Talk:List of Farscape episodes

message: Seems this needs to be simplified to match the style used by List of Arrested Development Episodes and List of Six Feet Under episodes. Plot summaries should be cut down to a single sentence or so, with everything else moved to the article page about that specific episode. In this way, as information about each episode is expanded it will already be in its proper place.RoyBatty42 01:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great.  The first 17 really need it. - Peregrine Fisher 01:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Went ahead and created wiki links for each episode. Ironically, as an example/template I used episode #17. It's only meant as a placeholder until someone can flesh it out (finish the summary, add production details, perhaps even insert an info box and maybe even a screen shot)  RoyBatty42 02:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a bit more to the template.  I guess I can upload screenshots if you will do the pages (I'm a bit lazy). - Peregrine Fisher 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganizing this article

message: Here's a partial list of episode titles that will require redirects on the articles that aren't actually those episodes (I'm sure there's a copy/wikipedia term for this):
That Old Black Magic
Rhapsody in Blue
Through the Looking Glass
The Way We Weren't
Beware of Dog
Won't Get Fooled Again
The Locket
Eat Me"
A Perfect Murder
Unrealized Reality
Mental as Anything
RoyBatty42 02:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects

message: Following wikipedia's guidelines, it would seem that the airdates need to be changed to American system of month, date, year as Farscape was made primarily for American television. RoyBatty42 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Airdates

message: Just finished creating the templates for the 2nd season episodes. Please retain the use of the 2001 (2001 for example only, use appropriate years) convention. Otherwise, you just have random links that really mean nothing (ie, month and date). RoyBatty42 20:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd Season Templates Up

message: I was thinking about adding a ==Pop Culture References and Allusions== section to each article, as it would be useful to both non-English speaking and non-American info seekers. Each one is full of such references RoyBatty42 18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's kind of a no no here at wikipedia.  I'd like the sections myself, but people will say it's original research unless it has a reference to to a review or something that mentions each allusion.  With cancelled shows, it's hard to find good references. - Peregrine Fisher 18:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to stop you.  I'm just telling you what I've seen; Smallville had a ton of allusions until someone objected.  I voted keep myself, but in the end they were deleted.  Some shows still have them, but they're slowly being removed from wikipedia.  I guess I'm just saying be careful how much time you put into it, becuase if the wrong person sees it, it will probably be removed.  Also, what TV.com does has no effect on what's allowed here.  They are a wiki, but they have different rules. - Peregrine Fisher 19:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I see what you're saying.  The problem is that because TV.com is a wiki, it's not considered a reliable source.  One thing I forgot, if the trivia and allusions are put into paragraph form in the lead instead of under a "Trivia" section, it makes it a lot harder for people to delete them. - Peregrine Fisher 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop Culture References and Allusions section??

message: So, have at'em! LOL  RoyBatty42 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd Season Episode Templates Up

message: You know, trivia really doesn't belong in episode summaries - it should go in the episode's main page instead.  I cleaned it out of the article already. 134.121.249.26 07:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if you are going to do that you need to either move the material to this page or, more preferably, move it to the page that was already created for that specific episode. RoyBatty42 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia in episode summaries

message: shouldn't "Farscape Undressed" be its own section in between season two and three seeing as its not an episode --88wolfmaster 22:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farscape Undressed 

message: Well, apparently there's this quasi-famous drummer named David Kemper (works with Bob Dylan) who myself and I'm sure many others have never heard of and all of the "David Kemper" links we've put into the Farscape related articles link to his article. So, what is needed is someone familiar with using the more complicated Wiki gizmos to use one of those to find all the Farscape articles and replace David Kemper with David Kemper   Thanks in advance!RoyBatty42 17:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Wiki pro to edit for David Kemper links

message: Could someone take look at the article, somehow I screwed the pooch on the reference formating and the one entry isn't showing under "References".  RoyBatty42 17:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PS David Kemper article

message: Some of the original airdates are wrong.  For instance, Farscape World indicates that 'Bad Timing' was first aired at least as early as 10 March 2003 and not, as this article indicates, 21 March 2003. Matthew 13:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airdates part two 

message: Okay, the discussion on removing screenshots ONLY referred to featured list, and the only reason they were removed were that the list would lose its featured status (which I don't think anybody cared about anyway). Until I see something CLEAR on removing screenshots from lists of episodes altogether, I am completely in favor of keeping the images. byeee 06:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this . Hope that clears up things. eZio 06:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots 

message: This discussion has gone stale, so it's time to wrap it up. The recent edits to I, E.T. would seem to establish notability, but there has been little other progress on these articles. Do other the other bbc pages support establish notability of the other episode articles? They certainly don't if no one bothers to add them as references to the articles. Absent someone moving on this, I'll close this discussion and redirect the remaining articles. If anyone feels that specific episodes should be kept, please list them and be sure that the articles actually cite some 3rd party RS. --Jack Merridew 10:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no deadline.  The articles can be improved, so please don't redirect them. - Peregrine Fisher 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There is no consensus to redirect, an established desire to improve the articles, and (again) no deadline. --Ckatzchatspy 18:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed--there is no consensus to redirect. QuizzicalBee 23:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I agree there's no consensus to redirect. I've been bold and removed all the merge tags. Like Peregrine says: "there is no deadline". Matthew 23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Naughty, naughty. --Jack 11:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: it's going to take a while.  WP is not built in a day. - Peregrine Fisher 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no reason to believe it will ever happen. These articles lack the real world information that would make them notable, and currently violate WP:NOT#PLOT. If you wish to improve them you'll need to find something from the real world to write about before there is anything to improve. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are reviews and DVD commentaries. - Peregrine Fisher 02:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And so, without knowing what kind of information we can pull from these, we just indiscriminately keep this massive plot summary? Not knowing what is justified or not? Not knowing how much of the commentary is relevant information, or just inside jokes between actors? Let alone if this information should be presented in a per-episode format, and casting aside if the same information could fit better in character articles or some type of season article. DVD commentary and reviews tell us that there is real world information for Farscape in general, but doesn't tell us if works for a per-episode-article format. I'm not saying it isn't there, but we're far from justifying each and every one of these articles. Nothing prevents us from de-merging at a future time. -- Ned Scott 03:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've got sources, so basically it's up to us to decide; we're not running afoul of WP:FICT or anything.  We're interested in improving, not redirecting.  If you want to start season pages, or improving the LOE go ahead.  Some of us want to improve the ep pages. - Peregrine Fisher 03:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have sources for plot, not for real world information. It violates WP:NOT#PLOT, regardless of the current status of WP:FICT, which even with revised wording will still not justify these episode articles (and lets not forget WP:EPISODE). If all you have are shots in the dark, these articles will be redirected. If you make it an issue, they will be deleted. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Repeating what I just said: DVD commentary and reviews tell us that there is real world information for Farscape in general, but doesn't tell us if works for a per-episode-article format. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's give them some time and see then.  I haven't had much trouble improving on these articles when I wan't to.  Why don't you scour the internet, add everything you find to Pilot, and see what happens.  I think you'll be pleasantly suprised. - Peregrine Fisher 04:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've de-taged all the articles again, the consensus is clear here, Ned – live with it. Alternatively you may list these articles for deletion. Matthew 19:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for removing the tags, as the consensus is clearly for improving, not redirecting. Now, let's see if we can keep this discussion from getting too confrontational. There's no need for "brinkmanship"; if we can avoid statements like "if If you make it an issue, they will be deleted" (and the related counter-challenges) we can focus on the improvements. Thoughts?  --Ckatzchatspy 19:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We reviewed the the pages, and decided redirecting is not necessary per our notability guidelines.  Possibly a shocking outcome for the review process, has that ever been the result before? - Peregrine Fisher 15:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may have "decided" that you don't want to redirect the articles, but that conclusion is not in accordance with guidelines. You have to actually cite your sources in the articles; merely asserting that sources probably exist out there and that you'll edit the articles when you have time is merely amusing. It seems to me that there are many editors who do not want episode articles to be in an encyclopaedic form — they want plot summary, articles that are little shrines to the episodes. --Jack Merridew 13:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in accordance with guidelines.  We've looked for RSs, and found them.  Also, the plot summaries are mostly within the 10 word per minute guidline.  I get the feeling you think only one outcome is possible from these "reviews," but that is not so. - Peregrine Fisher 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not at all; I stated up front that I didn't really want to see these redirected. You have, however, largely failed to actually cite the sources you refer to in the articles. Absent this, they are at risk, so I suggest you cite your sources. --Jack Merridew 07:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  The reason those barely assert their notability is because I added a few refs.  I could do the same for any of them, which means there is not reason to redirect.  Please follow the guidelines which say if an article can be improved, that's what should happen. - Peregrine Fisher 14:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  actually, I'm the one that added the few refs to A Bug's Life. I actually agree with part of what you say here (although I may be reading it other than as you intend) — you should be seeking to improve these articles rather than attempting to defend them in their current unsourced, non-notability-establishing state. If you were to actually improve more than a couple, I (and, I expect, others) would give them time. The overall problem is that there are few reliable sources that can serve to establish notability for specific tv show episodes, there are too many editors who seek to keep episode articles in an in-universe format and there are millions of individual episodes of tv shows. --Jack Merridew 07:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  There's no consensus to redirect, there is possibility for improvement, and steps are being taken to move in that direction. Given that the aim of the "Episode" guideline was supposedly to improve the overall quality of the project (and not just to eliminate articles that some people don't agree with), no redirect is warranted. There are countless articles (not just in the television section) that aren't being improved, so please don't use the threat of AfD to impose a point of view on ones that are, even if slowly. --Ckatzchatspy 17:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I just don't see any notability difference between, Farscape and, say Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Stargate. What makes it OK to have pages for each of those shows' episodes, but not of this show?QuizzicalBee 20:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those pages have not been reviewed yet. I have only peeked at a few. Your argument is aka Other Crap Exists. --Jack Merridew 07:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Eusebeus, WP:N says "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."  That's how I, E.T. asserts notability.  I'm not really sure what you're talking about. - Peregrine Fisher 21:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", not "a couple of fairly minor sources to act as some sort of shield." None of those signify that the article is any more than the latter. TTN 22:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:Note says '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.'  We've got that covered. - Peregrine Fisher 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having been reviewed doesn't assert true, true notability. Even if it does, there is not enough content to warrant an article, and those don't assert the possibility of much more. You need a good chunk of possible information for it to really matter. Otherwise, it is just trivial, no matter what the sources are or what they state. Honestly, you have done this for every series that you have really tried to defend, and it really hasn't worked that well as far as I can remember. TTN 23:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When didn't it work? - Peregrine Fisher 00:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When exactly has it worked? Maybe I'm thinking you've done this more than you actually have, but I cannot remember a full series being "saved" because of your improvements. TTN 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The pages were all redirected without consensus, and without any mention on this page. That has been reversed, as the consensus is quite clearly *not* to redirect. --Ckatzchatspy 05:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize that consensus has nothing to do with numbers, right? While some of you guys did actually try to assert notability, you only did it for a few episodes. Any defense for the others falls under WP:ILIKEIT. TTN 14:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why unacceptable? What harm is there in leaving the articles up while they are being improved?QuizzicalBee 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't being improved. The above three that have sources don't even assert notability for themselves, and they certainly don't show any hope for the rest. Any sources given are the same thing. They're just being used as a fake safety blanket to avoid having these redirected. I can understand the tactic being used by Matthew or Fisher, but I really would have suspected Ckatz to be above that. TTN 14:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Be above that"?!? If by that, you mean "allow you to do whatever you feel like, despite the obvious lack of solid consensus to do so, while ignoring the opinions and insulting the character of anyone who opposes you" - then I'm sorry to disappoint you. This isn't your personal Wiki, and you cannot just dismiss the concerns of others with a boilerplate note and a click or two (hundred) in AWB. --Ckatzchatspy 06:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The episodes CAN be brought up to the standards. It's just going to take a little time.QuizzicalBee 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anything actually shown that? So far, only the first episode has anything that can even be considered notable. Being the first episode, it is possibly an exception to the rest. How about some of you work on an episode in the middle of the series that does not have anything special about it, and add one paragraph each for production and reception? That would be enough to show that it is likely for other episodes to improve, and it would certainly be enough to feel fine backing off. TTN 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And by paragraphs, I'm talking about descriptive prose backed up by reviews and commentary. Taking a bunch of trivial quotes and details to form shabby paragraphs isn't going to cut it, TTN 17:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that is an acceptable compromise. I would also recommend that the Episode guide be consulted as well. At the moment, the plot descriptions are WAY too long. They need to be cut to one or at most two short paragraphs. I would also suggest editors use GA episodes as a further guide. That said, I remain skeptical that all episodes can be brought to such a standard in which case we need agreement that those that fail to assert real-world notability should be redirected per WP:EPISODE. Eusebeus 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a reasonable compromise, and I'm sure someone will take up the challenge. However, please take into account the fact that people are probably exhausted by all of this bickering. (Does that mean wait forever? No, of course not. Just a thought as to why the page may be quieter right now.) --Ckatzchatspy 08:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm definitely planning to work on them. I'm just really busy right now so haven't had a chance.QuizzicalBee 13:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  motion to close 

message: I redirected the episode articles, but unfortunately User:Ckatz reverted them back, presumably because he is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. Note that the individual episode articles have been under consideration for a merge & redirect for a fair amount of time now. Over the period, almost nothing has been done to assert real-world notability. As a result these need to be merged & redirected. To the editors above who feel that they have !voted against such an action and established some kind of consensus to maintain these articles, it is important to remember what consensus means: When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. 
At the moment, consensus still requires real-world context to establish notability. If editors feel individual episode articles should be kept they should
1. work to introduce such content, or
2. weigh in on the debates at WP:FICT, WP:EPISODE and WP:WAF ASAP to change the existing standards of the guidline. So far, in those discussions, the suggestion that real-world notability and reliable, third party sources not be standard criteria for stand-alone articles has been rejected. Interested editors, however, are encouraged to air their views.  Meanwhile, at the risk of being repetitive, editors need to understand that, absent some major change in our basic policies, real-world, out-of-universe notability must be asserted. Consequently, individual comments made here are, in this regard, irrelevant since they fall outside of community consensus. Editors who feel strongly should direct their attention to the main debates centering around policy where that consensus is determined. 
It is important that editors who feel strongly about this issue ensure they participate in fora where their views can be considered. This is not such a forum and as the current discussion is unfolding, the individual episode pages will be redirected. Eusebeus 14:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My response to this is who died and made you king? - Diceman 15:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your user page says that you were born in 1980, not 2000; now I'm really confused. --Jack Merridew 15:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A-ha ha. I may have my problems but having an inflated ego isn't one of them. Actually, I retract my comment (I could remove it but you may restore it) because I failed to notice it was  mostly written by Eusebeus. - Diceman 18:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming Merge & Redirect per Wikipedia Guidelines & Notability Standards 

message: I should stop contributing to Wikipedia. - Diceman 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the uncivil post of yours I just removed from my talk page, you may be on to a good idea here. --Jack Merridew 15:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Didn't want to own up to your actions did you? - Diceman 15:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My actions are here as everyone knows. --Jack Merridew 15:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explaining them in your talk page, if you want to split hairs. - Diceman 15:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That was a discussion of edit tabs, nothing to do with this subject. - Diceman 18:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the page has been archived and another user has started a conversation using the same title.  Had you viewed the page when the message was originally posted you would have seen the relevant conversation still available in the page history: here. Timing is everything. Stardust8212 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Might makes right: season 2 articles locked by [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] at request of [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]]

message: We need to find a way around the recent impasse. For those not au courant, the plot so far. 
=== Plot Summary ===
A small cabal of deletion-minded editors, led by arch-villain TTN and his minions Eusebeus and Jack Merridew, have launched an assault against Farscape Episode Articles as part of their plans to ruin Wikipedia and their longer term plan to dominate the universe. Arrayed against the forces of darkness, a mighty assemblage of Farscape protectors coalesced, suffused with righteousness in their bid to defend the precious episode articles, each one carefully crafted with lengthy and detailed plot synopses and a careful listing of guest stars. 
Armed with Policy Phasers and the Redirection Ray, the Cabal of Ruination staged an assault in its bid to ruin Wikipedia for everyone, undoing all the efforts of so many hard working editors. The Righteous, however, were unaffected by the Cabal's policy weapons; attempts to shoot policy at them deflected harmlessly. Stung by their inability to use policy as basis for their Redirection Ray, the Cabal of Ruination was quickly repulsed and thus began the Great Edit War. The Cabal of Ruination attempted a second assault, inviting the Righteous to an emendation of the Episode Articles, but the Righteous held fast. They refused to kowtow to the threats of an incredibly tiny minority of power-hungry and obsessed deletionists and their repugnant instruments of vile terror and subjugation.
Before stalemate ensued, a few episode articles were placed under "Protection," innocent victims of policy and a cruel reminder of what happens when the Cabal's attempt to ruin Wikipedia with policy weapons are not met head-on by a committed resistance that has grown impervious to policy.
===Going Forward===
Disagreement here is profound and is unlikely to be settled through consensus. If editors wish, we can proceed to an RFC on this issue, or we can proceed directly to arbitration, since the back and forth constitute as much as is likely to be elicited in an RFC. Basically, we need an outside ruling here, which is not such a bad thing since it can probably be applied more generally. It is my belief that, insofar as almost every single one of these articles obviously fail every single standard that we have governing television episodes and fictional notability, including (and especially) the specific provision that Wikipedia is not a repository for plot synopses, that such arbitration is largely unnecessary. But in the interest of implementing a binding solution that will have larger repercussions for fictional TV content, sobeit. Is anyone opposed? Eusebeus 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farscape Episode Redirection - Next Steps 

message: Disagreement here is profound and is unlikely to be settled through consensus. If editors wish, we can proceed to an RFC on this issue, or we can proceed directly to arbitration, since the back and forth constitute as much as is likely to be elicited in an RFC. Basically, we need an outside ruling here, which is not such a bad thing since it can probably be applied more generally. It is my belief that, insofar as almost every single one of these articles obviously fail every single standard that we have governing television episodes and fictional notability, including (and especially) the specific provision that Wikipedia is not a repository for plot synopses, that such arbitration is largely unnecessary. But in the interest of implementing a binding solution that will have larger repercussions for fictional TV content, sobeit. Is anyone opposed? Eusebeus 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Going Forward

message: It's a year later, and the following episodes have made no progress (WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT) whatsoever:
* Won't Get Fooled Again (Farscape episode)
* Unrealized Reality (Farscape episode)
* The Ugly Truth
* Terra Firma (Farscape episode)
* Nerve (Farscape episode)
* Kansas (Farscape episode)
* Into the Lion's Den Part I: Lambs to the Slaughter (was nom'ed for an Emmy for Costumes though)
* Infinite Possibilities Part II: Icarus Abides
I know some of them were cool episodes, but that's not what matters for wikipedia. Are there volunteers to fix the article deficiencies? Otherwise, I can't think of a good reason to not go ahead with the merger/redirect, with no prejudice against restoring the articles that someone wishes to work on. – sgeureka t•c 08:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All redirected, except Into the Lion's Den Part I: Lambs to the Slaughter, where I merged the Emmy information. Feel free to restore any article if you want to work on it. – sgeureka t•c 16:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Part 2 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Farscape 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/20050305050535/http://www.epguides.com/Farscape/ to http://epguides.com/Farscape/
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) 22:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: where can I watch the final 2 episodes??? 2600:1016:A006:7D96:F80F:25E2:3CD1:F837 (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peacekeeper wars