Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Buffyverse task force/Episodes

message: Should Doppelgängland be at Doppelgängland (Buffy episode) as the instructions here say, or not? Seems like it's been recently moved from Doppelgängland (Buffy episode) to Doppelgängland, as I discovered when I was about to move it myself, as this page says. Is this an exception? If not, how can I move it so the history follows to the new article, is that possible? Maver1ck 18:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a canonical reference for whether this episode is titled "Doppelgängland" or "Doppelgangland"? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doppelgängland 

message: Would it make sense to have pages for each season which link to the episode pages?
MosheZadka 10:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there already a list of all episodes? Wouldn't that suffice? --Allycat 11:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seasonal pages? 

message: I've been updating the episodes with Wikiquote template links that jump directly to the relevant episode sections. While doing this, I've also been fixing the heading cases, which according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Headings should be "sentence case" (i.e., capitalize only the first word and proper nouns). I hope the Project doesn't have a problem with this. I can see there is a desire here not to follow this policy, based on the main Project page itself. I admit I don't know how WikiProjects are affected by general Wikipedia policy, but the episode articles are in the main namespace. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading case fixes 

message: This is sort of in response to something from Jeff Q's comment above.  I'm new to the project, so maybe this has been discussed elsewhere, but I feel as though having a "quotes" section for each episode article to be a little strange for a few reasons.  1) How does one decide which quotes are proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia and which aren't?  Is it based on comedic value?  Relevance to the plot of the episode?  The season?  Where does it end?  2) Formatting is an issue, since there's no standard.  3) Most importantly, we DO have wikiquote, and with Jeff Q's templating, is it really necessary to duplicate 'information' there? NymphadoraTonks 17:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Wikiquote "duplicates" a tiny amount of wikipedia in its article (a 1-2 sentence of introduction, which would in wp be a "stub"), so there's no reason wp can duplicate what in wq would be a stub. Perhaps decide on a maximum of 1-3 quotes per episodes, with justification only being extreme relevance to the plot or episode (not pithiness -- if it's just funny, it's enough that it's on wq). MosheZadka 16:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes and trivia sections 

message: Is there a reason why Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode) current redirects to Welcome to the Hellmouth? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
:Yeah it should be, just moved it. -- Paxomen 13:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Paxomen. Xiner 16:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome to Hellmouth page location 

message: Thanks for adding infoboxes to all the Angel episodes Paxomen. :) I hope you don't mind, but I'll add bigger and better quality pictures later on. But they look good for now. I hope you don't take that as an insult, but I have access to better quality pics. --Cooksey 17:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah absolutely, the ones I added are very low res, lataness -- Paxomen 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angel episodes 

message: It'd be nice if someone with strong writing skills could do a walk thru of the articles that have been struck out and check if they are indeed up to standard. I took a look at Lover's Walk and with all due respect, it isn't ready for prime time. Xiner 15:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article reviews 

message: Unfortunately the Writing & Acting sections (and to a lesser extent the Quotes & Trivia sections) are fairly saturated with POV.  I've cut comments on how Welcome to the Hellmouth is superior to Encounter at Farpoint, comments on how exciting/funny certain episodes are, and a paragraph on how Cordelia's behaviour in Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered is the episode's "only weak point".  Much of the information in these sections is simply too subjective, so I thought I'd flag it up here, partly as a warning that I may go on a POV-culling spree but also as a note to try keeping things as factual as possible.--Nalvage 13:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing & Acting POV 

message: If we have suggestions to change the chronology, where do we bring them? For instance, I'd suggest that Buffy 4x01 (The Freshman) come before rather than after Angel 1x01 (City of) because of the phone call that takes place between them (Buffy answering "Hello? Hello?" which is near the end of 4x01 but the beginning of 1x01). For this and other suggestions, where do I bring them? Kimpire 19:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Talk Page for the Chronology article itself is probably the best place. Here, for that particular bit.  But I think that phone call is actually near the end of the Angel episode.--Nalvage 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hesitated to put it there because of the whedonverse template. That talk page has nothing on it whatsoever, and has in fact never been altered. Are you sure that's the right place? From the looks of it I should be looking for whatever page was used to hash out the chronology in the first place... Kimpire 11:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where the creation of the page was hashed out, but now that the page exists, its own Talk Page is the right place for discussion.  It only has the whedonverse template 'cos no-one's felt the need to discuss anything yet.  Which... yeah, suggests that the article was put together in one fell swoop.  Anyway, now that you've brought it up here, people might weigh in.--Nalvage 12:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode chronology 

message: Greetings, Buffyverse editors!
As you may be aware, for the last several weeks there has been extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) about how Wikipedia articles on television episodes should be named.  Editors from many areas of Wikipedia, including members of several different television WikiProjects, have worked together and come up with a general guideline that article titles should include disambiguating phrases only when there is another article on Wikipedia with the same name as the episode name. Thus, if you were creating episode articles for Knight Rider, the episode Circus Knights would not need any disambiguation, whereas Nobody Does It Better (Knight Rider) would, in order to differentiate it from Nobody Does It Better (song).  However, the guideline also recommends that Circus Knights (Knight Rider) exist as a redirect to the episode.
The discussion has been fairly well-advertised at the Village Pump, in many WikiProjects' talk pages and on the talk pages of many television program episode lists.  However, the editors contributing to the discussion at WP:TV-NC felt that it was appropriate to make one last call at affected WikiProjects for discussion before people started moving episode articles to new names.
We appreciate the work that editors do in every area of Wikipedia, and want you to feel included in the decision-making process.  Thank you for your help!
Request for comment - naming of episode articles
There is currently an active debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) about the naming of episode articles, such as when it is appropriate to use a suffix such as (<series name> episode), and whether or not WikiProjects should have the right to set guidelines for their particular shows.  Any interested editors are invited to comment, at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television)#Request for comment. --Elonka 09:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's not what's being debated.  The issue is whether wikiprojects can set guidlines that contradict the global guidelines of wikipedia.  There hasn't been a single argument that wikiprojects shouldn't have the right to make their own guidelines.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello fellow Buffy editors.  Actually, there is disagreement about what is being debated.  There are talk pages for your perusal, provided above, and there are sub-debates about whether mediation is appropriate and what to talk about there, and what the actual disagreement is. (see more at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)). The conflict at least seems to be in the general area of "disambiguation issues for naming conventions for television episodes", which as you can see will affect how Buffy articles are titled (or retitled when the current majority there gets around to it).  I don't care what your position is, but the discussion there is getting somewhat stale and frustrations are kind of high.  Everybody in the discussion needs to really get into 'constructive mode', so any input in any of the areas of disagreement that you perceive would be greatly appreciated, particularly as relates to that discussion's effects on projects other than Lost (um, you). Again, regardless of your position, a fresh eye and new perspective would be very, very cool. Riverbend 00:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of episode articles 

message: Just giving regular editors here the heads up here that i'm planning to start the page moves which where described in this message at the Buffyverse project talk page about a month ago.  
In short, this is to remove unneeded dabbing on articles. So basically articles where the name of the episode is already unique, as per WP:TV-NC and WP:D (which says not to disambiguate when disambiguation isn't needed). 
If any of the regular editors here who haven't yet participated in the recent article naming discussions have any concerns/complaints about this, please voice it now. Otherwise, i'm going to start the moves without going through Request Moves. --`/aksha 09:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversial page moves require a request through WP:RM, they shouldn't be handled unilaterally.  The Buffy articles have clear guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes, and format should not be changed unless there is discussion and consensus for such change. --Elonka 23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Request Moves that's already happened show consensus for getting rid of disambiguation. The note on the Buffy Project talk page has been there for 1 month with no replies. Am i supposed to assume that there are Buffy Editors here who care about how the articles are named, but simply haven't bothered to reply to the message for an entire month? And don't bother using the Arb case as an excuse for stalling, the ArbCom will grant a temporary injunction if they see fit. Otherwise, the ArbCom doesn't mean we have to stop at all. --`/aksha 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are referring to the note that invited editors to the discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), it's my understanding that some of them did respond to indicate their opposition (such as Riverbend).  Also, a consensus to move one set of specifically-named pages, has no bearing on other pages. Pages have to be explicitly listed, and a notice about the move has to be listed on the page to be moved, otherwise how are the involved editors even supposed to know about it? --Elonka 01:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Might I point out that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? (Radiant) 13:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that.  WP:RM says that it's only necessary when moves are controversial.  The moves have been mentioned multiple times here, and I don't see any responses from people other than those who have already commented at TV:NAME.  If the only "controversy" is one editor following around another and declaring all his moves "controversial", I see that as disruptive filibustering, and not true controversy.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure one way or the other any more as long as short cuts mean that one way or the other readers/editors find episodes - Paxomen 17:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the cases of articles that have been moved, a redirect from the old name is created automatically.  If you'd like to recommend adding a line recommending creating redirects for articles without the disamiguation, I think that's totally reasonable.  Something like "For episodes that don't include (Buffy episode), a redirect from Episodename (Buffy episode) may be created."?
*I concur with Milo per WP:DAB (and note that the change Milo suggests matches the actual naming of the episodes), and concur that creating redirects is a sensible approach. >Radiant< 10:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Any particular reason why "Doppelgängland" still has the disambiguation?--Nalvage 20:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *No. >Radiant< 09:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode naming dispute

message: TTN is beginning to tag Angel episodes with a "non-notable" merge tag.  Discuss. Kweeket 23:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning: Angel episodes in threat of being merged to single article

message: I'm not much of a buffy expert, but it seems like the subplot in S07E13 where the gang finds out Giles may have been killed at the end of S07E08 and was really just a manifestation of The First during eps S07E10 to S07E13 warrants some notes in the "Arc significance" sections of those episodes where there was "supporting evidence" of Giles not touching anything ... off the top of my head: Buffy doesn't get a chance to hug Giles when he first shows up at the house because a potential walks in front of them; Giles doesn't have the books about the first, one of the potentials is carrying them in her bag; A potential drives the van to the desert instead of Giles; etc...  I'm sure someone with the DVDs could find several examples per ep.)
hossman (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arc significance of Giles not touching from S07E10 to S07E13 

message: Quite a lot of the images from the buffy episode pages are up for deletion - they seem to need a non-free use rationale for each article an image is used. The current rationales (or some of them at least) seem to be for the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes, rather than the episode articles.
User::Redsignal seems to have uploaded a lot of them - see their talk page for a list of the what seems like most of the articles. I'll try to help if I can, but a collaborative effort is probably best. Silverfish (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images up for deletion 

message: When and how does she spring back to life? I'm a bit confused because I know there is an episode Angel where Angel and Spike go to see her in Rome when she is with the Immortal
174.215.158.210 (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Willow revives her at the beginning of season 6 of Buffy, of course.  There are no more crossovers (for a while) because Buffy moves to another network. —Tamfang (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffy dies at the end of season 2 of "Angel"? 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Down.
I've no idea whether this may lead to wider attempts to remove episode articles in general. —Tamfang (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion alert