Talk:List of Farscape episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reorganizing this article

Seems this needs to be simplified to match the style used by List of Arrested Development Episodes and List of Six Feet Under episodes. Plot summaries should be cut down to a single sentence or so, with everything else moved to the article page about that specific episode. In this way, as information about each episode is expanded it will already be in its proper place.RoyBatty42 01:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. The first 17 really need it. - Peregrine Fisher 01:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Went ahead and created wiki links for each episode. Ironically, as an example/template I used episode #17. It's only meant as a placeholder until someone can flesh it out (finish the summary, add production details, perhaps even insert an info box and maybe even a screen shot) RoyBatty42 02:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I did a bit more to the template. I guess I can upload screenshots if you will do the pages (I'm a bit lazy). - Peregrine Fisher 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, nicely done! I've added a few more entries, but I'm trying not to sucked into this more than I already am LOL. Guess I should make a "copy and paste template" that I can then quickly slap into place so you can drop in the screenshots, etc. I get slowed down having to shorten those summaries.RoyBatty42 05:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

SUMMARIES - I suggest that all summaries be kept to 3 lines or less, preferably 2. Just need to capture the essense of the episode and if a reader needs more info then they open the link to the episode RoyBatty42 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Here's a partial list of episode titles that will require redirects on the articles that aren't actually those episodes (I'm sure there's a copy/wikipedia term for this):

That Old Black Magic

Rhapsody in Blue

Through the Looking Glass

The Way We Weren't

Beware of Dog

Won't Get Fooled Again

The Locket

Eat Me"

A Perfect Murder

Unrealized Reality

Mental as Anything

RoyBatty42 02:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Airdates

Following wikipedia's guidelines, it would seem that the airdates need to be changed to American system of month, date, year as Farscape was made primarily for American television. RoyBatty42 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Season Templates Up

Just finished creating the templates for the 2nd season episodes. Please retain the use of the [[2001 in television|2001]] (2001 for example only, use appropriate years) convention. Otherwise, you just have random links that really mean nothing (ie, month and date). RoyBatty42 20:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Culture References and Allusions section??

I was thinking about adding a ==Pop Culture References and Allusions== section to each article, as it would be useful to both non-English speaking and non-American info seekers. Each one is full of such references RoyBatty42 18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of a no no here at wikipedia. I'd like the sections myself, but people will say it's original research unless it has a reference to to a review or something that mentions each allusion. With cancelled shows, it's hard to find good references. - Peregrine Fisher 18:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's wrong - just look at arrested development's episode guides. Plus, the TV.com entries have a section for it (along with quotes and trivia). And I'm sure I saw another site with Farscape episodes listed that had an even more extensive listing for references and allusions RoyBatty42 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop you. I'm just telling you what I've seen; Smallville had a ton of allusions until someone objected. I voted keep myself, but in the end they were deleted. Some shows still have them, but they're slowly being removed from wikipedia. I guess I'm just saying be careful how much time you put into it, becuase if the wrong person sees it, it will probably be removed. Also, what TV.com does has no effect on what's allowed here. They are a wiki, but they have different rules. - Peregrine Fisher 19:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As with most things, moderation is the key. Besides, each episode only makes a few references if any. As to TV.com - that was meant as a response to your contention that "With cancelled shows, it's hard to find good references." With TV.com, there is at least one source for these references/allusions so that they are not original research. QED RoyBatty42 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. The problem is that because TV.com is a wiki, it's not considered a reliable source. One thing I forgot, if the trivia and allusions are put into paragraph form in the lead instead of under a "Trivia" section, it makes it a lot harder for people to delete them. - Peregrine Fisher 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Season Episode Templates Up

So, have at'em! LOL RoyBatty42 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia in episode summaries

You know, trivia really doesn't belong in episode summaries - it should go in the episode's main page instead. I cleaned it out of the article already. 134.121.249.26 07:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if you are going to do that you need to either move the material to this page or, more preferably, move it to the page that was already created for that specific episode. RoyBatty42 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farscape Undressed

shouldn't "Farscape Undressed" be its own section in between season two and three seeing as its not an episode --88wolfmaster 22:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need Wiki pro to edit for David Kemper links

Well, apparently there's this quasi-famous drummer named David Kemper (works with Bob Dylan) who myself and I'm sure many others have never heard of and all of the "David Kemper" links we've put into the Farscape related articles link to his article. So, what is needed is someone familiar with using the more complicated Wiki gizmos to use one of those to find all the Farscape articles and replace [[David Kemper]] with [[David Kemper (writer)|David Kemper]] Thanks in advance!RoyBatty42 17:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PS David Kemper article

Could someone take look at the article, somehow I screwed the pooch on the reference formating and the one entry isn't showing under "References". RoyBatty42 17:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airdates part two

Some of the original airdates are wrong. For instance, Farscape World indicates that 'Bad Timing' was first aired at least as early as 10 March 2003 and not, as this article indicates, 21 March 2003. Matthew 13:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

Okay, the discussion on removing screenshots ONLY referred to featured list, and the only reason they were removed were that the list would lose its featured status (which I don't think anybody cared about anyway). Until I see something CLEAR on removing screenshots from lists of episodes altogether, I am completely in favor of keeping the images. byeee 06:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read this [1]. Hope that clears up things. eZio 06:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode notability

All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. That is unlikely to happen, and these only contain overly long plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list. If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. TTN 18:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Objection noted - the series received critical acclaim, and the potential exists for improvement. While the articles could stand to be improved, there is no need to redirect at this point. (More importantly, there is no requirement to redirect, and WP:EPISODE even cautions against redirecting if improvement is possible.) --Ckatzchatspy 20:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You're going to have to at least show some sources that prove that every episode has potential. Otherwise, just find the sources when you have time and bring back the few that you believe have a chance. That is probably the better way to do it, unless you absolutely know that these have potential. TTN 20:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, there is *no* requirement that articles must be redirected, so redirecting is not "the better way". I've already found some reviews (BBC + IGN) and that's just from a quick Google search - it doesn't even include DVD commentaries, books, etc. --Ckatzchatspy 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Articles that have no possibility (the key word that'll allow them to stay as stubs) of meeting the guideline need to be merged/redirected or deleted. Can you show the sources and explain how they show all the episodes need specific coverage? TTN 21:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The guideline does not place such a heavy emphasis on redirecting... in fact, it only says to "consider" redirecting. It also describes the "potential" for improvement as grounds for keeping the article. There is no requirement to prove a "need" for "specific coverage". --Ckatzchatspy 21:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you suddenly forgotten all of the previous discussions or something? Articles that cannot be improved don't need to exist that at all. We don't just keep them around "just 'cuz." The person that states they are notable has to show that they are notable. To do that, you need more than "I looked on Google". That means you have to either show sources that show all of the articles are notable or a select few are notable. TTN 21:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Having seen your type of "merging", I also object to any "merging" of these pages. Of course, that wont matter as you'll just invent a consensus, right? —Xezbeth 22:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
A lot of people, including yourself, need to realize that not everything typed on this site is valuable. Goomba is full of pure game guide material, OR, and other junk, and the topic only needs a brief overview. The other thing that you reverted is the small plot point of a movie that is already covered within various sections of the movie. TTN 22:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
TTN, please keep in mind that WP:EPISODE is not a broom with which to sweep away any articles you don't approve of - it is a suggestion as to how to improve the encyclopedia. You're certainly free to propose merges, but others are equally free to oppose and/or revert them if they disagree. This would particularly apply if no effort is made to integrate redirected content, as it is then effectively a "soft delete". --Ckatzchatspy 22:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You're free to oppose them, but as an experienced editor, you should try to actually prove your argument. All articles have to assert notability. If they cannot meet it, they need to go. Like WP:WEB and WP:FICT, WP:EPISODE gives a certain standard that the articles need to be able to reach, information/links on how to do that, and examples of what to do with them. All of them agree that articles that cannot follow them need to be merged or deleted. So, I'm not getting your point. I should just leave all articles that "I don't approve of" (meaning the don't follow guidelines) alone to just sit around?

Can we just get back on topic? You said that you have sources that assert notability. If you can just show them, and give a brief explanation as to how they apply to all of the episodes, I can be on my way. Or maybe I can just list this under the episode review list if we're still doing that. TTN 23:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of this senseless arguing with know-it-alls that have too much time on their hands and no better way to spend it. It's probably another of those 'create precedent' stuff which will, before long, make poor Wikipedia go down the drain. (For anyone who remembers when the episode images were removed because they were too 'fair use' . I doubt any studio asked WP to remove episode images. It was promotion after all). I'm sorry to say that, but that's just the way it's headed. Merge 'em, remove 'em, in the end you'll still do what you want no matter what everyone else says. I could point out zillions of others episodes which are in a much poorer state than any of the Farscape episodes. And all the examples given on WP's guideline pages only point to real stubs (4 lines at the most). Do what you wish, but I'll most certainly revert any edits turning the episode pages into redirects. I'll make a stand even if I'm alone in all of this. » byeee 19:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

All these episode articles establish notability, for being an episode of Farscape. Ckatz, you dug your grave, now lie in it.Matthew 19:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That is way out of line, Matthew. -- Ned Scott 23:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Matthew, please read, and grok, WP:ILIKEIT#Notability is inherited. --Jack Merridew 09:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow Jack. You should be so proud... you, err, presented an essay! Okay, I'll assume you actually intended for me to "grok" at a policy or guideline... so I grant you a second chance to provide the guideline/policy to me. Thanks! Matthew 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is now on the review list. TTN 20:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

TTN, in response to your question, there are reviews for each episode at the BBC's "Cult TV" site, as well as some episode reviews on IGN. There are also various commentaries on the Farscape DVDs. All of these sources can be folded into the articles. I'm removing the link from the review page for now to see if we can resolve this here first. If we can't get some sort of understanding, then the review process can step in. --Ckatzchatspy 21:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to have to discuss whether piecing together the various bits will actually do anything, it'll be better to have others chime in on it. TTN 21:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Ckatz has cited sources that could improve the articles. This seems to be on par with the billions of Simpsons articles. The JPStalk to me 22:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Several comments here. Firstly, it would be good if TTN had listed and linked the articles specifically, just so there is no confusion, and it's easier to look at each one individually that way. Secondly, claiming there are sources is all well and good, but unless they are actually used in the article, it is irrelevant. If you have found sources, but are too busy to put them in, then don't complain if they're redirected. Thirdly, we might as well just forgo citing WP:EPISODE and the review process, since it it totally redundant now. Just stick to notability, reliable sources and plot guideilnes and policies. i said 04:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If sources exist, it is hardly "irrelevant". As for "not complaining", one could say in return that there shouldn't be a rush to redirect - if you have complaints about an article, work to improve it first rather than just doing a "soft delete". It is hardly fair to dismiss WP:EPISODE when it can support keeping an article, after claiming it so often as a justification for redirecting. --Ckatzchatspy 05:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The sources have to be used for it to be notable. If not, they have to be used for verifiability at any rate. I have complaints about articles, and I don't believe that they can all be brought up to the standard for WP inclusion. It's the responsibility of the users who believe these do meet criteria to make it, not people who disagree. And I didn't say dismiss it, I said it probably shouldn't be cited as justification for anything, since apparantly there is no consensus to back it. Other policies and guidelines can be cited; and they would be better since they are more specific than just the compilation of several. i said 05:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • None of the articles that I have reviewed passes the criteria laid out at the guideline. There is no out-of-universe context, no assertion of episode notability (unusual ratings achievement, episode-specific awards, etc...), just the usual goulash of content that the guideline explicitly indicates should be avoided: viz. plot summaries, etc.... I agree with TTN; redirect to the LOE with no prejudice against the recreation of any individual episode article where notability is asserted. Eusebeus 09:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no! Not Farscape! WP:ILIKEDIT! (chagrined to admit), and watched some of it.

But if they're going to survive, they do need to pass muster. I'll look these over and comment further. --Jack Merridew 09:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Advice to editors: Sources which may help establish notability for these episodes include reviews in newspapers, discussion in magazines like Starlog or SFX, and detailed episode guides. (Some of my fellow editors feel that episode guides aren't sufficiently independent of the subject to establish notability, but I disagree, especially for professionally published episode guides.) The key thing for improvement of these articles is to include some real-world content (ratings are a good start) and information beyond plot summaries and cast lists. Sources like this, this, this, this and this could all be useful in this process. Personally, if someone used sources like these books on a handful of these episode articles, to indicate that Farscape episodes have received sufficient coverage in reliable sources that any episode of the series could have encyclopedic coverage, I'd support leaving the other articles as they are, because the potential would have been demonstrated. I hope that Farscape editors will take up this challenge, and improve the articles so that they won't be redirected. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - it's a good start. --Ckatzchatspy 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I fixed up I, E.T. a bit. It looks like we can find at least 2 reviews (IGN and BBC) for each episode for a reception section, and each episode has commentary running throughout so a production section can also be created. So, there's no reason to redirect any of these pages. - Peregrine Fisher 23:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

According to this article, the Farscape role-playing game also has episode guides. SharkD 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just chiming in, myself, but focusing on Farscape episodes as not being notable enough seems rather trite. There are plenty of television series with every single episode given its own exclusive article, such as the Simpsons, etc. The truth of the matter is that Farscape was received as an outstanding science fiction show, and the world of Wikipedia is not going to crash, tumble, be made useless and obsolete by their presence. If anything, it simply makes Wikipedia more useful. This is nearly as bad as those people running around screaming schools aren't notable enough for inclusion, either. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Completely agree. When there are so many real issues to deal with on this site, going ape-poopy over whether Farscape episodes are "notable" enough (a completely subjective criterion in my opinion anyway) seems like so much bureaucratic nonsense. -- Grandpafootsoldier 21:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Completely agree as well - it is utterly disheartening to return to Wikipedia after a time apart to find that the same inane, pointless debate is still going on. Ape-poopy and bureaucratic nonsense indeed (nice wording, Grandpa). This is why many editors are just throwing up their hands and moving on: too many over-zealous, over-literal and martinet types making this a frustrating, unrewarding waste of time. Try to get this into your quasi-fascist heads: this isn't Britannica. It's an online encyclopedia edited by people in their underwear hiding behind false names. And when it comes to popular culture and "notability" you are just opening a can of worms that is only going to lead to pointless debates like this one.
For me this boils down to a pretty basic argument, which is this is much like the gay marriage debate: if you don't like it, don't have one and kindly shut up. If an article is sourced and exist to the extent that it is sourced repeatedly, then it's passed the notable sniff test. Stop looking for ways to kill articles and start doing something positive and productive by helping source them. Because the more people you drive out who truly care about improving things productively, the worse the overall site will become. And if you spend most of your time slashing and burning your way through other people's work, you are not contributing to the site in a positive way. Think about it. RoyBatty42 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Along the lines of this discussion this user ([[2]]) seems to have some interesting ideas when it comes to some of the issues raised, especially about pointless debates (see his "First Do No Harm/What Does It Hurt" section at the bottom). RoyBatty42 04:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] motion to close

This discussion has gone stale, so it's time to wrap it up. The recent edits to I, E.T. would seem to establish notability, but there has been little other progress on these articles. Do other the other bbc pages support establish notability of the other episode articles? They certainly don't if no one bothers to add them as references to the articles. Absent someone moving on this, I'll close this discussion and redirect the remaining articles. If anyone feels that specific episodes should be kept, please list them and be sure that the articles actually cite some 3rd party RS. --Jack Merridew 10:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no deadline. The articles can be improved, so please don't redirect them. - Peregrine Fisher 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no consensus to redirect, an established desire to improve the articles, and (again) no deadline. --Ckatzchatspy 18:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed--there is no consensus to redirect. QuizzicalBee 23:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree there's no consensus to redirect. I've been bold and removed all the merge tags. Like Peregrine says: "there is no deadline". Matthew 23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Naughty, naughty. --Jack 11:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not about how many people want to redirect vs how many want to keep — that would be AfD. It is about Non-Notability and Plot Summary, which is what most tv episode articles are. If there are sources out there someone had better-well add them to the articles. --Jack Merridew 11:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

it's going to take a while. WP is not built in a day. - Peregrine Fisher 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
We have no reason to believe it will ever happen. These articles lack the real world information that would make them notable, and currently violate WP:NOT#PLOT. If you wish to improve them you'll need to find something from the real world to write about before there is anything to improve. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There are reviews and DVD commentaries. - Peregrine Fisher 02:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
And so, without knowing what kind of information we can pull from these, we just indiscriminately keep this massive plot summary? Not knowing what is justified or not? Not knowing how much of the commentary is relevant information, or just inside jokes between actors? Let alone if this information should be presented in a per-episode format, and casting aside if the same information could fit better in character articles or some type of season article. DVD commentary and reviews tell us that there is real world information for Farscape in general, but doesn't tell us if works for a per-episode-article format. I'm not saying it isn't there, but we're far from justifying each and every one of these articles. Nothing prevents us from de-merging at a future time. -- Ned Scott 03:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
We've got sources, so basically it's up to us to decide; we're not running afoul of WP:FICT or anything. We're interested in improving, not redirecting. If you want to start season pages, or improving the LOE go ahead. Some of us want to improve the ep pages. - Peregrine Fisher 03:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you have sources for plot, not for real world information. It violates WP:NOT#PLOT, regardless of the current status of WP:FICT, which even with revised wording will still not justify these episode articles (and lets not forget WP:EPISODE). If all you have are shots in the dark, these articles will be redirected. If you make it an issue, they will be deleted. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) reviews and commentary are sources of OOU info. Start an AfD if you must. - Peregrine Fisher 03:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeating what I just said: DVD commentary and reviews tell us that there is real world information for Farscape in general, but doesn't tell us if works for a per-episode-article format. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's give them some time and see then. I haven't had much trouble improving on these articles when I wan't to. Why don't you scour the internet, add everything you find to Pilot, and see what happens. I think you'll be pleasantly suprised. - Peregrine Fisher 04:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've de-taged all the articles again, the consensus is clear here, Ned – live with it. Alternatively you may list these articles for deletion. Matthew 19:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the tags, as the consensus is clearly for improving, not redirecting. Now, let's see if we can keep this discussion from getting too confrontational. There's no need for "brinkmanship"; if we can avoid statements like "if If you make it an issue, they will be deleted" (and the related counter-challenges) we can focus on the improvements. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 19:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Sounds good. We need to add OOU info like reviews and production info. Here is a good place to start. They have episode reviews and interviews with the cast. Then just use Template:Cite web and the buttons at the bottom of the edit page to create the refs. - Peregrine Fisher 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has gone completely off-track. Instead of sticking to the issue — lack of notability, mere plot summary — fans of this series have resorted to edit warring over the merge tags. Mob Rule. --Jack Merridew 10:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We reviewed the the pages, and decided redirecting is not necessary per our notability guidelines. Possibly a shocking outcome for the review process, has that ever been the result before? - Peregrine Fisher 15:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You may have "decided" that you don't want to redirect the articles, but that conclusion is not in accordance with guidelines. You have to actually cite your sources in the articles; merely asserting that sources probably exist out there and that you'll edit the articles when you have time is merely amusing. It seems to me that there are many editors who do not want episode articles to be in an encyclopaedic form — they want plot summary, articles that are little shrines to the episodes. --Jack Merridew 13:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It is in accordance with guidelines. We've looked for RSs, and found them. Also, the plot summaries are mostly within the 10 word per minute guidline. I get the feeling you think only one outcome is possible from these "reviews," but that is not so. - Peregrine Fisher 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Not at all; I stated up front that I didn't really want to see these redirected. You have, however, largely failed to actually cite the sources you refer to in the articles. Absent this, they are at risk, so I suggest you cite your sources. --Jack Merridew 07:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There is anything but a consensus here, and removing the merge tags only leaves more Wikipedians in the dark about our discussion (including the ones who want to keep all the episode articles separate). Tagged or not, these articles are still under discussion, and will still be watched. I'm willing to step back for a bit and see if anything can be improved, but if these articles remain nothing more than plot then something will need to be done. -- Ned Scott 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just added links to the usual imdb.com and tv.com dross to the A Bug's Life episode article. I also added a link to the bbc.co.uk review. I agree with Ned - there is no consensus here. I also acknowledge that there may-well be sufficient sources out there to establish notability — BUT, they need to actually be referenced by the individual articles. I will hold off on closing this review and redirecting the articles "for a bit". In the meantime, interested editors are strongly advised to work on the articles. Sustained progress is grounds for a generous definition of "a bit" of time. --Jack Merridew 07:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well, no consensus thus far. I would recommend that someone (possibly someone from each side of the debate) make a list of those episodes which are referenced or establish notability in some other way (for example, no references but claim of an episode specific award). Perhaps we could all agree on which clearly should be kept and work towards a solution from there. If no one else is willing to do it I'll have a go later tonight, I've only had a cursory glance thus far and I've seen articles which clearly fall on both sides of the line. Stardust8212 12:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, I submit that the following — barely — establish their notability; all of the others do not.

--Jack Merridew 09:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree: Close & Redirect the rest. There has been a lot of moaning above, but the bottom line is that there has been almost no improvement in the content of these articles to bring them to the standard laid out at the guidelines. It is the guideline that represents wider community consensus, not the accumulation of WP:ILIKEIT opinions from committed fans of the series. If this produces edit-warring, which given the dedication of the fans above seems likely, I suggest they be brought to AfD in a mass nomination for a delete/redirection to the LOE page. Eusebeus 10:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason those barely assert their notability is because I added a few refs. I could do the same for any of them, which means there is not reason to redirect. Please follow the guidelines which say if an article can be improved, that's what should happen. - Peregrine Fisher 14:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
actually, I'm the one that added the few refs to A Bug's Life. I actually agree with part of what you say here (although I may be reading it other than as you intend) — you should be seeking to improve these articles rather than attempting to defend them in their current unsourced, non-notability-establishing state. If you were to actually improve more than a couple, I (and, I expect, others) would give them time. The overall problem is that there are few reliable sources that can serve to establish notability for specific tv show episodes, there are too many editors who seek to keep episode articles in an in-universe format and there are millions of individual episodes of tv shows. --Jack Merridew 07:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no consensus to redirect, there is possibility for improvement, and steps are being taken to move in that direction. Given that the aim of the "Episode" guideline was supposedly to improve the overall quality of the project (and not just to eliminate articles that some people don't agree with), no redirect is warranted. There are countless articles (not just in the television section) that aren't being improved, so please don't use the threat of AfD to impose a point of view on ones that are, even if slowly. --Ckatzchatspy 17:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There certainly is consensus to redirect derived from the standards articulated by the wider community. Consensus is not what 5 committed fans believe; it is the reigning standards that are derived by editors across the project. And I'll amend my comment above. Neither I, E.T. nor A Bug's Life (Farscape episode) assert any out-of-universe notability and should be redirected as well; the premiere can stay per standard practice. There is simply no evidence that the vast majority of these articles can in any way be improved to aspire to the notability guidelines. Eusebeus 18:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I just don't see any notability difference between, Farscape and, say Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Stargate. What makes it OK to have pages for each of those shows' episodes, but not of this show?QuizzicalBee 20:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Those pages have not been reviewed yet. I have only peeked at a few. Your argument is aka Other Crap Exists. --Jack Merridew 07:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Eusebeus, WP:N says "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." That's how I, E.T. asserts notability. I'm not really sure what you're talking about. - Peregrine Fisher 21:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It's "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", not "a couple of fairly minor sources to act as some sort of shield." None of those signify that the article is any more than the latter. TTN 22:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:Note says '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.' We've got that covered. - Peregrine Fisher 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Having been reviewed doesn't assert true, true notability. Even if it does, there is not enough content to warrant an article, and those don't assert the possibility of much more. You need a good chunk of possible information for it to really matter. Otherwise, it is just trivial, no matter what the sources are or what they state. Honestly, you have done this for every series that you have really tried to defend, and it really hasn't worked that well as far as I can remember. TTN 23:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
When didn't it work? - Peregrine Fisher 00:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
When exactly has it worked? Maybe I'm thinking you've done this more than you actually have, but I cannot remember a full series being "saved" because of your improvements. TTN 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I actually seen any through that I think notability can be established for yet, they're all still on review. I'm pretty sure notability can be easily established for List of 30 Rock episodes, List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes, and List of Supernatural episodes though. I'm leaving the rest at Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review to sink or swim on their own, although it's not looking good for them, except for maybe Angel.

Anyways, I guess I could go for a compromise on this page. There are reviews for all of them, so let's say we keep all the ones that have DVD commentaries. That way each can have a reception section and a production section. I've been looking for something that lists which eps have commentary, but I haven't found a good way other than looking at each DVD, and some eps have been released 3 different times on DVD, so it's a lot of work. I guess if we could agree to that compromise, I would put in the legwork. - Peregrine Fisher 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The pages were all redirected without consensus, and without any mention on this page. That has been reversed, as the consensus is quite clearly *not* to redirect. --Ckatzchatspy 05:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You do realize that consensus has nothing to do with numbers, right? While some of you guys did actually try to assert notability, you only did it for a few episodes. Any defense for the others falls under WP:ILIKEIT. TTN 14:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

These articles have been given time for interested editors to add sources to address the notability issue — yet they have not done so and edit war over the redirection of the articles. It is unacceptable to assert that sources seem to be out there and we'll get to actually adding them to the articles in a year or so. --Jack Merridew 12:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why unacceptable? What harm is there in leaving the articles up while they are being improved?QuizzicalBee 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
They aren't being improved. The above three that have sources don't even assert notability for themselves, and they certainly don't show any hope for the rest. Any sources given are the same thing. They're just being used as a fake safety blanket to avoid having these redirected. I can understand the tactic being used by Matthew or Fisher, but I really would have suspected Ckatz to be above that. TTN 14:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
"Be above that"?!? If by that, you mean "allow you to do whatever you feel like, despite the obvious lack of solid consensus to do so, while ignoring the opinions and insulting the character of anyone who opposes you" - then I'm sorry to disappoint you. This isn't your personal Wiki, and you cannot just dismiss the concerns of others with a boilerplate note and a click or two (hundred) in AWB. --Ckatzchatspy 06:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, what's going to happen here? Did Ckatz and Matthew revert the episodes because they believe they can be brought up to the standard at WP:EPISODE? If that is the case, then I have no objection to letting these articles stand. But if not, is it the assertion of these editors that the articles should remain, despite a clear guideline backed up by Wikipedia policy derived from community-wide consensus to the contrary? Why don't interested editors set up a Farscape Wikia where this information can be placed without any dispute and without impinging upon the standards set up to determine content? Unless it can be clarified how these articles will be brought up to the WP:EPISODE standard, they should be changed back to redirects. Eusebeus 16:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The episodes CAN be brought up to the standards. It's just going to take a little time.QuizzicalBee 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Has anything actually shown that? So far, only the first episode has anything that can even be considered notable. Being the first episode, it is possibly an exception to the rest. How about some of you work on an episode in the middle of the series that does not have anything special about it, and add one paragraph each for production and reception? That would be enough to show that it is likely for other episodes to improve, and it would certainly be enough to feel fine backing off. TTN 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
And by paragraphs, I'm talking about descriptive prose backed up by reviews and commentary. Taking a bunch of trivial quotes and details to form shabby paragraphs isn't going to cut it, TTN 17:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that is an acceptable compromise. I would also recommend that the Episode guide be consulted as well. At the moment, the plot descriptions are WAY too long. They need to be cut to one or at most two short paragraphs. I would also suggest editors use GA episodes as a further guide. That said, I remain skeptical that all episodes can be brought to such a standard in which case we need agreement that those that fail to assert real-world notability should be redirected per WP:EPISODE. Eusebeus 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If these articles can be brought up to snuff, I'm fine with keeping them. However, I appears that no one is actually attempting to do this; they just edit war over merge tags and redirects. If someone acts on the proposed compromise above, I'll back-off. If not, I will redirect articles in a few days. --Jack Merridew 07:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys going to actually work on even one article, or are you just proving that you only care about keeping them in existence? I mean, a compromise of "fix one episode up, and we'll go away" seems pretty good to me. TTN 21:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like, does it? I've held-off since redirecting season two resulted in them being protected. I rather expected one of the keeper-editors to make some effort or to post something here. Fair-warning... --Jack Merridew 15:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a reasonable compromise, and I'm sure someone will take up the challenge. However, please take into account the fact that people are probably exhausted by all of this bickering. (Does that mean wait forever? No, of course not. Just a thought as to why the page may be quieter right now.) --Ckatzchatspy 08:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm definitely planning to work on them. I'm just really busy right now so haven't had a chance.QuizzicalBee 13:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming Merge & Redirect per Wikipedia Guidelines & Notability Standards

I redirected the episode articles, but unfortunately User:Ckatz reverted them back, presumably because he is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. Note that the individual episode articles have been under consideration for a merge & redirect for a fair amount of time now. Over the period, almost nothing has been done to assert real-world notability. As a result these need to be merged & redirected. To the editors above who feel that they have !voted against such an action and established some kind of consensus to maintain these articles, it is important to remember what consensus means:

When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'.

At the moment, consensus still requires real-world context to establish notability. If editors feel individual episode articles should be kept they should

1. work to introduce such content, or

2. weigh in on the debates at WP:FICT, WP:EPISODE and WP:WAF ASAP to change the existing standards of the guidline.

So far, in those discussions, the suggestion that real-world notability and reliable, third party sources not be standard criteria for stand-alone articles has been rejected. Interested editors, however, are encouraged to air their views.

Meanwhile, at the risk of being repetitive, editors need to understand that, absent some major change in our basic policies, real-world, out-of-universe notability must be asserted. Consequently, individual comments made here are, in this regard, irrelevant since they fall outside of community consensus. Editors who feel strongly should direct their attention to the main debates centering around policy where that consensus is determined.

It is important that editors who feel strongly about this issue ensure they participate in fora where their views can be considered. This is not such a forum and as the current discussion is unfolding, the individual episode pages will be redirected. Eusebeus 14:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I have just reviewed the progress on the season two episodes. Several had minor work performed; disambiguation and tweaking the plot summary to whomever's taste. There was no progress re the policies and guidelines under discussion here and I have redirected the season two articles to the LOE. Please, edit-warriors, do not revert this. If you can, you are free to resurrect them if you address the concerns expressed. I will review another season tomorrow. --Jack Merridew 12:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
My response to this is who died and made you king? - Diceman 15:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Your user page says that you were born in 1980, not 2000; now I'm really confused. --Jack Merridew 15:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
A-ha ha. I may have my problems but having an inflated ego isn't one of them. Actually, I retract my comment (I could remove it but you may restore it) because I failed to notice it was mostly written by Eusebeus. - Diceman 18:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • RFC/arbitration? Eusebeus 12:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote to keep episode articles

I strongly oppose the efforts to dispose of the Farscape episode articles. The quality isn't currently terribly high but without spending half an hour reading through the discussion I'm guessing it is an effort of non-fans to rid Wikipedia of a series of articles on what they view as a "crap" show.

It smacks of double standards to leave other shows alone and target Farscape. - Diceman 14:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I've spent a whole lot more than a half an hour on this page — and reviewing the articles. No, the quality of the articles leaves a lot to be desired; that's the whole point of this discussion that you didn't read. If you were to read a bit of this page, you would see that I did say I liked this show and that I have been encouraging editors to improve the episode articles. They have had a whole lot of time, too. As to targeting Farscape, not so; all tv show episode articles need to be reviewed and that some — many — have not is due to the fact that there are so many of them and fans are so resistant to observing guidelines and bringing their articles into conformance with, say, Notability. Also, this is not a vote. --Jack Merridew 15:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It's an edict handed down by you eh? You'd make a good candidate for a Wikipedia administrator. If this was the first time this sort of thing had happened I'd be a lot more neutral. - Diceman 15:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You can safely bet that this is not the last time a group of episode articles will be found wanting and be redirected. The problem, you see, is that many editors fail to understand that this is an encyclopaedia. --Jack Merridew 15:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem with your argument is that it doesn't allow time for progress. I thought that one of the great things about wikipedia is that articles could be created about subjects such as television shows. If they're unencyclopedic, why don't you improve them? The wasting of people's time and effort is the big issue I have with people who think the way you do.
Also, why are incomplete/poorly written TV episode articles unencyclopedic and well written/complete episode articles encyclopedic? It seems like you have a disdain for television episode articles and act accordingly. Like it or not, this is not the Encyclopedia Britannica. - Diceman 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
First off, I don't seem to use your definition of progress or share your views on what makes Wikipedia great. When I say that I believe that an article is unencyclopaedic, I am often not just referring to the current content in the article, I am also referring to the very idea of an article on the subject. Given this, improvement does not take entail edits to the article other than to tag it as non-notable, Afd, etc or to redirect it. The basic idea behind the notability guideline is that others — out there, in the real world; 3rd party reliable sources — should comment on a subject in some non-trivial manner first; then, maybe, a Wikipedia article is warranted. If editors have wasted their time and effort creating an unencyclopaedic article that winds up redirected or deleted, that simply reflects poorly on their judgment. Every redirection or deletion of an unencyclopadic articles improves Wikipedia a bit by lifting all of the remaining articles just a little bit further out of the muck.
There are tv show episode articles that are well-written; they are about episodes that have real sources, and are written in an encyclopaedic style. The Farscape articles do not fall into this group. There are editors who have expressed the view that these articles could be improved — and they had better prove it, soon — and this is why this discussion has dragged on for NINE WEEKS. --Jack Merridew 10:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Might makes right: season 2 articles locked by WJBscribe at request of Jack Merridew

I should stop contributing to Wikipedia. - Diceman 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the uncivil post of yours I just removed from my talk page, you may be on to a good idea here. --Jack Merridew 15:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Didn't want to own up to your actions did you? - Diceman 15:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
My actions are here as everyone knows. --Jack Merridew 15:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Explaining them in your talk page, if you want to split hairs. - Diceman 15:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your choice of section heading is inaccurate; see User talk:WJBscribe#Protection Question. --Jack Merridew 16:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That was a discussion of edit tabs, nothing to do with this subject. - Diceman 18:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That's because the page has been archived and another user has started a conversation using the same title. Had you viewed the page when the message was originally posted you would have seen the relevant conversation still available in the page history: here. Timing is everything. Stardust8212 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farscape Episode Redirection - Next Steps

We need to find a way around the recent impasse. For those not au courant, the plot so far.

[edit] Plot Summary

A small cabal of deletion-minded editors, led by arch-villain TTN and his minions Eusebeus and Jack Merridew, have launched an assault against Farscape Episode Articles as part of their plans to ruin Wikipedia and their longer term plan to dominate the universe. Arrayed against the forces of darkness, a mighty assemblage of Farscape protectors coalesced, suffused with righteousness in their bid to defend the precious episode articles, each one carefully crafted with lengthy and detailed plot synopses and a careful listing of guest stars.

Armed with Policy Phasers and the Redirection Ray, the Cabal of Ruination staged an assault in its bid to ruin Wikipedia for everyone, undoing all the efforts of so many hard working editors. The Righteous, however, were unaffected by the Cabal's policy weapons; attempts to shoot policy at them deflected harmlessly. Stung by their inability to use policy as basis for their Redirection Ray, the Cabal of Ruination was quickly repulsed and thus began the Great Edit War. The Cabal of Ruination attempted a second assault, inviting the Righteous to an emendation of the Episode Articles, but the Righteous held fast. They refused to kowtow to the threats of an incredibly tiny minority of power-hungry and obsessed deletionists and their repugnant instruments of vile terror and subjugation.

Before stalemate ensued, a few episode articles were placed under "Protection," innocent victims of policy and a cruel reminder of what happens when the Cabal's attempt to ruin Wikipedia with policy weapons are not met head-on by a committed resistance that has grown impervious to policy.

[edit] Going Forward

Disagreement here is profound and is unlikely to be settled through consensus. If editors wish, we can proceed to an RFC on this issue, or we can proceed directly to arbitration, since the back and forth constitute as much as is likely to be elicited in an RFC. Basically, we need an outside ruling here, which is not such a bad thing since it can probably be applied more generally. It is my belief that, insofar as almost every single one of these articles obviously fail every single standard that we have governing television episodes and fictional notability, including (and especially) the specific provision that Wikipedia is not a repository for plot synopses, that such arbitration is largely unnecessary. But in the interest of implementing a binding solution that will have larger repercussions for fictional TV content, sobeit. Is anyone opposed? Eusebeus 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Support — and applaud. --Jack Merridew 14:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Great, so all that work was a complete waste of time because a couple of uber-bureaucrats are choosing to enforce with an iron fist some completely arbitrary guidelines as if they were holy writ. And now my talk page is being deluged with "orphaned fair use" messages from all the now dead screenshots I took. Wonderful. This site (or more specifically, some of the people on it) can really piss me off sometimes. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep. Ditto. Because, you know, this is an encyclopedia. And you see, its purpose is to convey information. But not too much information. Better to err on the side of caution and prevent information from being shared, than to in error convey useful, yet superfluous information.QuizzicalBee 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible means of resolution

Hi,

I've been watching the discussion on this page for a while. I recently made some changes to "Season of Death" and I'd like to know whether there is a consensus that it now meets the notability guidelines for Wikipedia.

If so, I propose that we make a list of episode for which we believe we can clearly establish notability. Frankly, I don't believe there really needs to be a wikipedia article on each and every episode (Do we absolutely need to have one on "Vitas Mortis" for example?). Instead, perhaps we could focus on episodes of the highest quality and greatest significance and work to improve them and enusre they are included in Wikipedia.

Thoughts?

Acegikmo1 (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggested this over two months ago and the only response was from Jack Merridew. I agree this would move us forward and would really appreciate if someone interested in keeping the episodes would offer up their list. If we could agree that the other episodes don't conform to policy and are unlikely to anytime soon then we could hopefully have a much more focused discussion. Very good work on "Season of Death", I'd definitely agree to keep that one at this point. Stardust8212 13:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Sorry I failed to see your earlier comment.
I think the following episodes already establish notability: "Premiere", "I, E.T.", "Through the Looking Glass", "Season of Death",
I think the following episodes either received significant enough acclaim or were important enough in terms of Farscape's overall arc that they should be improved and included:
  1. "PK Tech Girl", "That Old Black Magic", "DNA Mad Scientist", "They've Got a Secret", "Till the Blood Runs Clear", "Jeremiah Crichton" (think "Spock's Brain"), "Durka Returns", "A Human Reaction", "A Bug's Life", "Nerve", "The Hidden Memory", "Bone to Be Wild", "Family Ties".
  2. "Mind the Baby", "Crackers Don't Matter", "The Way We Weren't", "Picture if You Will", "Won't Get Fooled Again", "Die Me, Dichotomy"
  3. "Eat Me", "Infinite Possibilities Part I: Daedalus Demands", "Infinite Possibilities Part II: Icarus Abides", "Revenging Angel", "The Choice", "Into the Lion's Den Part I: Lambs to the Slaughter", "Into the Lion's Den Part II: Wolf in Sheep's Clothing", "Dog with Two Bones"
  4. "Crichton Kicks", "Unrealized Reality", "Kansas", "Terra Firma", (note: I haven't seen episodes after "Mental as Anything)", and "Bad Timing".
If I had to narrow these down to the ones most worthy of inclusion, I would say "A Human Reaction", "Nerve", "Family Ties", "Crackers Don't Matter", "The Way We Weren't", "Won't Get Fooled Again", "Die Me, Dichotomy", "Infinite Possibilities Part II: Icarus Abides", "Into the Lion's Den Part I: Lambs to the Slaughter", "Into the Lion's Den Part II: Wolf in Sheep's Clothing", "Unrealized Reality", "Kansas", "Terra Firma", "Bad Timing".
As for the rest, I don't think they're worthy of inclusion, though I can see some borderline cases (e.g. "Relativity", "Incubator"). If there is a strong feeling that these should be included, I would support their inclusion.
Acegikmo1 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to make that list, I'm not surprised you missed my earlier comment, there's a lot going on here to follow. OK, now, if this compromise is going to work both sides need to agree on a couple things:
  • To the people who want to keep the articles: Would you agree that most other episodes not listed above do not currently establish notability and are unlikely to in the near future? Remember that should you later find evidence of notability the articles could easily be restored from the history. Would you be willing to work to improve these articles in order to assert notability from reliable sources to prove that you are right that more episodes should be kept? (Note if you like this compromise but believe one or two episodes that should be on the list have been left off then please mention them in your response)
  • To the people who want to redirect the episodes: Would you be willing to leave a partial set of articles to allow fans to improve them for the time being and discuss each episode individually at a later date (to be determined)? Would you agree that the first four episodes listed do currently satisfy guidelines and should be kept?
As someone who really enjoys episode articles but also appreciates guidelines for notability and reliable sources I would really like to see us resolve this edit war for at least a little while. Acegikmo1, is this the solution you had in mind? Everyone please let me know what you think of this suggestion. Stardust8212 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Leaving the first list would be fine if people are going to jump right into this. If it will take time, the second list will be better. I'm glad to actually see someone with a train of thought not relating to keeping all of the articles just 'cuz. TTN (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a superb suggestion that both sides may be comfortable living with. And it heightens the chance that those episodes that people will still fondly remember in a few years from now, have a good article quality. – sgeureka t•c 00:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that people seem to like this idea. Stardust8212, what you said is exactly the solution I had in mind. Before we proceed, though, I hope someone else can independently evaluate which episodes we should tag as worth keeping and improving. I don't want to be the sole "decider" in this regard. Once we agree on a list (I think the second one I made would be a good starting point), perhaps we can redirect the other articles and unprotect / start working on the ones listed. I plan on editing "Won't Get Fooled Again", and the two Lion's Den episodes. Does anyone want to help or take on other episodes? Acegikmo1 (talk)

  • That sounds like a good way to move forward. No one is opposed to retaining episode articles that demonstrate notability. I'll request unprotection for the second series episodes indicated above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For now, I'm redirecting all besides the ones on the second list made by Acegikmo1. These can be switched around or whatever, but this will be the initial action. TTN (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)