Talk:The Cry (2018 TV series)

Table Headings

@AlexTheWhovian: I have removed the title column from Casualty (series 33) because that series doesn't have episode titles either. I don't understand your objection. My edits look better. There's no point in having the word episode appear in the heading and each row. Matt14451 (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Your edits are deforming the table to do something it was not traditionally designed for and thus, the title parameter should be kept. If the series continues onto a second series, the table can then easily be modified to something you can see at List of Call the Midwife episodes and List of Humans episodes. -- Alex^TW 11:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: They don't look good either and should be changed. I asked on a relevant talk page of the TV project group before changing Casualty (series 33) - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template_talk:Episode_list (@AussieLegend: supported). The title column is still in use as it's required by the template but called something else and used for a different purpose. The episode heading should be replaced by No. in series and each row should just have a centered number and possibly reference. Matt14451 (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

No need to ping me, this page is on my watchlist. Neither of the cases look good, so it's really the best of two evils. I see the discussion, and as you can see, another discussion was linked for your attention was this case was also suggested. There's no solid way of doing it, as every editor has a different idea. As I said, should The Cry continue on, this makes it a lot easier to convert into the two examples already linked, which you can see has been in practice for a while with no disputes. -- Alex^TW 12:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it as two evils. In the discussion your refer to, AussieLegend's 2nd example is similar to your edits on this page except they just include the episode number rather than "episode 1"... Matt14451 (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussions like that prove the policy has been disputed in the past. Matt14451 (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. And as I said, every editor has a different idea. AussieLegend's examples work better when 1) there's two episode number columns, not one, and 2) there's more information to fill the row, such as those seen at Top Gear. It doesn't fit well here, I've shown you examples where they do. And what "policy" are you taking about? Discussions like that prove the Title parameter has been discussed, not this particular layout. -- Alex^TW 12:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I meant template. If every editor has a different idea then we should get a consensus to improve the policy for consistency across the project. The episode column is useless, the No. provides the same information but the references which can be moved over. Matt14451 (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

We could, but it's a situation that only occurs in at most a dozen articles. A massive discussion wouldn't be required for such a minority number of article. In this article, I've gone with the format that requires no extraneous formatting within the template to match what may be needed. -- Alex^TW 14:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I've already done the "extraneous formatting" so there's nothing necessary for other editors like you to do, additional rows are hardly more complicated. It wouldn't be difficult to make the "at most a dozen articles" consistent, I'll do as many as I can find. Ultimately my problem is with the useless column, the title column shouldn't be a required field in the template and changing the name and purpose like I have is a way of getting around it. Matt14451 (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and it was reverted because of it's lack of necessity. Wikipedia does not add extraneous formatting simply to find a way to get around things. It should be clear as day as to what the code does to any editors that comes across the page, experienced or amateur alike. Executing these edits across multiple edits as part of a content dispute can be seen as disruptive, similar to your recent editing while logged out. You also haven't answered my question: what "policy" were you taking about? -- Alex^TW 15:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I answered your policy question in my 12:36 response, I meant the episode-list template. Using an IP was an unintentional mistake which I haven't done since. Most people would be confused by any version of the code so most people just view and don't edit. All editors should be willing to learn if they are confused. If people get confused like I did when trying to change Casualty (series 33) then they can look through the template's page, look through archive discussions then if still confused ask on talk page of the template or here. We shouldn't change the content that everyone sees to stop a few people getting confused. Matt14451 (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

So, it wasn't at all a policy, okay. Who are you to say what "most people" or "a few people" would be? You don't have the statistics to back this up. We provide the simplest options possible so that they do understand, so that they don't need to do all of that. And I agree: We shouldn't change the content that everyone sees, which is why we don't edit-war over content once it is established. I recommend that you learn this, both on your account and IP. -- Alex^TW 15:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of the population don't understand basic computer code, based on my personal experiences and interactions. How am I edit warring, I haven't broke the three-revert rule? Mentioning my IP is not productive as I just said it hasn't been used since. You added the episode table to this page yesterday so it wasn't established, I changed it within 24 hours.

On another topic, when you changed the page name of List of Holby City episodes you said you removed the asterisk to make it consistent with other articles such as Casualty, but that example has an episode page with and without an asterisk.Matt14451 (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like we are going to agree, especially since you are resorting to personal attacks. Matt14451 (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That's your personal experiences and interactions, not Wikipedia's. Wikipedia is a community, not one person's playground. Not all edit-warring is 3RR (and the mention of the IP is productive as it may be used in the future to further back up !votes and arguments by your named account; I'm just covering all bases here). I added the episode table based on the examples I've already given where they've been established. (I'll look into those articles.) Anyways. We've gotten off track; back to the content of this article. Speaking of which, it's interesting you came to the article almost as soon as I'd expanded it... -- Alex^TW 15:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It does seem to be established in those examples but not here so that's not relevant. Again with the personal attacking. Still didn't edit war. Editing as an IP in the past has no relevance to future voting and certainly not this discussion. I came to the article not because of you but because I heard about the show on The One Show when it was being promoted, so whatever you're trying to infer by saying it's "interesting" I came to the article once you expanded it is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 15:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: I understand concerns that the Episode [title] column may appear redundant with the [episode] No. column. However, I expect to see it and in its absence it appears to me as though information is missing. The table only has six columns so space does not appear to be an issue (unsure about mobile platforms). The community doesn't appear to have a firm guideline on this so it is more about practices. My guidance would be to follow the principle of least astonishment: that it is less surprising (and more useful) to have a seemingly redundant column than to have an absence of information. As well, I feel it's generally better to keep it simple to avoid confusion and make it easier for other editors to work with the page. We want to be inclusive, after all, and keep this the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So, my non-binding third opinion would be to keep the Episode [title] column and to avoid tricky template handling.
P.S.: I believe there are exceptions to this when there is a good reason (as in some of the examples from the discussion above) but at the present time I don't see a good reason for this article to break from form. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Reviews?

Just read-through the Article and note the absence of a "Review" section. Came here because I'm watching the 1st episode and it seems horrifically boring. Wanted to see what other, (professional) reviewers had to say.2605:6000:6947:AB00:49D2:79EC:1362:5C96 (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)