THC Science

If first run is different than Country of Origin
Original channel	Cartoon Network
Original run	April 9, 2014 – present
First shown in	Canada on Teletoon; March 1, 2014 – present

*Infobox television*
Infobox television
Original release
Network	Cartoon Network
Release	April 9, 2014 –; present

*Infobox television*
Infobox television
Original release
Network	Teletoon
Release	March 1, 2014 –; present

Television Template‑class

	Television portal This 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.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Contradictory parameters

There are some contradictory instructions for some of the important parameters in this infobox. These are (with emphasis added for clarity):

Parameter	Explanation
channel or network	The original channel(s) or network(s) on which the show has appeared. Do not add foreign broadcasters here.
first_run	The country or region where the show was first broadcast.
first_aired	Date the show first aired on its original channel or network.
last_aired	The first airdate of the show's last episode on its original channel or network.

This causes a problem at TV series such as The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series). The series is American but first aired in Canada so Teletoon is a foreign broadcaster and therefore should not be in the |channel= field. Instead this should be Cartoon Network. Similarly, because |first_aired= and |last_aired= specify the "original channel", the US dates should be used in those fields. Including "Canada" in |first_run= per the instructions is misleading as the average reader would expect to see Canadian information, given Canada's location in the middle of the section and since that is where it first aired. The instructions either need to be rewritten, or the parameter relocated so that it's clear that the data is local and the foreign location is just a note. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How I'm reading this, all of this information should relate to the channel that corresponds to its country of origin. But, if this information does not correspond to where it was first broadcast (in Tom and Jerry's case), then we should use the parameters as such. What if we change as so: keep "channel" or "network", "first_aired" and "last_aired" as is, and change instructions for "first_run" to include country, channel and it's air dates, or default to the country of origin if not used. I'm expecting the output to be something like: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If first run is not different than Country of Origin
Original channel	NBC
Original run	January 1, 2014 (2014-01-01) – present (present)

That's not exactly what I was thinking of but it solves the problem and probably in a better way than what I was thinking. I'd be tempted to add fields for the foreign country dates so editors don't have to manually format the field. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When you presented this, it seemed logical to me. And yes, I just did a rough mock up, so I do believe a few new parameters may be needed. I'm seeing possibly three additional? If leaving |first_run=, then add one for the country's channel, and then one each for the start and end dates. And do note that the order they appear in the infobox will have to be adjusted to be clear as well (as I did in my mock up). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to call the new parameters. Adding _foreign to existing names seems rather simple and makes the intent of the parameters obvious, so we'd end up with first_aired_foreign, last_aired_foreign, channel_foreign and network_foreign. If we use your suggestion, network_foreign would simply be an alias for channel_foreign and used only for consistency with current parameters. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'd work too. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one else has commented, but I don't see why there would be any objections. Can you make these changes? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: Do you feel we can implement this? Are you able to do so? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no opposition, I'll have a look. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just pinging @Bignole: as an active WP:TV editor whose input is worth seeking. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds logical to me. I don't find this issue all that much to have a real opinion about it. What you've written up Favre seems appropriate. I'm ok with it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta hand it to Favre for some clear mockups there. I hope my silence was considered implicit acceptance.

The only note I have is that we please, please, please provide clear instructions in the docs. I will chase each of you 'round the moons of Nibia to get some clarity to the Infobox parameters! And I'm sorry I didn't participate in this discussion sooner. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I will chase each of you 'round the moons of Nibia" Yeah, look where that got Khan. ;) --AussieLegend (✉) 06:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not fail like Khan! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also arrived late. These discussions need listed in more places. I'm a WPTV troller and this should've been pinged there somehow. If my plate was less full, I would create a global Television issues area somewhere. — Wylie pedia 10:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CAWylie: Aussie made a post about this on the project talk page back at the end of April: here - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahso! Apologies for my dropped ball (or full plate). — Wylie pedia 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We have not acted on anything, so if you'd still like to weigh in, please do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about a {{Film date}}-type addition, used with a film's |release parameter? I.e.: {{Film date|2014|6|24|Canada}} returns:

June 24, 2014 (2014-06-24) (Canada)

That way, it shows where it first aired while retaining the original (normal) airing country's format (first run, last aired, channel)? Or Favre1fan93's previous suggestion. I'm sleepy, thus flexible. (EDIT: Or add a date to the second blue box's Canada up top? So it would say "First shown in: Canada (March 1, 2014)" as suggested.) — Wylie pedia 16:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:AussieLegend, User:Favre1fan93, User:Bignole, User:Cyphoidbomb, and User:CAWylie: can we finally deal with this at some point? Personally, I would simply drop the first_run parameter altogether, since such a fact can simply be noted outside the infobox instead, and the alternative addition of several parameters serves merely to clutter up the template from my point of view. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For my response, may I just point you to the last column of Template:Infobox_television#TemplateData, which clearly lists most of the template's parameters as optional. Translation: remove what is bothersome and/or unnecessary, thereby removing your "clutter", which doesn't show if empty. — Wylie pedia 09:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:CAWylie, here's some better reasoning: why are we elevating the status of a show in another country to the level of the infobox in the first place? Why is the fact that the show first aired somewhere else so important that it is afforded any spot(s) at all there? Note that this is an airing which could easily even be in a different language - are we going to have Wikipedians scouring sources with translators just to fill in some infobox field(s)? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because today's writers generally cannot generate one original thought and must use another country's ideas? Or a network cannot afford to produce their own series so they must mine others? Or simply the production schedule is stacked so other countries get it first? Finally, please stop pinging names. Some editors can comprehend properly worded responses. — Wylie pedia 21:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the "first_run" parameter be removed?

Please refer to the discussion above prior to stating an opinion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support (as nominator): I do agree that the fact that a given show first aired somewhere other than in the country of origin is likely a fact that should be noted somewhere in the relevant article. I just don't think the infobox is the right place for it, overloaded as it already is with parameters available for use. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Format and Genre parameters

OPTION 4 (MOSTLY)

Consensus favors deleting the Format parameter and requiring the Genre parameter to be reliably sourced. No clear consensus for what a limit on genres should be. There doesn't appear to be any discussion on whether a list of acceptable general genres should be created. (non-admin closure) Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Format and Genre parameters of Template:Infobox television have long been confusing and previous attempts to clear up the confusion have not been successful.

The format parameter was the first of the two parameters to be created for the infobox. In 2005, a user proposed that format be changed to genre, on the basis that format is ambiguous. The lack of clarity about what format means, has existed ever since. A user once explained that format refers to the medium of the show: Live Action, Broadway Play, Animation, etc. But is that actually the case? Is Soap Opera a format or a genre? Is tape a format? Is Reality TV a format? Police procedural? Magazine news program? And does the average editor understand the difference? There was a time when the format parameter was removed from the template, but it re-appeared, and has been in place for a decade. The format parameter is not commonly used today. The template docs cryptically explain it as "the format of the show". Our reliable sources (ex: Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic) tend to lump format and genre together under "genre" for example here, where the genre for SpongeBob is "Comedy, Animation, Kids".

Option 1 - Change nothing.
Option 2 - Delete both the Genre and Format parameters. Template:Infobox film, for example, does not contain a genre parameter.
Option 3 - Delete Format parameter. Leave everything else the way it is. Whatever the format is, will likely be explained in the lead or article body anyway.
Option 4 - Delete Format parameter. Require Genre parameter to be reliably sourced. Limit the number of genre to 4. (Optional: Create a list of acceptable general genre at WP:TVFAQ to exclude niche genres.)
Option 5 - Genre parameter should only contain entries from the "Literary genres" section of List of genres; the Format parameter should only contain entries from the "Film and television genres" section of the same list, with the exception of the entries in the "Live-action scripted" subsection since they largely duplicate the literary genres. ("Film and television genres" may be changed to "Film and television formats" and split in this case.)

Thank you for your input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Option 4 - Clearly something needs to be done, so option 1 should not even be considered. Format has always been problematic as nobody actually knows what it is supposed to be. Genres are widely used in the article lead and by WP:RS so I don't see any benefit with option 2. Unfortunately, a lot of articles contain genres that are clearly WP:OR so they need to be both defined and sourced. That eliminates option 3 because we can't leave things the way that they are. A discussion above highlighted the fact that List of genres contains some formats. Formats should not be in an article about genres. Instead the formats need to be removed and possibly added to Television program#Formats. It makes no sense to link TV infoboxes to literary genres when there is a specific "Film and television genres" section in List of genres. That gets rid of option 5. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 - According to my research, Genre was created to replace Format but it just didn't stick. Satisfactorily defining what a format is seems problematic, since there appears to be a lot of bleed-over between formats and genres. On the list at Television_program#Formats, comedy appears to be presented as a format, not as a genre. Police procedural is listed as a format, but also as a genre at List of genres#Film and television genres. In common usage, Format and Genre are basically the same thing, so unless there is a clear way to differentiate the two (for example, if format were to describe the physical attributes of the series: animation, live-action, single-camera) then that might make sense, but it's probably not our place to be redefining these concepts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 - Per my colleagues above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 - The above explanations by both AussieLegend and Cyphoidbomb point out the difficulties with the variable definition of format, and said it much better than I ever could. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Option 5; but if option 4 is chosen do not limit the number of genres to 4, as it's an arbitrary number and no reasoning has been put forward for using that particular number in this case - in other words, it's an example of WP:CREEP and thus violates WP:NOTBURO (and may possibly be ignored per WP:IAR because of that). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are supposed to summarise important points in the article, similar to the lead, and should not overwhelm articles by their presence, just as the length of the lead is supposed to be limited. It's standard practice to limit the number of individual entries in parameters so as not to overwhelm the article. This is one of the reasons that the instruction for the |writer= parameter say "Do not use if the show has many (5+) writers". If a parameter has too many entries, it's better to address it in the prose with a single link to the section in the infobox. We tend to ignore this principle only in the list of stars. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there's another parameter with a similar restriction I suppose it makes a bit more sense, but can we have some consistency here? Can we have either 5 here or 4 there? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number I chose is somewhat arbitrary--I'm not married to it. Sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes tend to use 2 or 3. I thought 4 would allow for some flexibility. My go-to example for genre idiocy is here, where 15 attributes are more than enough. 4 or 5 seem reasonable to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it seems I misread something... the numbers are actually 4 in both cases, since the other one says not to use it for 5. Just ignore that particular aspect of what I stated above then (although I'm still unsure about the limitation in principle)... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 - Unfortunately, that seems to be the best of those. I say "unfortunately" because the best thing would be to have a clear definition (with a list) of what a format is. Then the parameter could be kept. But, I guess that's not possible. As Cyphoidbomb pointed out, the closest thing we have is Television_program#Formats, and that's not clear and lacks references. This is somewhat similar to what is found in music (albums and artists) articles. There's a genre parameter, but some editors want a "style" parameter added, and since there's not one, it sometimes causes conflict because some want to add styles to the genre parameter, while others want to keep them out. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, with or without the format parameter there can be problems either way. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4. Without a solid definition, it's probably too confusing to retain. It is useful in listing "animated" vs "live action", such as in The Simpsons, but such details can easily be covered in the first sentence of the lead. If both "format" and "genre" disappeared, it wouldn't be a tragedy, but a brief, reliably sourced list of genres can be helpful to readers who simply want to know the basic details quickly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment: Genre should be limited to 2 at most, the main genre. The film articles only use the main genre, video games use the main genre(s). The inclusion of some genres is very liberal. According to House (TV series) is a dramedy, a medical drama, and a mystery. Having some humour doesn't make it a dramedy or a comedy, medical drama covers the show aptly, and mystery? Similarly Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a supernatural drama, a horror, action, and fantasy show. Supernatural drama covers the majority of the show, horror would probably be ok as well although i question if it wouldn't fall under Supernatural drama. In fact, the article on supernatural drama states that the show is marketed as supernatural drama and only incorporates elements of horror. And action? Having some fight scenes doesn't make it a primarily action-oriented show. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DWB: Infobox film doesn't have a Genre parameter. (Unless I'm missing it) If we're going to allow for the combination of formats and genres in the Genre parameter, I think it'll be difficult to limit it to two, since many of our sources typically ascribe 3-4 descriptions (a la comedy, animation, kids) or similar. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film infobox does not cover the genre parameter Cyphoid, but WP:FILMLEAD does, where it states: "the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." I agree with Dark, that it should be limited to two genres at most, as he pointed out that one or can cover the multiple facets of a show. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that TV shows take on far more flavors than film does, so trying to sum up a TV series can be harder in some cases. Friends was a "multi-camera, live-action, sitcom", whereas The Bernie Mac Show was a single-cam, live-action, sitcom. That's three main attributes to describe the most important elements of the series. On the other hand, we could just describe it as a comedy. Two seems oppressive. Six seems slopppy and undisciplined. I'm rambling. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me, in those examples, you gave a presentation classification (camera type), a style classification (live action vs animation) and then one genre. I don't see "single-cam" or "multi-cam" as a genre, much like in film, 3D is not a genre. Hope that made sense. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are cleverly recategorizing some of these terms.

Multi-camera is absolutely a format for television comedy (as difficult as format is to describe) and not merely a "presentation classification". The difference between a multi-camera sitcom and a single-camera sitcom is obvious in terms of tone and aesthetics. According to Jim vs M*A*S*H*. Animation is also absolutely a format. But also a genre. And though you call it a style, I think style refers more to the difference between Miyazaki and Kricfalusi. When I think of format, I think of the physical attributes of the series: Tape. Cameras. Paint on plastic cels. Etc. Anyhow, enough of what I think--I'll go back to my original example of SpongeBob, which has sourced mashup genre of Comedy, Animation, Kids and even Adventure, Animated and Comedy. That covers a lot of territory, and if sources can be found, how do we decide which one or two to use? Animation and Comedy because it's in both? Just comedy? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Implementation

I've implemented the above change in the template itself. All of the articles at Category:Articles passing format parameter to Infobox television need to be fixed, either by replacing the format parameter with the genre parameter, or by removing it entirely. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jackmcbarn, thank you for your closeout. Was there any consensus on whether or not genre should be reliably sourced? Do we need consensus, or is sourcing implied? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, consensus does require that genres be reliably sourced. Jackmcbarn (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation requirement for genre is overkill

I think requiring citations for genres is a bit overkill the way it's implemented here. If sources and the body of the article reinforce a particular genre then I don't see why you would need to provide citations after the genres listed in the infobox. Subgenres I can see, but the way its being required here is a bit silly. ₂₃W (talk · stalk)

Hi, 23W, part of the problem involves the numbers of children who keep turning normal genres like comedy into stuff like Black Comedy and Dramedy. Someone changed Kung Fu Panda into Comedy-Drama recently I think. (See also this extreme example. It's nuts!) The genre parameter is frequently misused and is a receptacle for interpretation, even beyond just the childish nonsense, which is no good. Now, maybe some broad genre are obvious and don't need sourcing, like comedy or animation, but then what differentiates fantasy from adventure as with Secret Mountain Fort Awesome, and why is it up to us to decide? If a comedy employs drama like every comedy on the planet does, is it a comedy-drama or a "dramedy" or just a regular comedy? I don't know why we wouldn't want to encourage references, either. Update: this was added shortly after I posted this reply. And then I found this recent edit and then these and then these and then this. Many users don't understand what these fields are for, but they are certainly not for listing every single storytelling element that a series employs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Order of "Starring" in the Infobox when new cast members are added.

Could I get a few opinions about the order of the stars in TV series infobox at Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Starring_order_in_Infobox. The statement that: "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show" seems clear to me, but one editor doesn't want to add the new people at the end. I think the policy should be adhered to for consistency unless there is justification and a consensus to change.AbramTerger (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slogan for soap operas articles

File:Para detallar.png

Preview.

Hello, I hope that I can understand. You could add a parameter that says "Slogan" for articles of soap operas. In the picture I put a screenshot for you to see what I mean. Take it from the article in wikipedia in Spanish. All operas have slogan, and I think it would be good to place in the template. And I say this only so that they are used in articles of telenovelas. Since operas are those most using the slogan. And it is not a method of advertising or something as well. Could you allow this parameter?.--McVeigh (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, didn't you already ask this question from your former identity, Damián80? There was no consensus for the change, and you gave up on the discussion because it no longer interested you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that was before, also at the time I had problems with some of the users who participated in the discussion. Why leave the discussion. Is that a case can not be another time is petition?.--McVeigh (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For me, we're back to the idea that a slogan is nothing more than a tagline. Taglines are marketing gimmicks and not actually part of the name of the program. If it was, then it wouldn't be a slogan, it would be a subtitle. So, I'm not in favor of adding slogans to the infobox. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what is for you a motto?, in other wikipedias do not think the same. In the wikipedia in Spanish if you may and here not?. I know that the wikipedia in Spanish is another language and have different rules. But I don't understand what the problem of using "slogans" in this wikipedia. They are not a way to make widespread or advertising.--McVeigh (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that anything has changed since the last discussion so I'm not convinced that there is any benefit in adding a field for slogans, or supporting their use in the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The motto/slogan/tagline serves no obvious purpose, and there is no reason to expand the infobox template to include something that is of unclear necessity, and that the vast majority of TV shows do not use. "My Heart is Yours: Although I did not expect it." What is the point? If the tagline is relevant, shouldn't it be addressed in the article somewhere? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ehmm, well I see not interested in proposing, so you earn well. But I am not going to leave the discussion, wait to see if more users are involved. Because the slogan could be used as subtitles, but in a different way.--McVeigh (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very minor fix

This is really minor, but it seems there's two spaces inserted between the first aired parameter and the en dash. You can tell as you can highlight two spaces with your mouse between them. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:51, 25 October 2014 edit Drovethrughosts (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers 111,475 edits m →‎Very minor fix ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:59, 25 October 2014 edit undo Edokter (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 55,830 edits →‎Very minor fix: Fixed Next edit →
Line 172:		Line 172:

	This is really minor, but it seems there's two spaces inserted between the first aired parameter and the en dash. You can tell as you can highlight two spaces with your mouse between them. [[User:Drovethrughosts\|Drovethrughosts]] ([[User talk:Drovethrughosts\|talk]]) 16:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)		This is really minor, but it seems there's two spaces inserted between the first aired parameter and the en dash. You can tell as you can highlight two spaces with your mouse between them. [[User:Drovethrughosts\|Drovethrughosts]] ([[User talk:Drovethrughosts\|talk]]) 16:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
			:Should be fixed. <code style="white-space:nowrap">-- [[[[User:Edokter\|<span style="color:#006">User:Edokter</span>]]]] {{[[User talk:Edokter\|<span style="color:#060">talk</span>]]}}</code> 16:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)