Talk:My Babysitter's a Vampire (TV series)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Merging
Wondering if its probably better to merge this page with the article on the TV series? Either that or link this page to it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The episode article can be merged back with My Babysitter's a Vampire, The Series if necessary. I only made a separate article for the episode list because I thought that's how most TV show articles were set up.... If it should be part of this article, then I'd be okay with merging it. Otherwise, I think it should be kept the way it is. Alphius 03:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I put links between the articles on both pages. Alphius 03:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Move
I think this page should be moved to My Babysitter's a Vampire (TV series) and the page for the film should be moved to My Babysitter's a Vampire (film). It seems like that way would fit better with the normal naming process. Alphius 03:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. It would be much better than the current title. -- CollisionCourse (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Another Big Mistake
Why Isn't My Babysitter's a Vampire a Disney Show? I Saw it on Disney Channel! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.125.238 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because Disney Channel is paying to show it, that's why. - Purplewowies (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
2nd Season
Okay, does anyone have proof of a 2nd season? Links are a must. I deleted everything that had to do with it. There was a episode guide, but not a single link. Plus, it should of been under "Episodes" to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALT2870 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
i airs in norway
at least on disney channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Character names
Two of the actors in the show have expressed a desire to give their characters a last name and have proposed names they desire. So far the writers of the show and the producers have not acted on that proposal so any name they come up with is not in any way the official name of the character. This article reflects show credited names from official show documentation and show credits. Off-show musings by employees of how they think things should be don't belong here, they don't represent the production. This article should also reflect the official credited name. Some name enhancements are revealed in passing in a show episode. This level of somewhat trivial detail belongs in List of My Babysitter's a Vampire characters, not here, and should be backed up in that article with references in the article that gives details of what episode, time stamp in that episode and info on how the name was revealed. See {{cite episode}} for details of a correct citation to the info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Last season
Isn't it already over? 85.101.203.1 (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's over. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Infobox
Discussion regarding various disputes relating to the infobox in this article has been collected here. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Original run
User:Geraldo Perez, what valid removed info are you talking about? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Alternate title - First aired on Télétoon so initial title as aired on that channel. Also as initial channel was Télétoon, series run dates are for that channel. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, the original channel is the English-language Teletoon for the simple reason that it was the channel primarily involved in the production of the show. After all, the show was produced in English and then dubbed into French, not the other way around. The mere fact that the show began airing on the French-language channel some days earlier is inconsequential. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree about the inconsequential. Fact is that it initially aired on Télétoon and Télétoon did show the complete run. Instructions for parameters at Template:Infobox_television say "first_aired" is "Date the show first aired" and "last_aired" is "The original air date of the show's last episode". First aired on Télétoon February 28, 2011 and last episode premiered October 5, 2012 on Disney so those should be dates used in infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, this situation is analogous to that of the show first airing in a foreign country. Template:Infobox television/doc states that "[t]he country or region where the show was first broadcast" should be placed in the first_run parameter, not the country parameter. If the first_run parameter accepted broadcasters instead of countries, the French-language channel would go there; as it does not, that channel is simply to be omitted from the infobox altogether. The English-language channel is still to be deemed to be the original channel for purposes of the infobox in all cases. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- First_run is a different issue. Should probably be joint US/Canada as the runs overlapped. Télétoon is a Canadian TV channel. Canada is officially French/English. Canada was the country of first broadcast and the broadcast was on a Canadian TV channel. Template instructions are for first_aired are pretty straight-forward as are the instructions for last_aired. This case is more complex as 3 tv channel aired the series. Still the first episode had a premiere date and the last episode had a premiere date, irrespective of what channel those episodes aired on. Those are the dates that should go in the infobox per the instructions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, it makes very little sense to have the premiere date be from one channel and the finale date from another given that the label used by the infobox is "Original run" - how can it be a "run" if it's not on a single channel? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Still, the instructions for the parameters don't seem to care about this, just the facts of when the first and last episodes first aired. This situation is more complex as the show ran simultaneously and overlapped on 3 channels. The episode list article covers Disney and both Canadian channels giving dates for each episode on each channel. "first_run" says "country or region where the show was first broadcast", not just country. "first run" could say "US and Canada" as a region instead of just listing a single country and that would match what the text in the lede and the episode list article cover. Treat the 3 channels as a single run with 3 outlets is my suggestion as that is the way the subject is basically covered in article text. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, this suggestion entails essentially treating a channel that had precisely squat to do with the production of the show as an original channel (I'm referring to Disney Channel, of course). That is wildly inconsistent with what I have seen elsewhere and so I simply cannot support it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fresh TV (not Teletoon) was the production company and sold the show to various channels. Teletoon was the initial buyer followed by Disney for season 1, Disney was the initial outlet, followed by Teletoon for season 2. Basically Disney has as much responsibility overall for the show being produced as Teletoon. This particular show is somewhat unique so justifies being documented differently than other shows. It is much simpler to just treat Disney/Teletoon as a single combined run and document the show that way. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, have you watched the show - more specifically, the show's credits? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I have watched the show, every episode, thus my involvement in this article for the last two years. What's the point you wish to make about the credits and why is that relevant to this discussion and how the show is documented? --Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, are you aware that Teletoon is mentioned not once but twice in the credits - the second time with a "Teletoon Original Production" animation that lasts for several seconds - while Disney Channel is not mentioned in any way whatsoever? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I have watched the show, every episode, thus my involvement in this article for the last two years. What's the point you wish to make about the credits and why is that relevant to this discussion and how the show is documented? --Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, have you watched the show - more specifically, the show's credits? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fresh TV (not Teletoon) was the production company and sold the show to various channels. Teletoon was the initial buyer followed by Disney for season 1, Disney was the initial outlet, followed by Teletoon for season 2. Basically Disney has as much responsibility overall for the show being produced as Teletoon. This particular show is somewhat unique so justifies being documented differently than other shows. It is much simpler to just treat Disney/Teletoon as a single combined run and document the show that way. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, this suggestion entails essentially treating a channel that had precisely squat to do with the production of the show as an original channel (I'm referring to Disney Channel, of course). That is wildly inconsistent with what I have seen elsewhere and so I simply cannot support it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Still, the instructions for the parameters don't seem to care about this, just the facts of when the first and last episodes first aired. This situation is more complex as the show ran simultaneously and overlapped on 3 channels. The episode list article covers Disney and both Canadian channels giving dates for each episode on each channel. "first_run" says "country or region where the show was first broadcast", not just country. "first run" could say "US and Canada" as a region instead of just listing a single country and that would match what the text in the lede and the episode list article cover. Treat the 3 channels as a single run with 3 outlets is my suggestion as that is the way the subject is basically covered in article text. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, it makes very little sense to have the premiere date be from one channel and the finale date from another given that the label used by the infobox is "Original run" - how can it be a "run" if it's not on a single channel? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- First_run is a different issue. Should probably be joint US/Canada as the runs overlapped. Télétoon is a Canadian TV channel. Canada is officially French/English. Canada was the country of first broadcast and the broadcast was on a Canadian TV channel. Template instructions are for first_aired are pretty straight-forward as are the instructions for last_aired. This case is more complex as 3 tv channel aired the series. Still the first episode had a premiere date and the last episode had a premiere date, irrespective of what channel those episodes aired on. Those are the dates that should go in the infobox per the instructions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, this situation is analogous to that of the show first airing in a foreign country. Template:Infobox television/doc states that "[t]he country or region where the show was first broadcast" should be placed in the first_run parameter, not the country parameter. If the first_run parameter accepted broadcasters instead of countries, the French-language channel would go there; as it does not, that channel is simply to be omitted from the infobox altogether. The English-language channel is still to be deemed to be the original channel for purposes of the infobox in all cases. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree about the inconsequential. Fact is that it initially aired on Télétoon and Télétoon did show the complete run. Instructions for parameters at Template:Infobox_television say "first_aired" is "Date the show first aired" and "last_aired" is "The original air date of the show's last episode". First aired on Télétoon February 28, 2011 and last episode premiered October 5, 2012 on Disney so those should be dates used in infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, the original channel is the English-language Teletoon for the simple reason that it was the channel primarily involved in the production of the show. After all, the show was produced in English and then dubbed into French, not the other way around. The mere fact that the show began airing on the French-language channel some days earlier is inconsequential. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Still those are production companies which are separable from broadcast companies. Teletoon, Freemantle, FreshTV and a bunch of other companies including support from Canada and Ontario were involved in the production and listed in the credits. Disney was not involved in the production. However the point still stands that Disney overlapped initial broadcast with Teletoon and did start airing season 2 before Teletoon did. The article as it exists now gives equal weight to Disney in the article descriptions. Without a major rewrite of this and the episode list article to drop Disney the infobox should reflect that. If going by single channels the choices are Télétoon February 28, 2011 to April 11, 2013, Teletoon March 14, 2011 to December 6, 2012 or Disney June 27, 2011 to October 5, 2012. The infobox instructions as explicitly written support February 28, 2011 to October 5, 2012 and that should be what the article reflects. We don't need to complicate things any further. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, it seems we have a fundamental disagreement on this issue. Unless there is some sort of viable compromise here - something which I have been unable to come up with - I suppose formal dispute resolution is in order. Let me know if you can think of a suitable compromise or if you prefer to proceed with formal dispute resolution. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- My suggestion of using February 28, 2011 to October 5, 2012 was a compromise over leaving the article as it is with the original channel Télétoon having its initial run February 28, 2011 to April 11, 2013. It also was more conferment with the instructions in the template instructions. You wish to make a change and also to deviate from the template instructions as written. If you wish formal dispute resolution, got for it. I'm happy enough to leave things as they were for now or see what other's may have to say about this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, in my view, your suggestion is actually further from a compromise than the original situation. Recall that my view is that only the airdates from the English-language Teletoon should be included. Introducing a third channel in this situation only makes things worse in my opinion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is what is a first run and why should it matter anyway to first and last aired attributes. Disney did complete the initial airing of new episodes first. They started last but finished first. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, in my view, your suggestion is actually further from a compromise than the original situation. Recall that my view is that only the airdates from the English-language Teletoon should be included. Introducing a third channel in this situation only makes things worse in my opinion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- My suggestion of using February 28, 2011 to October 5, 2012 was a compromise over leaving the article as it is with the original channel Télétoon having its initial run February 28, 2011 to April 11, 2013. It also was more conferment with the instructions in the template instructions. You wish to make a change and also to deviate from the template instructions as written. If you wish formal dispute resolution, got for it. I'm happy enough to leave things as they were for now or see what other's may have to say about this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Geraldo Perez, I have requested a WP:3O regarding this issue. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, note that while awaiting a response to my request, I have attempted a partial compromise by adding the English-language Teletoon to the infobox without removing anything related to this discussion - after all, given that English is one of the languages listed in the infobox, it doesn't make sense not to have at least one English-language channel listed. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- That is permitted per infobox instructions for that attribute - "The original channel/channels or network/networks on which the show appeared or appears." so that is fine with me. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would also support changing last_aired to December 6, 2012 as we are basically treating both Teletoon networks as the same outlet, just different languages. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, I appreciate your statement regarding the change that I recently made as well as the fact that you support a proposal for further compromise. Unfortunately, I feel that your proposal would actually make the situation worse because of the "Original run" infobox label that I mentioned above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is consistent with listing both Teletoons as original networks. If this article considers Teletoon and Télétoon having simultaneous runs then the first_aired premiering on Télétoon and last_aired premiering on Teletoon works. The "First run" label matches the two networks listed in the "Broadcast" infobox section. Besides Télétoon and Teletoon are owned by the same company, just a language difference. Teletoon production company is responsible for both - that was your original concern in reading your original comments. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Geraldo Perez: Very well - I've decided to make the change, at least until my request is responded to. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is consistent with listing both Teletoons as original networks. If this article considers Teletoon and Télétoon having simultaneous runs then the first_aired premiering on Télétoon and last_aired premiering on Teletoon works. The "First run" label matches the two networks listed in the "Broadcast" infobox section. Besides Télétoon and Teletoon are owned by the same company, just a language difference. Teletoon production company is responsible for both - that was your original concern in reading your original comments. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, I appreciate your statement regarding the change that I recently made as well as the fact that you support a proposal for further compromise. Unfortunately, I feel that your proposal would actually make the situation worse because of the "Original run" infobox label that I mentioned above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Geraldo Perez, as I doubt that a response to my request is forthcoming even this second time around, I've decided to drop this issue at this time as well assuming there is indeed no such response, with the interim compromise we have already agreed to remaining in place at least for now. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Image size
- Also see WP:IMGSIZE - images over 220px are not recommended. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, I cannot find such a statement at that link - could you provide an exact quote? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Default is 220px, don't define larger unless good reason to do so. Along with a bunch of reasons large images are not recommended. Infobox has a default width, making images larger than that forces the infobox width to get larger too which is also not desirable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, please provide a citation for the first sentence, as consistency with other articles takes precedence in the absence of such a citation. Also, where is it stated that that is the default width of an infobox (as opposed to an image)? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- A better description is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Forced image size - "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default". As for the infobox try different sized images, for small images the infobox stays the same size. For larger image widths the infobox widens to expand to accommodate the larger image. I don't see how "If an exception to the general rule is warranted" can be justified here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, I've taken a look at articles for some of the most popular TV shows (read: heavily-edited articles) and 250px seems to be the accepted standard. What do you think of using that value instead? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would prefer to stick with the default but 250px is tolerable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, I've taken a look at articles for some of the most popular TV shows (read: heavily-edited articles) and 250px seems to be the accepted standard. What do you think of using that value instead? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- A better description is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Forced image size - "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default". As for the infobox try different sized images, for small images the infobox stays the same size. For larger image widths the infobox widens to expand to accommodate the larger image. I don't see how "If an exception to the general rule is warranted" can be justified here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, please provide a citation for the first sentence, as consistency with other articles takes precedence in the absence of such a citation. Also, where is it stated that that is the default width of an infobox (as opposed to an image)? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Default is 220px, don't define larger unless good reason to do so. Along with a bunch of reasons large images are not recommended. Infobox has a default width, making images larger than that forces the infobox width to get larger too which is also not desirable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, I cannot find such a statement at that link - could you provide an exact quote? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Geraldo Perez, note that I have implemented the compromise I mentioned above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
List template
User:Geraldo Perez, I decided to use the other template precisely because it is in fact easier, not harder, to maintain. For one thing, everything is kept on one line, which makes identifying parameters in the source significantly easier. For another - and this point particularly concerns maintenance - the template I used does not (necessarily) use whitespace, which I have found extraneously added extremely often and which is also extremely difficult to spot for the obvious reason of it being invisible. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- UBL and plainlist are both permitted in the template instructions. I find plainlist significantly easier to read in the source, reorder if necessary and added per-entry comments if needed. Also much easier for me to spot changes with diffs. I see no good reason to change what is already there as long as it conforms to the template instructions. Also since you did a bunch of changes all at once, including reformatting, it was extremely difficult for me to see exactly what was changed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- UBL started to become popular before plainlist was specified. I agree that the plainlist format is much easier to use. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
@User:Geraldo Perez and User:AussieLegend: Unbulleted list requires entering a single pipe character and then typing in the actual list entry. Plainlist requires creating a newline and a bullet point and ensuring that the indentation and spacing are consistent and that there are no extraneous spaces - and only then typing in the actual list entry. That's a ratio of 1:5 required actions in favour of Unbulleted list, so I do not see how Unbulleted list is not far, far easier to use, much less how it is harder. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Entries are easier to read and reorder and add comments to with each entry on its own line. UBL as you used it strings everything together in a single long line, much harder to modify, much harder to see what is actually in the list in the source, harder to see changes using diffs. You can of course put each entry in its own line using UBL but then it is basically the same as plain list only with a 9 entry limit that plain list doesn't have. You prefer one over the other, others disagree with your choices - both are permitted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, Template:Unbulleted list supports an unlimited number of entries according to its recent edit history. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- So size is no longer an issue as it was in the past. See also WP:UBLIST, HTML output is basically identical for both and only real format difference if putting each entry on a single line is using "|" instead of "*" for delimiters at start of line. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, that's the very difference that I just explained makes things easier, not harder. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how swapping a * character for a | character makes any difference at all, given putting each entry on its own line. My major objection is putting all the entries on a single long line which you don't need to do with UBL if it is used. I disagree about making things easier, it isn't for me, and I do care about easily watching for changes and maintaining an article. If you had used UBL with each entry on a its own line, I wouldn't have cared - a style difference accomplishing the same thing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- The readability of UBL has always been an issue with editors. Placing the content on separate lines makes it much harder to read the infobox and causes editing issues. Plainlist doesn't suffer the problems of UBL. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:AussieLegend, did you mean to state the opposite in the second sentence? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, I didn't. UBL in the format {{UBL|item 1|item 2|item 3|...|item x}} is difficult to read when you have a number of items, but when you place the items on separate lines, it makes the infobox code confusing because of the pipes. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- @User:AussieLegend: I understand now... perhaps you should have mentioned the pipe characters in the sentence, though. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, I didn't. UBL in the format {{UBL|item 1|item 2|item 3|...|item x}} is difficult to read when you have a number of items, but when you place the items on separate lines, it makes the infobox code confusing because of the pipes. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:AussieLegend, did you mean to state the opposite in the second sentence? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- The readability of UBL has always been an issue with editors. Placing the content on separate lines makes it much harder to read the infobox and causes editing issues. Plainlist doesn't suffer the problems of UBL. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how swapping a * character for a | character makes any difference at all, given putting each entry on its own line. My major objection is putting all the entries on a single long line which you don't need to do with UBL if it is used. I disagree about making things easier, it isn't for me, and I do care about easily watching for changes and maintaining an article. If you had used UBL with each entry on a its own line, I wouldn't have cared - a style difference accomplishing the same thing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, that's the very difference that I just explained makes things easier, not harder. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- So size is no longer an issue as it was in the past. See also WP:UBLIST, HTML output is basically identical for both and only real format difference if putting each entry on a single line is using "|" instead of "*" for delimiters at start of line. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Geraldo Perez, Template:Unbulleted list supports an unlimited number of entries according to its recent edit history. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Geraldo Perez and User:AussieLegend, I've decided to drop this issue at this time as it seems unlikely that I will be able to convince either of you to change what you think on this matter and I don't want to pursue formal dispute resolution for this right now. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Empty parameters
User:AussieLegend, empty parameters should be included so that other users can easily fill them in if appropriate. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Generally, that is correct, but there are some parameters that will never be filled so they are normally left out (e.g.
|based_on=for original series,|writer=and|director=(most programs have different writers and directors for each episode),|presenter=,|judges=,|voices=and|narrated=where they don't apply to the series,|location=where the country of origin is the same as the country of filming, etc}. We also generally leave out parameters with a very low likelihood of being used, like|followed_by=and|related=. Instead of warning experienced editors for doing what is pretty much standard practice, perhaps you could ask why they are doing so in future. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)- User:AussieLegend, what if your judgement is incorrect regarding one or more parameters for a particular show? By removing a parameter, you significantly reduce the chance that someone comes along and fixes such a mistake. Also, what if a show changes significantly? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Parameters can always be added if the need arises. Their absence from the infobox doesn't "significantly reduce" anything. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:AussieLegend, what if your judgement is incorrect regarding one or more parameters for a particular show? By removing a parameter, you significantly reduce the chance that someone comes along and fixes such a mistake. Also, what if a show changes significantly? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
User:AussieLegend, I've decided to drop this issue at this time with similar reasoning as that in the case above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Disney info in article should be treated as all other foreign outlets
Since Disney is a foreign broadcast for this Canadian show, all info for Disney should be in the "International release" section and Disney should be treated exactly the same as all other foreign broadcasts. This also applies to the list of episodes article. In general we don't have broadcast dates for foreign outlets in list of episodes articles so they should be removed for Disney there as well. This would be a significant change to both articles so needs consensus. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:TVINTL has a special provision for English-speaking countries; although the provisions in that section are not necessarily directly applicable to this, the (apparent) reasoning for that particular one - the fact that readers of the English-language Wikipedia may find certain information useful - is also why I strongly oppose any change of this type. (Note that usefulness does not apply to infoboxes in the same way, which is why I had what may seem to be a different opinion in the related discussion above.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Whether or not readers may find it useful to include Disney information in the episode list article, Geraldo Perez raises a valid point. We do generally restrict the date listings to the first run location, which is usually the country of origin. Regarding usefulness, I'm from Australia so I'd find it useful to see Australian dates, readers from the UK would no doubt like to see UK dates, New Zealand readers would find NZ dates useful and so on. Unfortunately we can't cater for all readers, which is one reason why we limit the dates we list. As this is a Canadian production we definitely should treat the US as we do for any foreign market. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)