Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episodes/Archive 1

message: I've created a template for the infobox, based off of the one here. - UtherSRG 01:27, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Nav/Info Box 

message: Even though this Project has been Inactive for a long time, I say it should not be killed of just yet. I say this in light of recent renewed activity in Portal:Television, WikiProject_Television and several other Television pages. It seems that with the increasing popularity of certain Key TV series, people are finally starting to come together on formatting issues etc. It will just take a while longer before this trickles down to the Individual Episode level. The DJ 04:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactivity 

message: If somebody is interested in Justice League Unlimited, please go to the List of Justice League episodes to help fix that page, some users refuse to create article per episodes, even though they know the existence of this project and well developed pages like those.--T-man, the wise 02:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed in Justice League Unlimited 

message: Ok, can we add some guidelines for naming TV eps this is basically my criteria But if that's going to be valid (or not) it should be explain tn this page (the article, not in the talk page).
My vote is for Not using parenthesis clarification, if there is nothing else called that way (as everything else works on wikipedia if there is no disambiguation). That's also informative, as readers can infer whether the title of the episode comes from something else or it is a cultural reference..--T-man, the wise 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that almost all "major" TV shows follow the title of the episode with the name of the show in parenthesis.  See List of Prison Break episodes and List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes as two good examples.  It is only in the Dr. Who episodes that there seems to be a lack of consensus.  Despite the issue of disambiguation, the unique factor to consider is that all TV episodes should be treated alike, as some titles are more anbiguous than others and the use of the parenthesis will leave no doubt. -- Dyslexic agnostic 08:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming episodes 

message: If there is no disambiguation, the name of the article should be the episode title written with the corresponding capital letters. 
Examples (from Lost):
*All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues
*Raised by Another
When disambiguation is needed, the name will also include a parenthesis clarification with the title of the series.
Examples:
*The Romans (Doctor Who)
*Tabula Rasa (Lost)
This helps to identify cultural references in episode titles.
----
...how ever I'm not a native English speaker, if I missed something, go ahead, and modify it (get crazy, haha :P).--T-man, the wise 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: The single-episode articles for these are severely lacking. Could the members here please lavish some care onto them? Ta. --Jamdav86 20:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batman: The Animated Series 

message: Can someone tell me what "Significance in arc" means?   Specifically the "arc" part??   This is a phrase I've never heard.   Seems like on the EUReKA episode pages it is being used to call out significant events that are part of the story line, but the "arc" part is throwing me.   Should a more obvious term be used?--P Todd 21:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For simplicity: Story arc. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I now see the arc light and understand.  Thank you both.--P Todd 04:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance in arc 

message: TrackerTV has created a barnstar proposal relating to Broadcasting. I would really appreciate it if interested people could give an opinion here.--Ed 20:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment:This barnstar may be used in assoiation with your Wikiproject.Ed 21:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need an Opinion 

message: People are taking consensus against the conventions in this page. Votes are needed to keep the work up in that page. These people (I think most of them don't even get any work done on the article, just criticize) don't want neither expand the synopsis on the episode list nor create articles per episode and it happens in most cases. --T-man, the wise 06:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Justice League episodes 

message: There is currently a five part shouting match going on over at Template talk:Infobox Television episode#Background Colour Tag over whether or not there should be an option to adjust the infobox color scheme. if your interested please weigh in.  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  20:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox shouting match 

message: I noticed the project is listing trivia as one of the standards for the articles. I think this is a bad idea, as trivia sections are generally frowned upon in Wikipedia. Any article that goes through peer review these days is asked to remove the trivia sections by integrating relevant points into the prose and deleing irrelevant points. Jay32183 14:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia sections 

message: I just posted this on WT:LOE and thought I would mention it here as well:
:Since there's not a lot of episode list-specific activity, I was wondering maybe we should "merge" ourselves back with our parent project, WikiProject Television. Pretty much the main reason for LOE was to come up with a style-guideline for lists of episodes. We could merge some of our pages to WP:TV and then set up a dedicated sub-page with it's own talk page. I think we should do the same with WikiProject Television episodes. There's a lot of ideas and such that I've wanted to bring up, but it can be hard because they cross into a few different areas, including lists of episodes. Better integration with our parent project would still allow us to do all the things we've been doing independently, but allow for easier collaboration and make things easier to find. Thoughts?
-- Ned Scott 20:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge / become taskforce / work group of WikiProject TV? 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: Requesting comments for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix - a debate over the use of disambiguation titles for episode articles of a TV show when no disambiguation is needed. -- Ned Scott 20:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current naming convention listed is "Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g. Bart the Genius, but The Sting (Futurama)." Is that what you're looking for? Jay32183 20:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It came from here by the way:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Episode articles Jay32183 20:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting comments for Lost episodes 

message: I can think of only one series this applies to, and that is Battlestar Galactica, however, there may be more. Can anyone point me in the direction of a convention for naming episodes when two or more series have the same title, but were made at different times? Currently, for example, we have Take the Celestra (Battlestar Galactica) and Act of Contrition (Battlestar Galactica), both using the usual naming convention, except that the former is from the original 1978 series and the latter from the 2004 remake. Only The Hand of God (Battlestar Galactica) is disambiguated any further because that episode title occurs in both versions.
My own personal suggestion, as a starting point for discussion, is for the above examples to become, respectively, Take the Celestra (Battlestar Galactica 1978) and Act of Contrition (Battlestar Galactica 2004). Note that I am not a big fan of making double parenthethis in article names, which is why I did not put them around the years, but if this is an issue, perhaps a hyphen instead? --BlueSquadronRaven 22:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#RfC_Episode_Article_Naming_conventions right now. - Peregrinefisher 22:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode naming and dates. 

message: I thought I'd check in here, as I've just had to start a deletion review over an episode article that was deleted on the grounds that, according to guidelines, episodes with more than one part should be included entirely within the same article. Can anyone cite or otherwise verify this for me, or is it a load of hooey? --BlueSquadronRaven 22:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember reading it once somewhere. But multi-part episode refers specifically to episodes that have a common plot across multiple time divisions. Distinct plots that pick up where the previous one left off get distinct articles, even if titled part one and part two. Also, this is not grounds for deletion, it would be grounds for a merger. Jay32183 22:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-part episodes 

message: Since I am not a member of this WikiProject, what is the conensus on episode articles. Should shows like game shows or wrestling shows have episode guides or yearly/season guides (i.e. "Deal or No Deal season 2" or "WWE RAW 2003")? What is the consenus for these? TJ Spyke 04:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably start with a page that lists a bunch of episodes, by season ideally, and then worry about episode articles later. - Peregrinefisher 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thses are cases where you won't have the details to make individual pages, and a list won't be meaningful. With game shows or news shows you'd just have a list of airdates, no titles and no summaries. Generally I'd say don't make episode articles for these types of shows. Jay32183 05:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good guidline is at Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes#Conclusions. - Peregrinefisher 05:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good general guideline for TV series, but the question with game shows is "what are you going to talk about episode by episode?" If you have a decent answer to that question then go for it. I don't have an answer to that question so I, personally, would not bother with an episode list or individual episode articles. Jay32183 06:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be cool to know who won, and how much money.  I'd like to know the phrases used by Wheel of Fortune. - Peregrinefisher 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: For further reference, here's what WikiProject Television has to say about it - 
Episode listing
A good plot description covering major story arcs is much more important then a list of episodes. For most TV shows, creating separate articles for each and every episode is not desired. Expansion of episodic information should be proportional to the series' noteworthiness, and progress as follows:
# A short list of episodes is sometimes appropriate in the main article. The list should be a table with the episode title, airdate, and a one- or two-sentence summary. 
# The list of episodes can be moved to a separate page when it grows too large for the main article. Please follow the conventions of WikiProject List of Television Episodes. A good example of an episode list is List of Firefly episodes. 
# The main episode list can be split further grouped by season (24 (season 3)) to allow room for longer episode summaries and production information. A summary of the season's main story points should be included as an introduction. 
# Individual episodes which are particularly noteworthy can be split from the season lists into their own pages. 
Does that provide an answer for you? CovenantD 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game shows/news show/wrestling shows 

message: There is a section in the project page titled TV shows currently using these guidelines, but the page doesn't actually identify what the guidelines are or where they can be found. The page needs to be rephrased to take that into account. --Metropolitan90 06:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "These guidelines"? 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: The page was deleted as the result of an AfD debate, clearly there was no consensus to delete it and so I have taken the page to DRV - see: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_12#Nothing to Lose (Heroes). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing to Lose (Heroes) 

message: The above referenced article is being considered as a candidate for the Article Improvement Drive. Any editor who would be interested in helping to improve this article should indicate their support there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 15:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Television program]] candidate for [[Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive]] 

message: * (airing order issue, aired as)
* (has more options, UK/US date, executive prod, script editor, length, imdb)
* (extra info, book, chapter)
* (extra info, song)
* (extra info, opening subtitle, opening cartoon)
* (extra info, photography, music)
* (colored, adds cinematography)
* (colored, adds recorded, length, viewing figures)
Episode templates with fictional universe information in the infobox. These should be checked for the seperation of fictional vs. non-fictional information. Many Star Trek boxes etc. have this same problem.
*
*
*
* (and colored)
*
* (and list)
Episode templates with season listings. These things only add eplists with seasons. This can possibly be handled by the standard box as well if we wanted. we could perhaps even add a new param to add this lists into the standard box. (These templates are derivs of the more general navigational template:  
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* (and fict. info)
*
* (colored)
* (colored)
TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still under consideration

message: I just experimented with a "Season list" param for this template to clear the way to remove all the showspecific infoboxes which are based on these "season navigators". Please see the code here: User:TheDJ/SandboxTemplate2 and a demo of the template in both usage methods on User:TheDJ/Sandbox. It seems to work really well at first sight. Please let me know what you think. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. --Maitch 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Season list

message: Just for the project's interest, an editor has done a batch AFD nomination for a number of Gilmore Girls episode articles here, using rationale that could set precedent to get most other episode articles deleted. 23skidoo 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gilmore Girls episode articles up for AFD

message: I believe there is a common problem with the articles on the episodes of The Sopranos, in that they all have too large an episode plot recap section, which needs to be addressed. I started a discussion on that, and would be very grateful if you participated at the List of The Sopranos episodes talk page. Thanks! Gimlei 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sopranos episodes 

message: Seriously, you'd of thought people would be seeing the big picture by now :-\ ([]) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And annother.. 

message: grumble grumble.. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pieface (The Buzz on Maggie episode) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  .. one more.. 

message: Action stations, action stations. Set condition one throughout the wiki This is not a drill. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind Games (Spider-man) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a policy somewhere that covers blanket notability of all TV epsiode articles?  Seems like they're judged on a case by case basis, and these all look pretty terrible.  I'd hate to see a good episode article get deleted per "notability" but these are pretty indefensible.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The ironic thing is if people are going to blindly defend the "shit" episode articles with the actual notable episode articles (they do exist) then you'll end up with an indiscriminate frustration that will be directed towards ALL episode articles. In other words, one day something's going to snap and they'll all be wiped out, baby with the bathwater and all that jazz. Just because you think it's possible to make some episode articles better don't go blindly defending the ones that belittle your whole argument. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  .. and annother.. 

message: ... is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 season 6 episodes. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The past five seasons don't have episode articles, and none of these have aired and don't have any content. This seems to have very little to do with the episode article debate. -- Ned Scott 00:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 season 6 episodes|24 season six]] 

message: Can an expert on Family Guy help clean up these cruft lists? I realize Family Guy refers to many popular things (known as pop culture references, or simply cultural references), but it's not notable to list them all. I've tagged many of the articles for too much trivia: which the references clearly are. For a full list of episodes (which I'm sure most have huge lists of cultural references/trivia): :Category:Family Guy episodes. This is a good example of why television episode articles shouldn't be on Wikipedia: cluttered lists of fan cruft that doesn't get cleaned, just added on to. I've posted this on the regular Television Project talk page as well: so hopefully a few people can help clean these cluttered lists. RobJ1981 07:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we even want sections named "Trivia?"  Trivia that is encyclopedic should be moved from any Trivia section into the lead paragraph(s) of the episode article, and the Trivia section removed.  I think this is what we want.  Comments? - Peregrine Fisher 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. It's to be avoided, but not to be flatly deleted. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem may be that the project page currently includes a "Trivia" section in the standard formatting. I asked about removing it before, but I don't think anyone responded then. Jay32183 18:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and changed that, it is now closer to matching the formats used by the two featured articles. Jay32183 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support (and added a bit to) your change. Good work of being WP:BOLD. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are any of you experts on Family Guy? The cluttered cultural references sections need to be smaller. RobJ1981 20:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just been told there is a Family Guy Wiki. The references should be moved there. RobJ1981 21:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia issues with Family Guy episode articles

message: One is at AfD, I've valiantly entered into the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Switch (NCIS). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCIS episodes 

message: Hey. I've placed Pilot (The 4400 episode) for peer review, could anybody give me any feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pilot (The 4400 episode)/archive1? Cheers. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Ned Scott recently moved WP:LOE into WP:TV and made it a Taskforce of that project. I suggest we do that with this project as well, and then reorder the main WP:TV page as I suggested on it's talk page. The reason is that many of the same people work on these same projects, and having it all in one will help to centralize (and keep active) discussion, as well as centralizing the information the editors might need to find. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Having more centralized discussions on television articles would be beneficial to the overall quality of television articles. Jay32183 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into [[WP:TV]] 

message: Does anybody know if a plot summary should be cited? I see that different people have different opinions about this, but is there a concrete policy or guideline to follow? --Maitch 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't have to be, as the plot self-references to the primary source. Long-term to make a better article you *should* cite to secondary sources, but when you're just starting an article worry about making sure there is a decent amount of real-world information, which is OOU and is cited to reliable secondary sources. Matthew 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: All information should be cited, even plot summaries. For example, instead of saying "Bob finds a new house" say "In episode 5, Bob finds a new house". This does two things, makes the article slightly less in-universe and cites a source. For the over-all article you can also place a generic reference for that movie/episode, using something like Template:Cite visual or Template:Cite episode (see :Category:Citation templates for more). Since it's usually very obvious, many editors will focus on other article issues before nitpicking on those kinds of things, but they should eventually be there. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe our Featured Article Director has stated that when discussing plot from the work of fiction itself a citation is not needed, but plot from a related work of fiction the citation is needed. So when talking about a TV show in general you should cite the indivdual episode it came from. When in an indivdual episode article the summary of that article doesn't need to be cited, but anything in the arc significance secion would be. Although citations never hurt, and if some one complained that a particular part of the summary appeared speculative then adding a direct quote citation would be a really good idea. Jay32183 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: Hi, project folks! I have used the infobox for a Nip/Tuck episode (Megan O'Hara). I'd really like to make articles for all 59 eps and standardize/improve the few episodes that have information. If anyone else is interested, there's a useful List of Nip/Tuck episodes chart/page. 
Also, I was wondering: How might I modify the infobox to insert something like "Procedure Performed" on the titular patient (for O'Hara, it would be Breast reconstruction)?Polymathematics 01:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why ? This is the most important question in these kinds of things. It's a detail of the episode, but how critical is it to the episode ? Is the procedure performed in any of the Nip/Tuck episodes of ANY importance to the plotlines ? I've seen a lot of Nip Tuck eps, but in my eyes the exact procedure performed is just a story element and not an essential plot element. As such there is no reason as far as I can see to include it in the infobox. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could do it with one of the extra parameters talked about at Template talk:Episode list, maybe Aux3, or really any of the extra ones like AltDate.  Which one you choose will determine the ordering.  As The DJ says though, this isn't something that really should go in the ep list.  I would put it on the episode page as part of the plot summary, myself. - Peregrine Fisher 05:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nip/Tuck

message: I see that for the plot summary section, it should be called "Plot" according to the WikiProject guidelines. However, I looked at some of the featured articles, and they have the same section but it is titled "Synopsis." Which one is correct? --Fernandobouregard 00:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's completely a stylistic choice. I prefer "Synopsis" because it sounds more professional, but I would never object to an FAC just because the section was labelled "Plot". Jay32183 00:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot or Synopsis 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journey of a Thousand Miles Jay32183 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD debate for Xiaolin Showdown episodes 

message: Had I know there was a plan to merge all That's So Raven episodes, I would've voted against it. Where was the discussion on this? ---- DanTD 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears the articles were only plot summary with no evidence that the articles could stand on their own. The one I checked didn't even list writers, the director, or the original airdate. What type of discussion would you need to have seen? Jay32183 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd advise you to take it to DRV (or I'll do it in due time), you'll have the support of my self in overturning the non-existent consensus to redirect. Looking at the history of the pilot episode it appears to establish oodles of notability, that's not pondering the fact that none of the content was merged (and not to mention merging/redirecting are editorial decisions). Matthew 18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't take things to DVR unless there was an AfD... -- Ned Scott 01:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  DVR? Do you mean this AfD, eh? Matthew 18:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. regardless, Jay should have discussed it with other Raven editors. that would have been the polite thing to do. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't perform the merge. Jay32183 16:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, i got that impression from the conversation. My apologies. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Merging of [[That's So Raven]] episodes 

message: Just a bit of news, consensus has been reached at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Italics_vs._quotation_marks regarding the issue of Doctor Who and Torchwood episodes being formatted differently.
The history behind it - in the original Doctor Who series, each series was comprised of a number of serials, and each serial was comprised of several episodes.  Originally serial names were formatted with italics and episode names with quotation marks.  Upon the new Doctor Who (2005 onwards) leaving the serial format, and going to the format used by most TV series - a single episode is a story with a single title - the episodes took the serial formatting - that is, italics, not quotes.  When Torchwood started last year, it followed the same pattern.
The consensus is to use quotation marks for episode titles of the "new" Doctor Who and Torchwood, therefore conforming to the style standard of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes. -- Chuq (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who episode formatting - consensus reached 

message: What are your thoughts on articles for each Saturday Night Live episode? I have constructed a model article for Scarlett Johansson/Bjork. Vast information is available on every episode on many database sites. List any thoughts on the format/etc. here. Weatherman90 00:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion on WT:TV#Saturday Night Live episodes. -- Ned Scott 02:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saturday Night Live episodes

message: Just to let you know that User:TTN is blanking episode pages and redirecting them to the main series page, believing that they ALL contravene WP:EPISODE.  In the past 24 hours he has done this to Yes, Minister, Yes, Prime Minister, Foyle's War, The Cosby Show, Cupid, Iron Man, Twin Peaks, Nip/Tuck... now I've got bored of looking through his contributions history.  Some people are going to get very angry if consensus is not reached regarding what constitutes a good episode page, and when they should be used. Gwinva 06:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the Yes Minister redirects as each episode contains quite a bit of info in the infoboxes such as broadcast date, writer, producer etc. Tim! 08:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Writers are not out of universe info; they're basic info that contributes nothing to "real world information." You need development and reception information to build a good article. You either need to show that it is possible or let it go. TTN 12:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just came back temporarily from vacation and I had made some improvements to the Cosby Show episodes and planned to add a userbox.  WAVY 10 15:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Writers, etc, are indeed out of universe information. I urge you (TTN) to stop, you'll only cause yourself grief. Matthew 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not (in the realm of real information). They're basic details that go along with the episodes. They don't count towards anything. So far under ten series out of seventy or so have been problems, so I don't see how that's really that bad. TTN 16:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit of confusion, I see. They are OOU, but they're trivial and unimportant information, or they're information that does not require a separate article (we list writers and directors in LOEs all the time, it's why we have Aux fields). TTN is doing the right thing, and is backed by the consensus of WP:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: People need to gain an actual argument. Just disagreeing with changes doesn't make them wrong. You have to show your points with policies and guidelines. In this case, it means every single series gaining sources on their own. TTN 02:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that there is no way to do anything with people's comments. It's either "Stop it!", "You should have discussed it.", or "They can be improved." The first two can be passed off as nothing, and the third can be discussed. The problem with three is that people dance around it instead of actually dealing with it. Only one editor I have dealt with has really tried to produce sources and improve the articles' quality. I am fine taking comments if they actually can help improve these, but those have been one in a thousand. TTN 02:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, they'll stay small plot summaries like they should be. They'll only be coming back if they gain the correct information. Very few will be doing that. TTN 02:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TTN, please remember that you do not "own" the pages. If DanTD, or any other editor for that matter, wishes to restore any or all of them, then they certainly have the right to do so. You cannot presume bad faith on our collective part, no matter what your personal feeling is toward the articles. --Ckatzchatspy 03:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus is on TTN's side. This comes from guidelines and policy, such as WP:NOT#IINFO point 7. The vast majority of these articles have nothing more than plot summary and some trivial credits. We are not, in any way, in short supply of people to write plot summaries, and we should not cling to them "just in case". Hell, for many of them, it will be easier to start from scratch, if any of them do become notable (and not just notable, but with enough things to say about that episode that you can't say about any other episode, besides plot.) I'm sorry people's feelings are being hurt, but this is our policy, our guidelines, and we have way too many pages to fix to stop and hold everyone's hands. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And like I said on other talk pages, it sucks, I know. It's a flaw in how Wikipedia is set up, that we often invest much of our time and effort only to find that it was misspent. We will try to improve this for the future. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, what *really* sucks about this is the sheer waste, the disruption, and the bad feelings TTN's actions are causing. There are so many other more important issues to address on Wikipedia, rather than just callously deleting thousands of articles. TTN should do something to actually help the project, rather than unilaterally alienating a large number of dedicated contributors. --Ckatzchatspy 05:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if TTN, or anybody else who keeps deleting episodes is aware of this, but I did use the the link for That's So Raven's Driving Miss Lazy as a reference for another website (http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_62052-Volkswagen-Thing-Typ-181.html). If people are going to click on the wikipedia link, and find nothing but the episode list, they're going to be dissappointed to say the least, and that applies to every other website that uses Wikipedia as a link. I'm not saying there's never a time when you shouldn't delete or merge some episodes, but the only times I can think of when they deserve to be deleted is when there are duplicates. ---- DanTD 12:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: May I suggest everyone takes discussion on this  to Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#DISCUSSING THE GUIDELINE, so that consensus and policy can be decided. Gwinva 21:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What isn't working? The guideline? I guess those several featured episode articles didn't actually work. It's clear the guideline itself works, what isn't working is the enforcement to improve the parent articles first.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a battle to be won, and the discussion I started was NOT a knock-TTN forum.  It was so we might all discuss how best to implement the guidelines and improve the content on wikipedia. Gwinva 11:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode redirects