Talk:List of Casualty episodes (series 1–20)

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

Page creation notes[edit]

For technical reasons it has been necessary to split content from List of Casualty episodes to this article, whose title, List of Casualty episodes* was chosen also for technical reasons. At List of Casualty episodes, due to the significant amount of content being transcluded to that page, that page was breaking the 2MB post-expand include size limit by a very large amount. This resulted in much of the page's content not being displayed. Missing information included all of the episode tables for series 17-31, special episodes and Casualty@Holby City, article references and the navbox.[1] This article has been created using Labeled section transclusion and contains virtually no content, all except one small table containing links being transcluded from List of Casualty episodes and individual series articles. Any changes to the layout of this page, or even moving it, may cause this page to exceed the 2MB limit. As it serves only as a "cache" page for the main episode list page, it should not require editing. Any edits should be carried out at the transcluded pages. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page title[edit]

Should this be located at List of Casualty episodes (series 1–20) to follow the same format as, for example, List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) (which happens to be a featured list)? Using an asterisk seems a very non-standard way to name an article. — anemoneprojectors 08:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons' article originally used a similar naming format, but it was moved after a discussion by people who clearly didn't understand the technical reasons for use of that format. This is not a typical article, it's a cache page for List of Casualty episodes created because that page broke the post-expand include size limit badly. There are only a few examples of this on Wikipedia, so it's not a problem affecting many articles, meaning it won't be fixed any time soon. It's very important to add as little content as possible. Just moving List of The Simpsons episodes* to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) was enough to cause multiple problems that had to be overcome because of the way that transclusion works. Wbm1058 and I have had to babysit the articles because of the problems that even minor changes can create. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I understand why this page exists. It's just that this was the first time I've seen a page split like this and I came across the Simpsons one and thought that was more likely to be the standard, not realising that it had been moved. I did already foresee a large number of problems moving that this page would cause, but I thought I would ask. Thanks for explaining. — anemoneprojectors 10:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a large part of the problem is that very few people have seen a page split like this and that's because we don't have a lot of TV series that have so many seasons. People also don't understand how transclusion works, so what they think is a simple fix can be incredibly complex. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 September 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 07:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Casualty episodes* → List of Casualty episodes (series 1–20) – Requesting the page move to be listed in a similar case to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20), List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) episodes (seasons 1–20), List of Saturday Night Live episodes (seasons 1–15) and List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) / List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present). The asterisks makes no sense to the regular editor, and only appears to be an editor preference to have a similar name. Looking at an identical case at List of Holby City episodes*, the article appeared and worked perfectly acceptable under the new name and no technical errors were present. See Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20)#Requested move 17 April 2016 for an identical requested move. -- AlexTW 03:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – using an asterisk like this is totally non-standard. The current RM will take this to much more standard article titling under WP:NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Oppose - The asterisk is used for technical reasons. This is not a separate article to List of Casualty episodes per se. It is a cache page for that article, created to fix major problems. Prior to its creation the LoE page it was horribly broken as it exceeded the post expand include size, which has a 2MB limit. This resulted in much content not displaying so it was necessary to split the article into two parts to get the article size down. A similar problem had previously occurred at List of The Simpsons episodes and it was necessary to split that article. As I explained recently at Talk:List of Holby City episodes*#Page name, when an unfortunate requested move resulted in List of The Simpsons episodes* being moved to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) the change from " *" to " (seasons 1–20)" was enough to break the page again.[2] It required edits to 22 pages to fix the problems caused. Most editors are unaware that when pages are transcluded onto another page, as happens with season articles, the entire content of the page is transcluded but only the content between the transclusion tags is displayed. The more pages that are transcluded, the bigger the page. At this time List of Casualty episodes is approaching the post expand include size limit again and will break in the future. Moving this article might even be enough to break the page, as was the case when List of The Simpsons episodes* was moved. When that happens more seasons will have to be moved here to fix the problem. If this page's name is changed now it will have to be moved again at that time, and the next time the LoE page breaks and then again the next time and so on. Using the asterisk in the name negates the need for subsequent page moves. In short, it's a really dumb idea to move this page now as it only ensures future maintenance is more difficult.
Looking at an identical case at List of Holby City episodes*, the article appeared and worked perfectly acceptable] under the new name and no technical errors were present. - That's not an identical case and neither are the other pages the nom has listed. At this time List of Holby City episodes is further off breaking the 2MB limit than is List of Casualty episodes. However, also as I explained at Talk:List of Holby City episodes*#Page name, it will break in the future as more series are added. The only reason it didn't break when List of Holby City episodes* was recently moved was because there is presently enough headroom to stop a break and that is exactly what we are aiming at with these splits and the naming - to make future problems easily solveable with a minimum of effort needed by editors. We shouldn't be creating a situation that is going to exacerbate future problems and require more effort to fix them, which is what moving this article will do.
The asterisks makes no sense to the regular editor - Transclusion makes no sense to the regular editor, nor do the problems created when the post expand include size limit is exceeded.
and only appears to be an editor preference to have a similar name - I'm quite amazed that the nom would make this comment given that the reason has been explained multiple times in discussions in which he has participated, including at the Simpsons move that broke the article gain. Use of the asterisk reduces file size and minimises the work required to fix inevitable future breaks.
In short, it's a really dumb idea to move this page now as it only ensures future maintenance is more difficult. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Extremely strong oppose" does nothing to further an RM than an "Oppose" does. Nor do walls of text.
I get that it is a cache page, but how long is it expected to remain as such? Caches, by definition, are temporary. You believe the previous RM to be unfortunate, but as can be seen, the list works perfectly well. Yes, it required "22" further edits, but that's what Wikipedia is all about - editing an article to make it better for the site as a whole. These edits could have been performed before the move, and there would be no need for that repeated clam. You seem to be under the impression that when the main episodes article breaks, more seasons would need to be moved here. This is not the case. They could very easily be moved to a third new article, such as List of Saturday Night Live episodes (seasons 1–15), leaving this article for Series 1-20, the current (eventually second split) article for Series 1-40 (for example), then a third for Series 40+. What's required for that? One article, no changes to the previous ones bar a new "list has been split" template. Now, that makes the whole "we need to move more here" redundant.
Transclusion makes more sense to an editor than a random asterisks. If the content isn't here to edit, it's on the season page to edit. Makes sense. An asterisks without explanation in the article? What if a third article was necessary after both exceed the limit? Two asterisks? This is certainly not common practice, nor common knowledge.
In short, this issue is extremely simple, and Mt. Everest is being made out of an anthill concerning it. -- AlexTW 07:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Walls of text are sometimes needed when trying to address a complicated issue that has been simplified because readers don't really understand the issues and the "Extremely Strong Oppose" is aimed at drawing attention to what is obviously an important explanation.
I get that it is a cache page, but how long is it expected to remain as such? - Until such time as the post expand include size issue is addressed or we find a better way of transcluding articles, such as being able to transclude only the content between the tags.
You believe the previous RM to be unfortunate, but as can be seen, the list works perfectly well. - That's only because I fixed it.
Yes, it required "22" further edits, but that's what Wikipedia is all about - editing an article to make it better for the site as a whole. - No it's not. It's about providing an encyclopaedia for our readers. We shouldn't have to edit articles excessively in order to achieve that, but that's what is happening. And, when the article breaks again and again, we have to find somebody who knows what is causing it and how to fix it.
These edits could have been performed before the move - No they could not because the articles were reliant upon the article being at List of The Simpsons episodes*. Had the articles been changed before the move, this would have cause both List of The Simpsons episodes* and List of The Simpsons episodes to break in a different way.
You seem to be under the impression that when the main episodes article breaks, more seasons would need to be moved here. This is not the case. They could very easily be moved to a third new article - Regardless of whether you move them to this article or another article, they would have to be moved to another article. Creating a third article makes no sense. We shouldn't be forcing readers to go to multiple articles just to look at an episode list. Ideally we have the episodes listed in one place. Because of the post expand include size issue we're forced to use two articles but we shouldn't be using 3 when we don't need to.
Transclusion makes more sense to an editor than a random asterisks. - These are two different issues. Many editors seem to believe that when content is transcluded only the content between the tags is transcluded. Some don't even understand that. They just know it's necessary and the content magically appears. The asterisk is a different issue. It was chosen to keep the file size down so we can fit as much as possible into one article and avoid the need for an excessive number of articles, as weel as to note that it wasn't actually a separate article per se. Once the cache page is created it shouldn't really need to be edited again. Only the LoE page needs editing. In the case of this series, with 33 seasons to date, we now have 34 pages just to list the episodes. That's a lot for readers to look through to find content and we shouldn't be forcing them to have to look through even more.
What if a third article was necessary after both exceed the limit? Two asterisks? - That's a LONG way off because of the way that the pages have been created. A lot of thought went into this.
this issue is extremely simple, and Mt. Everest is being made out of an anthill concerning it. - Yes, by you with this RM. Leave everything alone and all works fine. You're trying to "fix" something that doesn't need fixing. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to respond to all of that. TL;DR. We'll just see where these RMs go, and if they get closed with a consensus, then they'll be moved. If not, then they'll stay. Easy as that. -- AlexTW 12:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - no reader should be expected to understand a very technical reason for choosing a bad title, one that doesn't even establish its scope. @AlexTheWhovian: is there a reason why List of Casualty episodes wasn't also added? --Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, it's not a bad title. It was chosen specifically so readers would be presented with a fully functioning article in 99.999% of cases. Most readers would be unlikely to know why we pick specific titles. Hell, a lot of editors don't know why. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No they weren't. It required a huge effort to fix the issues at the Simpsons articles. The initial work to fix the articles went on for months. It was a huge effort here as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per article title policy. Completely unconventional and unprofessional name by using needless asterisk. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The asterisks were not at all needless. Really, some of the comments by people who have had no other involvement here other than this RM are quite ridiculous and extremely disrespectful of those who did the work. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh.. so you want be left to be ruling here and making arbitrary rules. You don't want views of uninvolved editors. Tell me the policy that mandates using asterisk. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never said any of that. I do however take exception to unqualified claims, unqualified because you have not explained why, exactly, the asterisks were needless and how the article name is "unprofessional". The reason for using the asterisk was technical, it was not policy based since the problem that we had was a technical problem that was not covered by any policy, guideline or even essay. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please let the discussion proceed and cease the textbook WP:BLUDGEONing. Thank you. -- AlexTW 09:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is exceptionally non-standard and the "technical explanation" makes no sense to me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure, although I think I could be convinced. I was very much in the opinion that the page should have an asterisk (hence why I requested the move following the above discussion) since I had only one side of the story and believed that there were deeper technical reasons behind the title. Now, having seen the opinions of other users, I can now understand that perhaps it would be possible to give the page a regular title. But to me, this flags up a few questions. Does the second page still remain transcluded from the first page? Should we explain in the lead the difference between the two pages? Anyway, with a bit of explanation, I'm sure someone can help me decide where I stand. Soaper1234 - talk 18:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to this question at the Holby City discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and also move List of Casualty episodes to List of Casualty episodes (series 21–present). The article title exists first to serve readers and be the URL with which a link is shared; the asterisk is surprising and nonsensical in this context. If this makes template maintenance harder, or even impossible, so be it; templates only exist to be convenient shortcut for maintainers. At absolute worst, just copy & paste the template results around, although I suspect there are perfectly fine ways to make this work anyway with templates. As a side comment, the linked discussion appeared to discuss the idea that as more episodes are premiered, editors will randomly throw episodes from the "recent" list article into the "asterisk" article. This seems like a bad practice and likely to cause WP:ASTONISH issues; just leave this as series 1-20 forever, and if the time comes, split off 21-35 and 36-present or whatever split is decided on. SnowFire (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any move will change the url of the page. URLs have to be unique and given some of the urls that we see today, an asterisk is hardly surprising or nonsensical. The default url for every TV program LoE page is the same, "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_<program_name>_episodes". Moving the LoE page is at best inconsistent with thousands of other pages. We shouldn't do that unless absolutely necessary. A move will not make template maintenance harder, it makes page maintenance harder, which is why the article was split in the first place. I'm not sure what you mean by just copy & paste the template results around. This doesn't really make any sense. What exactly are you copying around? As for the linked discussion appeared to discuss the idea that as more episodes are premiered, editors will randomly throw episodes from the "recent" list article into the "asterisk" article, no, episodes won't be randomly moved. Only entire seasons will have to be moved as new episodes break the post-expand include size limit. This is unavoidable. Once the page becomes big enough to break the limit, episodes have to be moved. As already explained, no series is close to needing 3 pages. We would be doing a great disservice to our readers if we forced them to look on 3 pages when 2 work fine. Seasons were moved with the aim of moving only as many as were necessary so as to avoid forcing readers to have to look on other pages for recent episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this isn't responsive to my and others point, which is that this is the wrong thing to do from a non-technical perspective, so therefore the tech has to change to adapt to the reader not the other way around. The asterisk is surprising and unexplained and implies, if anything, that it is a list of all episodes for those who think of asterisks as wildcard "anything" expansion. I'm not sure how to respond to "URLs are confusing so toss in an extra unexplained character at the end why not".
For your point below about page division, I agree that it is awkward to continually readjust how many seasons are covered in a single article, but you address solely the problem of form: that of moving the title around, which you see as solved by the asterisk. That isn't really that bad; the real problem is that the moving of episodes itself is surprising and WP:ASTONISHing to readers that an article mysteriously grows and shrinks, that a link shared yesterday can suddenly lead to a different article today, and not due to a new episode being released today. So I think that the idea of such constant reshuffling is misguided, hence calling it "random", yes. Set out clear limits and stick with 'em. If that means three articles rather than two really long articles that have been carefully maximizing length up to the limit, so be it, this will be more consistent and understandable for readers anyway, a service rather than a "great disservice" to them. SnowFire (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My post was a direct response to comments that you made, it wasn't meant to be a response to everyone else. I have responded where appropriate to individual posts. Unfortunately, the tech isn't likely to change so we have no choice but to work with what we have. Forcing non-technical responses to a technical problem just isn't going to work. The asterisk was chosen for a specific reason, which is not entirely technical. Wbm1058 has posted a detailed explanation at WT:TV-NC concerning use of the asterisk.[3] If you read that and then look at the top of the article you will see that the asterisk is explained by the hatnote that says "*This is a partial list. The list was split to two articles, due to its length."
I'm not sure how to respond to "URLs are confusing so toss in an extra unexplained character at the end why not". - That is not what was said.
the real problem is that the moving of episodes itself is surprising and WP:ASTONISHing - We don't have a real choice here due to the technical limitations. Season lists were moved here because they simply don't fit on the main page. In order to avoid confusion as much as possible, the number of seasons that were moved was a compromise. Ideally all episodes are listed on the one page; that's the way it is done at thousands of articles and readers find it surprising that all episodes are not listed at List of Casualty episodes like they are in 99.9999% of episode lists. Enough episodes were moved here so that the main page would not break while leaving as many as possible in the main article but with room for expansion so that we aren't constantly moving episodes. Recent edits made after a suggestion at WP:VPT means the article is further off breaking the limit and we could actually move several seasons back but eventually they would have to be moved back here. In short, no matter what choice we make, readers are going to be surprised, more so if no episodes are listed at List of Casualty episodes, which is what you are suggesting.
that a link shared yesterday can suddenly lead to a different article today - It's not as if episodes are going to be moved every week. This is a process that is likely to occur very infrequently. Regardless, because of the way that the pages are linked, there should be very little confusion. The episodes being moved are older episodes which are generally less viewed. As an example, this page is typically viewed 13-30 times per month while the main list with the recent episodes is viewed over 100 times per month.[4]
If that means three articles rather than two really long articles that have been carefully maximizing length up to the limit - There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. We haven't been "carefully maximizing length". Since the article was split over 2 years ago there hasn't been a need to move any episodes. That will need to be done in the future but probably less than we expected to have to do. There is absolutely no need to create 3 articles as all episodes easily fit into 2, especially now after recent changes. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) I disagree with your proposed article structure, so you are solving a non-problem. The way overlong articles works absolutely everywhere else on Wikipedia is "summary style" wherein fragments are broken out, and as the fragments themselves get too large, they themselves are broken up. Look at the section header to Casualty_(TV_series)#Broadcast. Currently it reads:
Main articles: List of Casualty episodes, List of Casualty episodes*, and List of Casualty specials
I'm suggesting it should read instead:
Main articles: List of Casualty episodes (series 1–20), List of Casualty episodes (series 21–present), and List of Casualty specials
I challenge you to go find a non-Wikipedia editing friend of yours and challenge them to guess at what they get by clicking on the first two links vs. my suggested section header. Heck, why should readers even have to spend time to figure out the difference in the first place? Even if they figure it out and get the right answer, it's just added stress when they could just see the split directly. It makes no sense to hide it, nor to keep reshuffling the cutoff point. This would be in keeping with every other split-out in Wikipedia, like History of the United Kingdom during the First World War vs. Political history of the United Kingdom (1945–present) and such. Nobody would propose History of the United Kingdom* as some sort of cache that gets more and more history thrown into it, even if this was changed to a country that only required two articles on its history.
Given the above, using asterisk is simply not an option, because it is reader hostile. And there is an obvious, technical answer: just don't go over the size limit, and slice the lists slightly smaller. This is not a big deal. And if the episodes moving around really are infrequent, then it should be no problem to clearly express the scope of the article in its title, without need for DISPLAYTITLE shenanigans. SnowFire (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your proposed article structure, so you are solving a non-problem. - I'm sorry but this doesn't make sense. How does the fact that you don't like something equate to it being a non-problem? There clearly is a problem here, that of the LoE article breaking the post-expand include size and that is certainly not a non-problem. Read on...
The way overlong articles works absolutely everywhere else on Wikipedia ... - There are several issues here. One is that WP:OTHERSTUFF really applies but I'm happy to go down that route if you want. The second is that the other articles are usually about specific, quite different topics. For example, let's look at Australia which is a long article. Several sub-articles have been created with names like, Climate of Australia, Environment of Australia, Environmental issues in Australia, Geography of Australia, Geology of Australia, Government of Australia, History of Australia and Politics of Australia. All of these have a different focus and consequently completely different titles. This is not the case here. The content of this article is the same as at the main LoE page. The ONLY reason this article exists is because of technical limitations that forced content to have to be moved out of that article. The other articles that you speak of were mostly created because the main article was too long to read, not because the main article broke the post-expand include size limit (this really needs an acronym!). Thirdly, most article trees don't expand beyond 2 or three levels, i.e. main article, sub-article and maybe a sublist of a sub-article. It's a lot different in the TV world. We're stuck with several levels and you're proposing that we add one more:
This adds an extra level of complexity and is completely inconsistent with the way that we treat the more than 45,000 TV series that exist on Wikipedia. Based on page views, most readers are looking for the latest episodes so, instead of one click from the main series article, they'll have to click first to the LoE set index and then click again to get to the second LoE page. Then, if they want to go to an earlier season they have to click to get to another page. The present situation does not require that as both articles are setup so that they act as one page, instead of the three in your proposal.
Look at the section header to Casualty_(TV_series)#Broadcast. Currently ... - That's just listing the articles individually. Presently, a reader only has to click on the link to List of Casualty episodes and they then have access to all episodes. Your proposal doesn't improve on that so please don't imply that it does. Almost all of the 45,000+ TV articles with a separate LoE page have the page at "List of <Foo> episodes", not "List of <Foo> episodes (seasons 1-20)".
Nobody would propose History of the United Kingdom* as some sort of cache - As explained above, these articles were not split out because they broke the post-expand include size limit. They were split out because the article ws too long to read. It's a totally different situation and your suggestion is really quite silly.
Given the above, using asterisk is simply not an option, because it is reader hostile. - It's not hostile at all while forcing readers to have to navigate through multiple pages to find one section most definitely is. As Wbm105 explained at WT:TV-NC, The asterisk is intended to point to a note – typographical devices such as the asterisk (*) or dagger (†) may be used to point to footnotes; the traditional order of these symbols in English calls for using an * first.[5] Since use of the asterisk is an established convention it's definitely not hostile.
it should be no problem to clearly express the scope of the article in its title, without need for DISPLAYTITLE shenanigans - A move such as you are suggesting has ramifications beyond "DISPLAYTITLE shenanigans". The articles would have to be treated as individual articles and that requires edits that would remove functionality. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning oppose, but it's obvious where the consensus is. I don't buy the "article title" rationale, as the asterisk wasn't intended to be part of the title. I don't follow why people think that the asterisk at the end of the title* isn't, as a dagger (typography), a typographical symbol usually used to indicate a footnote, i.e. a footnote explaining why it's a split list. But anyhow, the problems that led me to this unconventional choice have been greatly mitigated since the syntax in {{episode list/sublist}} was changed in May 2017. That makes managing these splits a lot easier than it was the last time I engineered one. Less things that need to be simultaneously changed. Another reason for that choice was to have more flexibility in configuring the location of the split in the list. "(series 1–20)" kind of locks you into where you need to make the split – and you can't change that without changing the title. But, since that May 2017 change took the hardcoded list title out of the template parameters, there is less call for the flexibility that the asterisk gave. I suppose it's nice to have a consistent convention, and as of now this one still using the asterisk is the exception to the "convention". – wbm1058 (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having "List of <Foo> episodes*" as the second article regardless of how many seasons are in the second article is more consistent than:
List of <Foo> episodes (seasons 1-3)
List of <Foo> episodes (seasons 1-5)
List of <Foo> episodes (seasons 1-7)
List of <Foo> episodes (seasons 1-10)
List of <Foo> episodes (seasons 1-11)
List of <Foo> episodes (seasons 1-20)
etc. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed the DISPLAYTITLE and added a hatnote (see WP:DISPLAYTITLE). So, everyone watching this, please do take a second look at List of Casualty episodes*. Thinking to myself, "duh!", why didn't I think of that sooner?" Does that make it any clearer? I guess I thought that <sup> would be a disallowed modification (or maybe it used to be?) or maybe since VisualEditor makes it too easy now for newbies to try to change a title this way, so now I patrol for this and point them to WP:RM... anyhow, this convention better conforms to the conciseness criterion – the title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. There is only one subject here; it's just a subject that's been split to two pages. There is a complete and identical overview of the subject in List of Casualty episodes* § Series overview which is found on both pages, and enables seamless navigation between pages. I'd suggest, if we can't change enough minds here, that this be taken up at WT:Naming conventions (television), giving this rationale, since I may have brought it up too late in the week to change the outcome here. Oh, I see. There's already a lengthy discussion there, too. I'll go take a look at it now. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added my thoughts there: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Rebooting the discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: You did tried, but your modification only works because the article is not yet moved. Once it's moved to List of Casualty episodes (series 1–20), that display title will no longer work and will emit error message instead. And now that, it has not been moved, the display title (at lease <sup> part) is superfluous, whether you use it or not the asterisk will still appear. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Casualty_episodes_(series_1–20)&oldid=1202869094"