Template talk:Cite episode/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

TfD nomination of Template:Cite episode

Template:Cite episode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Protection

Is there a particular reason this template was indefinitely protected? It was vandalized recently, I know, but that isn't a common occurrance. And I think that helpful edits get made to it often enough that having it protected might be somewhat counter-productive. --Brian Olsen (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

accessdate

{{editprotected}}

request addition of accessdate to template:

}}{{#if:
{{{accessdate|}}}
| Retrieved on [[{{{accessdate|}}}]].

--emerson7 23:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not an online source template, what is the purpose of an access date? —Random832 19:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing the template for now, per Random832; if somebody can provide a compelling reason for this change, or if there's some discussion otherwise, feel free to restore the {{editprotected}} request. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Although there is an "url" parameter, the linked page is not intended to be a source. Circeus (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

not a source? ...that cannot be true. there are several situations--particularly radio--where linking to the audio is indeed a legitimate, valid source, just as {{cite web}}, et al as shown below.

Robert Smith (2006-06-26). "Buffett Gift Sends US$31 Billion to Gates Foundation". All Things Considered. National Public Radio. Retrieved 2007-02-14. --emerson7 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Please ensure that the documentation is suitably updated (I have inserted several additional fields copied from {{cite web}}). Happy‑melon 16:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikilink of airdate

The 'airdate' field of the {{cite episode}} template produces a wikilink to the date. (Example: "The Gymnast". Seinfeld. Season 6. Episode 6. November 3, 1994. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)) I don't think it should be doing so, since the full date doesn't necessarily have a page. The editor should be allowed to wikilink the date themselves.—RJH (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Question already answered at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates#Wikilink of airdate, but to repeat, the airdate should be entered as 1994-11-03 to produce a proper wikified full date of 1994-11-03. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

British shows

Resolved

 – Edit performed as requested, and new feature is documented as counter-requested.

{{editprotected}}

Request a variable field be added (such as seriesno) which can be used with British shows in place of the term season. For example, the first year of an American show is called Season 1. The first year of a British show is called Series 1. This would increase consistency for the way we refer to British shows on Wikipedia. Thanks. Redfarmer (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined, consensus not demonstrated yet. See WP:PER.  Sandstein  16:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, can we get consensus on this anyone? Redfarmer (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it would be good. There is a series/season in the TV infobox and should follow in cite episode. I know I'd find it particularly helpful for my work with List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, in which I'm citing both the British and American broadcasts of the series in some places. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too. --Conti|✉ 17:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I didn't realize adding one additional parameter was enough to need consensus. I'll request an edit again since people have had a few days to comment. Redfarmer (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Done as |seriesno=, which will be valid only if |season= is not defined. Please make sure that this parameter is documented. Happy‑melon 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Typographic quotes

Resolved

 – Request declined; conflicts (in multiple ways) with WP:MOS.

{{editprotected}} Instead of the current "straight" quotes, “typographic” ones should be used in the expansion. (This request shows the difference, but the page might have to be viewed using a larger font size for it to be visible.) SeL (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined, consensus not demonstrated yet, request not specific enough. See WP:PER.  Sandstein  16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MOS#Quotation marks: "The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes is recommended". Happy‑melon 21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The reasons given there don't apply: "They are easier to type in reliably, and to edit." No editing or typing in is required when the template is used. "Mixed use interferes with searching (a search for Korsakoff's syndrome could fail to find Korsakoff’s syndrome and vice versa)." The quotation marks we're discussing here are applied by the template so can't or won't be searched for. SeL (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The rest of MOS certainly applies though: Be consistent within articles, one of the principal messages of the entire MOS. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

season= vs. Season=

Resolved

 – Request declined as confusingly inconsistent with all other templates in this family, and all other parameters in this template.

{{editprotected}}

To replace #if: {{{season|}}} |, season {{{season}}}.|{{

with #if: {{{Season|}}} |, Season {{{Season}}}.|{{

Mellie ♥ 05:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Could you explain why this change is necessary? All the other parameters are in lower case. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that all the parameters of all the {{cite whatever}} templates are lower case. Changing this would introduce a serious difference between templates that try to stay similar. RossPatterson (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Language Param

Any particular reason this template doesn't have a language parameter? Not all cited episodes will be English ones, so it would be good to be able to note the language of the episode. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

¡Ese es un punto bueno! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

ありがとう (*grin*) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. This parameter will be useful. --85.140.38.72 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit request from Goodraise, 25 October 2010

{{edit protected}}

This revision of the sandbox implements the |language= parameter that is requested in the section above.

Goodraise 06:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

done. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Broken?

Something's not right with this template. Every time I go to use it, part of the text comes out into the paragraph where I'm using the citation. Is this template working right now? I'm copying and pasting from the example, so I'm almost 100% sure I have the syntax down. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, looks like I just left off the ref tags... i feel dumb. --kraftlos (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Date deprecation

There are ongoing debates about how to apply the deprecation of automatic linking of dates to citation templates. Currently, {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} have unlinked the "date" and "accessdate" parameters, and use the "15 November 2008" formatting in their examples. Should this template be changed in the same fashion? If dates are not to be linked (as it seems that the new consensus has it), going forward it's certainly better to use spelled-out dates than the awkward ISO 8601 dates, but of course changing the template means that hundreds of articles will be left with unlinked ISO 8601 dates, until somebody makes a bot to repair them. (Of course, non-logged-in users were seeing ISO 8601 dates anyway, which was the reason behind the deprecation of wikilinking dates.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no. Its bad enough how awful the articles are looking thanks to those changes at cite news and cite web with ISO dates all over the place (and they still can't agree if people should fix them manually or wait until some future software upgrade which will then let them change the template to fix them). *sigh* This whole delinking thing is becoming a cluster...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 10:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there's some technical solution in the works which will stop these ISO dates from displaying. I don't understand all the gubbins, but if (as it appears) a solution is coming, and the solution allows for both "15 November 2008" and "November 15, 2008" formatting, I'm happy to wait. I just wish there had been better communication about this. (I did eventually discover a centralized discussion, of sorts, at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates#De-linking dates.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In relation to this topic, I have been using this temple and using the "August 21, 2006" format for the airdate parameter. Is there any way to change the template so that the date is not automatically wikilink the date? Thanks. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Much better! :) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Number/Episode

I just tried playing with this and it produced the following output "The Woman in the Tunnel". Bones. No. 16, season 1. shouldn't it be episode 16, season 1.? Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 12:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Began and ended broken?

From what I've tried to put in Doctor (Star Trek)...

{{cite episode |title=Future's End |episodelink=Future's End |series=Star Trek: Voyager |serieslink=Star Trek: Voyager |season=3 |number=50 and 51 |began=1996-11-06 |ended=1996-11-13 |credits=Writers: [[Brannon Braga]] and [[Joe Menosky]], Directors: [[David Livingston]] (part I) and [[Cliff Bole]] (part II)}}

Writers: Brannon Braga and Joe Menosky, Directors: David Livingston (part I) and Cliff Bole (part II). "Future's End". Star Trek: Voyager. Season 3. Episode 50 and 51. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |began= ignored (|date= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |ended= ignored (|date= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

63.170.80.2 (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

It's definitely broken - when the link brackets around the dates were removed, the ones after "began" were left in. Could an admin delete them, please? --Brian Olsen (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is broken. The required code change is below. (I've also added an ndash in between the dates instead of a hypen per MoS.)

 #if: {{{began|}}} | {{{began}}}]]-{{{ended}}}.| {{ 

to

 #if: {{{began|}}} | {{{began}}}–{{{ended}}}.| {{ 

Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done.  Sandstein  21:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Add this template to edit bar?

Is there any way to add this template to the ref button on the edit bar? TIA Ched Davis (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No.-season vs. Season-No.

I can't tell what the preferred version is on wikipedia is, but most internet websites, P2P networks, reviews and other fan-related places use the formats 5x08, 508, E8, or S05E08 for episode numbers nowadays instead of "episode 96" (4*22+8). This template provides the parameters | season = and | number = . However, using the inuitive | season = 5 | number = 8 currently shows up as No. 8, season 5 in the article refs or forces the editor to convert into | season = 5 | number = 96. If the display was switched to display the season number first, i.e. Season 5, no. 8 or Season 5, no. 96, both versions would makes sense. Would someone strongly disagree with a proposal to swap the parameters in the display? – sgeureka ^t•c 23:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this; the order does not much sense to me. Although, I would use Season 5, no. 8 rather than Season 5, no. 96, the latter making it sound like there are 96 episodes in the fifth season. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 01:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unwanted whitespace

{{editprotected}} The addition of the TfD template has created an unwanted white space before the template. Results can be seen at List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters‎#References. --Farix (Talk) 12:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

TfD closed; notice needs to be removed. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done by another user, but they forgot to tlx the template. The Helpful One 21:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Standardisation with other 'Cite xxx' templates

I noticed that Template:Cite video has been adapted to use the central Template:Citation/core which powers all major WP citation templates. This has many benefits including adding metadata, maintaining uniform output format, and supporting archive data. I have erected a test template at Template:Cite episode/citecore which appears to adequately reproduce the existing template. I have added one test case to Template:Cite episode/testcases, but would be greateful if others could be contributed, and if editors familiar with this template could comment on other possible problems. I am also a little confused by the many links which can be provided in this template and I'd be grateful if someone could check that I am handling them correctly. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of comment, I have pressed ahead with the change. It works will all examples specified here; if there are areas where the new template fails, then please provide a test case at Template:Cite episode/testcases so I can fix the bugs. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I think that, during the transition, the "season"/"seriesno" parameters were left out. Can someone take a look at this? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to ask Martin as he's been working with this. I'll drop a note on his talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look this evening. It might be helpful if you could give a couple of examples of real life cases employing these parameters. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The instance that got my attention was this:

"Semper Fidelis". NCIS. Season 6. Episode 24. May 12, 2009. 17:12 minutes in. CBS. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

Note, however, that |season= and |seriesno= don't even exist in the current template code, which is why they don't work. Not a difficult problem I'm sure, I just gave up on trying to decode the meta templating used in the various citation templates. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the wait. |season=, |number= and |seriesno= are now supported again. The numbers only show up if a season is specified - I assume that this is the correct behaviour. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably not: "Alternately, some shows prefer the format of a single episode number that includes the season within it; this format can be used by omitting the season field. Can only be used if the seriesno attribute is blank." (I was wondering why episode numbers disappeared from New Cutie Honey refs.) --an odd name 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This should be fixed now. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Strike this. I tried to make the fixes, but the damn frakking meta template is interfering. This isn't worth the frustration. (i.e., I'm completely irate at this point.) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To be very specific, it should be "If number (If season, then 'number, season' (else If seriesno, then 'number, seriesno')), then number". This accomplishes what AnOddName describes above, which is how it was previously displayed. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

After the fix to the template on 26 May 2009, numerous articles with incorrectly used parameters have shown up as reference errors. So the change is working. And providing me with what to fix. :) Debresser (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Episodelink not working

I just tried using this template in an article and noticed that "episodelink" is no longer working. For example, using a citation that was incuded in the above section:

"Semper Fidelis". NCIS. Season 6. Episode 24. May 12, 2009. 17:12 minutes in. CBS. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

Is this deliberate, or was it caused by this edit? --AussieLegend (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you let me know the expected behaviour, and also what the template should do when it is provided with a |url= as well as an |episodelink=? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What should happen is that |title= should link to the target specified by either |episodelink= or |url=, depending on which is present. In the example above, what you should see displayed is:

"Semper Fidelis". NCIS. Season 6. Episode 24. May 12, 2009. 17:12 minutes in. CBS. {{cite episode}}: Check |title= value (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

I don't know what used to happen when both |episodelink= and |url= were provided. I assume that |episodelink= overrode |url=. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As the template's documentation mentions, URL should not be used if Episodelink can be, so just make it an "If episodelink", "else URL" thing. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The best solution will require a modification of Template:link. I've activated a temporary solution until I gain consensus for that modification. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay I think the problem is that when the |episodelink= is a wikilink with spaces (e.g. List of NCIS episodes#ep137) it adds plus signs into the spaces. (e.g. List+of+NCIS+episodes#ep137). I'd like to see this fixed (but am not sure what is wrong) as currently a temporary fix is in place, but it still causes the problem. A dirty way round it would be to put underscores in the links (e.g. List_of_NCIS_episodes#ep137) as it leaves no room for "+"s to be inserted but this is not desirable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This might be fixed now; if it isn't, please give an example of the template performing incorrectly, alongside the desired output. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was working until this edit. For examples see the preceding conversation. Actually, even those examples, which did work, no longer work. Dates don't work anymore either. Maybe we should go back to the original code until somebody can work out what's wrong. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For now I've undone Martin's last edit. It seemed to be breaking all the episodelinks I came across and I was unaware of the previous version causing any problems. I'll ask Martin if there were any problems in that old edit. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that the "wikilink spaces expanded to + instead of _" problem is still there. -- Thinking of England (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is here, yob vashu mat'! Amend from + to _!--92.47.245.163 (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This problem still exists as of today. Arsonal (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to know why we can't go back to the old, working code, as I suggested over a month ago. Using buggy code is really unprofessional. Does anyone have an objection to going back to the working code? --AussieLegend (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you wanting to go back to the 4 June version, or the 18 February version (before the Citation/Core switch)? I'm all for the 18 February version, which actually works afaik, and will make the switch in a day or so unless someone can provide a solid reason not to. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the 18 February version was the last stable version so that would be the version to revert to. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okey it's back to the 18th of feb version for now.©Geni 00:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)