 (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It gives some examples of usage, but obviously can't cover every single usage of bold out there. Episode lists are specially formatted tables, so you won't find much info about it in the manual of style, which is for general article content. One of the reasons episode lists never really bothered being included in some kind of formal manual of style entry is because the template itself enforces a consistent style. Otherwise, you'd probably see some mention on the MOS pages about episode lists.

If it really bothers you, use |RTitle= to override the formatting and see what people think about it. Generate some discussion. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sortable episode table

Changing the class of an Episode list to "wikitable sortable" produces silly results, as the summary does not stay with the rest of the episode data. I was hoping it could allow the episode list to be sorted by either "EpisodeNumber1" or "EpisodeNumber2" for series with alternate running orders. Can this be made to work? Barsoomian (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't possible if you want the summaries in the same table. 117Avenue (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

{{S-Episode list}} is what you are looking for. —Farix (t | c) 11:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is absolutely no documentation for that, not even a description of what it's supposed to do. I tried replacing "Episode list" with "S-Episode list" and got a mess. (See User:Barsoomian/Sandbox/s-list) I suspect it does not support "Director" and "Writer". Barsoomian (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The sortable version of the episode list sets the width of things like airdate so they appear to line up with each other. Each episode entry is actually its own table within a row. The more cells put in the first row, the more you have to hard set the size, and the greater the chance that things will look weird if the text in a cell is too long, etc. Thus, the sortable version was kept very simple.

It never really got documented because not a lot of people seemed interested in it. -- Ned Scott 08:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Links

Is there a way to add a link variable if particular episodes of a series have specific webpages? Beyond495 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Hidden" episode summary?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have a suggestion/request regarding the "ShortSummary =" parameter of the template. Would it be possible to make this row invisible or "hidden" when no summary is provided (the same way parameters automatically become "invisible" in infoboxes when not in use)? I'm asking because I've recently used the "episode list" template for a television series in which no episode synopsis is, as yet, available. I don't want to simply remove the parameter from the table, since future editors may be able to expand with episode summaries, and many, most likely, will not be familiar enough with the table and it's parameters to re-add the "ShortSummary" section themselves. As it is now, an empty "ShortSummary" parameter creates a blank row and making it "hidden" (when not in use) would help keep the table tidy, instead of unnecessarily stretching the table to twice the length. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I did a full recode of the template in the sandbox and added a couple testcases. Besides the "ShortSummary" problem, it also fixes any time more parameters are left blank in the template. So now you can actually leave "DirectedBy" and "WrittenBy" in the template for instance, if you know they will be filled in someday, and it won't mess up the table. — Bility (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I had in mind. Now we just need someone to implement the changes to the template. Are you authorized to make the changes? Or do we need to wait for however many months/years it takes for others to notice this proposal in order to reach a "consensus"? It doesn't seem like something that would be a highly controversial change, but I guess I could be wrong. The only slight change I might suggest to your sandbox tests would be to ask if we could keep the thin "color bar" line below each episode row when the "ShortSummary" is invisible? Just for continuity and aesthetics, some people might want to keep that in order to make a clear delineation between each episode - particularly in cases where a page is "in development", where some episodes may have a summary and others don't - it would probably help make it clear "at-a-glance" where one episode ends and the next episode begins. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha, months/years? Eventually an admin will review the edit requests (slight backlog right now) and if there is some opposition to this change or they see something wrong with the code, then discussion will ensue, otherwise these protected edit requests are sometimes pretty straightforward. They might tell you to go get consensus at whichever WikiProject is in charge of this template though. I'll add the line in the meantime and see how that looks. :D — Bility (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the color bar when the summary parameter is in "invisible" mode. It looks good to me. :) --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No prob. — Bility (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

DONE I copied the sandbox code to the template page. Some episode lists may still require a WP:PURGE to make them look right (this will straighten out by itself eventually). – sgeureka 09:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? You can simply comment out |ShortSummary= (<!-- |ShortSummary -->) to stop it displaying an empty line. (See List of That Girl episodes) As for |DirectedBy= and |WrittenBy=, leaving them empty has never caused a problem.

If this is what is meant in regard to DirectedBy and WrittenBy, then the changes are unnecessary because the problem is in not providing the correct number of column headings for the fields used. If you include fields then you should include appropriate column headings. We shouldn't be changing the template to compensate for poor editing practices. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

HTML comments is good editing practice? :P There are actually three changes to the template: 1) blank ShortSummary parameter, 2) can leave other blank parameters in the template and 3) adds the colored line at the bottom when there is no short summary. I think the first and third ones are worth changing the template for. — Bility (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make an itemized list of every possible scenario, but I thought I was pretty clear. The casual editors that may come to a page down the line most likely will not know all of the intricate "template" details (such as that they would need to remove the <!--- and ---> parameters before a ShortSummary they add will show up), so that "solution" basically creates the same problems as simply removing the "ShortSummary" parameter altogether. There are dozens of "hidden" parameters in every infobox template I've ever seen, so I didn't see any reason why the same format shouldn't be applied to the Episode list template. I can't speak for others here, but I don't intend to monitor pages on a daily basis after I write them. The idea was to make things easier for casual editors to be able to expand pages after we leave. I don't consider it "poor editing practices" simply because casual editors may not be familiar with all of the intricacies of Misplaced Pages templates. I'm assuming everyone here is relatively familiar with the basic templates on Misplaced Pages - but let's keep in mind that there are hundreds and thousands of editors who aren't. I don't think that's any reason to look down our noses at them or refuse to make minor changes which will help to simplify the editing process for them. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with commenting out presently unused fields. We use commented out content everywhere and it isn't bad practice. Optional, unused fields shouldn't be left in articles. If {|ProdCode= (for example) isn't going to be used, it shouldn't be there. If it is going to be used, there should be a column heading for it. Arguments about casual editors not knowing something don't really fly because this happens with everything in every article. Most of what I do on Misplaced Pages is fixing errors made by casual editors as well as editors who should know better. Errors occur, but an experienced editor almost always comes along to fix problems. The coloured line is used to delineate between episode entries when an episode summary is included. When episode articles are transcluded, we don't include the coloured line because we don't need to delineate between single rows in tables, either in episode lists or generally. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Again - As previously stated above, I thought the colored line below each episode would be useful in pages that are in development (for example: an episode list where some episodes do have an episode summary while others don't (and I personally don't think a 2px colored line between episodes on transcluded pages would throw everything into upheaval - but that's a separate issue). As far as I can tell - you haven't really presented any reason why any of these changes would present any problems - just that you don't think we should "need" to do it. The case that the template has been working perfectly without these changes thus far fails to take into account the improvements that were never made because a casual editor tried to add to a table - got confused and/or frustrated, and ended up leaving without making the improvements. I don't claim to be an expert with templates, but I think I'm at least familiar with the basics of how they work and even I will still occasionally accidentally remove a semi-colon or make some other little mistake which throws a template off and I end up spending 10 or 20 (or more) minutes retracing my steps to find my mistake. The rationale that there are already far more complicated ways around the problems doesn't really gel with the mission of Misplaced Pages being welcoming/inviting place for new editors to edit. The assertion that new editors make mistakes with "everything" in "every" article doesn't really fly either - I would maintain that knowing Misplaced Pages's policies regarding citing reliable sources is far more remedial than the syntaxt codes for templates, which is far more advanced than simply citing a reference at the end of a sentence (I find people often slap a simple link to a source into an article and I convert them into reflinks all the time). That's like comparing third grade mathematics to advanced trigonometry. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The template is already designed to handle the issue, and the documentation provides adequate explanation. It very specifically says only to include parameters that are being used. The template puts in empty spaces when the parameter is called so the table would be designed correctly even if information is not yet known. For instance, we only know writers and directors for episodes already broadcast, but we know titles and airdates for upcoming episodes. Jay32183 (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, the template does not "handle the issues" I've (now repeatedly) outlined above. Those of us on this page are obviously familiar with the documentation of templates, but the majority of editors are not. I understand what you're saying about current shows, but keep in mind, mainstream television existed some 50+ years prior to Misplaced Pages becoming mainstream, and many old shows are "brought back", either in reruns on one of the 500+ cable channels, through DVD releases, on itunes or hulu, etc. Details on an old show from 30 or 40 or 50+ years ago may not be readily available today, but old details often become available with renewed interest in a series after a template has been created. As far as what you're saying about tables for current shows - Maybe I'm a little confused, but I thought the vertical parameters would only become invisible if there was no information for that column in any of the episodes. For example: If there was no information available about the directors of an old show, then that column would automatically become hidden, but as soon as someone added the name of the director for the pilot episode then that parameter would automatically become visible all the way down the length of the entire table (I could be wrong, but that was my assumption). The "ShortSummary" section is a somewhat different case since it's a horizontal parameter, so I don't believe having summary parameters appear for some episodes and not others would confuse the table. Again - So far, the only rationale I can discern for denying the changes is that the Misplaced Pages "good fairies" who spend their time magically appearing and fixing complicated tables will no longer have anything to do. Granted, my original request was for the "ShortSummary" parameter, but I still haven't seen anyone outline any downside whatsoever for including the "hidden" option for other columns as well. If your "solution" is to simply remove parameters so that only an elite few of us can expand a template as more information becomes available later on down the line, then no thanks - I'd rather just leave the blank "ShortSummary" paramaters that double the length of the table (and the page), than create a table that's prohibitive of others being able to easily add information later on if/when it becomes available. I would have thought if "hidden" parameters were so objectionable then they wouldn't be included on just about every infobox template I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages.--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. - In response to your edit summary - the previous edit did not "break the table" - it created an unanticipated problem on tables that were transcluded from other pages and has been fixed. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother reading your full post because your first sentenced pissed me off. If editors are unfamiliar with the documentation it is their responsibility to familiarize themselves with it. We shouldn't dumb down a functional template because some people can't be bothered to read the directions. There is no reason to change the template. Another reason it's written the way it was was to keep its size smaller because there are template limits on pages. If templates get too big, they stop showing up on pages. Jay32183 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 April 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'm pretty sure the last edit should be reverted. It is causing, at least on my end, the appearance of a strange "ʁ" character in several places on the transclusions. See List of The Penguins of Madagascar episodes and List of Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness episodes for examples. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Addition: I did try purging, but this did not remedy the situation. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The table looks great on the pages I originally made the request about, but I see the weird "ʁ" symbol on the pages you've mentioned. Hopefully this is just some encoding glitch and can be easily fixed without reverting the entire update, but it's definitely not just you or a "purging" issue. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This should defiantly be reverted as soon as possible, it's causing the ʁ issue on every episode list that I can see. Яehevkor ✉ 12:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to break every article which transcludes {{Episode list/sublist}}, of which there are over 1000. DH85868993 (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Undid recent change. – sgeureka 12:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed Episode list/sublist and checked the other wrapper templates for Episode list and none of them are using that ʁ notation. Example from The Penguins of Madagascar is on the sublist testcases page. In order for the testcases page to work, Episode list/sublist/sandbox has to call Episode list/sandbox, not the actual Episode list template, so the sublist sandbox cannot be copy/pasted into the sublist template without changing that. I can make the change after everyone's had a chance to check out the testcase, or the admin can do it as they swap out the code. Note that both the main template and the sublist template have to be swapped out at the same time when this goes live. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your work on this. The revised versions of the template and testcases look good. One thing to check is that the short summaries are displayed on the individual season episode lists, but not on series "master" episode lists (which transclude the individual season lists), e.g. they should be displayed on Bones (season 2), but not on List of Bones episodes. (I tried to check this myself using the sandbox versions of the templates, but ended up tying myself in knots :-) DH85868993 (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It does work, except it adds the thick line at the bottom of each entry, which is a new change to the template. If you don't like it when you see it, we can add a switch to remove it. — Bility (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible need to change the template, and remove some functionality

I noticed today that there had been some rather peculiar edits to List of Friends episodes, replacing transclusions from season articles with raw tables using some formatting that, to be honest, I haven't seen used at any TV article that I've edited. Assuming that it was the work of a misguided editor, as often happens, I started restoring the article to its transcluded format, but received this message on my talk page. I don't agree that transclusion has been discouraged at the featured list discussion, unless I've read something incorrectly, but the nomination, if successful, will set precedents that we will be expected to follow. Of particular note is the non-transclusion of season article episode lists, which will result in duplication errors. Not transcluding the season episode lists really means there should be no episode lists in the season articles, which means content for individual seasons will be in at least two places, whereas at the moment all is generally in the season article and shared with the main list. The changes made to List of Friends episodes also include complicated coding that is going to be difficult to follow, especially for new editors. Some season articles simply won't need to exist. {{Episode list}} currently avoids the need for this. It also adds an enormous amount of content to the episode list article. Without any episode summaries List of Friends episodes has increased in size from 14,184 bytes on 1 March 2012, to 82,569 bytes with this edit. Also to be noted is de-bolding of episode titles, which will require changes to {{Episode list}}. I've started a discussion on this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television#List of Friends episodes as well, because the changes affect WP:TV. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Template-Class television pages
• NA-importance television pages
• Template-Class Episode coverage pages
• NA-importance Episode coverage pages
• Episode coverage task force articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• Template-Class List pages
• NA-importance List pages
• WikiProject Lists articles