Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Listing Steven Universe Future
Alex 21 argues that episodes of Steven Universe Future, once aired, should be listed near the bottom of the article, below the "specials" section. I disagree: Steven Universe Future isn't a "special" at all but a followup series, and its episodes are part of the main sequence of episodes of Steven Universe even though under a different title. Relegating them to the bottom of the list makes no sense. AJD (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, unrelatedly, The Episode Of OK KO On Which Garnet Makes A Guest Appearance has no business being listed on this page; it is not an episode of Steven Universe at all. Crossover episodes of one show that feature guest appearances by characters from other shows aren't thereby episodes of the other show; e.g., The Episode Of Star Trek: The Next Generation On Which Julian Bashir Makes A Guest Appearance doesn't appear on List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes. AJD (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Future is the same as Distant Lands for Adventure Time; see where it's listed at List of Adventure Time episodes. I never said at the bottom of the article. I said in the specials section; if your thought is based on the second-level header, that's my bad and I've fixed it accordingly.
- I have no opinion on the in/exclusion of the OK KO episode. -- /Alex/21 05:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about Adventure Time, but the text of List of Adventure Time episodes describes Distant Lands as a set of "specials", as does the cited source. To the best of my knowledge, no reliable source describes Steven Universe Future as "specials"; it's usually described as a "limited series", and in some sources as a "final season". I don't see how the analogy applies. AJD (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Future may not consist of special episodes, but it is a special release in itself, as it is not Season 6 or an entry of Steven Universe, but a separate continuation in the form of a special, limited epilogue series. -- /Alex/21 22:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Okay. How about "Specials" includes the film and Future, then it lists the "Shorts" (and thus getting rid of OK KO)? -- /Alex/21 23:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about Adventure Time, but the text of List of Adventure Time episodes describes Distant Lands as a set of "specials", as does the cited source. To the best of my knowledge, no reliable source describes Steven Universe Future as "specials"; it's usually described as a "limited series", and in some sources as a "final season". I don't see how the analogy applies. AJD (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- [1]: "Cartoon Network today revealed that the new series will start airing with a special event in early December."
- [2]: "Steven is forced to confront his own in this new special."
- [3]: "Steven and the Crystal Gems will return for a special limited series"
- [4]: "Steven Universe: Future will premiere on December 7th, 2019 in a one-hour special"
- -- /Alex/21 00:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Most of these seem to describe the premiere of Steven Universe Future as a special, not the series itself. I grant that the premiere is a special, in the same way that, say, the "Wanted" event was a special (the first four episodes of season 5 airing as a one-hour block), but that doesn't make Steven Universe Future itself a special, and it doesn't mean we should lis the "Wanted" event in a separate section from the rest of the episodes of the series. AJD (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I provided reliable sources, as requested, and two list the premiere as a special. The other two list the series as a special. If I provide further reliable sources, will you automatically be disputing those as well? -- /Alex/21 01:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Two of them describe the premiere as a special, and one describes the premiere as a "special event" (which we can take as synonymous with "special"). One describes the series as a "special limited series", but that is the adjective "special", not the noun meaning "one-off television event". Fundamentally, really, I think that describing a television show as a "special" is incompatible with describing it as a "series"—individual episodes of a series can be specials, but a series itself can't. The article television special defines a special as "a stand-alone television show". Are you trying to contend that each episode of Steven Universe Future is going to be a "special"? AJD (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- First one refers to the whole thing as a special event. Second is also referring to the series as a whole, as it describes the premise of Future. Third literally says "special limited series", and trying to put one's own definition on it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. So, yes, the series is a special series, as there is nothing to back up the claim of what a series can be, and Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source (even though it says television show, not television episode). Thanks. -- /Alex/21 01:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- No, the first one says that the series is starting with a special event, not that the series is a special event. The second says that "The four-episode event picks up after the events of Steven Universe and Steven Universe: The Movie.... After spending his entire life fixing other people’s problems, Steven is forced to confront his own in this new special." It's the "four-episoed event" that's being described as "this new special", not the series as a whole. And the third is describing Steven Universe Future as special, the adjective, but not as a special, the noun. AJD (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's the same thing for the first one. And it's your personal opinion on the wording of the second and third one. I've satisfied my burden of proof by providing sources; can you provide sources that explicitly state that it is not a special, or is it merely a personal opinion, much like how many episodes the series consists of? -- /Alex/21 01:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, any of the sources that describe it as a limited series state that it's not a special, because a special and a limited series are different things. AJD (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's your personal opinion; do you have any sources to back it up? -- /Alex/21 23:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- The source cited on the page television special, which defines specials as follows: "programs created singly rather than in series form and inserted into a network or station schedule as preemptions of regularly scheduled episodic programs."[1] Steven Universe Future is a series, not "created singly"; and it will air at a regularly scheduled time (Saturdays at 8pm), not as a preemption of the regular schedule. It is not a special. AJD (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's your personal opinion; do you have any sources to back it up? -- /Alex/21 23:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, any of the sources that describe it as a limited series state that it's not a special, because a special and a limited series are different things. AJD (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's the same thing for the first one. And it's your personal opinion on the wording of the second and third one. I've satisfied my burden of proof by providing sources; can you provide sources that explicitly state that it is not a special, or is it merely a personal opinion, much like how many episodes the series consists of? -- /Alex/21 01:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- No, the first one says that the series is starting with a special event, not that the series is a special event. The second says that "The four-episode event picks up after the events of Steven Universe and Steven Universe: The Movie.... After spending his entire life fixing other people’s problems, Steven is forced to confront his own in this new special." It's the "four-episoed event" that's being described as "this new special", not the series as a whole. And the third is describing Steven Universe Future as special, the adjective, but not as a special, the noun. AJD (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- First one refers to the whole thing as a special event. Second is also referring to the series as a whole, as it describes the premise of Future. Third literally says "special limited series", and trying to put one's own definition on it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. So, yes, the series is a special series, as there is nothing to back up the claim of what a series can be, and Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source (even though it says television show, not television episode). Thanks. -- /Alex/21 01:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Two of them describe the premiere as a special, and one describes the premiere as a "special event" (which we can take as synonymous with "special"). One describes the series as a "special limited series", but that is the adjective "special", not the noun meaning "one-off television event". Fundamentally, really, I think that describing a television show as a "special" is incompatible with describing it as a "series"—individual episodes of a series can be specials, but a series itself can't. The article television special defines a special as "a stand-alone television show". Are you trying to contend that each episode of Steven Universe Future is going to be a "special"? AJD (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I provided reliable sources, as requested, and two list the premiere as a special. The other two list the series as a special. If I provide further reliable sources, will you automatically be disputing those as well? -- /Alex/21 01:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Most of these seem to describe the premiere of Steven Universe Future as a special, not the series itself. I grant that the premiere is a special, in the same way that, say, the "Wanted" event was a special (the first four episodes of season 5 airing as a one-hour block), but that doesn't make Steven Universe Future itself a special, and it doesn't mean we should lis the "Wanted" event in a separate section from the rest of the episodes of the series. AJD (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Brown, Lester L. (1992). "Specials". Les Brown's Encyclopedia of Television (3rd ed.). Gale Research, Inc. pp. 525–526. ISBN 978-0-8103-8871-0.
- We cannot cite Wikipedia articles as backup, and I'm requesting a source that explicitly states that Steven Universe Future is not a special release. That article does not cite Steven Universe Future at all. -- /Alex/21 00:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- All the sources that describe Steven Universe Future as a limited series thereby state that it is not a special release. I'm not citing a Wikipedia article as backup; I'm citing a source that is cited by a Wikipedia article and deemed reliable, which defines what a "special" is. AJD (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- We cannot cite Wikipedia articles as backup, and I'm requesting a source that explicitly states that Steven Universe Future is not a special release. That article does not cite Steven Universe Future at all. -- /Alex/21 00:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you and I are going to reach consensus on this; I'm going to put in a request at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. AJD (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Episode Numbers
Since Steven Universe Future is technically a continuation of the original Steven Universe series, shouldn't the episodes in the SUF section be listed with numbers 161-170 next to their regular episode numbers, for example "Little Homeschool" may be episode 1 of Steven Universe Future, but it's still episode 161 of the Steven Universe Franchise Ryan Jay (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- No, as it is not considered part of Steven Universe, is is a separate sequel series. -- /Alex/21 20:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Say Uncle
Say Uncle's production code is 1031-056. If you look at season 2, all their production codes start with 1031. 1031 is the code to denote a season 2 episode. The season 1(B) episodes use production codes starting with 1026. "Say Uncle", with a production code of 1031-056, is clearly, production-wise, a season 2 episode. The second part of the code, 056, shows that this is the 56th episode production-wise. Since season 1 only has 52 episodes, this shows that Say Uncle was clearly produced as a season 2 episode. CN's website also considers this a season 2 episode. I believe that this is solid enough evidence that Say Uncle is meant to be a season 2 episode, more so than "intended airing order". I just feel you can't argue with the 1031/1026 production codes, 1031 clearly showing that this episode is season 2.
Minecraft69 (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- That is all textbook WP:OR. Do you have reliable sources that back up your position that it's definitely S2? Both positions of S1 and S2 are noted in the article. -- /Alex/21 13:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
https://steven-universe.fandom.com/wiki/Steven_Universe:_The_Complete_Second_Season The Steven Universe Season 2 DVD contains Say Uncle.
https://steven-universe.fandom.com/wiki/Steven_Universe_Season_2_(Australian_Set) The Steven Universe Season 2 DVD Australian set contains Say Uncle.
https://steven-universe.fandom.com/wiki/Say_Uncle/Gallery#Model_Sheets The model sheets for Say Uncle show the production code is 1031-056 (season 2).
Now thanks to region locking, I'm not able to access the Cartoon Network website, but the Say Uncle Wikia page states it's considered Season 2 there.
Lastly, look at the production codes for season 1B and season 2. Every single season 2 production code is 1031. Every single 1B production code is 1026.
Minecraft69 (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wikias are not reliable sources per WP:USERGEN; they're identical to Wikipedia in the way that they are produced, in that random people get together to edit and create it, thus making it not a reliable source. As for what the production codes are - and? That's WP:OR. -- /Alex/21 21:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's not original research at all. It's a statement of fact - "Say Uncle" has a season 2 production code, as is sourceable and proven by its model sheets, as posted on the "crewniverse" tumblr and archived on the wiki. Your only evidence for including it in season 1 is an IJQ post saying it chronologically occurs during season 1, which is true, but it was produced, aired, and released on DVD as a season 2 episode, because that's what it is. - Chris McFeely (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
which is true
So that means that it's reliably sourced as a Season 1 episode. Having a Season 2 production code is irrelevant; many episodes of many shows are produced for one season but included in another. -- /Alex/21 04:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)- Chronologically occurring during Season 1 doesn't make it a season 1 episode. Season 1 consists of 26 half-hours - that is how ordering and production numbers work. "Say Uncle" was ordered as part of the additional episodes order for season 2. These numbers mean things, you can't ignore them in favour of going "oh, well, Ian said you should watch them in this order" - which is all he said. They weren't created with the intent of reaching an audience in that order, because it was impossible for them to be, because "Say Uncle" was created during season 2! - Chris McFeely (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's not original research at all. It's a statement of fact - "Say Uncle" has a season 2 production code, as is sourceable and proven by its model sheets, as posted on the "crewniverse" tumblr and archived on the wiki. Your only evidence for including it in season 1 is an IJQ post saying it chronologically occurs during season 1, which is true, but it was produced, aired, and released on DVD as a season 2 episode, because that's what it is. - Chris McFeely (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Trans Members of Staff
A few members of staff who worked on the show have come out as transgender since their names were put in this article and I'm not sure having their deadnames on the page is a good thing. Zuke now goes by Jesse and Cragg goes by Danny. I know they were credited on the show by their deadnames, but it seems disrespectful to keep them up.
Ndncndln (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- They are listed on Wikipedia as they are credited in the episodes. If they are credited in future episodes with updated names, then they will be listed here as such. This was previously discussed at Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes/Archive 2 § Please change Cragg's name. -- /Alex/21 05:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand why they have to be credited by the names they are credited as in the episodes. I've seen movie pages on wikipedia that have changed the names of trans actors when they have come out and the Steven Universe fandom.com wiki credits them under their legal names. It's transphobic to refer to a person as their deadname. Ndncndln (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- That's WP:FILM. This is WP:TV. Both have different standards and rules. The Steven Universe Wikia is not at all related to this site. Please remain civil and keep your personal attacks to yourself; we are not transphobic here, we are listing them exactly how they were credited at the time. -- /Alex/21 04:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Listing them exactly how they were credited at the time is definitely transphobic; deadnaming is essentially a subtype of misgendering, which is "considered extremely offensive". The WP:TV policy is ill-conceived in that regard; and, moreover, not widely observed in the case of cisgender individuals: it's easy to find long-standing articles on TV shows that refer to cast and crew members by a name different from the way they were credited on the show. AJD (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- I will be happy to discuss the topic with you once you revoke your personal attack. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 06:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have made no personal remarks of any kind, attacks or otherwise, about you or anyone else. AJD (talk)
- You falsely accused an editor of some form of serious discrimination simply because you disagree with their view on article content. It is not up to you to determine if it was a personal attack, that is up to the person you made the comment to, and it was deemed a personal attack. Discuss the content civilly, if you are able to; if not, please distance yourself from the discussion. -- /Alex/21 09:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Neither I nor Ndncndln said anything about any editor. It is a neutral fact to civilly observe that it is a transphobic act to deadname a trans person. I do not claim that you, Alex 21, are a transphobic person, nor that anyone else is. But the WP:TV policy is definitely a policy that has transphobic results. Describing policies and acts as transphobic is not the same as describing people as transphobic. By your logic, it would be unacceptable to object to the use of, say, a racial slur in an article. AJD (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- I call to your attention WP:No personal attacks, which says "arguments... should be directed at content and actions rather than people" and "The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy." That is the discourse norm to which Ndncndln and I are adhering. AJD (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- And I am the editor supporting listing the credited names of those people, hence the attack is directed towards me. And now you are accusing the entirety of WP:TV. Keep going. In concern to your second response, I will continue to discuss the content once you apologize for your comments, keep them redacted, and learn how to respond civilly to editors you disagree with. -- /Alex/21 09:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- You falsely accused an editor of some form of serious discrimination simply because you disagree with their view on article content. It is not up to you to determine if it was a personal attack, that is up to the person you made the comment to, and it was deemed a personal attack. Discuss the content civilly, if you are able to; if not, please distance yourself from the discussion. -- /Alex/21 09:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have made no personal remarks of any kind, attacks or otherwise, about you or anyone else. AJD (talk)
- I will be happy to discuss the topic with you once you revoke your personal attack. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 06:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Listing them exactly how they were credited at the time is definitely transphobic; deadnaming is essentially a subtype of misgendering, which is "considered extremely offensive". The WP:TV policy is ill-conceived in that regard; and, moreover, not widely observed in the case of cisgender individuals: it's easy to find long-standing articles on TV shows that refer to cast and crew members by a name different from the way they were credited on the show. AJD (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- That's WP:FILM. This is WP:TV. Both have different standards and rules. The Steven Universe Wikia is not at all related to this site. Please remain civil and keep your personal attacks to yourself; we are not transphobic here, we are listing them exactly how they were credited at the time. -- /Alex/21 04:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand why they have to be credited by the names they are credited as in the episodes. I've seen movie pages on wikipedia that have changed the names of trans actors when they have come out and the Steven Universe fandom.com wiki credits them under their legal names. It's transphobic to refer to a person as their deadname. Ndncndln (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Main vs. Further
According to the template documentation for Template:Main, the Main template is "not to be used... when the section expounds a specific aspect of the topic instead of summarizing its article"; that is the purpose of Template:Further instead. The Steven Universe Future section of this article is not a summary of the overall topic of Steven Universe Future; rather, it expounds a specific aspect of the topic (i.e., the episode list); therefore the Further template is the appropriate one to use at the top of the section. Moreover, the Further template makes it easy and compact to communicate to readers that the missing episode synopses can be found at the Steven Universe Future article; the Main template can't handle that elegantly. AJD (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- As stated, this is the consensus and standard practice across THOUSANDS of articles belonging to WP:TV. Can you cite another long-standing example supporting your opinion? I can cite almost every LoE article, if you'd like. Is the main article of the "Steven Universe Future" section the "Steven Universe Future" article? Yes? Main. The summaries aren't missing; they're just not transcluded to the article that they are not originally shown on. -- /Alex/21 07:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Is there a written policy anywhere that you can point to that recommends using Main for this, or is the situation just that members of WP:TV haven't read the template documentation and don't know what Main is for? But in any event, yes, the episode summaries for Steven Universe Future are not visible on this page. From the perspective of the reader, that means they are apparently missing. It is courteous to the reader to let them know that the episode summaries exist and where where to find them; there is no reason to go out of our way to conceal this information. AJD (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely: WP:CONSENSUS. The consensus of years and thousands of articles. The summaries may not be visible, they're just not "missing", exactly the same as every other transcluded season episode table. It may be courteous, but I ask you again: Can you cite another long-standing example supporting your opinion? Are there any other widespread examples of articles requiring your suggestion? -- /Alex/21 21:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- According to WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is the result of discussion. Can you point me to a discussion in which members of WP:TV agreed to use Template:Main in a way incompatible with the template documentation? However, also according to WP:CONSENSUS, "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope," which suggests to me that such consensus within WP:TV, if it exists, does not actually overrule the guidelines for Template:Main. I have no intention of hunting for whether there are other examples of articles requiring my suggestion, though I think you mentioned List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes once before and I wouldn't be surprised if that needs the same edit. All I'm saying is, I want readers of this article to be able to find where the episode summaries for Steven Universe Future are, since—from the reader's perspective—they're unaccountably absent from this one. Is it important for some reason that readers not be given that information? AJD (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely; I'll search through the archives for you and find relevant discussions. (Unfortunately, I don't have the time on hand on me at the moment, but I'll get there.) And consensus from a WikiProject far outrules the documentation of a template, which is not even a guideline, not has documentation typically ever been discussed; documentation has no stance in guideline or policy, and is only a recommendation on how to use it, so documentation does not, and has never, come under "some generally accepted policy or guideline". Sorry, but that line of CONSENSUS does not apply here. So, apparently no other examples exist, so I fail to see why this one article needs to stand out above the rest with some sort of descriptor. If thousands of articles have existed for years, over a decade, with only a template and a transcluded table, I see no confusion present about the situation. -- /Alex/21 22:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this one article needs to "stand out above the rest". I think this article needs to be user-friendly and direct the reader on how to find the information they're looking for. If other articles fail to provide that information, they should be changed as well; but "other articles are inadequate" is not a reason for this article to remain inadequate. This is the article that I am editing right now. AJD (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- So, yes, it would be one article needing an apparent change over thousands of identically-situtated articles existing as they have for years. -- /Alex/21 06:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- If other articles on your watchlist are badly designed or hard to navigate, you're free to edit them. They're not an excuse for this article to be bad. And I'm still waiting for evidence of consensus against using Template:Further, and (more importantly) against giving readers guidance as to how to find the episode summaries they're looking for. It seems to me that you are arguing for making information harder to find for no gooD reason. AJD (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not the one that believes that they "are badly designed or hard to navigate". I think they're perfectly fine, the thousands of identically-situtated articles that have existed as they have for years. I'm not seeing any support that this article is "bad". Have there been cases before of editors that are "lost" because episode summaries are "missing"? Can you cite them, please? -- /Alex/21 07:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly interested in editors being "lost"; I'm interested in readers. I have no evidence for or against whether this has happened to other articles, but I do know that as a reader myself I read this article and I reach the section on Steven Universe Future and I'm like, why aren't there any episode summaries? Someone who is less familiar with the way Wikipedia works than I am might not know how to find them. How about this: do you have any argument at all against a note explaining where to find the episode summaries that doesn't boil down to "other articles don't have one"? AJD (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. Other articles don't have one. Because it's never been needed. If you want to change how season tables/articles are transcluded and linked in LoE articles, then you need to take that to WT:TV. Until then, everything is currently listed and formatted exactly how thousands of other articles have been for years without issues. -- /Alex/21 22:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- That doesn't sound like an argument other than "other articles don't have one", or an argument that adding such a note will not improve this article. Also, no evidence of the claimed WP:CONSENSUS has yet been presented. AJD (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. Other articles don't have one. Because it's never been needed. If you want to change how season tables/articles are transcluded and linked in LoE articles, then you need to take that to WT:TV. Until then, everything is currently listed and formatted exactly how thousands of other articles have been for years without issues. -- /Alex/21 22:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly interested in editors being "lost"; I'm interested in readers. I have no evidence for or against whether this has happened to other articles, but I do know that as a reader myself I read this article and I reach the section on Steven Universe Future and I'm like, why aren't there any episode summaries? Someone who is less familiar with the way Wikipedia works than I am might not know how to find them. How about this: do you have any argument at all against a note explaining where to find the episode summaries that doesn't boil down to "other articles don't have one"? AJD (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not the one that believes that they "are badly designed or hard to navigate". I think they're perfectly fine, the thousands of identically-situtated articles that have existed as they have for years. I'm not seeing any support that this article is "bad". Have there been cases before of editors that are "lost" because episode summaries are "missing"? Can you cite them, please? -- /Alex/21 07:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- If other articles on your watchlist are badly designed or hard to navigate, you're free to edit them. They're not an excuse for this article to be bad. And I'm still waiting for evidence of consensus against using Template:Further, and (more importantly) against giving readers guidance as to how to find the episode summaries they're looking for. It seems to me that you are arguing for making information harder to find for no gooD reason. AJD (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- So, yes, it would be one article needing an apparent change over thousands of identically-situtated articles existing as they have for years. -- /Alex/21 06:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this one article needs to "stand out above the rest". I think this article needs to be user-friendly and direct the reader on how to find the information they're looking for. If other articles fail to provide that information, they should be changed as well; but "other articles are inadequate" is not a reason for this article to remain inadequate. This is the article that I am editing right now. AJD (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely; I'll search through the archives for you and find relevant discussions. (Unfortunately, I don't have the time on hand on me at the moment, but I'll get there.) And consensus from a WikiProject far outrules the documentation of a template, which is not even a guideline, not has documentation typically ever been discussed; documentation has no stance in guideline or policy, and is only a recommendation on how to use it, so documentation does not, and has never, come under "some generally accepted policy or guideline". Sorry, but that line of CONSENSUS does not apply here. So, apparently no other examples exist, so I fail to see why this one article needs to stand out above the rest with some sort of descriptor. If thousands of articles have existed for years, over a decade, with only a template and a transcluded table, I see no confusion present about the situation. -- /Alex/21 22:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- According to WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is the result of discussion. Can you point me to a discussion in which members of WP:TV agreed to use Template:Main in a way incompatible with the template documentation? However, also according to WP:CONSENSUS, "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope," which suggests to me that such consensus within WP:TV, if it exists, does not actually overrule the guidelines for Template:Main. I have no intention of hunting for whether there are other examples of articles requiring my suggestion, though I think you mentioned List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes once before and I wouldn't be surprised if that needs the same edit. All I'm saying is, I want readers of this article to be able to find where the episode summaries for Steven Universe Future are, since—from the reader's perspective—they're unaccountably absent from this one. Is it important for some reason that readers not be given that information? AJD (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely: WP:CONSENSUS. The consensus of years and thousands of articles. The summaries may not be visible, they're just not "missing", exactly the same as every other transcluded season episode table. It may be courteous, but I ask you again: Can you cite another long-standing example supporting your opinion? Are there any other widespread examples of articles requiring your suggestion? -- /Alex/21 21:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Is there a written policy anywhere that you can point to that recommends using Main for this, or is the situation just that members of WP:TV haven't read the template documentation and don't know what Main is for? But in any event, yes, the episode summaries for Steven Universe Future are not visible on this page. From the perspective of the reader, that means they are apparently missing. It is courteous to the reader to let them know that the episode summaries exist and where where to find them; there is no reason to go out of our way to conceal this information. AJD (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
No evidence of the claimed consensus has been presented after almost two weeks, and no other argument has been advanced for misusing Template:Main and making it harder for the reader to understand where the episode synopses are other than that some other articles also do that. I'm restoring the clearer version. AJD (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Nor have you gained consensus. Your recent WP:BOLD edit has been reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. -- /Alex/21 09:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've requested a third opinion. AJD (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. In the meantime, I'll compile a list of hundreds of LoE/season articles that have never needed such notes. -- /Alex/21 08:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think you and I may disagree on whether some of the articles you come up with have actually never needed those notes or merely never had them. AJD (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Can you show me examples of other editors showing support for their apparent "need"? Surely if they actually needed them, editors would be clamoring for their inclusion. -- /Alex/21 09:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think you and I may disagree on whether some of the articles you come up with have actually never needed those notes or merely never had them. AJD (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. In the meantime, I'll compile a list of hundreds of LoE/season articles that have never needed such notes. -- /Alex/21 08:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've requested a third opinion. AJD (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey, just chiming in with another idea: can't we just use the {{For}} template? It'll solve the problem of linking, and that of stating that is where episode summaries can be found. MiasmaEternalTALK 04:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have no objection to that. AJD (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Because it is simply not necessary. "Main" does the job of linking to the article; "instructions" to the episode summaries have never been needed across thousands of articles in identical transcluded situations for at least a decade. Adding "instructions", in my opinion, insults readers and assumes that they are at a level of stupidity that they cannot find the summaries for themselves. Has this ever been a problem before? No. If it is an issue here, then it must be an issue everywhere else, and thus needs to be discussed at a wider venue. -- /Alex/21 06:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's just as strong an argument against including the Main template. Doesn't saying "Main article: Steven Universe Future" assume that readers are so stupid that they can't see the link to Steven Universe Future in the first sentence of the section and infer that it links to the main article on Steven Universe Future? That part is obvious. What's not obvious is why Steven Universe Future is the only season that doesn't have episode synopses in this article (answer: because, unlike other seasons, the synopses are at the main article instead). Why should we assume that that'll be obvious to readers? And it's been weeks since you promised me evidence of consensus against providing that guidance, and no evidence has appeared. I do not believe such consensus exists. AJD (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Given that there's a main link, you're absolutely right - we don't even need that link in the prose sentence. It can quite satisfactorily be removed; great idea, Ajd! And if that's your problem, then that's your problem across thousands of articles in identical transcluded situations for at least a decade. Either it's a problem everywhere or not at all; why just the one article? You need to take it to a wider venue to gain consensus for your changes. -- /Alex/21 07:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- My problem, as you know, is that this article contains visible synopses for all episodes except those of Steven Universe Future, with no clarification that they can be found elsewhere (rather than just being totally absent). If it's a problem everywhere or not at all, if those are my only choices, then I guess it's a problem everywhere, and I intend to solve it here, and editors of other articles can solve it there. "Other articles could be improved" is not an argument for "therefore this article mustn't be improved until all of them are." AJD (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Given that there's a main link, you're absolutely right - we don't even need that link in the prose sentence. It can quite satisfactorily be removed; great idea, Ajd! And if that's your problem, then that's your problem across thousands of articles in identical transcluded situations for at least a decade. Either it's a problem everywhere or not at all; why just the one article? You need to take it to a wider venue to gain consensus for your changes. -- /Alex/21 07:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's just as strong an argument against including the Main template. Doesn't saying "Main article: Steven Universe Future" assume that readers are so stupid that they can't see the link to Steven Universe Future in the first sentence of the section and infer that it links to the main article on Steven Universe Future? That part is obvious. What's not obvious is why Steven Universe Future is the only season that doesn't have episode synopses in this article (answer: because, unlike other seasons, the synopses are at the main article instead). Why should we assume that that'll be obvious to readers? And it's been weeks since you promised me evidence of consensus against providing that guidance, and no evidence has appeared. I do not believe such consensus exists. AJD (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
3O Response: Looks like I'm a couple days late but will offer a 3O. I understand the point that AJD is making, but from what I've read (despite the template documentation) the two hatnote templates are used interchangeably. This may in part be because {{further}} historically derived from {{details}}. I would also note that template documentation tends to be a technical how-to of implementation and rarely has enough community discussion to be considered a guideline. In practice, {{main}} is used much more to hat television episode sections to season or series articles. This includes every list I checked at Wikipedia:Featured lists#Episodes (there was one instance of a See also hatnote at the end for video releases). I understand this is an other stuff exists argument and not definitive consensus. However, with that many featured article reviewers passing the main hatnotes, I feel that this is evidence suggesting a topic-wide consensus for this context. That's probably why changing it here has led to pushback, and I imagine it would happen with similar articles as well. An RfC (which I see has been called) can determine the true consensus, and the template documentation or various Wikipedia-namespace guidelines may be changed as a result.
BTW, I also feel that for most List of xxx episodes articles, the series article will be linked in the lead sentence, usually the lead words, and hatnotes would be unnecessary. Where hatnotes are more useful is for sections linking to season articles, like in List of Family Guy episodes. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)