Template talk:Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon episodes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Template talk:Game of Thrones episodes
)
WikiProject iconA Song of Ice and Fire Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of A Song of Ice and Fire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconTelevision: Episode coverage Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Unnecessary hiding of episodes

My edit yesterday to simplify the template's navigation was reverted by

Wikipedical (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

There is no need to display Season 5's episodes in the Season 3 article. With this logic, no season is linked twice, as the link is unlinked on the respective article that the template is used, and the only seasons linked are the alternate seasons. Likewise, it makes sense to display all of the episodes on the List of Episodes article. Updating the second of those templates with the same logic would be quite beneficial; the other two are not episode templates, they encompass the entire series.
By the way, pings don't work when you add them after your initial post. -- /Alex/21 02:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no need to display Season 5's episodes in the Season 3 article." That's an opinion, though I can absolutely understand a reader wanting to switch from a Season 2 Desmond episode of Lost to a Season 5 episode, via
Wikipedical (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Why the decision to make it 600+ episodes? Where does that come from? That's just another opinion, just as you stated that my opinion is only an opinion. Template:Doctor Who episodes only has 287 stories, but the template would be terrible unwieldy to display in full on every season and episode article. The format was updated almost two years ago, and as far as I can tell, there has been no disagreement from the number of editors that have edited the template, or the hundreds that have seen and used it. Sure, navigation template should be as simple as possible, but they should also be as intuitive as possible. -- /Alex/21 01:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Wikipedical's reasoning here, it's much more logical. I'm fairly certain the "600+ episodes" thing is a reference to The Simpsons episode count, and is not meant to be a suggestion of a literal guideline. I've always found it completely cumbersome when certain episode templates are coded this way and you can only see the links listed for that season. It's actually how I found this discussion and was wondering why it was done being this way; which is why I suggest bringing this to
MOS:TV to gain a wider consensus, because I don't think many people will see this. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Per Drovethrughosts' suggestion, I notified WP:TV and MOS:TV about this discussion. It's been a week since I opened this discussion, with Alex 21 as the only one opposing. I agree with Alex' reasoning when it comes to larger templates with greater episode counts, but with regards to GoT, I concur with other editors that displaying all episodes is not problematic. I believe that there is a greater consensus to reinstitute the change here at this time. --

Wikipedical (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]