Template talk:Episode list/Archive 5

Bug in the code
ok i converted the the colbert report episoe the otehr day, but oen of the seaosns had a weird displaying table and i now foudn out why

January
now the cruical line is this one

and to be more precious it is the * if ther ein teh short summary cause it to do weird things to teh rows after it

does anyone know why the * causes problems and anyway we might be able to code the template to resovle it? Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I could have sworn this was in the documentation but.......
 * If you use asterisks in the  field the next use of the template must directly follow the one with the asterisks on the same line. i.e. instead of:

}} {{Episode list
 * If you do that, asterisks don't affect the borders, as you can see below:


 * --AussieLegend (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * yeah that appears to work but it be easier if we can get the template not t break if that isnt done as not everyone will realise thats what is wrong Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * just check docs dnt have it we should get it added Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Blank Parameters
ok i have made the code that will make this work i will need to tweak it before we could even consider mking it live, but i like to discuss change all field optional as not all shows have titles but also make it so that user copy the entire template and then fill in the blanks as time goes by and mean we dnt have to add the parameters later. for example there is some parameters missing off that i think but if we copy tha tintoa article just now it give us this ie all box there

but the above is with code i made which stops any parametr that is blank from being dispayed

thoughts please if i dnt repond quickly it is because i am tied up in another discussion Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It certainly needs some tweaking. (Example) This could lead to a slippery slope. It's really just as easy to include only the parameters that are required. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Same as above but with Aux1 field empty
Template:Episode list (all fields):

Template:Episode list/sandbox (all fields some parameters blank):

thats a bug in wikitable code but i see your point i will seee if there might be a way to fix this without changing wikitable code Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And how do you make blank cells? A different format is already being used on countless pages. Why are you trying to fix something that isn't broken? 117Avenue (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * firstly the current template forces you to use a episode title even if there is not one or you get the blank cell, secondly it better for the code not to produce blank cells if someone leave a parameter blank, thirdly it encourages the extra fields to be filled in over time as not everyone will come here to find there is extra parameter they can fill in so giving more information Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 08:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that not all fields are used in all articles deliberately and the layout is based on the column headers, which are completely independent of the template. In order to blank fields you need to know which fields are used in articles, and which aren't. You also need to know what fields can be blank. There's really no reason to treat this template any differently to an infobox; rather than use all fields, use only those that are needed. This keeps the article clean and avoids any need to blank cells. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * it doesnt address the fact you cant make the title field blank or not put the title field there for example

but with my altered code

and by having teh code so it doesnt produce a bklank cell if teh parameter is blank or in this case not even there then you make it so people who do just copy the whole lot or so wont get confussed with the code — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 June 2012‎ (UTC)


 * I've edited a lot of TV episode lists and I've never seen a case where somebody has copied the whole template. If somebody did they'd be confused anyway, because there would be too many fields for the column headers. That's why we delete the fields that aren't being used. There are cases where fields are empty, they have to be there or there will be confusion. the only field that really needs to be "fixed" is the  field. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Making the title optional is a different matter, and was brought up previously. I hope to address this issue when I have time. 117Avenue (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Viewers
Over time I've noticed various discussions about episode lists appearing more like TV Guides than encyclopaedic articles and recently, subsequent to recent changes to the template, some episode lists have been merged back to main TV series articles with comments along this line in the edit summaries. Because there was no viewers parameter in the past, many lists include no ratings information at all, but now that we have a  parameter, I feel we should be encouraging use of it. WP:TVRECEPTION says "The reception information should include broadcast ratings (though it may be easier to maintain seasonal averages for the main page, while the season and episode articles could contain a list of ratings for all the episodes)". Obviously, inclusion of ratings figures is already encouraged by MOS:TV, so we should be furthering this in the template. The simplest way to do this is to list it as "Optional, desirable" in the documentation. The parameters table is clearly identified as "Episode list parameters and basic guidelines", so including "desirable" is not mandating its use. There was a comment on my talk page about this, saying "people are going to see that, think the viewer column should be there, start ignoring the rules, and add unverified data." However, my response is that the table doesn't mandate use of the parameter, it simply says it's "desirable" and surely, if they're going to assume "desirable" means that it "should" be there, they're also going to assume that "Should include a reference" means there "must" be a reference, which will stop unverifiable data being included. The reality is that people ignore the rules anyway; pushing them in the right direction shouldn't be discouraged. Adding ratings figures helps get the episode lists away from being mere TV guides, providing more encyclopaedic content. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said and I agree completely. - Ned Scott 19:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of encouraging the use of auxiliary columns. I user could read the documentation, and think that  is more important to have, than some of the standard columns like   and , and start adding unreferenced content without a second thought. 117Avenue (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, "if they're going to assume "desirable" means that it "should" be there, they're also going to assume that "Should include a reference" means there "must" be a reference, which will stop unverifiable data being included." --AussieLegend (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It does say that, but it doesn't say why adding this column is "desirable". 117Avenue (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It does now. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

RTitle
RTitle has been in the template for some time, but all too often, future episodes do not include references and are regularly deleted as unreferenced. The documentation now says "Future episodes should include a reference in this field" so, like, we should be encouraging use of it by denoting the field as "Optional, desirable". --AussieLegend (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. -- Ned Scott 19:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder what an inexperienced editor would think, coming to add a new episode, and see the  parameter there, blank. Should a hidden note be placed on articles saying "add reference here"? 117Avenue (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If they're the same inexperienced editor that you spoke of on my talk page they'll look at the documentation and see that it says "Future episodes should include a reference in this field." --AussieLegend (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Inexperienced editors don't know about documentation. This template should be made as user friendly as possible. We need to make it "monkey see, monkey do". 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's pretty idealistic, and not really practical. Inexperienced editors coming to add a new episode typically copy the template from a previous episode and replace the data with data for the new episode so they wouldn't see any instruction. More experienced editors typically delete the RTitle field once an episode airs as they believe that aired episodes don't need references, so there's a good chance an inexperienced editor wouldn't even see the RTitle field. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking typically the episode list goes at least one week into the future, and when another future episode is added, the referenced one is duplicated. 117Avenue (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does happen, in exactly the manner I described. If the reference is still present, it should be obvious as to what is required in the field, but we still need to provide guidance for editors who do check the template documentation. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is what the current description does. 117Avenue (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since editors often add unreferenced content we should be indicating that it is desirable to include one. It's inconsistent to say "future episodes should include a reference in this field" but then just mark the field as optional. It's more than just optional. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my slowness, I think I'm finally getting what you are saying. You, like I, want to promote the use of references, and you think "Future episodes should include a reference" in the description column, isn't enough. Promotion of a template field isn't promotion of using references. I think it should be tackled like is normally done, project wide, with hidden notes, page notices, talk discussions, and user warnings, or Googling it yourself. Simply saying "desirable" is vague, if it is to be included in the parameters table, it should say something like "desirable for unaired episodes, and controversial info". 117Avenue (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As was the case with the Friends FLC discussion, it makes a lot more sense to "fix" a problem in one place, than have to fix it individually on thousands of pages. "Desirable" is not an ambiguous term, it's very clearly defined as being "something worth having, that is useful to have, or that would be nice to have". It highlights the field as being one that it would be nice to have, and the parameter description includes "Future episodes should include a reference in this field to comply with Verifiability", which indicates why it's desirable. The terms in the "Type" column are deliberately simplified so that editors are able to instantly identify those parameters that are more desirable than others without having to read definitions. When building tables such as this, columns have a decreasing level of significance from left to right and a consequently increasing level of detail. The left column identifies the parameter, the second specifies the parameter type, the third column explains use of the parameter and expands upon the second column, and the fourth describes the format of the information used in the field without unnecessarily duplicating anything in the third column. We don't want to overcomplicate the second column by including content that is best included in the third. Both the type "desirable" and the text in the description column do promote use of references in that field. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Vandalism and hoaxes are a Wikipedia wide problem, so I don't know how you expect to fix the problem in one place. Saying desirable in that column, is saying that the parameter is desirable, it is the reference that is desirable, and just saying the one word, "desirable", does not make that clear. Do you wish for a different wording, how about "desirable when references are necessary"? 117Avenue (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The point is that, for the editors who do the right thing and read the documentation, we should be providing the appropriate guidance. To not do so is like not providing a user manual for your car, TV or phone, because a lot of people don't bother reading them. The purpose of the type column is not to explain why a field is desirable, it's simply to identify that the field itself is desirable. The description column is where the reason for desirability is explained. As I explained above, the type column is deliberately simplified so that editors can quickly identify which fields are desirable, required or simply optional, without having to read through definitions. If you'd like an analogy, a give way sign on the road simply says "GIVE WAY", not "Give way to all traffic and stop if necessary". A stop sign says "STOP", not "Come to a full and complete stop for x seconds before proceeding". There's no need for something like "desirable when references are necessary" in the type column because the description explains the circumstances under which it's desirable when it says, "Future episodes should include a reference in this field to comply with Verifiability". --AussieLegend (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This argument is going in circles, and no one else wants to join. 117Avenue (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

TopColor
There has been various discussion about, but we don't seem to have come to any real consensus as to whether it's deprecated or not. There's very little use saying that it's deprecated in the documentation if it's not actively discouraged. Simply saying that it's deprecated is as useful as putting a "Speed Limit 1 mph" sign on city streets. It's going to be ignored. We either need to remove it from the template, or at least try to guide editors by providing some guidance on its usage in the documentation. Ned Scott said that the original intention for  was that it was to be used to highlight episodes in special cases, such as a special or recap episode. If we do retain , perhaps we could provide guidance along those lines and mark it as "optional, use only in limited circumstances". Or should we just delete the parameter altogether? --AussieLegend (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * i would be inclined to say emove it, you oculd easiyl adda a style toe ht e background for a specail case-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It probably wouldn't be too hard to remove it from the main episode list but put it back for the main lists that transclude season pages, so we still have zebra striping. As far as finding a use for it in the main episode list, I can see where it could be handy, but I have no strong opinions on it. -- Ned Scott 19:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of a coloured page that transcludes? From the tests I've done it seems that transcluding a list using TopColor looks the same as a list not using TopColor. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in the actual use of this parameter, and what the impact would be if it is removed, before we determine it as depreciated. I will work on a proposal. 117Avenue (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are, as of today, 111 pages that transclude episode list and use the "TopColor=" parameter; however, it's not that straightforward, because some of those pages state the parameter but no values, some specify #F2F2F2 (what the table produces with a summary anyway), some #FFFFFF, and some #F9F9F9.
 * The pages that specify "TopColor=" and transclude are
 * 90210 (season 1)
 * Lost (season 5)
 * M*A*S*H (season 1)
 * M*A*S*H (season 2)
 * Private Practice (season 1)
 * Private Practice (season 2)
 * Private Practice (season 3)
 * Smallville (season 10)
 * I haven't looked at the code for all of them, but 90210 specifies #F9F9F9, and the striping works as normal when transcluded. If it didn't, all the rows would be shaded the same grey, so I think that the transcuded rows will always be striped, even if garish colours were used. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 07:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
In order to track the use of, please first fork Template:Episode list/sublist, by syncing with my latest revision to the sandbox, this with cause the zebra striping to stop appearing as a   use, and add the Category:Episode lists with row deviations to articles using. Please also sync Template:Episode list (this template), with my latest revision of the sandbox, this will add the Category:Episode lists with row deviations to articles using. These changes will not have any visible output, and will be unnoticed by Wikipedia users. 117Avenue (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There seem to be other changes on the sandbox as well; perhaps it was not synronised before you started work on it? For example the stuff like


 * is not on the live version. Can you confirm this is intentional or not? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:Episode list/sublist is becoming a fork of Template:Episode list, the only difference between that line, and the live version of Template:Episode list, is the addition of  and , which is what Template:Episode list/sublist already has, and does. Here is a diff of the main template, and my proposed fork. 117Avenue (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Admin question What exactly shall an admin do here regarding the edit protected request? I don't know if with "sync" you mean copy&paste or something more difficult. (If it's the latter, then don't expect an admin to come and help out here.) – sgeureka t•c 08:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like the sandboxes pasted into the live templates, which is what is normally done in an edit protected request. I didn't think my language was confusing. 117Avenue (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * suggestion maybe the revision you want put luive should be post so the admin can do it then there no confusion Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 09:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to the admin question: It's simply a matter of copying and pasting. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; the reason is that I am still confused. You want to copy There have been changes to both of these sandboxes in the last couple of days, so please confirm the latest revision is ready to copy over. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:Episode list/sandbox into Template:Episode list; and
 * Template:Episode list/sublist/sandbox into Template:Episode list/sublist?


 * Sorry i have been testing something new, ill post the revision that was before my tests as i believe that was the one that was to go live, pease do not put the current version which i have been editing live as it is still under discussion Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 08:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * sandbox version []
 * sandbx sublist version []

can 117avenue or aussielegend please confirm those are the correct version we want to go live-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 08:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My original request still stands, please use "my latest revision", as linked. 117Avenue (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still getting conflicting requests with Andrewcrawford and 117Avenue requesting different versions :) Anyway I've deployed code by 117Avenue. Let me know if any other changes are needed. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Affected pages
After going through, and removing the  from pages that just used it for a shade of grey, and a couple of WP:CONTRAST violations, there remains 50 pages that use the   parameter. With this list we can figure out what users are using the  for. In my opinion they are all colourful decorations, and can use this template's functionality to be consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. It is mostly being used to identify seasons of a show, and/or create colourful zebra stripping. In some cases, like Walking with Dinosaurs, it serves no purpose. I believe that table headers and  can still be used to identify the different seasons, and thus take the functionality away from. We should make sure that the editors of these pages know their violations, and fix them, before just removing this parameter. 117Avenue (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Housing the table headers within the template
Just wondering people thoughts about trying to house the table headers within the template so that we can edit them easily in the future and have it so a user can define the width or the title etc without having to know how to use wikitables, it make the code much more complex but it might be worthwhile certainly you could then make all fields optional and leave blank, sorry not brought this up already just heavily invovled in major content dispute on another article-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember that all this template does is make one table row, so the easiest thing to do, would be to create a new template. But I think that table editing is easy enough, especially since each article is different. I don't know what you mean by "edit them easier in the future", because they should be edited on an individual basis, so that it is customized for the use that is required. 117Avenue (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * remember when we madea chnge for html5 and for th coloums we had to add plain headers to all tables in wiki which too a while, i mean easier to edit as if we change it here it then changes everywhere else and reduces page sizes down as code will be reduced. i know what you mean about cusotmising it, i was thinking of a way to do it so it ccan be customised easily so it suits alls, i dnt mean that we ! title we have something like switch |titleheader | !  | ! Title and we could go further and add things liek width style etc so you can customise it right from the prameters, maybe makigna serperate template would be good but it might cause problems on transclussion but housing it all in one means the code could eb developed to deploy it-- Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It could be done. 117Avenue (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * when i have somer time iwill tink around with it and if i manage to do oit piost here to be reviewed

Template:TAYG episode
Found another fork, Template:TAYG episode replicates what this template can do, and can be merged. 117Avenue (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only used in four articles, which can be merged back into the main list. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * i will try do it over the nex few das with awb Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Series 4
i have tried to convert this but it aint goign to well since it is very strange template, i also think we should introduce a rank parameter as show rank is in quite a few articles, this would really need more aux fields and the date is apain in the butt to Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

woudl anyone have any objection to add extra parameters as shown below

Current

propused

this would allow this tempalte to be easily converted as elow

instead of the way i have tried ot convert it


 * I'm worried that more columns would be going overboard. I don't think it should be done. 117Avenue (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't really customise the template to cater for one program. If we do that, then others are bound to want to customise it and we could end up with a nightmare on our hands. Perhaps though, it might be best to move TAYG episode to Template:Episode list/TAYG, since it's already a fork of this template. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * im not saying we should im only higjhlighting whst need to be done to house this show hack under episode list templatye properly, i can make a hack but it aint pretty, personall i dnt see the prob;em with a rank parameter it is used a lot and extra aux can always copme in handy, and if we aint to try ccodate odd shows we shouldnt discourage sghow hacks maybe move this template to be a shhow hack here for now? Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the rank parameter. A lot of articles include ratings information that substantially duplicates content that is in the episode tables. These typically include viewers, 18-49 share and rank. Since we now have a  parameter, either 18-49 share or rank can be accommodated by the adjacent   parameter.   would mean all three could be included if necessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

blank parameters
ok i have now tested code to deal with blank parameters ill make the code test for all parameters so we can makeall fields optionals and the full templated co[ied so extra fiels can be field in later-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

code now working see examples-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Episode_list/testcases

Sort feature
Is it technically feasible for this template to support a sort feature, in a manner similar to Table? I ask because of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television wherein it seems there would be value in allowing readers to sort episode list tables by either broadcast date or production code. The impediment I foresee is the summary field; In my experience the sort feature is generally wonky or doesn't work when there are rows that span multiple columns. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * as far as i know does that already but it is far out of date, when i get chance to house the tbale headers wthin the template ill try make a sortable option to so s episode lsit cna be merged here to-- Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 08:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Templates that could be redunant to this one
Lnep is another template that seems redundant to this. It uses field names that aren't in this template, but the template can be adapted to work with the articles in which it's used, as demonstrated with Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis and List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes. Lnep is currently transcluded to 58 erticles. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As per, Conan episode list is also redundant. It is transcluded to only two articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * it might be time to think about altering the template to house these other forks if it reuqired ther eno point to them if epsiode lsit cna do it or we can adjust epsiode list to do it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The fields in these templates are not really "required", they're just a bit more convenient. This template contains sufficient general use fields that can be used. A lot of articles use  and   for writers and directors,   and   have been used for ratings figures etc, so substituting specific parameters for general purpose parameters is not new. This template is used in 3,951 articles and adding fields that are used in only a few is not really justifiable, as we'd end up with a lot of fields that are only used a few times. In the case of the two templates I've shown, the fields are easily replaceable. For example, it didn't take a lot to convert List of Conan episodes (2010–2011) to use this template. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012 proposed changes
I have tested some of my proposed changes in the sandbox. The changes to the main template are: 1, making,  ,  , and   each independently optional; 2, making the   and   columns  , if the prior columns do not exist. The changes to the sublist template are: 1, removing  from the null #if statement, which caused references to appear on the transcluded pages; 2, removing the zebra stripping from the first (th) column, which was being superseded by even number colouring; 3, the same two changes to the main template. If there is no opposition, I will request these changes be made. 117Avenue (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please sync this template (Template:Episode list) with my latest revision (03:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)) of its sandbox (Template:Episode list/sandbox), diff. Please sync the sublist sub-template (Template:Episode list/sublist) with my latest revision (03:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)) of its sandbox (Template:Episode list/sublist/sandbox), diff. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you create some test case examples at Template:Episode list/testcases, to show it works, where
 * absolutely no titles are not included,
 * where title= is not used but Rtitle= and AltTitle= is,
 * and where EpisodeNumber= isn't used,
 * and where EpisodeNumber= and EpisodeNumber2= aren't used

And also for the sublists to show they now work correctly (I'm not exactly sure what the issues are with that one - can you also link to articles where errors are occurring, just for my own interest?).

If the test cases work, I'll make the changes. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 05:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've marked the edit request as answered for now. Feel free to set it back to "answered=no" when you've created the test cases that Matthewedwards mentioned. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 05:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will try to do this as soon as I find the time. 117Avenue (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent change that breaches MOS
This change to the template was made a short time ago. It forces a space between the  and   fields. There are certain circumstances where this is desirable, but when the  field is used as a reference, this results in a breach of WP:REFPUNCT, which says "When [references] coincide with punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation." There was no discussion prior to the change. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So I was bold. I do think that no longer having to put a hard-coded space in every RTitle instance outweight the minor breach of WP:REFPUNCT. RTitle is not only used for references. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 20:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The primary use of  is references, and it's never necessary "to put a hard-coded space in every RTitle instance" when the field is used for references. There are a lot less uses of RTitle in the situation that you apparently changed the template for, and even less need for them as the result of the changes that we've done in the past few months. It's a much simpler process to add a space code on the odd occasion that it is necessary, than it is to remove a space that causes a breach of the MoS. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This template is protected to ensure that all changes are first discussed, before implementing, nothing shall go ahead without consensus. This template just went through a major overhaul, to ensure that it complies with all MOS, so that articles using it could get featured status. Because references may not be used all that often, is not an excuse for "one minor violation". If an article was going for featured status, and it had a space before a reference, that would be cleaned up. Besides, we should be encouraging referencing. If it sounds like I am ticked off, it is because I am. I have to wait a week for my requested edits to be replied to, and then find out I have to further prove myself, but then a editor new to this page, thinks they know better, and can edit without testing or discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Technical limitations are never a ground for failing FA. I saw an obvious error and fixed it. But if consensus is to keep the error in the template, so be it. The protection is there to prevent vandalism, not to force discussion; implying so indicates ownership, and you should know better that. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 08:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You should know better than to assume a protected template has an error. 117Avenue (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no "error" to fix. The doc says "Unformatted parameter that can be used to add a reference after "Title", or can be used as a "raw title" to replace "Title" completely." For neither of these uses is a space required or wanted. You apparently want to use it to add descriptive text, which doesn't justify changing all the articles that use the parameter for its intended purpose. Barsoomian (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2012
Please revert Edokter's undiscussed edits to this template.

117Avenue (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Already done. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 08:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Episodes Numbers
There have been some debates on to count hour long episodes as one episode or 2. For example, shows like For example, Lost, The Middle, Full House, Drake and Josh, Zoey 101, iCarly, Suite Life, Wizards of Wavery Place and others count hour long episodes as two episodes. They all have on set of credits but our counted as two episodes during production.Regradless what the time of credits say. I have seen this issue on many talk pages as there is on going on now with Victorious and has been on other television show talk pages. Also the example at Template:Episode list#Examples 2 does not match what was actually done at Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7)#Episodes and that example does not match the current descriptions for the parameters in the rest of the template documentation. A good examle would be on the Nickelodeon show iCarly, nick and Dan (Show creator) confirmed that they made 109 episodes. But if we did not count them as two episodes that would leave us with 98 episodes counting them as one episode.On sources (TV Guide, iTunes, etc.) list each episode with 1 number not 2 and differ from what the production company or network says. Most television show pages follow what the production codes. For example,if there's an episode that used 2 production codes. In the matter for iCarly 217/224 is used since the episodes were produced at 2 different times. Or an episode that has production code 311-311 is counted as 3 episodes. Also they are written 311-313 or 311&312 and 313. Something has to be done to stay consistent with all TV shows. Also tv.com counts hour episodes as two episodes as well. This should be resolved. any questions please ask.WP Editor 2012 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a question that this template can answer. I suggest going to the project for help. But my answer is that it needs to be decided at the show. TV shows are produced differently, and they cannot all be listed the same way. 117Avenue (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Template documentation error
The example at Template:Episode list no longer reflects the contents and format of the exemplar featured list article Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7) and the documentation for the attributes in the rest of the template documentation. Specifically an episode number is shown in the form 1/2 when the attribute description says this attribute is "A number representing the episode's order in the series." 1/2 is not a valid ordinal number, the featured article currently shows this as two separate table entries and the slash is to be avoided per WP:SLASH. Suggest updating the documentation to reflect what is currently in the exemplar article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I updated the example per the above. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite the Degrassi series containing some featured articles, it's not really a good example of how to use this template. The articles contravened MOS:HASH and the functions of  and   were swapped, meaning episode linking wouldn't work on the main list. The fields are also mis-ordered, and while this is a minor issue, the aim is to use the template consistently. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Documentation examples are just that, examples. They are intended to provide a good example of template use, and display the use of template parameters. They are not intended to be exact excerpts of any article. I chose Degrassi: The Next Generation as an example for sublist, because of its multiple featured articles, but also because of its use of columns and parameters. Seasons six and seven were used, because it aired in another country, before the channel of origin, thus making an excuse for listing two dates. The two part episode was fabricated to show the use of the  parameter, a parameter that can only be shown in the example for sublist. I hope now that the example on the documentation exemplifies our highest MOS, even though the article may not. 117Avenue (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The purpose of examples is to demonstrate correct use of the template, so examples should do that; they shouldn't contain errors, nor should they be an example of the misuse of the template - that's "Witing user manuals 101". Of course, anyone could use the  field to list directors, but that isn't desirable because there is a dedicated " " field specifically for that purpose, and examples should therefore reflect that. Similarly,   is meant to be used as the number in the series, not the number in the season, as is done at the Degrassi articles. There is good reason for this. The template provides an anchor to   but not  . In order to use this anchor,   has to be unique, while   can be duplicated across seasons. For example, The Big Bang Theory episodes "The Dumpling Paradox", "The Panty Piñata Polarization", "The Guitarist Amplification", "The Apology Insufficiency" and "The Good Guy Fluctuation" are the seventh episodes in each of the seasons. They are easily, individually, linked to by links in the following format:
 * The Dumpling Paradox
 * The Panty Piñata Polarization
 * The Guitarist Amplification
 * The Apology Insufficiency
 * The Good Guy Fluctuation
 * When List of The Big Bang Theory episodes was split into individual season articles, in order to relink to the entry in the season article it became simply a matter of appending " (season x)" to "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes" which resulted in:
 * The Dumpling Paradox
 * The Panty Piñata Polarization
 * The Guitarist Amplification
 * The Apology Insufficiency
 * The Good Guy Fluctuation
 * Using  and   according to the instructions results in it being possible to link to either the List of The Big Bang Theory episodes or "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season x)" article entries. This is not possible with the Degrassi articles. Linking to "Gangsta Gangsta" ( Gangsta Gangsta ) works, but Gangsta Gangsta results in the reader being directed to a season 1 episode. My recent edits to the Degrassi articles fixed this, but the unexplained reversions reintroduced the errors.
 * Using  and   according to the instructions also makes a lot of sense from a maintenance perspective. There's is a proposal to move The Big Bang Theory season articles from "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season x)" to "The Big Bang Theory (season x)". If that move goes ahead, It will simply be a matter of changing the link text from "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season x)#ep" to "The Big Bang Theory (season x)#ep", although the old links will still work, as they do for NCIS episodes that were previously at similarly named articles, such as List of NCIS episodes (season 3), for the episode  "Under Covers". Given the resistance to making the Degrassi articles comply with or reflect what the documentation says, I don't think we should be using it as an example. We should be using articles that have been built in accordance with the instructions, regardless of whether they are featured articles or not. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I went through WP:FL#Episodes and went down the list. 12 articles: The Simpsons, uses a WP:DEVIATIONS violation on the main list, rather than this template. 10 articles: Bleach, does not use this template. 8 articles: Degrassi: The Next Generation. The only one with four articles that uses viewers correctly is Lost, it also uses,  , and  , it should be a good example. 117Avenue (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not good, is it, that so many featured articles violate the MoS? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The MoS should be describing common usage and styles. If it is not describing the common usage or style, then it is the MoS needs to be changed. And since the templates have been created, the first episode number was number in season while the second was number in series. To change that order years after the creation of the templates would not be appropriate. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've mixed it up a bit. The first number was always number in series, not season. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Number columns
Fearing expanding this discussion into a MOS issue I ask, where is the consensus to make number in series the first number? When making the argument to unbold the title, it was shown that this template just facilitates a list for episodes. Why would you go and start the numbering at 120? Especially since in a season article it is more important to refer to the number of episode in the season, than the, sometimes arbitrary, number of episodes in a series. Which I feel infringes on the "Use numbers rather than bullets only if" bullet, at WP:MOS. Are a television series' seasons not separate entities, like an artist's separate albums? When separate articles exist for seasons, the episode summary is found at the separate article, along with other valuable information, that isn't on the main list. So it makes sense to link there, rather than the main list. But if you do need to link to the main list, the production code can be used as an anchor. 117Avenue (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Season 7
 * 1) "Standing in the Dark" Part One
 * 2) "Standing in the Dark" Part Two
 * 3) "Love is a Battlefield"
 * 4) "It's Tricky"
 * It has always been the case that the first field has been for the number in the series. It was originally a direct copy of Digimon episode and only only  existed. The first real documentation specified the use of that field as being "A number representing the episode's order in the series".   was added later on. Essentially   is just a key, and it's normal to place the key in the most significant position. This has been the case since the earliest days of computing. Although we normally make   reflect the episode number in the season, it doesn't have to do so. It can be used simply as a positional indicator, for example when certain episodes are included in a series, but don't actually constitute a normal season episode and so therefore don't get a season episode number. I don't see how what this template does is infringing on WP:MOS. There are always reasons to link to episode entries, so providing an anchor such as this is essential. The season articles are not separate entities, they are actually subordinate to the main episode list. That they may provide more information does not make them superior to the main list. They are still sub-articles of the main list. They're no different to, say, Australia, where Australia is equivalent to "List of Foo episodes" and the sub-articles such as History of Australia are equivalent to "Foo (season x)".
 * "But if you do need to link to the main list, the production code can be used as an anchor" - Not all articles use production codes. The only field that is used in all lists is . --AussieLegend (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't start numbering events in History of Australia, and continue the numbering in Government of Australia. Just like you wouldn't in the sub-articles of an artist's discography. In Digimon a series lasts about a year, what we would call a season, and then the next series starts again at 1. We agree that the first column of this table is the most significant position, "a need to refer to the elements by number may arise", but I argue that that is the number in the season. Episodes are most often referred to by their number in the season, not the running count, except when the show reaches a milestone. When you visit a TV show watching website, or download an episode, are you looking for season 5 episode 22, or episode 109? Are TBBT fans looking forward to the first episode of season six, or episode 112? 117Avenue (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously you wouldn't number like that in those articles as they're about completely different subjects; you've taken the analogy a bit too far. When I used the analogy I was responding to your question "Are a television series' seasons not separate entities, like an artist's separate albums?", they're not, they're still sub articles of the main list and they need to work with the main list. As I explained above,  is essentially a key and it has to be a unique number to allow for correct linking at both the main list and the season articles. There's no anchor to   so it can't be used for the number in series because then you can't link to the main list, which is necessary for a lot of programs that don't have season articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're only argument is for when you need to link to a main list, that doesn't have sub-articles, or production codes? Sounds to me like a TV show that doesn't have a lot of Wikipedia coverage, which will unlikely need a link to a specific episode. And is barely a reason to make a project wide style, that goes against a way that makes sense, starting a list at one. 117Avenue (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, linking is but one reason. Consistency is another.  has been for the number in the series since the template was first documented over six years ago. Its use is so deeply embedded that it can't be changed now. We did discuss this field when deciding which was the primary field a few months ago and articles that don't comply should be made to comply. It's common sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A great number of significant TV shows have no documented production code. Many that do are actually dubious and possibly made up by editors. E.g.: List of Breaking Bad episodes, List of Adventures of Superman episodes, List of The Honeymooners episodes, List of The A-Team episodes. The "Episode number" is "Nth episode of the TV series broadcast". It's pretty unambiguous and if you have an episode list at all, you know what it is. Even the concept of a TV "season" isn't so clear cut. Some shows just have a sequence of episodes, and seasons are matter of argument. E.g. List of The Thick of It episodes. And the recent fashion of splitting season into two parts, like BSG, complicates matters even more. Anyway, you don't have to use the "Episode number" in the displayed text when referring to an episode, only the link. Barsoomian (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, some "seasons" are arbitrary. But that is not a reason to make all lists by number in series. There are still lots of shows that have set seasons, and episodes are referred to by the number in the season. There listing them that way makes sense, especially when episodes aren't actually named. When the title parameter becomes optional (still trying to find time for that), the season articles, or series as they are known in the UK, will be able to list, and correctly number their episodes. I ask again, please don't insist that this format must be used in all cases. 117Avenue (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the only number that can be unambiguously assigned to every episode of every series, from the very beginning. Some shows broadcast episodes out of season that might be retrospectively assigned to the previous or following season. Or might not ever be officially assigned to a season. Then if you are using season.episode links, someone has to find and repair all those and make up links for the non-season episodes. No one is stopping you from referring to episodes in the text by name, season number or whatever. Barsoomian (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing how the links look. I just want lists that make sense, that start at one. 117Avenue (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, they do, now. And I don't think anyone is actually confused by this. Barsoomian (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some episode lists that do use that follows the Degrassi template and counts one episode as two episode when aired for an hour long.  For example, shows like For example, Lost, The Middle, Full House, Drake and Josh, Zoey 101, iCarly, Suite Life, Wizards of Wavery Place,Boy Meets World, and others count hour long episodes as two episodes. They all have on set of credits but our counted as two episodes during production.Regradless what the time of credits say. Some editor's do say that it should matter what the edits and how the DVDS say. the  example at Template:Episode list#Examples show what some episode pages run, but does not match what was actually done at Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7)#Episodes and that example does not match the current descriptions for the parameters in the rest of the template documentation. I think it would be fine it it matches  with a show that follows this format.  A good example would be on the Nickelodeon show iCarly, nick and Dan (Show creator) confirmed that they made 109 episodes. But if we did not count them as two episodes that would leave us with 98 episodes counting them as one episode.On sources (TV Guide, iTunes, etc.) list each episode with 1 number not 2 and differ from what the production company or network says. Most television show pages follow what the production codes. For example, if there's an episode that used 2 production codes. In the matter for iCarly 217/224 is used since the episodes were produced at 2 different times. Or an episode that has production code 311-311 is counted as 3 episodes. Also they are written 311-313 or 311&312 and 313.WP Editor 2012 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While iCarly does comply with the instructions for this template, the incredible controversy over episode and season numbering that has seen over 42,000 words of discussion archived this year, doesn't really make it a good ongoing example. Something like The Big Bang Theory, that complies and has gone through the "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes" split to "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season x)" articles that have subsequently renamed to "The Big Bang Theory (season x)", demonstrating how compliance makes maintenance simple, is a far better option. We can always fake a couple of double episodes to demonstrate striping etc. I don't think we'll find a compliant article that demonstrates everything that we should be demonstrating. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Written by" field
There is a debate going on regarding who to include in the "Written by" field. According to the template, only the "primary writers" are included. The disagreement is over whether to include "story by" credits as well. I know what my personal feelings on the matter are (see Talk:Arrow (TV series) for that specific discussion), but what is the overall belief when it comes to using this template?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

AltDate
The recommended value for AltDate says "date, formatted per MOS:DATE. Do not use start date." while the Degrassi examples do use "start date". Some clarification on this would be helpful. V (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Degrassi articles are an issue. They look pretty but they're not a good example. See my comments above. -- AussieLegend ( ✉ ) 17:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it was recommended to use start date. Why is that statement in the doc? 117Avenue (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that Start date can only be used once per row. The statement was first added over four years ago. I expect User:Pigsonthewing would know why. -- AussieLegend ( ✉ ) 04:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Start date emits metadata as part of the parent template's hCalendar microformat. It is only needed once per episode, and may be harmful if used twice or more. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. I've added this information to the documentation since it's bound to be brought up again. -- AussieLegend ( ✉ ) 14:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Center episode titles
For a more consistent visual presentation, I request that the "Title" field be centered like all the other fields. Please change:

to

Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus has been that the title column shouldn't receive any extra "visual presentation". 117Avenue (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? It currently has the random distinction of being the only left justified field.  Unless there's a legitimate reason otherwise, I think the template should be consistent.  Also, where is that consensus?  I've looked in the archives- I can only find discussion of making it an optional field (which I support).  --  Wikipedical (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a big discussion about removing the bold. Sorry, I should have looked closer, you want them all the same. I oppose this change, because it should be somewhat different. That sounds like I changed my opinion now, so I am going to hope someone else comments. 117Avenue (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's just randomise the title/date/director/writer/number fields so they appear in a different order each time the page is loaded. Then all the fields will be treated exactly the same and the oppressed fields will have a chance to be in the first column. We wouldn't want anyone to think that the "title" was in any way more important than any other field, that would be terribly unfair and inconsistent. Barsoomian (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am indifferent to the order of the columns. See my above code request- I merely want the 'Title' field to be center justified to correspond with the other fields in the template.  Can someone please make that change?  --  Wikipedical (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, more seriously, I for one disagree, your desire for "consistency" isn't compelling. The title IS more important than any other field. And it's the first text field on the left, so having it left justified is logical and makes a straight edge. If making them all "consistent" was important, I'd say make them all left justified, as 99% of text is. First the bold was removed and now you want to format it to look even more like the other fields. My example above just takes your reasoning to its logical conclusion. Though you may well prevail, since arbitrary degradations of legibility seem to be in fashion here, apparently the ideal is a uniform grey blur where nothing stands out, because choosing any field to emphasise is politically incorrect and would confuse all the millions of blind TV viewers who use Wikipedia as a TV guide. Barsoomian (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Essentially I agree with Barsoomian. I will add that the  field is generally one of the two largest fields and in some series the length of episode titles vary considerably. Centring episode numbers, air dates or ratings figures looks OK but in some series centring episode titles would look quite ridiculous. Such a change isn't going to be made without consensus, as this template is used in more than 4,000 articles, and a lot more discussion is required. --AussieLegend ( ✉ ) 12:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What's an example of a table that would look ridiculous by centering episode titles? --  Wikipedical (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked through and subcats looking for a good example, I found very few that wouldn't look silly. Because all are presently left-aligned and don't look silly, it's hard to find a good example of how they'd look silly although List of 3rd Rock from the Sun episodes is one. You only need to look at articles using   and , for example List of NCIS episodes, to see an example of the prlems with centre-alignment. It's a lot easier to scan down the   column in that article than it is to scan down the   column because the difference between the row lengths. By comparison, the   column in The Big Bang Theory (season 1) is easier to use because the row lengths are similar. Even List of Glee episodes is not so much a problem because most of the   rows are similar lengths. --AussieLegend ( ✉ ) 07:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that the centring of columns is done as a simple way to put space between columns more than because centring text is desirable in tables. With columns of text or figures the same or similar number of characters, it produces fairly even columns, and as tables were and probably still are mostly used for numerical data, the default makes sense. For the arrays of text of variable length that make up most of the episode lists though it doesn't, and if any change is to be made I would say make all columns left justified, except perhaps the leading episode numbers. Barsoomian (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh god no, that would look horrible to have them be centered. -- Ned Scott 16:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sortable table template for multiple episode orders
There's a barely used (1 use) sortable template version of Episode list at Template:S-Episode list. The idea came up originally for use back in 2007 on the sister template Template:Japanese episode list, Template:S-Japanese episode list, for a few shows that had different episode order for when it aired and when it was on DVD. As you can see, it's not pretty. In order to make it a sortable table it's basically multiple tables hacked together. One over all table, and then each individual episode entry is another table, but with the episode numbers being exposed on the first table level. To line up the columns we used fixed widths and only use basic options, such as airdate (maybe alt air date too, but I'm not sure off hand). It was never used much, and no one ever got around to really making any kind of documentation for it (granted it wasn't much different from the original template, back in 2007).

So the end result is pretty slick when it can be used, but limiting. I doubt it's compatible with text-to-speach readers for accessibility.

Today I thought I would see if I could use it for List of Firefly episodes, and a few others that I knew had differing air dates and DVD order. No way. It needs support for more parameters (at least Written and Directed by), and the fixed width hack isn't going to cut it anymore. Plus, there's got to be some better ways to handle this. My own skills in templates and HTML tables is probably basic, especially considering there's all sorts of stuff that is now an option since I was last active. So, I thought I would post about this here and see what you guys thought. It really is a nice option when it can be used, and it's really effective at resolving heated disputes that can come up about episode order, even if it's only a tiny percentage of shows that need it.

So the idea is to make something sortable for multiple episode orders, but something sane and in-step with the master template. I'm not sure if there's something that's come out in recent years that we can use, be it an HTML/CSS formatting option, or something within MediaWiki, or perhaps there's been a better option all along and we just didn't see it originally. -- Ned Scott 19:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about references in ShortSummary row
During transclusion into an episode list, the ShortSummary text is removed from view. But if there are any tags in the ShortSummary text, the references do appear in the episode list's References section – even though the refs' arrows are unclickable. Is there any way to make those references not appear, like the rest of the ShortSummary text? Hope that was clear enough. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an odd fluke. I work on another wiki all the time with a few templates that show/hide various parameters like that, and excluded ones shouldn't cause references to pop up. Then again, it's using MediaWiki 1.17, so maybe something has changed in the software to cause this. Still, the text being called to make up the page should not include those references at all. -- Ned Scott 16:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's an example. See Mad Men (season 1) and Mad Men (season 1).  On the season 1 page, the first is a Slant Magazine citation, and the second is a note with a quotation from the episode.  Now see List of Mad Men episodes – the two references still show up at the LOE as number 4 and 5 (List of Mad Men episodes and List of Mad Men episodes), even though when clicked they don't do anything.  So my question: is there any way to remove ShortSummary citations from view in transcluded articles?  --  Wikipedical (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems like a bug with MediaWiki. The reference isn't even fully transcluded, which is even weirder. -- Ned Scott 10:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Going forward, is there any way to tinker with the template's code to solve the problem, or does something else need to be done? (also, didn't quite understand what you meant by "the reference isn't even fully transcluded.")  Thanks.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

OriginalAirDate parameter becoming out-dated?
Is the OriginalAirDate becoming outdated, and perhaps needing to become something more like "OriginalAvailabilityDate"? More and more channels morph into a sort of On-Demand system, where content is made available on a different date than the classical "TV Programming". Content Management systems are starting to mature, in such a way that they are less and less intrusive, plus the ability to splice commercials into the episodes with these systems that are difficult to block make this all possible (and profitable) for these networks. Showtime already shows some episodes before the TV programming, and I think HBO does as well, but don't quote me on that. This tendency towards on-demand systems isn't likely to slow down, therefor the classical programming schedule will probably go the way of the dodo in the coming decades, or years (although I don't think Classic TV channels will really completely go away, if only for national information channels etc.). Would it be convenient to either change this parameter, or add a parameter next to it that shows the original (and legal) availability date? Xiph1980 (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say add a parameter and keep the original for older shows that aired before the On-Demand system came into existance. Jimknut (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The terminology would still apply, because it's still the airdate. We aren't saying "original air time", but the date that it first appeared. If the show is on "On-Demand", then it is being released "legally". You cannot account for bootlegs of shows, and we don't do that. But, if it was released on On-Demand or something similar on January 23, and the TV programming broadcast was January 24, then the date should be January 23. If it's an outlier, and not typical, then you just put in a note explaining why it is off. If it's just the way the show is released, then it's no big deal. The terminology doesn't need to change, merely the understanding behind it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What Xiph1980 means is "airdate" no longer applies as nothing is transmitted over the air, but rather released online. As far as I can tell, the original date part is not being disputed.  However, content is now being 'released' rather than 'aired.'  --  Wikipedical (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think that people think of it in those terms nowadays. To most people, and readers alike, when we say "air date", we're just referring to the date of release. I don't think anything need to be changed, and certainly not added. Just clarify if something was released in a non-traditional fashion where necessary. If the day comes that those methods are more common than traditional television broadcasting, then we'll be noting tv broadcasting as something special.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Length of Episode Column
I propose we add an item "Length of Episode" (or some variation on that) so that the Aux columns are not used up by this column.

An example of how this would be used is listed in the Stargate SG-1 (Season 1) page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prbsparx (talk • contribs) 03:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Request addition of new attribute RProdCode
In some articles ProdCode requires a reference as these are not always listed in the episode proper. The current implementation of ProdCode does not properly generate the prxxx anchor if there is anything else in the value other than text but the reference is still added correctly to the article. See example at List of Jessie episodes and look at html generated to see issue. A new attribute "RProdCode" should allow proper generation of the anchor and still be able to add the cite footnote in the display. This has not been a visible issue up to now but VisualEditor seems to be unable to handle this correctly. See here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Series with no episode titles
Could someone please add an example to the documentation, of a series whose episodes have no tiles? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have this with EastEnders (there's no article yet but I've been working on it in my userspace). I don't use "Title" but use "RTitle" for the episode date, because you either Title or RTitle has to be used. User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders episodes (2013) for examples. This is just my work-around, but perhaps a proper way of doing this needs to be implemented. – anemone projectors – 10:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Please use Start date not dts. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? – anemone projectors – 12:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it makes the dates machine-readable, as part of the emitted microformat (see the template's documentation). They remain sortable. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks, I didn't know it was a problem. Will do. – anemone projectors – 12:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to see a proper way of dealing with title-less episode lists implemented to the template, rather than having do it it the way I've been doing it. – anemone projectors – 12:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Fun in pun
As there are people willing to explain pun in episode titles in the episode description, wouldn't there be a need for TitlePunExplanation parameters? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 08:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The auxiliaries can't be used? 117Avenue (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What about episode's alternative title or both non-English and English titles being pun on something? What if only some episode titles are puns? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 07:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Parameter dispute
A number of users, including User:Pigsonthewing and User:AussieLegend, have made reverts that changed the date format here. I think that this is incorrect as new users in particular may simply use the default setting without considering its impact. I'm apparently not the only one who disagrees with this change - User:117Avenue has also reverted it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now made a change that I think should be acceptable to everyone involved. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Restore original options for shortsummary
This needs to be reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Episode_list&diff=next&oldid=493933236

Per my comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AJapanese_episode_list&diff=567631863&oldid=542040656

Both templates where intentionally designed to allow both options, to hide the summary box, or to show it. Forcing the option never made any sense and defeated a primary objective for these episode templates back when myself and others originally designed them: to encourage people to fill out areas that were missing. In cases where this was not desired, we specifically added the flexibility to remove the box by excluding the parameter in the template. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, tables shouldn't have empty rows. 117Avenue (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then exclude the parameter. Filling in of values in a list should be encouraged, especially since most of these lists are not always available at the time of building the list. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 08:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You could see it like this: The 2nd row isn't actually a row semantically (even though we define it as such in HTML tables), it's actually the 'last cell' of a data entry that happens to be on the 'next line'. When you have empty cells, you don't remove them, because that breaks the table. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 08:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe in "don't need to say nothing". This means that if we don't know something, or there isn't a good source for something, we don't say that we don't know it, we just leave it out of the article. I see an empty cell as throwing my hands up in the air and saying "I dunno". 117Avenue (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The empty cells was one of the reasons this template became so popular. There was only a handful of us, and the template was never any formal proposal or mentioned in any MoS, and yet even totally new users picked it up and spread the template's use. People saw the empty cell and knew it meant something needed to be filled out.


 * We don't avoid making articles or even sections just because they are not fully filled out. This is no different. -- Ned Scott 16:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sortable episode list
Regarding Template_talk:Episode_list/Archive_5, it looks like there is a semi-recently added solution: meta:Help:Sorting and meta:Help:Sorting. That would make it a lot more manageable, and get the sortable versions in-line with the main template. I'll have a go at it when I get some time. -- Ned Scott 17:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Aux4 styling?
How can I force Aux4 column data to be styled text-align:left; ? I can force the title, but I'd like the cells aligned left. Problem example: Film Sack. We shouldn't use the Director parameter, because the podcast episodes aren't directed by the film's director. See Talk:Film Sack. --Lexein (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Viewers/rank/timeshifted viewers etc.
Should there be colomns added for rank, time shifted viewers, etc?

In New Zealand's Got Talent (series 3), they had to not use this template because there simply wasn't of showing all the colomns they needed to (see below). Could this be added, at least as,  , etc?

Ratings

 * Personally, I don't think they need all of that information. I might be able to see "rank", but timeslot and "timeshifted viewers" (which I don't know what that is) are not that relevant to the general reader. It's like "shares", if you have to explain what it is you're trying to provide, then it's not that important for the purposes of a "quick look". For a prose section that gives you the ability to elaborate, and point out key moments when those areas were important to the show, then yes, but not in a table where most people won't even know what they mean.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In New Zealand, the three main channels (TV One, TV2, and TV3 (New Zealand)) also broadcast a channel one hour later showing exactly the same content, ie for people who want to watch two shows that are broadcast at the same time. Most New Zealand readers would understand about the timeshifted viewers, especially if I called it TV One plus 1 viewers. The rank is from the site http://www.throng.co.nz


 * I wouldn't add anymore columns because the table's pretty big as it is. Total viewers and "shifted viewers" could reside in the same column. The "rank" becomes less impactful. It's nice, but is it necessary? There are already 4 auxilary sections, I'm sure they can be adapted to fit your needs if you really need that stuff.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 July 2014
Could we get the function wrapped in tags? That should fix the wonky display on the documentation. moluɐɯ 23:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 July 2014
Just as with Template talk:Episode list/sublist. As per WP:LTD, I converted this template to Module:Episode list. This template passed Template:Episode list/testcases and the current code can be found at Template:Episode list/sandbox.

moluɐɯ 18:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Any problems please let me know. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an error in the code (perhaps a table not being closed?) because the documentation table is not showing correctly. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And check out List of The Simpsons episodes. Should we revert? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because of how the tags are made, I don't think it's possible that one is unclosed. There is this weird problem where tables get messed up when they're next to other tables though. Perhaps wrapping the invoke function with would fix it. As for the Simpsons list, that seems to be some weird design choice to not include the viewers in millions for those pages. There was absolutely nothing in the wiki syntax of the template before the edit that would remove the viewer count when on the main list. I think the best option there would for me to allow the header to be included. moluɐɯ 19:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That or, I now notice that these pages use the /sandbox page. I think User:Wbm1058 must have been testing his edits there, and forgot to revert it back to the standard template. Or something. moluɐɯ 19:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, see Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes and Template talk:Episode list/sublist for what I was doing with the season 8 and 9 articles. Hopefully the new module makes that unnecessary. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A problem is occurring where when nothing is input into the Title field, it displays as "", when it should simply appear empty. See The Leftovers (TV series). Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I fixed it. moluɐɯ 21:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Formatting errors
Since conversion of this template to Lua, formatting errors have appeared in hundreds, and likely thousands, of TV episode list articles. I've addressed this on 's talk page, since he did the conversion but I'll mention it here as well: A typical example of what is happening can be seen at Two and a Half Men (season 11). The problem is in the ShortSummary field, which is typically coded along the lines of :
 * ShortSummary = Episode plot summary text

First heading: some text here

Second heading: text This text should appear as: Episode plot summary text
 * LineColor = dbe9f4

First heading: some text here

Second heading: text However, some episodes are not rendering the text correctly. Instead, what we see is: Episode plot summary text First heading: some text here
 * See episode Nangnangnangnang

Second heading: text Sometimes the text has a blank line between "Episode plot summary text" and the first heading (See episode Nangnangnangnang) while in other instances there is no blank line. (See episode Tazed in the Lady Nuts. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See episode This Unblessed Biscuit


 * Seems that the number of paragraphs is what makes the difference; they only kick in when there are three or more paragraphs. I think tweaking the module to start the ShortSummary text on a new line will make it work.  19:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems to have fixed it.  20:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It does indeed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Episode lists without episode numbers — nominated for deletion

 * This is a meaningless comment to allow for eventual archiving. Jay32183 (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a generic version of this template?
I ask this question because I would like to use this style table template with a list of amusement park attractions, because the descriptions can get lengthy in some cases. Since someone might understandably object to the idea of using an episode list for amusement park attractions list, I was wondering if there is a generic version of this template that is used on other topics.

Best wishes! -- hmich 176 21:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Fix for bullet lists in the short summary
The Mol Man and Edokter, I added some logic to the module sandbox to fix the problem with using bullet lists in the ShortSummary (see [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=Module%3AEpisode+list&rev1=641262804&page2=Module%3AEpisode+list%2Fsandbox&rev2=645324735&action=&diffonly=&unhide= this diff]). this is basically the same fix that's used by module:navbox. you can see the difference in the testcases. any comments, suggestions, or objections? Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't find fault.  16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks, now updated. we could probably move both newlines inside the if statement (per module:navbox), but this appears to work as well. Frietjes (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem problem with using bullets had an extremely simple workaround but it's great to see that we don't have to worry about that any more. Good work. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Has something changed since February? I had to fix Top Gear (series 18) because of a problem with bullets that was introduced with this editin January. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:AussieLegend, I refined the hack, and (hopefully) did not introduce any new problems. I have no idea what happened.  could have been an update to the backend software to do more aggressive cleaning of the html. Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find any problems in the articles that I've checked so the fix looks good. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:AussieLegend, great. just checked and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Top_Gear_(U.S.)_episodes&type=revision&diff=667494117&oldid=667047052 this works] as well. the hack that I am using inserts empty span tags, which get removed later by the "html tidy" postprocessor (as far as I can tell), so no significant net change to the resulting output. if we do find a problem, we can add it to the test cases, and I can work on it some more. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This may be related to what you've done, or it may not (I seem to remember seeing it when Module:Episode list first replaced the original template), but there are some funny formatting problems now in the  field. When adding extra content to the field, like guest stars, it is necessary to add line breaks after the summary or the extra information occurs immediately after the summary text with no breaks. The following example is from List of Jessie episodes:

All of the episodes are nearly the same with only minor changes. Episode 1 is the "original" text. One would expect to see the text in episode 1's summary appear as follows:
 * Episode summary text


 * Guest stars: Christina Moore as Christina Ross, Charles Esten as Morgan Ross, Chris Galya as Tony, Brian Carpenter as Head Judge and Bryan Fuller as A.D.

However, this will only happen if line break code is manually added somewhere in the summary. In episode 2, adding a line break to the end of the "Guest stars" line and another line after that (in this case a note) fixes the formatting, but that's only a fix if you need a second line. When only one note is needed, two line breaks have to be added directly after the original summary text, as in episode 3. This was never needed in the past. Episode 1 was the standard formatting.

-- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:AussieLegend, now generally fixed, and I added this testcase. there seems to be some spurious spacing at the top of the summary now, but at least it's now wrapping in the middle.  will work on it some more in the sandbox. Frietjes (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again I have to say, thank you. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)