User talk:Aureez/Archive

TV Program Episodic List
You left a topic for discussion about this page like last year and I just wanted to let you know, I've added in the Broadcast Years for the shows as well as a big amount of shows which I'm adding Soap Opera's now as it is, I just thought you might like to know. Afkatk (talk) 00:41. 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thanks!  Yes, that was quite a while ago ... and I had forgotten all about that.  If you are planning to work on that article / list, I woud also suggest making it a "sortable" chart.  I believe that that is a pretty easy edit, although I am not 100% sure.  Thanks for the update!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC))


 * I'll defiantly look up the layout of the table in the future and see how it goes, thanks for the tip Afkatk (talk) 18:34. 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm currently looking around for it, Sortable#Examples Is this what you were talking about? Afkatk (talk) 07:20. 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks.  Yes, that link described the sorting that I was talking about.  I already went in and added the sort feature to the Table in the article.  I think it's helpful to have the information sortable.  Thanks!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC))


 * That's cool, I was gonna do it, the unfortunate thing is the Years Broadcasting section wont be sortable. Afkatk (talk) 16:50. 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. Actually, the dates of broadcasting can also be sorted.  However, they all need to be formatted with the proper date sorting code.  Check out this Wikipedia page that discusses the template and the correct formatting if you want the dates column to be sortable ---> Template:Dts.  Basically, for example, each date needs to be entered such as this (without the extra spaces, that I just added in now to "avoid" the Wikipedia code taking effect ... so that you can actually see the code itself): { { dts | 2009 | January | 1 } }.  That is ... if you type in the code { { dts | 2009 | January | 1 } } (without all of those extra spaces) ... you will get the date to appear as January 1 2009 ... and this date will be correctly sorted when placed in a sortable table.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC))


 * By unsortable I mean that since there are a lot of dates which aren't clear like for instants there are some shows where it's not known when they started broadcasting Afkatk (talk) 12:14. 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see what you mean. I just looked at the Table very quickly.  I only noticed a very small handful (perhaps 4 or 5) from the entire list that had "unknown" dates listed.  The great majority of the TV shows did indeed have dates listed ... and those dates can be made to be sortable.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC))


 * I think I'm gonna try sorting the table into Started Broadcasting and Finished Broadcasting, so that it'll be easier to sort, it'll take quite some doing though. Afkatk (talk) 20:26. 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's funny that you mention that. Even before I got your message, I was thinking the exact same thing.  That it would be easier to have two separate columns (beginning date and ending date) to make the sorting easier.  Good luck.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC))

Hollyoaks series/episodes count
Hi. I've reverted your edit to add the series/episode count to Hollyoaks as it appears to be unsourced. Where have you got this information from? As far as I'm aware, Hollyoaks doesn't have a set series structure (if it does, I've never seen it). [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 09:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto for Coronation Street - no series, it airs all year round. Also, you edited to 9 January. Well its currently 28 December. Anything could happen before those episodes air. Episodes are updated once they have aired, not before. Thanks.--UpDown (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * TV.com, I got the info from TV.com. Afkatk (talk) 21:50. 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of TV.com being a reliable source, especially if it is giving you "series" information for shows like Hollyoaks and Coronation Street, which don't have series.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 23:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, I think their slogan "where the fans run the show" show that it shouldn't relied upon.   [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 23:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As to where Wikipedia is a reliable source.--afkatk signs off (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. If you are talking about what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, see WP:RS.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 01:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

List of television programs by episode count
Hi. I just wanted to make sure you knew that this article is being considered for deletion. I do not think that it should be deleted, but others do. I am not sure how much you are concerned with this article, but I got the impression that you put a lot of work into it ... and, thus, that you did care at least somewhat about this article ... and its possible deletion. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

P.S. This page is where the deletion debate is located --> Articles for deletion/List of television programs by episode count. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC))


 * it's true I put a lot of work into it, I did care at one point but tbh they pretty much made me stop caring with the first deletion debate. afkatk (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes you say that? I just looked at the deletion debate.  It was strongly in favor of "Keep" votes, as far as I could tell.  In fact, I was hoping you would participate in the debate and add another "Keep" vote.  I am a little confused.  If it is mostly "Keep" votes, why would that make you stop caring?  Let me know.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC))


 * It's just some of the comments left even if they are in favour of it being kept afkatk (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not take any of the comments personally, if I were you. In the end, the result of the debate was to KEEP this article, rather than to delete it.  Thus, most agree that the article is good and valid and has merit.  I hope you will continue your excellent work on this article.  It is appreciated.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC))


 * I never took the comments personally after all it is only wikipedia, I'll probably update it from time to time anyway afkatk (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's good to hear. You did a lot of good work there.  Thanks again.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

Idea running by you
We haven't talked in quite a while and I know you're pretty busy with other projects, I've seen your sandbox, lots of castles in there, but anyway since we've talked on this article quite a lot I thought I might run this by you before putting it in use, on the List of television programs by episode count, I've thought of putting in a Country of Origin column which I'm actually working on right now and I pretty much wanted your thoughts on it before I actually go ahead and make it final, oh and btw I have been working on the article again for the past few days afkatk (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I'll make a Sandbox to show you how everything will look afterwards afkatk (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Good to hear back from you again ... and I am glad to see that you decided to work on this article again!  That's great news.  As to your question ... yes, I think that adding in the "Country of Origin" is a great idea ... and I think that it will add to and benefit the article a great deal.  So, my vote is: yes, go ahead and do it.  Also, yes, I would love to see how this all looks, in your Sandbox, whenever that is ready.  When it is, please let me know.  I would be happy (and interested) to take a look at it.  Thanks a lot for contacting me about this.  Please reply back, whenever appropriate, at my Talk Page.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Also ... I am not trying to make "more work" for you ... but I do have two suggestions about this article. What do you think?  Because the list is now sortable, I think the table should have the following two things: (a) the Column for Years Broadcasting should be split into two separate columns ... one for "Beginning" and one for "Ending" years.  This would make more sense in a sortable chart ... and ... (b) I think that the titles should be listed in alphabetical order, not episode quantity order.  Because the list is now sortable, a person can always take the alphabetical list and simply sort by episode number, if they want to see which show has the highest count, second highest count, lowest count, etc.  More importantly, episode "counts" will constantly change --- for shows in production, at least.  Which means constantly "keeping track of" and therefore "moving" a show on the list whenever the episode count changes ... which could be every day ... or every week.  However, if the list was in alphabetical order, the order would never change at all ... and no one would have to "keep track of changing the order of the list" every time an in-production show added more episodes.  This is quite a bit of up-front work ... but, I think, worth it.  What do you think of these two ideas?  Please reply at my Talk Page, whenever you want to.  Thanks!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Hi, it's me again. I just now took a quick look at your Sandbox.  Looks great!  I have two thoughts to add.  (1) For what it's worth ... I think that the first column of the Table should definitely be the title of the show.  That is the most important piece of information in the whole list.  I wouldn't care where exactly the "Country of Origin" column goes later on in the Table ... except that it definitely should not be the very first column.  That is my opinion.  The very first column should necessarily be the Title.  I just wanted to share my opinion before you got too far down the list and did a great deal more work. And (2) ... I know that some people on Wikipedia complain if you list a flag alone without actually also writing the country name.  I, myself, don't care about this ... and I don't know the "official" Wikipedia rule about it.  But, I worked on other articles before ... and some people made a big deal that you can't list the flag alone without also writing the country name.  So, I just wanted to "warn you" in advance.  Just so you know, here is an article that I once worked on, a long time ago ... so you can see what I mean ---> User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page22.  Thanks for listening.  Your thoughts?   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I think the alphabetically listed part isn't really much of an issue as you pointed out this is sortable, and I am going to implement the idea of having 2 separate columns and I shall update the list with the separate columns and plan to eventually get the dts sorted out, I put the Nationality column up first mainly because it just sorta looked right, but I'll probably squeeze it into the 3rd or so collumn and I do have plans to make this more sotable as well, thanks for the input as well, this is pretty much the main reason I started up the Sandbox, nice hearing from you about the article as well, anymore ideas I'll pretty much put into consideration about implementing them afkatk (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Afkatk/SandboxP2 I finished the thing btw, so if you want to view it and tell me what you think of it before I go ahead and add it to the article, plus the Start and End Broadcasting I'll probably get started on it tomorrow or so afkatk (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I checked it out.  I think it looks great.  You did a lot of work on that article!  I am glad that you moved the "Country" column, so that it was not listed first on the left.  It looks much better, the way that you now have it.  Great job!  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC))


 * If you'd happily direct your eyes to User:Afkatk/SandboxP2, you can see a little glimpse of what it will look like after the Columns are seperated afkatk (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I did take a look ... and it looks great!  I really don't have any changes that I would recommend.  If I had to find one ... I might say that the last column (in production: yes/no) is perhaps unnecessary.  We can tell from the ending date whether or not the show is still being produced.  But, it is also fine if that column stays in the Chart, too.  Either way is fine.  Other than that, I don't see any issues ... and I think it looks great!  Thanks for keeping me posted ... and thanks for all the work that you are putting / have been putting into this.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC))