Talk:List of Hunter Street episodes

Directors and writers

Amaury There are writers and directors in all shows lists Why is this problem for you here? And why only directors and writers added by me? Season 3 has this information for long time. Lado85 (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Your comment - "I said there are too many directors and writers for *this* series, making the episode tables look ugly. You can take this up on the talk page. Stop being disruptive, as per WP:BRD. " Not me you are disruptive And your action is simply vandalism. Ugly is air date cells, stretched on half of page. Too many writers are only in season 1. Why do you delete season 2 and 4, and keep season 3? In season 4 are only one director and writer per episode. In season 3, 2-3 writers per episode. Your actions and words are contradictory to each other. Lado85 (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Amaury: Writers should be included in the episode table when available because standard practice to include them, important part of the production and included in reliable sources. The infobox in main article mentioned in edit summary summarises information from elsewhere, shouldn't normally have unique information. The table looking "ugly" isn't a strong reason to exclude information. List of The Big Bang Theory episodes is an example of an article with more writers. Indagate (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Standard practice means jackshit. It is not a topdown rule that must be followed to the letter. There is also common sense. The Big Bang Theory is a different case and not comparable to this series, and it's more organized there, anyway, and doesn't have as many writers as this series. See also WP:OSE and WP:VNOT. For the latter: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The same applies here. Just because director and writer information is available doesn't mean it has to be included. And disorganization is a perfectly valid reason for not including certain information. Readers here prefer ease of readability rather than seeing a bunch of crowded information in a small cell. The current WP:CONSENSUS is to not include directors and writers in the episodes tables, and a new consensus must be established in order to change it. Until then, the information must be kept out, as per WP:STATUSQUO. Amaury • 09:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.

And table is more ugly without writers and directors with title an air date stratched to full page. Lado85 (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Posted at Template talk:Episode list for more thoughts. Indagate (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The table looking "ugly" is not a good reason to remove key information from it. If you want to remove some of the clutter then I would suggest taking out the production code column, it isn't necessary when it is the same as the episode numbers. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus needs to be established in order to include that information here. Otherwise, it stays out until and if current consensus changes, as per WP:STATUSQUO. Articles should also have easy readability, not miniature walls a text within an already small cell. See also WP:VNOT quoted above. If consensus turns out in favor of including the information here, then I will gladly accept it, but that is not the current consensus. Furthermore, comments made here or anywhere else on Wikipedia, for that matter, should be by users who actually understand guidelines and policies. Yes, some users have different interpretations of them, as is clear by you and me here, for example, but they still understand them. However, I am not going to discuss something with a user—the OP of this discussion, in this case—who ignores WP:BRD and appears to have WP:CIR issues and reports me to the vandalism noticeboard, falsely accusing me of vandalism because they are not getting their way and clearly don't understand what a WP:VANDAL actually is. This isn't the first time they have done this, so if they don't even know what a vandal actually is, then perhaps they shouldn't be editing here or, at the very least, should step back and discuss the matter—whatever matter that may be—rather than edit war on their assertion that they are "right!1!1" Maybe they are or maybe they are not, but they need to discuss and not edit war. Amaury • 10:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Please focus on content issues in this talk page, if you have issues with an editor that can be discussed elsewhere Indagate (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The episode table being "ugly" is not a essay, guideline or policy. Yes, the directors and writers should absolutely be credited. OSE does not relate to this article, as it concerns deletion discussions, not deletion of content, and no further policies have been cited to support the removal. As far as I can tell, there is no consensus to disclude the information bar one editor; no discussion has been cited to show any consensus. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus isn't always done through discussion. If an article has an established style—date format, inclusion or exclusion of certain information, like directors and writers or a ratings table, etc.—that's been there for years unchallenged, that in itself sets that as the consensus and status quo. If a user comes along, say, 10 years later and wants to change it, they need to get consensus, especially if they were already WP:BOLD and tried once, but received pushback. Although I don't expect this user to understand this, so I don't plan on making further replies to this user. This is a user who is inconsistent. They're fine with including information like this, which is fine, since they have a right to their opinion, but I still find it hypocritical since they fought and failed to not include an average ratings table on another article just because the season wasn't finished yet. If "ugly" is not considered a good reason, then neither is "season not finished yet." And if directors and writers are worth including, and I agree that they otherwise are, with some exceptions such as here, then so are ratings. Although I would argue that there's not much relevance in including ratings nowadays with how much ratings have declined due to people cutting cable and moving to streaming apps or even just cutting cable and having nothing for whatever their reasons may be, but that's for another discussion. Amaury • 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What you describe is consensus through silence; i.e. WP:SILENCE, and to quote from it, Consensus can be presumed until disagreement becomes evident. Disagreement has clearly become evident, and there appears to be far more support for the inclusion than the exclusion, hence WP:CCC supports that idea that consensus' can change. If you have an issue with any user's conduct, this is not the correct place to discuss that; talk pages are the location for discussions concerning content, per WP:TPYES and WP:FOC. I've no idea where ratings have come into this discussion, but you are welcome to your opinion, whether it's relevant to the discussion at hand - another discussion indeed. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course include them. I find it amusing that one of the most important pieces of information is left out while the absolutely trivial production code is kept. Gonnym (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Should definitely be included. Would also advocate for the production code info to be removed as it does not add anything of value seeing as all episodes were produced in order and the codes line up with the season/overall numbers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm also noting that this is a Dutch series, but lists solely American airdates and viewers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The infobox at Hunter Street (TV series) does say its Dutch but uses American categories. Quite a mess of an article atm. Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I am abandoning this discussion and no longer have any interest in watching these articles. It's clear where consensus is, and I said I would accept it, and I will. Doesn't mean I agree with it. Have fun with an ugly article. Amaury • 04:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

An unfortunate example of the lack of desire to collaborate, the last sentence. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)