Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/Archive 10

lol okay, so here's something I don't get.

The other day I was watching Malcolm in the Middle and I was all like "hey, wait a sec. Is that that one song by Journey? I'll consult Wikipedia!!". And so I did. As expected, some dick merged all the episode articles, which led me to go through the task of:

1. Finding the episode title
2. Searching for that episode title
3. Getting redirected back to the List of Episodes
4. Clicking the redirect page
5. Going to the history
6. Scrolling down and finding the last meaningful revisionyou
7. Finding out that it in fact was not that one Journey song.

It's only hitting me just now at how obnoxious and stupid that entire process was to find out something so mundane. Is there really a point to those episode articles not being linked to? BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL THERE, quietly hidden away by some twat who for some god-forsaken reason thought the information wasn't good enough for my eyes to look upon. How does this make a lick of sense? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First, the chances of you finding a song in an episode article (at least one that conforms to the guidelines) is going to be rare in and of itself. Per WP:MOSTV#Things to avoid, it's not something generally included just to be included. Secondly, we actually preserve the history (i.e. don't delete, just redirect) for that very reason. So that someone can go back and find some trivial information that wasn't entirely encyclopedic an thus not what was merged to the parent article. Finally, let's try and be a bit more civil and not attack other editors who were merely following the guidelines and policies set forth by the community (trust me, if they were redirected it was because they failed WP:NOTE).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, nothing was really merged, all the episode articles were simply redirected. So that means that in essence, all the articles were simply de-linked. This is what baffles me. What was the point of that? If all the information is still there and completely untouched and unmoved, why is it not readily accessible? People being able to look at this stuff isn't harmful to Wikipedia's overall quality or scholarly merit(lolo).

This logic doesn't really apply to many other mergers where content is actually rewritten and moved somewhere else so that it's better, only episode merges where links are cut and everything is shoved under the rug. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on what was on the page to begin with. Most of the time, episode articles don't just fail WP:NOTE, they fail the style guidelines and many other guidelines and policies. If the information should not have been on the page regardless of notability, then it won't get merged when the article is redirected. Listing featured songs isn't going to be found in articles that meet all of our other guidelines, so you won't see that merged. It's unlikely you'll see anything that lacks a reliable source get merged because of that very fact (lacks a source). Here's an example: Sleepover (Malcolm in the Middle). It contains a plot, some trivia, and a guest list. The trivia is original research, and the guest list is irrelevant. If the guest is important they will be mentioned in the plot (and should have the actor's name listed by the character) of the episode list. Now, not to be completely dismissive of your claims. I agree that a lot of times articles are redirected with valid content never officially merged into a parent article. But, this is a problem with the editors doing the merging and not the process itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bignole, nobody cares what WP:MOSTV says. It's a style "guideline" for a WikiProject. It has a total of 62 edits.[1] WP:MOSTV was not "set forth by the community." It's been edited by a total of 25 unique editors. You have made more edits to it than anyone. You are the one who proposed it and you are the one who moved the page to /Style guidelines. And you are the one that tagged it a guideline. Citing yourself is pretty pathetic. --Pixelface (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're also getting bogged down in the specific example he gave. Suppose that, instead of a song, he'd said something more substantial, like a guest star. The process he had to follow to get to the actual information would be no less ludicrous. — $wgUser 03:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

South Park episodes

It seems that 90% of all the articles for South Park episodes simply consist of a plot summary and a link to the episode on SouthParkStudios.com. I really think that most of the articles should be merged and redirected to List of South Park episodes. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have not already, I would start a discussion on that page. I would also suggest a possible compromise, because, with a show that has been running that long, having that many plot summaries added to a "List of episodes" page would waaay too much. I would make the suggestion of creating season articles/lists (it depends, if it's just a table of episodes then its a list...ala Lost (season 2), but if it has production info...ala Smallville (season 1)...then its an article), per WP:MOSTV as a way for them to have more fleshed out plot summaries on one page per season (as opposed to an overly long "List of" page, or 200 individual pages of just a plot). I would explain that ALL episode pages must conform to WP:NOTE, though there has been some leeway given to "List of" and season pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the first and only place where I've started a discussion. I really think it would be ridiculous to tag every single article for notability, but a separate article for each season would make the most sense. Where should I start a discussion elsewhere? –Dream out loud (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to tag each episode article. Anyone watching those pages will be watching the "List of" pages, the primary "South Park" page and any other main page related to South Park (isn't there a task force or a WikiProject or something for them??).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is often no objection to merging if the summaries in list of episodes are adequate--there ought to be objection when it isn't. This is an encyclopedia, not a program guide, and the information about the episodes should be enough to tell someone who had not seen the episode what happened there. A single short sentence is not enough, just as 4 or 5 paragraphs is usually excessive--we are not a fan site any more than we are a program guide, but e need to do something in the middle. In this particular case, the list is only tenable if the episodes are described further in more detail==they are the very model of inadequate summaries that cannot stand as he sole description. If you want to improve episode content, either edit individual articles so they are encyclopedic, or expand the summary ones until they are. Either way would work. What would not work is redirecting to the present list and letting it go at that. DGG (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• How about we do a vote, and see how many people want the rules to be changed, so that those article pages are fine? I'm told that 2030 people have edited the South Park episodes. And I bet the current policy was only decided by a couple dozen people at the most.

Suggested Policy Change Any television series that has at least a million viewers, may have an article for every single episode of it. Support or Deny?

• Support

Dream Focus 06:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • See this policy. Also, no matter what the "vote" is here, this page can NOT contradict WP:NOTE. NOTE is the parent guideline. If you want changes, you got to start there. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I'll go there. Dream Focus 06:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Bignole, once again, you are saying something completely and blatantly false. WP:NOTE is not the "parent" guideline to WP:EPISODE — because WP:EPISODE is not a notability guideline and never has been. What don't you understand? And even if WP:NOTE was the parent guideline of WP:EPISODE, NOTE does not say that coverage is the only evidence of notability. If Dream Focus thinks a million viewers is evidence of notability, they are entitled to their viewpoint and you can say nothing to detract from it. --Pixelface (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I believe having a million viewers makes it notable, while others believe only having one or two people who write something in a newspaper makes something notable. That anything these people like enough to write about in their papers or magazines, is notable, while the opinions of millions of others, doesn't matter at all. That is what it usually comes down to in notability debates I find myself in. Dream Focus 10:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        • It's ridiculous to say that one person watching a show and writing an article about it means everything, while millions of people watching a show and writing nothing means nothing. --Pixelface (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • And Wikipedia is not a democracy, that's true. That does not therefore mean that voting does not take place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not a government. That is obvious. Since Radiant! tagged this a guideline all by himself, and since you renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines and tagged it a guideline all by yourself, Wikipedia would appear to be a tin-pot dictatorship. --Pixelface (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

This page's designation as a guideline is disputed. As of now, Wikipedia:Television episodes has had a total of 214 edits[2]. It began as a centralized discussion, but was moved to Wikipedia:Television episodes on April 16, 2007 by Radiant! — the same editor who rewrote WP:N in September 2006 and tagged WP:N a guideline 16 days later and then edit-warred over the guideline tag[3]. WP:EPISODE has never been a notability guideline, even though some editors act like it is. Episode articles have over seven years of precedent on Wikipedia, according to the policy Wikipedia is not paper. I've seen no evidence that this page represents a generally accepted standard that all users should follow. --Pixelface (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Until there is more than one editor to confirm a dispute, this guideline should not be tagged as such. For anything else, I don't see what the history of this guideline has to do with anything, considering that most of wikipedia's current fiction editors weren't even around back then. I see no comments how this guideline doesn't work, and how it should be changed to work better. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that this page represents a generally accepted standard that all users should follow? Policies and guidlines must reflect consensus. The history of a guideline has to do with everything. This page's status as a "guideline" is disputed. --Pixelface (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As you likely know, it's your turn to provide evidence that there is no consensus, and not mine to (re)confirm consensus. Until you provide that evidence (e.g. by starting a straw poll) or make suggestions how to change this guideline, I see no point in continuing this conversation. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no evidence of consensus in the first place. Radiant! tagged it a guideline all by himself, with no prior discussion. Consensus was never "confirmed" to begin with, so there is no consesus present to "reconfirm." --Pixelface (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sgeureka, where was this guideline-tagging discussed beforehand? It wasn't. So this page's status as a guideline appears to rest entirely on the opinion of one editor, Radiant!. That does not a Wikipedia guideline make. --Pixelface (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a RfC, as my research above shows #1 #2, this page was illegitametly made into a guideline, despite 2 to 1 against it becoming a guideline, and it has only remained a guideline because a handful of editors remove any tags which question its viability as a guideline. Ikip (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As was already said above, this guideline's history is not related in how much consensus it enjoys (or doesn't enjoy) currently. Go ahead with straw polls or RfCs to your heart's pleasure. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

the standard line on this page has always been, "who cares if this page was illigetimately made into a guideline. The past is the past". These same editors continue to remove all dispute tags on the main page. Because comprimise is obviously impossible here, a RfC is the only real answer, to get wider community consensus. Talking around and around in circles here is not productive.Ikip (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A method of moving forward when merging of episode articles is disputed

I'd like to direct a few more eyes to Talk:List of South Park episodes#Alternate route to move forward for a solution that I've come up with that I think is a workable model for future mass episode merging disputes.

The TL;DR version is that in lieu of no consensus to merge a large number of episodes that don't have any sourcing beyond the primary work, we're asking that four episodes from the series, picked by a neutral third party (hasn't watched the show) as notability guinea pigs, to be shown to be notable. If all four are clearly notable after we give editors time to work with it, then it's presumed that the rest of the episodes can also be notable; but for this presumption, we expect a good faith and continued effort to improve the rest of the articles whether a coordinated effort by a WikiProject or just continued work of individuals within some time. This is not getting articles perfect, nor even getting all articles to show notability, just that we can assert a subset of articles are notable so that we don't engage in fait accompli demands of reaching notability, while at the same time we are helping to improve these articles.

Note that I propose this model of solution in cases where there is clear dispute between merging or not. When the consensus falls one way or the other, there's no need for this approach. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You want to delete/merge something, they want to keep it, and since there are enough fans around to defend it, no consensus can be met. Thus the articles are kept. You aren't going to be able to delete/merge a single one. Dream Focus 17:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not based on a number of votes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a little troubled by what some would argue is canvassing. I guess this opens the door to me posting notices on other project pages. Ikip (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not "bad" canvassing if you notify relevant parties. If you're notifying relevant projects, then that's ok. If you notify them with the message of "come save these articles"...eh, not so much (not saying you would, just pointing it out). The "bad" canvassing is when you notify people not directly related to the discussion (like specific editors).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea in principle because in many cases it helps fan editors come to realize that articles are unfixable, without risking too much drama (I am not saying this out of bad faith - but sometimes popular articles remain unfixable even when you try hard to improve them). The only problem I see (and that's not to say I wouldn't recommend Masem's proposal) is that if 4 episodes could be improved to a reasonable standard, that fan editors will settle back and leave the other 96 poor articles rotting there into eternity and refuse to let anything happen to them in the future (e.g. merge into season articles) because WP:OTHERgoodSTUFFEXISTS. A total lack of future improvement (e.g. for two years) should always be interpreted as a lack of interest in improving the articles, and the articles may be up to new merge proposals again -- in the off-chance that there is renewed interest in improvement again, it's always easy to unmerge. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that Masem's proposal is that if you can do the 4 episodes in a reasonable amount of time, we would give you an extended amount to do the rest. But, if after that extended amount of time has passed and you have not shown good faith in trying to address the notability issue of the other pages (not that you haven't done them all, because no one would expect total completion), then you have to agree to merge them into a parent page until such time that you can assert their notability. That's the compromise. We'll continue to give you more time so long as you can show good faith and work on the pages (they don't have to be GA, or all be done right away, just the effort has to be there), but should you reneg on that deal then you agree to merge all of the ones that have yet to assert notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh look, a fan of WP:ATA. Let's all dismiss him as a "fan editor." --Pixelface (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Shown to be notable"? According to whom Masem? And how exactly? If there's no consensus for a merge, the articles do not get merged. And if it's the same editors again and again pushing for merges, they need to learn that they do not own Wikipedia's hard drives. --Pixelface (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's no consensus for a merge, the next action that has been taken has usually been to take them to AFD, where lack of notability will be judged more harshly. The point is to prevent that from being the next step and instead try to keep as many by assuming good faith by editors after they've been establish that a random sampling of typical episodes are notable. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a decent step in WP:DR. A small group of editors isn't supposed to hijack broader agreements of the community. That's why we have people solicit feedback like this or like that when trying to apply a guideline to a set of articles. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The support for merging will be greater is efforts are made to retain content beyond bare directory listings. It's the way the proposed merge is implemented that makes the difference. DGG (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet merging is not a one-man job. Refusing to support a merger just because someone else is perceived to not merge enough content, is a very poor standpoint. If people are unsatisfied with the amount of merged content of a subject that can't support its own article, nothing is stopping them to add a few sentences. The implementation of a proposed merger is (or should be) secondary to the decision to merge in the first place, when notability is concerned. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Shield and He-man clean up

I believe He-man and the Shield need major clean up regarding episodes. With the Shield I have added sources to verify the information for some of the episodes but I believe Pilot (The Shield) and Family Meeting (The Shield episode) should be merged into List of The Shield episodes as there is little or no reliable information to justify a large article.

Whilst with He-man I believe that episodes like The Cosmic Comet and Teela's Quest should be merged into List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe episodes it has been frequently discussed but nothing has been done. Observe [4] [5]

Can someone resolve it or merge it as I do not have the confidence to do or sort it out once and for all. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Seasons episode lists

Mhiji (talk · contribs) has moved a large number of season episode lists. Since there has been no consensus building discussions about the naming of these episode lists, I have started a discussion at WT:NC-TV. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 03:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Television episodes by Justus Addiss

Category:Television episodes by Justus Addiss, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. This is an umbrella nomination that includes around 100 similarly named categories under Category:Television episodes by director. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Chopped episodes - Episode-specific comments or footnotes?

User:Drmargi is doing a great job of cleaning up List of Chopped episodes and reformatting it to tables. However, an issue that should be taken to the article's talk page rather than our user talk pages is where to put episode-specific comments. I think the notes should go with the specific episode, especially those that were previously at the start of an episode's entry. I find it it particularly annoying to have to go to the footnotes and then back to the main part of the article when trying to read about the episode. (I had started this, but it's not possible to see by going back in the edit history because the template has been change). However, Drmargi suggests including them as footnotes, a la List of Iron Chef America episodes. To me, the notes are akin to an "episode summary lite", and is a format common to many "list of (tv show)" articles. I appreciate her concern of too many blank "notes" fields, but it must be possible to format a table to omit a field if it's blank. It would be helpful for other editors to weigh in on this.

Something else I have been pondering is whether the "notes" (as I had formatted them) might better serve as an episode summary.Agent 86 (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Pilot (Sports Night)

(Moved from project page) I've created and expanded Pilot (Sports Night), and it could easily become a good article if someone wants add some more info, but does anyone know where to get the Nielsen ratings for the episode. I can only find a season preview and overall season ranking. 03md 18:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Section list of award-winning episodes in this guideline

This revision from 2011 looks all right. However, why was it expanded with a to-do wish list? What is the purpose of adding a list of to-do things? --George Ho (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not averse to collapsing the to-do list.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither revisions nor current revision explains what to do with award-winning episodes, such as Woody Interruptus. If WP:Television episodes is a guideline, why is there no rules about award-winning episodes? Even "collapsing it" implies keeping it, as well. --George Ho (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) Such a list would be appropriate on the Television project page (or a subpage) but this page is a guideline. older ≠ wiser 13:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Should I move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television#Tasks?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/to do? It is part of the Tasks section, isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I would then need separate page(s) for the whole list of things to point to from there. Is that correct? What space should those be in?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably user namespace? User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox or User:TonyTheTiger/What to do in the future? If not, guideline and essay are out of question. Maybe Wikipedia talk or Talk? --George Ho (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What about a project space subpage?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

.... Consensus first then. If "No consensus for project's subpage, then user subpage will do? --George Ho (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Episode link to tv.com

Was looking at the episode pages for flashpoint Seasons 1 + 2. Example Scorpio_(Flashpoint_episode) Link to tv.com for each doesn't work. I checked the examples of good episode pages given in project page. The tv.com link for Meet_Kevin_Johnson works but not for A_Streetcar_Named_Marge. Before I go correcting the links in Flashpoint episodes I decided to ask here as I don't know enough about tv episode templates. Is this a template problem? OR do each episode with an incorrect link need the tv.com link corrected? Linnah (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Shazzan

I need some help trying to format the episode table on Shazzan. I put up the list but something is causing it to show up on the bottom of the page. If anyone can help fix it I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 12:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)