Talk:List of Seven Days episodes

"Series overview"

On 25 November, Flordeneu (talk · contribs) added a new section ("Series overview") and table to the article. I reverted them two days later, saying, "- duplicate table of contents already automatically generated by MediaWiki". Today, Flordeneu undid my edit saying, "Nothing is generated".

As of the last non-contested state of the article, there were four sections ("Season one (1998–1999)", "Season two (1999–2000)", "Season three (2000–2001)", and "References"), an automatically-generated table of contents (TOC), three tabled lists of episodes, and two citations. The automatically-generated TOC links to and lists all four sections—including their years of airing—immediately after the lede.

I do not know whether it's Flordeneu's intention to create a second table of contents (one with a little more information), or whether they intended to add new information the article under a new header. Firstly, the automatically-generated TOC works just fine. The exact dates (rather than just years), seasonal episode count, and colored squares aren't necessary or really even beneficial for navigation of the article. Secondly, with the exception of a colored square, there is no information in the "Series overview" section that isn't found elsewhere in the article—it's effectively functioning as a second lede. If Flordeneu wants more details summarized, then the lede should be expanded rather than creating a second. If not comfortable with the prose involved, the {{lead too short}} template could also be added to the article. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I just added a series overview table, a feature present in countless other episode lists of series. I fail to see what the problem is. Flordeneu (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

With regard to "what the problem is", that information is here. If I wasn't clear there, I'll try to restate the issue. Everything you added is already present in the article. The purpose of the lede is to serve as an "overview" of the article that follows. If the additional information that you included in the table (specific seasonal start and finish dates, per-season episode counts, and blue squares) is vital to understanding the topic as a whole, it should be included as prose in the lede. That's the lede's purpose. We do not use two ledes. Write up the lede, break it into paragraphs if necessary, and then insert the first section header to generate the TOC and indicate that articular content has begun.

I'm not sure whether you're misapprehending a particular aspect of what I'm explaining, or the conflation of different arguments. Please let me know how I am or am not explaining things well, and I'll do my utmost to clarify. Thanks. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you're explaining. I just fail to see what the problem is. Check pages like List of MacGyver (2016 TV series) episodes, List of Chicago P.D. episodes or List of Hemlock Grove episodes just to list three (though I could provide several dozen more examples). All of them have an automatically generated table of contents and a series overview table. It's a common feature in episode lists around there. So sincerely I don't know what problem do you have with it.Flordeneu (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You do not see/understand the problem with duplicating the functions of the lede and table of contents in the body of the article? The TOC is already present to facilitate navigation, and the lede's purpose is to summarize the contents of the article that follow in the body. I suppose, similarly, I don't know why you would spend time and resources to repeat their functionality later on the page where articular content is supposed to go.

With this edit, I've taken the information that you were summarizing within the actual body and moved it to the lede as prose. I've removed the repetitive information from the body. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

My compromise edit of 29 November was undone by Flordeneu (talk · contribs) at 17:31, 6 December 2017 with the rationale of With the table, the information is also included in the main page. Don't delete it. Ignoring for now the civility concerns with regards to issuing imperatives, if Flordeneu's chief complaint with my rationales and compromise edit was that it prevents transclusion of their table elsewhere (apparently the "main page"), I don't understand why they cannot simply move their code to that page and allow this article to stand without the unnecessary and duplicative addition. I'd love to hear the input of other editors here! Thanks, all. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

1. I still don't understand what your problem is. The series overview table is used widely on other lists of episodes (there are dozens of examples), so I don't see why you find it so problematic here.

2. It should only transclude the "series overview" table, not the whole list of episodes. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong. Flordeneu (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The manual of style as it concerns article layout defines the order of the body section as lead first, table of contents second, and actual articular content third. The manual of style says of the lead, "[t]he lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." That's its purpose, and that's what goes there. The summary or overview of the actual article does not go after the TOC.

I still don't understand what your problem is. It's not "my" problem; it's "a" problem. It's a problem because it's incorrect with respect to the way things are done. If a summation is important to a reader's understanding of an article's reliably-sourced content, then it belongs in the lead where a reader expects it to be. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a problem only for you, not for anyone else. It's not 'incorrect', in fact, it's in line with what's being done in lots of episode pages across Wikipedia. Series_overview is a valid Wikipedia template that, as it says in it, "is used on 2,000+ pages." So you're the only one with the truth and the users in thee 2000+ pages are wrong? Just because you don't like it, doesn't means it's wrong.

Flordeneu (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)