Talk:List of Seven Days episodes

"Series overview"
On 25 November, 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  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  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  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  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  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
My compromise edit of 29 November was undone by at 17:31, 6 December 2017 with the rationale of   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  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  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.   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  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  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)
 * BOLD, revert, discuss cycle says, in a nutshell, "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus." Your edit of 25 November 2017 was bold.  I reverted it.  "[D]o not revert again."  Do you understand this? I have explained the Manual of Style on leads and their purpose, I've explained the Manual of Style on layout and how it's implemented, I've explained how the tables of contents are generated and why, and I've questioned many times the necessity of duplicating information in the body of the article.  You've not addressed any of these. This article is not subordinate to any other.  This article need only abide by the policies, guidelines, and manuals set forth by the community at large.  Furthermore, I've even attempted to reach a compromise by including your unnecessary summary information in the lead where it belongs; you've not mentioned this once.  Lastly, at no time have I expressed any personal opinion about your edits, only that they are wholly unnecessary and contrary to the pages I've already referenced.  Do not put words into my mouth .  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  04:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's what your actions look like from the outside. I've only added a widely-used, perfectly acceptable, Template to the page, which also transcludes useful information at the main page. I find it very useful, and I've given you many examples of that template in use in many pages in Wikipedia, yet you are hellbent against it from the start. Do you want to add more information to the introduction? Do it, no problem, but that doesn't means you have to delete the overview template. Both can coexist, as they do in dozens of other pages. Flordeneu (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're not going to address understanding the BRD cycle instructions. You're not going to address the duplicate lead information in the body of the article.  You're not going to address duplicating information within the body of the article itself.  You're not going to address the Manual of Style. You are instead going to ensure implementation of your vision for this article.  You are instead going to "ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors."  You are instead going to own this article.  Okay, be that as it may.  There are 5,540,917 articles on this Wikipedia.  With apologies to Theodore Parker, I do not pretend to understand the entire wiki; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but a little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by experience.  And from what I have seen, I am sure it bends towards the consensus of policies, guidelines, and manuals.  I will unwatch this page as I save this edit, and you may have it all to yourself.  Best wishes.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  17:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't own anything. I understand Wikipedia's content policy and I never fought changes done with good reasons (which are 99% of them). But you still haven't given me a good reason for deleting the template. I just fail to understand why this template is perfectly acceptable on hundreds of others episode guides in Wikipedia and not here. Flordeneu (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Born in the USSR
The article says the episode "Born in the USSR" was aired May 22, 2001 according to the IMDB, and July 24, 2001 according to TV Guide. May 22, 2001 is the correct date. I clearly remember watching "Born in the USSR" in May 2001 and that it was before the day the finale, "Live From Death Row" aired. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)