Talk:List of Weeds episodes

message: Wikipedia's policy in fair use doesn't allow for the use of promotional images unless accompanied by analysis or critical commentary on the content of the image. That was not the case in this article, so all such images have been removed. __meco 19:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand what you mean at all. All images were provided with a fair use rational (e.g. :Image:Weeds ep101.jpg), following the example of other lists such as List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and List of Entourage episodes. Also, Wikipedia's policy is both unclear and being debated here. The result of the debate has been no consensus, as such, I'm inclined to re-add the images. Any thoughts?  --MZMcBride 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Having not heard from you, I re-added the images, however I did not re-add the placeholders. Please leave any further comments below. Thanks. --MZMcBride 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use images removed

message: Why do almost none of the episode screenshots feature Nancy, the main character of the show, and many of them feature Celia instead? The plots featuring Celia tend to be secondary, or even tertiary, plots, and so it seems to me they should probably not be the main episode screenshots featured on this page. --Gpollock 07:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The screenshots were taken from the Showtime website (e.g. here). When selecting which of the three provided to use, I tried to show all the main characters somewhere in the list of episodes. Many episodes, ironically, don't have Nancy as a choice for a screenshot. To remedy this, a new version of the screenshot could be uploaded, but where those would come from is hard to answer. If you can find (or make) better screenshots, feel free to upload the newer version over mine. --MZMcBride 00:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the screenshots are fine. It's nice to have a wide range of characters rather than just focussing on Nancy. Is anyone able to get screenshots for season 2? I've been making the episode pages but they look a little dry without it. Daydream believer2 04:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --MZMcBride 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots 

message: Could someone create detailed articles for the second season episodes like there are for the first season?
::These are being done, and I will continue to do these in the near future. Its just easier to make detailed articles, particularly with regard to trivia, once more of the season has elapsed. Daydream believer2 17:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Season Episodes 

message: Please do not add plot synopses for future episodes, it compromises the integrity of the pages, and is seen as very uncouth. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this, as there are clear messages in placeholders, and I've now added hidden messages. Thanks. --MZMcBride 20:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thr question of plots being posted before episodes airing seems to have been a constant battle on this page (notably, a battle that has User:MZMcBride as its most active fighter). So, it begs the question... well, why can't people add synopses before the episode airs? I'm not sure what it is about adding information to a page that's uncouth, or that comprimises integrity. There's a very clear spoiler warning on the page, so anyone who has the plot spoiled for them can only blame themselves for reading it. And I'm guessing the information is probably accurate, as it's probably coming from the pre-air torrents of episodes that have been appearing online. So, as long as information is accurate, why not post it if we have it? --Gpollock 21:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If most people haven't seen an episode, and would have no opportunity to see an episode, I find it to be unfair to them if the synopses are added for a future episode. While some people illegally download pre-airs, the large majority of people will view the show on or after the official air date. If someone reads this page, I see it as an entirely different type of spoiler to tell information that isn't "public." Also, there is somewhat of a verifiability issue. Other pages, like the List of Lost episodes and the List of House episodes do not display information about future episodes, and I use those as a guide. It would be the same as telling unknown plot details to a future book (e.g. Harry Potter 7). I think it's only fair to add the info once it's in the public sphere and everyone's had a fighting chance to view the media first, before having a future plot detail revealed. Hope this clarifies. Thanks. --MZMcBride 01:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think spoiling the plot for people who haven't seen the episode is an issue (just don't read the synopsis if you don't want to!), but it seems verifiability is a bigger problem. This was discussed on the Lost episode list talk page. They ended up voting on the issue and deciding to only include information on future episodes from official sources. -- bethenco 00:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It would appear that the episode synopsis for future episodes is coming directly from Showtime's page for Weeds 209.41.163.23 (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot synopses 

message: I plan on redirecting these per WP:EPISODE soon. Information from multiple secondary sources must be present for a single episode to need an article. This includes reception and development. Single plot summaries and trivia don't make a substantial article. I suggest Wikia and tv.com as alternate venues for this information. TTN 02:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan on reverting all redirects, as I believe the pages are fine as per WP:EPISODE. The pages contain information on directors, writers, popular culture songs used and actors who appeared or guest appeared in each episode, as well as the usual plot lines and trivias JayKeaton 09:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if somseone could restore the single episode links, that would be great. Burn Notice has wiki pages for each individual episode, and I don't see what makes their pages more valid than Weeds'. 66.207.82.241 03:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also it is very hard to get your bearings on which episode is which, the brief recap is simply not enough : ( JayKeaton 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Single episodes

message: :Image:Weeds2 .jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Weeds2 .jpg

message: Hi, i am wondering why nobody want to change the name of the suburb to majestic... After episode 9 in season 3 it is shown in the intfo, so i think it should also be changed in the articles. cu AssetBurned (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majestics 

message: The image :File:Weedstv.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Weedstv.jpg

message: In episode 9 of the third season there is suddenly mention of this incident post facto. Shouldn't such a dramatic event also be mentioned in the episode summary where it occurs? __meco (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dean's motorcycling accident 

message: I don't think it can be called rape without some qualification.  It doesn't look like a rape to me. 76.95.104.7 (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: She likes it rough anyways as demonstrated throughout the series and as commented upon by Andy in a season six episode "That's why you and me would never work out, I'm not rapey enough for you." 71.80.223.118 (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Later she confronts Esteban, who rapes her" 

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Theleftorium 14:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Although episode summaries a supposed to be short, limiting summaries to two or three lines makes them too short. Modestly longer summaries provide important information about broader issues omitted due to unreasonablely tight space constraints. Although Wikipedia entries for other TV shows like Arrested Development have two line summaries on their episode pages, they also have individual pages for each episode with long and detailed plot recaps. Until each Weeds episdoe has its own seperate page, longer summaries are justified.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True, the guidelines are 100–200 words per episode max 350 for complex story lines. The summaries here are mostly inadequate. Xeworlebi (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Summary for 1x01 expanded per WP:PLOTSUM -- "The description should be thorough enough that the reader gets a sense of what happens and can fully understand the impact of the work and the context of the commentary about it."--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Recently widowed housewife Nancy Botwin has turned to dealing marijuana to support her two sons and maintain their position in the picturesque suburb of Agrestic, CA. Nancy visits her wholesaler Heylia and has a brief conversation with Conrad. Later that night, she sells some pot to Josh Wilson on the condition that he only deal to his fellow teenagers. The next day, Nancy's friend Celia reveals that Josh has been selling to ten-year olds. Eventually, Nancy discovers that Josh is gay and threatens to tell Doug if Josh keeps selling to children. Shane is harassed by his classmates and retaliates by spraying them with paint from a squirt gun. Silas and Quinn conspire to have sex together. Doug reveals to Nancy that Dean is having an affair with a tennis professional; she in turn tells Quinn. Quinn takes Celia’s teddybear/nanny-cam to record Dean’s affair; Celia later sees the recording and is forced to deal with her husband’s infidelity.-S trinitrotoluene (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Line Summaries are too Short 

message: As I started writing in my edit summary, telling every detail of the ending of the last season, which prepares the next one to come, is unnecessary, even considering WP:SPOILER. As you may have noticed, I did not remove any detail that was vital to the plot – Nancy not boarding the plane and confessing to Pilar's murder do not contribute to understanding teh story, just the ending, and this is what we're trying to avoid. Otherwise, there is no point of watching the episode once the summary is read. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing content because it spoils you is specifically what WP:SPOILER says you shouldn't do. The ending is part of the story, and often the most important part of the story or at least a very vital one. We are most definitely not trying to avoid that. Whether or not there's a point in watching the episode after reading the plot is entirely irrelevant. You might want to consider watching a show because it's a good show (although Weeds is really going down hill, and I haven't even watched the back half of the last season yet), in which case a spoiler should not affect your enjoyment of the show itself. Anyway WP:SPOILER is pretty clear on this, if you think this content should't be in here you'll have to come up with a better reason. Xeworlebi (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again: if you read my edit carefully, it doesn't really take any vital information from the content. What we need to know is that the family is at the airport, Esteban and Guillermo arrive to kidnap the baby and take Nancy with them with the intent of killing her, Schiff is coming to board the plane with the family but is arrested and taken out of the airport, and Nancy activates "Plan C", which she had coordinated with Andy beforehand. Knowing that "Plan C" was Nancy not boarding the plane but turning herself to the police and confessing to Pilar's murder tells us nothing further about the story. It's there exclusively to ruin the ending. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly if you think it ruins the ending then it is an important part of the episode. While I have not seen the episode, that seems like a very important and course altering event in the story. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please watch the episode and get back to me on this. Reinstating controversial material on something you are not even familiar with does not seem like good faith editing to me, with all the WP:AGF I can muster here. To quote this WikiArticle: "Wikipedia should contain potentially "spoiling" detail where it substantially enhances the reader's understanding of the work and its impact but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers." I await your reply. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:SPOILER is pretty clear here, it's not a "controversial removal." It's a relevant detail and shouldn't be omitted just because an editor thinks someone might stumble onto it. Providing information is what the encyclopedia is for. Dayewalker (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. It's not part of Wikipedia's policy to censor information, even if it is a so called spoiler. And the relevant details do not simply ruin the ending, as you state, but obviously will be an important part for the future story. We need a good summary of season six's climax to make sense of the seventh. When dealing with plot summaries it is simply common sense to anticipate spoilers. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

text:  And you reverted again, you have now reverted three different editors. "Refusal to discuss" you said I should watch the episode first, still haven't done that. It's not controversial material, it's the plot. I'm not sure what you think is supposed to be important to the story, but the fact that the main character turns herself in, and confesses to a murder seems to be a very important plot point. There's no explanation of what "plan C" is on the page, as you say the episode does say what plan C is, clearly the episode summary should convey that here. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

text:  Well looks like it's three against one. Is that consensus enough to put the info back in the article or do we have to talk about it some more? SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Policy is clear, consensus is clear. Feel free to readd the section. Hearfour, you can continue the discussion here if you wish, but please don't assume consensus as you appeared to do here . Dayewalker (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weeds 

message: There is no reason to set a hyperlink to "Niqab" because it really don't have much to do with the episode.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The "hole in her niqab" sequence is less than a minute at the end of the episode. The episode was titled as such because the writers must have found the phrase amusing. As I said in my edit summary, this page is not meant to be a dictionary. If someone doesn't know what a niqab is, they're welcome to Google it. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see no reason to include a wikilink in a title. Dayewalker (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "They're welcome to Google it"... you are not too keen on making Wikipedia user friendly, are you? Quoting this policy: "An article is said to be underlinked if words are not linked that are needed to aid understanding[...] In general, links should be created to[...]explain[...]technical terms, jargon or slang expressions". If someone wants to inquire as for the meaning of "niqab", it's as simple as clicking on the word – why are we making such a big deal out of it to begin with? Make the article readable and enjoyable, this is the primary goal here! Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggested compromise: Rewrite the plot summary to read: "Since Silas gave away all the pot, he and Nancy borrow $1,000 from Shane to buy more. Unfortunately, an incident in Afghanistan involving a defiled niqab disrupts the Sarge’s marijuana supply chain."--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Done (with some minor copyedits). It's a good compromise, and thank you very much for the idea, but I still think that wikilinking the title is a bit more accessible, as the reader doesn't have to "dig" into the summary (short as it is) to find it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Niqab

message: I have looked through the Internet looking for a translation for the title. I've found multiple sources that support the given translation. However, most of the sources are in French or are not authoritative. I selected the Babylon 9 translation because it provides the best translation that I could find. If you have a better source, please list.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nancy provided a translation on screen so the reference doesn't matter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by S trinitrotoluene (talk • contribs) 10:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Presumably anyone who would visit this page and be annoyed that we don't provide a translation would have also seen the episode, which does provide the translation. Since it was mentioned on screen it's probably unnecessary. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  "it's probably unnecessary" -- Following the logic used under "Niqab" above, providing the translation makes it easier for the reader to understand. If the statement was just a quick joke in the episode, it wouldn't be worthy of mentioning in the episode summary. However, the French statement is the episode's title, and it is a point in the plot (selling a product at outragous surcharge). I think I can rework the translation in the next 2-3 days to make it fit into the overall summary more neatly.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Section rewritten: "Nancy rebrands her product as "Une Mère que j'aimerais baiser" (French for MILF), an overpriced, ultra-exclusive marijuana strain." --S trinitrotoluene (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems like a good solution. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Une Mère Que J'aimerais Baiser" translates to "Mother I'd like to Fuck" 

message: Is there any news about an eighth season? Will the show be cancelled? Report some fact/press release, please. --95.244.17.81 (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All the information about an eighth season is in the article. Showtime has not made any decisions yet, but renewal is looking pretty likely, but maybe for a shortened season as they did with The Big C. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 8 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Weeds episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110831075735/http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2011/08/weeds-may-continue-past-season-7-shameless-returns-in-january.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2011/08/weeds-may-continue-past-season-7-shameless-returns-in-january.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The godmother weeds episode. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Gonnym (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The godmother weeds episode" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect If You Work for a Living, Then Why Do You Kill Yourself Working. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "If You Work for a Living, Then Why Do You Kill Yourself Working" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Plant (Weeds episode). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Plant (Weeds episode)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MILF (Weeds episode). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "MILF (Weeds episode)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect What Don't You Understand About Comedy? (Weeds episode). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Gonnym (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What Don't You Understand About Comedy? (Weeds episode)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]