Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 27



Category:Television ratings templates

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC) following the outcome of the last discussion, the content of these templates have been merged with the articles (with attribution in the edit summary) and are no longer needed as separate templates. Frietjes (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Affair ratings
 * American Crime Story ratings
 * American Horror Story ratings
 * The Americans ratings
 * Arrow ratings
 * Beauty & the Beast ratings
 * The Blacklist ratings
 * Boardwalk Empire ratings
 * Broadchurch ratings
 * Designated Survivor ratings
 * Designated Survivor (Season 1) ratings
 * Designated Survivor (season 1) ratings
 * Devious Maids ratings
 * Empire ratings
 * The Flash ratings
 * Fringe ratings
 * Girls ratings
 * Hannibal ratings
 * Hart of Dixie ratings
 * Hart Of Dixie ratings
 * Homeland ratings
 * How to Get Away with Murder ratings
 * IZombie ratings
 * The Killing ratings
 * Mr. Robot ratings
 * The Newsroom ratings
 * The Office (U.S. TV series) ratings
 * Outlander ratings
 * Penny Dreadful ratings
 * Prison Break ratings
 * Rick and Morty ratings
 * Scandal ratings
 * Seinfeld ratings
 * Silicon Valley ratings
 * Spooks ratings
 * The Strain ratings
 * Suits ratings
 * Swtiched at Birth ratings
 * Teen Wolf ratings
 * This Is Us ratings
 * Turn: Washington’s Spies ratings
 * Twin Peaks (season 3) ratings
 * Twin Peaks Season 3 ratings
 * Twin Peaks ratings
 * Zoo ratings
 * Since some templates have already been merged, i see no reason in keeping these ones, so i would support merging the graphs into the articles and then deleting the templates., please add all the templates listed at Category:Television ratings templates so that we don't need to have the same discussion in the future. - Radiphus  06:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Couldn't these just all be substituted then speedy-deleted? --  Alex TW 06:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * now expanded to include all of them. Frietjes (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Subst and delete per previous discussion. -- wooden  superman  14:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:East Stirlingshire F.C. squad

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC) No longer necessary as the club are no longer a member of the national league and we don't have squad navboxes for any other teams at their level. Information is outdated, but squad listing on club article suggests only three current players have their own articles, so little navigational benefit. Can be recreated if club rise again to a higher level and have more notable players. Jellyman (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * East Stirlingshire F.C. squad
 * soft delete per nom and recreate when they go to a higher league Hhkohh (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Previously

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Redundant to the hatnote family. Very few transclusions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 00:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Previously
 * Delete doesn't really serve a purpose as a hatnote. Alternative or former names are noted in the lead, and don't need a hatnote; other hatnotes can be used if clarification is necessary Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Redirect. Hatnotes of this type generally don't explain why the redirect exists. The reason isn't relevant if the reader is actually looking for a different subject anyway. For intended editor, the explanation will be at the redirect with a redirect template (if not apparent from the lede, as discussed above). However, these existing hatnotes are necessary, in some form, and therefore should not just be deleted from their articles. Rather, they should be replaced with the more general Redirect. --Bsherr (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Other uses of. I've just looked at how this template is actually being used, and the nominator is mistaken. It's not redundant to Redirect, it's redundant to Other uses of. I'm less resolute about redirecting now, but I still think it's the better solution. --Bsherr (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Create a decade ago. Don't think anyone remembers now. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Death metal

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Unnecessary template that is covered in Template:Extreme metal.  ~SML  •  TP  16:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Death metal
 * Delete, too few topics to warrant a template. ABC paulista (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete topics close to those already covered in Template:Extreme metal. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Japanese episode list

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was: There is consensus to merge Template:Japanese episode list with Template:Episode list. There is no consensus on the other three templates at this time and the discussion got rather confused, so a fresh proposal at some point may be prudent. There were a significant number of people who felt the sortable functionality of S-Japanese episode list and S-Episode list should not be lost. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Propose merging Japanese episode list, S-Japanese episode list and S-Episode list into Episode list. There's no clear documentation for the S- templates, and the first template can easily be merged into the main episode list template with the use of a parameter such as y, so that it uses the same code, parameter and accessibility checks and category tracking as the parent template. --  Alex TW 02:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Japanese episode list
 * S-Japanese episode list
 * S-Episode list
 * Japanese episode list multi-part
 * Support merge. I can't for the life of me figure out what Japanese episode list, etc. are trying to accomplish that can't already be done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge per nom. I really don't get what the last two are trying to do, but I think the first is giving an extra title parameter for the various languages/forms an episode title can have. But I agree with Alex, the existing episode list templates can be modified accordingly to handle this data. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * you might want to include Japanese episode list multi-part in the request as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for pointing me to that one! I wasn't even aware of it. --  Alex TW 08:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 *  merge the Japanese and English templates  but not the s-list templates. Those are "sortable" versions that use a table-inside-a-table hack to make it sortable by different episode orders. I made these templates with other people a lifetime ago, and at the time it just seemed easier to make a different Japanese/anime one because we were(are) a bunch of anime nerds. Looking back on it, meh, we should have just made one template and called it a day ;)

It's been a long time since I've really dived into modern mediawiki, so maybe the sortable version can be done without the ugly table hacks, but if not, don't merge them.. unless you want some big ugly if switch that functionally flips between the same code, just for the sake of using one template name. Also, did I really forget to document the sortable one? Oops :( -- Ned Scott 03:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The sortable ones are only being used on 7-8 articles at the moment. I don't see that as any reason to keep them, nor why Japanese series that use them should have the option. We don't use sortability for any other type of television series, so why should this one stay? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Favre. There's no need for it anymore. The parent template has changed greatly since "a lifetime ago", and no series requires a sortable table. --  Alex TW 08:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It's only used in a handful of lists because:
 * not many shows have the unique problem of being aired in multiple orders in multiple countries, and/or having production order "complications".
 * we never properly documented the sortable version and most people didn't know the option even existed.
 * Those are not reasons to delete that functionality. -- Ned Scott 22:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing my support pending the answer to Farix below. -- Ned Scott 22:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This sort of content, other broadcasts in other countries, is intended to be listed in the parent article's Broadcast section, not in the episode table. The usages of these templates are now long outdated; many series are produced out of order to how they air, and that's what the "Production code" column is supposed to represent. If people don't know it exists, and it's almost never used, that means it shouldn't exist. Why does this version of the episode list get to avoid all parameter and accessibility checks and category tracking as the parent template? Withdrawing your support just because you don't get to use your own templates... --  Alex TW 01:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Examples now given below. --  Alex TW 02:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * (or anyone else who has template editor permission): Please move the noinclude before the deletion notice on Template:Japanese episode list, it's currently causing quite a lot of deletion notices to show up on certain articles (e.g. The_Mythical_Detective_Loki_Ragnarok and List_of_Fullmetal_Alchemist_episodes). - Sonicwave ( talk )  04:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If I get the go-ahead for this, I will, but discussion notices are meant to appear for templates with listings such as this. --  Alex TW 08:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I suggest merging with the regular Episode list to make it feel like it is unified, but still having the Japanese episode list template "separate" from the regular Episode list, since there are distinct differences, such as the romaji and kanji titles. 06:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Anime Editor  ( communicator  •  database )
 * Hence my suggestion to use a new parameter such as y, or to make those parameters readily available in the template. --  Alex TW 08:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't support the merge. Japanese list episodes have difference; kanji and romaji. Please fix this since currently all articles that use this template are unreadable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsukishimastarrk (talk • contribs) 07:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read any of the discussion above? No? --  Alex TW 08:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For the kanji/romaji, these would end up being combined into AltTitle. This would have to apply to any foreign language titles that have separate romanizations. So the template should be able to take those two fields and combine them there?  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 02:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Examples now given below. --  Alex TW 02:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support merge, then make new parameter in the template (per ). flixwito ^(•‿•)^ (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support merge, if the standardized template also enables simplified inclusions of fields for titles in other original languages as well such as Chinese, Korean, Spanish, and other languages using a non-Roman alphabet. I think the days of treating Japanese language productions as a special case from all other languages may be at an end. Ozflashman (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Can you present an example of a multi-part non-Japanese television show? I didn't really see one for the standard episode list. I want to make sure that is taken care of correctly. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are at least two Chinese examples: Nine Songs of the Moving Heavens and List of The Legend of Qin episodes. Ozflashman (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more for episodes that are divvied into segments, like List of B Gata H Kei episodes. The entries would either have to be redone into segments as with SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1) or combined into one entry.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't think of any, but there are always exceptions to standard programming, eg List of Kino's Journey episodes, 2017 Series episode 9. Ozflashman (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like the issue hasn't been sufficiently addressed with the existing templates so I will have to Oppose merging Template:Japanese episode list multi-part until Episode list multi-part is properly created.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's already been addressed. --  Alex TW 02:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support merge - there is no reason to have a separate template for one language, while all other non-English languages can work perfectly fine with the standard one. Any special field can be created if needed and meets other MoS guidelines. --Gonnym (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment How exactly are you planning on merging the templates? Will the new merge template continue to support EnglishTitle, KanjiTitle, RomajiTitle, and FirstEngAirDate? Will there be any format change on the articles or lists that Japanese episode list is currently present? I cannot support a merge without knowing these details as per my comments on the previous merge proposal. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There would be no need for those parameters, as the same content can be displayed with the already-existing parameters in the parent article. Examples are given below; only a small tweak would necessary with the suggested parameter of y, so that the quotes aren't displayed if AltTitle is used, or that a new line is automatically inserted if RAltTitle is used.


 * As for how they'll be merged, I can easily whip up a substituting page where one can replace { {Japanese episode list with { {subst:, much like how I use User:AlexTheWhovian/List (replace { {Episode list with { {subst:User:AlexTheWhovian/List, save, page is formatted). --  Alex TW 02:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See examples at bottom of section


 * That is a convoluted and very confusing implementation. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you calling Alex's presentation of the examples convoluted, or the actual solution? Because the solution isn't, and an acceptable formatting for these various title names. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex's examples are convoluted, cryptic, and not intuitive for those using the template for episode lists for Japanese media, especially for anime series. The solution is simply not acceptable as is, thus I would have to oppose the merge proposal in its present form. —Farix (t &#124; c) 04:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, because you're confused at the concept of the given multiple solutions, using the parameters that already exist, you believe that we should continue to use outdated template-forks without the parameter and accessibility checks and category tracking that exist in the parent template? I note your oppose; however, the consensus to merge is becoming very clear, so I believe that the merge will happen soon with the sandbox changes, the template documentation updated, and one of the given sandbox implementations recommended above the others. Japanese episodes are just another form of episode that can use the regular list; anime really isn't anything special. --  Alex TW 04:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree only with the merge if absolutely no additional coding or formatting per entry is required, ie. the same structured format for every entry where only the actual content changes. Ozflashman (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. Can you please give an example? Thank you. --  Alex TW 12:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant not using spacing or special characters such as non-breaking-space, "&nbsp". The template should be "clean" in that only episode content should be added, and all formatting, spacing, etc. is handled by the template itself. Ozflashman (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense, thank you. I definitely agree with you; you can see such examples below through the ones using Episode list/sandbox, where I already made the modifications so that no special characters are required. --  Alex TW 06:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose merging Template:Japanese episode list multi-part Even if the other templates get merged into Episode list, there doesn't seem to be any real idea how to incorporate the functionality of Japanese episode list multi-part into that template. Multi-part episodes are a relatively common thing in anime, including this current season with the anime series Asobi Asobase which has 4 parts per episode, and Chio's School Road which has 2 or 3 parts per episode (and another 120 or so articles that use the template).-- <b style="color: black;">十</b><b style="color: red;">八</b> 08:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Examples given above on similar cases of multi-part episodes using Episode list. --  Alex TW 08:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But to me, that's not really adequate, especially when so much information is repeated (primary episode number, directors, writers, air dates), and you have to split up the description among each subtitle. The current system with the multi-part template reduces redundancy and streamlines the episodes to remove clutter. How is doing it the way you have suggested better in any way?-- <b style="color: black;">十</b><b style="color: red;">八</b> 10:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Doctor Who (season 1)? --  Alex TW 11:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that would be a nightmare to format with all the breaks when you add in the kanji and romaji. Why make it harder for someone to code the template when the multi-part template already streamlines it?-- <b style="color: black;">十</b><b style="color: red;">八</b> 18:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a nightmare with List of Squid Girl episodes which also has multiple title translations: 1) Crunchyroll (streaming) 2) Sentai filmworks home media 3) literal translation 4) What is said for the phrase in the dub (last one is excluded as it isn't printed) AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because you're not a template coder, so you don't know. The parent template includes parameter and accessibility checks and category tracking; why does this one not need to, just so that the pages can look pretty? "List of Squid Girl episodes" looks like an easy case. 1a, 1b, 1c, all separate rows. Japanese episodes aren't special, they get to be categorized just like the rest. I don't see any special European-language-specific templates... --  Alex TW 02:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The proposed coding in the examples below are still not intuitive for Japanese media. European-language shows have the luxury of not having to provide an episode title in 3 separate versions, and have them all be in the same order with the same formatting. If AltTitle or RAltTitle are used, there's no indication which one would take the romaji or the kanji, and in what order, unless you looked at already existing templates. Add to the fact that you have to manually italicize the romaji and manually add parentheses around the kanji to make it look like the current Japanese episode list template, and it just gets more and more ridiculous. There are upwards of 30+ anime series per season, so there are over 120 anime series that air each year, and almost all of those will get episode lists since almost all of them get streamed by Crunchyroll. How do you expect it to be easy to code over 1500 individual episodes per year without clear indications where the English, romaji and kanji titles go? It's a nightmare waiting to happen.
 * If you really are proposing using a y parameter, then is it really not possible to add a RomajiTitle and KanjiTitle field that would activate when that parameter is in use? Otherwise, I really can't see there being any consistency one how the romaji and kanji titles are formatted from article to article, and even from episode to episode in the same article.-- <b style="color: black;">十</b><b style="color: red;">八</b> 03:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All of that is what template documentation is for. With English-language media, you've no idea what order the parameters will appear in unless you look at other examples, or the documentation. Same thing, so no nightmare there. Automatic italicization and brackets can also automatically be added through the module is JapaneseEpisode is set, just like how English titles automatically have quotes. When y is implemented, then yes, we could certainly add RomajiTitle and KanjiTitle, but there's no need if the existing parameters can be used. --  Alex TW 03:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be perfectly okay with the merge of at least Japanese episode list into Episode list if RomajiTitle and KanjiTitle were possible parameters. It's the only way to make sure all the titles are in the same order and formatted the same way across every single episode list (which is over 850 currently), because as I said, there are 3 titles, so there are 6 possible permutations of English, Romaji and Kanji: ERK, EKR, REK, RKE, KRE and KER. Just make it clear which goes where like Japanese episode list already does to remove any possible confusion.-- <b style="color: black;">十</b><b style="color: red;">八</b> 03:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * switching to Oppose - we can work towards a goal of merging, taking the time to address technical and usability issues, but the nightmare proposed is not acceptable, and there is no rush to merge just for the sake of it. Nom also seems to misunderstand the reason for the sortable version, thinking it has something to do with production order (it doesn't). -- Ned Scott 04:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read the discussion? I assume not? There is no rush if this passes, as the changes have already been suggested below, and it's not for the "sake of it"; read the bits about parameter and accessibility checks and category tracking as the parent template. I get the use of the sortable templates, but they're outdated and not required. --  Alex TW 08:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How exactly is this a nightmare of a proposal? It is honestly a pretty straight forward switch, and removes old, outdated formatting that has been abandoned years ago, yet keeps all the info the same. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as concerns being raised are not being adequately addressed. There is no valid reason given to merge the templates, and this quest by people to reduce all the templates down to a tiny handful is ridiculous and serves no valid purpose. In this discussion, Alex seems to assume those opposing haven't read the discussion, don't know what they're talking about, or have no idea how to edit and maintain templates. I'm sure he'll do the same for my comments, too. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that it is "broke", and a solution has been provided. Cheers. --  Alex TW 23:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please refrain from making sniping comments toward everyone that disagrees with you. You've already explained your position ad nauseum. There's no need to be a jerk toward everyone else. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You addressed that directly to me; am I not allowed to respond to you? Are you dictating who can and cannot participate here? That smacks of WP:OWN. --  Alex TW 03:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, definitely "broke" – Japanese episode list doesn't even have a parameters for 'viewers'. Again, I see no reason for a separate template for this, provided the Japanese language character issue can be adequately dealt with in a merge. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the sortable function for series like Haruhi is incredibly valuable, if you are going to be merging these templates please test to make sure we do not lose this feature. That we see it on so few series is largely a function of limited information/sources on many non-linear shows, ideally we should see MORE sortable episode lists, a shortage of them is not reason to ban them. Also please if you take away the anime lists, make sure all their features are present in the basic list and test to make sure none are lost. The old template location should be redirected rather than deleted so if there are any differences in names of fields, please make sure to alias them so they can be properly input. The English re-title / Kanji / Romaji / translation quartet are important to retain. 70.51.193.44 (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge only if sorting function can be incorporated. As to the Japanese episode template merge, a "Japanese episode" parameter seems needlessly inelegant and narrow. Why not make separate parameters that turn off the quotation marks around AltTitle and add a space before RAltTitle and name them generically? Surely there must be other languages affected by this? --Bsherr (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly see the below comment. --  Alex TW 03:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment can someone present a valid reason that sorting needs to be retained, beyond the fact that they like it and it's the way it has always been? I've yet to see one yet. All non-Japanese series do not have sortable episode templates, and I'm pretty sure animation can have the same benefit of sorting but doesn't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As far as I can tell, an article like List of Futurama episodes has existed for years without any issue concerning its odd sorting, without the need for a sortable option. --  Alex TW 03:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Futurama looks like a perfect example of how sorting does not need to exist. Some of similar formatting can be used for a Japanese series if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * From WP:WHENTABLE: "The sortability of multiple columns in a table is a powerful tool that helps the reader to understand relationships and find patterns in large lists." That guideline is clearly applicable to this template, such as if a reader wants to sort the episodes based on the order produced, order aired, etc. Unless there is a guideline that states this is an inappropriate use, I would think the burden would be on those arguing that this guideline doesn't apply here. --Bsherr (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Lets be real here this change is only going to effect the editors that deal with articles regarding Japanese episodes. If the concerns aren't being addressed by editors who use the templates frequently then I don't see it as a good idea to do the merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So, only those who use the templates can have a say? --  Alex TW 09:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ownership here is singular, the template is used by editors that collaboratively work on the lists. Why make things more difficult for the group of editors that do the work? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So, are you confirming that only those who use the templates can have a say? --  Alex TW 00:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in making more work for other people per WP:BROKEN and WP:SLFP. The proposed fix here with the merger doesn't help the encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It supplies checks and checking categories, and thus helps the encyclopedia keep up its accessibility guidelines. You and I might not need those, but others do. --  Alex TW 03:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've actually just had an idea on how to implement the merge that won't require any changes to existing usages of the Japanese template... Working on it now. --  Alex TW 03:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated the usage of the template with a better idea; as you can see in the following examples, you'll see that the parameters are exactly the same. No changes would be needed in usages of the template at all. If you take a look at the code in Japanese episode list/sandbox, the update simply means that it is the template itself that calls Episode list directly, instead of using raw Wikitable code. If a parameter isn't included in a call to Japanese episode list, then it's not sent to Episode list using the method shown in mw:Help:Parser functions in templates. This means that usages of Japanese episode list can remain exactly as they are and come with the added benefits of Episode list. To those that have opposed the changes, is this better? --  Alex TW 03:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Two days and no opposition... --  Alex TW 06:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems fine to me, but it still doesn't address the sorting table issue. In my eyes, all of the sorting tables should be converted to the standard JEp table, and then implement with this (if this is how it ends up). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's an acceptable interim step for Template:Japanese episode list. Are you suggesting that the sortable templates not be merged, then? Because this doesn't address that issue, of course. --Bsherr (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that the sorting templates be gotten rid of. They're outdated and unnecessary, created years ago and somehow still kept through the multitude of changes to make the site more accessible. --  Alex TW 01:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that WP:WHENTABLE, a current guideline, states the opposite of your view? How do you reconcile that? --Bsherr (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good compromise as far as things go. I don’t know how easy it is to add sorting to the Episode list template, but I think if it isn’t too much effort it would be a good thing to have attached to the date, episode number, and production code sections so you can sort by when they released, the actual episode order, or the production order.  On the other hand I think the multi-part template can’t be so easily replaced, and I think the way that one is handled should become the new standard for all types of multi-part episodes, assuming there isn’t a reason for them to /not/ be listed that way, which could of course be decided on an individual basis for each instance of the template being used.  So I think the question there becomes whether or not you want to merge that functionally into the main Episode list template or if you would rather move it into a new Episode list multi-part template.  It’s so much cleaner that I’m surprised nobody has changed the regular episodes to be listed in a similar way yet.  Also, I don’t have any idea how any of this works, but could you explain what you mean when you talk about accessibility and what makes the main template any better than the other templates? --Pizza2004 (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The TLDR version of accessibility for Episode table and Episode list is, they both have code to ensure everything is compliant with WP:ACCESS, especially WP:COLOR, as well as tracking categories to ensure both templates are being used as intended. Conversely, the Japanese templates do not currently have this, and particularly with the sorting template, has outdated coding method (in Wikipedia terms) that makes it not a really viable option to be implemented. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the modified template option, I'd still prefer a real merge over a "wrapper" as that still makes it another piece of code that needs to be maintained. But if that is the only way this whole proposal passes, then I'm ok with it. --Gonnym (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).