Talk:List of Earth 2 episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Days On The Planet

I added that information for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, after observing a number of unresolved discussions on the net about the actual order of the episodes as well as questions about how long the colonists had been on the planet altogether. The number of days on the planet not only highlights the difference between the airing order and the production sequence, particularly in regards to the final episodes that were aired, but explains why there are minor discrepancies between a couple of the episodes even when viewed in order of production.

In discussions about Lost I have seen parallels drawn between the two programs and fans of Lost seem interested in how long the colonists have been on the planet so the information is obviously useful to them as well. --AussieLegend 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a resource to aid "forumers" in unstated topics. You're welcome to gain consensus for your addition, but I do not see any encyclopaedic usefulness to it -- rather it is just trivial information. Matthew 21:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The dictionary defines an encyclopaedia as a reference work offering comprehensive information on all or specialized areas of knowledge and Wikepedia exists as a reference work for all internet users, including "forumers", whether you like it or not. Adding information which the program's writers saw as important enough to include in 14 of the 21 episodes (episodes 1 & 2 were originally aired together as one long episode) adds to the comprehensiveness of the article.
I have provided justification for addition of the information to the listings. All you have supplied in support of you deleting the information is that you don't think it's useful and that really isn't sufficient reason on its own. If the information was incorrect or detracted from the article then deletion would be justified but the information is correct and adds relevant content to the article.
Instead of deleting the edits simply because you don't like them, why not correct some of the many errors and poor English within the article as I have started to do and give others the opportunity to decide whether to support you.
You have suggested that I am welcome to gain consensus for my additions. I say the same to you for your deletions. Please do not destroy the hard work of others. --AussieLegend 21:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The onus is on those seeking to include, not remove. You may also like to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The only justification I can see from yourself is "it's useful to some forum peeps"... very compelling! Matthew 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Your assertion is incorrect. The onus is on everyone who wishes to edit regardless of whether they wish to add or delete. I have provided reasonable justification for the additions I suggested. That you cannot see why the edits are useful doesn't mean that others will not and by starting edit wars and deleting the additions every time they are restored you are denying others the opportunity to see the edits as they are intended. All I would like is for you to leave the edits there for a few days to allow others to comment but you are being unreasonable by not doing that. You have provided no reasonable justification for not including those edits and therefore they should stay.
As regards Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, perhaps you would care to explain exactly what part of that you believe applies to the edits that I have made, if you can.
As for your rather silly "it's useful to some forum peeps" claim, that alone is justifiaction for retaining the edits, even though that's not what I said. It's certainly a more compelling reason to retain the edits than "Well, duh, I don't think they're useful" is for deletion.
What I would like to know is why you are so keen to delete what others have tried to add rather than delete errors and and correct poor English that existed in the article before I even started.
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you Wikipedia articles aren't the private property of any editor, with one or two exceptions. This article is not one of the exceptions. Everyone has a right to edit, not just you. --AussieLegend 22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
"I have provided reasonable justification for the additions I suggested", that's a matter of opinion -- I don't believe you've provided any reason with substance. "I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you Wikipedia articles aren't the private property of any editor", you should remind yourself of that -- you seem very possessive over your "days". WIkipedia is not a fan site, it's as simple as that. Matthew 00:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
"a matter of opinion -- I don't believe you've provided any reason with substance." -- That is also a matter of opinion. You certainly haven't provided arguments against the vast majority of what I wrote.
"you seem very possessive over your "days"." -- ROFL. You were the one who arbitrarily deleted my edits, the only justification being that you couldn't see any use. You could have, as many responsible editors do, queried it on the talk page. If anyone is posessive it appears to be you. Anyway, this is getting us nowhere. I'd really like to see some counter-arguments to what I've previously written, rather than all this going back and forth over what really are trivialities. The important issue is the article. --AussieLegend 03:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Lawl... perhaps you should get a definition of "arbitrarily", as there's certainly nothing arbitrary about it. Your addition is not-notable, it's indiscriminate, it's speculative and simply not-notable or useful for an encyclopaedia. It's fan site information... Wikipedia isn't a fan site. Matthew 07:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a fan of the show, but I have to say that having the "Days" information in there seems to be a violation of no original research and possibly Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Text like, "Day not mentioned but obviously 1"[1] isn't really appropriate. I appreciate the effort in adding the information, but I think this kind of data would be more suited for a fansite, and not Wikipedia. Thanks for the other edits though! --Elonka 22:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how it could breach no original research. The number of days are clearly stated within the program, usually in the opening narration or in a narration just after the opening credits. ie they're clearly "published facts". The same can be said for "Day not mentioned but obviously 1". The colonists land on the planet well before the end of the first episode so it's very obviously day 1.
Regarding Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information, I don't think that applies either. This is not indiscriminate information. It is information relevant to the article, the episodes and the unfolding story. I suppose you could argue that this whole article is inappropriate because Wikipedia articles are also not plot summaries and plot summaries form a large part of this article. The whole article should probably be incorporated into the main Earth 2 article but it isn't.--AussieLegend 22:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
A phrase like "Day not mentioned but obviously 1" is about as "original research" as it gets. Can you provide a third-party source which says that it was "Day 1"? --Elonka 00:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If you follow the link that is already in the article "Earth 2" Complete Episode Guide you will see that the colonists land in the first episode. Quite obviously their first day on the planet is Day 1. No reasonable person could possibly dispute that especially since, in the narration after the opening credits of episode 3 (which follows on immediately after episode 2) Danziger says that the colonists have been on the planet 3 days. My intention was to avoid saying "Day not mentioned but obviously it's day 1 because the colonists land on the planet by the end of the first episode." That's a bit drawn out don't you think? I probably could have said, "Day 1 (not mentioned in epsiode)" but that looks like it might be original research and leads to confusion. I was trying for consistency and what I wrote was the best way of achieving that in the most accurate way.
I should point out that I'm not happy with that site as a reference because it is innacurate. For example, in episode 2 "Koba" is not mentioned. Gaal says that the sting from the "rodent" will put the victim in a "coma" and as you can probably understand, "koba" and "coma" sound similar. Also in episode 2, O'Neill is referred to as "Captain" when he is actually referred to on-screen as "Commander". That reference should probably be deleted but it is the main reference used for the air-dates and apparently some of the plot summaries based on their wording. Clearly Matthew made a mistake when he added that reference on 26 April 2007. --AussieLegend 03:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
"Obviously" isn't good enough as it's based on viewer guess, thus OR. I concur the information is indiscriminate, and frankly non-notable -- the days have no significance to the plot. Matthew 00:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This is rubbish. It isn't based on a guess at all. It's based on something that is clearly visible in the episode. As for being non-notable, as I have said previously, time on the planet was notable enough for the writers to have referred to it in the opening narration or in a narration just after the opening credits in 66% of the episodes. It's also important from a time-line perspective since there are differences between episodes that are inconsistent with both the airing and production orders. The number of days on the planet is just as notable as the airing and production orders. Feel free to try and prove me wrong though. --AussieLegend 03:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
"Clearly" visible... huh? I don't remember anybody stating "It's day one"... therefore not clearly visible, but rather a guess. "[T]ime on the planet was notable enough for the writers to have referred to it in the opening narration", it's no more notable than Lost's days -- it adds to the feel of the episode, err, that's about it. Feel free to provide a decent rationale to include your days, though! (PS: Just a heads up that the 3RR doesn't entitle you to another revert as soon as it expires.) Matthew 07:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Something doesn't have to be stated for it to be clearly visible. You don't need to be told that the sun came up in the morning to know that it did. Of course you don't remember anybody stating "It's day one". They didn't, which is why I said that it wasn't mentioned however it certainly wasn't a guess that it was day one. They landed on the planet in the first episode do if it wasn't day one, what day was it? Day 56 perhaps?
Thanks to some spamming by another user I've had a look at quite a few of your edits and now realise that you're incredibly inflexible and unwilling to accept things as true unless it can be proven beyond all doubt, at least as far as edits by others are concerned, so I'm not going to bother with this subject any more. I tried to add what I felt was relevant and helpful information but you clearly aren't going to accept it so I see no point wasting my time further. --AussieLegend 08:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How can people comment on the proposed edits if they can't see them?

The proposals can't be shown here because of the way that they're laid out in the article. They need to be displayed on the article's page. Not all interested parties think to check through the history so that they can see what is proposed. By reverting the edits, instead of leaving them there so all can see and comment on them for a few days you are stifling any debate. While that may suit your point of view it doesn't suit mine and that is unfair to people who may find these eduts useful. --AussieLegend 03:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This page shows up on watchlists if edited... just like the main article. Matthew 07:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
AussieLegend, I can appreciate that you're a fan of the show. And your edits on Wikipedia are appreciated, truly. As is your passion for this subject. Please understand, by my opposing the addition of the "Days" information, I am not opposing you. I think that you are a fine editor, and I would like you to stick around on Wikipedia. But in this one particular case, I disagree over a particular edit. As for other editors, anyone who has this page on their watchlist, will quickly see both that (1) it's the subject of edit wars; and (2) that there's considerable activity on the talkpage. That's plenty of notification. Plus, I've linked to a diff of the changes, so they're easy to review.[2] In fact, a diff is actually preferable, since it bolds the exact text that is under discussion. Anyway, can we agree to disagree on this point, and just move on to other articles? Or if you really feel that strongly about this, you could take it to one of the next steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. But it seems like a lot of fuss for a small change.  :/ --Elonka 16:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)