Talk:List of Xena: Warrior Princess episodes

message: For everything but the first two seasons, the table is very messed up.  Needs fixing, plus internal links, etc.  Also, the addition of episode writer and director credits would be helpful.  Check List of House Episodes for a model.  
CrashCart9 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The episode synopses given in this page are copyvio from tv.com. They all need to be changed or it will be reported as copyright infringment.--NeilEvans 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table format

message: I've posted a merge discussion for the single episode article created recently. It does not establish any notability, fails WP:N, WP:FICT, and WP:EPISODE.  It only barely survived an AfD because some felt it should be merged back here instead of deleted outright. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode).  It could use some work, but I don't think a merge is apprpriate. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The plot needs to be cut by half or two thirds if the article wants to stay, and there should be at least two paragraphs (IMO) for production/reception to support three paragraphs of plot ((WP:NOT#PLOT), WP:UNDUE, WP:WAF). Two images need to go per WP:NFCC#3a. What is currently there can fit into the List of Episodes (see for example List_of_Carniv%C3%A0le_episodes#ep1). Granted, there are a few sources, but they currently aren't really significant enough to support a whole article. Give some time to allow these improvements, and merge if nothing happens. – sgeureka t•c 10:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the recent progress, I think a don't merge is in order. Some more tweaks, and the article can even be nominated for Good Article. – sgeureka t•c 08:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no it couldn't at all. It still completely fails WP:FICT and is still almost all plot summary, with a few vague reception points (which do not point to notability), and nothing but a note on the lesbian theme which speaks to the series as a whole and again, speaks nothing about this episode being notable. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a look at the Simpsons episode GAs, I have written a couple of episode GAs myself, and I stand by my opinion. A little less plot, a couple more production facts, and this is a GAN. – sgeureka t•c 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Since when has failing a proposal ever been a reason to do anything? --Pixelface (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It won a SINGLE minor prize, has not developed anywhere since the AfD, and makes not a single claim of notability. What do you mean by your last comment? I certainly hope you aren't accusing me of having some issue with the series lesbianism/feminism aspects. The two sentences of real world material in the article could easily go into the season page. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this list article is too long at 58K and seems to contain little but feeble plot summaries.  It should be condensed to be a true list and the episodes then developed properly as articles in the style of this excellent example.  Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is being replaced with a proper episode list (sans summaries) now that the season pages have been created. Your assertion that the episodes need articles blatantly violates WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT. We do NOT create articles for every last episode, only the major ones. You want to fix the plot summaries on the season pages, by all means go ahead. They should be 100-300 words in length each per Wikipedia guidelines regarding episode summaries. The same would apply to any standalone articles that could meet notability requirements. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much all episodes can be cited with individual reviews and so can be developed sufficiently as stand alone episode articles.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you are well aware, a few reviews are not sufficient to establish individual notability per WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The top of WP:FICT reads, "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"."  The top of WP:EPISODE reads, "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page for further information."  So, I don't see how proposed and disputed pages can be cited as policies.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The season articles are sorely lacking in content. I finally got them all formatted properly, but all they really have is the lead, an infobox, and the episode list. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do work on the season page.  Pleas do not merge the episode in, although feel free to use its references. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes it would because you're one of the few people who are causing both to still have such dumb statuses since y'all just continue to dispute them until you think you can get your way.. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't put the proposal tag on FICT and I also didn't put the disputed tag on EPISODE. But go ahead and try to keep getting rid of this article because you apparently didn't get your way in the last AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What if you make a link to the article from the lists of episodes, but you still keep it a main page article.Every article deserves to be on the site, but we also need to catagorize everything. Mr. GreenHit Me UpUserboxes 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? That basically seems to be saying, leave it as is? AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Keep:The episode is remarkable, and Article reached an optimal level of quality. (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion

message: It is reliable for a lot of stuff.  The user generated parts obviously aren't reliable, but I know the cast lists area a RS.  I also think the air dates are too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB is not considered a reliable source for use in Wikipedia, at all. The cast lists can be used to look stuff up, but it is not a citeable source and is not considered more reliable than the episodes themselves. The air dates are not considered reliable at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point me where that's stated?  I've seen discussions in that past that lead me to believe it's a reliable source for the cast list at the minimum.  All I could find was Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been said repeatedly at the RS noticeboard. Even IMDB Pro is not a reliable source. Cast lists don't need sourcing, they are sourced from the credits of the primary work. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: IMDB is not considered a reliable source for use in Wikipedia in FAs, as far as I know. However, it is considered standard to link to IMDb in the SeeAlso section, and IMDb is also widely accepted as a temporary source for trivial stuff until better sources are found. So, not a big deal. – sgeureka t•c 07:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you meant the EL section. It can be used to get basic stuff, like cast lists, but shouldn't be cited and it should never be used for "trivial" stuff as trivial stuff doesn't belong at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. With "trivial stuff", I meant trivial knowledge (i.e. basic stuff), not hear-say trivia. But that's what PF already excluded in his intro. – sgeureka t•c 08:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's interesting is that I think a lot of our cast lists and dates are created by looking at IMDB but then we basically pretend it's from the episode/film.  We usually have IMDB in the external links which kind of shows what we're doing, but it isn't really explicit.  C'est la vie. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy/pasting from IMDB is easier, so yes, many are started that way. People can, however, also look at the credits of films and make changes to reflect those credits, and not all films are in IMDB with full information. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDB as a source 

message: A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion 
or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please 
visit the discussion at 
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters