User talk:U-Mos/Archives/2021/February

Question
There's some issues with that edit; the template you cited is guidance, not policy. That particular guidance was added almost 15 years ago, even then it appears it was added rather arbitrarily, because there doesn't appear to be a consensus for it on the talk page (and even if there was, it would be 15 years old). A lot has happened with tv in that time. Shows goes for years now between seasons, including this show. And that doesn't even take into account the world-wide pandemic, now in it's 15th month, which has drastically affected the film and television industry. Allowances need to taken into for that. But finally, the ancient template guidance you cited, specifically mentions 12 months "without any announcements". Which is why I specifically asked you if you had a source for your edit...? Sourcing is a policy, a current one, that will always trump template guidance. - wolf
 * This guideline is still consistently adhered to, though, in my experience. I would say that while over a year between seasons is much more common these days, over a year with no news of a return is far less so, so both the rationale and the timeframe of the guideline thus stand. In this case, we even have a series where every indication is that it won't return to TV, so I don't see grounds to object to the guideline. U-Mos (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I object to it because of the issues I just stated. It needs to be updated, but in the meantime, until the zombie plague has passed, I don't think it needs be so strictly applied, at least not as zealously as you have. You made an edit, you were reverted, and you instantly reverted again. The issues with the template guidance (not "guideline") aside, there's two problems with you actions. First, (and I know you know this), you should've gone to the talk page, not reverted again. Second, I asked about sourcing, and had you gone to the talk page, you could've responded to that, and noted the template guidance, instead of via back-and-forth edit summaries. I would suggest you self-revert, and then the template guidance, any sourcing regarding your edit, and any news about the show, or lack thereof, can be discussed on the article tp. This is how it's supposed to be done. - wolf  10:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously you're free to pursue further if you wish. Note, though, that the matter has already been addressed without objection on the talk page at Talk:Luther (TV series), and my edit followed that assertion. Remember also that the relevant guidance is specifically designed for instances where there is a lack of news and sources, so requiring a source to justify following it is illogical. I maintain this was an uncontroversial edit. U-Mos (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a single comment, from over two years ago, and addresses almost nothing at issue here. And are you sure there is a "lack of news and sources" about this show? I think that if you are going to so strictly and inflexibly try to enforce to that dated and questionable template guidance, you should at least follow it. But again, it's not BRRD, the page should go back to QUO while the disputed content is discussed... because that's how it's supposed to be done. - wolf  20:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One other note; asking for a source is not "illogical". If you had a source that say, confirmed that Luther had no future, as in no further series, no feature film, no spin-offs, nothin'... meaning the end date you've added is actually supported, then there would be no issue with your edit, (and the template guidance would be a separate issue, for another time and place). - wolf  21:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)