Talk:List of Kim Possible episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] removal

Well, I can see hours of hard work vanishing into thin air. All because a bunch of admins got together and thought they'd like to flex their muscle and unilaterally gut a ton of pages across wikipedia. There is no specific legal precedent for any of the fears the people behind this are throwing around and no reason why such disputes could not be handled on an individual basis if they did manage to somehow materialize. You've gone and without warning undid untold hours of many wikipedians' hard work, creating a 'discussion' thread in some obscure corner and declared victory before many authors were even aware something had happened and before almost any had a chance to speak. Now what we've done is redefined as merely 'decorative' so everybody feels better about stomping out such an unnecessary and wasteful luxury. This is more about people wanting to be busybodies and exercise their power than any real copyright concern. I only wish I had the time to deal with this situation more at this moment. Jarwulf 09:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Riot!!! ;) jkjkjk I agree with you...mainly that the community should have been informed of the decision before it was carried out. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
So do I. I just saved some episode articles for future expansion, and I had no idea how many I had to save in the first place. My 1G flash drive is running out of room. ---- DanTD 15:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless the page is deleted, the article information will still be saved in the page history. Which is how reverts work :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's start by collecting every detail from previous versions so we can revert them. For the record, this kind of crap isn't just going on with KP episode lists, and it's wrong either way! ---- DanTD 01:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
To make matters worse, before any of us can even try to expand an episode, some jackasses remove them right away. I'm afraid to mention any other examples out of fear I might give them some ideas. ---- DanTD 01:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully after finals, i can assist you in expanding them. Finals week sucks majorly. Just keep your eyes out for any sources you can find on the episodes like I am. If you see something bookmark it for later if you have to. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't call other editor's assholes jackasses . I'll take a look and see which editor is deleting the pages and try and strike up a discussion. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I missed something. Who called who an asshole? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
jackasses, sorry. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 02:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, they shouldn't act like jackasses, if they don't want people to call them that. Now I see that somebody has deleted almost ALL episodes!! I say we retrieve them from older versions, and post them on Television Wiki... unless somebody tries to join that and delete those too!! ---- DanTD 19:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, for now, how about we have pages for episodes that have aired? Once an ep airs, we can go back and restore the episode page and add in info. But before that it's all spec anyway. I restored Big Bother, and the rest seem to be okay. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Virtu-Ron, Job Unfair, The Golden Years, Triple S, and Rewriting History are among five episodes that are deleted, but outside of KP there are plenty of episodes of other shows that are being deleted unjustly, which should explain my hostility. ---- DanTD 02:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotta take each page as it goes, DanTD :) And hostility is never called for, otherwise folks won't want to work with you. I'll look at some of the others tomorrow. I can see this taking a long day. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 02:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

After finals ima head over to the Suite Life, Charmed and Hannah Montana pages and work on those. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I strongly suggest forming a general sandbox to work on these in. That way, you can try to improve them without leaving worthless articles. TTN 02:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to use my userspace like I do for character pages I work on. Just a tip for anyone working on these, work on the most important eps first. Pilots, finales, award winning eps, recent eps, etc. Don't just do random episodes, we need the most important episodes first. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to make a sandbox. I tried to do that on other articles and failed. What I usually do is save them on text files that I store on a flash drive, and then post articles. ---- DanTD 00:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hannah Montana's episode pages use the WP:EPISODE format, so I'm assuming those SHOULD be safe... WAVY 10 16:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

OK, based on my reading of policy such as WP:NONFREE and US copyright laws, our using the screenshots in this article is covered under Fair Use. User:Betacommand, who initially deleted all of them, lost his admin position for doing so without cause, via an automatic mass-deletion bot, and appears to *still* be up to the same tricks, since he's hit two different pages today. My first two attempts to revert it have been reverted without discussion by others; I'm gonna try one more time, and put a comment in the article regarding that, and asking people to discuss it on the talkpage. While I personally would say this qualifies as vandalism, I really don't wanna risk the 3RR rule here, so I hope THIS works... Rdfox 76 01:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

According to ANI, admins are going after every list of episodes and removing images as them deem them "decorative". --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually thats not the case here, none of your fair use images have a fair use rational. See Image:KPRecapTickTick.jpg Image:KPRecapDownhill.jpg. You need to demonstrate why you need to have the image in the list. Otherwise it does not go in :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been clarified that use of screenshots in episode lists does not fall under the guidelines of Fair Use. All other such Fair Use lists have been removed, as will this one. Danny 01:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, since none of use were informed about the debate in advance we weren't able to have our say. How can there be consensus when half of the people who would be effected weren't even able to be involved in the discussion process. perfectblue 14:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Danny don't worry about that, the images don't even have fair use rationals to start with. —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Point is moot as users were not told that there was a problem and thus were not given a chance to add the tags later on. - perfectblue 14:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflictx2)Rdfox, I find it inappropriate and absurd that you bring up Betacommand's desysopping in this context; Betacommand was desysopped for many other reasons than just deleting screenshots. Wikipedia wants to be a free encyclopedia, something that isn't compatible with fair use. After a lengthy discussion at WP:ANI, we have begun purging the fair use images from lists like these. There wasn't a fair use rationale on any of them. Sean William 01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I never even knew that WP:ANI existed until today, so I was completely unaware of the discussion in question, and brought up Betacommand's desysopping because, to someone who didn't know of the decision, it seemed like another incident in the pattern of behavior that was cited in his RFA decision. I'm sorry I brought it up; if he'd bothered using an edit summary to say that it was being removed per the decision at WP:ANI, I wouldn't have even made the initial revert. As was pointed out on Betacommand's talkpage yesterday when he first did it, it's really a good idea to provide a pointer to the decision to make such a major deletion when you do it, since otherwise, it looks like vandalism to those who don't know about it.
In short, I admit I didn't handle it well--though I still think that, at least under the law, these were used legally--but I'd say that this is a case where both sides handled it pretty poorly. Anyhow, I'm not gonna do anything more to reverse it, and thanks for the explanation. Rdfox 76 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion has moved around a few times; it now rests at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes. Feel free to read it, although I can't get through section 3 without getting distracted... Anyway, feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Sean William 02:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finale title

Is there a source for the title of the two-part finale? Everyking 07:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finish what you've started

The user who removed the pictures should at the very least finish what they started.

If they truly believe that the pictures do not belong, then they must go through the page by hand (bots only create more problems) and modify each and every table so that there isn't a blank placeholder where the picture once was.

I consider messing around with a page and leaving the job only half finished, forcing other's to pick up the pieces to be an unwarranted disruption of Wikipedia.

perfectblue 12:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree very much with perfectblue97, but they shouldn't take out the screenshots! He is vandalizing

User:Jbottisti 7:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See the "Screenshots" section above. There was a decision by the Wikipedia administration to remove screenshots from ALL episode list articles on Wiki. While I don't agree with the decision, myself, I'm not going to fight it; it's not vandalism when it's admins carrying out a decision by the administration. Rdfox 76 01:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow...I guess I missed something rather major. All the pics are gone. =( Jumping cheese Cont@ct 03:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

While it might not be vandalism in the strictest sense, I am extremely concerned that we, as the editors of this page, were not informed in advance that any kind of discussion was being made that would effect us in such a dramatic manner. At the very least somebody should have put a note on this page to tell use that there was a debate going on. Instead we were informed after the fact.

I submit that because we were not presented with the opportunity to present an argument by virtue of not knowing that we needed to, that any consensus reached cannot be considered to be representative. I am also rather concerned that this edit was only half finished and that the page was locked so that none of us could finish it, not even in line with new poicy. This makes the page look sloppy and thus makes us look sloppy.

This said, I'm not going to edit war.

perfectblue 07:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

From the looks of the history log...there were some major edit warring. Good point about informing the editors beforehand, and the fact that a consensus has not firmly been established yet is also bothering me. Well, I guess you can contact an admin and request for clean-up edits. =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 07:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final resting place for images

Deleted per our fair use policy - please do not keep galleries of fair use images in userspace. Please read our fair use policy. Fair use images should only be used to illustrate an article, at no point should an article be created to keep fair use imagery. There's a lot of people who contribute to Wikipedia on the understanding their work can be freely used by anybody else - when you start adding fair use images to articles, this restricts the ability of work to be freely redistributed. Please, in future, remember to follow our fair use policy which is designed to make work as easy to redistribute as possible. -- Nick t 14:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You should have said this BEFORE you delete the images, at the very least that would have given me the opportunity to create the episode pages where they could legitimately be used. It wouldn't have taken that long Now, somebody is going to have to find and upload a lot of new images, and it's not going to be me.

There is such a thing as taking it too far.

perfectblue 15:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

According to policy, you should have given the uploading editor 48 hours notice. You didn't even give 3 minutes notice. This is not helpful.

perfectblue 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. But perhaps I can help. Except of the screenshot from the episode Roachie I have saved the other deleted screenshots. If you or another create the episode pages I will upload the screenshots. --Dannebrog Spy 21:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I would have done that but I wasn't given a chance. According to policy, there should have been a grace period for us to bring any disputed images up to code, but they were deleted without one. I managed to save a couple by building episode pages that were up to code, but I didn't have time to do the rest. - perfectblue 18:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new format

Based on the episode list template: Talk:List of Kim Possible episodes/example. I reordered season four based off TV.Com's page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We should ditch the gray and go back to the old color scheme, i looks far too drab and crowded.
perfectblue 18:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditch which part of the grey? You mean the alternating row colors? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

what the hell happened to the pictures? are you people morons? aren't we trying to make KP more accessible to people? Put back the pictures. Hurry up. =CJK= 23:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, watch the personal attacks. Calling your fellow editors "morons" is not a very good idea. Secondly, we can't put the pictures back. Try reading the whole talkpage. A policy decision was made that says that episode list articles do not get to have a thumbnail picture for each episode. This isn't our decision; it's the Wiki admins who made it. We don't have a choice; putting them back will just get them deleted again, and people banned. Rdfox 76 23:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to start off by suggesting you be civil. Instead of bossing users around you should read the talk page. Images are not allowed on episode lists any more. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, we're not editing the bible, we're editing the Kim Possible episode list. Tell the damned admins to put the pictures back up. =CJK= 13:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

...I see that we failed to get through to you earlier. Let me make this simple for you. First, a few tips about how to avoid getting in trouble on Wiki.
  • Be civil to others. Don't boss people around like this. Doing so is just likely to get you dismissed as an immature irritant who's best ignored.
  • Calling people "morons" is very close to violating Wikipedia's rule banning personal attacks. Be careful with this; it could easily get you in serious trouble.
  • Users can't "tell" the admins to do anything. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Policy is set by the Wikimedia Foundation and project manager Jimbo; the admins then determine the rules to enforce those policies. Users can only ASK admins (politely) to discuss the rule if they think there's a need for change--and the admins aren't under any requirement to agree to even discuss changing it.
Now, regarding your demand... the admins are NOT going to put the pictures back up. After an extended discussion, the decision was made that episode lists don't warrant having a picture from each episode. The rule is that, at most, any article listing episodes may get ONE exemplar image at the top of the page, intended to be a visual summary of the show to aid in recognition. Articles about individual episodes may have screenshot images to illustrate them, though those must be justified under the rules listed in Wikipedia's "fair use" rules regarding non-free images.
These rules are not arbitrary. They exist to protect Wikipedia from being sued for violating US copyright law. Editing the Bible would actually be a lot less hazardous, as you can't get sued for that. (And trust me, if Disney chose to sue Wikipedia, Wiki would lose. Disney has, by comparison, limitless resources; even if Wiki was in the right legally, Disney would make it such a long, drawn-out legal process that it would bankrupt the Wikimedia Foundation anyway. And then, Wikipedia would go away forever.)
In any event, any user can make a request with the admins to have the lock on the article removed, by following the instructions on the template at the top of the page.
Can this please be the end of this discussion? Rdfox 76 15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The community enforces and creates policy/guidelines. Administrators handle the technical side, such as blocking... they merely act at the behest of the community (generally through policy and guidelines established by the community). Matthew 15:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Page should use {{episode list}} like most other LOEs. Matthew 13:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

this rule doesn't make any friggin' sense!!! did they give a reason? =CJK= 05:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussion that led to it. It's linked from the early part of this talkpage. Personally, I don't like the rule, but I can see their point, and I really don't feel like going to war over something this inconsequential. But if you want to try and reopen the discussion, feel free... Rdfox 76 13:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, the 'proposed new format' I offered is using the episode list template. Does anyone else have constructive comments about reformatting it, or should we go ahead with it? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice that (the coloured bad thing made me think it was using normal wiki-markup). Anyway, yea I think it should be implemented. Matthew 14:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I support the proposed format. Take at look at List of Family Guy episodes for an alternative format...it's about the same, except it includes the production code. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 21:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We got yer prod code on the far right :) Okay, I'm gonna toss it out there (well, ask for someone to toss it out there). -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is so scared of the copyright police, yet still wants to be a bastion of community based expression, maybe it should move off-shore. There are many countries where US copyright law doesn't apply that can host Wikipedia's servers.

perfectblue 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Expression within the limits of the law isn't impossible, though that's no longer on topic for the Kim Possible episodes :) Anyway, encyclopedia. Not community of free expression. Different things. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please edit page

{{editprotected}}

Will an admin please edit this page to Talk:List of Kim Possible episodes/example :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I unprotected the page. C Mummert · talk 11:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Page updated. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now that the layout is fixed ...

We should probably address all the rampant 'asides' on the summaries (first appearance of XYZ). Those nitty gritty details ought to go on the character pages or episode pages, but by including it all here we're going past the scope of an episode list. Also, there's a lot of speculation going on here that should be removed... -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 02:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode Order Explanation

Since there seems to be some confusion here...

  • Episode Number is designated by airdate and time.
  • Production Code is determined by when the episode was written.

Now, these two numbers systems are out of sync on purpose, because Disney does not generally air a series in prod-code order. And yes, it drives us all batty, but that's the way it is. Sorry. I've reordered Season four based on TV.Com, which is the most reliable source I can find. The prod codes are correct, the episode numbers are (I believe) correct, and the episodes are listed in the order of airdate and time. Please don't change them unless you can cite a more reliable source for the order. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

TV.com isn't an authoritative source. It's just like Wikipedia, but rather uses an editor system. Production Code means several things at TV.com, each editor has their own way. Regardless, the production codes at TV.com are wrong (as per the U.S. Copyright Office). Matthew 15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I was matching them up to TVGuide and they looked okay, but if they're wrong and we can fix them, then I'm all for it! :) Is there a link the common editor can get to for the Copyright Office? And that doesn't change the basic 'Episode order != prod code order' issue. I've been reordering the eps based on air date every couple days. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. CO is publicly search-able. Click here, select "Title" and input Kim Possible. You'll notice that season one seems to use 1-21, while season two appears to have "KP-xyz" prefixed, etc. Matthew 15:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to list all the episodes though. Ugh. Hard to make a list off that if you can't get all the data. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yea. You have to wait several months for the govt. to index, or something. Try the credits for the episode, sometimes production codes are also listed in credits. Matthew 16:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode lists are always in order that the episodes air. That would be chronological per episode airing. This is not the same as the production code order. That's also chronological, but only 'in universe.' Every other TV series goes in air-date order, and while that makes everyone's brain hurt when you get shows with out of sync prodcodes and airdates (like most Disney shows *sigh*), we list them by airdate. We're sticking with TV.Com's prod codes for now since we really don't have another source for the whole season, and we can all tell they're being shown out of order. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - Saying that season four is in 'chronological' order misses the point. Firstly, all four seasons are listed by airdate, so if you're going to say that for one, you ought to say it for all. Secondly, it doesn't explain anything and that chronological link has been redirected to the Chronological order disambig page. We're not adding anything of information value with that link. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The order is by airdate. But it is in some ways senseless since Dr. Drakken appears in "Crush (first aired episode)" but is introduced in "Bueno nacho (Episode 6)". Is there any list where the episodes are ordered chronologically so that the story makes sense? 85.179.167.237 11:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The dr draken is not the only instance, there are several other instances. For example, ron is shown as the mascot of the cheer leading club in an early episode (the camp wanaweep one). then he later is not in the cheer leading squad. Then finally he is shown to join the cheer leading squad as the mascot. The airdates are obviously NOT chronological. The production codes appear to be chronological, but EVERYONE goes by air date. A note about this issue could warn people so that might watch episodes by in series chronological order. Another odd thing is that some movies (like sitch in time) are listed as episodes in this list. It is listed as three part episodes in the middle of season two. Even though it is listed as a movie on the main kim possible page Taltamir (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Season 2

I don't know if this has already been discussed, but I just noticed at least half of KP's Season 2 episodes redirect to this list. WAVY 10 16:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Given what's up here I wouldn't be shocked if most of the KP eps get redirected. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airdates

The air dates appear to be incorrect on several of the episodes (e.g. "Mathter and Fervent"). Matthew 13:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larry's Birthday and Graduation

I don't really think we can prove that their episode summaries are official until we get some kind of promo or something. They may be the most likely plots, but they're still just assumptions based on what's been unofficially hinted at. Maetch 17:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've finally seen some official info concerning the episode plots, so I guess I'm A-OK now. Maetch 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Did they ever have episode summaries? I never saw them since somebody DELETED ALL OF THEM!! I say we should all revert The Prince of Darkness's deletion of the episodes, even if we get accused of vandalism!! --- DanTD 20:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This prince of darkness guy is just a vandal. Can you guys help me stop him? --=CJK= 21:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Season 4 production codes

I noticed that none of the episodes in the list have the prod. codes 406 or 415 and on the other hand there are two with the codes 418 and 420 respectively. Is this an error or does it really reflect the actual numbering by the producers? And if so, how come? Suppiluliuma 13:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Proper Story Order for episodes?

I came here hoping to find an answer to that question, but it's not addressed. If I follow airing order, there's story problems. If I follow the order Disney is using on Wednesday Sept 5 (production code), that too has story problems, such as references to episodes that have not aired. Is there a proper order? - Theaveng 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There has never been any word on the "proper" chronological order of the episodes, other than Steve Loter saying that, while he has no clue what Disney's scheduling people are smoking when they select the airing order, production order isn't the correct order, either. He never gave us any details on the "correct" order, though... Rdfox 76 22:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Episodes?

Anyone else notice that ALL the Kim Possible Episode pages have been redirected to the List page? Anyone with information on this problem please post here. Can we also fix this? -hobo4hire 4 September 2:38 AM (PST)

Having had nothing to do woth these articles or there removal previously, I can say that from looking at random episode Monkey Ninjas in Space, the removal (redirecting) was the perfect thing to do. The article contained nothing but a plot summary, violating WP:NOT badly. The only info that could perhaps be rescues from the episode article and isn't in the main article yet is the name of the guest stars. All articles have to be about notable subjects, with verifiable independent sources about the subject. Kim Possible obviously is a notable subject, but that does not mean that every episode is independently notable. As long as an episode article has (almost) nothing but a plot summary, it should be redirected to a main list of episodes (or a list of episodes per season) if the series is fairly notable, or just to the main article for the complete series if it is a more obscure series. "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)." (from WP:NOT).Fram 09:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
SOME of the episodes, such as MNiS, certainly should have their individual articles deleted and redirected. However, other episodes (for example, examine Stop Team Go) shouldn't be, as they're more notable, with thorough sourced analysis. The big problem is that people have been mass-deleting and redirecting articles without any discussion or consensus as to which ones are notable enough to warrant separate articles and which aren't; this isn't just a Kim Possible problem, but apparently is happening with most fictional series of late. It seems that there's a group of editors who've decided to essentially declare war on articles about fictional series, and who've been rampantly delete-and-redirecting without bothering to do anything to merge the sourced information they're removing or make certain that they're not screwing up established links and templates. Short version, if you see a problem, for now, use the UNDO button on the diff to revert to the status quo, using an edit summary to explain you're reverting an undiscussed deletion, and leave a POLITE note on the editor's talkpage reminding them of the requirements for discussion and the use of the AfD process for that sort of thing. Rdfox 76 14:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"Thorough sourced analysis"? I only see two referenced lines, one to a Wiki part of TV.com (not a reliable source at all), and one to disney (reliable, but not independent at all, since they create/broadcast the series). As for the rest of your comments: nothing is deleted, they are redirected, so no AfD is needed at all, and no links and templates should be screwed up. Bold, revert, discuss is a good method indeed, but please try to make certain that what you are reverting to is indeed a good article per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT. We only should have an article on an individual episode if it has been discussed in reliable, independent sources (e.g. newspapers), and the article should then present well-sourced out-of-universe comments, not solely or mainly a plot summary. Your example does not provide that at all. Fram 14:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait.. so according to that logic, it must mean that nearly ALL episodes of ALL tv shows have to be redirected right? I mean for example, the Episode pages on House and Lost are also all plot summaries. I'm not criticizing the policy. Its one that keeps Wikipedia from unnecessary articles. But according to the policy, every shows plot summery, including popular shows like Lost or House, must be deleted. Will we have something like that happening in the near future? What is the difference between a Disney Channel animation and a prime time show? Not much.. at least on Wikipedia. -hobo4hire 4:00 PM 4 September 2007 (PST)

Oh and I just checked the Lost Episode pages. From what I saw, nearly all of the pages don't even HAVE a reference page (not even abc.com) or anything beyond a plot summery and a "meaning of the title" section. Something is seriously wrong with the community if this is to be allowed. -hobo4hire 4:06 PM 4 September 2007 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobo4hire (talk • contribs)

I still say they should all be kept and fixed. I just found out that The Prince of Darkness, the user responsible for this rampage of episode deletions, reported me to Can't Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me for undoing one of his deletions. I'll admit I did it, but only so I could do some expansion on that one. What Prince didn't tell Clown, was that other users have been undoing them as well. And for the record I don't think Monkey Ninjas in Space should be deleted at all. ---- DanTD 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
In my experience, CSCWEM is a fair and intelligent admin who isn't gonna just go and banninate someone for an edit that's considered acceptable. Reverting mass redirects like this--particularly when they're made without any attempts at merging information--isn't something that someone can be blocked for as far as I know. Personally, I think MNiS is an example of a non-notable episode at this point, but if you want to work on expanding and improving it, feel free. Just a week or two ago, I did major work on Ron's article, and may do the same with the other character articles if I have another nothing-happening day to waste. (It was literally three hours' worth of work on Ron's article to clean it up and fully reference things; Shego and Kim's articles are examples of the condition that Ron's article was in before I started.)
I do agree that there IS a notability issue with a number of the episode articles; plenty of KP episodes are nowhere near notable enough for their own article on Wikipedia, and should probably be spun off to a separate KPwiki on Wikia. However, simply redirecting everything isn't the solution, and there's probably about twenty episodes (out of 88) that are notable enough to warrant their own pages on WP itself. The problem now is sorting out which ones are notable, and then expanding and improving their articles to make sure that they're seen as such, and setting up a KPwiki to handle the stuff that's not notable enough for a separate WP article. Rdfox 76 01:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I stated, the only episode merged by CSCWEM that I undid was Naked Genius. Everything else that I and CJK undid was by TPoD. I'll tell you what I think should be done, is to have more of them renamed as Kim Possible episodes, like Sick Day, The Big Job, and other episode titles that seem too generic. I also revived The Cupid Effect, and tried to add a wikiquotes tag to it as an eventual replacement for the existing long list of quotes, but it didn't work out so good. I'd still like to revive Motor Ed, Triple S, Rewriting History, and a few others, but I'm willing to hold off on those until I can get an acceptably decent plot synopsis going. ---- DanTD 01:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to express my support for each episode having an individual article. No admin should be doing any redirecting without consensus. Everyking 05:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy trumps consensus, and WP:NOT is policy. User DanTD's post right above yours is examplary for the difference between the consensus of TV series fans, and the goal and policies of Wikipedia; "I'm willing to hold off on those until I can get an acceptably decent plot synopsis going": no, that's just the point, the plot synopsis should be an extra for the article, not the reason for its existences. The way to write articles about TV episodes is "I'm willing to hold off on those until I can get enough independent information from reliable sources about this specific episode". Wikipedia:Television episodes does say that you shouldn't merge without some discussion, but it also says that you shouldn't create pages which are only or mainly plot summaries. Renaming the articles is not part of the problem: writing decent plot summariees is not part of the problem either. Either provide sufficient independent reliable information about the show, its reception, controversies, ..., or don't create / maintain an article for the episode at all. Fram 11:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There is actually one policy which trumps both WP:Not and WP:Episodes under most-all circumstances (except when invoking it is a WP:Point or WP:BLP violation), I'm loathed to invoke it as it is controversial, but as there is a majority view that KP's overall notability is sufficient for episodes to stand alone regardless both WP:Not and WP:Episode I propose that there is are sufficient grounds for an IAR intervention. - perfectblue 20:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
That's about the most absurd argument I've seen yet to save episode articles. --Jack Merridew 17:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh, more questionable excuses for deletion. Is there going to be some impossible to reach criteria for the definition of "independent information from reliable sources about this specific episode" now? Plot summaries are not extras. If all that's available is the existing plot summary on main episode lists, then I can see leaving well-enough alone. Otherwise, we should be allowed to write reasonable, full episode pages whenever we can. There also seems to be this false impression among the pro-deletion crowd that the only people who are fans of the shows are the ones who think the articles to stay alive. That's not true. There are episodes of M*A*S*H that I utterly despise(Guerilla My Dreams), but I still think any articles on those episodes should stay around. If you keep piling up too much information on the main pages, or even the episode lists, it's going to get to the point where episode articles 'have to be revived. I created episode pages for Daria and Lizzie McGuire, because the info on the episode lists were so long, that they had to be removed. ---- DanTD 13:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't redirect the episodes because I despise them, but because they only contain large plot summaries and no reliable sources (only TV.com and IMDb). They also don't contain a reception section. The Prince of Darkness 14:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Fiction is self referencing. The episode itself contains the plot details while the cast crew and production information are contained in the credits. Anything else be fact tagged. As users were not offered the chance to improve the entires, or even to debate the issues, procedure has clearly been violated. - perfectblue 17:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
First, they are not deleted, they are redirected. It may seem like semantics to you, but on Wikipedia, it is a huge difference (all info is still visible in the history, so if a merge is incomplete or if you wnt to write a good episode page but reuse the plot summary from the previous one, you can easily get to that information). Secondly, the criteria are not "impossible to reach", they are the same for every article: if there are no good, independent, reliable sources (as per our core policy WP:V and the accompanying guideline WP:RS), then there simply should not be an article. We are a tertiary source, not a secondary one. Plot summaries, whether you like it or not, are extras: they provide background to understand the rest of the article about an episode better, they are not the core, the reason of the article. I am not pro- or anti-deletion, I'm trying to maintain the basic Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia policies accept a very broad range of articles, but there are limits, and articles with only or mainly plot summaries fall outside these limits, whether you like it or not. If you pile too much info on the main page, the compromise is to create season articles. If even these get too long, you have to seriously reconsider if all that info is needed. I don't see the need or the justification for Road Worrier (nothing that isn't already in the main list of episodes article) or for e.g. Murder, She Snored (only a plot summary and a trivia collection): these are examples of articles where the info needs to be removed, not split off to a separate article. These articles go against our policies and guidelines (including the TV episodes guideline), and while it would have been nicer of The Prince of Darkness to give some warning and a chance to improve the articles first, his actions (and those of others redirecting the articles) were correct, and recreating the articles (as long as they only contain plot, trivia, and/or quotes) is wrong.Fram 14:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, the details are in previous versions(unless the images are deleted), but with out the details, even the redirected versions might as well be deletions. Road Worrier can and should be expanded, but before I got a hold of it the existing plot summary for The Daria Hunter was right there on the list of episodes, and it was huge before November 9, 2006. And Hobo4Hire also pointed out the absurdity of the selective standards that are used to justify redirection and/or deletion. ---- DanTD 16:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There are no selective standards, there are just pages that have already been redirected and pages that haven't been thus far. I don't think anyone here has said that it's OK for Lost episodes to be only plot summaries, but not for Kim Possible episodes. In fact, I started the same thing for 24 some time ago, but forgot all about it again (see User talk:Fram/Sandbox2). Fram 07:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

hmmmmmmm, maybe SOMEONE doesn't like cartoons?

Actually, by deleting the entries rather than improving them, the above user is violating procedures and is likely committing a WP:Point violation. Also, the AFD guidelines clearly state how these things should go, and things didn't go like that, a rather large policy violation, too. - perfectblue 17:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in Season 4 Production Codes?

Referencing: http://tv.disney.go.com/disneychannel/kimpossible/schedule - The first three seasons are run "in order" following the production code (101, 102... 301, 302...), but the fourth season being shown on Friday runs in an order that seems completely random: 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 409, 411, 408, 407, 412, 410, 414, ... when following wiki's numbers.

On the other hand, it could be that Disney IS following the production code number (in their TV ads they claim to be showing episodes "in order"), and it is wikipedia that is wrong. I'm more inclined to believe Disney's claims of following the proper order, especially since the first three seasons were shown following the production code (101--405), and that wikipedia probably has the incorrect numbers. - Theaveng 15:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I updated the production codes to match Disney's "shown in order" schedule. - Theaveng 12:37, 11 September 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 have certain bad aspects (though all may not apply) like containing overly long or one sentence 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. Otherwise, discussion will take place here. Please remember that this is not a vote. If you like the information, that's fine and dandy, but your opinion doesn't really count towards anything. The only opinions that do count are ones that that lean towards the inclusion of real world information. TTN 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest to improve the whole Episode List article, making a worthy summary, maybe with some illustration, of every episode in the list itself. Maybe the information of each chapter is not worthy by itself to have their own article, but I don't think that loosing all the information would be something wise either.--Alexlayer 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Non-free images cannot be used for list decoration. Just be aware of this point. --MASEM 17:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to object to redirecting the *entire* category at this point; we've got at least a few that currently meet the notability requirements, and are currently very close to meeting all the recommended items in a good TV episode article laid out in WP:EPISODE. Just going by the ones in my watchlist, note that Stop Team Go is missing only the "details on production and broadcast" from those guidelines; it has the brief plot summary; an examination of the psychology behind the gadget-of-the-week, thus satisfying the real-world factors involved in the story; and basic information on critical reception in the form of fan reactions. Is it as thoroughly sourced and fully fleshed-out as I'd like? No. But it's definitely in pretty good shape as it stands now. I'm sure that if I did a systematic search of the episode articles, I'd find at least a few more that should be able to stand on their own.
Note that I'm not saying that every episode article will qualify--for example, I think it'll be hard to find adequate sources to make Rufus vs. Commodore Puddles worth keeping--but at this point, I don't think a mass-redirection of the entire category is in order; we need to be going through it one by one and sort out articles worth keeping. Rdfox 76 22:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, tv.com is not a good source for reception, and the "psychology behind the gadget-of-the-week" is OR, so that episode has nothing that actually places it in good standings. I doubt it could get more than that anyways. Unless something shows real quality, redirecting is the only option. TTN 22:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
How, exactly, is tv.com not a good source for reception by viewers? Can you tell me what's a better source for information on viewer reception? Rather than just argue in favor of redirecting articles that are close to the WP:EPISODE guidelines, collaborate with up, and help us figure out how to bring a few samples of the more notable episodes up to GA standards, so that we can improve the rest of them and thus improve Wikipedia as a whole.
As I said, I don't think we need every single article in the category, but with some of the episodes being arguably notable enough to warrant their own articles, it'd be nice to identify them so that those of us editing these can concentrate our efforts on improving them. It's rather time-consuming to do a large overall improvement of an article; my complete going-over of Ron Stoppable from 22 August (this diff, if you ignore my accidentally throwing in extra CRLFs when I first did it) took me three hours to prepare, and there was virtually no research involved, as it was almost entirely sourcing and copyedits. If we know which articles to concentrate on, and how to fix them, there'll be a much better chance of our getting some GA and possibly even FA episode articles. I would think advice on improving the best of the batch would be much more productive than mere indiscriminate mass-redirections. Rdfox 76 13:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- I have nothing but objections to the whole process. I'm still trying to work on articles for Motor Ed (Kim Possible episode) and Homecoming Upset, and now I find the rest of them face the threat of redirection again! What the hell do you people keep doing this to us for?! It's a pointless waste!! ---- DanTD 03:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Now I find you've successfully redirected every Even Stevens episode! I've got an idea; I say we should all undo every episode article TTN tags for redirection! ---- DanTD 03:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said, it's nice if you like them, but that has no baring on this discussion. You need to provide a reasonable assertion of notability, which these will never have. TTN 04:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
And as I and others have pointed out, that's a load of crap, and has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. Your criteria for notability is bogus! What's next?! Are you going to tag every article on albums made by bands because you think they're not notable either?! It's people like you who make it impossible to write any wikipeida articles! It's also people like you who make me glad I've never attended any wiki-conventions! ---- DanTD 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Note that some of these articles, such as Graduation (Kim Possible), are about episodes that first aired less than one month ago; it's hard to justify claims that articles about such recently-aired shows will never have adequate notability. I'm trying to be civil and mature about the whole issue, but it's not easy to assume good faith when you're being obstinate about refusing to consider any arguments contrary to your position, TTN. Like I said, since Wikipedia is about compromise and consensus, let's hammer out a compromise here. Help us figure out which episode articles are close enough to warrant a concentrated effort to improve, help us figure out HOW to improve them, and then we can redirect the rest, at least until someone writes a new, better version of them.
I'm reaching out a hand to try and work with you here, TTN. Please, take it so that we can build Wikipedia up instead of wasting time and bandwidth with fights over these sorts of issues. Rdfox 76 13:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a fairly popular children's cartoon. Reviewers are not interested in reviewing for children beyond basic levels (You might find a trivial "review" on the Disney site) and the producers are not going to provide major production details for children. There is nothing else to use. The only chance for an episode of a show like this is if it covers something contraversial, placing it in the news. I don't think any on this show have done that. Unless you can show something contrary to that analysis, the larger consensus set by WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS cannot be trumped. TTN 13:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
TTN is right in this regard, and looking through the existing episode articles, there's little outside relevance as compared to , say, most episodes in The Simpsons (season 4). However, the information doesn't need to be lost: this material can be moved over to the Annex until such time someone offers a KPWiki or the like, and the plot descriptions in the episode list can be expanded to be more than a one line recap of the episode, but should not be super-long - no more than a 3-4 sentence paragraph.
What I would suggest is that first, there's no rush to merge/redirect the episode articles, but as they stand, they are among those marked. I would consider making a mini task force to take a block of 4-5 episodes, and work the hardest to try to find outside support for those episodes (limiting the number of episodes so that there is a good drive), including any producers comments or the like. If an episode cannot establish that, then redirect after moving information to the Annex. Wash, rinse, repeat. --MASEM 17:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
For the record, there already is a Kim Possible Wiki, and it would be great if we could shove some of the info that's here over there. But since it's also tied to Wikipedia, I'm afraid that TTN, TPoD, and the episode raiders will go over there and trash them too. I don't know if there's one for That's So Raven, Beavis and Butt-head, The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, Even Stevens, or a lot of other episodes that were trahsed, but "The Annex" looks interesting. ---- DanTD 04:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to redirect these episode articles not very long ago, and since then I haven't seen any improvements. This show is definitely not notable enough to have its on episode articles, so I agree with TTN. The Prince of Darkness 14:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The current guideline is clear that individual episode articles should be redirected absent the assertion of real-world notability backed up by reliable third party sources. This is not the case here and as a result, these should be redirected. Editors who disagree should make their case at the episode guideline as well as the ongoing discussion about notability for fictional topics. As it stands now, the community view is to redirect; weighing in here does not affect that larger consensus. Eusebeus 15:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the probelm is that the criteria for "real-world notability" and "reliable third party sources" is absurdly unreacheble. Not every TV episode can be the "Who Shot J.R.?" episodes of Dallas, or for that matter, wants to be or should be the equivelant of those episodes. Personally, I coulnd't care less who shot J.R., but I'm not going to delete that or any other article on an episode of Dallas, just because I don't like it. This is what The Prince of Darkness & TTN are guilty of doing. For the record, I'm fully aware of the fact that this is a popular Disney Channel cartoon, but I also realize it has a cult following among some adults. At least TTN warned us he plans to dump them all. TPoD snuck right behind our backs and threw them all away. That still doesn't change the fact that both are wrong for doing so. ---- DanTD 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
DanDT has made a good point here - although it doesn't support his position: "real-world notability" and "reliable third party sources" are unreachable for most tv show episodes. This is why most episode articles won't survive any review with an eye towards these issues. That's the facts, Jack Merridew 12:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, Dan, I have nothing against the series. But, the notability and quality of the episodes don't comply with WP:EPISODE, and since no reliable sources can be provided, they should be redirected. The Prince of Darkness 19:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the past rampage of deleting and redirecting by you and others, there doesn't seem to be any such thing as a reliable source. Although the recent troll who claimed that Kim Possible rapes five year olds is an obvious example of somebody who clearly is anything but reliable, especially since he/she was saying that about any topic that was written. Most of us who write these articles do nothing of the sort. Like Rdfox 76, I understand the reasons for redirecting some of the episodes, such as the two I mentioned. But you're advocating making the redirection of everything permanent, and that's something I've got a huge problem with. I had also considered doing some articles on episodes of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, if somebody else doesn't get to them first, but your rampage of redirections has made me wary of even trying to do so. ---- DanTD 23:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I see TTN's also tagging all episode of Beavis and Butt-head for redirection. You just won't leave an episode article alone, will you? It's like I've been saying all along, your standards are unreachable, so NOBODY can write an article on a TV episode of any kind!! ----DanTD 03:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, given the existance of a KP Wiki (which I didn't know about), I'm gonna have to make my position official here...

Transwiki to KP Wiki. Do not merge or redirect episode articles without first transwiki-ing them, as WP:FICT specifically states that merging/redirecting is only to be done if no other options (such as a transwiki to a specialty wiki) are available; since there's a KP Wiki, under WP:FICT, the articles ruled non-notable for Wikipedia need to be moved there instead of simply redirected. Rdfox 76 15:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That can be done over time after by the interested editors. It's easy to take information from redirects, so that won't be a problem. TTN 15:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not just do it straight off? WP:FICT specifically says to transwiki first, then redirect to the transwikied article. It may be slightly more effort than just hitting the "mass-redirect" button on a script, but it reduces the bitching and moaning and gnashing of teeth on both sides of the "inclusionist/exclusionist" issue, and increases the odds of the edit sticking instead of someone who doesn't know about transwiki-ing going and reverting the redirect.
As a side note, I may be able to get production information from the production staff for at least a few episode articles that are close to meeting notability requirements; I'll keep you posted on the results there. Rdfox 76 16:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Listen, I'm sorry to step in late on this, but I actually think Rdfox has a good idea. If we can save the images when we Transwiki, that would be even better. And if we can click on the existing list of episodes, and wind up on the new KP:Wiki pages, that would be just as good. And the same should be for all TV series articles facing the threat of redirection, not just Kim Possible. In the meantime, I say we should send a lot of the other TV series articles that TTN redirected earlier, and send them over there as well. Since there's no EvenStevensWiki, if nobody starts one, I will. I could even do a few others ---- DanTD 22:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above, I am in favor of keeping all episode articles, but when there's so much deletionism to deal with, and they've strategically worked deletionism into policy and guidelines, the only option is to take the time to dig up sources on individual episodes to demonstrate their notability and accept the redirecting of the ones without sources, at least in the short term. I'm sure there are sources for "Graduation" out there, so that would be a good one to start with. Probably there are a least a few others with good sources, perhaps "Crush". In addition to press articles and reviews, look for interviews with the writers and producers where they talk about the individual episodes. Everyking 06:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna dig into my various sources to try and find as much information on "Graduation" and "Stop Team Go" as possible; I have a feeling that, the more recent the episode, the easier it'll be to find information for them. Graduation needs a complete rewrite anyway, as the plot summary is WAY too detailed... Rdfox 76 12:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you Transwiki images too? Thanks to TTN, the images I made and used for episodes of Even Stevens are being tagged for deletion left and right. I tried to do it myself, but it didn't work. ----DanTD 18:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Dunno, but I expect you may have to reupload them to the KPwiki; I've honestly never done a transwiki myself. Rdfox 76 22:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I just reviewed A Very Possible Christmas and it utterly failed guidelines. It was all plot and trivia with no assertion of notability, or references of any sort. I've redirected it to the LOE. Next. --Jack Merridew 10:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Users who delete content rather than improve it or tag it for others to improve are not the kind of editors I feel actually understand the purpose of the Wiki model. There are processes and procedures to go through and you appear to ignored them all. If you are not willing to improve something then you should have tagged it to raise awareness that there were issues. Failing to do so weakens the community. - perfectblue 17:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


What do you mean "no assertion of notability or reference?" It referred to one of the most famous Christmas Specials of the 1960's, and should've had two others. Granted, one piece of trivia should've been added to the article itself, but I took care of that. ----DanTD 18:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


  • Strong Objection The suggesting user appears to either be completely unaware of this show, or to be committing a clear violation of Wikipedia anti-disruption regs. KP is a global franchise that has been translated into a dozen languages and broadcast the world over. Shear viewing figures alone make every single episode notable. In fact KP is SO notable that it even has a regular slot on red China's FLAGSHIP childrens' channel. Even communist dictatorships screen it.
Also, many episodes were written as a response to fan reactions to previous episodes, this grants them additional notability. - perfectblue 17:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
That's surprisingly quite interesting, perfectblue. ----DanTD 18:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
One thing I know for sure, the show is screened in nations like Saudi Arabia, which aren't exactly known for encouraging images of strong female characters, even in children's programming. ---- DanTD 21:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Staunchly Object I've been an anonymous Wikipedia user and contributor for quite some time; anonymous, because not only do I hate registrations, I also believe that contributing to Wikipedia isn't about the edit count or barnstars and such "geek awards" or climbing the Wiki social ladder, but about providing information you have and helping others with it. That's why I absolutly detest when an undeserving butt-head admin destroys hours of work done by industrious (often anonymous) Wikipedians with one click on some vague grounds, just 'cause "he feels like it".

BTW, the fragmentation of the Wiki project with Wikias and such, is in my opinion a violation of the fundamental premise of Wikipedia of having ALL, I repeat, ALL knowledge concentrated, cross-referenced and easy to find in one spot. BTW once more, there's a whole shit-load of Star Wars and Star Trek crap on WP (and I'm not just talking about episodes), but I don't see admins intervening there (The Geek Caucus might up and leave - LOL; and what would WP do w/o geeks - don't answer that!). Double standards, if ever. OK, got a little off topic here, but this is an issue skulking for quite a while. In my opinion nothing, apart from vandalism or correcting mistakes, should EVER be removed Miha Zadnik of Slovenia, 15th Oct '07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.56.89 (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Utterly disgusting that TTN would do this. User needs blocked from all TV related articles at best. 20.132.69.41 20:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)