Template talk:Future episodes editnotice

Navbar[edit]

You can remove the navbar markup. The editnotice code has been updated so that a "page notice" link now appears just above the notice. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template causing problems with Twinkle[edit]

Twice now, I've had problems with Twinkle's rollback function that were caused by errors in this template. The first was caused by an extraneous </span> tag.[1] The second was caused by a missing </span> tag.[2] Both problems have been fixed but since they were both caused by </span> tags, I thought it prudent to alert anyone editing this template of the problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide URL[edit]

Clicking the TV Guide link will take a user to an episode list for "Sonny with a Chance", can this please be fixed? Also, while I am suggesting changes, I don't see a need for a link to the RS redirect, it could link directly to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. 117Avenue (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Edit protected}} Please replace the text parameter with the following:

Future episode information including '''titles''', '''air dates''' and '''summary descriptions''' require '''[[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|references]]'''. Future episode information without the required references will be deleted. A good source of information is [http://www.tvguide.com/search/index.aspx?keyword=Future+episodes+editnotice TV Guide].

Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 117Avenue, 29 January 2011[edit]

{{edit protected}} Please add the | expiry = {{{expiry|}}} parameter. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 12 April 2015[edit]

‹ The template below (Edit template-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace: {{#ifeq:{{{source|}}}|none||A good source of information is {{#switch:{{{source|}}}|radiotimes=[http://www.radiotimes.com/search?q={{urlencode:{{{searchterm|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}}}} Radio Times]|#default=[http://www.tvguide.com/search/index.aspx?keyword={{urlencode:{{{searchterm|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}}}} TV Guide]}} With: {{#if:{{{source|}}}||A good source of information is {{{source}}}}}

Reason:

Not all articles or lists of episodes that can use this template are listed at TV Guide. For example, articles about current Japanese television series. Wikipedia has a rather extensive list of Japanese anime programing and there are over 20 articles/lists about ongoing series. This will remove TV Guide form being automatically mentioned by default. On top of that, there were concerns expressed at the Village Pump about TV Guide's reliability. Regardless of its reliability as a source, given that TV Guide is a very US-centric publication, having it display by default does not encourage a WP:WORLDVIEW use of the template.

—Farix (t | c) 16:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to remove Radio Times as well? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was inside the if statement that displayed displayed the TV Guide link by default. If you like to suggest an alternative, that's fine, but the template should not display such links by default. —Farix (t | c) 20:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't. It was inside the if statements that displayed a link (not necessarily the TV Guide one) if |source=none was not specified. But how about this? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If suppressing the |source= is the default behaviour, why do we need the #ifeq condition? Alakzi (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See testcases, under "Main template", with |source=none (third test of five). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so omitting the parameter, leaving it blank, and setting it to "none" all have the same effect. Would you be OK with this? Alakzi (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Based on the results on the /testcases page, |source=invalid value results in:

ADDITION OF FUTURE EPISODE INFORMATION

Future episode information including titles, air dates and summary descriptions require references. Future episode information without the required references will be deleted. Error: "invalid value" is not a valid option for |source=.

which is broken. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fixed that yesterday in the sandbox, so

Done. Alakzi (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 27 October 2023[edit]

‹ The template below (Edit template-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Semantic correctness (for copy-paste), visual changes should be done in CSS (as is done here). Refer to Template:Allcaps/doc. 84.250.15.152 (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: Izno (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]