Question[edit]

How should this template be used when an episode article with alternate names gets merged/redirected? E.g. Citizen Joe and Citizen Joe (Stargate SG-1), and potentially Citizen Joe (Stargate SG-1 episode)? It's either episodes appearing as duplicates in the category, or not properly. – sgeureka t•c 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question. The best I was able to figure out from my readings last night/this morning would be to certainly put the ER to list entry on Citizen Joe (the article's "official name"), and the regular alternate name one on the rest? I could be wrong though. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last question (for now): I have previously used ((R from merge)) because of its message to not delete the redirect "in order to preserve its edit history" (for possible article resurrection), even when I merged nothing (because there was nothing to merge). Is it still advisable to use ((R from merge)) in such a case now, or can we expand the message of ((ER to list entry)) to also say something about not just deleting the redirect? – sgeureka t•c 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think either ER can be added, or just use both templates. I've been putting both when using it for a merge, and ER to list entry alone where the redirect was created just to be a shortcut to the list. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like it[edit]

And just wonder how it should be used. Do you add this to every episode that's been redirected or just one from a series? Also, do you do this to all episode articles that have been redirected or just ones where the redirection is contested? Hewinsj (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be for any episode that is redirected to an episode list page. Yes, it's a lot of work if a large episode set is merged down, but it does help for future referencing. --MASEM 16:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine, just checking for clarification. I'm working on moving episodes from an animated series to the list of episodes for that show, and while I prefer the list I wouldn't mind doing this while I'm at it. Hewinsj (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like the template too and would like to get ready to use it retroactively, but I don't like the template's name because it sounds like the hospital show. Does someone have a better idea? – sgeureka t•c 16:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately it follows other specific-type redirects (MER for middle earth topic redirects, CR for comic-related redirects.) Now, that's not to say we can create a template that redirects to the proper name for the redirect, maybe "EpR to list entry". --MASEM 17:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion...[edit]

As I see this is gaining use, I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to add an optional parameter to this function that identifies the TV series such that the categoriy of redirected episodes would populate (what should be) a subcategory "(show) episode redirects to lists" of the main "Episode redirects to lists" category. The only problem is that this requires a one-time step that once the sub-category is active, the sub-cat must be included in the "Episode redirects to lists" category; this step can be mentioned in the docs. --MASEM 15:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An excellent idea. This will be needed to make this manageable when the template gets widespread use. -- Ned Scott 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great idea. I had to read this a couple times to make sense of it; I suggest including a clear example in the docs. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've made the addition, and I already see people jumping on its use. Note that I've added a trackign category that we should be able to use to find articles that aren't sorted into series correctly. --MASEM 16:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting question here on this template use: Would it make sense that redirected episode articls should also include the general category for the TV series' episodes? In other words, what I've set up here is all WP administration and not general use. But for a casual user, if they click to "Stargate SG-1 episodes", would it not be reasonable to include all redirected episodes into that list? --MASEM 17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if you're referring to my action a few minutes ago, but I just did that for SG-1, and I think it works great. – sgeureka t•c 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made my comment below without looking at Category:Stargate SG-1 episodes. I agree this looks like the right way to organize these. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, not sure I understand. I'd say:
  • Redirected episode articles should be included in the category for the TV series' episodes. If possible, it should be a subcategory identified as redirects, so that editors using that list will know which links are redirects, and which are articles.
  • Lists of redirected episodes should not be included in articles because that is not reader-informative encyclopedic content.
/ edg ☺ ☭ 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Must be too early for me to verbalize this well :-)
As Sgeureka noted above, he classified the tv series specific episode redirection category as part of "stargate sg-1" episodes. Thus, that category contains 1) all the standalone episode pages spelled out, and 2) a subcat for the redirects. I think that's definitely a good idea. I was only suggesting on expanding that so that each episode (redirect or not) would be in that list for the non-editor to quickly find an episode by name, in addition to having the redirection sub-cat, but I see what you're saying about making it easy to identify better. --MASEM 18:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think such automatically generated complete lists would duplicate the purpose of (presumably existing, since we're redirecting to them) List of XXX episodes articles, which do the job better and without requiring the creation of probably unneeded redirects. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorting[edit]

Is there a way to add a sort argument to the template, or is this function perhaps already implemented? Currently an episode titled "The Horse" would sort under T rather than H, which is of course not the way we typically sort here.— TAnthonyTalk 00:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the moment, no, there isn't. Something to look into, for sure. Not sure if adding a defaultsort to the page would work or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added. Second parameter (not required) will allow you to set the sort key for the categories. --MASEM 05:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, thanks.—  TAnthony Talk 06:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template vs category[edit]

What reasons are there to use this template instead of the related category directly (or vice versa)? -- ToET 02:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same reason templates are used for any redirect page? (now, what that is, I don't know...off hand :P). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:Categorization#Categorization using templates would seem to indicate that direct category placement is preferred to template use. In WP:Categorizing redirects#When to categorize a redirect, under "Categories just for redirects" it says "They are often applied using templates, though such categories can also be created and populated directly." I am interested in the template vs direct categorization question in general, but my immediate concern is with regard to fixing a hundred or so broken (mistargeted) X-Files episode redirects. Some are already tagged with ((ER to list entry|The X-Files)) while others use [[Category:The X-Files episode redirects to lists]] directly. Which should I use for the untagged redirects, should I replace one style with the other in those redirects I am editing anyhow, and should I make that replacement in those redirects that I would not otherwise need to edit? -- ToET 03:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template is really preferred, I'd think, as it does the categorization automatically, and makes it easier to track them as a whole. So I'd replace those with direct category links with the template, to more clearly identify them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another feature that this one doesn't currently use is to add text to the redirect page to explain what the redirect is in addition to the category. Should that text be added, it will automatically appear on all redirects that use this, but not those pages that only use categories. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, templates it is. -- ToET 03:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:ER to list entry#Usage mentions a "nuisance" regarding category updates and gives a link to a bug that was closed as fixed a long time ago. Has this problem been resolved on WP and should the page be updated to reflect that? This issue also seems to be a main criticism of the template method at WP:Categorization#Categorization using templates. -- ToET 03:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a categorizing template along the lines of ((ER to episode)) for tagging those redirects to articles discussing individual episodes? (Not sure if such a thing would have any purpose -- just checking.) -- ToET 00:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, as it wouldn't really have much purposes. Articles usually are not merged into an individual episode article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I get a little confused when I see ((R uncategorized)) tags, such as on War of the Coprophages(The X-Files episode). WP:CAT-R#When to categorize a redirect starts out , "Most redirects should not be categorized", so that template seems to imply that something in particular is missing. I think I need to do some more reading. -- ToET 05:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issues with the name and scope of the template[edit]

Currently the template's name and description intend for this to be placed on episode redirects leading to a list of episode article. However, not all episode redirects are to these articles. Articles such as crossovers or multi-part story arcs, have redirects from the individual episodes leading to them, such as Legends of Today and Legends of Yesterday leading to Heroes Join Forces, or Attack on Central City and Attack on Gorilla City leading to Gorilla City (The Flash). The template name should probably be changed to Template:R from TV episode and it's text updated to reflect that it can also lead to targets like those given above. This will also make it similar to other fiction-related redirect templates like ((R from fictional character)), ((R from fictional element)) and ((R from fictional location)). --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC: The template wording's accuracy[edit]

Should this template say (in part):

  1. "The destination may be an article about a related episode, a subsection or a standalone list of episodes."
  2. "The destination may be an article about a series/programme, a subsection thereof, a standalone list of episodes, or a related episode."
  3. Something else?

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

Extended discussion

I opened this RfC because I'm being revert-warred by Gonnym with WP:REVTALK that doesn't make any sense, and he insisted on WP:BRD despite seeming to have his mind made up already. A charitable view of his previous proposal to re-scope this template (see thread above this one, with zero responses after months) is that pretty much no one watchlists this page, so more people need to be drawn to the discussion anyway.

The text has said (and has be re-re-reverted to say):
"The destination may be an article about a related episode, a subsection or a standalone list of episodes."

That does not accurately describe what this template is for. The following does (and also takes care to make sure the scope is clear to people with different English dialects):
"The destination may be an article about a series/programme, a subsection thereof, a standalone list of episodes, or a related episode."

I have objected to Gonnym reflexively mass-reverting all my revisions, including after my attempt to work in his concern to retain "a related episode" despite the rarity of that ever being relevant, yet he persists.

Gonnym's initial rationale was "the destination can be a related episode. An episode redirecting to a crossover article, alt name, etc." (Which was no reason to do anything but re-insert "a related episode".) So I put "a related episode" back in. "A related episode" is a rare edge case, such as (as he put it) a redir to a crossover article, or (one I remembered myself) a redir of e.g. part 3 of a 3-part serial to the first part because all 3 are covered at the same article. Together, such cases account for probably less than 1% of all present or future uses of this template. All of the rest of them are going to be what my version of the text says they will be: an article about a series/programme, a subsection thereof, or a standalone list of episodes.

Gonnym's rationale in round 2 of reverting for no clear reason is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT: "I disagree with your change", followed by this strange musing: "The destination cannot be a 'series/programme' if it doesn't mention the episode, which is why it clearly says "sub section", "list of episodes" or a "related episode". If it's just a general series article with no episode section it shouldn't exist in the first place."

No one said anything about "doesn't mention the episode". That's part of the general redirect rules, and has nothing to do with TV in particular; WP:RFD will simply delete redirects that go to pages that don't mention the redirected topic. Next, it's entirely reasonable for an article on a short miniseries to just present its three or so episodes in prose form, without a tedious table-formatted list (despite WP:WPTV wikiproject formatting obsessions, which cannot actually be forced on other editors; see also WP:OWN: wikiprojects and other little knots of editors cannot lay claim to topics that interest them). So, no, it absolutely is not required that there be a list or other sectional redirect target in order for this rcat to be used. Even if there is an embedded list, there is no requirement that it have its own section heading (see MOS:ELIST), and such a list is not "a standalone list" (see MOS:SAL). So, the original/reverted-to wording is simply incorrect, as is the reasoning for reverting to it. PS: Gonnym's last statement is hard to parse, but seems to suggest that we cannot even have an article on a TV show if it doesn't have an episode list, or that we cannot have a redirect for an episode name if the parent article on the series does not contain an "episode" section; both of those assertions are patently false, though I suppose the expression might have some third meaning I didn't ferret out.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your entire comment here reeks of WP:PERSONALATTACKS with a dash of no WP:GOODFAITH at all. Calling another editors edits being done "reflexively" and categorizing another editor who reverted your bold change with "edit warring" is extremely misleading, borderline lying. The fact that you don't respect WP:BRD, as you feel your edit is the status-quo and any revert is wrong, is very troublesome. Additionally categorizing the reverts as "mass-reverting" and making two revisions become "all my revisions", when in fact, they were the almost the same edit with a couple of words difference is again showing how your behavior is very troubling. I suggested you go to the talk page and have a discussion as edit summaries aren't the place for it (as WP:BRD suggests), but you completely ignored all parts of WP:DISPUTE and jumped to a RfC. Amazing.
Now for the actual issue. You say that multi-episode articles are a small percent. I agree. You mention that it can be for a short miniseries in prose form without a section. Even if you'd ignore the Manual of Style on how articles should be structured, those cases you mentioned are at best, at the same small percent as the multi-episode articles, if not less. So your argument then about small use-cases is irrelevant. Additionally, you claim that the scope now takes into account different English dialects. First of all, that is incorrect. You used "series/programme", where is "program", which is the actual corresponding word for "programme". Continuing from this, your addition was never necessary, as the template never had any issue with different English dialects, which your edit introduced. In addition to it not being needed and not actually resolving the issue of different dialects, your addition also introduced an unnecessary issue of specifying a program type. You wrote "series" and "programme", what about "miniseries", "serial", "talk show", "game show", etc? All these are valid type of series types we use in disambiguation. If you choose two types, why not 3? Why not 4? Why not all of them? The reason they were never listed, is because they are not necessary. To complete this, you also ignored MOS:SLASH. To repeat what I said in the edit summary - an episode redirect can redirect to another episode article, a section of another article - be it the main series article or some other article, or to a list of episodes articles.
Basically what we have here is SMcCandlish using WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the current version of the text and claiming another editor is using it and at the same time saying That [the current text] does not accurately describe what this template is for when both versions in this RfC describe accurately the template. The issue is the selection of words. But what does facts matter in 2020? Also, as SMcCandlish pointed out, unlike his bold edits, I actually posted on the talk page and waited for responses and when they didn't come, went to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect#Template talk:R to TV episode list entry to get consensus for the change. Finally, the current wording of the text is consistent with those of ((R from fictional character)), ((R from fictional element)) and ((R from fictional location)). --Gonnym (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just going to skip most of that; I opened this as an RfC specifically to get others to comment instead of going back-and-forth with a single individual over and over again. Reasoned criticism of behavior and weak rationales isn't an "attack". Not a single argument you're making above is persuasive; it's venty hand-waving about side-matter trivia that has nothing to do with the substance of the matter. (And if you don't even understand that "programme" is a generic term for "TV show" in most forms of Commonwealth English, not a specific genre of TV show, I dunno what to tell you. But I don't care much about inclusion of the word; I just noticed that these templates/categories tend to be rather US-English-heavy.) My edit to the wording correctly indicates where these redirects can go; yours does not; it over-dwells on one rare edge case, while excluding various other cases which are actually permissible. I've already been over all this and more, and decline to be drawn into recycling it all in detail with you. If you're going to revert people, you need to have an actual reason or you come off as territorial, combative, disrespectful of others' time and effort, and generally unreasonable. You're the one doing IDONTLIKEIT here, plus a dose of WP:IDONTKNOWIT and something that sounds like WP:VESTED. I'm not likely to come back here unless someone pings me. This can just run its RfC month and settle out as it will. I notified WT:WPTV, WT:MOSTV, and WT:NCTV of this RfC, plus there's WP:FRS (which usually takes a few days to kick in). What I actually expect is a "Version 3" result that fine-tunes further. That's how these things usually go.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yikes, I hate to see two editors whose work I admire locked in a battle to the death. Regarding the template wording, I do prefer the organization of Option 2, placing "related episode" at the end as this seems to be a rare situation (I've never seen an episode redirect that does this). Gonnym made a point that this template is also rarely used to redirect to a series (American usage) article and not a section. I've worked with episode redirects a lot and I do think the primary applications are redirecting to standalone lists, or sections of series or season articles. How about reversing the progression, and saying "... a standalone list of episodes, a series/programme or subsection thereof, or a related episode." Also, I'm not sure wht is being referred to with the term "multi-episode article". Thanks!— TAnthonyTalk 15:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I've smoothed things over with Gonnym in e-mail; I should not have been so testy! I'm happy to have the exact wording and word order tweaked. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories