Talk:List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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 21:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at every other television show on Wikipedia, I fail to see what sets MITM apart. Some, like the Simpsons and South Park, have articles for every single episode. It would be interesting to see someone make the case that every single one was notable enough to warrant its own article. Now I'm not saying that MITM doesn't have problems; some articles are more professionally written than others, but that is mainly due to how much members care to contribute. I for one have been working to make this a more complete list, writing articles for episodes which do not already have them (something which I will continue to do). I would suggest that changes be made to the longer articles which currently exist, rather than indiscriminate removal. But for now, I would not be opposed to redirecting the stub pages which simply repeat the one-sentence description given in the list. -- stupid sexy Flanders 04:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Followup: If you could provide an example of what kind of real-world information would qualify, I'd be happy to go through and modify these articles to provide it. Call it nepotism, but it takes me a while to write these articles and I would rather make the change than wipe it all out. -- stupid sexy Flanders 05:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Real world information means non-trivial production and response notes from the producers and reviewers. You could possibly find it for the first and last episodes, but I doubt you'll get it for many others. But, it probably wouldn't hurt for you to try. TTN 13:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll get started looking, but since nothing past season one was ever put on DVD this information may be a bit obscure. Is there an existing Wiki article on an episode of a TV show that you would suggest I look to as a good example for inclusion of RW information, or any other kinds of information which may not be quite so difficult to track down which would qualify as RW info? Thanks. -- stupid sexy Flanders 03:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll be redirecting these now. As of yet, there has been no substantial reason for these to stick around. If you ever do find real world information (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage#Featured articles for examples), you are free to bring them back. If anything will have information, the pilot and finale will be the most likely choices. TTN 21:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Seven days with no response to my questions, then indiscriminate redirection of every article without further notice. The pilot episode was redirected and reverted more than four times without discussion. This is not consensus, or even debate. If every notable episode has to have some sort of political or social double-meaning, then it really limits the very genres of TV shows that even have a place on wikipedia. I don't want to fight the whole topic as I'll consider myself lucky to get a response here at all, but I just want one thing clarified: what exactly was wrong with the content in the pilot episode article? It made reference to production, cross-referencing DVD content to broadcast episodes. What specifically was missing?

I for one intend to start work on an article for Bowling. If winning an Emmy is not notable enough in a real-world context, then this entire policy is clearly in need of revision. -- stupid sexy Flanders 00:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. We are not here as a guide to your favorite show (that would be tv.com). If an episode doesn't have any real world impact, it doesn't belong. The pilot is not sourced, and the information presented is fairly trivial on its own. Winning an Emmy asserts notability, but if that is the only thing that you can type, the article cannot stand on its own. In the very least, you need one well sourced paragraph each for a development section and a reception section. TTN 00:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page, TTN, this is not true. I'll copy my comments here: That the episodes are covered by tv.com only bolsters the argument against your censorship: Wikipedia's goal is stated as follows: "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available...". Wikipedia policy on notability says that "notable" is defined as "worthy of notice" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Yes, tv.com is the best place to look for it NOW, now that you've dismantled all the interesting information about the show that WAS on Wikipedia. You're tearing down the body of knowledge, while others are trying to build it. Geĸrίtz (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)