Talk:List of Daria episodes

message: The article does not yet mention Look Back In Annoyance, the "cheap-ass clip show" special which chronologically falls between Season Five and Is It College Yet.  Does the group as a whole think this should be mentioned between those two catgories, otherwise noted, or ignored?  (I do note that Is It Fall Yet is currently placed after Season Five, out of chronological order.)  Wyvern 09:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Look Back In Annoyance

message: Are there any episodes that have been banned on television, due to the content that many people have complained about? --PJ Pete
Err.. no, there really isn't any objectionable content on this show.  Are you thinking of Beavis and Butthead?--B&W Anime Fan 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banned Episodes

message: The description of episode 413 includes this:
"Jane thinks Daria is interested in him and overreacts when a hair dye she makes Daria help in go wrong."
This is such awkward phrasing that it is incomprehensible.  I would fix it myself, but I don't know what it is supposed to mean.
: Done. --Stephanbim 15:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I further edited the summary for "Dye! Dye! My Darling" recently. I never noticed the above summary of "Jane thinks Daria is interested in him...", but would have surely picked up on it if it was left unedited, as Jane is not a boy, and perhaps the editor accidentally phrased it wrong instead of actually writing it properly, to mean "Jane thinks Daria is interested in Tom after claiming that Daria purposely ruined her hair whilst dying it." or something similar; regardless, the mentioned edit was probably made ages ago. 210.50.189.7 01:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dye Awkward Phrasing!

message: After suddenly finding out about the recent deletion of episode articles for That's So Raven and The Suite Life of Zack & Cody I want to warn everybody here that other shows might be targeted next. I strongly urge everybody to keep on guard for this vandalism. And spread the word. ---- DanTD 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan, the above is far from the first personal attack I've seen by you. The fact that the above was made some time ago indicates to me that this is an ongoing problem. Please review the civility policy and tweak your approach to editing here. --Jack Merridew 11:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, "let you redirect all articles or else." I don't think so, Jack. ----DanTD (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some fool is deleting TV episodes! 

message: Articles about individual episodes of this series currently do not conform to the out-of-universe perspective that is an official policy of Wikipedia. WP:NOT#PLOT gives the relevant overview as well as links to other policy and guideline pages that are pertinent. It is worth considering closely the policy statement: Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance. All of the episode articles that I have reviewed here fail to conform to this standard and hence do not deserve individual articles as currently written. Interested editors should act to introduce real-world context and assert out-of-universe notability if they do not wish these articles to be redirected. Additionally, it should be noted that interested editors are strongly encouraged to join or, when necessary, start a specific project wikia should they desire to retain the kind of in-universe information that is currently proscribed at Wikipedia. See WP:FICT#Relocating_non-notable_fictional_material. Eusebeus 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge & Redirect 

message: This article is full of red links and self links. Shouldn't these be all corrected? I'll be happy to take care of it en masse, if there's no reason to keep them. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed your offer, so I already did it. The self links came from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esteemstersand I removed the redlinks as well for consistency both in the list and with respect to the mentioned discussion. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries -- just as long as they're removed. Thanks! -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  self-links? 

message: :Image:Daria peek.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Daria peek.jpg