| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Humans episodes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"This Episode Summary is too long"
editI have edited and corrected the Series 3, Ep 8 description. But, am unable to find out how to delete the "this episode summary is too long" template. I don't see it in source, and visually, I click on the episode box and it gets all jumbled for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleylife (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've restored it. Too much was removed and was now listed as a very generic summary; we don't remove spoilers of WP:SPOILER, nor are we a TV guide that lists simply details and "dramatic" sentences to create suspense. -- AlexTW 10:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a TV guide? *GASP* I was just trying to make the summary better, sir. It's all very subjective but you don't have to jump down my throat and bash the way I edited the summary. Someone is going to come across those summary's and get spoiled when they haven't finished. I gave all the information necessary that left intrigue but didn't spoil. My edits are always done in good faith. Wikipedia really has it all backwards in that regard. I might just stop editing, almost all my edits get reversed by pricks like you. Daleylife (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Again, we don't remove spoilers on Wikipedia. I gave you a detailed explanation why; it's up to you how you want to take it, but uncivilly definitely isn't mature editor behaviour. -- AlexTW 03:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a TV guide? *GASP* I was just trying to make the summary better, sir. It's all very subjective but you don't have to jump down my throat and bash the way I edited the summary. Someone is going to come across those summary's and get spoiled when they haven't finished. I gave all the information necessary that left intrigue but didn't spoil. My edits are always done in good faith. Wikipedia really has it all backwards in that regard. I might just stop editing, almost all my edits get reversed by pricks like you. Daleylife (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
RfC
editAny opposition to this edit? It has been reverted by a user who I have discussed a similar change with but has resorted to personal attacks so I'm interested in hearing from others. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Humans_episodes&oldid=861307935 Matt14451 (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes. The edit itself is here, which introduces extraneous coding to force a template to do something that it is not designed to do. Furthermore, the different format makes the article unclear that the "No. in series" values are actually linked to articles. I see no reason to change what is not broken. -- AlexTW 16:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for linking to my edit differences, I linked to my version of the page as I didn't know how to create the link you made. "The different format makes the article unclear that the "No. in series" values are actually linked to articles" - maybe add a note to the heading saying the numbers are linked if that's a real issue? "Force a template to do something that it is not designed to do" - how is that relevant if it makes the table/page look better? Templates can change to suit the individual article they're on. "I see no reason to change what is not broken" - if everything adopted that philosophy then nothing would progress or improve.
- As I said, you have already expressed your opinions on the matter in detail here Talk:The Cry (2018 TV series) so I'm interested to hear other peoples opinions. Matt14451 (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- History, diff. Why would a note be required when it's obviously clear in the current version? With the changes, it seems the header texts need to be changed, then we need center tags, then we need to use title parameters for episode numbers, then we need a note - what next? You're making it unnecessarily complicated. It doesn't make it at all look better, it's a jumble of unnecessary code that stretches cells without reason, makes links less obvious, and frankly isn't needed. Everything can progress and improve, it's why we search for things that are broken and fix them, instead of fixing perfectly fine content and throwing a spanner into the works. -- AlexTW 16:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The headers I used are clearer. You're just complaining about the amount of work that another editor like me has to do on what you said is about a dozen articles in our other discussion, if someone can make the table as it is then the improvements I made aren't difficult. It does make it look better but I'm not looking at the code but the actual content. I don't know what the proper widths of the columns should be so feel free to change that. It's not just broken things we fix otherwise more things would become broken, that is just a lazy excuse. Matt14451 (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- When they're displayed, yes. When they're coded, no. Other editors have to then edit this page and maintain it; the page isn't solely yours. Wikipedia articles are about both the code and the content, but you don't seem to understand that; that seems to be where the problems here are stemming from. You've had to implement extra content which isn't needed when the content is listed perfectly as it is. Why do we need to code in new headers? Why are there episode numbers in the parameters for the title? Have you read the documentation? We don't need notes when we can just list them as they are now. -- AlexTW 16:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I understand that what the page looks like coded is important but displayed is a lot more important as it attracts a much larger audience. People who view and edit code and more likely to be experienced with Wikipedia than someone viewing the displayed content. I coded in new headers because they're clearer and less confusing. There are episode numbers in the title column because this show doesn't have titles and the column is essential because the template can't be changed because it's not broken apparently. I've read the documentation before I first implemented similar changes to Casualty (series 33), worth mentioning that an experienced editor there said it looks better. Including a note was just a suggestion in response to your point about links not being clear in numbers, another option would be to move the links to the overall episode count so the later ones would be double-digits. I never implied I owned the page. Matt14451 (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's clear that we aren't going to reach an agreement based on these discussions so I hope some unbiased editors will contribute. Matt14451 (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- You understand it, yes. But, as I said, the page isn't solely yours - you did imply this, when you said you're the one who should understand the code, anyone else doesn't matter. It needs to be clear for everyone. Your personal opinions are noted on who you personally think will know the code, but they are not in line with Wikipedia's views. All these excuses for all this unnecessary, elaborate content. Am I needing to explain any of the content in this version of the tables? No. Because it's clear. -- AlexTW 23:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I did not imply that, you're just putting words into my mouth. I never said anyone else doesn't matter. You're resorting to personal attacks again. The current table is complicated, not simple to everyone, my version isn't a lot more complicated, just an extra OverallT. You're the one making excuses. Matt14451 (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- You may not believe you did, yet here we are. You said you understood the coding, and paid no attention to anyone else, whether they were an experienced editor or amateur reader. The current version displays the template as it's designed to exist, without any extra coding required. -- AlexTW 06:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I improved the template for a small group of articles, doesn't matter if it's the original purpose of the template. "Number in series" is easier to understand than "Episode". Matt14451 (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Except that it does. The "new" layout by deforming the original use of the template may not be clear to someone who is not an experienced editor. We need to cater for everyone. -- AlexTW 06:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- How is there a significant difference between you changing the header to "Episode" and me changing it? We've both changed the traditional title column but to different things. If people can understand your changes to the template then they can understand mine. I know we need to cater for everyone. Matt14451 (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- How many times do I need to repeat myself? Because you added extraneous coding to force the template to do something it's not designed to. With the changes, it seems the header texts need to be changed, then we need center tags, then we need to use title parameters for episode numbers, then we need a note. I might actually change the header back to Title. No changes needed after all! You don't know we need to cater for everyone if you're saying "I understand it so that's alright but the regular amateur reader doesn't understand coding and doesn't need to read it". -- AlexTW 07:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Don't use quotation marks if it's not a direct quote. How many times do I have to repeat myself? We don't need a note, that was a suggestion for you from a potential problem you proposed, not part of my edit. If people and create a complicated table like this then they can change the header in the same way as the title column is currently and copy-paste centre tags to the episode in series content. Just an excuse. Matt14451 (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I can use what I want, thank you. You proposed it. You believed it to be necessary to further accommodate the advanced changes. You seem to understand the template coding, not everyone else does. You're not just adding text to the header, you're adding extra codes and using parameters for other content. Why don't we list the director in the writers column instead? That's identical to listing the episode number in the title column. -- AlexTW 07:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- You used quotation marks and changed the meaning of what I wrote, making it a mis-leading quote. Do not do that. In addition to changing the headings I added centre tags to the episode numbers so they represent the actual column. That is not an identical situation, those columns are not required in the template so can just not be used for shows that don't have directors or writers. The title column is required by the template so has to be replaced when shows don't have titles. Matt14451 (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I can use what I want, thank you. And yes, you did add extra tags. That aren't needed. You said that they "have to be replaced" - have to? Can you back that up with anything, other than your personal opinion? -- AlexTW 00:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- You can't, it's mis-leading. Another mis-quote. Quotation marks are meant to be used to copy exact text. Not exactly sure what you're referring to as it's a mis-quote. Extra tags? Matt14451 (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Can you back that up with a policy? Can you back up anything you've said with a policy? What supports your statement that the "title column has to be replaced"? -- AlexTW 07:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- It looks better by removing repetition. Again, don't use quotation marks when it isn't a direct quote. Any policies to support your arguments either? Matt14451 (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your personal opinion is noted. I do, WP:CONSENSUS through other articles. One editor agreeing with you does not satisfy this policy. However, it is you making the edits upon this page that have been disputed upon this talk page, and thus it is you that needs to back up your edits. -- AlexTW 08:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- There's no one else contributing to this discussion so how are we supposed to get a consensus? Right now it's 2 for my edits, 1 (you so bias) against). Matt14451 (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- That's not my concern, they're your edits. Do read WP:VOTE - are you aware of any of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines? Nobody has supported your edits on this exact page. Every editor who has come across this page has believed it to be acceptable by leaving it unchanged. -- AlexTW 08:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- There's no one else contributing to this discussion so how are we supposed to get a consensus? Right now it's 2 for my edits, 1 (you so bias) against). Matt14451 (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your personal opinion is noted. I do, WP:CONSENSUS through other articles. One editor agreeing with you does not satisfy this policy. However, it is you making the edits upon this page that have been disputed upon this talk page, and thus it is you that needs to back up your edits. -- AlexTW 08:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- It looks better by removing repetition. Again, don't use quotation marks when it isn't a direct quote. Any policies to support your arguments either? Matt14451 (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Can you back that up with a policy? Can you back up anything you've said with a policy? What supports your statement that the "title column has to be replaced"? -- AlexTW 07:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- You can't, it's mis-leading. Another mis-quote. Quotation marks are meant to be used to copy exact text. Not exactly sure what you're referring to as it's a mis-quote. Extra tags? Matt14451 (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I can use what I want, thank you. And yes, you did add extra tags. That aren't needed. You said that they "have to be replaced" - have to? Can you back that up with anything, other than your personal opinion? -- AlexTW 00:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- You used quotation marks and changed the meaning of what I wrote, making it a mis-leading quote. Do not do that. In addition to changing the headings I added centre tags to the episode numbers so they represent the actual column. That is not an identical situation, those columns are not required in the template so can just not be used for shows that don't have directors or writers. The title column is required by the template so has to be replaced when shows don't have titles. Matt14451 (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I can use what I want, thank you. You proposed it. You believed it to be necessary to further accommodate the advanced changes. You seem to understand the template coding, not everyone else does. You're not just adding text to the header, you're adding extra codes and using parameters for other content. Why don't we list the director in the writers column instead? That's identical to listing the episode number in the title column. -- AlexTW 07:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Don't use quotation marks if it's not a direct quote. How many times do I have to repeat myself? We don't need a note, that was a suggestion for you from a potential problem you proposed, not part of my edit. If people and create a complicated table like this then they can change the header in the same way as the title column is currently and copy-paste centre tags to the episode in series content. Just an excuse. Matt14451 (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- How many times do I need to repeat myself? Because you added extraneous coding to force the template to do something it's not designed to. With the changes, it seems the header texts need to be changed, then we need center tags, then we need to use title parameters for episode numbers, then we need a note. I might actually change the header back to Title. No changes needed after all! You don't know we need to cater for everyone if you're saying "I understand it so that's alright but the regular amateur reader doesn't understand coding and doesn't need to read it". -- AlexTW 07:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- How is there a significant difference between you changing the header to "Episode" and me changing it? We've both changed the traditional title column but to different things. If people can understand your changes to the template then they can understand mine. I know we need to cater for everyone. Matt14451 (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Except that it does. The "new" layout by deforming the original use of the template may not be clear to someone who is not an experienced editor. We need to cater for everyone. -- AlexTW 06:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I improved the template for a small group of articles, doesn't matter if it's the original purpose of the template. "Number in series" is easier to understand than "Episode". Matt14451 (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- You may not believe you did, yet here we are. You said you understood the coding, and paid no attention to anyone else, whether they were an experienced editor or amateur reader. The current version displays the template as it's designed to exist, without any extra coding required. -- AlexTW 06:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I did not imply that, you're just putting words into my mouth. I never said anyone else doesn't matter. You're resorting to personal attacks again. The current table is complicated, not simple to everyone, my version isn't a lot more complicated, just an extra OverallT. You're the one making excuses. Matt14451 (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- You understand it, yes. But, as I said, the page isn't solely yours - you did imply this, when you said you're the one who should understand the code, anyone else doesn't matter. It needs to be clear for everyone. Your personal opinions are noted on who you personally think will know the code, but they are not in line with Wikipedia's views. All these excuses for all this unnecessary, elaborate content. Am I needing to explain any of the content in this version of the tables? No. Because it's clear. -- AlexTW 23:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- When they're displayed, yes. When they're coded, no. Other editors have to then edit this page and maintain it; the page isn't solely yours. Wikipedia articles are about both the code and the content, but you don't seem to understand that; that seems to be where the problems here are stemming from. You've had to implement extra content which isn't needed when the content is listed perfectly as it is. Why do we need to code in new headers? Why are there episode numbers in the parameters for the title? Have you read the documentation? We don't need notes when we can just list them as they are now. -- AlexTW 16:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The headers I used are clearer. You're just complaining about the amount of work that another editor like me has to do on what you said is about a dozen articles in our other discussion, if someone can make the table as it is then the improvements I made aren't difficult. It does make it look better but I'm not looking at the code but the actual content. I don't know what the proper widths of the columns should be so feel free to change that. It's not just broken things we fix otherwise more things would become broken, that is just a lazy excuse. Matt14451 (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- History, diff. Why would a note be required when it's obviously clear in the current version? With the changes, it seems the header texts need to be changed, then we need center tags, then we need to use title parameters for episode numbers, then we need a note - what next? You're making it unnecessarily complicated. It doesn't make it at all look better, it's a jumble of unnecessary code that stretches cells without reason, makes links less obvious, and frankly isn't needed. Everything can progress and improve, it's why we search for things that are broken and fix them, instead of fixing perfectly fine content and throwing a spanner into the works. -- AlexTW 16:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
IMO, stick to standard use of the template (invited by the bot) Templates are confusing enough for other editors to edit without adding personal custom code. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Alex's version - I'll admit I do actually prefer Matts version it looks neater IMHO but the coding around it is problematic - Not all readers are going to understand the coding here and so personally I feel we should be making our readers lives easier not harder, The table as a whole should stick to the most basic coding. –Davey2010Talk 12:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Would you say that this applies only to this page, or any attempt to remove the title column? -- AlexTW 13:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Each situation is different. Matt14451 (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, but I'm actually asking Davey. -- AlexTW 13:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Each situation is different. Matt14451 (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Would you say that this applies only to this page, or any attempt to remove the title column? -- AlexTW 13:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi AlexTheWhovian, Apologies I hadn't realised they'd shortened "Episode X" to just "X" - I would say "Episode X" is far more helpful and I personally would say this should apply to each and every table here, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Cheers. -- AlexTW 14:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- With all due respect, how is having episode before every episode number more useful than just the number? Shall we insert episode before every overall episode number as well? If there isn't a title for a TV series then there shouldn't be a title column. Matt14451 (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi AlexTheWhovian, Apologies I hadn't realised they'd shortened "Episode X" to just "X" - I would say "Episode X" is far more helpful and I personally would say this should apply to each and every table here, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for contributing. This type of table is always quite hard for inexperienced editors to change, especially as it can't be edited using the visual editor. I just think the neatness of the table is what everyone will see so is more important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Matt14451 version is much better than what is on page now. It mess now 13:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)HumansFan (talk)
- Interesting. A brand new WP:COI-named account who's only contribution is for this particular talk page. -- AlexTW 14:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Don't start casting aspersions again, let's see if the user makes more edits before judging the validity of their argument. I've seen users with specific TV shows in their name make constructive edits to similar articles like Strictly2018 (talk · contribs). Matt14451 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, so have I. I'm Exhibit A. However, those are articles. Not a singular talk page and rocking up here for their very first edit. No aspersions, I'm just saying that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... -- AlexTW 14:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- You think whatever you like but you're judging with little evidence. 14:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Evidence is my experience here, I've seen enough... ducks. Just make sure you're consistent. -- AlexTW 14:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, so you looked through my edit history to find that? That situation hasn't been dealt with yet so no one knows if it'll be upheld. Regardless of your "experience" you should still assume good faith and not cast aspersions like you did when you said their contribution was "interesting". I agree that it's suspicious but we shouldn't deter new editors by making accusations without evidence. Matt14451 (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- No, I was on the page earlier today for another reason and noticed the entry.
Don't start casting aspersions again.
Your personal opinion is noted, but hey, I like ducks. Back on topic now? -- AlexTW 14:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)- Oh the hypocrisy. How is me saying you looked through my edit history worse than you saying it's "interesting" that a new editor contributed to a discussion? We can get back on topic but you're unwilling to compromise or discuss without resorting to casting aspersions or personal attacks. Matt14451 (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- If you don't want me to do it, it's interesting you can. Anyways, I'm not going to get into another rutt with you; there's already further support against such changes from an editor. -- AlexTW 14:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- You do it constantly. I can't start formal mediation until this has run for 30 days. Matt14451 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, well, the last attempt at mediation failed. -- AlexTW 14:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- I just told you reason it failed so we'll have to wait until 30 days has passed. I already linked to you that page on m talk page. Matt14451 (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, well, the last attempt at mediation failed. -- AlexTW 14:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- You do it constantly. I can't start formal mediation until this has run for 30 days. Matt14451 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- If you don't want me to do it, it's interesting you can. Anyways, I'm not going to get into another rutt with you; there's already further support against such changes from an editor. -- AlexTW 14:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oh the hypocrisy. How is me saying you looked through my edit history worse than you saying it's "interesting" that a new editor contributed to a discussion? We can get back on topic but you're unwilling to compromise or discuss without resorting to casting aspersions or personal attacks. Matt14451 (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- No, I was on the page earlier today for another reason and noticed the entry.
- Wow, so you looked through my edit history to find that? That situation hasn't been dealt with yet so no one knows if it'll be upheld. Regardless of your "experience" you should still assume good faith and not cast aspersions like you did when you said their contribution was "interesting". I agree that it's suspicious but we shouldn't deter new editors by making accusations without evidence. Matt14451 (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Evidence is my experience here, I've seen enough... ducks. Just make sure you're consistent. -- AlexTW 14:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- You think whatever you like but you're judging with little evidence. 14:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, so have I. I'm Exhibit A. However, those are articles. Not a singular talk page and rocking up here for their very first edit. No aspersions, I'm just saying that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... -- AlexTW 14:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Don't start casting aspersions again, let's see if the user makes more edits before judging the validity of their argument. I've seen users with specific TV shows in their name make constructive edits to similar articles like Strictly2018 (talk · contribs). Matt14451 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)