Template talk:Episode table

Anchor parameter sometimes causes Lua error in Module:Episode_table at line 166

Adding parameter |anchor=s1 to Episode table in 99-1#Episodes, An Unsuitable Job for a Woman (TV series)#Episodes and Murder in Suburbia#Episode list causes

Lua error in Module:Episode_table at line 166: bad argument #1 to 'gsub' (string expected, got nil).

but worked in Always and Everyone#Episodes.

These are the only UK TV series articles that I’ve found so far that use Episode table. The majority of UK TV series articles use Episode list without Episode table. Around half of these have repeated episode numbers and no production code. Is it possible to set the anchor prefix in these cases? If not, could Episode list create an anchor using the episode title, or have a parameter to specify a text anchor, please? Jim Craigie (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Using parameters incorrectly can cause breakage of the code, and the module should not be coded to handle these. Looking at An Unsuitable Job for a Woman (TV series)#Episodes I see two problems. The first is that it is using {{Anchor}} inside the table. That is not supported in anyway. The second is that the {{Episode table}} is not using |overall=. When you have two series (=seasons) you should use the |overall= parameter and it's numbering as that is how the template (and the TV MoS) are designed to work. Once you fix these issues it should work correctly without needing you to add an anchor. --Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jim Craigie and Gonnym: I've implemented the changes Gonnym said. Jim, you can now link to each episode as follows: An Unsuitable Job for a Woman (TV series)#ep1, where the last number is the "overall" number, as that is its unique anchor id. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Link Production Code with its page definition

Something like:

[[Production_code_number|Production code number]]: Production code number

--Stdedos (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't link any other info in the headers, and I don't see the need for this to be linked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Implementing Template:Sronly

Koavf, state your opposition to the edit. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, As I wrote, there was no discussion about this here (or at WT:TV). Additionally, there is no language at MOS:TABLECAPTION saying that non-displaying captions should be default (and, in fact, the example cases are the opposite). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussions are not necessary for every edit. State your opposition to the edit. Read the template's documentation; the template is completely accessible, and is supported by consensus through the discussion that resulted in the template's creation. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with Alex. The implementation of the Sronly template allows this template to be fully compliant with MOS:ACCESS regarding captions and screen readers, but will hid the captions for non-screen reading devices when 99% of the time the caption's text is redundant and would not be necessary if it were not to comply with accessibility issues. For example, having an article A Great Show (season 1) and the episode table, coming right after an "Episodes" header, with the caption "A Great Show, season 1 episodes" is highly redundant and does not help a reader beyond it's use for a screen reader (which is great). So with this implementation, the screen reader can have the information it needs to help those readers, while not showing for others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, And in other cases, it wouldn't be highly redundant. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, if you have no further opposition, or no actual policy- or guideline-based reasons to oppose the edit, I'll be restoring it presently. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, I do have other objections: you should make this optional, not the default. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, I didn't say that discussion was necessary: you started the discussion. I also didn't say that a different template lacks consensus. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, you certainly did; you stated there was "no consensus" or discussion, making discussion necessary when you reverted with no policy- or guideline-based reason. For the hidden caption to be optional rather than default, there would need to be more cases where the caption would need to be visible than cases where the caption would not need to be visible. Can you provide proof that there are more of the former case than the latter? -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, "For the hidden caption to be optional rather than default, there would need to be more cases where the caption would need to be visible than cases where the caption would not need to be visible." Where are you getting this idea? Also, why is it necessary for one option in particular to be more popular for someone to have options? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, are unable to provide such cases?

Also, is there a reason why you decided to revert first, without discussing first? Discussing instead of automatically reverting, was that not part of the conditions for the release of your most recent block for edit-warring? -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, You answered my questions with questions. I reverted per WP:BRD. No, you are not understanding what edit-warring is or why blocks were instituted or evidently how to have a simple discussion with another person. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, no, you didn't. Per WP:BRD-NOT, BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes, and BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.

I'm trying to have a discussion with you. You made a claim. Can you provide such cases to support your claims, or not? If you cannot, then don't make claims you cannot back up. If you cannot, then there was and is no reason to revert. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, Common sense is that this should be optional just like it is with standard tables. Enforcing it that it doesn't display with no obvious documentation or ability to change it seems pretty common sense to me. If you want to have a discussion, how about you answer the questions I asked? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, so you realize that you didn't revert per BRD? Answer, then, why you reverted.

If anything, the invisible caption should be default with the option to display the caption, but so far, I've seen no examples of where this would be required, because none have been able to be provided. You're saying that "in other cases, it wouldn't be highly redundant", but have provided nothing to back this up. Why not?

Concerning "no obvious documentation", please don't lie. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)