Talk:List of Primeval episodes

message: It's rather amusing trivia that in episode 9, when the victim moves the jukebox to block the station waiting room entrance to the Smilodon it starts playing Get It On by T.Rex! -- Arwel (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ep. 9

message: Who the hell keeps saying a german won the Design a creature comp?? It hasn't ended yet so stop changing it back  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.104.109 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? There aren't any spoilers there. And if you want to contribute, get an account and take responsibility for what you do. Barsoomian (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers for series 3 

message: I've put a month's semi-protection on the article. Hopefully it will introduce a bit of stability. Apologies if it inhibits any other editors - if you think is a month is too long, please leave a note here or on my talk page. -- Arwel (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected

message: woot new spoilers! 10 episodes and a crocodile from the future!
Primeval Roundtable with Tim Haines and Adrian Hodges
 -- see 
 (replaced text with link Barsoomian (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Primeval Roundtable with Tim Haines and Adrian Hodges

message: I am aware (and disappointed) that there are no official episode titles and realise why the titles on the page are as given, but given the normal convention is to use the "SOOEOO" format, might not it be a good idea to change the titles so they keep with this format (whilst leaving the links in tact for simplicity's sake) if there are no objections to this I will make the appropriate changes on the 6h of September.Benv-b92 (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, from the  ITV site it seems they use "Series Two, Episode One", etc., rather than continuous numbering as is here now. I don't know that we need to use the fairly cryptic "S00E00" format though (familiar as it is to those who download episodes). Barsoomian (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Further to this, who decided to number the episodes here continuously? It's pretty confusing, as everywhere else, most particularly ITV itself, uses series:episode format. So I will renumber them as series:episode. Barsoomian (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode Titles

message: Should we include the air dates for the U.S. like some other multi-national shows listed on Wikipedia? I would think we should, as the U.S. is just getting the first series now. 24.17.159.119 (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC America Air Dates

message: Any reason that this episode redirects back to this page? It's the only one that does so, all other episodes have articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.139.27 (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode 13

message: weeks ago, all the episodes up to series 2, except episode 13, had hyperlinks to that page. Why are nearly all of them suddenly gone?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.163.32.101 (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Episode 13 (Primeval) closed as redirect (the episode article didn't meet the threshold of inclusion for wikipedia), and all other episode articles that were just like that were also redirected. – sgeureka t•c 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  episode links 

message: I just watched the first episode of the new season/series on the German tv channel Pro7 (which also co-produces Primeval). Shouldn't that change the "Original Airdate" in the table to "23 March 2009"? — Tauriel-1 (☎) 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Episode 4 was already aired yesterday in Spain (channel Cuatro), dubbed and all. How is it possible this isn't in the UK yet?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.23.2 (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, the series was completed and ready to be aired all the way back in January. However, scheduling conflicts prevented ITV from airing it that early as there was no slot where they could run the new episodes for ten weeks. This was likely a factor. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK then, but what should be inserted as "Original air date" in the table if ITV is one of the "last" channels to air Primeval? The UK dates seem to be a bit random. ;-) — Tauriel-1 (☎) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the general practice is to use the first air date of the country that produced the show, though I'm really not entirely sure in this case. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Every group of TV show articles handle it differently. For example, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and List of Stargate Atlantis episodes list the world premiere dates with the corresponding TV channel in brackets. The same could be done here, but it doesn't have to. – sgeureka t•c 22:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I guess it just comes down to what we as a group prefer. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhm, according to http://primeval.tv/, the German channel Pro7 is also (co-)producing Primeval: "An Impossible Pictures production for ITV and Pro7. Distributed by BBC Worldwide" (last paragraph of start page). But I think it's OK to use the UK dates. (Then we won't have to change all the dates. :-) — Tauriel-1 (☎) 20:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air date Ep. 14 

message: Is this true?
http://primevals3.blogspot.com/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.104.211.190 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  series 3 information? 

message: Episode 17 - since it's almost certainly part of the story arc, how about a mention of Christine's anomaly and Future Predator experiments?
Episode 18 - could do with a tidy up. We've got two versions of the same synopsis at the moment...
87.194.104.79 (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen the episode yet (still downloading), but if it's included in the episode then it's certainly worth a mention. I don't know why a second summary for episode 18 was added, but I've removed it and re-written the first one to make it more concise. I think most of the summaries need re-writing to be brutally honest; some are too short, there are a lot of grammatical errors, etc. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

text: If we didn't see it, how can we be sure that it happened? Do you have a source for it? MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can clearly hear them getting squished underneath the G-Rex before it heads into the anomaly. 80.177.217.162 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eps 17/18 

message: Months ago, all of the pages for each episodes except 1 and 6 got deleted. Are we never getting them back?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.104.211.190 (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  episode pages 

message: It was promoted during season 3. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the interactive episode on their website? 

message: The related article List of creatures in Primeval has been nominated for deletion. If you want to express an opinion for or against, please do so ASAP, before 6 Jan 2010 at .Barsoomian (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI: "List of creatures in Primeval" could be deleted 

message: The gorgonopsid in episode 1 and episode 6 is definitely Gorgonops and not Inostrancevia. I don't care if Gorgonops never co-existed with Scutosaurus or Coelurosauravus, neither did Anurognathus with Pteranodon. Also, I seem to be the only one who notices the faint letters "Gorgonops" beneath the title "Gorgonopsid" in Connor's computer profile of the animal. I changed the species from Inostrancevia to Gorgonops sp. once and I was frustrated to see it changed back. I am going to edit the page again and do not want to see it edited back again, do I make myself clear?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.137.134 (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Gorgonops'' not ''Inostrancevia''

message: On this page:  is a cached version of a BBC press release giving synopses of the first 3 episodes.  Current version seems to have omitted the synopses. But I think this is reliable enough to be used in our article. Barsoomian (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright violation removed --AussieLegend (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Only the summary for episode one was cited. It was removed because it was a copyright violation and the others were removed because they were uncited. I've just removed the summaries for episodes one & three because they too are copyright violations. Despite being press releases, the content is copyrighted and use of the unaltered text constitutes a copyright violation. This is true anywhere on Wikipedia, which is why I've just removed the text of the press release from this thread. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The text IN THE ARTICLE was not a copyright violation. I had summarised and cut it down from the text in the press release. A few words do not constitute a copyright violation. The usual rule of thumb is at least 10% of the original "work". What there is left is certainly fair use. I placed a full copy here, on the discussion page, to prove what my source was, as all the nuts are out with their fanfic summaries. So I will restore the summaries in the article, as they are correctly cited, and NOT copyright violations. And I've rewritten them again, you won't find more than a phrase verbatim. I don't understand how anyone could be concerned about copied text from a press release anyway; that's the whole idea. Your citations on the subject are discussion and personal opinions, not policy, and in any case do not support your apparent interpretation that nothing at all can be used from a press release -- in fact you are insisting on a level of protection of press releases more than any normally published text would be. Barsoomian (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The text was most certainly a copyright violation. Significant portions of it, in fact more than 80% of what you wrote, were lifted straight from the press release. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is  not a copyright violation. You have it backwards: the issue is not how much comes from the source; it's how much of the source is quoted.  That was fair use. If it were 80% of the press release (which is 1900 words long), it might be a problem. "Lifted" from a press release?! A sentence from a haiku is a violation, not from a press release. We're talking about verifiable sources, not copying homework.   In any case, I've rewritten the damn things "in my own words" so I hope you are happy now.  I still find the whole concept of such deep concern concern for a press release's copyright bizarre in the extreme. Barsoomian (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

text: These aren't "new". They're from TVrage, and they're (except for the first three, which have already been entered here) the same made-up bullshit that has been pasted, and deleted here several times. We need an official source, not a website that any anonymous person can use to publish their fanfic. However, they are pretty hilarious. Barsoomian (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Series 4 info

message: Regarding impending revert war about summary of 4.6:
:... and Gideon dies from an illness and is revealed to be Matt's father and from a post-apocalyptic future. 
We are SHOWN the world that Gideon and Matt come from. It's clearly post-apocalyptic. If we were going to take several paragraphs summarising the episode, we could say that "it suggests", or whatever. But in a few lines, we just cut to the chase. The next episode confirms it so it's just pointless pedanticism to waffle about other interpretations, OR,  Synthesis, or whatever. At worst it's a "spoiler", which Wikipedia doesn't avoid.
:Dialogue from 4.6: @ 02:45,  (after scene of blasted, smoking landscape): 
:[Gideon] Ah. I was... dreaming of home.
: Dialogue from 4.7: @42:15
:[Emily] From where? The future?
:[Matt] Everything there is either dead or dying. We exist underground because the surface of the planet can't sustain life any more. It's sterile... because of something mankind did.
Barsoomian (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't use what occurred in episode 4.7 to to go back and explain what happened in 4.6. That breaches WP:NPOV, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH. You can only report what actually happened in each episode as you saw it. We discussed this at Talk:List of Primeval characters#Original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong, now and then. It's "crystal ball" to talk about events that we don't know. WE KNOW NOW FOR A FACT, as I cited the dialogue above-- it was clear in 4.6 and spelled out in 4.7.  And when we "discussed" it before you were wrong then too, but I didn't have the energy to argue with you. You weren't supported by the other editor that took an interest, it's not just me. And your other labels above are equally wrong. NPOV? WTF Are you talking about? I have no idea how even you could find that applicable. SYNTHESIS: The only way to "report what actually happened" without "synthesis" is to watch the show on video. The act of writing down and summarising 45 minutes of video into three lines of text by its very nature is  "synthesis". If you want to be literal, and you obviously do, it is literally impossible to summarise any show without falling foul of one of your beloved acronyms. If you can't  credit was was SEEN ON SCREEN AND SPOKEN then it's hopeless to argue with you. So again, I will withdraw from the argument, but do not concede. Barsoomian (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We can only report what an episode actually conveys. Anything else is original research. Making a statement about an episode based on what occurs in a subsequent episode is WP:CRYSTAL and there's plenty of precedent for that. The other editor actually did support what I said when he said "Saying that Gideon saw his home in an apocalyptic future before he died would be original research", even though he hadn't seen the episode. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. And your declaration that you were "supported" by the other editor is both synthesis and NPOV. And irrelevant since 4.7.Barsoomian (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, no personal attacks. The other editor was clear in what he said. What he argued against was exactly what you were doing. There was no synth or non-NPOV involved. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Personal"? Disagreeing with your judgement isn't "personal". Lodge a complaint if you think otherwise. (I found your statements about my edits in your edit summaries pretty insulting, if you want to go there.)  And as for the actual issue: what was conceivably "crystal ball" when the related issue came up before episode 4.7 was aired, is now recorded fact. Though it was perfectly clear in 4.6 despite your entertaining alternate interpretations, which I'm sure even you put no credence in.Barsoomian (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling somebody "wacko" in an edit summary is a personal attack. As for my edit summaries, I don't see how "r" (short for reply) can be offensive but if you think it is.... As for your "points", we've been over this and you haven't produced anything that supports your claims, then or now. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I didn't call you a wacko. I didn't call ANYONE a wacko. I wrote one word, not including any reference to you.  Maybe I was referring to my own statement, wasting time on this triviality. Maybe I was humming "Wacko the diddlyo" and typed it by accident. Frankly, I don't remember. You're being  NNPOV and using  SYNTHESIS again to assert that. And "we've been over this"? Who is "we"? I think you mean that you've told me and I should shut up and do what you say.  Sorry, but no. Barsoomian (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

text: See the dialogue I quoted above. Thus I put quotemarks around the word "home", because that was the exact word he used. I didn't say it was "the future post-apocalyptic earth" even though that's completely obvious and confirmed later. Barsoomian (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Citations: It's pretty inane to cite the same episode as you are summarising as the source, but I did that as it's preferable to having  "citation needed" tags cluttering it up. Incidentally, "--" is a common ASCII representation for a dash. A (single) hyphen is not a dash. But to make you happy  I put a real ANSI dash "–" in, I usually don't bother in web pages. Barsoomian (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

text: *And a secondary source. Primeval Episode 4.06 Review "So that landscape Matt was dreaming about back in episode one is his home." Barsoomian (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  4.6 Post-apocalyptic 

message: Regarding this edit, where exactly was it shown to be Gideon's home? Where was "home" mentioned? Did Gideon mention home? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See the dialogue I quoted above. Thus I put quotemarks around the word "home", because that was the exact word he used. I didn't say it was "the future post-apocalyptic earth" even though that's completely obvious and confirmed later. Barsoomian (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Citations: It's pretty inane to cite the same episode as you are summarising as the source, but I did that as it's preferable to having  "citation needed" tags cluttering it up. Incidentally, "--" is a common ASCII representation for a dash. A (single) hyphen is not a dash. But to make you happy  I put a real ANSI dash "–" in, I usually don't bother in web pages. Barsoomian (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

text: *And a secondary source. Primeval Episode 4.06 Review "So that landscape Matt was dreaming about back in episode one is his home." Barsoomian (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: The following discussion was copied from my talk page by Barsoomian. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "All the links" is somewhat of an exaggeration. The sum total was 3 in the creatures article, which you could have fixed in less time than it took to write the above. Using "23.n" as the episode numbering was not appropriate as it gives the impression that these were related to episode 23, which isn't the case. Had you picked a less ambiguous method of numbering, the fix wouldn't have been necessary. You might note that I didn't whine about it on your talk page. I just changed it. I really don't see why you see the need to be so confrontational. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you see something wrong just fix it without the drama. One positive thing you could do, since you are obviously so interested in Primeval, is to go through the creatures article and make it consistent. I did a preliminary cleanup but there are still issues, especially with the infobox and it's getting a bit top-heavy on the non-free images again. That's likely to bring more attention than this and this if it's not addressed soon. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You broke the links, putting in your own idiosyncratic numbering,  without any discussion, snarking at me in your edit comments, and continuing to lecture me above. Where is the "collaborative effort" in that?  And you criticise me for not tidying up the mess you made? There isn't any "ambiguity" in the numbering I chose. It's perfectly clear that 23.1 comes after 23. Who knows where "w1" goes"?  I do not accept your statement that the decimal numbering is "inappropriate"; just to be clear. (List of Jericho episodes has an episode 11.5, for instance, which no one complained of getting a "wrong impression" that it was related to episode 11. Maybe you should go there and "fix" that. ) But like other issues, that I do not choose to take it to the mat does NOT mean that you have proven your point; only that continuing the argument is not worth the time. You can have your w1, now that you've wasted both out times to sort it out. As for the images, I don't care one way or another. Some people like to upload them. Other people like to delete them. They can sort it out between themselves. Barsoomian (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was 3 links that I missed, get over it. You added your own confusing numbering without discussion so I really don't see what your problem is, unless you're asserting ownership of the page. Where exactly was the "snarking"? The system you chose is ambiguous, because 23.1, 23.2 etc seem to have something to do with 23, and therefore season 3, when they're related to season 4 and its episodes. The Jericho example isn't a good one becasue ep11.5 is an actual episode, not a webisode, that aired between episodes 11 and 12 and is directly related to episode 11 and the rest of the first part of the season. Looking at actual webisodes, List of Stargate Universe episodes uses a completely different method of numbering its webisodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

text:  Re Jericho: 11.5 was a recap episode after a 3-month break.  Like the Primeval webisodes, it was meant to introduce the following episodes. There was no implication that it was "son of episode 11"; it was just "after episode 11".  Meanwhile, the next group of Primeval webisodes will intro  Series 5. Under your logic, they will be w6, w7 ... which really will look like they follow w5 rather than 4.7. But you've got a few months to rationalise that. You have some idea that you have to segregate webisodes from TV episodes; that is your prejudice and is just going to cause confusion when the program makers, as in Primeval, are not following your rules. Barsoomian (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When 11.5 aired is irrelevant. It was still an actual episode that aired in the middle of a season. The Primeval webisodes were not in season 3 or 4, they were "broadcast" in a different medium between seasons. You can't compare them to Jericho. The only valid point you've raised is that Jericho 11.5 isn't the "son of episode 11". Will there be a "next group of Primeval webisodes"? Have you seen anything that confirms there will be or are you just assuming? If there are and the the numbering needs fixing, we can do that then. It's not a big deal. For now there is no confusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your obsession with segregating the webisodes into a separate sequence is the source of the "confusion". There was none with my numbering. You weren't "confused" were you? And don't chide me about crystal balling on a talk page,  I'm trying to anticipate problems now when it's  simple to fix. Just reverting your ill-considered renumbering would do it now. Barsoomian (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're making no sense. The webisodes were in a separate sequence before the numbering started. Confusing is giving them an episode 23 number when they're not part of episode 23 or season 3. Anticipating problems is fine but the problems you're anticipating are not actually a problem because the numbering can be changed at any times. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As you like to say, we already discussed that, and the consensus was that they were positioned between Series 3 and 4. There is no ambiguity: they are set  between episodes 23 and 24. They are not in a "separate sequence". There is one, linear sequence of episodes, web and TV alike, and there is no need to complicate the numbering,  as you have done by creating an independent branch. the only problem you have cited is that people might imagine that these were part of episode 23. I can't say if anyone really is that dumb, but I think we should give readers the benefit of the doubt and assume they aren't. If you have no better argument, then I can't see any reason not to revert. Barsoomian (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And now you're making even less sense. The webisodes were physically positioned between S3 and S4 but they were in a separate sequence because they weren't in the numbering sequence at all. You added that here. I really don't see why you're so upset about the numbering. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not "in a separate sequence". They all  occur between episodes 23 and 24. You keep trying to put them in a separate sequence, first by positioning, now by numbering. The only thing "separate" about them is the medium, already made clear by the word "Webisodes" in the title. Still waiting for  you to give a reason for messing with this. Barsoomian (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They still are between episodes 23 and 24, but because they are between those episodes a numbering system that relates them more closely to episode 23 and season 3 than season 4 is inappropriate because they're not part of that season. As for "messing with this", I've given multiple reasons, multiple times, as can be seen by the discussion above, as to why the numbering that you added is inappropriate. I really don't see your problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've given the same reason, several times. If in your mind 23.1 "belongs" to series 3, despite it being clearly labelled "Series 4 webisodes " and in a different colour even, I'm sorry, but that's your problem. Your solution is worse, for the reason I've outlined, also several times. Now that this discussion is here I'll see if anyone else cares to comment. If not, I'll revert it to the simple and logical numbers initially used. Barsoomian (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is nothing wrong with the reasons that I've given. "23" is a series 3 episode number, not a series 4 number. Your reason for not using the wx numbering is that if more webisodes appear, then a numbering problem will occur. There are two problems with this: one is that there is no guarantee there will be more webisodes. You're just assuming there will be. The other problem with that is that numbering systems are not fixed in stone and there is a very simple (actally there are a few) different numbering systems that can be used so that multiple sets of webisodes can be handled. It's just a matter  of collaborating to get the best result. However, statements such as "If not, I'll revert it" indicate that you don't wish to collaborate and believe that you own the page. Please don't try to start a revert war over this. Disruptive editing, and assertion of ownership over articles only leads to one thing. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

text: You're accusing me of all kinds of absurd things, simply because I don't hold your numerological beliefs as holy writ. You changed the numbering without a word of discussion. Instead of reverting, I tried to discuss it with you here, and now you accuse me of lack of collaboration. And now you've done it again, acted "boldly" to put your new idea into effect. If anyone is trying to assert ownership it's you. Your "new" system is silly and cumbersome. You claim that "ep23.1" implied a relationship between that and episode 23. It doesn't, other than it follows it. Now you have "W4.1" =  "Webisode series 4 episode 1". Which implies pretty unambiguously that there are 4 series of webisodes. But you wanted to mark your territory by implementing your cunning plan without bothering to discuss it. When have you ever "collaborated" anyway? You just keep going for fait accompli. Sneering at me and telling me to "get over it" if I point out any problems. For the last time: the number that you are so obsessed with is simply a chronological sequence number. It does not need to have any other information (format, especially) encoded in it. All it needs to do is allow the episodes to be easily put in the correct "overall" order. That's still obscured in your "new" system. You've added more signifiers to the number, instead of a simple sequence number, the only one that is actually needed. You've made a dog's dinner of it rather than a simple clean implementation. God help any third party who tries to make sense of what you've done. Barsoomian (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't accused you of anything that can't be proven. On the other hand, you've made absurd accusations such as the "snarking edit summaries", but when I challenged you to show proof, you ignored me. It's really hard to try to work with you in improving this article when you demonstrate double standards. You've made sweeping changes to this and related articles all without a single word of discussion but when somebody else makes a change that you don't agree with, you criticise them for not discussing. The reality is that not everything needs discussing. When I changed the episode numbering you didn't try to discuss, you just made a scathing attack on my talk page accusing me of messing things up. You oppose a simple and unambiguous numbering system "wx" in lieu of one that links to a season 3 episode "23.x" and expressed concern about future webisodes so I looked through the articles and came up with an alternative that is consistent with your desired episode numbering format and you're still not happy. The Wx.y format does NOT "imply pretty unambiguously that there are 4 series of webisodes", it merely states that these are the webisodes for series 4. That there are not four is very clear from the episode list. I agree, the alternative does contain too much info but it's based on your preferences. The problem is that you don't like the simpler version either. The 23.x version is inappropriate, for reasons that I've explained. The "23." portion does imply there is a relationship with episode 23. 1=episode 1, 2=episode 2, etc, right up to 23=episode 23. Therefore, 23.1 is episode 23.1 and that's not the case with your numbering. Webisodes are not broadcast episodes, their very name tells you that. There's no reason why w shouldn't be used to indicate that it's a webisode, not a broadcast episode. It doesn't obscure the episode order because the episode order is clearly laid out in the article. So where do we go from here? --AussieLegend (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't blame me for the mess you made. Nothing you did was "desired" by me or based on "my preferences". You have absolutely refused to consider what I actually suggested. Barsoomian (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Quite frankly, is this really such an issue that it is worth delving into a massive row? At the very least a little more civility on both ends would result in a much more productive conversation. Quite frankly you both raise good points and I agree with some points on each side. I agree with AussieLegend that numbering them as 23.X is not necessarily best because they fall between series 3 and 4, and the 23.X label implies a series 3 relationship. If we consider the webisodes to be a series 3.5 then I could conceivably see a label of 3.5.X, but that is probably the least accurate option. I agree with Barsoomian that the label W4.X is just as inaccurate as 23.X, because the four implies that this is the fourth webisode series; episode W4.3 could conceivably be read as the third episode of the fourth webisode series. Yes, most people will realize that this is not the case, but not everyone who uses Wikipedia is the sharpest nail in the toolbox. It also adds a complexity in that every other number refers to the episode, not the series, so some may even read the webisodes as being a part of episode four placed way out of order in the episode list for some random reason. Why not just label them as WX? It follows the pattern established with the other episodes, and viewers are aware that this is the webisode number. Some sort of compromise shouldn't be too difficult to reach. Melicans (talk, contributions) 11:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still advocate 23.X: it lets us use the same sequence for all episodes, and it clearly indicates the order. It's consistent with the "Overall" number for TV episodes, so you can use the same table format for the webisodes as TV episodes (only omitting ratings) instead of customising. I really don't see how it presumes that they are part of Series 3. The decimal should be a signal enough that it's not a "normal" episode, and that is confirmed since in every case when cited the link labels it a "webisode", as of course does the destination, the table.  The problem with wX is that it throws away the chronological link with the TV episodes. And also, as mentioned above, should there be another batch of webisodes preceding Series 5, numbering them continuously from w6 on  (rather than 30.1) implies they follow w5, rather than (TV) episode 30. For what it's worth, in my own numbering when I label my DVDs, I call them collectively "Episode 4.0", and individually 4.01, 4.02...  But I've tried to extend the existing sequence rather than radically overhaul it to that extent. Barsoomian (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think either of you are giving Wikipedia readers the credit they deserve regarding the W4.x numbering. They're generally smarter than that, which is saying a lot - I maintain a number of kids TV program articles where editors can't understand simple instructions like "Do not add copyright violations" and "do not link this name" and where 3RR breaches are a constant threat. However, I added that only in an attempt to compromise and I'm more than happy to go back to the much simpler Wx numbering advocated by Melicans. I honestly didn't expect any controversy when I originally added it because it seemed like the most simple and efficient system. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you introduce an unnecessary change, when challenged introduce a more complicated version, and now offer to revert to your original. How magnanimous. We get to choose Aussielegend option A or B. THAT IS NOT A COMPROMISE. NONE of your proposals are "simple and efficient". All are both more complex but supply LESS information than 23.X.  Why don't we "give Wikipedia readers the credit they deserve" and see if they can cope with that? And you "didn't expect  expect controversy? You knew it was my edits you were reverting, instead of discussing your concerns first you just bulldozed them aside, you courted controversy.   Barsoomian (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said above, there's no need to discuss everything. The vast majority of changes to Wikipedia go undiscussed. You certainly didn't discuss these changes with the two other editors involved before making them. That you expect others to discuss changes to your edits, but don't see the need to discuss yourself, is an example of the double standard that I mentioned above. You were the one who copied this discussion from my talk page hoping for further input. You got further input, from an editor you invited, and his input is that he prefers the wx numbering over the 23.x numbering. I really don't see what your issue is now. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted a bunch of silly edits by ONE (not two, look at the subsequent edits) anonymous editor, similar to those made before by another, possibly the same person, who obviously is not reading any discussion. What is your point in mentioning that? Do you seriously equate those edits with mine? Do they require reams  of comment on a talk page that will never be read? If so, that's a serious charge. It also demonstrates that you're tracking my edits, looking for an opportunity to take issue with anything I do, and delete it with a disparaging admonition.  And yes, I invited Melicans ot take a look at this.  I was fully aware you would be reading that and would try to make it look like canvassing or whatever.  Unable to do that, you still cite it as if it was something I had tried to conceal. As for the actual subject; I read what Melicans wrote for myself, I don't need your interpretation. Barsoomian (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by what I said, but can we please concentrate on the topic at hand? Melicans and I prefer the Wx numbering while you prefer the 23.x numbering. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You listed various edits I've made, in a different article, and characterised them in the worst possible way then if I respond, you claim I'm going off topic. And when not slagging me off, you were restating someone else's post. Otherwise, I don't see anything on topic that requires a response. If you are implying that I should withdraw my objection to your numbering, no, I won't. Both of your systems are flawed. The latter one is the worst, so on that I agree with Melicans. Do what you like, I won't endorse it, but I won't revert it without consensus. Barsoomian (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, it seems that none of us agree with the last changes I made so I'm happy to revert those. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Done. As someone said "If you see something wrong just fix it without the drama." Barsoomian (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webisode numbering 

message: Discussion copied from user page.
:Dates of future events are by definition speculative and best left out. In a few days the shows will (probably) have been broadcast and the all the details will be indisputable. Also, the moment a blank episode slot appears, a flood of fans descend to fill it out with all the speculative details they've seen on some fan site, or just made up. If you want a schedule of future shows, there are plenty of places to find them. (tvcountdown is pretty good.) Wikipedia is a record of facts.Barsoomian (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Make a case other than WP:other stuff exists. I've explained my reasoning, and this list of episodes has been plagued from the beginning by speculative content filling up any "future" episode the moment it was listed. The article was protected several times because of so much garbage that was pasted in over and over.  I used to try to rewrite press releases to make summaries of future episodes myself, but came to realise that is no more than a waste of time.  You can't document something in the future, no matter how "reliable" a source is, it can be reneged on in a moment. How is it you assert your link to a programmes schedule is "verified"? Nobody guarantees future broadcast dates or information.  And "episode titles"? Do you watch the show? The upcoming titles will very likely be "Episode 5" and "Episode 6".  But we'll know in a few hours.  Summary tables should have actual facts in them, not speculation, projections, guesses or promises. There are a dozen fansites that live and breathe that kind of thing, but we don't have to mirror it.  PS Welcome to Wikipedia, I guess you were one of the IP editors who I've been reverting. Sorry if that ticked you off.  Barsoomian (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly. As the page stands now, there can be some confusion as to whether the series has ended at four episodes. You yourself suggested the use of "Episode #" as each episode's designation on this page, so for this particular article's purposes those are the episode titles. I concede that both summaries and dates could possibly be speculative or change, but the fact of the matter remains that as of right now, two more episodes have been produced. Even if the show were suddenly cancelled, and those last two episodes never aired, they would still exist and thus as fact, belong on this page. So, make a case other than WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. Aeturnid (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no "confusion". The introductory text clearly says there are six shows in the series. The table reflects those that have aired, as those are the only ones we have any real information about. A TV show's "birthdate" is its first airing (or if not aired, first release on DVD). Anyway, thought I think it's a bad idea, as explained in my post below, I'll uncomment the last two eps. Though how it benefits anybody at all I can't imagine.Barsoomian (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." There is a general consensus that episode content that is verifiable, regardless of whether it is in the past, present or future, can be included. The requirement for future content is that it must be sourced. If a source is included, the content can be included. However, the episodes here rarely include sources and this was the case with this revision of the article. As far as Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is concerned that essay doesn't mean that the fact that other articles exists should be discounted. Certainly, the fact that so many TV episode lists exist with future episode content is evidence that the wider community accepts the inclusion of future episode content. To use some common-sense, if we were to exclude content simply because it's "not a fact till it happens", we couldn't include discussion of NASA's plans for the three remaining space shuttle orbiters after they are retired, estimated completion dates of buildings or or the next US presidential election. The reality though is that WP:V is our main guide. If episode content is verifiable it can be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say future events couldn't be discussed or mentioned in the text in general, where the context and the sources will be clearly shown.  The specific question here is the summary table where there is no way to differentiate between dates of past events and scheduled future ones if you start putting them in. (Yeah, at the time they are entered, they are clearly "future". That distinction can be lost later.) And I see that putting both kinds of information (historical facts and scheduled ones) in the same slot is degrading the integrity of the information presented. Being "verifiable" in the sense you mention is the lower bound of acceptability. It's an abuse of the language to define "verifiable" as "having a reliable source".  GWB "verified" that Saddam had WMDs. The hard line here has been due to the incredible amount of speculative crap and fanfic that was posted as factual. The titles are reliably known, being merely numbers, there isn't much value in just listing those. But seeing as the show has only two episodes left, ratings are about 10% of a few years ago, so perhaps the fever has abated. So I'll uncomment the last two episode slots and see what happens. However, I do believe  the finale date should not be published in the table until the day it happens. A scheduled TV show is not an historic fact, to equate it with the date of a presidential election is pretty silly. Elections aren't postponed for celebrity scandals. TV shows are. Barsoomian (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wanting an episode list to offer the content in prose up until the episode is broadcast and then move it on the page into the list, which is the primary content, is just foolish. But you seem to be advocating that approach. If you can't tell the past from the present from the future then perhaps you need to inform yourself better about the Gregorian calendar because most people are able to look at a date and know when it is relative to the time they read the date. Your premise is essentially that all people are stupid, which is really offensive. I don't need a "this event has not yet happened" disclaimer included with mention of the episode of The Glades for 10 July 2011 (11 days from now).As for Aussie's take on the verify policy, it is equally absurd. As he presents it it is ok to and even called for to put forward things that are not true but which are verifiable. If i could find an article in National Geographic which says that Tasmania is in the middle of New Mexico it would be verifiable but sooooo not true.Bush lied to go down in history as a war hero. His claim was published by most every media outlet around the world. Turns out none of it was actually true. Bush telling the world of weapons is a little different from itv releasing the schedule for the next group of episodes of Law & Order | UK. Bush can't ensure the weapons are possessed by the bad guys (well technically he can but just go with this ok) while it is entirely up to itv when itv shows LOUK. Or, you could verify that you are making a lasagna for your dinner but by your reasoning until you have eaten the lasagna it is not appropriate to mention. itv knows what they schedule as much as you know what you want to do for having read this. That you have not yet done it does not inherently negate your intention to do it. Just because the new episode of LOUK won't be on for a couple of weeks doesn't mean that itv hasn't announced it and doesn't intend on showing it in a couple of weeks. And when scandals come up things get changed. Kind of like that episode of Cougar Town which was preëmpted by Barack Obama in the USA but which was shown as originally scheduled in Canada. There is a reasonable expectation that you are not lying about the lasagna you are going to make for your dinner and there is a reasonable expectation that ABC didn't foresee the shooting in Arizona of the senator which resulted in the episode of Cougar Town not being broadcast. There is a reasonable expectation that there will not be a massive hurricane and an earth quake the day the people of the USA vote in the presidential election. Anyone can change their mind about their meal or reschedule a tv show or get shot by surprise or be the victim of a natural disaster. When the party in charge expresses their intent the reasonable belief is that they intend to follow through on their declaration. But shit happens. And articles get edited accordingly.On a related matter, the titles are all "Episode NUMBER" so really how hard is that to reasonably anticipate!The olympics are intended to take place in London next year. Sure preparation for the events have begun but the events themselves have not so does the preparation not count until the medals are awarded? This came up via a 3-degrees-of-watchlist random reading. I just noticed that the entire series appears to have now been shown. This probably doesn't matter much. O well. Read the above or not.   delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 16:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of upcoming episode titles/dates 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Primeval episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101220225309/http://www.itv.com:80/drama/primeval/exclusiveepisodes/ to http://www.itv.com/drama/primeval/exclusiveepisodes/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Primeval episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/2013.01.13-222519/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.itv.com/drama/primeval/exclusiveepisodes/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Primeval episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101226165845/http://www.itv.com/drama/primeval/exclusiveepisodes/credits/ to http://www.itv.com/drama/primeval/exclusiveepisodes/credits
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified