Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/Archive 4

message: This guideline has recently been expanded, following discussion and consensus reached here by editors from Episode coverage taskforce.  The guidelines have not changed in nature, but expanded to allow more explanation of each point. The 'Dealing with problem articles' section may require some expansion once consensus is reached at Wikipedia talk:Television article review process, which aims to create a suitable review process for problem articles. Further discussion about the guidelines can take place below. General comments about episode coverage on Wikipedia should be made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage.  Thanks! Gwinva 09:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to guidelines 

message: Should this be modified to directly reflect the review process? Other than just "can be tagged with  template (by pasting:  on the page), which automatically adds it to Category:Episode articles not asserting notability after fourteen days"? Or, at the very least, a link to the review process? Alcemáe T • C 05:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we wanted to create a tag for when the review was taking place. If someone was only concerned with their article, then they probably wouldn't want to constantly check the page to find out when it's turn is. Though, we coudl link to the review page, but put in a notice that says "a review tag will be placed on the parent article when the review is set to take place"..or something like that, so that don't have to worry about checking the page every day to see if the article is up yet.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 05:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to the section here on the project page. I should've used a better title. I was asking if, since the review process has been updated, if the section should be updated to reflect what the process currently is. Alcemáe T • C 05:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, why didn't ya say so....come on in. Yeah, there should at least be mentioning of articles going to the review page with a link. Probably another bullet, just after where it says they would go to the category after 14 days... well, a double bullet, because the review is based on the articles that are in the category.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 06:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with problem articles 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Matthew 23:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Dated episode notability}}]] 

message: ;I don't see a consensus for this guideline.
I came here from teh TfD discussion.  I read the last archive, and don't see consensus.  I see a bunch of arguing and a ton of incivility.  I can see obvious problems with reading this guideline within the first section. SchmuckyTheCat
::Well, I dont know your definition of consensus, but the WP definition applies. If you see obvious problems, then fix them, as this is a wiki, and that is the point. Alcemáe T • C 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guideline was in place a long time ago. But if you don't like this guideline, please feel free to check out Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) or just WP:NOTABLE. But the best one, is WP:V which states that the burden of evidence falls on the person adding it. You create an article, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the evidence that proves it is notable enough for an encyclopedia. If you can't, as it states on that policy page, it can be removed. We aren't even removing pages, we are merging them with larger topics.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concensus?? 

message: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability -- Ned Scott 07:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review 

message: I'm interested in rewriting this guideline as I don't believe it to accurately reflect the community's opinion on the issue of episode articles, but rather a small portion of users. As it stands I would be willing to say that this guideline is disputed, as such should be marked as so (but I will not do this right yet). I'm interested in hearing opinions from ya'll? Matthew 11:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands right now I believe it's "broken". As a result of the TfD (delete) it's clearly shown to me the process isn't backed by consensus. This further enhances my opinion that we should rewrite this guideline. Matthew 11:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not disputed by anyone besides people that ignore WP:N, which are people that we kindly ignore. Anyways, you cannot state the community's opinion from the small number of people that voted in the TfD. The fact that WP:N still stands should be enough to show that this is fine (being a child of WP:N). TTN 11:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  TTN, I've grown acquainted with the fact that you do not acknowledge the opinions of people that differ from yours. The TfD result is insignificant, I look at many AfDs and it comes to my mind that the community supports these articles, and believes they establish notability. The problem at hand is that a select few editors (yourself included) disagree and changed the guideline (now this is an easy thing to do, how many people truly get involved in the politics side of Wikipedia?) The fact there was little notification to the community shows to me this guideline is only endorsed by the people who created it. Pursuant to this I don't believe this guideline carries much weight. Matthew 12:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take in the opinions of others, but I'm not going to accept them just because there are a lot of them. There are plenty of people that want everything on this site, but the number doesn't matter as long as WP:N and WP:V exist. That is why they're ignored. We notified various places of the guideline change. People just didn't bother to comment on it, so don't claim that we're a little group. Besides that, we have drawn in various people that were 100% opposed to it. TTN 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  TTN, it appears you've acquired "I'm right, you're wron"-itis, this illness is treatable, though. On a more serious note: you believing yourself to be right, doesn't actually make you right. Matthew 17:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same goes right back to you. You're acting as if you're the one that can just pass me off as nothing. The thing is that I can cite policies and guidelines while all you can do is use a personal view of consensus to back yourself. That shows a pretty big difference in argument strength to me. TTN 17:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Matthew, would you care to provide links for these Afds where articles that dont even have sources are kept? Also, the TfD turned out the way it did possibly because of your's and Angie Y.'s canvassing, not neccesarily consensus. I  (said) (did) 13:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bignole "I", would you provide the relevant diffs. for my apparent TfD canvassing? And to answer your request: sure, here's an example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Me Out to the Ballgame (SATC episode). You should know though that an episode itself is a verifiable source (it's a primary source), so the article is not unsourced. Matthew 17:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem with the guideline. We can't have a guideline which defines its own Notability, which contradicts the long standing WP:NOTE guideline, or the long standing policy of verifiability. This guideline does nothing but say what those already say, and that is you must establish notability (NOTE guideline) and that you must use reliable sources, if you do not then it can be removed (verifiability policy). The rest is simply how to write the page, which again just brings other guidelines and policies into play in reflection to a television show. Also, the TfD was over using the template, as many that voted "delete" even said that they agreed with what was going on, just felt the template was redundant to what we already had.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The village pump? I wonder how many people actually regular the "pump". No, that is far from ample notification. "Silence is taken as consensus", what silence? I see no silence---not to mention the fact people were not "notified correctly". Matthew 17:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly how would you have liked to have been notified? Should we have gone to every Wikipedian's talk page and put up a notice? A notification on the television wikiprojects seems rather "correct". Regardless of how many people on Village Pump frequent the page, it was still put there for outsiders (people not necessary associated with television articles) to know about. I must say, where were you when we were discussing the clarification of this guideline, or coming up with the review process? Huh? Please, I know you are begging to say something along the lines of "you didn't know it was going on".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had also posted notices to some of the WikiProjects I've been involved with, such as WP:ANIME. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The "process" should probably go on a manual of style page, like the "how to write good episodes" article, as it has nothing to do with notability, and more to do with "don't jump the gun".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the process was a core part of this page even before it had the WP:EPISODE shortcut. Notability is a second issue that we've added on to help people understand why we have those instructions. The instructions to editors for which order articles should be created is the heart of this page, and is anything but instructions creep. -- Ned Scott 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And a guideline should be focusing on making more articles GA quality. Articles don't need to be GA only in the sense that they won't be deleted for simply not being GA. GA should be a minimal goal for all our articles. -- Ned Scott 02:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we pull from what we got. Do you have an FA television article that's Japanese, Italian or Egyptian? Older than 40 years old? The examples on this list are featured articles, not some random article plucked from Wikipedia. Secondly, where did you get this "when they are gone from Wikipedia they are gone from the internet?" theory? Nothing is ever truly gone from the internet, and it is certainly never gone from Wikipedia. If someone actually deleted a page (which isn't what is happening to the television episode pages, they are simply being merged so their history is still in-tact for you to view) then an Admin has the power to recreate it with all the information that was there.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bignole, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you about the "gone" comment. The idea of text "disappearing" from the Internet is a valid concern, and one that doesn't really get proper consideration in the redirect debates. We have to keep in mind that we (the regular editors) are "privileged", if you will, in that we have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Sifting through the history might be a realistic expectation if you are a committed editor who knows the ins and outs of the system. However, that isn't a practical option for most readers. We simply cannot expect the average reader who comes here through a Google search to know how to find material in an article history, especially if there is not indication that such an article ever existed. Once the text on a (for argument's sake) 40-year-old series has been redirected to a condensed version, the original article is effectively gone for most Internet users. Moreover, it is highly unlikely to have been created anywhere else. That does not mean we have to accept every article as "undeletable", of course - poorly written rubbish is rubbish, no matter how you look at it. We must, however, keep the bigger picture in mind before we hastily "soft-delete" large swathes of unique Wikipedia content. --Ckatzchatspy 20:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would assume that anyone coming here to read episode plots probably isn't too unfamiliar with Wikipedia. They may not know what happened to them, or where to look, but they probably know to come to a talk page and ask...usually in the "what the hell happened!!" kind of way. But I wasn't getting the opinion that Jason was referring to the loss of information to the readers, but more of the "loss of 'hard work'" from the editors.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I've done some revisions to the review process that should address many concerns in the TfDs and MfD. For starters, the page has now been moved to Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review with Wikipedia:Television article review process moved to an instructions subpage and transcluded on the review page. Instructions could be cleaned up some more, but discussion themselves are now held on the talk page of a parent article, with a link to that discussion being listed on the review page. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 20:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review update 

message: This is a summary of changes required to the summary to help with its understanding and to help editors improve articles:
;"It should be clear if a page is being use to do nothing more than discuss an episode in detail.": Examples should be given of the above (As well as of borderline cases that is acceptable, and which is not, to provide some sort of cut-off).
;"This idea of 'getting the content improved' only works if it's available, and it isn't for many shows": The guideline should be more clear as to when episodes can be appropriately improved, and alternatives, in the case if it cannot be improved.
;The words "Wikipedia should not merely be a plot summary.": I think the policy should rather focus on/expand on Plot versus other content in the articles: a plot summary is not notable, but if there are non-trivia content to a great enough extent, such articles are worth keeping.
;I think the notability guideline needs to be reconsidered regarding episodes, and should be seen in context with the episode list, series' article, etc.: I think notability should be defined as an article saying "If you read me, it will be time well spent!" — but that is just me. (Esp. when someone got there using the "random article" function)
;"If an article is always going to be in "start" class, or even a low "B" class, because there isn't anything written about it, then it should be merged with a larger topic. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity": This should somehow be worked into the article.
Regards, G.A.S  18:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion required 

message: I'd like to get some more opinions on some character articles that I have proposed a merger for. You can find the discussion at Talk: Smallville (TV series)#Merge characters.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallville 

message: A recent merge proposal added to List of Dirty Jobs episodes has pointed me to a fork of the article at Dirty Jobs Episode List that was created after a content dispute over "Season Number" and "Episode Number/Production Number" and the use of the  template.  See Talk:List of Dirty Jobs episodes for the discussion I had with the editor.  The editor also converted List of Modern Marvels episodes using this Season/Episode/Production Number which I believe is original research.  Before I make the merge and undo the numbering on List of Modern Marvels episodes, can somebody verify my statements that none of these numbers are official and should not be used?  Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Episode numbers are not original research, it's simple arithmetic. By season number I assume you mean things like "4.01", "401", "4-01" for something like season four episode 1? Season numbers are kind of irrelevant. There isn't counting involved, and people should know what season they are looking at anyway. It isn't like you are saying "this is episode 17," because in that case it's better than making them count to find out what the number is. As for production numbers, those are actually kind of hard to find. I don't know too many shows that actually gives those out, and a lot of times I've seen people using the season numbers in place of them. Unless there is a reliable source that identifies the production number (and TV.com and IMDb would not work) then it shouldn't be mentiond at all.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Production codes are not actually hard to find with a little bit of effort. Some shows may not even have production codes. So anyway, if you see any unsourced Prod. Codes, just remove them (the onus is on those seeking inclusion to provide a source). Matthew 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback.  I removed the "Production #" from List of Modern Marvels episodes and converted it to .  Thanks for redirecting the forked article. -- Gogo Dodo 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production numbers 

message: Posted the below to the village pump, but thought those who watch this page should have it brought to their attention. Please respond there. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Podcasting
:I've seen spammy, poorly formatted lists of podcast episodes, but recently one that was . As I responded there, the list was writen like an advertisement, prone to attacks based on the myriad external links, and contained no independent analysis. However, the contesting editor does raise an interesting point: What is the bar for note for episodes on other media? Is there a rational reason to cover every episode of a radio program or issue of a magazine? If not, why not, and are there preexisting policies that cover the point? MrZaiustalk 19:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcasting 

message: I frequently monitor new pages and tag them as needed. Very often, I see television episode articles which are linked from an episode list. 9 times out of 10, the episode article contains nothing but a plot summary, infobox, and occasionally the characters / actors involved, but nothing more. These episode articles pretty much never get improved or changed. After reading this talk page, I'm unsure what the appropriate course of action / template would be. Guidance would be much appreciated. cheers! - superβεεcat  20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting. If they are articles for episodes that have not aired, as I've seen people create them for episodes that won't air for months, then I would redirect on the spot. If the episode has aired, I would bring the appropriate guidelines to the attention of that article, and let them know that they really shouldn't be splitting off these episodes unless there is just reason for doing so (i.e. episode has already established some form of notability, the page it split from is too large already).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a small note about future episodes, in the case of The Simpsons, we create redirects to the season page as soon as an episode title is confirmed (people are less eager to create an article when it doesn't involve a creation credit) and we only create an episode article when there is a confirmed plot. And in response to your commernt that about episode articles never getting improved, at this time last year, there were 0 episode GAs. Now, there are almost 60 from a dozen different shows, as well as 10 FAs. These articles CAN be improved, it's just that people want it done NOW, when in reality it takes time. -- Scorpion0422 20:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my question is whether it is appropriate to have articles (such as your Simpsons example) which are mere plot summaries / character lists (as most tv episode articles seem to be), and if not, what the appropriate template to tag the article with is. It seems to me that if episodes are not per se notable by virtue of being an episode of a notable program, then creating an article for a future episode assumes it will become notable, violating wp:crystal. For episodes that have already aired, if there is no evidence that they are notable, why do we have countless articles that are mere plot summaries / character lists? Should they all be tagged with notability templates? Is there a better template? Am I totally mistaken? (it happens!) Cheers! - superβεεcat  20:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be willing to bet that the majority of that 60 GAs are from The Simpsons. I already know they have an entire season taken care of. Also, the burden of establishing notability is NOW, not later. Plot summaries are not reasons to create an article. Having a plot is not notable. For those articles that do fail the notability guideline, there is a tag, and a taskforce that is going around and reviewing all these articles. There are just so darn many of them that it takes forever. If you go to the front page, you'll see a link to the review process.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the thousands of film articles that are basically just plot summaries with a small bit of cast information and some unsourced trivia? Or the thousands and thousands of articles for little known actors that just list a couple of roles and a small amount of unsourced trivia? How come people never seem concerned about those? I agree that these pages need cleaning, but people need to stop with this "GA or merge" mentality. -- Scorpion0422 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said they get special treatment, or that people are not concerned with them? Please don't make excuses for the problems by saying "well this exists". If you find something that fails the notability guidelines, tag it; prod it; AfD it; propose a merger. Don't sit there and say "well, if they exist then this can exist." Yes, there are tons of articles that have problems and fail guidelines and policies left and right, but we are not here to perpetuate a cycle that has already gone on for long enough. You say that this time last year there were no GA episode articles, but now there are 60. So, in a year, 60 episode articles became GA status, yet probably hundreds of articles were created (which doesn't include the ones that were already there). The turn over rate isn't that high, and most will not be able to meet the basic criteria for notability.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I say that? I just said that people need to stop going after episodes and acting like they are Wikipedia's biggest problem. -- Scorpion0422 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Who's going after the episode, but the people that edit in this WikiProject of Television shows. Episode articles are not the biggest problem, but we shouldn't ignore the fact that they are a problem.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is confounding multiple issues. My questions are not regarding whether this is a big or small problem, or whether it exists elsewhere, but simply, whether these articles are appropriate, and the proper action to take when I see an editor uploading articles which are mere plot summaries / char lists. I was unsure whether there was consensus on whether these articles should be templated, or if they somehow inherit notability. If I understand correctly, the answers are: yes, these articles fail notability, and should be templated or deleted when I see them, and yes, there is a specific template for this purpose. In a related matter, individual albums by notable artists, and songs of notable albums probably suffer from the same deficiency and should be handled similarly. - superβεεcat  21:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not deleted - as Bignole outlined, there is a process to follow. Furthermore, they have to be assessed, they don't automatically fail, and there certainly isn't consensus. Discussion is very important, too, to avoid what happened several months ago. --Ckatzchatspy 00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ckatz, I'm sorry, but that "process" is not for the creation of articles about episodes that have not even aired. If the episode has not aired, there isn't anything to even talk about. It fails notability, crystal ball, almost anything you can think of right off the bat. Unless there is some unique circumstance where the episode has received significant coverage before it ever aired (kind of like Aquaman, or maybe the new Bionic Woman pilot) then it shouldn't have been created in the first place. Otherwise, we get into this "I'll ignore everything right now, because nothing can happen to the article." Sorry, but that isn't true. I didn't say we delete articles automatically for episodes that have aired; I was referring specifically to articles on subjects that have not been released (which puts it kind of into crystal balling, because you have no proof the episode will even air. An act of the television gods could yank it from airing ahead of time).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the discussion is getting confusing, because it appears to be a blend of future and existing articles. (I was responding to the "existing article" question.) The "delete" I responded to was from Superbeecat's reply, by the way - sorry if it appeared to refer to you. --Ckatzchatspy 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. Tag the articles of episodes which have aired with episode notability template if merely a plot summary / charlist. - superβεεcat  08:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought it was, my apologies for misunderstanding. It looked like you were saying that I was promoting the deletion of all those articles.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidance 

message: Can people please comment here? TTN 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: There has been some recent discussion on the talk pages of those articles being proposed for merger in regards to what information constitutes "worthy encyclopedic criticism" for a reception section. I'm not sure if we want to address this on this page, or on other, but I feel we need a more defined rationale, otherwise we'll have receptions sections that basically turn into "The Denver Post's John Doe thought Character X was cool," or "IGN gave the show a 7, which translates to 'descent'." Neither really says anything about the show specifically. I mean, unless the consensus is that that is enough for a reception section.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if a newspaper actually took the time to review the specific episode there's a possibility that this is a plausible reception starter, it would go on a case-by-case basis. The IGN rating however is not enough for a reception section though could be included as part of a more in depth analysis. Just my $0.02 of course. Stardust8212 01:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception information 

message: This guideline seems to be being cited as a reason to 'soft delete' articles. (i.e. by turning them into redirects) This is almost equivalent to deletion because only those who previously read the articles will have a chance of knowing that there is a whole lot of content there; And only people who are experienced users of mediawiki will know how to get back into the history of a redirect page to view the over-written version. The problem is that, although many of the articles do not meet the notability guidelines, the consensus locally is strongly towards having separate articles. Having the guideline against consensus is causing a lot of people to be upset by the few users who go on a crusade about this. Consensus is more important than notability, firstly because it is a policy not a guideline, and  secondly because it is what people want. 
For the above reason I feel that this guideline should be updated to reflect the fact that many people do not agree with actions carried out in its name. And it should advocate seeking local consensus rather than sticking exactly to the rules. Conrad.Irwin 12:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a "consensus" among fans that these need to stay. There are many, many, many, many editors that have nothing at all to do with fiction. Poll them before making biased claims like that. TTN 12:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make sense, why should editors that do not edit these articles have their opinion valued above the editors that do edit these articles. Conrad.Irwin 12:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  consensus locally ??? Taken to an extreme definition of 'locally' that would be WP:OWN. Why would the opinion of those who create non-notable articles be of greater weight than that of editors without any possible ownership-issues? The editors who create articles without first (correctly) assessing the notability of the article subject are those creating the problem of too many non-notable articles underfoot. --Jack Merridew 13:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has nothing to do with ownership, as with any other articles, there are some editors who edit these articles more than others. For an unconnected editor to come along and say that the content should be removed because they have not heard of it is silly. The content of these articles is verifiable, by anyone who watches the episodes, and Wikipedia has no size limit because it is not a bit of paper. To say that the episodes are not notable is to apply the letter of the guideline and not the spirit of it, as there are many thousands if not millions of people who know and want to know information about these episodes. Conrad.Irwin 14:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read over WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS very thoroughly before trying to argue what notability means. TTN 14:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done so several times, to repeatedly do so is to apply the letter of the law and not the spirit. These articles tend to be verifiable by anyone who watches the programs. They are notable because people do watch the programs. The only thing they lack is reliable sources, which are only needed in the case of a disagreement in a claim, which there is very little of. I know the text of these guidelines is slightly different, but it is only semi-relevant, as it continually changes. (I assume that everyone will disagree with that statement, it is my opinion). Conrad.Irwin 16:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Conrad, EVERYONE gets a voice, from the fans to the non-fans. Why? Wikipedia is open to the public, not open to the fans. Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia, and not a fansite. If a lone film article violates policies and guidelines, but only 2 editors are actually editing it, should we let the article stay as it is because no one else cares enough to edit the page? No.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case I must bring specific examples of what I am talking about, where some editors are being completely ignored by editors that have no knowledge of the subject. See Talk:List of Drawn Together episodes for one example. Conrad.Irwin 16:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What exactly was lost when it was redirected? If it was an overly long plot, trivia sections, quote sections, "featured music", original research of any kind or unsourced information of any kind...then I'd say that isn't a reason to complain because it would have been removed from the page itself, even if it had stayed.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for emphasising my point, it is easier for you to ask me what was lost than to go and check for yourself. You are right in that the content would have been removed from the article, however, some of it should have been copied to the list and it is now very difficult to do this. Conrad.Irwin 17:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't my problem, you brought this to us. It's called always being prepared. What was lost?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I implied above, exactly the kind of stuff that you say would have been deleted from the article. But that is not the point. The point is that it was removed before it could be used in a more appropriate way. As you agree with me that the content was lost, you must also agree that this is very similar to deletion, and as such should be consensed. That one editor can go and cause all this damage and inconvenience to others, should not be encouraged at all. This guideline was cited as the reason for these actions, this guideline should be changed so that it does not get used as an 'excuse' in the same way. Conrad.Irwin 21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the pages were cleaned up, the same content would have been lost regardless. The only thing that is happening is that after its cleaned up it's merged. The merged content is usually what's already on the page being merged to. If you feel something was important, and was lost, then you need to bring that up on the talk page of the show in question. This guideline, or any guideline that I'm aware, does not dictate what is taken and what is left when a merge takes place. We have guidelines and policies that say what content should on a page and what should not, but what happens in a merge is not covered. That is something that needs to discussed with each individual show.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that in a significant number of cases, there is not enough of the episode page's content on the list pages as the list page relies on the episode pages to provide the rest of the detail. That the content is removed before it can be used constructively is at best irritating and at worst vandalism. I brought this up here because it concerns many sets of articles, some of whom have already undergone the described treatment, and some of whom are in imminent danger of being damaged like this. To contribute to anything implies giving, not taking; and by editing in this fashion people are taking away content (at a phenomenal rate), readers (as they no-longer find what they want) and editors (because they are not being respected, and their efforts are being described as worthless) from Wikipedia. This cannot be in the best interests of the project. As you say above this guideline does not say what should be taken and therein lies the problem, 
I propose that it should say that "if none of the content is to be taken from the episode pages, then they should be proposed for deletion before they are converted into redirects" or words to that effect. That would at least ensure that a reasonable consensus is reached for each individual case. Conrad.Irwin 23:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not what this guideline aims to do. Again, if you have an issue with how those editors are merging and redirecting, take it up with them. The simple fact that information isn't coming over has nothing to do with whether the page should exist or not. If you cannot find a place for, I would have to assume that the page it is going to just isn't that well organized to suit it. If it's a simple LOE page, and there are many seasons, then I would suggest creating season pages like Smallville (season 1), so that you can organize it in a manner that allows you to find homes for information that is limited, but still relevant.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not just one editor, there are several of them. It does not refer to just one set of episodes, but to many. For those two reasons, and the fact that these editors ignore most of the comments on their talk pages, it should be discussed in a central place, and this is the most relevant one. Behaviour similar to what I am describing has been cited as a reason that people do not want to support the latest fund-raiser  and as mentioned above is otherwise detrimental to the health of the project. I emphasise, I am not really objecting to what is being done - though I cant see the point in it, I am objecting strongly to the way in which people seem to think it should be done. If this guideline is not to help  the project then what is it for? Conrad.Irwin 10:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I will go there to continue this discussion - once I have read everything that is there so far... Sorry about clogging up the wrong talk page. Conrad.Irwin 13:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline against Consensus 

message: Can/could/should this guideline also deal with images in episodic articles?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ALL non-free images are governed by WP:FU. Unless we just reiterated what WP:FU states, there's nothing new to actually say. We couldn't write a different version that contradicted what WP:FU states.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I realize that, but could we incorporate a small section for people here looking to write/recreate/fix TV episode articles and would benefit from a synopsis of how the WP:NFCC apply?  I see so very many episodes with an image "from an important scene", "a pinnacle point" of episodes, or "a significant change" that really aren't necessary for the encyclopedic article, albeit were important to the given episode.  What do you think?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as we don't contradict WP:FU, then I can see how we could come up with a section that discusses appropriate image usage in episode articles. I too have come across episode articles with questionable image use, mainly where they have a screenshot in the infobox, and then another one in the plot section. To me, since episodes generally don't have "posters", like films do, whatever screenshot you put in the infobox should be the one that represents the plot section as well. It just seems to me that people are trying to get away with two non-free images where one really does the job. But, something like this will need widespread consensus, preferable discussed so that the most people possible can weigh their opinions. Specifically, the television WikiProject community.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: I'm requesting opinions on these articles specifically at WP:TV-REVIEW. I'll make note here as it seems to be more active. I (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pilot Articles 

message: I like lists of episodes, as they really serve a purpose (mainly episode name, episode number, short summary, airdate). But I just came across List of Shortland Street episodes, which lists season 16 (Season 1-15 are marked as "Little information can be found about these episodes") with the nameless episodes 3646 till 3825. Is this still covered by the guidelines for lists and general notability, or is this indiscriminate? If there is "little information" about the episodes of even last year, I guess this list would have major sourcing problems as well. Comments? (I just want to know if such lists are already common practise, and if I should therefore ignore it.) – sgeureka t•c 21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall talking about the issue before, but I'm not sure. My own impression is that it would be excessive to have an episode list for Soaps, but some form of story arc or year summary would probably be ok. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of episodes of daily soaps 

message: Based on what is written here on this page, is there any validity to the reasons why the author puts Ernie (Family Guy) up for deletion? Odessaukrain (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you want WP:FICT instead of this page. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of this AfD: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy)]]? 

message: This guideline needs to be applied to List of The Simpsons episodes. The existence of those 409 articles shows why this is a poor guideline. I'm not going to put a merge tag on those articles. I don't think those articles should be redirected, even though hundreds of those episode articles lack real world information and reliable sources. If those 409 articles are allowed to develop, I see no reason why other episode articles should not also be allowed to develop. This guideline needs to be rewritten to reflect current practice, not what a handful of editors think current practice should be. --Pixelface (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pixel, at this point you're pretty close to crossing the line. The reason we give more slack to Simpsons episodes is because they have so many FAs and GAs, and a steady rate of improvement. These are articles which have demonstrated a reasonable potential for real-world information, even if many of them currently lack that information at the moment. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggesting this guideline be applied to Simpsons episode articles is crossing the line? I know that 7 Simpsons episode articles are featured articles. That still leaves 402 episode articles. Articles like Duffless have potential? I thought notability isn't inherited. Cape Feare being a featured article doesn't make The Front conform to WP:EPISODE. This guideline does not describe current practice. --Pixelface (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unknown if there will be an article for every single article on the Simpsons, but that's hardly the point. These articles have potential because there is real-world information and sources to be found for most of these episodes. You obviously don't even know about these books and interviews and other sources, and are only looking at the articles in their current state. Discussions on the talk page side of things have established that these sources exist, and that it would be reasonable to give time for editors to work on these articles, given the high rate of success there. What you are asking is that everything be fixed right now, which is not how Wikipedia operates. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're also forgetting the high number of GA-class articles they have. For example, Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 8). -- Ned Scott 07:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So an episode article shouldn't be turned into a redirect if other episode articles in the series have GA-Class? If that's the case, this guideline should say that. --Pixelface (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline does say to not merge or redirect when there is evidence of real-world sources. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence for that particular article or for other episodes in the series? --Pixelface (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The first 6 seasons of Scrubs are on DVD. And nearly every episode article was redirected to List of Scrubs episodes. --Pixelface (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel yourself encouraged to resurrect any episode article as soon as you have two or more paragraphs of real-world information (usually for production and reception) to add. If it becomes apparent that you can make every episode a GA, I am sure the rules will be bend for you a little more. – sgeureka t•c 10:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every episode article has to be GA? Why is that also not the criteria for List of The Simpsons episodes? --Pixelface (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misread his comments. He meant that every episode must have the POTENTIAL to be a GA, not be an actual GA. -- Scorpion0422 14:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that I did misread his comments. Xihix said if the DVD is released, the episode articles have the potential for GA. So why not give other episode articles time to develop if the episodes have been released on DVD? --Pixelface (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Simpson's episode's cases are different.  With The Simpsons, every episode has a detailed, 21-22 minute commentary by several people, which helps us make a Production section, and usually some other information to add to the article, such as cultural references.  We have two-three sources for the plot, and there are many books out on The Simpsons that we use as Reception sections.  In case of shows like Scrubs, where I do not believe many references are out for, there isn't much luck for episode articles.  xihix(talk) 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of The Simpsons episodes]] 

message: I would like to propose that we discuss (or revisit) discussion on noting music used in episodes of television programs. I've read DIR, and I don't see the comparison. As well, I think it is something readers would want to know. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has no context. Simply noting that Lifehouse's "Everything" plays at minute 3:45 in Charmed episode X has no encyclopedic meaning. If you say, "Director X chose to use Lifehouse's "Everything" during scene Y to illustrate blah blah blah", then you have something to write about. Otherwise, simply listing them just means we are creating indiscriminate collections of information, because the only relevance any of the songs have is being played for 30 seconds during some random episode of a show.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know what the word "indiscriminate" means? If an article for a Charmed episode listed music from a Golden Girls episode, yes, that would be indiscriminate. But noting that certain music is featured in a Charmed episode in the article for that Charmed episode is discriminate. Wikipedia has no policies on relevance or context. --Pixelface (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it wouldn't. If Charmed featured Golden Girls music it wouldn't be indiscriminate, as indiscriminate is not about having information that has not connection to a topic, but information that just isn't suitable for inclusion, regardless of verifiability. Read the part about statistics in that policy example list, because it's very similar to what is being asked about music. You are creating "long spiralling lists of music". It also says that there should be explainatory text that put the statistics into context, the same is true of lists of "featured music". You need to put them into context, otherwise they are indiscriminately put on the page. Their own connection being that they appeared for a few seconds in the show. Might as well time every moment a sound effects occurred and mark that on the page. It has no value to the article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Another possible use where it could be relevant is if the band is a guest star in the episode. The band/artist making a guest appearance vs the song being used could be a determining factor, particularly if secondary sources discuss the appearance. At least that is a how I view it, that was my reasoning to include the info in "Hell Is Other Robots" where The Beastie Boys voiced themselves. I agree with Bignole that it should be represented in a context beyond a trivia item. Stardust8212 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I can see your point, but I kinda miss the little bits of actually useful 'trivia', like music in an episode (Grey's Anatomy episodes were a pretty good example of that, and it turned me on to some pretty good music). It would turn me on to some pretty good music. It was just useful, and not a bag of indiscriminate junk. Sometimes our own policies kinda hurt the point of why we do this, i think. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, most shows have a soundtrack released featuring their music...which would fall under media releases on their main page--like when they're DVDs are released. If you are personally wanting to know the music to certain shows, I could hook you up with lists of "featured music". A lot of fansites list that sort of thing.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music featured in program episodes