Home	Talk	Contributions	Projects	Miscellaneous pages	Userboxes	Cheatsheet	Vandals, bad sources etc

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31

Archive index (Discussions here are automatically indexed by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot)

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

It is approximately 6:36 AM where this user lives (Raymond Terrace, New South Wales). [refresh]

I am wondering as to why I can not "split" the episode list. Every show that I see has this type of Set- up. And I am doing it by the book as to what Wikipedia and HTML likes. So Please Help me understand why you are erasing my work. All that I am doing is trying to keep the episode list more organized. It makes it easier to go around and only has the information that is need. Episode list should only need the episode. Season Pages, in example Grey's Anatomy Season 1, are they type of pages that need to description of the episodes. So Please contact me back and explain to me what I am doing wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerems45 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've indicated on your talk page twice now, there is a standing consensus not to split the article. Accordingly, no split should occur until it is discussed on the article's talk page and a new consensus is reached. You can view the discussion here. The splitting has not been carried out in accordance with WP:SPLIT and the article is at the wrong location. There is no point splitting an episode list unless you add significant extra content, as recommended by MOS:TV. Simply adding cast information is not sufficient. Splitting one article into multiple articles without good reason makes navigation more difficult for readers and there is no justification for series with a single season, as was the case when you split List of Ringer episodes. WP:SIZERULE recommends that consideration be given to splitting articles once an article reaches 50-60kB of readable prose. Even using a very loose interpretation of the definition of readable prose, the amount of readable prose in the current version of the article is only 24kB,[1], which is well below WP:SIZERULE's upper limit of the "Length alone does not justify division" category. Splitting is typically reserved for shows with several seasons, making the "List of" article overly long, and that just isn't the case here, even after three full seasons. Based on article growth to date and current size I don't see a need until after season seven, unless substantial season specific content can be added to the season articles. Without that extra content, splitting forces the reader to look in multiple articles for the most basic episode content that is currently all available in a single article. It makes far more sense to include everything in one page if the only substantial content is the episode tables. The cast and characters information can be included here if necessary, although that should be limited to seasonal cast changes, since the cast is already handled in the main article. Managing multiple articles is almost always more unwieldy than managing one so a split should only occur when necessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up! I just reverted yet another split against consensus. It seems to be the same couple people over and over again. --Drmargi (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think an editor with 181,000 edits to his name would know how to split an article properly.[2] --AussieLegend (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? What bothers me is editors make the splits like lemmings: because the see other editors do it, with no thought for why, or how it affects readers' access to content. Then we get the rationale such as above. 8/10 would be better undone and the content confined to one article.--Drmargi (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see Jerems45 is at it again. I reverted him on the Rizzoli and Isles episode article, which he split. I didn't get to see the season articles; another editor dove in and redirected before I had a chance to recommend deletion. I just left a message alongside your latest recommending he work with you, or at least start talking. We can only hope he will. --Drmargi (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just made an edit at the So Random! episodes page as you can see here. I noticed they list the Justin Bieber and the China Anne McClain episode as #326. Should I still keep it listed or is that not a reliable reference anymore? Should we keep it in case Disney made a mishap and they may change it? I'm not sure how to go about it. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have to go by what the source says. That they've got two with 326 is confusing, but we can't speculate as to which is correct. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking. It could be they put the wrong number but until Futon Critic changes something different, I'll make a hidden note that both number's are correct. - Alec2011 (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to clear up a backlog of split tags. This article has a split tag and it appears concensus at the discussion to do the split. However, when I tried to do the split, I found a stern warning placed by you not to do so without discussion. Can you confirm that you are ok with me making the split? If you are not, can you place a justification as to why on the talk page and remove the split tag? Op47 (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the discussion the result appears to be "no consensus to split at this time". --AussieLegend (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Op47 (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know this was dicussed already with a deep discussion that you participated in but I'd like you to look at this. Someone else started a new discussion and I agree. The first discussion was when the show just started. I think it should only be listed as 1 episode each. The Fox website has the fist episode listed as Genesis and the final episode lasted as Occupation/Resistance as episode 1 and episode 11. The Futon Critic lists the first episode as Genesis and the link says the "2-hour Series Premiere" meaning it was one continuous episode. Same with episode 11. iTunes lists episode 1 as Genesis as 1:26:25 so it's one episode. - Alec2011 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 14:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Can you point out the text bit that supports your revert over that of Steelbar's? The inclusion of the table seems a bit more concise and more accessible to the casual/regular reader, and the preference of prose would seem to not apply to where else the program is broadcast. Call me curious. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your curiosity is entirely understandable. As per WP:TABLE, tables "should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list." (emphasis added) MOS:TV#Broadcast says "When detailing a show's international broadcasting, simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged, Wikipedia is not a television guide. Apart from the channel of origin for the series, editors are encouraged to instead detail English-speaking countries that the series appears through prose form." (emphasis added) The table is probably a better way of presenting the content that's presently in the article, but that creates the problem of a table that people will populate with unencyclopaedic information contravening MOS:TV#Broadcast - It happens far too often. As per MOS:TV#Broadcast, the broadcast section shouldn't simply be a list, it should contain encyclopaedic information prefereably presented in prose form. The section needs to be written in a way that complies with MOS:TV and that won't fit into a table. If what's there now is converted to a table, it will always be a non-compliant table. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not ad that's evidence that will turn this episode. (Wnnse (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I'm really not sure what you're saying. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand wanting to summarize, and my contribution did that. A couple of points. Firstly, my summary removes the repeating of the same information in two consecutive sentences -- fourteen episodes. Secondly, you mentioned the restoring of an episode "count" in the remarks and returned to the use of "as of". Since the season has ended, the count has completed and is no longer on-going; however, the use of "as of" suggests an on-going count and creates a false impression that more episodes will follow. I certainly don't mind the use of "as of" -- but only if the count is on-going (i.e., if or when the second season begins to air). Right now, it is not.

Please reconsider the following:

"The first season of Pan Am, consisting of fourteen episodes, premiered on ABC on September 25, 2011 and ended on February 19, 2012."

It summarizes that the first season and the fourteen episodes aired between the two dates.Television fan (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an IP editor who keeps season span information to the character list in the infobox despite the edit note preceding the list. I have already reverted three of these edits and have tried to discuss this with said editor on his/her talk page. However, what's really frustrating is that if I revert his edit again, then I technically will have violated WP:3RR, but this editor does not seem to want to discuss this change at all. I have no idea what to do; would you please advise? This would be helpful to know for future reference if nothing else. Davejohnsan (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand the purpose of WP:3RR but it does become frustrating when there's an editor like this. I've lost track of the number this has happened at kids' TV program articles where I've been the only adult editing the page. Generally, requesting page protection at WP:RFPP has been the fastest way to stop IPs edit-warring but, in this case, taking it to WP:3RRN was the best way to address the issue. I wouldn't be too worried when you get to 3 reverts as programs like Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory are watched by many editors and somebody is bound to come along and fix it, even if you can't. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the deleted episode summary at Big Bang Theory. I wrote that straight out of my head (though others subsequently edited it). Perhaps another website copied wikipedia, that happens often. Czolgolz (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what was the consensus on that debate? -Fumitol|talk|cont 18:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the weight is against a split. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses. A user just commented there in defense of it a day ago and is coming back. Discussion has continued once again. - Jabrona - 02:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the user returns it will continue but there is still no convincing evidence that we should include a split in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by there still being convincing evidence that we should include a split in the article? - Jabrona - 02:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo, I missed a word. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to think you nearly had me there for a second. Oh well. It's a pity you think that way because I see all the convincing evidence there is and I provided more than enough of it. I don't want to keep bickering at this, but I will do so because I know it's the case. - Jabrona - 03:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we provided more than enough information that a split didn't occur. It's a pity you think that way because I see you'll do anything to keep this from happening and from what I've seen discussed on the iCarly Talk Page, a merge will happen weather you like it or not. This isn't Jabronapedia, it's Wikipedia and you need to follow their rules, NOT your own. The way you've acted towards other users, you've already broken the Civility of Wikipedia. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A split occurred and you're not going to tell me otherwise because you don't want it to be the case. Plus, you like to bring up iTunes at times regarding how an episode is listed on there and whether a one-hour special counts as one or two episodes. Well look at how it happens to have this show's seasons listed as. And further more I was hardly being rude and trying not to be while being tripled teamed here by three people and had to hold up a good defense. I've been spoke too twice regarding civility a while back throughout this whole thing so don't get yourself carried away with that because of us lately having a heated discussion. I certainly don't want to argue all of this with you on Aussie's page. - Jabrona - 04:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see why you need the Short Summary section (as you stated here) if there is no summary? It's used elsewhere on other episode pages where they remove the Short Summary when new episodes are added with just the title and airdate. Where's the rule that states it has to be there? - Alec2011 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule that anything on the page has to be there, but it's inconsistent to not include the field in only a few episodes. If there's no current use for the field, then it can be commented out, but it shouldn't be removed. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "hide it?" They are removed on the ones I've seen, but I can hide it. The one you removed it from had 4 episode summaries hidden, that's more than a few. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant hide it, although hiding the episode summaries seems a pointless waste of time. Four isn't more than a few, it's pretty much the definition of a few. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]