Template talk:Episode list/Archive 6

Doctor Who Series Tables
I have had a small discussion with Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  about this edit being the normal for the episode tables for Doctor Who. I don't know if this would be too much for the episode table, but as AlexTheWhovian has said putting letters after episode numbers just clutters up the table, where as I think this layout looks a lot better. The colour that the numbers are in can be change to a lighter colour.


 * No rowspans please; they hurt navigation for screenreaders. It also looks too busy and the episode rows lose cohesion.  21:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the solid colours for the left-side numbers (I'd stick to the normal lighter colour), but rowspans are all over Wikipedia. This is no different. Some better-looking examples can be found in my sandbox. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  13:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because they're there, doesn't mean they should, especially when combined with colspans. What is wrong with the current setup?  13:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The letters add clutter to the table, and only on Wikipedia do you find the episodes numbered as such. Nowhere else are they numbered 252a or 187c. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  14:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Another version. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 09:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Invalid color tracking category
Hi, can someone add the invalid color tracking category to this as well, as similar to Category:Articles using Template:Episode table with invalid colour combination and Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination. Would be helpful to indentify invalid color combinations for articles that just use episode lists. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The only colour in Episode list is the LineColor... Do you possibly mean Episode table? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  01:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of episode lists don't use episode table. Would it be possible to have the line color compared to both white and black text and if it fails both, a tracking category be added? I think that would capture most of the offending lists. (I've never seen a list use any other color text than white and black and frankly they shouldn't either... so if a list technically complies because it uses pink text on navy background, it should still be changed.) Pinging as I know they are actively involved in the creation of these tracking categories. Please use re to ping me.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like has already coded this up with Special:Diff/673250547. Mr. Stradivarius, would it be OK to deploy? Alakzi (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've deployed it. Invalid top colours are now tracked in Category:Episode lists with invalid top colors. This doesn't check the line colour, though. We would need different code for that. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This should do the trick for tracking line colours. If the code looks ok, feel free to deploy (after creating Category:Episode lists with invalid line colors). — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

My originally thought was that it would be able to track the colors used in style="background:", but I didn't realize that's not actually a part of the template, but of the wikitable used with the template. Is there any way to track that, or would that have to be done manually? EvergreenFir's idea of tracking line colors would be the best option as they are meant to match that color of the background. However, I'm assuming the category would still end up including articles that are indeed compliant, as it would need to contrast the background color vs. black and white text, thus the article might be using a compliant color text, but fails with the other one. Am I right in this assumption? Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * for parsing style statements within templates we have, but, you are correct, to parse the ones outside of templates you would need someone to run a bot or awb over all the transclusions, grab the style string, and run it through the module. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which wouldn't be too hard to code I don't think. I think a bot might not be a bad idea.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 15:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh, tracking line colours should work just as well in practice, and the code is already written, so it would be easier than writing a bot. Plus as people fix the invalid colours, the pages would drop out of the category, reducing the possibility that two people will have to check the same article. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * a one time bot run is probably not that hard, Alakzi generated a list for me which I used to make User:Frietjes/contrast. an even better idea would be to add "poor contrast style statements" to the monthly WikiProject Check Wikipedia. that is, assuming, anyone is interested in fixing them.  Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Might it be better in the long run to code a bot to migrate the wiki table syntax used in Episode list templates over to Episode table? That wouldn't seem too hard to parse out. Only question I have is about the column widths... most of the time it's not specified but it appears that Episode table needs it specified. (Just looked at the template and it appears widths are optional).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The width is not optional. The same parameter is used to control both the visibility and width of the columns. Alakzi (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The width is optional. Using  includes the "Directed by" column without a width, and   includes the same column with a width of 16%.  Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  16:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Late reply, but I tested the template with and without widths specified at User:EvergreenFir/sandbox2.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Anchor not working
I posted the following at Module talk:Episode list 10 days ago but nobody has responded so I'm moving it here. Per the instructions for Episode list, when  is defined, this parameter also creates a link anchor, prefixed by " "; for example, " ". That doesn't seem to be working. For example, List of Jessie episodes should link to this episode but it doesn't. I'm not really up on Lua so can somebody please fix this? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Alakzi (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Episode title
If a particular program doesn't strictly have a name, and is only refered to as something such as Episode 1, is it still appropriate for it to be included in quotes as "Episode 1" in the Title parameter, or should the RTitle parameter be used instead? The tempate documentation doesn't outright explain which is best in this situation or similar. User:Whats new?(talk) 00:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Empty cells
Would it be worth it to modify this template so that empty cells automatically use TableTBA? There would be a few variations required - e.g. If Title is empty, then RTitle would need to be set accordingly, and Viewers would been to be set to. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 14:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't have at least a title, the episode shouldn't be included on the table in the first place. I would oppose adding TableTBA into Viewers simply because not every series has its ratings are publicly released. And then there are some series that aren't broadcast but are released direct-to-video and will not have a viewer rating. This move would effectively make the field a requirement. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to specific episodes not having viewer ratings, because otherwise you can just not include the viewers column in Episode table (or the regular table) at all. If that's the case, I don't understand the problem – if the information is known to be unavailable, you can use . It's not much less confusing to have an empty value than TBD, in my opinion. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support for the idea. In response to, the standard practice to include a row if an episode table has two pieces of information. That is, you can have the director, writer, production code and airdate for the episode (as is the current case for The Big Bang Theory 9x12) but no title, and you can still include it. And as said, Viewers would only need to be set to  if the episode table in question had the viewers column in the first place (e.g. if Episode table has viewers set). And it can automatically display  if no viewers have been included for two weeks(more?) since the air date of the episode, given that some series have viewer numbers available for some episodes and none are released for other episodes.  Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  23:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Great idea! -- Whats new?(talk) 06:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to over-complicate things. For all intents and purposes there is very little difference between TBA and TBD so just is fine. If there is no entry for Viewers just set the field to, regardless of the time that has passed. If the field is populated then the entry will override TBA. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's barely any difference between TBA/TBD. However, if the series has been out for three years and there's no viewers, then it definitely shouldn't just show "TBA", as it's definitely not to be announced, it's not available, hence the N/A. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  08:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

OriginalAirDate priority
I mention my concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Templates but am posting the question here since it seems like it might get more activity.

The example given is due to editing conflicts I'm experiencing with another user recently. They insist that for a series of episodes I can only list the US air dates (debuting on the US version of Nicktoons next week, mid-Feb) and keep re-inserting them.

The problem here though is that I have introduced reliable sources supporting the fact that
 * a) they were already televised in Canada during mid January 2016 on YTV
 * b) DirecTV has had the episodes available in English through their TV streaming service since late January 2015
 * c) the episodes' German translations were televised in early January 2015

These progressive discoveries have led to me updating the air dates with progressively early dates. But the user keeps removing the dates, removing the sources attached to them, and re-inserting the upcoming Nicktoons dates.

I'm being accused of treating the page like I 'own' it but IMO this user is doing so by only listing the dates their channel of choice is providing.

That Legends of Awesomeness is finally finishing season 3 on its home station is great, and probably worth a note in an AltDate column if it existed (I'm in the process of building it ) but while notable, the dates don't appear to qualify as "original" air dates because they are not when the episodes "first" aired "on TV".

On TV is a broad expression referring to any TV in any nation. The template does not specify "on TV in its country of production" or anything like that. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

How many air-dates
The multi airdate column has to be clarified as to it's use. Another TV series Jekyll and Hyde (TV series) has had the additional airdate of Canada inserted even though it's two months after the original airing. At this rate every English speaking country will want their own air date. REVUpminster (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This template merely provides header information, which was previously generated by raw table code. It is used in lists that have used Episode list for many years, and it is Episode list that supports the use of alternative dates. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The usage says "The next notable air date, such as the first air date of an anime in English." Does the "next" mean only one other date and what is "notable". ie a rebroadcast in another country. REVUpminster (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The verbage of the parameter is vague. It should be changed and here is my proposal: "Used for another notable air date of the episode. Examples of additional notable airings include: the first air date of an anime in English, or for a show produced by two countries, the airing in the second country if different from the original airing." Those are really the only examples I can think of where this parameter would be useful. It could also be useful to do a search of the articles to see which ones are using this parameter, to see if there are more, appropriate examples of using this that I can't think of. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Other than Sherlock the only two I know are Thunderbirds Are Go (TV series) where the date is only a day apart and The Last Kingdom (TV series) where BBC America broadcast it before it's UK broadcast; I think that one is justified. But it will happen more often as editors realise the option is there.REVUpminster (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We normally only show the first air date of an episode, not subsequent first airings in another country, unless there is a really good reason to do so. If you look at Infobox television, we list the first and last dates in which a series aired. If that doesn't happen in the country of origin, we use first_run to denote that. Similary, we normally only include the air date of episodes in the first country in which they aired, which is usually the country of origin. If there are some episodes that have aired first in other country (a persistent problem with MythBusters), we can add appropriate notes but it's not normal to do what is being done at Sherlock. If a UK series consistently airs episodes first in Botswana, we might list Botswana air dates, as we might list US dates if a Canadian series consistently airs episodes first in the US. In other words, we use the first run country for episode lists. We don't add air dates just because another country might have had a hand in production, or contributed to costs. Anime programs typically don't use this template, they use Japanese episode list. AltDate was originally from Digimon episode, after which this template was created. It probably isn't really needed. Adding a second air date at List of Sherlock episodes only happened 4 years after the article was created. Thunderbirds Are Go (TV series) is a mystery to me. It's a UK-NZ program but somebody has seen fit to add Australian dates. Why? The Last Kingdom (TV series) is British, but the first run was in the US, so the US dates should suffice. At least it correctly uses one date format. - Editors have known for years that AltDate exists. It's not unusual to see somebody add AltDates. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * To get some examples of what qualifies for an alt date, would the revoicing of the dialogue qualify? This doesn't just cover a cross-language translation but also something like Henry Hugglemonster where I'm pretty sure the BBC version has different VAs with British accents for the characters.
 * Basically you could have OAD being first-no-matter-what and then second being the next re-voicing... except that I think if English is secondary that it should take priority if we are going to limit this field to only 1 date in AltDate. Like for example of an anime went Japanese dialogue > Chinese dialogue > English dialogue (think Cooking Master Boy) we would initially list the Chinese as the AltDate but as soon as the English dub came out that would replace it since we are an English wiki and English language should take priority as AltDate. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Using n/a template
When I attempt to use a n/a template within an episode list it "breaks" the formatting of template. Does anyone know why this is, or if there's a workaround?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That was the very reason that TableTBA was created. Prior to that it was necessary to use N/A in the template. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's because n/a uses hacky wikitable attribute syntax. It could just use, but it can't be changed now, as lots of pages use syntax like  . nyuszika7h (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, never mind, it changes the background color of the entire cell, you can't do that with a span inside the cell. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

ShortSumary word cap
From Manual_of_Style/Television:
 * approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines, with the provision that articles using should not exceed 200 words in accordance with the instructions for that template

Does this mean that if we surpass 200 words but are under 350 words for an episode summary on a season page that there is no template for allowing it and it requires not using a table to maximally describe complex storylines? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have to use more than 200 words for a summary, it may be beneficial to create an article for the episode where you can expand on the plot. That is a general sense of what that means, or at least an interpretation I take from it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It reads to me like the 350 words limit refers to the "basic prose section that gives season story arcs", which is the alternative to using the tabular template with a section for each episode. If that is true, then the answer to your question is, the MOS never supports a summary for an individual episode on a season page to exceed 200 words. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed there appears to be an inconsistency between this template's documentation and the MOS.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sortability
Is there any reason why this list template does not have a sortability mode? Jimknut (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure due to the way the table is formatted, with the spanning of rows for the summary and such. It would not be conducive to sorting, and I also don't see the need for it either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Same as above, I see no need for it. Most series have episode rating tables you can sort if you want to sort of episode number, title or viewers. There's really no need to sort by any other column. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to sort by production code. But the 'rowspan' for the episode summary makes sorting impossible, so unfortunately I don't expect it to happen... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Empty variables
Way back when, I suggested (and a discussion ensured) that we automatically fill empty cells with TableTBA or variations of the template specific to the cell. (For some reason, I deleted my work on it and closed the discussion; can't remember why.) I've adjusted the code in the module sandbox, test cases exist in the module test cases. RTitle sets to TBA when Title is empty; Viewers sets to TBD for future dates or past dates within a month ago, or N/A for dates over a month ago. Would it still be worth implementing? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 04:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily against it, but I think there's a certain quality to having users manually put TableTBA in when adding new info, as well as user, especially IPs, seeing that versus just an empty field. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Players can still use TableTBA in empty cells, and they should, this just prevents empty-celled tables when they haven't been used. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been implemented. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 22:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary lengths
The ShortSummary parameter should hold "a short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode", per the documentation. Would it be worth having the template automatically tag summaries that are outside of this region, with more plot if the summary is less than 100 words, and/or long plot if the summary over 200 words? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are often cases where we have guest stars in the summary referenced to a press release before an episode is released (for Disney shows, at least live action ones, there aren't so many, and there are sometimes co-stars which we do not list as those are really minor roles), and we can't add the official synopsis as it would be a copyright violation and it wouldn't be long enough anyway. So if we do this, maybe check if the episode has aired – show the tag starting the next day to make sure it has actually aired. nyuszika7h (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that it wouldn't be a good idea to "auto-tag". Certainly not for "too short", and probably not even for "too long" unless it's way over the 200 words limit. The 100–200 words thing is basically a guideline, and there will be exceptions that legitimately fall above and below the suggest word limit, so "auto-tagging" seems like it wouldn't be a good idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for teleplay/story fields
I'd like to request the addition of teleplay by and story by fields to this template, as there's certain shows that exclusively use these credits rather than "written by" (List of Veep episodes and List of The Wire episodes being examples) and there's also shows that simply use "teleplay by" in place of "written by". The addition of these fields will help updating the template code for these shows. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not simply use the existing WrittenBy field and label the column heading as "Teleplay by" or "Story by"? I don't see a reason to add more complexity to the template when it is completely unnecessary. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Farix, don't see why modifying the WrittenBy or auxiliary parameters isn't sufficient. --  Wikipedical (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also for both examples you provided, it should really be the WrittenBy parameter, with the StoryTeleplay template used to format the story writers and the teleplay writers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Per what everyone has said; there's not much else to add. As an example, take a look at List of Arrow episodes - story/teleplay are both listed under the "Written by" column, while using StoryTeleplay. There's no need for further complications, and tables that have the story and teleplay writers separate should really be modified to have them under the one column. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see where Drovethrughosts is coming from but we really have enough fields already. Some episode lists have so many fields in use, and/or such long lists of writers, that we're getting close to needing two rows for the template already, without even using ShortSummary, to avoid compressing column widths. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just realized I meant to make this suggestion at Template:Episode table. Whoops. Does that change anyone's opinions, anyway? The idea is, for example, at List of The Strain episodes (which is a series the uses "teleplay by" with no story credits in replace of "written by"), I could use  which would then display "Teleplay by" in the column heading. I shouldn't have to use an auxiliary parameter to achieve something like that. I'm not totally sure of how the coding behind that template works, but could   be an alias of   and when   is used, it changes the column heading? Sorry for the confusion. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * With Episode table, you can modify the text of the headers, by setting the same parameter with a T appended to it.
 * So, in Episode list, you'd use WrittenBy, and in Episode table, you'd use . An example:
 * Gives:
 * Gives:


 * Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks AlexTheWhovian, that should suffice. I thought there was something like that, but I didn't see it documentation; I see it now. Thanks again. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

RAirDate and RAltDate
Could we introduce these fields? I noticed that template:episode table has an "airdateR" field but sometimes a single source cannot accurately support all air dates in the column so having an individual reference field is valuable. Often this can be aliased to TTitle and RAltTitle if the same source mentions both. Ranze (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just put the reference next to the air date. Example. RTitle only exists so that the reference can be placed outside of the quotes that come with Title; OriginalAirDate does not have this issue. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 22:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Title Alignment for Episode Lists
I propose a Class A change to the Title alignment of the Episode list and Japanese Episode List templates to improve readability.

The default Title header alignment is centred, however the default alignment for the title names is to the left within the table list. For readability, they should be aligned the same, either both centred or both left aligned. Where there are multiple columns this does not create a problem as they are both generally above each other. On the other hand where there are few columns, eg. Kabaneri of the Iron Fortress, Kuromukuro or  The Simpsons the different alignment creates a readability issue. The examples on the Episode list have the same issue. As a Class A change, this change to the template is compatible with existing calls.

I am open to alternative suggestions, but I believe that this issue should be addressed, not only in these List Templates, but others that have the same issue.

NOTE: If this proposal should be approached in a different way. please let me know. Ozflashman (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This doesn't improve readability at all. Instead, it disrupts the ascetics of the heading as you now have mixed justifications. Finally, it adds more HTML/CSS for no real gain. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The current alignment is fine. It's standard to center header cells and we don't left-align them in other tables with left-aligned text in data cells. In your examples, the title column is a bit too wide, but I don't really consider left-aligning the title header an improvement. You could make the other cells slightly wider (but not too wide, like when the widths are not specified) rather than condensing them so much. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand these comments. If you look at the The Simpsons sample list, all the headers are centred, but the Title column text is Left-aligned. Can you please explain why this column should be any different. Obviously the Summary columns should be left-aligned. Ozflashman (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the alignment of the title cells? They look better and are easier to read if they are left-aligned, episode titles – obviously whoever designed the template in the first place agrees, though based on your comments you may disagree. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. If the titles are easier to read, left-aligned, then why isn't the header as well? If you look at the Kuromukuro example, a center-aligned header makes no sense, and inhibits readability, with the The Simpsons sample list it looks like a mistake, or at worst amateurish. The  Kabaneri of the Iron Fortress example has both left-aligned and is more readable. I could assume whoever designed the template in the first place did not consider all of the implications of alignment changes. My case is that it should be one or the other - all centred or all left-aligned. Ozflashman (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Show me one example of left-aligned headers mixed with centered headers. You don't see that anywhere. The problem at Kuromukuro is not the centered header, it's the fact that the other cells are condensed too much when they could have some padding without looking bad – even then it's not perfect, though the table width could be reduced if it's really a big problem, but I don't think it is. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I take your point. I've created 3 versions on a Sandbox page for evaluation using the  Jetsons. Option 2 with centered headers & titles has mis-aligned double quotes from the template code, but its just for a test. I also question the necessity for double quotes on titles as I think that it's unnecessary. Ozflashman (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Where are we up to with this proposal? I have yet to see the argument why the Title is aligned differently to every other column. This also applies to the Japanese episodes column. If the episode title is easier to read when left-aligned, then why does this not also apply to the header, especially when the Title column is very wide. I am assuming this is the appropriate forum for this discussion and a decision. If not, can someone point me in the right direction, thanks. Ozflashman (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You got multiple reasons as to why it is aligned the way it is. I have yet to see the argument why the Title is aligned differently to every other column. They're there, even if you don't like it. This is the right place. Where are we up to? The same as before this discussion was created, as there is consensus to keep it the way it is. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I got some reasons, but just basically "that's how it is". I was just raising the issue, and expected a decision rather than random comments. As a Template Editor, you have the right to make the decision on the template, so be it. However Wikipedia does allow variations in design, eg. line and header colours in Episode Lists or signature blocks. Therefore on the Episode Lists I create, and/or to which I make a substantial contribution, I will continue to make permissible localised modifications so long as they do not compromise the integrity of the site or content. Yours, Ozflashman (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read WP:OWN. The manual of style does allow some deviations, but those exist to avoid lame edit wars over things like national variety of English and date format where there is no "one size fits all". Especially regarding "and/or to which I make a substantial contribution", that would be problematic, as no matter how significant contributions you make, you don't get to decide WP:ENGVAR so you don't get to decide such things either. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and no problem, not interested in lame edit wars or ownership. However some things such as table header colours are generally open to customisation. It would be good if there was a standard set and order for Episode Lists as some combinations have accessibility issues because of the specific colours chosen. Ozflashman (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We already have tracking categories for articles which use Episode table (and LineColor in this template is also checked to cover more articles, because that's more often than not also used as the table header color). nyuszika7h (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "I also question the necessity for double quotes on titles as I think that it's unnecessary." – Those are put in double quotes in accordance with our manual of style, which says that we should put episode titles in double quotes. It's more important in prose, to distinguish them from their surroundings (and from the names of series), but there's no reason to make an exception for tables, as it's not unreasonable or wasting space. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Accepted, and no problem. Ozflashman (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Contributors should be able to ask legitimate questions about templates and get a reasonable response. I simply raised these topics in an genuine effort to improve Episode Lists. Thanks for taking the time to respond, Yours, Ozflashman (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The change you wanted to make across the board doesn't even help and only address to the code generated by the articles or list. Honestly, I don't know why you insist that the title header be left justified as it doesn't add anything whatsoever or why you narrow air date columns and director columns to 9em, which causes the content of those columns to wrap. It's not as if there is a premium of space to work with. And no, I am not going to follow your "orders" to never touch episode tables you are working on without your permission. I will continue to edit those tables to conform to the standard format used through Wikipedia. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like the ability to make Title or RTitle centred, as I have a list of episodes with no title so use RTitle with the broadcast date here, as the date is the main way to identify each episode. But it looks wrong if it's not centred, so I use, but if there was a more official way I think it might be helpful. However, this might be a one off and therefore not that necessary, though it would be used in at least 32 pages.  anemone  projectors  13:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just use Episode 1, Episode 2, etc. in RTitle, and place the air date in the OriginalAirDate, the correct parameter for air dates. No need to center anything. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 22:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not do that because the episodes are known by their date, not by their episode number (they are numbered on the scripts, but are published by by the BBC with a date where the title would normally be - the date is essentially the title). And to make that change now would mean changing over 5400 episodes. It would also mean giving the episode number twice (in the number column and the title column). It's still in draft so no rush :-) anemone  projectors  12:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Then I would recommend sticking to your currently-existing method of centering the content; no changes are required here. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, not even sure why I posted now! anemone  projectors  12:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on use of RTitle for aired episodes
Looking for clarification on something which has arisen in this discussion. Should episodes that have already aired include a reference for their title? From my reading of the template info ("Future episodes should include a reference in this field to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability"), and what I've seen in various episode lists, I think not. However, an editor at the link above disagrees. Apologies if this is the wrong place for this discussion. Klock101 (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Episodes that have already aired generally do not need to have a reference, as the episode themselves, per WP:PRIMARY, is considered the source. As well, where ever an episode list is displayed, it is generally good practice to include external links to episode guides such as The Futon Critic, TV Guide, etc. to be a resource users can look for the general episode information (like the title of aired episodes). However, in some cases a reference may be helpful to include if there are varying sources as to what the title of the episode actually is. Examples of this are List of Person of Interest episodes and A Series of Unfortunate Events (TV series). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The disagreeing editor has begun an RFC at, and continues their attacks there. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Title field
It is quite ridiculous that there is no option to remove the title field when many television series to not give titles to individual episodes. "Episode 1" is not a title, and the template should not force it to be presented as one. I note previous times the matter has been raised(here and here) with no reasoned opposition: is there a real reason why it has not been acted upon? Kevin McE (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Then use Episode 1, to include it without the quotes? If it's been raised multiple times and nothing has happened, it's obviously not that great a deal. --  Alex TW 19:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The presence of quote marks is not the issue: the presentation of something that is not the title of an episode in a column entitled Title is. Kevin McE (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then, when using Episode table, use titleT to change that header? If you're worried about the title of the column, then this isn't the template to be worried about. --  Alex TW 23:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing else useful to put there at all. The column should be optional, as others are.  No idea what your last sentence is meant to mean. Kevin McE (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example of where the episode is not actually titled as "Episode 1"? While many series that have such title designations don't exactly have "named" episodes, these are still the names for the episodes. If there is a dying need to change it, you can always use the following. --  Alex TW 10:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

overall isn't really necessary - just use y. --  Alex TW 11:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof would lie with those who wish to assert that it is called 'Episode 1'. not with those who doubt it. Please explain how you think the example you posted avoids the problem. And you still have not explained the final sentence of your previous post. Kevin McE (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what episode references are for, which are included for every television series. The burden therefore lies with those that believe that the reliable sources are wrong. And I did, with the example. --  Alex TW 11:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do see where Kevin is coming from. Some programmes don't have any names for episodes, so anything in the RTitle field that isn't a reference is really just some editor's opinion. In the example, "Episode 1" is really redundant to what is in the EpisodeNumber2 field. At List of Primeval episodes we chose to forego the EpisodeNumber2 column and just used the RTitle field. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There you go, an even better solution. Though, I would note that in the example provided, No.
 * What is the reason behind the objection to making the Title field optional? Is it in any way damaging or detrimental to its use? Why is flexibility something to oppose? Kevin McE (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't fix what isn't broke? If you want to remove the requirement, edit the module and submit an edit request. Or simply go with Aussie's suggestion. --  Alex TW 14:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The  field uses the same cell as , the latter being for a raw title or a reference for the episode. If the field is made optional, and not used in an article, when a reference is added (all future episodes require references) the table will be malformed. In the vast majority of the 8,833 articles that use this template, the field is needed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just implemented this change at Extra Gear. It effectively replaces the  field with the   field, which allows a reference still to be added, but doesn't appear to display an episode title.


 * This would seem to be another alternative. Using Alex's example above you get:


 * -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a "Based on" field
Could we please get an optional field for the source material that an episode is based on? I think this would be useful mainly for anthology series (and other occasional cases like Doctor Who: The Family of Blood). For example, each episode of Philip K Dick's Electric Dreams is based on a different short story, but this information is currently has to be represented in an awkward way which redundantly uses the phrase "teleplay by" twice and erroneously implies that Dick actually wrote each episode's story treatment. A "Based on" field positioned right after the "Written by"/"Teleplay by" one would take care of this nicely. —Flax5 14:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is something that would be rarely used in most television lists. Better to use an aux field for that. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. You can use either the "Aux2" or "Aux3" field, as that will put a customizable column between the current "Teleplay" and "Airdate" one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. —Flax5 18:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

parameter RowColor
RowColor is not working now. There is no differences between odd and even rows.--Namoroka (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example of where you tried using it and it did not work? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Every List of ... episodes article which uses sublists (e.g. List of Lost episodes.) I mean, alternate background row color is not shown when sublists are transculded into a main list.--Namoroka (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong at List of Lost episodes. It is transcluded correctly. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you know what the issue might be, if at all? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What is RowColor meant to do? I'm somewhat puzzled on this. Is it alternating colours for episodes, or alternating colours between the episode's details, and the summary, then the next episode's details, and its summary? If it's the former, I don't see why we even need that. --  Alex TW 00:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do remember issues with this, but it was back in 2012 so the details are hazy. The discussion is here. An example there was List of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition episodes and RowColor was added at that time to the season 1 article. Thinking back, it used to be that transcluded seasons would appear striped, with odd numbered episodes appearing in one shade and even numbered episodes appearing in a slightly different shade. In the event where you had a double episode on one row, e.g. episode "12-13", two consecutive rows would have the same shading. RowColor was used to correct the shading. Since we no longer zebra stripe, there is probably no need for the parameter. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because of the way that the template worked, it's only possible to demonstrate the issue in article space, but I've worked out a way. Go to List of episodelist episodes, which doesn't exist, post  into the page and click "Show preview" (NOT "save changes"). Odd-numbered episodes will be light grey while even-numbered episodes will be a darker grey. However, episodes "11" and "12-13" will both be light grey, which is the problem. Continuing down the list, I have corrected the same problem at episode "19-20" by using N at episodes "19-20" and "22" and Y at episodes "21" and "23". The problem also occurred if you had two episodes with the same number (see the two episode 24s). -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"Original air date" for upcoming shows/seasons?
See Game of Thrones (season 7), and presumably a bunch of other articles. We don't know the "original air dates" for these episodes, and strictly speaking they don't even have original air dates; they have expected air dates or scheduled air dates. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There has never been an issue with that. The Futon Critic lists them as scheduled to air on those dates, and given that The Futon Critic is a reliable source, it is perfectly alright to add. If they change between now and that particular date, we change it to reflect this new news. I do not see the issue here? --  Alex TW 01:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it would make more sense to say "scheduled" or "expected" air date. Please read my comment in light of what it actually says and where it was posted, and refrain from replying to things I didn't say, like whether the source currently cited in the article I linked is reliable. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In the past we have always rejected these dates as they can change, especially when the projected date is 3 months away. WP:CRYSTAL applies. You can really only be certain of a date once the episode has aired. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And to you, please understand the scope of what you are suggesting, and how the suggestion would not be constructive in the slightest. Currently-airing seasons have the dates for upcoming episodes; I have never come across a case where there has been an issue of this. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. This can be said for any future date of any future event; the expected air dates for further episodes is most certainly notable and certain to take place. --  Alex TW 08:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never come across a case where there has been an issue of this - As you have noted before, I've been editing Wikipedia a lot longer than you, and I have seen it plenty of times. I still do. There are plenty of occasions where even a scheduled episode, with a title, is pulled for some reason close to the airing date.
 * This can be said for any future date of any future event; - Not true. US presidential elections are an example. The Olympics are probably another - although only to the extent of the year and month. Saying the WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply and then quoting the part of WP:CRYSTAL that explains why it applies is not really a strong argument. 's concerns are quite valid, especially this far out from the scheduled date. --09:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This argument could also apply to episode titles. Quantico Season 1 Episode 21 was initially titled "Closure", but the ABC retitled it "Right" right as soon as the episode premiered, meaning that titles can't be certain until the episode airs either. The dates in the linked article are reliably sourced, and not assumed or original research from any editor, therefore it is WP:COMMONSENSE that the dates are worthy for inclusion. It's a strong argument when the section that I quote explains why it doesn't apply. If you wish to make such changes to a high level of television articles, I would recommend posting it at the WikiProject Television per standard procedure; you should know this. --  Alex TW 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL is more about dates than episode titles. The section you quoted does not at all explain why it doesn't apply. In fact it is quite contrary to what you were arguing.
 * If you wish to make such changes to a high level of television articles - Who said I was planning to do anything like that? Please don't assume. Regardless, this is a long standing practice that has already been discussed at WT:TV. It's one of the reasons why we don't add season or series end dates until after they happen. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Scheduled air dates are not interesting or useful to our readers if they change, unless there is an extraordinary reason they changed. I seem to recall an off-colour joke about airport security in a Friends episode that was originally scheduled to air immediately after 9/11, or some such. Title changes, on the other hand, are generally noteworthy and interesting.
 * I was actually a little surprised to check the page history of the article I linked above and see that it apparently existed as a standalone article in the mainspace long before it even entered production. WP:NFF explicitly bans film articles like this -- am I missing something? The whole thing seems like a CRYSTAL mess.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * it apparently existed as a standalone article in the mainspace long before it even entered production. - Welcome to the TV project. Some programs have well developed episode articles long before the episodes ever air. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

There is another problem with the term "Original air date", and that is how in the 21st Century, it has become common that many tv shows never "air". Netflix, for example, does not broadcast their tv shows over the airwaves. Instead of being "pushed" over the air, they are "pulled", On Demand. So this terminology is N/A for these internet-only types of shows. This template needs to be fixed to give an alternative, such as:

"Original release date".

(That's along with "Scheduled release date", per argument above.) This would be the date when the show was publicly posted, published for the content to be viewed. For the same kinds of reasons, no one speaks of a Hollywood movie premiering with an "original air date". You have to go to the theater and watch it after it has been released. Internet-only programming has been around for a long time now, and this cannot be the first time that this point has been raised.--Cy Maddox (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This already exists through using y in Episode table; please see the documentation for the linked template. --  Alex TW 13:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * An example of what Alex wrote is below:


 * -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Rounding of ratings figures
I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but is there any formal policy on mandatory rounding of ratings figures to the nearest million? On smaller cable channels, lesser watched shows and in countries with relatively lower population (eg. Australia, New Zealand) many shows don't have any or many episodes above 1 million viewers. I don't see the point of rounding, like "0.326, 0.412 and 0.276" and should, in my view, be written in full in this template as "326,000, 412,000 and 276,000." This template's default header is "viewers (millions)" prompting some to always round to the million.

Is there any objection to adding a note somewhere that says rounding isn't necessary if all or almost all figures for a season/show aren't 7 figures? -- Whats new?(talk) 08:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe this question is better suited for and would get more attention at WT:WPTV. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Relocated to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television -- Whats new?(talk) 11:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Reference parameter
There have been more than a few episode lists where I've seen use Aux4 for general episode citations. What are everyone's thoughts on replacing these with a dedicated Ref parameter? —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Aux4 is a data field. The general reference field is RTitle. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * RTitle is a title reference. It is not a general episode reference field. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. That's what it has always been used as. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Aussie. Three years here, and I have never seen the Aux4 parameter used as a references field, and RTitle is where references go to source the entire row. Can you link us to some examples? --  Alex TW 21:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Tranclusion Data
Hello all,

Is it possibel to transclud the data without using the top and bottom colour? ie odd and even numbers chanigng colours?. I rather not make a show specific template be easier if i can jsut pass parameter to make both odd and even the smae colour-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The color variation is done for ease of reading, I believe, as there is no break for the summary like there is on the main list. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Anchors
Not sure if this question should be here or the main template page, but I was wondering if we could make "Title" the anchor, as opposed to the episode number. To me, it makes better sense that someone would search for a title more often than they would a specific episode number. Is this possible to do, or does that anchor need to be assigned to whatever is on the left end of the table (i.e. that's where the episode number resides)?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of Date?
Not as the title suggest, but the page read you might want to split into seasons or bla bla depending on the circumstances. After that it says you should split into List of Show episodes (Seaosn 1), but it seems to be more common to split it to Show (Season) and that seems to be more accepted at FA/FL nominates just want to clarify if this is the case that it has changed if so should the page be edited to reflect this?-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus as to what to call season articles, despite lengthy discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If there is no conesus then the template page should meantion both formats or other formats so not prejudicing one over other or a census one way or another is gained and the page made to reflect this and all articvle moved and redirected to the conesus-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to start calling articles " (season x)", so there's no consensus to mention this in the documentation. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bug with references in the ShortSummary
The template coding is evaluating the ShortSummary parameter even when the PAGENAME test indicates that it is not going to be used. This causes the "combined" article to display all the references from within the episode summaries, even though the text is not shown in the article. There is an example at List of Geordie Shore episodes, where references 9 to 14 and 16 to 22 should not be displayed in the combined article.

Here's a little example:

...and now the same example with the "combined article name" set to "Episode list/sublist" so that the template thinks it is working on the combined article and omits the summary:

(More) I believe I've coded a correct fix for this; see Template:Episode list/sublist/sandbox, the test code at Template:Episode list/sublist/testcases, and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Episode_list/sublist/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=577589089 my proposed edit] to Template:Episode list/sublist. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I've made you a template editor and reprotected the template with template protection, so you should be able to edit it yourself now. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you! -- John of Reading (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This issue remains unresolved. I am having this problem with American Experience (season 26) within the List of American Experience episodes (see citations 258 thru 273).  I do not know how to resolve this issue.  Any ideas?  Mitchumch (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like the LUA rewrite, last year, failed to account for this subtle case. I'll have to leave this to since I'm not fluent in LUA. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to drag you into this. I tried to resolve this coding issue by reaching out to editors that dealt with the issue initially.  It appears Mr. Stradivarius is not interested in the issue.  Do you have any ideas as to how this could be addressed.  Thanks.  Mitchumch (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * should be fixed now. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You are a life saver. Mitchumch (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Template limits being exceeded
List of The Simpsons episodes has joined Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, as it's bumped on the limits of the design of this template. See Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes. Any ideas? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In response to suggestions at Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes, I have made these changes in the sandbox. Can we get a consensus for that? Let me know if this discussion needs to be taken to another, more visible venue. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I created a new parameter NoViewersOnMainList – when set to "yes" it removes the Viewers column, which will still be there by default. Thus no impact on other articles, where template limits have not been exceeded, the viewership column can still be shown, but removed if that's desirable to do. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well this is a lot of work for perhaps just a marginal benefit. Using season 9 for a test, I found that just converting to the sandbox increased the post-expansion include size from 2008671 → 2020218, an increase of 11547 bytes. So the template expansion size increases for all usage, including the vast majority that doesn't need this feature. When I temporarily made the sandbox live, it quickly blew past the limit. Now modifying the season 9 page to use the new parameter reduced the post-expansion size to 1981386, a reduction of 38832 bytes, for a net reduction of 27285 bytes. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

RowColor = on/off
Do these cases exist for this argument anywhere? As requested on WP:LTD, I'm converting this template into a module. Is it safe to simply use Module:Yesno for this parameter, or should I add in a test case for on and off as well? moluɐɯ 15:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 July 2014
As per WP:LTD, I converted this template to Module:Episode list. This template passed Template:Episode list/sublist/testcases and the current code can be found at Template:Episode list/sublist/sandbox. My previous post can be ignored, because I went ahead and added in functionality for on/off anyways.

moluɐɯ 18:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Could we get the function wrapped in tags? That should fix the wonky display on the documentation. moluɐɯ 23:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sortability
Any way this template can be made sortable? I think that would be useful for finding a certain title, writer, or director. I did this for List of Temperatures Rising episodes using the standard Wikipedia table. Jimknut (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This has been raised and discussed multiple times, and the consensus is not to implement this. Simply type "sortability" into the archive search box - you'll even find your own previous request for it! The article you linked needs to be correctly converted to this template. --  Alex TW 15:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Title
Hi,

Can the title column be made optional, please? This will mean shows like Gogglebox and Casualty which don't have episode titles won't need the column. Matt14451 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In these cases use "RTitle" instead of "EpisodeNumber2". See this discussion for more information. A practical example of how to do this is here. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your help. I've made changes to Casualty_(series_33) and it seems to work well except the references are on a different line, is it possible to bring them up to the same line? Matt14451 (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Enclosing the ref within center seems to work. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Matt14451 (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Quotation marks suppression
We need a parameter to suppress the quotation marks auto-generated around the title (or an alternative parameter for title), and perhaps for the alternative title, etc. We sometimes need output like  with the quotation marks placement manually and excluded editorial notes. —&thinsp;AReaderOutThataway&thinsp;t/c 14:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, does RTitle work? Matt14451 (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. That was actually its original purpose. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thought so. Thanks for confirming. Matt14451 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , for an example, see List of Call the Midwife episodes. Cheers. --  Alex TW 00:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 September 2018
Create new optional parameter  (similar to  ) for the viewership references, so that values of viewing figures for   can be gained without the inline citations using Template parameter value where needed. - Radiphus (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: One specific and relatively rare usage may not warrant another parameter, so a consensus should be gained. Also one can strip out references using Module:String Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned one of the main reasons creating this parameter would prove useful is that it would improve the readability of the code and the template syntax. Furthermore, having this option available would allow editors to transclude viewing figures from the episode tables to the increasingly popular Television ratings graph, thus leaving the template less vulnerable to disruptive editing. Regarding your suggestion to use String, i can't imagine putting a code like this in an article (show extended content below). Even though the graph appears to work in my sandbox, the code seems to be unnecessarily complicated, and i can't understand why the references are also being transcluded. - Radiphus (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Aux4 parameter already in use?
I was trying to add an Aux4 parameter to List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes, but the template gives a message that the parameter is already in use, even though it isn't in the article. Template:Japanese episode list is a very simple wrapper for this one, and looking through the Lua code here I don't see any reason why it would already be in use.

Anyone know what's going on? Modernponderer (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I just tried to implement Aux4 into the article, and it worked perfectly, displayed and no error. Can you actually implement the parameter so I can see where it went wrong? Cheers. --  Alex TW 13:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:AlexTheWhovian, thanks for jumping in so quickly. Bizarrely, the error does not come up in preview anymore, even though I placed the parameter in the exact same way. Perhaps I made some sort of typo before, though I'm almost sure I didn't (and I can't think of any relevant mistake besides actual duplicate parameters – which I did not have). As a side note, when the issue occurred I didn't see the column in question in the table at all, even though according to the error it should've been there with some other value.


 * Hopefully, it won't come up again. Modernponderer (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Default to TBA
and anyone else who works on this Module, is there a reason that the default for original airdate is not 'TBA' if OriginalAirDate is not provided? Seems like this is an oversight to me but I could also see this as possibly being intentional so wanted to check. See example below... -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The table and the row are two different templates that don't "speak" with each other, which means that the row does not know which columns the table has. If you don't provide a the row with a cell for OriginalAirDate, even if it's empty, then the row will not add a cell for it. --Gonnym (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The parameter selection is dynamic. Look at the two examples at Template:Episode list. They don't have the same list of fields that they use. So can't put TBA in all unused fields as that field may not even be used at all in a particular article. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. That makes total sense. P.S. Didn't know you directed an episode! Was it any good? :-p -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding Episode list usage
I was wondering if there is ever a valid reason per the usage of this template and accepted practice, to use Episode list instead of Episode list/sublist and show the episode summary on both the season page and the list of episode page? --Gonnym (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Episode list is normally only used on LoE pages when there are no season articles. When season articles are transcluded to LoE pages there is usually no real need to use Episode list in season articles. However, there are a couple of instances where the nature of the program means that it is better to transclude a very short  field. Is there a specific reason for asking? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Was looking over the code and noticed that how it works wasn't very efficient as even without providing a page name for 1, the module could know who the original page is (thus eliminating any user errors in the process). This is why I was asking if there was a valid reason for having the episode summary appear on two different articles (original and transcluding one). --Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Was looking over the code and noticed that how it works wasn't very efficient as even without providing a page name for 1, the module could know who the original page is How? The code compares the first parameter to the current article; if they are the same, then the summaries are displayed, and if they are not (e.g. the current article is the list of episodes), then they are hidden. The first parameter is required to know what the "original" (i.e. where the table actually resides) article is. -- / Alex /21  12:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * gets you the name of the page the table is located on (regardless if you are calling from another article). However, if what Aussie said is correct, and there are valid reasons to show the episode summary on two different pages, it loses its significance for changing the code. It still might be better to use one template and have a parameter be a switch between show/hide summary on other pages (as to make editing easier for newer editors, and not need to edit again the table when a list article is created), but not by a lot. --Gonnym (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Lua Error
Anyone else seeing "Lua error in Module:Episode_list at line 154: Tried to read nil global args." flooded all over TV episode articles, in place of actual content? I'm no techno wiz, but I imagine it has to do with something in this template, no? Nohomersryan (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, currently being fixed. Thanks for the headsup. --Gonnym (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Can someone help find bug in wikitext? Episode summaries not showing anymore
I just asked this at Template talk:Episode table but realized this is probably the template I'm having trouble with. At some point the episode table for S1 got moved from Drag Race Thailand to a new page Drag Race Thailand (season 1) but in the move something happened so the episode summary no longer appears. Compare to. The code is literally the same, so why aren't the episode summaries showing up anymore? Thanks for any help. Umimmak (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * They aren't the same. The first one uses an independent code, not a template like the second one. I'm trying to find the hiccup right now, as "shortsummary" isn't showing.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Fixed now thanks to -- thanks for your help, feel silly now I didn't catch that at first. Umimmak (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to merge this talk page with Template talk:Episode list
It is typical for Modules that support just one or two templates to be discussed at the template's talk page. I propose to merge and redirect this talk page to Template talk:Episode list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. --Gonnym (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- / Alex /21  23:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , ✅ -- / Alex /21  11:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)