Template talk:Treehouse of Horror

Proposed Versions
Treehouse of Horror

Treehouse of Horror

Inclusion of episode segments
The addition of links to episode segments listed by name seems logical, as the names of the episodes are simply the roman numeral from season (n-1). Unfortunately, there appears to be a template limit on the number of groups, as well as the number of lists, to 20. That is, no more than twenty columns of any given category can be shown. Since episode 21 already has a page and is about to air (i.e. will be searched for and visited more frequently), it is imperative that this limitation be overcome before the announced air date of November 7, 2010.

Maybe the episodes could be broken into categories by decade, 1990s for Treehouse of Horror I through X, 2000s for Treehouse of Horror XI through XX, and 2010s for Treehouse of Horror XXI and so on.

While I appreciate that some users prefer a simpler list of just the episodes' numbers, not everyone using this template will have the segments memorized in relation to which episode they were in. The addition of a date span may serve to narrow down the confusion level of the seemingly abstract list of numbers. Fixblor (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the template is to provide quick links to the episodes. For a list of segments, see List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes. -- Scorpion 0422  21:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the template is to provide quick links to the segments. For a list of episodes, see List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes. -- Fixblor (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

So, Scorpion, when browsing between segments you think I should have to go back to the list of episodes page every time? Fixblor (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a misunderstanding about what the purpose of templates is. I'll quote Navigation templates, "A navigation template, navbox or topicbox is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles". A few more, "The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space" and "They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value.". In other words, it should just provide links to the articles, and should avoid duplicate links. I'm sorry that you have a poor memory, but that doesn't trump policy. -- Scorpion 0422  18:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, my memory is poor. And please, let me quote the entire line for you that you started to quote: "Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?"  The nature of this series is that of segments.  Each installment has three segments.  That's 63 segments that can each be viewed independently.  I offer this example: Magic: the Gathering which currently has 72 sets linked, even though they are broken down into (as they are released in) blocks.  Though the ThoH does not have segment pages individually, I suggest that more people will be able to navigate conveniently and have their navigation facilitated more efficiently with the segment titles in the template than they have been able to with only the abstract numbers listed.


 * Let me note here, that I am only doing this because it was pointed out to me back in the spring at a local gaming shop, that the template was virtually unusable as it stood at that time. It fell to me, and I said I'd work on it in the fall.  I'm sorry you think your old list is the best possible template.


 * BTW it's not as if I'm removing the episode # links. Please, explain how the segments being mentioned in the template is NOT useful.  Does it mean MORE words? yes. Does it mean too many words or useless ones? no. Fixblor (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
 * In response to "I'm sorry you think your old list is the best possible template", I did not create the template. Fixblor, you seem to be taking this whole issue rather personally, especially since you've resorted to canvassing users that rarely (if ever) edit Simpsons articles. Would mentioning the segments be useful? Possibly. But, there are many other things that need to be taken into account, such as template length, the existance of a THOH-specific list, efficiency, policy, etc. Also, at one point, there was an effort (not by me) to not have a section for each segment in the THOH pages, but the users gave up because IPs kept re-adding the sections. So if anyone ever tries that again, it would render the section links unnecessary. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 18:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, someone should start an article titled hyper-hyperlinking, where every word and punctuation is another link. Fixblor (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, stop the edit warring, lets reach a consensus first before doing anything more. Now, I don't care either way, but I think adding the link to episode segments is over linking, that said I will not stand in the way if a consensus was reached for the inclusion of episode segments. -- d'oh! [talk] 08:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with all of the above points made by . Additionally, is also correct, this does indeed some like overlinking. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've no comment on the content dispute, but if you carry on edit warring, the template will be locked and/or people will be blocked. Sort it out here first. I've watchlisted and will act as necessary to protect stability. Ged  UK  09:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What if we remove the section links and leave the segment titles as a descriptive (though anachronistic) subtitle? Fixblor (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Episode segments are entirely superfluous. Keep the original I−XXI links and that'll be good enough. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(Copied fromthe other discussion) Arguments for the template, I can see in either direction: but I will note as a watcher rather than a fan the segment titles might just mean something to me, whereas "X" "XII" are about as informative as SmackBots BRFA's. Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC).


 * I really think listing the roman numerals in the template is enough. If you want the name of the segments you can go to the episodes list. Theleftorium (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose linking makes the template too long. C T J F 8 3  chat 16:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest the use of the smaller, side-list one (I, II, etc.). There's really no need to section out every individual segment. I'm all for quick navigation, but the series has gone on for a very long time and now it's too unwieldy. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Width restriction for alternate table format, required for smaller screen size
I found a workaround for the 20 group limitation; however, the new hard-break table list doesn't line match the group lines unless spacing is manually matched. Therefore, if the window is smaller than the width of the line (say from a smaller screen resolution) then the episode number won't necessarily line-up with the corresponding segment titles. A locked table width eliminates the infringed alignment issue.

Currently, a minimum width of 664px is required for episode 20. I set the width to 700 for some buffering negative space. It views without a horizontal scroll bar for a horizontal screen resolution of ≥960.

Please keep this talk section open, unless the table format permanently changes. Fixblor (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, keep the width set to auto, there is no reason to force the width. The navbox will automatically change its size for the user's screen; and it will look very strange with this navbox, with its forced width, siting close to another navbox without one, e.g:

-- d'oh! [talk] 08:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, agree with, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment there are many thousands of navboxen that resize and use "ahem" more restrained colours - oh that's not the discussion?   There is a  "minwidth" style attribute I believe.  That might help here.Rich Farmbrough, 14:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Navboxes at the bottom of a page should all be fullwidth. There's absolutely no reason for them not to be. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @Rich Farmbrough_Wait ... wait, wait, wait ... is this it? style=min-width: 123px; That does seem to work. THANK YOU. @Headbomb_There's always a reason for something.  In this case it's keeping the episode # on the left lined up with the corresponding segments on the right.  All code was not created equal. Fixblor (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Made "min-width: 664px;" adjustment to alternate template above.Fixblor (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Navbox width and element alignment have nothing to do with each other. See the mockup above, which has recently been made fullwidth. [And I still don't think the new version with episode sections should be used]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, in this case they do ... delete the portion of that navbox which reads "| style = min-width: 664px;" and then shrink the width of the browser window to less than the width of the resulting navbox and compare the difference. I would explain it to you a fourth time, but I don't know what comes after 'fool me three times'. Fixblor (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's because you're not using the parameters in the conventional way. Usually you'd do I Bad Dream House·Hungry are the Damned·The Raven. And the above example is still full width. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You got it then. Third time was the charm, Fixblor (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)