Template talk:Series overview/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Propose change of "British format"

Britain ain't the only region that uses the DD/MM/YYYY format. Just take a look at this baby! I'd propose changing "British format" to "Day first format" or "DMY Format" or something more elegant, if something more elegant could be conceived. However I doubt you'll come up with something more elegant, because I think I did a really, really good job of being elegant. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I think it might be wise for us to consider adding a palette of WCAG 2.0 AAA compatible bgcolor/text colors to the documentation towards the bottom, as we've been talking about around the project. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The date formats are really "non-US" but the series/season switch is a tricky one. For example, here in the wonderful land of Oz we are fully conversant with both proper and American English and switch between "series" and "season" in a heartbeat. However, English outside the US is normally referred to as "international English". --AussieLegend (✉) 01:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that part slipped my attention. I thought it was just the date formatting wot was different. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) This discussion has been going on for too long with too little input. It is clear that, at this present time, no consensus can be reached due to the current nature of the discussion. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Template:Series overview → Template:Television series overview – Wikipedia has articles on lots of types of series (books, comics, motorbikes, cameras, etc.) This template is for television series. The shorter name will remain as a redirect. I moved it once, but was reverted, apparently because "Series overviews are listed under 'Series overview' in episode listing". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: The series overview table is always listed under a header of "Series overview", hence the name. Such a table is used nowhere else - there are no "Book series overview"'s or "Camera series overviews"'s. Alex|The|Whovian 14:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • We name templates for clarity, to make things easier for editors. Not for the subheadings under which they appear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  Clarification is not required when it is only used for one thing, much like disambiguation pages. Alex|The|Whovian 14:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  That argument is without foundation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  As is your reply. Alex|The|Whovian 15:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  Per WP:LOCALCON, a likeness to the TV articles' section headings is secondary to the maintenance of the Template: namespace as a whole. Alakzi (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  How does the title of a template affect maintenance? "Oh crap, I modified that template when I meant to modify {{Book series overview}}! Maybe I should have read the instructions first." --AussieLegend (✉) 10:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  You appear to have a very narrow understanding of "maintenance". Alakzi (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  You appear to have a very narrow understanding of "discussion". Alex|The|Whovian 10:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  Quit your flaming this instant. Alakzi (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  As soon as you contribute a point-of-view that's worthwhile to this discussion. Alex|The|Whovian 10:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  Alakzi, please don't delete the posts of others when they raise valid points.[1] I asked you "How does the title of a template affect maintenance?" and your response You appear to have a very narrow understanding of "maintenance" is not an appropriate answer. If Alex's post was a troll then so was yours. I'll ask you again, how does the title of a template affect maintenance? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  The assignment of names which are reasonably meaningful and reasonably distinctive is part of the maintenance of the Template: namespace. Alakzi (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  Again, how does the name of a template affect maintenance? Are you saying that it's easier to maintain a template called {{Television series overview}} than it is to maintain a template called {{Series overview}}, and if so, how is this the case? I'm asking this only because I've been writing code for over 40 years and I've never found that myself. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Sawol (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Pointless if, as you said, [t]he shorter name will remain as a redirect. If there's nothing broken, there's nothing to fix. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• I want to reiterate the above. Moving it will do nothing. {{Television series overview}} already exists as a redirect to {{Series overview}}, and if moved, the exact same will occur but in the other way. Using both templates produces the same result (as below - first with Series overview, second with Television series overview), and if moved, the exact same will occur. Alex|The|Whovian 10:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Season	Episodes		Originally aired
			First aired	Last aired

Season	Episodes		Originally aired
			First aired	Last aired

• Comment - WikiProject Television notified here. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not convinced by the "we name templates for clarity" argument. If that were really true, then {{Infobox settlement}} would need to be moved as it's not just used for settlements and there are many other templates whose name lacks clarity, such as {{Infobox park}}, which is used for gardens as well as parks. We name templates according to their primary purpose, clarification of which should be included in the documentation. This template is used as the header for "series overview" tables so "series overview" seems a more than appropriate title. Naming of this template is consistent with {{episode list}} which is used for individual episode entries. I also find EvergreenFir's argument compelling. If {{Series overview}} remains in place as a redirect, moving the template really achieves nothing. Somebody looking for a book series overview (if anyone does) will still end up at the same place. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And the primary purpose of this template is to list television show seasons. We name templates for clarity with regard to their primary function. "Infobox park", for instance, is clear as can be, and is overwhelmingly used for parks. Also, there's hardly any difference between parks and gardens; they're both green spaces. Alakzi (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  Parks and gardens are two totally different things so no, Infobox park isn't clear at all. Simply being a green space does not make them the same. A park can contain no gardens at all and a garden can exist without a park. In England people call their back yard the "back garden" and so on. However, you are correct in that Infobox park is overwhelmingly used for parks. That's really not surprising and I'm really not sure what that has to do with anything. Infobox garden actually existed as a separate entity for 3 years until this TfM in 2013 because people saw the difference between the two. We only merged the templates because they were almost identical, and IG was modified during the TfM. However, this discussion does not deal with merging at all and your argument that there's hardly any difference between parks and gardens is almost exactly the opposite of the arguments being used to support a move. i.e. a park is almost a garden vs a book series overview is not a TV series overview. There are no other series overview templates that I am aware of. To use the examples provided by the nominator, {{Book series overview}}, {{Comic series overview}}, {{Motorbike series overview}} and {{Camera series overview}} don't exist so there seems no need to move this template at all as it's unlikely to be confused with another. In the absence of a naming convention for templates (if there is one that I couldn't find, please point me to it) there seems no justifiable reason to move it, the only reason seems to be personal preference. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  This template is not tailored to all series overviews; it is not analogous to {{Infobox park}} in that regard. Quite the contrary, to qualify it with "television" is to accurately and succinctly reflect its function. And you don't need a naming convention to tell you that. I'm not going to debate what "garden" means, but there's obviously no expectation that an infobox would exist for your backyard. Alakzi (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  The template doesn't have to be tailored to all overviews everywhere. Adding "television", which is simply a form of disambiguation, is not necessary. People finding this template aren't going to confuse it with templates that don't exist. As others have stated, moving it elsewhere while still retaining this title as a redirect is pointless. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Although I've alluded to it above, I'd like to clarify that moving this template is pointless. It achieves absolutely nothing because we're still going to be able to reach it at {{Series overview}}. At best it's nothing more than unnecessary disambiguation, meant only to identify it as not being a template that doesn't exist. The TV project has been using {{Episode list}}, not {{Television episode list}} for the past nine years for related episode lists (now in nearly 10,000 articles with up to 200,000 instances), and {{Series overview}}, which is used for series overview tables, is consistent with that name. I don't think anyone has ever confused {{Episode list}} with {{Book episode list}} so I don't see why they would be confused with this one. AlexTheWhovian has also recently created {{Episode table}}, which the TV project is adopting so that we can ensure WP:COLOR compliance in episode tables (whether or not they use {{Episode list}}) so we have a string of consistently named episode list related templates. Making one inconsistent just doesn't seem a good idea. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support – "Series" could mean anything; "Television series" is more precise. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As said before: The series overview table is used nowhere else - there are no "Book series overview"'s or "Camera series overviews"' Clarification is not required when it is only used for one thing, much like disambiguation pages. Alex|The|Whovian 07:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, Alex, I understand your point. My point is that I generally prefer clarity to the point where others would consider it "over-disambiguation" (IOW, this is one area what I don't necessarily totally agree with the guidelines...). Also, just because it's only template with this name now doesn't mean there won't be some template in the future with a similar name, and there's no reason not to clarify the use for this template now... Anyway, that's my opinion – I agree with Andy on this: the extra precision is a plus. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Template:Television series overview already redirects here, so technically, the clarification already exists and hence nothing needs to be done. Alex|The|Whovian 07:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Moving templates is one of the most pointless things to do on Wikipedia, and that's saying a fair bit. Jenks24 (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per AussieLegend and EvergreenFir. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Alazki: Restoring discussion. No consensus has been reached yet, in the face of multiple opposing views, and the fact of non-admin closure. Alex|The|Whovian 23:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment on reopening of closed discussion: @AlexTheWhovian: Reverting a closed move discussion as you did is not standard procedure. As stated in the boilerplate text that you removed: "Please do not modify it ... Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review" Moreover, you are the creator of the page under discussion, and have already !voted, so it's debatable whether you were merely trying to avoid unneeded bureaucracy. Please avoid this in the future.—Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Bagumba: Perhaps non-admins who have no idea on this topic, who also have personal issues against those discussing, shouldn't close the discussion, with the reason as "arguments are bogus" where there was no consensus. I recommend reading up on the actual happenings of this discussion before you contribute. Alex|The|Whovian 01:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Per policy WP:ARTICLETITLE: "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." Per the nominator, series is a generic term, and is not primarily associated with television such as a word like episode, e.g. {{Episode list}}, which might be fine without disambiguation. I'm unswayed by other arguments of WP:ILIKEIT from the page creator who claimed the name first for TV before other domains, or WP:OTHERSTUFF referencing other non-distinguishing template titles that exist. There could be some merit that the whole move is pointless; look at all the drama it has caused, starting with the initial revert citing only "No consensus whatsoever" (Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" could use more traction in the community). Yes, a reader is not going to care about this template name, but someone cared enough to open this RM, so I'd just assume to discuss its merits. Those who really think this discussion is "pointless" could direct their energy to amending the WP:RM process. Meanwhile, it really shouldn't matter if others with a stronger opinion decide to keep or change the name. —Bagumba (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As AussieLegend has made me aware on my talk page, the "initial revert" that I cited is incorrect. From the page logs (and not the page history) the initial revert before this RM is on 12:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC) with edit summary "Series overviews are listed under "Series overview" in episode listings, hence the name." Striking my earlier comments.—Bagumba (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me append my support for the move request using Bagumba rationale (i.e. I'm in concurrence) as well – he's been much more articulate with what I was trying to say with the above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I liked the arguments on both sides, except the one about what "readers" (focus that to "editors") see when they come to the template. I think it does matter if an editor finds a way to this template and sees only "Series overview" at the top of the page. It's hard enough for some editors to deal with the difficult-to-access parts of this project, and they shouldn't have to deal with old, outdated and very general naming techniques as well. I just do not buy the argument that if a so-named redirect exists, then that makes it okay to keep an inappropriate name at the top of the main template page for all who come to this template to see. What they should see is "TV series overview" (TV is a standard initialism) or "Television series overview", so they readily know why or why not this template may be useful to them. How can anyone seriously accept that having a redirect with that title, a redirect that might hardly ever be seen since it's not even a "short"cut, is the same as seeing that name when they arrive at this template page? So yes, apologies to the Dr. Who enthusiast (I've seen the series from the very beginning and ultimately gave it 5 stars) and to the rest who oppose this move. There are many sound thoughts expressed by both supporters and opposers, but a Ben Franklin list must weigh heavily on the support side of the paper. – Paine  19:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment re: redirect Some have argued that any move could be pointless if a redirect from Template:Series overview remains. However, if a move is approved, the 85 current transclusions (this template was only created on 9 July 2015) can be renamed to use the new name, perhaps assisted with a tool like AWB, and the redirect can eventually be CSD G6ed when it is no longer referenced. There is no deadline.—Bagumba (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  That is a possibility, but the nomination states The shorter name will remain as a redirect and people who have come to this discussion have supported or opposed according to the nomination. Regardless of what happens, the move is still pointless. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, if you say that it is pointless enough times, it will become pointless. That is how reality works. Alakzi (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move protected

I have move protected this template until tempers calm down a bit and people can agree on what the name should be. Be cool, people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Another pointless administrative action from you. Alakzi (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Amazing civility there. Alex|The|Whovian 13:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd moved the template after I'd closed the discussion last night; the closure was soon reverted by an involved party. The reversion went unchallenged. The template's protection a whole fourteen hours later is what I'd call "pointless". Alakzi (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As has been mentioned elsewhere, several editors have been threatened with blocks. I am particularly against blocking Pigsonthewing has he contributes prolifically elsewhere and there is a serious harm to the project if I did - in which case I think a move protection is the appropriate thing to stop disruption, without anyone needing to be blocked. I will unprotect as soon as I have reassurance that the reverting is going to stop and I do not believe the encyclopedia is going to be especially harmed by leaving the protection in place for a bit until everyone's anger has gone away. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You clearly did not take the time to investigate; the whole kerfuffle was over a couple of inflammatory comments made by AlexTheWhovian, which he insists on reinserting. Also, thank you for making it clear that the rest of us are scum, compared to Andy. Why don't you return to whatever it is you usually do? Alakzi (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You have no authority here, hence you have no right to delete comments that aren't yours, simply because you disagree. And "scum"? Really solidifying the case here. Alex|The|Whovian 13:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have never claimed to have any authority, nor do I seek it. Alakzi (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

[ec] Alakzi may remove any bad-falth comments from my talk page as he sees fit (as may any good-faith editor); and he knows this Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

However, this discussion page is not your talk page - that is the one in question here with his removals. I care not about your own talk page. Alex|The|Whovian 14:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not edit warred over moving this template, indeed I was the editor instigated this talk-page move-request after my single move was reverted. I've only been threatened with a block by involved parties, one of whom falsely accused me of "vandalism". There was no need to move-protect this template, for the reasons given by Alakzi. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As it stands, I would probably close the move request as "No consensus". I see convincing arguments on both sides, on the one hand it is good to have a specific and non-ambiguous name, on the other the status quo does not directly harm the reader. I feel it is better to leave the move protect in place and let the move request run for a little longer. Of course, any editor is free to challenge this and request an unprotection via WP:UNPROTECT. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is an especially convincing argument that should absolutely be counted towards consensus. Alakzi (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Warning and a plea for self-interested common sense

@Alakzi, AlexTheWhovian, AussieLegend, and Pigsonthewing: This has got to be the dumbest edit war I have ever seen: the four of you are fighting over the name of an obscure template that already has a redirect of the same name, and then you are deleting templated warnings from each other's user talk page -- seriously? When all four of you are blocked, expect to serve the block for the duration because I expect you will have a hard time finding a sympathetic administrator to unblock you. Just stop it. All of you. Please. [Posted contemporaneously to all four user talk pages.] Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I am requesting that one or more administrators friendly to all of the parties keep an eye on this, so that a passing administrator doesn't block the lot of you for violating WP:TOOHARDHEADEDTOEDIT. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the initial - and valid - rename request, my involvement has been to remind two editors (one of them not for the first time) that accusing good-faith editors of vandalism is not tolerated as a matter of policy:

Per WP:VANDAL: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."

and to remove such allegations from another editor's talk page, with his approval, as egregious breaches of AGF, NPA and as trolling. I'm happy to defend my actions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Because removing content that he disagreed with from posts that weren't his on this discussion page isn't vandalism? Elaborate. Alex|The|Whovian 13:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, removing patent trolling is not vandalism. Alakzi (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You think I'd waste my time "trolling" you. You think wrong. I've got better stuff to do, I just tell the truth as it is. Alex|The|Whovian 14:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

OK everyone, cut it out. Enough is enough. This is not the place for crap like this. Let's concentrate on the topic at hand. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi & Alex: Just stop. Please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Alex|The|Whovian 14:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Andy, you're obviously a pretty smart guy. Why don't you use some of those IQ points, engage in some diplomacy, and stop fanning the flames with two editors with whom you already have a very recent and very contentious history? I am well aware of your productive activities in training new, young Wikipedians in your Wikimedia seminars. Is this how you would counsel newbies to behave? Seriously? You just deleted my personal plea to stop from your user talk page -- do you understand how that looks to uninvolved third parties? I see nothing good here from anyone involved, including two editors with whom I have a productive work history. You are supposed to be the older and wiser editor. Please don't get them (and yourself) blocked. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you stop trying to patronise me? I trust my removal of your tiresome and fallacious nonsense from my talk page sends a clear message. And stop "fanning the flames" by canvassing admins, as well. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Andy, if it sounds like my reaction is "patronising," it's probably because you know there is a large element of truth in what I am saying. It's an appeal to your own common sense and what you teach others. As mentioned elsewhere, you really need to re-read and comprehend WP:CANVASS; there is no !vote here. Anyone may request the administrative intervention of any administrator, at any time, for any reason, and it's not canvassing. It's not an accident that I requested the intervention of an administrator who is friendly with you and highly unlikely to block you; hopefully, you will listen to her sound advice. I'm going to leave it at that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with that page; perhaps you might try to understand it - especially the part that requires you to "keep the message text neutral". You were canvassing, and doing so in a highly non-neutral manner, and you should stop it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I can see no evidence of canvassing and allegations should not be made against other editors without providing evidence. That said, this has nothing to do with the requested move discussion so please stop. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I can get a neutral and impartial admin to close the move request from WP:AN if people feel that's the best way forward. I would then urge everybody to respect whatever the result is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's get it over with. Alakzi (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that I do – agree, that is. These types of discussions can be closed after seven days; however, that is when there is consensus. Here there does not seem to be consensus, so how can it be closed fairly? I just got wind of this discussion and would like some time to consider a choice. It doesn't matter to me that this has thus far been a Bob and Carol, Ted and Alice tag team wrestling match. I'm far more concerned with "what is right" rather than with "who is right". And even though I just got here, I find that this discussion is about to be closed before I can even have time to give it some thought? – Paine  08:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added my support for the move above; however, I still say that to close this discussion early without a clear consensus, which might be had if more late comers show up, would not be appropriate. While sometimes discussions seem to get a bit heated, this is not a circus that must close its rides when lightning is sighted. This is an encyclopedia where minds, logic and AGF should govern, rather than emotions and harsh words. Do other reference works have these problems?  :>) – Paine  19:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Post-flamewar comments

I agree with the "please tone it down" message to all three of the parties of whom that was requested. It is super-WP:LAME to have an argument of such heat about such a trivial matter. It's clear that all three of you using sarcastic, belittling, or demanding tones is why that happened. (This is not a lecture; I do it, too, sometimes. Just an observation of the facts.) I'd appreciate being pinged if this RM is re-approached later, since I missed it the first time around, and would have applied a clear rationale to this case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent update

The recent update to the template has updated the re-used code to {{Series overview/row}}, so that we only need to make changes to one area that is applied to all rows. The "splitX" and "specialX_X" variables have also been changed to "extraX", as there's no point having two variables that are used for exactly the same thing (holding another template), hence the former two variables need to be changed on sight to the latter. Alex|The|Whovian 11:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: "hence the former two variables need to be changed on sight to the latter" – no longer required, parameters have been updated with AWB for the ten cases that had old parameters. Alex|The|Whovian 14:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Extra column filling multiple rows?

Hello. Wondering how to make an extra column with Network/Distributor information for a series that aired on multiple networks. An example is List of Arrested Development episodes, but I'm not sure how to do this with infoheader/info1A. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wikipedical: Take a look at List of The Graham Norton Show episodes. The info1B variable is set to rowspan{{=}}5{{!}}[[BBC Two]] - the templated versions of = and | are required here. info*B is then not set up for consequent seasons until the next network change, when the previous example is then repeated. Alex|The|Whovian 18:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: The network info should really be after the air dates. We should implement that somehow as its own column. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean under the "Originally aired" header column? Or remaining under the "infoheader"-ed header? Alex|The|Whovian 20:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Under the "originally aired" header, so that would be three columns wide, if a "network" subcolumn is used. I've been pondering this, but can't wrap my head around setting how many rows the first network goes for, and then how to set the next one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"Network" shouldn't go under ratings, so yes, I'm asking about adding another optional "Originally aired" column. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps its own set of variables would work. For example, |network1=ABC and |network1length=5 provides a column that is 5 rowspan's high for ABC, and then repeat for subsequent numbers. Up to five should probably do, I've never seen a series that's been swapped that many times. Then we can check if "network1" is set, and if so, make "Originally aired" into a colspan of 3, instead of 2. Alex|The|Whovian 20:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That's along the lines of what I was thinking. I guess I couldn't figure out the coding, despite my recent working with the templates you've created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on it. I've got a working and failing case in my sandbox, where I need to learn how to list them all at once as separate rows, instead of columns. Alex|The|Whovian 06:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done As per documentation. Alex|The|Whovian 02:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Same start and end date for non-specials

I had to abuse {{Series overview/special}} on List of Annedroids episodes to get the same start and end date colspanned for season 2. It isn't as simple as comparing |startX= and |endX= for equality because of the different metadata that {{Start date}} and {{End date}} generate. Maybe we could add a |releaseX= to be used for the date when the whole season has a single release date?

(Also, on that topic, references to "airing" might need to be tweaked for shows like this which are primarily released online.) nyuszika7h (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: These features already exists. Take a look at what I did to the page you linked to. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I guess I didn't read the documentation properly. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No problems. Always an idea to check out the examples first too (this is covered under example #7). Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Need help

@AlexTheWhovian: I'm trying to update List of Arrested Development episodes using this template, but I'm having trouble because the template needs to list multiple networks and one season that uses the released parameter. I don't think there's an example in the documentation for this. For season 4, when I use start for end4 to list the same date across both rows, it renders rowspan="1" | Netflix in the network4 parameter. I'm using a temporary fix which just lists the same date for both start4 and end4. If you need to see it for yourself, just remove the date from end4 and replace it with "start" to see the error. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It might be a problem with the coding at {{Series overview/row}} whenever a single date is needed, because I tried changing the first season to a single date, and the issue happened too with Fox, coming up as "rowspan"3" | Fox". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and Drovethrughosts:  Fixed. Alex|The|Whovian^? 18:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Network header not shown when network changes during split

This is a fictitious example (I was bored) and unlikely to happen, but it's still a bug – it seems the "Network" header is not shown and the "Originally aired" header is not spanned wide enough if the network changes during a split season.

Season	Episodes		Originally aired
			First aired	Last aired	Network
1	26	13	September 6, 2011 (2011-09-06)	November 29, 2011 (2011-11-29)	ABC
		13	March 6, 2012 (2012-03-06)	May 19, 2012 (2012-05-19)	XYZ

– nyuszika7h (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Works now. Thanks for reporting that. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Split season with more than two parts

Now that this has been converted to a module and the syntax changed to be more flexible, would it be simpler to support split seasons with more than two parts, such as at List of Violetta episodes? – nyuszika7h (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Template incorrectly uses "Series" based on date format

I noticed when I converted Karadayı to use this template that it calls the seasons "Series", presumably based on the date format. But this is not an assumption you can make for non-English shows. It's a Turkish show, and the article uses the dmy date format because it was written that way. Nobody calls those seasons "series", so please re-add the option to manually change between "Season" and "Series". Perhaps |series= would be a better name, because it's not UK-specific, also used for Australian shows, if I understood correctly. (You can use {{yesno}} to easily handle "no" values to override the default as well.) nyuszika7h (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H:  Done The Series/Season cell can be overridden by setting either |seriesT= or |seasonT= to custom text. I'm working on your above request as well, off-site. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

row header in multi-series

Small issue with the latest multi-series addition. The row header is applied to the series (correct) but also to the season number (incorrect). The season number should only be the row header for the non-multi series version. --Gonnym (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)