Talk:List of Time Team episodes/Archive 1

Merge proposal

Stephenb has put merge tags on List of Time Team special episodes, List of Time Team Live episodes and List of Time Team Extra episodes, proposing to merge them to List of Time Team episodes. If these merges are to be discussed, there probably ought to also be a merge tag on this article.

There's also List of Time Team Digs Episodes and List of Time Team History Hunters, which don't have merge tags. I don't have an opinion on whether to merge any of these articles or not, I just thought I'd mention them. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk: Time Team#Episode tidy. --UpDown (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Need to add information on cameos

I was most annoyed to see my additions on cameos deleted by some a***hole (Feb 2008). But hey ho, the joys of Wikipedia... You have a whole "additional information" column which is more or less blank. The cameos - things like making a medieval stained glass window - are an integral part of the series and to my mind it is essential to list them alongside the episodes. For reenactors like myself it would give a ready reference to much very useful 'living history' information.

Also very annoyed that along with my cameos suggestion you couldn't be arsed to take in the few editorial changes I made to the text. Just undid the lot. You lazy b**st*rd. GRRRR! 83.5.154.84 (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)woofgrrr

I would strongly advise you do not insult people on Wikipedia, it will not do you any favours. The "additional information" coloumn is going, as I said all series should soon look like the first few currently do. Your edits had no refs also, and adding something like "no cameo" to an edit summary is not encyclopedic. You must remember this is not a fansite, it is an encyclopedia and I personally question whether making a stained glass window warrants a mention in the episode summary.--UpDown (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic - therefore covering all information. Just because you personally don't think it's worth adding information on the cameos, doesn't mean other people wouldn't find it useful. And how you can think the cameos are worthless? You sound like one of those dullards who can't see the value in living history or re-enactment in the process of historical studies; well wake up this is the 21st century.

Each cameo took up to 10% of the total airtime of the show and was the only regular "side-plot" to the main story. One of the best cameos showed the reconstruction of a Roman draco standard (the first time it had ever been done!); another reconstructed burial customs from Iron Age to Late Rome using live re-enactors. These were spectacular events, now part of reenactment folklore... Now it's a pain in the behind trying to relocate these cameos, which are of huge value to the re-enactment community. And of course you see no value in mentioning them! How arrogant of you.

As for needing a reference, well are you completely dull? The show itself is the reference... Do you seriously NEED a separate third party reference when you can look at the show itself? I mean it's not like you are speaking of an event that took place in the 11th century, with only one eyewitness. For chrissake be a human not a machine!

As for me insulting you, well that's because you have the audacity to delete stuff without any good reason, and a superior attitude thinking only what you do is valid. Other people have an opinion too. Wikipedia is a democracy, not a dictatorship, though you seem to think otherwise. Goodbye and good riddance to you, you arrogant piece of .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.61.204 (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you had said any of the above in a polite and Wikipedia-style fashion, and hadn't vandalised my talk page, I would reply. --UpDown (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

in all fairness althogh i like the new format i think the original poster is right the information should be there as well, youa re being opinated, and as for sources oyu have not provided soruces to where you got the seaosn 3 episode titles seaosn 3-6 there is none on the web not eveen channel four own wbesite gives them so i love ot knwo where oyu got them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 16:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I got the episodes titles from the references given next to the episode summary for each episode. I would advise you against phrases like "youa re being opinated" [sic], which do not assume good faith. As I say, putting my feeling of them being trivial aside, they are not referenced.--UpDown (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

there is no offical episode title for season 3 to 6 apart froma odd few so you shouldnt be taken tehm from reference in a episode summary there hasd been a few episode titels that aint anything to do witht eh summary, so you are giving episode titles to them without really knwoing if they ar ethe offical one you best amend them to say unoffical. fair enough i see your point about the reference part, but having the information int he summary isnt helpfully to someone who doesnt know the show, would you mind if ia make a slight alternation to series 1 to include the informationt he other person is talkign about without it being in the sumamry? then you might be able to make it look better afterwards. but the person is right the only source is watching the episode which i do myself :). apologise for saying you where being opinated just taking a outside view of it you where saying it not something oyu want so you didnt want it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this, but I do find a lot of the above hard to understand. However, a reliable source gives series three episodes titles. The reference being in the episode summary is fine, references are never put after the episode titles. I am unsure what you mean about putting the information in without it being in the summary? Where else would it be? As I say I have doubts about its relevance, and references are needed, this is Wikipedia, not a fansite. The current episode summaries are referenced. Regardless, if they go anywhere it should be in the episode summary.--UpDown (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Specials

I do nto have anything agaisnt oyu adding the special to the guide. but i think adding them inbetween season 1 will cause confusion and 2 will give a false episode total

the special epsiode should eb there own section because ther eis only 35 specials jsut now and there serpate to the epsiode count because otherwise the lastest epsiode would be classed as about 190ish instead of 160ish --andrewcrawford 20:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The specials are not connected to each other, and therefore putting them together would be highly misleading. They are each individual one-off special episodes, and therefore putting them in date order is logical and sensible. The main episode count on the main page takes into account all specials and live episodes, and eventually they will all be on one page. They do not deserve seperate articles, hence why another user added a merge tag.--UpDown (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

and put them inbetween the othe epsiode is misleading and stupid, you have stated ythis is a encolpedia yet you are jsut makign it wrong by doign this, if they are not conencted then why do other sites listed them as a serpate section maybe because special episode are serpate to the main poen fair neough might not need a serpate page but they shouldnt be poart of the main page

Again, I advise against phrases like "stupid", which could be taken as a personal insult. The time team fansite lists them seperate, but it also lists each series seperate, but that doesn't mean we we should have an article for each series.--UpDown (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

i would look up the context of the word stupid and hwo it is refence i might be thick in the form of english but i have learned that it can have different contexts and if oyu cant undertand the difference betweena personal insult and describing something then that aint my problem. it is quite clear you ar every bias and want to make this arctile your own and wont take the arcile to be what it is meant to be give information toa new person and the laout and way your are setting it out is your own opinated way and you wont let others change it you revert every other users edits you find is changing the layout you want so go ahead and ruin the artcile considering you are one spouting so much about it being a eylopedia of information you wont let it be —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again I apologise but am having problems understanding a lot of the above. The advise I gave you about the word "stupid" I suggest you think about - if you wish to get on in Wikipedia then debating is important, and calling someone "stupid" is not a good idea. But that aside, I am setting out the article in the recommonded way per a common consensus on Wikipedia for TV episode listings. I do not claim to own the article, and am merely trying to make it the best it can be. And please sign your posts. Thanks.--UpDown (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

i aint calling you stupid i am sayign the way you are making the guide is stupid because it makes it confussing for new users to understand but i aint goign ot argue about it you are goign to kept makign it that way so i wont stop you i feel you are makign the guide good for infromation but bad for layout (hence my comment stupid)--andrewcrawford 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Guide

Ok first of the live action are not part of the total episode count and are a serparate thing to the main episode, the psecials are part of it. Second you have revert all teh work i have done on series 15 table. Third you are being opinaied again. Fourth airdate is not the true way to make a guide, a guide is meant to consisit of series/seasons so special and lvie are there own serpate one so i will revert the information one becaus ei have done up series 15 table include information other users have asked for. and second because you are wrong in the way you are goign about it. if oyu think it is wrong provide me information to say other wise i aitn seen anything in wikipedia guidlines that say oyu are right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As before, I am having problems understanding some of the above. Phrases like "you are being opinaied again" do you no help - it's just rude and uncivil. Read WP:CIVIL. One, all episodes are part of the episode count, that's common Wikipedia practise, specials or not, they are part of the count. The Series 15 table was not formatted correctly, and if you look you will see this. In addition, the archaelogy type coloumn is not needed - that's what the episode summary is for. Episodes should be in airdate order, again a common Wikipedia convention unless there is a good reason otherwise, in this case there is no reason. Date order is the easiest and more logical way to order things.--UpDown (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And please, please remember to sign your posts. You have been asked many times before.--UpDown (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note the 3RR rule; neither of us can revert the page again in the next 24 hours. If you do I will report it.--UpDown (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Opinated - english dicitionary meaning, is that you are taking your oen opinion and no one elses you do not listen only listen to your own opinion it was argued before by others to keep the other information and to use the format i was but you insisited it your way or no way and you are doing the same again. i suggest you go look up dsylexica before moaning you cant read wha ti write and accuss me of being rude and uncivil when i am only pointing out that your are being opinated. I have given proof in the past why the guide should be the way i made it others have agreed and there plenty of guides on wikipedia that do not go by airdate but sicne that hwo you want it you wont allow anyone ot change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

One, again please sign your posts! Secondly, whether you have dislexyia or not, I am still having problems reading your messages. But to the points, we are both being opinionated - as we are both expressing our opinions. For you to keep banding the term around with other comments is uncivil. I would like to know the other people wo have argued to change it - there was only an IP address, who made very rude comments, but no one else. There is no "proof" about why it should be in an illogical format you suggest, the order of airing is the most logical and sensible way of listing them.--UpDown (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I do sign my posts, for some reasons it doesnt always appear and i have to reedit them but that another matter. There was 1 or 2 register users who argued for it to be different. There is proof for it the channel who produce it own website has them serpate, airign order for guides is a american standard most certainly not a worldwide standard. i aint arguing over the content or anything it just the layout of having special and lives inbetween proper seasons. fair enough i might be opinated myself but that only for the colum archology type the guide layout i am arguing because other sites say it different, you argue against my poitn that the unoffical site says it that way but you link and reference to that so if you can reference to that you are acknoldge that as a valid source but you wont accept the layout that why i am arguing against it.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok i tell you what i am goign to do, i am going ot make a dicussion for each of the argument i am having about the guide. i am then going to do full reseach and provide information and sources and explain what i am meaning clearly which requires helkp from others to make it clear. i will justify my side and then i like you to justify your side why it should be your way. I say thata fair argument then other can say what they think they like and jsut go on what the majority of people go with. Would you say that is fair enough?--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered either way but, without wanting to be cruel, I suggest you work on your typing before editing much further. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I cant do bugger all about my spelling ot gr\mmer, im dsylexic. It doesnt effect me doing work just means i require other to fix my spell and grammer mistakes that really so hard isnt it?--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dyslexia causes you to hit the wrong keys? - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

no dsylexica does not make me hit the wrong keys the / was a typign mistake, but general how i spell words liek just as jsut is do with my dsylexica as i see them in reverse order and i dnt see why i should have to redo everything jsut for a mere talk it doesnt effect me or anyoen else apart from english purist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 08:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you please let me know who these “register users” are – on this talk page the only people involved in the discussion are you, me and the IP address. Wikipedia is independent of the channel, we makes our own rules not copy theirs. We use websites for reference, but have our own way of designing things and laying them out. Just because I use that website as a source, does not mean I should lay it own the same way. It is a fansite, not an encyclopaedia. It doesn’t matter how many other websites present the information one way, this is Wikipedia and we don’t copy them. Airdate order is the most simple, logical and encyclopaedic order. With regards to the archaeology type column; as I said this is what the episode summary is for, it doesn’t need to be in the other bit as well. To be honest I only put the location in the spirit of comprise, that doesn’t really need to be there either.--UpDown (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

the other people are on the time team talk page when it was gettign discussed about this page. and even if it a ip address it doesnt matter there views still shoudl be counted. i have made a suggestion and you are clearly not caring so you are being to opinated. what the point in this discussion if you are not willign to listen to reason or facts????? you are clearly only goign to make this guide how oyu want it. and you madea poitn it a encloipedia and the last time i check one it holds lots of information and it makes things clear how most peope will udnerstand it so ther eno point arguing with oyu is there???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Please can we get back to discussing the article content, please? It seems that Andrewcrawford was trying to do several things: Firstly, moving the specials - here I agree with UpDown, chronological order is best, and it need not have been moved. Secondly, reformat the table for series 15 - in this case, he has a point, since the altered format was close to that used for series 1-4 and the Christmas Special, though not for the subsequent series. The article should be consistent in its handling of all the series. Both formats have a lot going for them, as one includes the director and a text field including the recording dates and some descriptive prose, the other is more concise and compact. Unfortunately, looking at there is no standardised format, and this is, in any case, a rather untypical show. I think we should agree on a tabular format here before further format changes are made, and then use that format for all of the series. Stephenb (Talk) 11:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for agreeing and disagreeing with me :) i think your idea of coming up witha format that suits all is hte best idea but i doubt updown will agree they dnt seem to want to change there stance unfortnally but if it debated then there more to say it should.

My formot would be Episode number, Episode Title, Location, Archology Type, Director, Original Airdate, Production Code, Episode Summary.

My format for the layout would be Series 1 to Current series, then special and then live episodes. So each will be there own section with there own table, but with teh special episodes the epiosde nmber will be as it would be if it was listed as updown has done it just now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like all episodes to be in the format used for the first four series, and always intend to change all to this format, but have not yet had the chance. This is in line with most other episode tables.--UpDown (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• • The house MD guide does not follow that convention, it has the condition coloum so i cant understand theproblem in the archology type period coloum when it more consise and easier to read —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 09:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that the type of table should be like the first four series, and like House. Yes, additions boxes can be added - as I've added location, but I don't feel archaelogy type is necessary there. It fits better in episode summary, with filming dates and so on.--UpDown (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I have one major issue and i think it needs resolved before anyhing els eis doen witht he guide. the live episodes you are counting them for each day giving them a total epsiode coutn number, but if you look at series 8 one of the epsiode there are offically classed as episode 100 of the series and it even says it on the epiosde when you watch it, iif you coudn the live and special and normal epsiode you will find it mroe than 100 if you remove the live it is 100 so i think etc live broadcast should be it own article. if we can agree on that after you research it yourself i will not prusue the rest because the guide will still be fairly accurate unless other agree there should be change then i will discuss it further.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not follow what the TV station might say, the total number of episodes of Time Team is as displayed in the main article's infobox, we can't just remove the live episodes because Channel 4 don't count them. Time Team Live is not a seperate programme. We can say in the episode summary for the episode in Series 8 you mention that it is the official 100th episode (and say why its the 100th episode, say live episodes aren't counted by Channel 4). As I say we aren't here to copy Channel 4, no more than we copy fanwebsites. I don't appreciate the last sentence of your comments above, which sound a bit like a threat - 'agree or I will continuing arguing'. --UpDown (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Table width

This is more for UpDown than general discussion.

Looking at the tables since the episode title and location etc vary quite a lot the it looks out of portion, i was wondering if it might be better to use the coloum width="??" to standard all the table to one size just for appearance sake?Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. The live episodes will be different as there is no "location" bit.--UpDown (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the live episode have various locations i think 2003 and 2005 ones in particular so might be best including the location there, but i will deal with the other tables later.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Split

I know this is a bit premature until the article is referenced etc. But i was thinking maybe we should go with 5 year periods? that should make sure it small enough and wont have to many links on the side. Although this is still early to do it just thought could discuss the ideas for a way forward for it.Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your page looks pretty crappy, but since you seem to think that it's your way or the highway, do whatever you want. I think you'll find most people don't really care all that much. Have fun! Modeset (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For start the phrase "your" page is not correct, it is now one's page. Read WP:OWN. I find your whole comment rude and insultive, and I advise you read up on Wikipeida's civility guidelines.--UpDown (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't know why you found it rude and insultive - I was being rude and insultive to someone else, Andrew. He's the one who undid my changes. And hey, you know what? I was a jerk. I got defensive and narky because someone undid my tidying up when I was trying to help. I'm sorry, Andrew. And clearly, making the effort to make changes isn't worth it. I was even going to start putting in episode summaries as I watch them, but I'm sure they'd be taken out as well. Modeset (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because the comments were to someone else does not mean I cannot find them rude or insultive, or that I cannot comment on them.--UpDown (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

hCalendar microformat

coordinates should be as precise as possible, and for the dig site, not merely the host town or village.

The template which makes this page, {{Episode list}}, now includes an hCalendar microformat. A bot will shortly convert all the original air dates to use {{Start date}}. I've also added mark-up in "AUX2" to include the location on the Calendar's "locality" field, and have added a coordinates column, using AUX 3, which needs input using {{coord}}. Please add coordinates, where you can! Thank you. we can then include {{tl|kml}], so that all the episodes can be mapped on serves like Google Maps, downloaded, as KML, to GPS devices, etc. Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better if the Location and Coordinates coloumns next to each other. Although I can see the use in the coordinates coloumn, are you personally going to add them. I personally will not, as I want to focus on the episode info, and I am concerned about these remaming empty for some time. Also, the live episodes does need have a coordinates coloumn, as its the same for each episode within it.--UpDown (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start on the coordinates, but this is a wiki; it's not down to you, or me, to compete a task like that - anyone can help. Nor is there a deadline. If someone wants to swap the column order, that's fine by me. Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 20:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware this is a Wiki thank you very much, but that does not change the fact that a coloumn should not really be left blank for ages. But, if you are doing them great.--UpDown (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Table widths

The page looks much better, with table widths set consistently from one to another. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Live episodes

I have been doing a bit more research and i think maybe the live episode could have there own separate article each for each live one like 2000, 2005 etc? This is only a question and just wondered other opinions. (not sure if they should be removed from here if they are made or kept here but this question is more about there own articles--Andrewcrawford (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC) On side note after more research i have to completely agree the special should be part of this article and not there own

First Split

I propose that we split the first section out of the article.

My proposition is to move from the pilot to the Special in 1997 to a new page called List of time team episode (1994) - (1997). What are people views on this? suggestions on the name of the new page and suggestions on the idea of what should be moved?--Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is too long?

What idiot added this comment. Of course the article is not TOO LONG. It's far too short. There is hardly any information at all about each episode. Far from it - there is not nearly enought info to determine what the individual episodes were about. What kinda ijut adds such ridiculous comments?

People have actually grown old while this series has been made. For chrissake of course the article is LOONNG, and so it should be!

Reorganization

Perhaps a bit of a reorganization can take place. For example, break of up the horribly long list in to three distinct sections of "Series", "Specials" and "Live Episodes" with each item listed chronologically within their respective section. Alternately, split them into new articles covering "Series" and the other "Specials / Live Episodes".

Thoughts?

Nosferatux (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortnally this ha sbeen ooposed before when i propused it so unless there is a consesus to change it then unfortnalyl it need to stay the way it is and a new way thought from this format.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there coloum really necessary and should it remain on this page? As each episode has alink to the town it is based in and each town page has hte coordinates and this is adding and wasting more space and making the article larger than it need to be.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates are valuable because placenames are still somewhat ambiguous. Coordinates provided are for the actual archealogical site (the spot in the field). I know this because I added most of them.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.12.153 (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point the coordinates ar eon the pages for hte lcoations so are not needed, go to one of the links for a lcoation adn you will find it has coordinates--Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you've missed his point, which was that articles about towns give the coordinates of the town but the dig site could be a field two miles away. While the likes of myself regard the hunting and marking of TT dig sites in Google Earth, starting from a 'rough location' something of a sport, to others life is simply too short, so they turn to Wikipedia for a quick answer. (Incidentally, you can search for towns and villages by name in GE anyway, so referring to Wiki pages for their coords is a waste of time). I would like to see the coords kept in the article. In fact, I'd like to contribute some extra ones myself but I'm not going to do that if I get the impression that my, or other contributors', contributions are going to be thrown away for the sake of a few kb. EatYerGreens (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, i had not thought about it like that so i suppose the coordinates are agood idea, i had only looked at a few and they where the same as the location ie town maybe all the coordinates iwll need ot be checked to make sure there in the dig location and not the town location if it he town location then ther eno point ot them, if it the dig location i go back on my thoughts and say they are vaulable now. :)--Andrewcrawford (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that not all of the coordinates are exact. I will find them and fix them as I go. I do have a life, but was in a car accident and was looking for something to do. I decided to find Time Team locations. And I gave myself just three days to do it. Unfortunately, I couldn't find them all in 3 days...-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.12.153 (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

For example, try the coordinate for episode 227 (January 21, 2007 - Blacklands), Google Satellite maps seems to have caught the Time Team in the act. The coordinates can enhance the experience of watching the show. For example, in the Nether Poppleton episode, the Team remarked on the unusual concentration of finds at Number 20. In examining the map, number 20 appears to be at an easier ford of the river. There is a road across the river headed toward number 20. The cross street at number 20 is named "Ferryman's Walk". It seems possible Number 20 had a great deal of traffic in years gone by. I hope the coords stay. Some of them took me a long while to discover. The WWI dugout was particularly tough from my armchair in San Diego.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.12.153 (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Special episode 4

This episode recently aired on channel 4 again, but this episode is excately like 713 episodes in fact the both are the exact the same, and the episode itself does not say its a special but regular epiosde. i purpose removing this epiosde from the episod elisting as its false informaiton.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has any idea which entry you are referring to, so we can't agree or disagree yet. Care to name the year and the episode title? As an aside, what is "713 episodes" all about? EatYerGreens (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

See post a5t bottom about episode renumbering for more information--Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Article confusing tag?

Could the person who added that to the article please come forward and state their case? I see no such discussion in the archive before the tag went in but, equally, I cannot remove it unilaterally. EatYerGreens (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As below ther eis to many sections the article is very hard to follow for a non user who knows the subject, i am currently working on new ways to display the data and the user updown and myself will be talking about my ways forward however the last time i tried to change it i got into a big arguement with updown which i do not want again, the problem is updown says it has to be in date order i agree i jsut do not agree witht he way to do it but have agreed for now until other ways might be brought forward, yes any change to the page will be brought forward after myself and updown can agree on format that does what updown would like date order and i would like easier to read. Also tagging does not always require discussion if the article is not to standard anyone is entitled to tag it so other editors can help clean it up.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now madwe the table of contents a little better and easier to understand howeve rthe list itself is still hard to follow so the confusion tag will need to remain for now.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhow, I still don't understand your problem. A list is just a list and there's no use in having a list unless it has some kind of logical sequence to it. Currently the episodes are arranged in order of original broadcast date and, presumably for ease of editing, tables are grouped by series-year. (A single table for all 250+ episodes risks edit-clashes if two or more editors work simultaneously). Without wishing to cause any offence, saying that you find this hard to follow does your image no favours. With life in general, people regard it as insufficient to simply stand on the sidelines, saying 'this is bad' (anyone can do that). One must also describe - in some detail - your own scheme for making things better. Over to you. EatYerGreens (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well i have done some work on the layout i think would make it better, howeve rit is not complete so please bear in mind it will not show oyu exacetly how i expect it could be done. Some informaiton will appear missing however it is merely been moved to another page so please follow the links within the page. User:Andrewcrawford/test4 This proposal is based on my opinion that the live episoe should be there own article as they are notable however if this was decided it was not notable and census said to keep within this article the layout can be easily adjusted to suit. This soloution alos covers the to long tag as well.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

Perhaps a bit of a reorganization can take place. For example, break of up the horribly long list in to three distinct sections of "Series", "Specials" and "Live Episodes" with each item listed chronologically within their respective section. Alternately, split them into new articles covering "Series" and the other "Specials / Live Episodes".

Thoughts?

Nosferatux (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortnally this ha sbeen ooposed before when i propused it so unless there is a consesus to change it then unfortnalyl it need to stay the way it is and a new way thought from this format.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea. However, Time Team continues to produce episodes so this will get only worse. Specials and Live episodes are equivalent to about 3 years of regular episodes in quantity. So this solution will only forestall the issue. Maybe break by decade... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.12.153 (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a need for each episode's entry to grow (when people add a description about the episode's content), so I would have no objections to an initial page split of (i) 1993-2000 and (ii) 2001-2010 and we then simply wait until a page becomes oversized before considering another subdivision. As for reorganisation of each year, I also support changing it so that there is one table covering episodes 1 to 13 of the regular series then a second table for the 'Time Team Special' episodes, a third table for the 'Time Team Live' (if applicable, that year), a fourth for any of those 'one off' series (if applicable), then it moves on to fresh tables for the next year. At the moment, the special episodes break up the tables for the main series and it seems this is only in the interests of keeping the list in strict date-of-broadcast order and applying a serial number to each of them. Re-arranging the tables will, necessarily, juggle the 'serial numbers' but this is a small price to pay for improved readability and the overall episode count will not be harmed by the changes. EatYerGreens (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. Also I would be greatly in favor of coalescing some of the specials. Specifically, the multipart broadcasts of the same dig/objective. We could list the broadcast dates as there are several. But the other attributes would not be so repetitive. Andrewcrawford's test page looked fine to me as well. This splitting of Live and Specials mirrors the treatment that was given to Time Team Digs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.12.153 (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it wioll require quite a bit of work i only say split the live peisoe because they ar enotable and are nto really part of the main broadcast, the lvie episode are just that the regular episode broadcast live so oyu see jsut baotu everytihng they do, howeve rthe specials ar enot notable but would be best on ther eown main article for descriuptions but the epsiode numbering would have to be int eh sma eorder for air date, if there was a consenus to this i might say go ahead however i would still like updown opinions on this as they opposed this in the first place however maybe i never made it clear int he first time i suggested it maybe they might agree when seeing the test page--Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I will finish my test page off within a few days, one means if a conseus says ye it fine it will be easy enoguh to copy nad paste over and have it live very quickly and two it will give everyone a better idea my thought on it and how we could solve the problems. Bear in mind the main article link i can not link to withint my sub page so i create manual links but if it was decide to go along with my suggestion then the main article links would be best used instead of norma links. Also can we haev a consus on the live episode wether other peopel think they are notable enough to be there own article and not part of the epsiode list? as the live epsiode either turn into a main episode condesate or a special--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)also once finished the epsiode numebr will take that of the new epsiode numbers would be

I will finish off my test page on friday and will try reference it compeltely, unfortnally i have exam on thursday so i have to study for that. If we can get some sort of agreement on the new format then i will put it live, if not i will tweak it until we get sometihng everyone can agree on.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok it is now all finished, have a look and give comments please :) anything you cna suggest to improv ei will do before goign live if there a consenus this is better solution for now, also the lvie epsiode i think are notable so i am breaklign them out if in the future it is decided they are not we can merge them into the article again. List of Time Team episodes --Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Article too long tag?

Likewise, could the person who added that please come forward and state their case? Again, the archive has no discussion prior to the tag going in but I cannot remove it without checking with other contributors first. EatYerGreens (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The archive does has things about this clearly you never looked right, however it the fact there is so many sectiosn and the article size is fast approaching 100kb and article over 100kb need to split itno smaller articles, the other fact is it is split into many sectiosn when it could be condensed howveer that is a serperate discussion which never got a decision either way so it was decided to jsut leave it liek for now--Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I'd homed in on the only part of the archive with the word 'long' in it and that was just a disparaging remark about whoever had tagged the article. Upon re-checking, I see a short exchange about splitting the article but I'd naively expected to see a discussion (and consensus) about applying the 'too long' tag. My mistake. The tag can stay for now. EatYerGreens (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate and missing entries, and numbering

The entries numbered 79 ("Episode 13") and 80 ("York"), respectively, are the one and same program. The same goes for 98 ("The Bone Caves") and 99 ("Episode 9").

At the same time, "The Mystery of Mine Howe" (27 December 2000) is missing altogether from the list. Basically, this means that the episode numbering is screwed up from 79 onwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.233.211 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I never knew about the bone cave one but yeah i agree it hsould go with the york one :) The missing one will be added in when the article goes through it clenaing process jsut now we need to decided a way foreward. Your contruibutions and opinion will be welcomed above in the confussion tag part above this one. I have made a test page up in my userpage so you are welcome ot look at it and comment on what you think of it.,--Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe Mine Howe is Episode 88, Time Team History of Britain. I think the title is wrong. I matched on Tony Robinson's hair color and Channel 4 broadcast date. Channel 4 Episode Guide—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.12.153 (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I will check this out i have every episode recorded now so i will double check if it is jsut a dublicate of episode 88 if so then it oculd be removed too.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is most defination a special--Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Mine Howe was a Special. Wasn't the Time Team History of Britain a little wrapper segment done by Robin Bush in an easy chair by a roaring fire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.12.153 (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes:

• 54.140634° -4.552328° Episode 158 "Finds on the Fairway" - I would have edited this myself but just found circular references to the main page. The current reference is about 100m out and marks a nearby road.

--Juncus (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

click on the main article link that is where oyu need ot edit this is jsut a page that shows the list but he informqation isnt held on this pagr--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 00:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Fix declined - From the diagrams and overhead views in the episode, these coords are spot–on. If you're using Google Maps or Earth to view them, they are inaccurate some of the time. Try Wikimapia or Acme Mapper from GeoHack, instead. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of coordirnates

Unresolved

i have removed the coordinates from the the main ist they will still be on the individual series articles but it causing a transclusion error so i have removed it form eh transluion but will make the table look bad i will get this fixed later--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And look what you left behind. Please fix the tables on the individual articles or restore the coordinates. Drmargi (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

it ainta big problem and look what oyu have left behind a lot of data not transcluded--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What? An orphaned heading and data under the wrong heading is a BIG problem. Don't mess with a template until you are sure you know what to do, then check to be sure what you've done is correct. Far better we leave some content in the articles than the mess you left. Drmargi (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I know excatgely wha ti am doing the only problem with change the template meant that the airdate was in the coordinates coloumk not a big oproblem consideirng i was goign to fix it later tonigt, the only reason there was mess later on was because once you edit the template and change the onlyinclude it mucks teh main list up and oyu have to edit hte whole lot which you lef tm eno choice to do, and yor attempts at playing wiht the templates telkl me you dnt know what oyur doing--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is now completely ruined when it comes to the tables. I would prefer if you put it back as it was before, I think it is GOOD that the coordinates were in the tables. Also, no offense Andrew, but please stop trying to explain why the Specials are not on the list, because your sentences do not make sense. I think I explained it perfectly fine, don't change them back please. Typehigh (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

the coordinates still exist in the series articles, they had to be removed there causing page ovelroad so the page cant process all the data, you sentance did not apply on this lsit because the specials are here nto omitted but your sentance is correct for the series articles--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Typehigh. Moreover, a move as big as removing the coordinates should have been discussed before it was made. I also don't see why specials presented during the individual series aren't incorporated into the series. That removes the need for hunting through a separate table and the contested sentence. Drmargi (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, removing the coords should have been discussed. Also, I don't understand what you mean with overloading the page, I had no problems with it whatsoever? Are you sure it wasn't a problem on your side Andrew? I also think the specials could have been incorporated into the series to which they belong. Perhaps we should change that? Typehigh (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Although, on second thought, the Specials are somewhat a series on their own, even though they are aired in between regular episodes. As for the contested sentence, I think I have fixed that one (should no longer be contested). Typehigh (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

not a problem my side, its a i know issue with transclusion, and i REPEAT THE COORDINATES HAVE NTO BEEN REMOVED THERE IN TEH SERIES ARTICLES JSUT NOT HERE THEY DNT NEEDED TO BE IN TWO PLACES, as it was something affecting the page under wikipeia rules i can be bold and do it without discussion, the specials are there own series they do not belong in the main series articles--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand in what way the coordinates were affecting the page or wikipedia rules...? Typehigh (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

ok i will revert back to before i remove them and when i do you look at the speciaals and other section you will see there nothing there--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

i will need to undo the template first then give you linkk to previous version but iwkll then need ot undo the template veru soon after or else the main page will be broke--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Time_Team_episodes&diff=412036224&oldid=411856958 look at this ld veern and look at the specials and other section you will see what is wrong witht eh coordinates there both only have table headers

I don't see anything strange in the link you gave me. But I don't see any coordinates there. But whatever, I can't really be bothered by it. :P Typehigh (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What happened about this? The coordinates should be restored Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

until wikipedia fixes the problem with translcusion off multi templates then it cant be restored, it is a known fault, basically when you use translcusion depending on the number of template use like coord in the article it can caue a overload, the coordinates aint important that they need ot be back on the list of episode they are still on each indivual series article--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion Limit this is what the rpoblem with transclusion of the coordinates as well hopefully this ex plain its, i can easily show this problem if the user who wants to see it is on when i m i just need to edit this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Episode_list/Time_Team to last version i had befor ethe currentAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Circular "main article" links

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Circular "main page" section headnotes --Thnidu (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

These sections have headnotes saying "See main article at...", linking to the article about that season's (series') episodes. Follow that link and you'll find the same content with a "main article" link back to here! They can't both be right.

The actual wikitext is on the series pages and is transcluded here. They, therefore are the main pages and the headnotes there should be removed.

I wonder if that's somehow related to the transclusion overflow discussed in the section above this one. -- Thnidu (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Time Team episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305004502/http://www.timeteam.k1z.com/master_episode_list.html to http://www.timeteam.k1z.com/master_episode_list.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)