Template talk:Episode list/Archive 2

message: :This is the proposer's summary of the situation
#Title
UK airdateUS airdate
3.5
"Tale of Ren and Stumpy" 
"Tale of Len and Squiggy" 
September 14, 2007September 7, 2007
Ren and Stumpy, now three weeks old, venture out of the burrow for the first time.  While foraging over a wide area, the Whiskers ends up splitting into two groups.  Rocket Dog leads the group that is with the pups.
In the UK, the pups are named Ren and Stumpy, but in the US airing they are called Len and Squiggy, respectively.
Lukewarm support for the ProductionNotes proposal comes from Ned Scott (talk · contribs); Sgeureka (talk · contribs) is neutral, and opposition comes most vehemently from AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) with Jay32183 (talk · contribs) and Ursasapien (talk · contribs) also opposed.
After getting past subjective language ("ugly", "absolutely hideous") and a recent violation of WP:NPA (see "lack of a basic understanding" comment),  it's possible to find at least one very specific and objective reason for AnmaFinotera's opposition, which is that there is a lack of per-episode production detail among featured episode lists.  That statement is inaccurate, since among the roughly dozen shows having one or more featured episode lists under :Category:FL-Class television articles, two of the lists have per-episode production notes (List of Meerkat Manor episodes and List of Press Gang episodes).  A cursory glance at other episode lists finds another example: List of Desperate Housewives episodes.
The larger point that AnmaFinotera shares with Jay32183 and Ursasapien is that production information should be in the lead and other sections, not in the episode lists themselves. 
As noted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Unclear status (something I wished I had noticed before), Wikipedia:Television episodes is a disputed guideline.  That makes it impossible to determine whether the opinion that "production information should be in the lead..." represents anything more than the opinion of three editors.   That may also be why, after repeated requests, AnmaFinotera never tried to cite an WP:MOS in support of his/her opinions.
The "Episodes and characters" case and the lack of an accepted guideline means that the productionNotes proposal is unlikely to either attract comments from other editors, or for a consensus to form based on an MOS guideline.  As a result, the proposal is tabled indefinitely.
— 67.100.125.19 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I'm the one who wrote the Meerkat Manor episode list, please point out the episodes that have production information in their summaries. I see one, which I've fixed. Your summary isn't entirely accurate, or neutral, but I share agree with the conclusion. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It's an incredibly weak argument to say the opposition comes from only three editors when the meaningful support only comes from one editor. You're calling for a change to an existing convention without strong reasoning or support. To make the change you would need very strong reasoning and strong support. The absolute best example of an episode list using production information is in Smallville (season 1), and it isn't in the table. It also seems really odd to me that a user who doesn't bother to register would care so much about changing the conventions, not that it affects your argument. Jay32183 (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Chiming in rather late here. I think a new field is unnecessary. Whatever detail you need to add can be in the summary field. For example on List of The Wire episodes we list the epigraph for each episode in the summary section of the episode list. The episode list template doesn't need to be more complex.--Opark 77 (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Like Opark, I'm rather late, but I agree with him and AnmaFinotera for the most part. Cliff smith (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarizing current reactions to ProductionNotes 

message: Thank you, Sceptre & MZMcBride. Unfortunately, that doesn't work, because the template has two TRs and the class="description" is on the second, outside the scope of the class="vevent" (unlike class="summary"). From the example in the template documentation:

<tr class="vevent" style="background: rgb(242, 242, 242) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; text-align: center; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;">
<td id="ep01">01</td>
<td class="summary" style="text-align: left;"><b>"Cartman Gets Probed"</b></td>
<td><a href="/wiki/August_13" title="August 13">13 August</a> <a href="/wiki/1997" title="1997">1997</a><span style="display: none;"> (<span class="dtstart updated">1997-08-13</span>)</span></td><td id="pc101">101</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="description" style="border-bottom: 3px solid rgb(51, 51, 51);" colspan="4">Space aliens implant a transmitter in <a href="/wiki/Eric_Cartman" title="Eric Cartman">Cartman</a> and abduct <a href="/wiki/Kyle_Broflovski" title="Kyle Broflovski">Kyle</a>'s brother. </td>
</tr>

This could be solved by wrapping the two rows in a TBODY, were such a thing possible in MediaWiki table mark-up; but it's not just a problem for the microformat; it's an accessibility problem for users, too. The rows need to be merged, but I'll need to think how we could do that; and make sure everyone's happy. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 00:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to visually merge the rows? o.O -- Ned Scott 03:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I realise that that needs to be done carefully, so as not to ruin the visual appearance of the tables. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Row Scope and Accessibility

message: I would like to add an optional coordinates property, for episodes, particularly of documentaries, which are from or about one specific place (for example, episodes of Time Team). This should allow as input, or at the least, emit, the  template, allowing the coordinates to become part of the hCalendar microformat; and this the page to be mapped on the Wikipedia layer on Google Earth and in similar tools. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've got four aux parameters. This seems too specific to change the main template, so I'd suggest making a sub template if you really want the parameter named. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Aux seems suitable, so I've added a note to that effect. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: 
: SkierRMH (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically the bolding is just being done to help give some visual order, but I have no objections to this. I can see where the same logic could still apply. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of quotation marks 

message: Hey,this thing is fully protected, so some admin should add :de:Vorlage:Episodenliste, please. Thanks in advance, --NoCultureIcons (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Added (those go on the doc subpage :-) ) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Is there a reason why there are so many series specific sub-templates? The theme we are going for is consistency so if a specific series needs something extra, which is shouldn't, but assuming its something important, it should be added to the main template. There is no need for ten million separate templates that do relatively the same thing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, many of those were made for doing translusions of season lists into a main page because there was no single way to do it. I suspect now many of these series specific template could/should be converted to use the more generic sublist template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked at most of them in detail yet, but I think most or all of them are for season sublists, as AnmaFinotera said. They'd all be taken care of by now if I wasn't so lazy; I ported the sublist template over ages ago (from , if you're curious, Grk1011). =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 06:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Regarding the 7th Heaven and Degrassi templates which seem to have the same difference from the main template, which format do we want to stick with? What order for Writer and Director? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I created both those templates, and I made them so the writer goes before the director because that is how credits appear on screen. IMO the main template should do this, but it's too late now. Matthewedwards :  Chat   18:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be too late. If people would like that order then all you have to do is swap the order in the template and all uses of the template will reflect the change automatically. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not quite that simple; you also have to change the order of the header cells on every list that uses both writer and director fields. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specialty templates 

message: *  — Candidate for  replacement.
*  –  and  fields are reversed.
*  – Candidate for  replacement though it does not use TopColor. (should use  directly) Seasons 1 to 9 now using main template, episodes 10 and 11 still using specialized hack.
*  – Candidate for  replacement though uses a different set of colors. (It doesn't look very good on the main list IMO. --Farix)
*  — Same as  with different colors.
*  — Same as  with different colors.
*  – Candidate for  replacement.
*  – Candidate for  replacement though it does not use TopColor.
*  – Lists needs to be converted to use 
*  –  and  fields are reversed.
*  – Unused
*  – Unused
*  – Huh? Unused
*  – Unused in article space. Candidate for  replacement though it does not use TopColor.
*  – Unused
*  – Unused
*  – Unable to convert? Perhaps substituting Alt fields
*  – Unused
*  – Replace with  Candidate for  replacement though it does not use TopColor.
*  – Candidate for  replacement though it does not use TopColor. *:I replaced this in one article with {episode list} with no ill effect. Rich Farmbrough, 16:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the 7th Heaven and Degrassi templates which seem to have the same difference from the main template, which format do we want to stick with? What order for Writer and Director? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I created both those templates, and I made them so the writer goes before the director because that is how credits appear on screen. IMO the main template should do this, but it's too late now. Matthewedwards :  Chat   18:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be too late. If people would like that order then all you have to do is swap the order in the template and all uses of the template will reflect the change automatically. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not quite that simple; you also have to change the order of the header cells on every list that uses both writer and director fields. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specialty templates evaluation 

message: See Template talk:Japanese episode list#Code updates for background. In short, there are some improvements to  under discussion that makes the code more efficient and adds a few new features. The most importance one being the elimination of sublist passthroughs that reduces the post-expand include size for both the sublists and the main list. These changes have been incorporated into this template's sandbox, though some tweaking may still be done. --Farix (Talk) 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With due notice given to both WP:TV and WP:ANIME and no additional comments or objections per the discussion at Template talk:Japanese episode list#Code updates, I'm requesting that the code in the sandbox be copied over and redirecting  to the main template. --Farix (Talk) 14:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

text: . Looks good; can't say I checked every detail though. I'm really not used to that method of code layout, but each to their own I guess. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, seems to be a problem. Lots of upside-down "R"s are appearing. See All Saints (season 1) for example. Shall I revert? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that is do to the numerous sub-templates which also needs to be updated, most of which are no longer needed. Temporary solution is to replace the "ʁ" with "¬". The latter gave me less issues while working on the template in a local editor. --Farix (Talk) 16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This has be fixed in the sub-templates. I'll be going through these sub-templates and updating their transclusions to use the new code directly. This should cut down on their post-expand include sizes. Only All Saints will need a show specific hack that I know of, and that is only for the most recent seasons. --Farix (Talk) 16:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

text: An extra empty column is now appearing some places as well.  See List of Stargate SG-1 episodes#Movies and List of Stargate Atlantis episodes#Movies.  --Pascal666 23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that  is one of three required parameters. It's ill suited for listing movies if you don't want an episode number to display. --Farix (Talk) 00:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The documentation specifically states that EpisodeNumber is optional.  Changing the two examples of this problem that I happened to run into does nothing to correct all of the other instances where this template is used without EpisodeNumber.  --Pascal666 03:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

text: It isn't a bug, it was an intentional change made to help reduce the post-include expand size.  was never designed with listing films in mind, and doing so amounts (in my opinion, at least) to a hack. Even so, though, there's no reason such usages can't also use EpisodeNumber; see List of One Piece films for instance. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 11:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which template would you suggest be used in cases such as the two I linked above?  If you go around adding episode numbers to movies where none actually exists, you will very quickly find  on your talk page.  Not sure what you had in mind with your example, I can see no uses of  at List of One Piece films, nor fake episode numbers or even an actual list.  --Pascal666 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be my bad, I forgot the list was converted to use sections instead of a template. This is what I was referring to. And BTW, I said nothing about adding episode numbers to lists of films; I was talking about using  (yes, this is splitting hairs =P ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

text: That breaks other lists that now depend on the template's new functionality, especially for transclusions. The thing is that the template has been misused for things other than episodes list. What should be done is those misuses are tracked down and corrected and not the template continuing to support those misuses. --Farix (Talk) 11:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would like to make a change to this template that is inconsistent with its documentation and breaks the way it has been used in the past, it is your responsibility to track down all of those instances and change them to a template that you feel is more appropriate (and hopefully one that is designed to be used in such a way and would leave the articles looking substantially the way they do now).  Why not simply add a #if to check if  actually exists?  If you really want to change all instances where this template is used without an EpisodeNumber, the #if could add such articles to a category for this purpose.  --Pascal666 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been of the opinion for some time that DVD/VHS releases (the other significant use I've seen for /) should have their own template; I've just never taken the time to investigate the requirements for such a template and then make it. At this point, I think a similar template should also be created for films, though. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Farix mentions three required parameters. What would the third one be? The air date one? I'm not sure how I feel about that one being required as well. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the air date field is the third required one. After some reflection, though, I think we probably gain enough from the other improvements that we can sacrifice four more checks per transclusion. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code updates 

message: For some reason the anchor doesn't work with episode numbers like "1 (1-01)" here. Or I may just be doing it wrong. Can someone help me out? BOVINEBOY2008 03:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're combining episode and production numbers? Eew... There's a separate  parameter for production codes. As for the anchor, it gets escaped by the software - "1 (1-01)" becomes "ep1_.281-01.29". 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anchor 

message: In the event of a TBA episode, typically "TBA" is inserted as the episode title.  This is ambiguous because TBA is in quotes due to the way this template is written.  It is impossible to tell if the literal name of the upcoming episode is "TBA".  See List of House Episodes, Season 6.
It would be good to add an optional attribute specifically for unnamed, TBA episodes to turn off the quotes if anyone might find it worth the trouble.
Ben Boldt (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If a given item is unknown, the parameter should be left blank. "TBA" is something new users like to use, I'm guessing, because they don't like seeing the empty fields. It would, however, be easy enough to look into providing default values; I think it warrants further discussion/investigation. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Dinoguy1000 that the parameter would best be left blank for unknown titles. However, no further discussion is need as this template already has the option to remove formatting from the title parameter. Just add an R in front of Title to make it RTitle and that will remove the bolding and quotes. When the title is finally published, but the episode is still unaired, you should use the RTitle parameter to reference the title. Of course, you'll have to manually format it. Sarilox (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't remove formatting; Title and RTitle are two different parameters, with two different purposes, and two different uses, and they can be used simultaneously (and are intended to be used together, if RTitle is used at all). Title is formatted like it is per the MOS, and using RTitle to bypass that formatting is inappropriate. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 10:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Leaving it blank is perfectly acceptable, and TBA also indicates that the information isn't known yet. TBA notices are removed from any list gunning for a decent assessment rating, and are not used at all on well-maintained lists. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 10:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episodes 

message: Would anyone be interested in making a template, similar to this one, for use on lists of people (such as Members of the Red Army Faction), with one instance per person, and embedding hCard microformats? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography equivalent 

message: Is it possible to make this template usable in a sortable table? Nergaal (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To make a table sortable, should just be an issue of marking the table as sortable. The template itself should not effect this, I'd think (though haven't tried it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Template:S-Episode list is a hacked version that will do this. Basically parameters EpisodeNumber1, EpisodeNumber2, and EpisodeNumber3 are sortable. See List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes for an example of usage. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortable? 

message: I would like to see two new parameters
* "|RAltTitle" for references for the "|AltTitle", now when you add a reference to a title with "|RTitle" it comes next to "|Title", the only way to put it next to "|AltTitle" is to add it in that tag but then it shows within the title "". Example of what it is now, the ref should be next to the second title:
#	Title	Director(s)	Writer(s)	Original Airdate
* "|ShowEpisodeNumber" for the overall episode number, the number of the episode disregarding the season. Some shows have a different airing order, DVD order and production order, which takes up "|EpisodeNumber" and "|EpisodeNumber2". Example

which would render like this:
#	Title	Director(s)	Writer(s)	Original Airdate
Currently there are a lot of different ways that are being used to display both season and show episode number, Some use "1 (1-01)" with the first number the overall number, others 1 1.01, some use the "|EpisodeNumber2" for this, etc. It would be nice to see them all using the same way to display this. Xeworlebi (t•c) 15:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Season episode numbers are usually equivalent to the series' production codes, and as such, should be provided with . As for , could you provide some actual cases where it is necessary (e.g. where the hack you mentioned is being used)? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually yes, but not always. Most (if not all) episode list give the per season number as  a lot also places the total number in the same parameter, some move that to  which is inconsistent and sometimes even cause for a little confusion if they are reversed. For example, The Fairly OddParents (which needs to be completely redone, on my list to do but busy here) has already three numbers (DVD, production and broadcast), production order should be replaces with  but then both  and  are filled, just adding the overall number to either one is possible and is what most list use, but it's inconsistent and changes to whatever the articles consensus is (or most persistent editor wants). For the  hack you speak off, I have no knowledge of some kind of hack or trick that has being used. I wondered about it when I wanted to edit Dark Angel, but for episode 5,  (which is not used and has to be changed) needs a reference, (every once in a while it gets changed to Cash Rules Everything Around Men because it sounds like that in the episode). I was just surprised to see that  didn't exists as I can't find a reason why  doesn't deserve a reference. Xeworlebi (t•c) 11:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  should pretty much always be used for the overall episode number - if an editor wants to use it for something else on an article or list, they need to have some really good reason for doing so. If the season number differs from the production code, it should probably simply be omitted, since episode lists should be split into seasons anyways. I'll look into ; I don't think it'll be that hard to implement. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New parameters 

message: Ive noticed that as many episode lists are removing summaries to be put on season pages that when you remove the summary field the line color doesn't show up on the table, even if its still in the wiki code.  Anyway to still have a color of line seperating the episodes even when their is no summary.  One example is the office (US) but there are many other shows that have this same problem as well Grande13 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was an intentional choice. In a full episode list (one with the summaries in place), the line color serves to help delineate between different episode entries. However, in the highly-reduced, single-line transcluded version (e.g. where there are individual season pages transcluded onto a main list), it becomes much easier to distinguish between episode entries, to the point where having the lines (especially with custom colors) would simply be a distraction from the content. In place of the lines, though, alternating rows use different background colors to help distinguish each episode entry. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line Color 

message: I would like to add a EpisodeNumber3 to the list of iCarly episodes. Is there a way to get one added to this so I can add it. Okay Here the problem, there were 45 episodes ordered for season two but nick split the season. For  example if you look at iQuite iCarly, The production codes are 233-234 that is  really two episodes. Also, 25 episodes for season 1, Now this were it gets  tricky, about 20 episodes for season 2 if you count the movies as one episode  and about 18 episodes for season 3. If you add that up you will get about 65  episodes for the series. Now They way I am looking at this is that 25 episodes  for season 1, 25 episodes for season 2 and 20 episodes for season 3, wtitch add  up to 70 episodes. Now dan mentioned that there were 70 episodes produced by the  end of the season. I think he mentioned this on one of his posts on danwarp.com  or his twitter ( really don't want to go back and look through) By the look of  things he is counting iGo to Japan as 3 episodes, iDate a bad boy as 2  episodes (normally going to be (2) seperate episodes, ifight Shelby Marx as 2  episodes, iQuite iCarly as 2 episodes, and iPshoo as two episodes (has not aired  yet). So that adds up to 70 episodes. Sites like tvguide msntv are counting the the movies as episodes. tv.com is just a mess witch is trying to get fixed. tvRage is counting the Just the episodes not movies as specials. So by the end of the third season all of the episodes add uo to 70 episodes for the series. Now I was thing to do this Have iGot to Japan would be 29/30/31 or just have one spot Like iGot to Japan  29/30/31. I also thought of this:
Season 2: 2008-2009 
Wiki's episode #	Other sites episode #	episode # Not including movies Counting episodes as 2 or 3 seperate episodes	Title	Director	Writer(s)	Original Airdate	Code
Now is there a easier way to fix this problem. There Have been dissucions here: (number of episodes)here: (old one). Now if this can't be an opition. Is there another way to make this easier and simpler for the other sites and wiki to corraspond with the epsiode numbers. Please let me know if this could work out or what to do about this to make it easier.  Checker Fred (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As TV.com and the like are not reliable sources, I see absolutely no valid reason to butcher this template for a single series. If there absolutely has to be yet another episode, use one fo the many ALTs. As it is, Wiki should be using the official episode numbers only, not what "other sites" randomly do. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  episode # 

message: Hey guys, I need some help regarding Winx Club article. I want to add the Pakistani airing dates in it too because it will be the second channel to air Winx Club Season 4 (even before US). So, can anybody help me in creating a new column for Pakistani airing? One more thing, the first episode of season 4 will air on March 08, 2010. Please help me out in adding new column for Pakistani airing. Thank you. --♫♪Adyniz♪♫ 19:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See no reason to add that at all, unless they are the English episodes. However, if folks feel its relevant, just use the ALTs. See List of Meerkat Manor episodes for an example. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it :D --♫♪Adyniz♪♫ 03:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey buddy, it premiered today and the titles were english. So, as you said that I can add a new country airing section "Pakistani air date" in this article but the problem is that when ever I tried to add a new section/box for pakistani airing, the page got messed up (thank God I just previewed the page instead of saving). So, can you please help me out in adding a new box in it? It's not premiered in US yet so that's why I want to make a seperate "Pakistani airing date" box for it because the episodes are airing in english. Sorry about the bad english. So, can you please add a new box in it as I can't do it. Thank you. ♫♪Adyniz♪♫ 15:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Some Help! 

message: This template fails on articles where more than one series  is listed, with duplicate episode numbers generating duplicate IDs; this is invalid in HTML. An example is List of Ashes to Ashes episodes.
A fix might be to combine the two types of episode number, where both exist; or to use the title. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This was fixed in the June 2009 code overhall, but it was reverted as quickly as it was implemented. —Farix (t | c) 23:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably a bundle of changes? Can the fix be applied on its own? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather reapply the June 2009 code changes as a whole as the template's code was much more efferent. Unfortunately, one editor complained about the episode number being a requirement. —Farix (t | c) 23:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that issue can be resolved promptly, all well and good; otherwise, the HTML issue needs to be addressed soonest Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid HTML 

message: I started splitting List of That '70s Show episodes due to the page being 110K, the first season is now on List of That '70s Show episodes (season 1) and the I've replaced the table with  on the main episode list, but all the summaries are still visible. Possebly an error with the '70s part of the title, I've tried to use 
:Fixed. You can see how it was done here. —Farix (t | c) 18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the HTML code, could have known. Thanks. Xeworlebi (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are strong arguments against transclusion, which you'll find at many FLC nominations of episode lists. Matthewedwards :  Chat   23:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When did this start? I thought the issue had finally been resolved? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! Okay. To be honest it's been a while since I've seen anything at FLC, but I remember the last one I saw did discourage it. I know WP:TRANS says it's okay. Where is the discussion where it got resolved? I need to get updated! Matthewedwards :  Chat   00:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember if there was a central discussion. I know it was mentioned in some FLCs and the issue against transclusions argued against and the list passed with them just fine. Would need to do a search to find any of the discussions though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. In all honesty I haven't been active at FLC for about 10 months, so it's quite possible I've missed something Matthewedwards :  Chat   00:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion problem 

message: I'm currently working on a list of episodes for EastEnders in my userspace, but the episodes don't have titles because it's a continuing soap opera, they just go by airdate. Can the title parameter be made optional, or is there another way around it? AnemoneProjectors 18:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've solved the problem. I'm going to use "RTitle" and put the original airdate in that column instead. AnemoneProjectors 18:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episodes without titles 

message: Why not adopt some feature from Template:Japanese episode list multi-part for the multi-parted episodes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSH-alive (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2-or-3-parted episodes 

message: There is currently a discussion going at WP:TV-NC about the current template guidelines pertaining naming of seasonal episode list articles. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though that discussion was dormant for a month, it is now back on. Changes supported there will affect this template. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seasonal episode lists 

message: How about including thumbnails in episode lists? Typically as screenshots or promotional artwork of an episode and such. They can be used to better identify an episode. If not, then please explain.--NGMan62 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be one, but it was removed due to WP:NFC concerns. See Template talk:Episode list/Archive 2#Image field removed for further information. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding multiple screenshots would also not comply with WP:NFCC requirements to keep copyrighted images to a minimum. —Farix (t | c) 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thumbnails? 

message: I am currently working on this User:AJona1992/Sandbox9 and this template isn't working very good. Can anyone tell me what am I doing wrong, so I can fix this problem? AJona1992 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, nevermind. AJona1992 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codes wrong? 

message: The explanation for this parameter says "100-300 summary". 100-300 what? Characters? Words?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be words, and is now fixed. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems kind of long, but thanks for clarifying it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short summary 

message: Reference field for AltTitle, change line to:
: 
Dedicated viewers column, add line:
:#ifeq:ʁ|ʁ| |}}{{
To make  still work properly, change line to:
:#ifeq:ʁ|ʁ| |}}</tr>{{#ifeq:ʁ|ʁ| |
 was requested in March 2008, as well in September 2009 (previus request unknown by me at the time), both were received as a good idea but were never implemented. It actually makes more sense to have the alt titles references than the titles, which are removed after their initial broadcast, as primary source.
, more and more episode lists put the viewers ratings in the episode list, I personally don't care were it's placed, as long as it is places directly before an optional parameter, certain episode lists put additional ratings info in, like Rank, AI, or ratings from US/UK in different columns, for which they now use  and , those only using a single one are split between  and . A defined parameter to standardize its placement would be a good thing. There is currently a discussion going on about removing additional ratings in separate tables and only have the total viewers in the episode list itself, which would push more ratings in the episode lists. This would aid standardize its position in the table. Xeworlebi (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I still believe this to be a good request, and no-one has objected to them, so I pulled this out of the archive. Xeworlebi (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add {{Para|RAltTitle}} and {{Para|Viewers}} 

message: This template causes references to appear in the incorrect order. For example see test case 4. I propose a null if statement at the beginning of this template, with all parameters, in the correct sequence, to be added. 117Avenue (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not be a problem as the plot summary does not need a citation as it can be verified by the episode itself. —Farix (t | c) 02:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For future episodes, everything needs to be referenced. 117Avenue (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot summaries of unaired episodes are almost always unverifiable. And "previews" shouldn't be in the templates to begin with as they are not actual summaries. —Farix (t | c) 03:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref order 

message: Production codes continue to be an ongoing issue in many articles. Many TV programs don't use them but production codes are still added to the articles. A lot seem to be sourced from tv.com while others are allegedly from reliable sources like iTunes but even those fail WP:V because citations are never provided. The Futon Critic publishes press releases with episode titles in the form "(#<number>) "<Title>" and "<number>" is being used as the production code, while others are just being added in sequential order from the last episode listed. I'm quite aware that there are programs that use valid production codes but, from numerous discussions that I've read and participated in over the years, the general consensus seems to be that they only ever have any use when episodes are aired out of sequence. List of Firefly episodes is one example of this, but even in these cases, this is probably better covered in prose. I've tried removing uncited production codes from articles but there seems to be some resistance to that. As a way of resolving the issue I looked at various solutions and came up with the following:
# add  to uncited production codes
# add "" (Reference for ) to this template
# remove  entirely
Of these the first seems the most obvious but, unfortunately, doing so results in this:
Series #	Season #	Title	Directed by	Written by	Original airdate	Prod. #	Viewers(millions)
If the template can't be modified to accommodate , perhaps we need to go to the second option, adding the "" parameter. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely support option 3. Usually uncited, and really not of much use except for collecting every scrap of information about the episode. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Production codes come usually from the episodes themselves, for those who have a production code it is usually visible on the copyright screen. Just because in some places something is wrongly used is not a reason to go and mass remove it. While not always, in several cases TFC gives the actual production codes (It's always Sunny in Philadelphia, The Mentalist), DocStock gives for several shows the actual production codes. So the production codes are mostly sourced by primary source or by the reference in  along with all the info from the episode. So I don't see the need for either option, I guess option two can't hurt for those couple of exceptions of wrong/unsourced future episodes. Xeworlebi (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's far more than a "couple" of exceptions. There are many, many cases where the codes are wrong. The codes at the Futon Critic link that you provided appear to be production codes but the example that I gave doesn't. Without a specific source that says these are actually production codes, it's WP:SYNTH to claim that they are, because they are only listed at the source as the episode title. If they're in the episodes, the episodes can be used as a primary source, but there are many that do not include production codes at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also many, many cases where the codes are correct. Partial misuse is not a reason to remove all of them, proper use should not be punished because there are those that are incorrectly used. Xeworlebi (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, is there any opposition to option 2? --AussieLegend (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it isn't over- or abused. I've made a sandbox version which includes the new  (from my earlier proposal which no-one has opposed) and . As well as a sublist sandbox version. I did some basic testing and it seems to work properly. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get why an  is needed. Can't you reference the production code directly in ? You're not dealing with a format issues, like you are with titles where the reference should be outside the quotes. —Farix (t | c) 21:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes and no, because  is also pasted as an anchor ID. Putting in a ref will break the anchor, and putting any kind of special formatting (like the given example: ) will cause the column to go belly up as seen in the example above. Xeworlebi (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see, but perhaps this is a case where we should have an override for the anchor instead or in addition to. —Farix (t | c) 22:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production codes