Template talk:Cite episode/Archive 1

When serieslink is the same as series?
When the article title has exactly the same name as the series (e.g., The Colbert Report), is it necessary to include it twice, or is just putting  series=The Colbert Report  acceptable? --TreyHarris 03:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason why not. I put it in twice myself largely because I'm compulsive that way. :) Bryan 05:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Which style?
Which style is this template based on? It doesn't match MLA and I haven't been able to find anything in the other styles which allow you to cite a specific episode. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * IIRC I started off with a copy-and-paste of cite book and modified it heavily from there, but I doubt I preserved any significant trace of the cite book style in the process. If you know of any formal styles for how to cite television episodes then by all means feel free to edit. I sure don't. :) Bryan 06:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Both MLA and APA have ways to cite a specific television episode. Personally, I like the MLA style better. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Be my guest. Or if you prefer, give me a reference to work from and I'll update the format myself. The current format is just made up out of thin air, I'm not wedded to it as long as the replacement preserves the information. Bryan 02:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed it to MLA. I had to drop the season and number fields, but all the other existing fields were worked in. I'm also moving the directions to the talk page, as that seems to be S.O.P. for templates. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You also dropped the minutes field, which is kind of a pity - I didn't use it much but it could be handy for some of the more nitpicky minutiae that fans sometimes get into. Would it offend your sensibilities to fit it back in as an optional "addendum" tacked on to the end of the standard MLA section? The alternative is to tack it on manually as text following the citation template whenever it's significant, which isn't all that onerous either since it wasn't used much. Bryan 06:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This template isn't working
See Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, fourth ref for an example. But I'm not quite game enough to try and fix it by myself. Please help. &mdash; Donama 02:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Per the doc, the parameters "serieslink" and "episodelink" are meant to be names of articles on this wiki (stated in doc, scroll up). Don't specify external links there. --Ligulem 08:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

DVD commentary
A lot of information regarding TV shows comes from the DVD commentaries, but as far as I can tell there is no template available for this source of information. Could this template be expanded to include commentaries or should we make a new one? --Maitch 13:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of the fields now in this template are very broadcast-specific, not well suited to DVDs in general. IMO a separate cite DVD might be worthwhile even for non-commentary-related citations, since in practice I have never cited anything directly from the original broadcast of an episode before. Bryan 06:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Use cite visual or cite video for that. Circeus 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, nice. Didn't know about those. Bryan 21:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Interviews
What is the proper format for listing 'credits' people involved? For an interview show (say, Inside the Actor's Studio) or documentary with interviews (say, behind the music), what would be the approprate people to cite? (and also the format... A. Jones, B Smith... Jones, Albert; Smith, Bob... Albert Jones & Bob Smith...  etc...)? TheHYPO 13:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This template is aimed mostly at fiction shows, for other videographic material, see the above-mentionned cite visual and cite video. Circeus 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this template is for any television or radio broadcast. As for how the names are arranged, this is an MLA based template so you should refer to their formatting guidelines. Most MLA examples on this type citation that I've came across give full names in GN-SN format. For an interview, you should always give the person conducting the interview, if known. For something like Behind the Music, the narrator should also be give and maybe even the producer and editor. The exact order of these names depends on emphasis. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The ida is that these two other templates are more universal. A given documentary or report may be reused widely, in completely different contexts, but cite episode might requires one to track the exact aired content in order to check the material. Circeus 00:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Examples
So, for an example:

gives:

Is this the correct usage? - Malkinann 00:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Episode Number
Shouldn't episode number still be in there... many episodes need a clarity to the number... but it says it's obsolete... --Hitsuji Kinno 01:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True. What was the rational behind obsoleting the season and episode numbers? -BiancaOfHell 18:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been simply a means to match the MLA citation style. I say bring them back, personally; if MLA is inferior to our needs we shouldn't feel obligated to follow it simply for the sake of following it. Bryan 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The rational is that it is repetitive information with the episode's title already required. It is completely unnecessary. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not required so if you don't find it useful you needn't add it in. Personally, I find it quite useful to know what season of a series an episode is from; even for the series I'm a fan of I'm not such a huge fan that I instantly know what point in the run any given episode's title is from. Some of the fields in other citation templates are similarly redundant, why should this be treated differently? Bryan 08:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Multi-episode serials?
Some programmes, like Doctor Who, frequently have stories in a multi-episode serial format. Is there a way to use this template, or another one, to produce a reference like this:


 * "The Daleks." Writer Terry Nation, Director Christopher Barry, Producer Verity Lambert. Doctor Who. BBC, London. December 21, 1963–February 1, 1964

I can't get the template as it is to work with multiple dates. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I could still use a template to do this... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added and  for this. Use with the same date format as  . Circeus 23:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It's greatly appreciated. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So why can't I get ended to work? Angmering 10:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oups. Fixed now. I had 2 brackets (calling the inexistent Template:ended) instead of three.Circeus 17:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just tried it &mdash; works fine now. Cheers! Angmering 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: cite serial now fills this function. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Credits
The documentation used to recommend that in the "credits" field, you indicate who did what — so, for "Pilot (House)" you would say Bryan Singer (Director), Hugh Laurie (Actor). It no longer gives any indication to do that, so people could just say "Bryan Singer, Hugh Laurie". I think this is somewhat unclear. The MLA format says to use the abbreviations "Dir." and "Perf.", which to my mind are ugly and unnecessary here (since Wikipedia is not paper). Can we work out some coherent recommendations for how to use the "credits" field? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I believe "credit" is only there because some people insist on having it available, and 90% of people don't care how it,s used because of that. It's hardly truly relevant anyway. We want to identify the episode. Wanting an "author" and stuff is a very book-centered view. Circeus 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the MLA Handbook says to include "other information that may be pertinent (e.g., performers, director, narrator, number of episodes)". It's not in their list of required info, but they do give examples with writers, directors and performers in their sample entries.  (This is in the fifth edition, which is what I happen to have at hand — they may have changed things in the current [sixth] edition.)  They also say, "If your reference is primarily to the work of a particular individual, cite that person's name before the title," acknowledging that there are circumstances in which it is important to cite an individual's work in film or television.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We have no stylebook for citations because everybody wants to go in different directions anyway. Maybe what you really need is cite video or a variation thereof. Or you could just not use templates at all. There's nothing bad about it if you need to add info you can't. Circeus 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that I can't add the info, I was just looking for some stylebook-type guidance for how best to format it. If Wikipedia as a whole doesn't have such a stylebook, I guess I'll see if the WikiProject I work with can develop one for our own uses.  Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like url can only be used if you don,t have an episodelink, which makes sense when you think about it. Circeus 17:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Transcript
I just wanted to point out that I added two new variables, transcript and transcripturl. If the source given is a transcript, rather than the actual airing, transcript is set to yes (or whatever, as long as it is set), and "Transcript." will appear at the end of the citation (I don't know if this is actually necessary, but I saw it in a style guide so I thought it'd be a good addition). More importantly, transcripturl allows the URL to a transcript to be provided, which adds something of the form "Transcript." to the end of the citation. For an example of this in use, see CFNY-FM (for which I added the variables in the first place). &mdash;Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 16:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Two new parameters needed
Need:
 * episodeurl: External URL to the official page of the episode if any; do not use if episodelink is used.
 * seriesurl: External URL to the official page of the series if any; do not use if serieslink is used.

In many cases, a show or series used as a source will be reliable enough to use as a source, but not notable enough to have an actual Wikipedia aritcle (e.g. Channel 4 News, Albuquerque, New Mexico). This template needs to provide some means of linking to the source.

Implementation: Despite the warning to not use both episodelink and episodeurl, ensure that they are not literally mutually exclusive in the code, by having the link come after the title, such that if someone needlessly used both fields, the result would be " Foo Bar Baz ". —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * URL does exactly what you want "episodeurl" to do. In any case, just "URL" should be enough, as we won,t be putting multiple external links in a single template! Circeus 00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh?


 * No URL=. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 06:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Re: multiple links in one template - who cares? We could label them mutually exclusive, but why bother?  Both are needed because some official websites will have a URL for just the show as a whole, while others provide pages for specific episodes. They aren't the same thing. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 06:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Look! An undocumented feature! It *is* there, though, and I'll add it to the doc immediately. It basically replaces "episodelink" when it's there. Circeus 06:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keen. So, they do not conflict after all? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Titlelink?
The syntax refers to the field "titlelink", but I think it's supposed to be "episodelink". As it stands, if "series" is unspecified, "episodelink" won't work. --Brian Olsen 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

City of originating broadcast or city of production?
A question came up here about the "city" parameter. The MLA format recommends "local affiliate and the city", but this is a very US-centric model. For a programme broadcast on (for example) BBC1, there really isn't much value in putting "London" for every citation. Would it be a terrible misuse of the parameter to use this field for the city where the episode in question was produced, instead of the city from which its broadcast was coordinated? (Thus, for classic Doctor Who the citation would say "London" for most episodes, for new Doctor Who it would say "Cardiff", and for Life on Mars it would say "Manchester".) Is that OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Extra brackets
This template is being used in the article Berkeley Breathed; this is roughly how it's appearing in the footnotes:
 * 2.^ "[Breathed: "Mars Needs Moms" (Philomel)]". [Diane Rehm Show]. 08 May 2007.

I know the extra brackets for the titles (episode and series) shouldn't be there, they're not in the article's code, and I have no idea how to modify the template. I expect this is global. Please assist. Thanks! Salamurai 00:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem was that the parameters "episodelink" and "serieslink" are only meant to be used for wikilinks, not external links. I've fixed that citation by piping the external links into the "title" and "series" parameters. --Brian Olsen 01:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Salamurai 02:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Url parameter
I went ahead and fixed the problem I mentioned above, changing "titlelink" to "episodelink". I'm pretty sure that shouldn't cause any damage - I suspect most people weren't encountering it as a problem because it only occurred if "series" was undefined. There's a problem with the "url" parameter, though - it only works if "series" is undefined, as far as I can tell. I'll leave it for a while in the hope that someone better versed in the syntax than me will fix it. --Brian Olsen 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably to do with the #if at the top - perhaps an additional #if  is needed in there as well as in the episodelink test further down.  Since I don't know what the intention was with that parameter, and since I'm not familiar with template syntax, I shall also sit back and watch someone else fix it ;)  Carre 12:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, sod it - I fixed it. It's working for me, and I hope it hasn't broken anyone else's page! If it has, anyone can feel free to revert. Carre 13:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please check reference 24 on the Peanut butter article?
Could someone please check reference #24 on the Peanut butter article? The link gets generated as http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/diamond/|The which isn't right but I can't figure out what's wrong with the cite. Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All set. The problem was that the parameter "episodelink" can only be used to link to other Wikipedia articles. "Url" was the parameter you wanted. --Brian Olsen 16:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 16:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Template deletion
Hopefully this can be sorted out.

A situation has developed relating to WWE Smackdown. In it, a user is claiming the Australian transmission of said program - before it is aired in the United States - can be used as a reliable source. This would be without supporting sources except for spoilers. It opens the way for wrestling fans to lie about the contents of not just this program, but news casts and so forth. And not just wrestling fans either - the possibilities are potentially exponential.

Therefore - unless an alternative proposal can be put forward, I intend to pursue the deletion of this template on the grounds of probably abuse, possibly resulting in (at least) the wrestling part of Wikipedia becoming a surrogate wrestling news site for certainly WWE. ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 10:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not bring your kerfuffle over here. Ewlyahoocom (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A suggestion was made that I agree with. What is wrong with that. This template could be abused to avoid WP:OR and WP:V. I think that is something that should be discussed here by those who are familiar with this template in general.  !! Just a Punk !!  12:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Episode citations are WP:OR more often than not, and defy verifiability. I think we have an TfD here. / 71.242.127.22 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The template is a tool, not the source of the problem, which seems to be cultural in this case. Perhaps some adjustment could be inspired by tagging such items with cn—or fact?  —EncMstr 18:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If the US broadcast of a wrestling match is a reliable source (and I don't see why it shouldn't be) then so also is the Australian broadcast, or for that matter the broadcast in any other country.

I must take issue with this statement by User:Justa Punk:
 * It opens the way for wrestling fans to lie about the contents of not just this program

Whilst obviously any person may put incorrect information into Wikipedia, this isn't any more of a problem here than if somebody lies about the plot of the latest episode of South Park. Somebody else who has seen the episode will be able to correct the bad content. --Tony Sidaway 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)