Talk:List of The Grand Tour episodes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move[edit]

Think this article should be moved to the mainspace now. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table Width[edit]

See also: Special:Permalink/928906230 § Episode table widths

Because of a disagreement on the width of the tables beyond the first two series, editors can discuss here if it should be the same width for each, or why it should be that the tables after the first two series should be adjusted so columns match in width. GUtt01 (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the discussion but this edit was inappropriate as the IP reverted to the status quo version, which is where it should be after your bold edit earlier today which was challenged. See WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. As I explained to Alex 21 on my talk page, column widths have been in the episode lists since 26 October 2016. That's over 3 years so yes, it's definitely the status quo. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one agreed on the Status Quo for this article. No one has. You had reversions done by other editors in the past in regards to this. You should have invited the editors in question to discuss this on this Talk Page, before it got to this stage, if they weren't doing so themselves. GUtt01 (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to agree for the status quo to be the status quo. That's a silly claim to make. As I have explained to you on my talk page, there has never been a need to discuss this previously. Editors have accepted the explanations and notes in the article. What should have happened per WP:BRD is that when your change was opposed today you should have opened a discussion instead of reverting.Per WP:STATUSQUO "if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor.
If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo". --AussieLegend (✉) 11:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I think the IPs did provoke a problem here, and I may have gotten out of hand with the reversion. I'll leave the article as is, but I think the layout of the presentation style for those tables at present is flawed in the argument of width. GUtt01 (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your argument over the need to conform the columns to the same width is hypocritical - have you not noticed that aren't of the same field columns DON'T match up? That's a good argument for presentation style. Episode tables don't need be set at different total widths - they should match the same width in general, and column width is irrelevant except to deal with fields that contain information within a space that is either too large or too small.GUtt01 (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I think when you stated on your talk page that their was discussion about the use of width - both total and column - with {{Episode List}}, I checked, and I think you probably meant {{Episode table}} in the argument; Episode List is for each individual row of information within its respective field, while Episode Table denotes the layout of the table's fields. GUtt01 (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your talk page response here... Those edits were not "all normal editing". They all reverted your singular edit of implementing total_width, of which you have no policy or guideline to back you up. That's five editors against one - really simple. It seems you're dodging the point about constantly restoring total_width yet clearly having no consensus to do so. Explaining it is irrelevant and is not listed in the exceptions of WP:EW at all.
"Some people just don't seem to be able to add up to 100." I agree. You. Despite the total_width being less than 100, the table must add up to a total of 100 for the table itself, irrelevant of the width. Setting it to less than 100 causes incorrect widths. Concerning column widths, I already proved to you via another article that column widths are already forced for when they're not set, and there's absolutely no issues with it. There's also absolutely no policy or guideline supporting the "harmonizing" of widths. It's a personal preference. By saying that it's the status quo and must remain is textbook WP:SQS.
Concerning your reply that I'm responding to, it seems you have no further comment about the content dispute or issue at hand, and are just textbook reading. Cite any consensus or policy that supports your edits.
Also, thank you, random IP, for your comment, even if you are blocked as a proxy. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck... -- /Alex/21 12:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, I don't disagree with the use of total width and column width in episode tables, but its how they used that is the problem. I think that's the core issue of the dispute here - the viewpoint over this between one person and several editors. There's nothing wrong with using these, but its how we use them to present the table and its information. GUtt01 (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero need for total_width, and one editor reverting five concerning it; they did not "accept" the "explanations", they simply didn't revert, while one editor continued to do so five times. As I stated, there is no policy or guideline supporting the "harmonizing" of widths. It's a personal preference. So there is absolutely nothing to back up the forcing of the table widths. The status quo, as one editor is fond of quoting, actually provides that all of the tables were originally at 100%. (Interesting how that was skipped over.) -- /Alex/21 12:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
your argument over the need to conform the columns to the same width is hypocritical - Not hypocritical at all. When the formatting was initially added the columns were very much in alignment. Remember, the formatting has been in use since October 2016. That the columns don't align now is the result of editing over time. Alex's edit today that inexplicably swapped two columns making series 1 inconsistent with other series is an example of how that can happen.
Episode tables don't need be set at different total widths - they should match the same width in general - The total width was set not just to ensure that columns were aligned but that identical columns were aligned. In the case of this article certain things had changed between series and aligning the columns resulted in a huge amount of whitespace in the date column.
I think you probably meant Episode table - No, I meant {{Episode list}}. That was the catalyst. The archive pages are just a couple of the pages. I can't remember where the others were. One was the discussion about promoting the Friends article and there were a few discussions on other talk pages. What happened was that somebody didn't like the layout of the Friends article so they stopped transcluding seasons and converted everything to raw table code. {{Episode table}} wasn't created until 2015, 3 years after the big kerfuffle. By that time we'd converted a lot of articles using the raw headers that we used to use.
Those edits were not "all normal editing" - They were indeed normal editing. Editors often make edits because they don't understand something, rather than ask about it first, as happened today with the two of you.
It seems you're dodging the point about constantly restoring total_width - pot.kettle.black You've been ignoring your silly removal of some of the column widths. As I've already explained, total_width is part of the column width formatting and you can't simply remove some of the widths as it affects all columns, not just the ones that you removed widths from.
Despite the total_width being less than 100, the table must add up to a total of 100 for the table itself, irrelevant of the width. Setting it to less than 100 causes incorrect widths. - That's not correct. If the total width is less than 100 and you don't set the total width the columns will grow as they see fit, which can result in different alignments between seasons. This has been a problem since day 1. There's no requirement that a table has to add up to 100 specifically.
I already proved to you via another article - You did?
There's also absolutely no policy or guideline supporting the "harmonizing" of widths. - When creating articles the aim should always be to get the article promoted to GA and FA. That won't happen without harmonised widths. We should always for a professional looking layout, not something that looks like a schoolkid did. Take pride in your work.
they did not "accept" the "explanations", they simply didn't revert, - Silence implies consensus. If you fix a poor edit and you are not reverted, this implies that the editor agrees with you. When editors make changes without explanation and you believe their change was wrong, you should fix that.
The status quo, as one editor is fond of quoting, actually provides that all of the tables were originally at 100%. - No, that's not correct. when a change has been in the article for months, 5 in this case, then that's the status quo. The status quo is not something that is stagnant. And again you are ignoring the fact that you removed column widths tyhat have been in the episode table for over 3 years, or isn't 3 years long enough to be the status quo for you?
Interesting how that was skipped over - It might have been relevant 5 months ago but not now. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Nice WP:WALLOFTEXT.
You've been ignoring your silly removal of some of the column widths. Because they're not necessary. They're useful and nice-looking, but not necessary. And nice of you to deflect the point. In response to as it affects all columns, not just the ones that you removed widths from, look at this version. First three and final columns align. Middle columns don't need to align, especially given that there's a differing number of columns between every table, making aligning difficult. There, that's my reason for removing them.
which can result in different alignments between seasons You mean exactly how it is now? Where almost none of the columns align? Yes, corresponding columns have the same width, but they do not align.
You did? I did. Read your talk page properly next time.
When creating articles the aim should always be to get the article promoted to GA and FA. That won't happen without harmonised widths. According to what policy or consensus? Can you cite anything to back that up, or is it just personal opinion? I'd love to see it, or some sort of example where a GA/FA was rejected solely based on a lack of aligning table columns. List of Arrested Development episodes, List of Meerkat Manor episodes, List of Numbers episodes, List of The O.C. episodes, List of Sacred Games episodes, List of The Unit episodes, these FA's certainly don't match what you're saying. Also, concerning that first sentence... Didn't you once say that "It's been a lot more recently, months not years, that some editors seem to want an article to be almost GA status before it's accepted into article space."? Have you changed your mind on whether articles should always be GA-worthy or not? Certainly, it seems there you were suggesting that articles should exist without needing to be GA worthy at all.
Silence implies consensus Correct, per WP:SILENCE. However, read the rest of it: "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others."; "A corollary is that if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so." Voiced disagreement has most certainly become evident here. That doesn't excuse the fact that you reverted the edits five times, as a singular editor, without discussion of any form outside of edit summaries.
then that's the status quo Until it's disputed. Your edits do not automatically become the status quo. The status quo that you've mentioned so many times did not include multiple columns in each of the tables. Now they do. The status quo that you've mentioned so many times includes 100% width tables. Now they don't. Status quo is 100%. Your edits, disputed five times over five months, are clearly not the status quo in anyone's mind except your own, as you have nobody (other than blocked proxy IPs) clearly voicing support. -- /Alex/21 13:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AussieLegend, any further comments? I see you have been active since both of the replies to you. -- /Alex/21 22:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has taken up a fair amount of my time and I do have a life away from Wikipedia. I will get back to this once I've done everything else. In the meantime, have you fixed the inconsistency that you introduced into series 1 yesterday? I've mentioned it several times. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're all waiting on you. Unfortunately, some of us don't have the time to just wait about. And I will fix the issue, once we are able to fix the inconsistency that you have introduced into the final two tables. -- /Alex/21 07:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why you can't fix your inconsistency now. You should have checked your edits to make sure that you hadn't done so yesterday so clearly you do have time. Wikipedia is not working to a deadline so waiting is not going to hurt. Responding to your wall of text takes time that I'm short on right now as I have other commitments. Please try to be at least a little patient. We may have to go to an RfC on this. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the issue being discussed here. We responded to your lengthy responses in a rapid time; we expect the same respect, instead of just these time-delaying responses. -- /Alex/21 14:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so very sorry that my life is much busier than yours Alex. I've never see someone so desperate, or demanding, for a discussion on the internet. Things a bit boring in SA?
Wow. Nice WP:WALLOFTEXT. - I see that you have responded in kind. Fair enough. Or is it that it's OK for you but not me?
Because they're not necessary. They're useful and nice-looking, but not necessary. - That's your opinion. As I said, we should be aiming for a professional looking product, not something from a class project. However, you've missed the point entirely here. You were justifying your removal of total_width because you didn't think it was the status quo, which is clearly incorrect as I've already stated. However, you were also removing some of the column widths and they are most definitely the status quo, having been in the episode lists since 26 October 2016. Just because something is not necessary, in your opinion, doesn't mean there is justification to remove it. That's clearly a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. There are lots of things in articles that are not necessary but we include them because it improves the article. It wasn't necessary to remove the whitespace in the series article but you tried, albeit unsuccessfully, because you thought it made the article look better.
look at this version. First three and final columns align. Middle columns don't need to align, - Where possible we should try to make all columns align as best as possible. That particular version is made worse by your unexplained switching of two column. You know, the one you refuse to fix.
You mean exactly how it is now? Where almost none of the columns align? - That's a problem that has crept in over time. The fix for that is to adjust column widths, not to remove them entirely. If the back wheel on your bicycle is bent, do you fix it or throw it away?
I did. Read your talk page properly next time. - I looked at the page but I can't see what you are talking about. Since you aren't going to tell me I can assume that your claim is false.
According to what policy or consensus? Can you cite anything to back that up - I explained that at length on my talk page for GUtt01 and I've also mentioned it here. It's easy to find.
Didn't you once say ...] - Ahh, scraping the bottom of the barrel for things to say, and failing. That was a completely different set of circumstances and not at all applicable here. You were arguing that an article should not exist because there wasn't enough detail. My response was essentially that it doesn't have to be GA to exist, that small articles are ok, which has nothing to do with this article at all.
Certainly, it seems there you were suggesting that articles should exist without needing to be GA worthy at all. - That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get the GA worthy. You've completely misread what was said.
Correct, per WP:SILENCE. However, read the rest of it - Again, you're missing the point and going off on a tangent. You've been arguing that reverting the undiscussed, unjustified removals is edit-warring and it's not. People remove stuff all the time and it gets restored all the time. In these cases the people removing the content clearly did not understand what the code was so they removed it, but that was the wrong thing to do. I've actually seen editors blocked for removing column widths persistently and the same will happen if they remove other content persistently without justification. The people here did it once each, with the exception of you and GUtt01.
That doesn't excuse the fact that you reverted the edits five times, as a singular editor, without discussion of any form outside of edit summaries. - Clearly you don't understand article maintenance. We don't open discussions every time we revert an edit. If it's removed twice then that's when a discussion can become necessary.
Your edits do not automatically become the status quo. - Actually they do if they stick, per what you quoted, and column widths have stuck now for over 3 years despite hundreds of edits by other users, including you.
Status quo is 100%. - No, that's not correct as I've already pointed out. Column widths have been the status quo for over 3 years. Total_width is part of the column formatting. Even if you disagree, total_width has been in the tables for 5 months. They stuck for 5 months so that's the status quo. I'm afraid that you are as wrong over this as you were about you reversion of the IP's edits.
any further comments? I see you have been active since both of the replies to you. - You need to be patient and wait. Discussions can take a long time, especially if some of the participants are busy. As I said above, Wikipedia is not working to a deadline.
Unfortunately, some of us don't have the time to just wait about - Seriously? You seem to spend a lot of time editing Wikipedia. Do you have to perform some brain surgery? If you don't have time to wait about then perhaps you need to reduce the time you spend on Wikipedia. Seriously. Have a break if your life is so busy. Go and watch some Doctor Who. :)
I will fix the issue, once we are able to fix the inconsistency that you have introduced into the final two tables. - In other words, you refuse to fix your mistake until your edits are introduced. That sort of threat never works well. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you need to work with people, not threaten them when you don't get your own way. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a busy life too. Always able to make time for you, though. As I said: the level of respect is clear here.
However, you were also removing some of the column widths and they are most definitely the status quo, having been in the episode lists since 26 October 2016. So, you are commenting on how 26 October 2016 is the optimum status quo of this article for the column widths. So, the column widths from 26 October 2016 should remain, but the 100% table widths from 26 October 2016 should not. You seem to be cherry picking your case here. You were justifying your removal of total_width because you didn't think it was the status quo, which is clearly incorrect as I've already stated. Your total_width edits were dispuited, by no less than five editors, and are currently in the middle of a discussion here, so no, it is not the status quo, your position on what the status quo is is clearly incorrect as I've already stated. Any "status quo" can be disputed.
Where possible we should try to make all columns align as best as possible. And yet, when you have personally changed the column widths, you have tried to do nothing of the sort.
That's a problem that has crept in over time. The fix for that is to adjust column widths, not to remove them entirely. If the back wheel on your bicycle is bent, do you fix it or throw it away? Clearly there's a problem with more than the back wheel, so I'd get a new one, thanks for the anology. Luckily, however, a Wikipedia article isn't a bike. If it's crept in over time, then as a regular editor to this article, why have you not fixed it?
Since you aren't going to tell me I can assume that your claim is false. I don't need to give you baby steps, you're old enough and grown up enough to read my example and know exactly what I'm talking about. I've directed you to how tables already have set- and unset-widths, but please, keep feigning ignorance.
I explained that at length on my talk page for GUtt01 and I've also mentioned it here. It's easy to find. I read that, and you cited no policy or guideline. You are the only editor supporting your edits against the several rejecting them. It's clear that you have no consensus to stand on other than the ownership of your edits and now they must remain.


That was a completely different set of circumstances and not at all applicable here. Not at all. Then, you said that articles can exist without being GA-worthy. Here, you're saying that articles should always be moving towards a state that is GA-worthy. What exactly did you mean then? That articles should be both GA-worthy and not? I see you happened to miss out on the multitude of FL examples that I linked that most certainly do not conform with your whole "it can only be an GA/FA is the widths are harmonized" theory. Care to comment on that? How is it that those articles are FL's when this theory has been provied bogus? Do comment on it.
You've been arguing that reverting the undiscussed, unjustified removals is edit-warring and it's not. When it's five editors who have all had an issue with the content, and you're the one who has reinserted them every time with no voiced support, no policy, no guideline, then yes, that is the definition of edit-warring, as you are forcing your edits with zero quotable reasoning to back you up. In these cases the people removing the content clearly did not understand what the code was so they removed it, but that was the wrong thing to do. Ah, but of course, you are the only editor who is able to understand these edits. Bit condescending on your part. Did you ever post to this talk page or any of the user's talk pages to explain your edits further? Or is all you did revert and post through edit summaries? That is most certainly not the collaborative outlook we're wanting here! I've actually seen editors blocked for removing column widths persistently and the same will happen if they remove other content persistently without justification. Yeah, I'm gonna wanna see some backup for that, I too can make claims without having any proof. And make sure that these examples show that they were blocked solely for the removal of column width and not just for the fact that they were edit-warring; thousands of editors have been blocked for warring, the content is irrelevant.
We don't open discussions every time we revert an edit. If it's removed twice then that's when a discussion can become necessary. And in this case, it was removed five times. As I asked above: where was your discussion? Why wasn't it "necessary" then?
Actually they do if they stick, per what you quoted, and column widths have stuck now for over 3 years despite hundreds of edits by other users, including you. And total_width has been disputed five times in the past five months. So, they are clearly not the status quo. Besides, WP:STATUSQUO is an essay; you have no policy to support you here. If you want a complimentary essay, see Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling; "Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior in opposition to a proposed change when substantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions are inadequate to legitimately oppose the change." You have not been ablt to present any substantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions. You have not been able to cite anything that supports your position and opposes my removal of the parameters. Or anyone, for that matter. Furthermore: "Status quo stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change" (keeping your parameters) ", or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo)" (reverting five editors over more than five times) "), and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes." (i.e. not creating a discussion after you reverted five editors separately). Reads like a textbook. I recommend you read more into that.
No, that's not correct as I've already pointed out. Column widths have been the status quo for over 3 years. Total_width is part of the column formatting. Even if you disagree, total_width has been in the tables for 5 months. They stuck for 5 months so that's the status quo. I'm afraid that you are as wrong over this as you were about you reversion of the IP's edits. Column widths are status quo, yes. Total_width is not Column width, so no, it's not. And I can cite at least five edits where they didn't stick, so no, it's clearly not the status quo. Status quo indiciates no objections or controversy when it comes to the edits. That's clearly not the case.
In other words, you refuse to fix your mistake until your edits are introduced. That sort of threat never works well. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you need to work with people, not threaten them when you don't get your own way. No. I will fix the changes once the dispute here comes to an end. It's not a "mistake". Nothing has dramatically changed in the article that stops editors from being able to access it. Wikipedia is indeed a collaborative effort, and yet you seem to find that it's completely acceptable to be the only editor of your position and thus your edits are allowed to remain. If it's so collaborative, then please cite some voiced agreement of your edits from other editors. Else, it's simply you trying to force the article to how you want it. Don't forget, you need to work with people, not threaten them when you don't get your own way. That is clearly issues against the total_width parameter, so you need to be able to discuss with editors and come to an agreement and compromise, instead of refusing to take in any form of suggestions or compromise and being stone-hard in your own views and position without willingness to budge. -- /Alex/21 22:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to respond in a few sessions because you get so upset when one doesn't reply immediately to you. Please wait until I've finished before replying to the whole thing.
I have a busy life too - Then you should be able to understand when they say that they can't reply straight away and you shouldn't harass them.
Always able to make time for you, though. - Well, clearly not. When I posted something that was true and later shown to be correct at [{WP:ANI]] you told me to get off your talk page.
the level of respect is clear here. - That's one thing I agree with. You consistently demonstrate that you don't respect others, which makes it hard to consider responding to you. If you would just tone down your attitude a bit, it might make things easier. You don't see me crying because it's been 2 days since I replied to GUtt01 and he hadn't replied do you? I can accept that maybe he has better things to do.
the column widths from 26 October 2016 should remain, but the 100% table widths from 26 October 2016 should not. - That's a ridiculous argument. You don't need to go through a long discussion when you make a minor change to an article. You know that and you just seem to be wasting time here. The total_widths were a minor adjustment to the column widths.
Your total_width edits were dispuited, by no less than five editors, - You can't stop harping about this can you? As I have explained previously, 3 edits were made without any justification or explanation whatever. When I reverted, they did not try to discuss their edits at all. One of the editors you will note actually showed a lot of confusion in his other edits with column widths so it's clear he didn't really know what he was doing. That sort of thing is par for the course in most articles, which you very well know. If you look at this edit and actually count the widths for series 3, you will see that they added up to 84, which is why total_width was set to the same figure, so reversion of that change was appropriate. You need to look more closely at what happened and not just cherry pick the diffs.
when you have personally changed the column widths, you have tried to do nothing of the sort. - That's absolute garbage. I've spent quite a deal of time harmonising column widths.
If it's crept in over time, then as a regular editor to this article, why have you not fixed it? - That's a rather hypocritical question given your refusal to fix an error that you introduced only a few days ago.
I don't need to give you baby steps, - You could at least show some respect and point me to the alleged section, as I did in my reply. I'm not going to go over this one any more. Since you persistently refuse to back up your claim, it's false and that's the end of it.
I read that, and you cited no policy or guideline. - Go back and have a look at all of the discussions pertaining to the article. And I do mean all.
You are the only editor supporting your edits against the several rejecting them. - It's not several. Editors in the past have shown no interest in the discussion and even GUtt01 seems to have given up. at the moment, it's just you.
Not at all. Then, you said that articles can exist without being GA-worthy - I'm not going to discuss this because it was most certainly a different set of circumstances, as already explained, and therefore irrelevant to this discussion. Let's stop getting side-tracked or clutching at straws as you seem to be doing.
In fact, for now let's take what GUtt01 said in his last post on-board. Why can't we try to align the columns as they were? It could easily be done without all of this back and forth which is really achieving nothing. What policy or guideline based reason do you have to justify removal of any of the column formatting? It's a simple question really. let's hope for a simple answer so we can get rid of this. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to step away for now as I have other real-world issues with a higher priority. Again, please don't reply to this until I can finish. I've only added it now as a good-faith demonstration that I am trying to address your concerns. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*There's no requirement that a table has to add up to 100 specifically. - In terms of presentation, the total width of tables need to conform to a universal standard - if the first two tables are at 100%, then tables after that should conform to that layout, regardless of column width.
*Editors often make edits because they don't understand something, rather than ask about it first,... - Yes, I agree to that point, but even veteran editors can do that as well. A person's level of experience on editing Wikipedia is not often a defining point behind a dispute.
*When creating articles the aim should always be to get the article promoted to GA and FA. - Not true. When creating an article, editors are required to detail information about the relevant subject, ensuring that is notable and can be verified by reliable sources, avoiding the use of primary sources only. What makes an article a GA and/or FA is how it is presented, and that this is done by the style the information is laid out, the sourcing, and the tone of the information being aimed at those with general interest in the subject of the article.
*Silence implies consensus. - No it does not. General consensus is not built in an argument by one side going silent in the matter. Consensus is when both sides have come to an agreement on the problem at hand; if someone goes silent it implies they cannot stress any further arguments, cannot reason with the other, or have given up. When consensus is built on silence in an argument, it is temporary, not permanent.GUtt01 (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of presentation, the total width of tables need to conform to a universal standard - Ideally that's true but there are plenty of articles where tables are quite rightly different widths. Originally this worked well here but with all the differences between the series I do concede that it is getting difficult to maintain consistency, not helped by edits like this which Alex refuses to fix.
even veteran editors can do that as well. A person's level of experience on editing Wikipedia is not often a defining point behind a dispute. - Agreed, but I don't think that's an issue here.
Not true. ... What makes an article a GA and/or FA is how it is presented, - Are you arguing that we shouldn't bother trying to present the article in the best manner? Should we wait a few years? Why not do it in the early days? Column widths were added to the main series article episode lists nearly 11 months after the article was created. Was that too early to start improving the presentation? What is a good time to start?
No it does not. - Even Alex disagrees with you on this. Per WP:SILENCE, "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident". I won't quote the rest. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally that's true but there are plenty of articles where tables are quite rightly different widths. Originally this worked well here but with all the differences between the series I do concede that it is getting difficult to maintain consistency So, you willingly accept that articles do not need to have set widths, and that this article would be better off without widths, and yet you're so stone-hard in your opinions above that you state that they must be included for an eventual GA/FA status, even though that was provied wrong as well. Please, do remain consistant.
Agreed, but I don't think that's an issue here. And yet, you mage ageist comments whene editors disagree with you. Bit contradicting there...
Are you arguing that we shouldn't bother trying to present the article in the best manner? Best manner? Sure. GA/FA manner? Not necessary. Not every article needs to be at a FA/GA level, which you've clearly stated before; articles can exist without having to look like a GA/FA article. In fact, it already could look like an FA article based on the examples I gave before.
Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident Very clear it has here. So, yes, there's no consensus. -- /Alex/21 22:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
you willingly accept that articles do not need to have set widths - I never said that they did. That does not mean they shouldn't.
and that this article would be better off without widths, - I never said that. Originally the widths were fine and they have been tweaked so they could be again. Did you not get the bicycle analogy?
you mage ageist comments whene - Is there an English translation for this?
Best manner? Sure. GA/FA manner? ... - You seem all over the place here. You do realise that GA/FA is the best don't you? Saying yes to best and no to GA/FA is completely contradictory.
Very clear it has here. - The only voiced opposition here is you. GUtt01 doesn't like total-width but you don't want anything and so far your arguments seem more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else. You'd rather the easy way than the proper way. The fact that you haven't fixed the error you introduced demonstrates this. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AussieLegend and Alex 21: Guys, I think this discussion may have started to devolve into a personal dispute between the two of you, rather than a general discussion around the subject matter, given the recent comment of the past couple of days. Let's not get too off topic here; if neither of you can agree on the best way to resolve the problem, then we should put this out for a RfC to get input from others. GUtt01 (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly do not disagree with you. It's sometimes hard to keep things cordial though. I won't elaborate. That said, we shouldn't need an RfC when the easy resolution is to tweak the column widths, which could have been done if this discussion hadn't distracted me so much. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AussieLegend, Alex 21, and GUtt01: I have declined a request for full protection of this article, because I am glad to see you are now discussing your differences. Keep up that approach. You have all been here long enough to know better than to edit war, and to know the penalties if you do. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to, at any rate. -- /Alex/21 07:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season articles for The Grand Tour[edit]

Does anyone believe its time for this programme to receive its own season articles? GUtt01 (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there's enough content then make drafts and move to mainspace when ready, hard to say whether there will be enough content. 195.191.241.12 (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an error on seasons listing S4 E2 as S5 E1 2A00:23C5:C210:E00:EDD1:6FB9:AA46:B462 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Season 4 Latest Episode Date[edit]

Hello - I added latest release date for season 4, change was reverted by User:Admanny. Request consensus for adding the current latest episode date: 16 February 2024 (2024-02-16). TRL (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Last released date" indicates release date of the final episode of the season, NOT the last episode that was released when season is still ongoing. Since sources say final TGT episode is due to release in later half of 2024, I put 2024 Admanny (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need for nebulous "sources say", Andy Wilman himself has said the last episode will be in September of 2024, in an interview with Ben Collins. Considering this is as good a source as you can get, I think it should be included in the list. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv91IDdzb9M&t=3322s 70.55.30.16 (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_The_Grand_Tour_episodes&oldid=1211819476"