Knowledge talk:Television episodes/Archive 2

1778:

Obviously, there's a certain percent of pedians who don't find them to be encyclopedic. You didn't find my changes to that one episode to make it worthy of being kept. Some editors would like to even get rid of the super well cited ones (not saying you). Then there's another percent that wants to keep them all. Finally, we fight about it. That's about it. I've participated in maybe 50 episode AfDs in the last six months, and I think 1 or 2 of those came out as delete. We do have a precedent for these articles, it just isn't the one that you want. -

31: 1423:). WP:EPISODE, however, does not actually discuss the langauge and typography of articles. Rather, it talks about a recommended procedure to determine when to place episode information either in the main article of a show, in a summary list of episodes or in its own article. So this isn't really a "style" guideline in the conventional sense. It's a guideline on deciding whether or when to separate something into its own article. 696:. It's basically saying that if you can fit the useful info in the main article, do that. If not, then try a list article summarizing the episodes. Only use individual episode articles if there's actually enough information to warrant it. It also outlines some of the problems you might encounter with episode summaries that rely too heavily on just going through plot details. Seems like a reasonable, straightforward procedure. 1732:, we really need to set one up. There will always be gray areas, but there should be some sort of definitive line going against episode articles for every random show that people feel like glorifying. Seeing that the arguments for keeping are mainly just "they can be improved" when nothing shows that is possible, and worthless arguments like "why not?" and "all or nothing", I see no reason why this cannot happen. 1643:, but they aren't quite the same. Now if WP:N were replaced by something like WP:INCLUSION, I'd support labelling WP:EPISODE as a subject-specific subguide for WP:INCLUSION. But since WP:EPISODE doesn't talk about whether or not a particular episode has been the subject of outside publications, it therefore doesn't directly address questions of an episode's notability and hence is not a notability guide. 1970:

the episodes and just adding cruft, then someone needs to explain it to them. Once again, the reason why most episodes aren't cited is because they cannot be properly cited by anything besides themselves and a few trivial sources. Certain episodes of a series may need an article if there is either controversy over them or they are really, really popular.

428:. The LOE page is great. The individual episode pages are worthless. OR, no sources, trivia all over, etc. Plus its just not that notable of a show enough to earn dozens of individual episode pages. Not that those pages actually have anything significant, notable and sourced, to add on top of the LOE page anyway. Check out 1893:

by Peregrine Fisher shows that the only information that can be used is trivial at best. I haven't put any up for deletion myself, but I can see why one would want to. Even then, people are just going to place them up randomly anyways, but if they didn't exist in the first place, it wouldn't really matter.

1903:

agree that a number of the opinions to keep the articles are nothing more than variants of "it's interesting", but I think it's unfair to label everyone a "fan". A lot of the people suggesting "keep" would do so for any programme ... surely they're not fans of every TV show that's represented on Knowledge.

172:, I see no particular reason not to put that in the article for the episode without digging out a book to "prove" it. However, those who do insist on printed sources will be pleasantly surprised with how easy they are. There are published episode guides in book form for many series, from the obvious ( 2400:

Is the intention of this guideline to get episode articles mass blanked? I know it says its a mere guideline but there are people who treats this far more seriously than a policy. There is at least one user who is quoiting this policy to blank multiple articles even when sourced or more detailed than

2248:

The problem that I see is that notability may not automatically equal content. If the episode was really popular, but we can only dig up a plot summary and the award, there isn't much of a point. The award could probably be tagged on to something like the episode list if that is the case). The strong

1902:

I agree that the overproliferation of such articles is undesirable, but don't think AfD is the appropriate way to handle them. In any mass AfD nomination of episode articles, I recommend "keep all to allow discussion" unless the AfD is the result of a consensus at the main article's talk page. Now, I

1892:

The problem is that it cannot be discussed due to the fans, so it will always either end up in their favor, unless they give up, or at an AfD. Look at the one I linked to; you cannot discuss with them. It's always "they can be improved to the state example articles" (GAs and FAs), yet a prime example

1777:

I know that some people don't understand. We go through this every week. All episodes have two reliable sources; the ep itself, and imdb (and others) for cast information. Those two things are enough for any episode (IMHO). We then add reviews and other info when we can, to make them even better.

1759:

I really don't get you. You constantly blurt out "improve them", but you never state how they can be brought up to standards. Your example in the AfD shows absolutely nothing besides the lack of important information. You should at least bring one non-notable episode up to GA status before using that

1638:

I'm with Black Falcon on those points. Keep in mind that "Notability" is not quite identical to "article inclusion". Notability refers to answering the question "is this topic notable among professionals writing about the subject area?" Article inclusion is the slightly different question "is this

1553:

In the end, though, whether you consider it a "guideline" or a "style guideline" makes no difference. The bottom line is whether or not you agree with the procedure described in the article and how much editorial consensus that procedure has. In this case it appears the procedure has good consensus,

537:

has been under discussion for some time, but not listed as a proposal. Discussion had died down, but was recently revived by several editors. It was posted as an approved guideline this morning, while I don't believe that it has sufficient consensus or breadth of discussion to receive that status.

393:

I'm kind of coming around to the idea of season pages, although I really dislike how you can't individualize cast, EL, infobox, etc. Even if I change my mind, though, the cats out of the bag. Every new season of a major show is going to get individual episode pages, and when people see them for one

327:

Are we ready to change the guideline to reflect what's going on so that they are descritive instead of prescriptive? In particular, the stuff about making season pages, then episode pages. The only shows left with season pages are a few of the older ones that were created back when that seemed like

104:

I think plot summaries is one of those things where people can take the "no original research" rule a bit too literally. Apart from the episode itself, what else can we use as the source for a summary? A pre-existing plot summary? we still can't use it word for word, so most likely, we'll just end up

2504:

blatant disrespect for your fellow Wikipedians, and blatant disrespect for Knowledge guidelines and policy, is no longer acceptable. It's extremely well documented how disruptive you've been over this in the past, and over other issues, and if you want to dig all that up again, then fine with me. --

2474:

Any anime that actually aired (in the form of OVA, theater, TV) is quite notable if you ask me. I feel the spirit of this guideline is to limit the creation of too many redundant stub articles and not require blanking of every anime stub. The guideline specifically states that stubs aren't outlawed.

1834:

I feel your pain, Nemu. I wish there was a way to go back in time and stop these fires from starting in the first place. Right now we are at the mercy of fans and misguided but well-indented Wikipedians. These articles are crap, they violate our policies and guidelines, but that all gets ignored and

1735:

We need to be able to avoid the hundreds of inevitable AfDs, so at least something basic needs to be done. Obviously this is a constant and ongoing discussion, but it would be nice to try to gain at least a little headway. If there is currently another discussion going on somewhere else, can someone

1545:

Besides which I don't recall this being tagged as a "notability guideline" in the first place. It was tagged as a "guideline" - the word "notability" wasn't in the tag. The guideline tag only refers to the level of editorial consensus on the procedure described in the article, not whether it has to

1474:

that targets a subset of fictional works. In my view, its value stems from the fact that it suggests a comprehensive method for developing articles about a television programme and also provides guidance on writing high-quality articles on TV episodes. That is certainly characteristic of a Manual of

1365:

You are correct that other Knowledge policies already recommend not doing that. That's why this guideline should not be a "notability" guideline, but rather a style guideline. Firstly, it's not written as a notability guideline. Secondly, as a notability guideline, it is currently much stricter than

272:

Thank you. That's why I get so nitpicky about sources. These things can be VERY easy to source with just a modicum of effort. For things that happen in an episode, the episode itself is a fine source (provided one actually cites it). The problem arise when people try to link 2 works together and

167:

I expressed my feelings on this over a year ago, and I'll reiterate it here: when it comes to obvious, noncontroversial information about the basic contents of a major TV show, the show itself can be used as a source, within reason. For example, if I watch a Star Trek episode and the credits say it

1969:

I'm not even talking about citations for the anons. If you look at most of the episode lists, most are completely bare, while the episodes are full of crap. If we can direct anons to them, let them do their thing, and have actual editors clean them, that could work. If actual editors are working on

659:

You are reading it wrong in that case. The idea is that the guideline says: "nothing wrong about an episode article, but consider the fact if it's ever gonna contribute more then a "list of episodes". If not, redirect to the list of episodes, otherwise leave as stub for expansion. That's the way we

371:

Stubs are only one method of expansion, but they've been abused far too much for fiction and TV episodes. There's no reason we can't start expansion on an LOE or a season/ story arc article. In reality, the vast majority of these stubs will only expand in needless plot summary, never getting proper

353:

I agree that it's unfortunate that people create a bunch of small pages instead of working on smaller numbers of large pages. That doesn't mean we should allow stubs to be deleted. Deletion just puts us in a cylce of recreating stubs and never getting to the actual expansion. The sooner stubbing

1046:

Well, I feel more comfortable that we are getting some discussion here. I'd like to see the procedure for proposal advertisement much more clear and consistent including inclusion under the proposal section of the incguide template. I'm sure that there are customs and alternatives, but we should

968:

I absolutely agree with that. With the current wording it makes recommendations, but then recommends not deleting articles no matter what, regardless if they don't follow the recommendations or even other WP policies. Not every TV episode needs its own article, and this should allow for deciding

398:

and liked it so much, I promptly made 50 illustrated LOEs. The problem is, I didn't start adding references to articles until about my 5000th edit. I think it's partly because their were still important LOEs to be made. If every LOE, and every episode, was finished as far as primary sources can

2577:

as a reference, I would agree with this as well, desite wanting to create the episode articles. I realize that the information is either simply not there for what is being asked, or would be massively difficult to find. Episode guides aren't mandatory anyway, and it would be easier on editors for

2321:

didn't win any awards but have a cult status that has resulted in multiple published works with behind-the-scenes history and information about the show and individual episodes. So the individual episodes of "Batman" are, in fact, notable in the conventional sense of having been written about by

1355:

It's not a change, text along those lines has been in since this was first created. I can see your point, but without some mention of independent sources, the section because meaningless since if the only source required is the episode itself, you're saying it's OK to make articles with only one

2528:

The articles has reliable sources. The episodes themselves for instance are a primary source. I am not making this up. Go watch the episode, its there. If you have a problem with that, please mass blank practically every Star Trek episode article. Ned Scott as for air, I am not the one removing

1944:

Anyways, we really need to at least try to get people to focus their energy on something like making the lists into featured lists. That way, the content is neatly presented without presenting unnecessary information. Then we should give something like a specific wiki on Wikia as an alternative

1408:

I think the above is a little misleading since, far as I know, the guideline tag doesn't say "inclusion/exclusion". Rather, it says that this article "...is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be

2442:

slack, as I know there are TONS of real-world info that can be added. Right now CCS is mostly plot-summary, but it's not being cut because there is reasonable potential for the amount of plot summary being used. Well, I'd probably still merge some of the lesser characters, and things do need a

741:

a notability guideline. Despite my previous comment, I must note that the proposed text leaves unclear the issue of what to do with stub-length articles. Stubs are allowed to exist and episode stubs should be no exception. Merging is not always appropriate as it can clutter the target article.

1927:

I have never claimed that it was truly the proper way to deal with them, but that is how it does happen most of the time. The majority on the AfD probably aren't fans; I meant to differentiate between the two, and just say those are the fans' arguments. This is why we need to be able to set a

1393:

I have added a disputed tag to this guideline. If you note the discussion in the section "Note" of this talk page, it seems clear (at least to me), that this guideline has consensus support only as a style guideline and not an "inclusion/exclusion guideline" ... that's a direct quote from the

1628:

I can offer three reasons. First, this guideline already suggests ways of dealing with low-quality TV episode articles. So, a separate guideline is redundant. Second, from what I've seen at AfD, there is no consensus for specific inclusion/exclusion parameters for TV episodes. So, a separate

505:

because I think it's bad practice to start creating articles for episode that haven't aired yet, aren't named yet, and aren't officially announced yet. I think this is something that many people that took part in this discussion might have something to say about, so i'm leaving this message.

141:

More importantly, if a show has no 3rd party coverage, and the only source is the show itself, then the show is probably not notable enough to be in the encyclopedia. We do not need or want articles on every single episode of (insert your favorite show here). A show should only be in the

2478:

Ned you do not get to "give slack", such a function wasn't granted to any editor. You do not own articles or entire article types. You cannot wage a war by giving slack to anime you like/care about/whatever and dismiss anything else agonizing the editors working on them. Knowledge isn't a

1436:

Thank you for your response. However, I must disagree on two points. Style guides do not address only details of language usage, but also discuss what type of content ought to be included in articles and how it ought to be organised. Two that are especially relevant to this guideline are

2550:

Seconded. If the only thing you can write about an episode are the "plot summary" and a guest star, airdate and writer, then it just doesn't deserve an article. If there are production or reception details that make it more special then that, then you can consider a seperate article.

2470:

As for Air anime is remarkably notable, and has even been licensed (finally) in the US - which will generate English reviews no doubt. Furthermore Air's main article is a "Good Article" with limited room to grow left which alone should be more than enough to allow the creation of sub

2333:

Agree with Dugwiki, if there is source indicating the episode has won an award, then ok, there is verifiable content. If there is other verifiable content the article is viable. Otherwise, the article should redirect until verifiable content from secondary sources can be found.

2285:

Oh, I just read into "An episode is notable if:" thinking that was what would define the need for the articles. If that goes up, I do think it should be worded the other was because I'm sure we would be getting people arguing about which awards are notable and stuff like that.

1546:

do with "notability". As to the "style guideline tag" versus "guideline tag", liek I said above I think style guideline tags are better suited to articles which talk about text formatting within an article as opposed to whether or not to have an article in the first place.

1196:

The step described by the fourth bullet in section 2 above (bold)was omitted; while no longer an issue in my mind, this is what led to my confusion. Seeing this pop up in the Incguide with a brand-new guideline tag several days ago without explanation was also confusing.

931:, who sometimes seems to think this guideline supports creating articles for ALL TV episodes. In light of that. perhaps the "in general don't list at AfD point should be updated to better clarify that the options in general are "redirect to list of episodes" or "stub". -- 1314:...can never be attained by most episodes because they can never achieve notability outside the realm of their own TV show. Thus they don't deserve separate articles. Some episodes have certainly achieved notability and therefore deserve separate articles, such as most 1876:

the articles for deletion. In this case, rather than taking the articles to AfD at the first hint of a dispute, the appropriate action would have been to start a discussion at the main article's talk page. What happened in this case could have been a prime instance of

2361:

An episode is notable if there is verifiable content and analysis about production, continuity, cultural references, and broadcast. If this guideline cannot be fulfilled, it is wiser, to redirect to a List of Episodes instead, with a short synopsis of the plot in the

2466:

Actually I wasn't specifically complaining about Air... Information on anime or any non-English works to be more spesific is often not available in English. Furthermore such information is often only available in written form (as in magazine reviews) and etc and not

1237:

You're splitting hairs. I'm no longer disputing this as a guideline. My point is that procedure wasn't followed which caused confusion. There is no basis for your sarcasm above about me "mandating" etc. Let's drop it and just be more careful in the future.

844:

It has been a guideline for a full year now, only the tag was lacking. Please read up on the history of the page. At the moment you are the one who is (yes, unilaterally) trying to change an accepted long-standing guideline into a proposal. This is in error.

1928:

precedent. If "n's" episodes cannot have at least "x", than they should be confined to the list. I agree consensus should be kept if there is a true basis, but if it's just a bunch of fans and major inclusionists, something needs to be done to override it.

1409:

treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Notice that nowhere in that text does it say this is "inclusion/exclusion".

705:

I quite like it too-cover in the main article initially, diversify into seasons as more sourcing becomes available, then if it turns out an individual episode is so heavily covered it can support its own article, split it out. Seems entirely logical to me.

751:

OK, I'm done. I added a few sentences to the "Dealing with problem articles" section. I think the ideas expressed there apply to most merges and redirects and feel it's better to emphasise them in this proposed guideline. Also, I disagree with a part of

1661:

I would clarify and say we should leave the parts that have consensus in place. It sounds like the notabilityguide template tag was a more recent addition from March that doesn't necessarily have the same level of consensus as the rest of the guide.

1799:

The existance of the episode itself is not evidence for its notability. If it is, then the stubble I washed down the plughole last time I shaved my legs is also halfway to having its own article, because hey, it has a reliable source - itself!

596:

the main article; then, if verifiable information exists, create subtopics. My impression it's a reasonable compromise between differing points of view and, unless any new objections are raised, see no reason why it shouldn't be a guideline. --

2312:

One issue I have with the suggestion above is that it implies episodes and shows are only notable if they "win awards". That isn't true, though, as notability actually refers to whether or not the subject has been written about previously (see

335:

The battle was not lost, it's just that newbies (and old user) can turn out hundreds of episode articles on a whim, with no requirements whatsoever. How is that a good reason to keep them? In a matter of minutes I can create 50 or so stubs for

1629:

guideline may not be possible. Third, the topic is simply too specific. The notability guidelines for people and music are very broad and apply to more than 100,000 articles each (a guess on my part, but I feel it's a reasonable one). --

2518:

policy makes very clear that "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Knowledge should not have an article on it.". This guideline indicates that such articles should be merged or redirected, which is sensible enough.

1906:

Discussion on the main article's talk page is the best course of action. Despite all claims to the contrary, AfD really is an "all or nothing" atmosphere ... either something's kept or it's deleted ... that isn't entirely conducive to

2210:, where continuity is looser, this should not be needed. If it is not possible for these guidelines to be met, it is best to merge them into a List of Episodes - but if a select episode is notable while others are not (in the case of 123:

if it's genuinly just a summary based on simple observation. HOwever, if people are adding their own original theories, own original interpretations or commentary or thoughts into the summary, then IMO that would be a OR violation.

1955:

I don't think the people making the ep pages are going to work on featuring lists. The reason episodes aren't cited up the wazoo is because, unfortunately, their editors don't fully understand how to make an article well cited. -

1560:

OK, then. Since a guideline is a guideline, then this discussion is pretty much unnecessary. The only reason this became an issue was that after I changed the header to clarify (at least in my mind) that this is a style guideline

1394:

discussion. I was one of the people who supported making this a style guideline, but I absolutely oppose its existence as a notability guideline. The guideline itself is structured like a syle guideline, giving information about

328:

a good idea, and they have to be constantly defended from change. Every new show I can think of does it with episode pages. The "battle" over episode pages was lost some time ago, can we update this guideline so it's useful? -

822:

And it was a damn well advertised discussion as well, with quite a lot of participation. This "closed discussion" has also already repeatedly been acted upon in the past year as "See WP:EPISODE for the concensus on episode

1207:

Section two says "try to include". These are suggestions and are not intended as mandatory. I've given you an explanation several times (that Inshaneee closed the discussion a year ago) and you've never responded to that.

502: 760:, but will leave it for now pending comments by others. Also, I propose that additional comments specifically about this proposed guideline be made at its talk page (maybe after copy-pasting the discussion here). -- 2540:

That is fine if you want to have just a plot summary, but an episode article needs production and reception details. The episode cannot be used to cite those. For that, it needs reliable, third-party sources.

1915:

no consensus to redirect the articles, then it's best to let the issue drop for a while (or try to improve the articles yourself). No matter how much we disagree with it, we shouldn't override consensus. --

1414:

Since I think there is relatively clear consensus that the article present a generally accepted procedure to follow when writing articles about television episodes, the text in the guideline tag is correct.

571:

If, as the subtopic grows within its parent article, enough verifiable and reliable source material can be found to support an independent article on the subject, the material should be moved to its own

518:

be, very impressive. I believe the basic principles here (cover under a parent topic if little information is available, split out if more sourcing is found) could be applied to just about everything.

2500:

As for Air, we've been over all of this before, and you are being disruptive at this point. If you do not see the evidence of the consensus then you are blind. I'm sorry to put it so rudely, but your

568:

If you can find little information on a subject, it may be appropriate for mention in a parent article. If no such suitable parent can be found, the topic is not suitable for an article at this time.

2497:

have additional real-world information on them. On such articles no other editors have done so as well, nor have I ever prevented them from doing so. You've taken my words completely out of context.

793:, which means it was advertised all over the wiki. There was a centralized discussion which ended about a year ago with the conclusion that "a consensus was reached to accept the guidelines below." 1857:

Yeah, they do violate policies. They only stay because AfDs are votes in this case, and people constantly wikilawyer of the specific points of GLs and policies, instead of actually following them.

340:

given TV show, because it's easy to do. That, in no way, makes an episode notable. This is not consensus behavior, it's simply default behavior that is done before actual consideration is done. --

244:, etc.) and even specific shows (Official X-Files Magazine, Official Pokemon Magazine, etc.). Whatever problems TV episode articles might have, verifiability/original research isn't one of them. 2001:

that there is no practical difference between a "stylistic guideline", a "notability guideline" or a "cucumber guideline". A guideline is a guideline. We've subcategorized a few of them because

2295:

Emmys and BAFTAs would be notable, but it raises a question into the notability of soap episodes - obviously they have continuity, but we can't analyse every single episode of something like

1550:

is an example of that - it recommends formatting trivia text as text within the prose of the article as opposed to formatting the text as bullet points. Thus that is a "style guide".

94:

I would have though that plot summaries fall under original research when the only source for the summary is the episode itself. Is there any reason for this not being the case? --

2578:

them not to be there. In the end, I believe they are more adept to fancruft than anything else, of course though, I cannot be excempt from doing just this in a related series.--

660:

act now (whereever we can that is) it's just that the TV corner of this encyclopedia is flooded with very novice editors in general, so it's a tad hard to catch everything. --

2479:

bureaucracy, guidelines or even policies are only there to help us write better articles. I still do not see evidence of this "Knowledge-wide consensus" you talked about...

2249:

possibility of analysis should be the defining criterion for the article, and notability should be the second, just to make sure that it isn't a bunch of trivial reviews.

1442: 1370:, and thus we should not assume it has consensus support. As a notability guideline, this either lacks consensus support (because it's much stricter) or is redundant to 538:

I invite more people to participate and help to decide if this subject requires a separate guideline and if so, whether the current draft is ready for acceptance. --

2475:

All Air related character and episode articles were blanked and was merged into two lists in a simplified form. That clearly is not in the spirit of this guideline.

927:

I support this as a guideline, and i think almost everyone at WikiProject TV does as well. Although some have somewhat alternate interpretations of it. especially

2068:. The problem with people misinterpreting guidelines lies in the people, not in the guidelines; complicating the latter to fix the former is ineffective at best. 2050:

is flat out wrong. This is an argument that's getting used a lot in AfDs, and it has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese factory. One might as well claim that

2446:

Air, on the other hand, doesn't even hint at such notability, or having significant real-world information. Translation really isn't an issue in that case. --

645:

My reading of it seems to indicate attempting to act as a levee against episode articles. That doesn't reflect the working consensus we have on articles. --

81: 76: 71: 59: 1590:

I agree with you on that point, Black Falcon. This shouldn't be marked with the "Notabilityguide" tag since it doesn't really deal with notability, per se.

1547: 1438: 592:

I don't know about the use of such a format here, but I like the TV episode guideline. I particularly like the development path it outlines: first create

1116: 1078:

albeit not in the place where you'd like it to be. The solution to that is not to create additional venues for advertising, but to reduce that number.

1066:

If you want to mandate certain forms of advertising for future proposals, please do draw up a proposal for that. I suspect it would be rejected under

1729: 1047:

make if clear to the average WP editor what is going on. If we err, it should be on the side of seeking greater participation in the decision. --

1803: 1189: 1169: 399:

take us, then I think the referencing could really begin. I know this is crazy talk, so I guess we'll just have to continue to muddle through. -

2529:

article content and if you truly believe that I am the disruptive party here, file an arbitration case. Let's see who is the disruptive one. --

2420:

CC, why would all episode articles be removed when this guideline specifically points out that many of them are appropriate for Knowledge? --

2108:

Spreading the idea that some guidelines supersede other guidelines despite this not being defined anywhere, is neither clear nor unambiguous.

313:

You know, when you get down to it, *any* Knowledge article is "original research". It just depends on how anal-retentive you wish to get.

717:

100% with Black Falcon here -- this is not an example of an inclusion/exclusion guideline, but rather a style one. Basically, it's just

1581:. I've reverted the addition of the template so that this can remain a guideline without any additional specification of its nature. -- 1639:

subject worth including as a seperate article in Knowledge?" The two questions do significantly overlap, as evidenced by the proposal

1346:

I'm fairly certain there is no consensus support for such a provision or change. I will edit the text of the guideline accordingly. --

1600: 47: 17: 2455:

How do we tell what articles have sufficient sources in Japanese, and which don't. Air has a presence in several media, I think. -

425: 2429:

I think we should allow anime episodes the leeway to grow, since most of the info on them is in Japanese, and needs translation. -

2401:

the episode list talking about a "wikipedia-wide consensus" against it. If this is OK, all episode articles must be bulk removed. -

2064:

Why does that need to be emphasized, and why do people claim (or where is it defined) that guidelines supersede other guidelines?

2258:

Just so you know, I didn't mean for #2 to be subordinate to #1, if that's your interpretation - in fact, #2 is more important in

2232:" would not be considered as notable, or important, as these two), then it is acceptable to create articles for these episodes. 742:

Redirecting may be inappropriate as it loses content. I think the text should address that. I'll have a go at it in a minute. --

725: 1492:

Who cares? It's a guideline, calling it notability guideline or style guideline won't change how it's supposed to be used... --

220:), plus dozens of others. Also, for shows too obscure to have their own book, they're often found in collections like Eisner's 2382:

If an article doesn't have any verifiable content from reliably published secondary sources, it should be redirected or merged.

1815: 1339: 1308:

Once there's enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes, create separate articles for them.

1165: 1746:

What we need is unequivical, automatic keep for these AfDs. Then people can improve them instead of trying to delete them. -

1693:

is somewhat of a misnomer, and not all of the pages listed there deal with notability. It's really not a big deal either way.

2039: 1911:

discussion. People behave much differently in talk page discussions, where that tension is absent. If despite that, there is

1446: 1109: 142:

encyclopedia if it has had enough of an impact on the real world to garner a significant amount of press. There are already

606:

I gotta be the voice of dissent again, I suppose - there's nothing wrong with current practice on television episodes, and,

2493:

I'm not asserting article ownership of anything, I only meant that I don't dive in for a cruft cut or merge on articles I

1604: 693: 534: 1501:

Yeah, wat Scott said. There is no difference between guidelines and guidelines. We only subcategorize them a bit because

1612: 1150: 232:, which cover just about everything else. Of course there's also any number of magazines devoted to TV shows: not just 2184:

There is a strong possibilty of analysis of the episode - cultural references, production, etc. (e.g. Most episodes of

1280:

Agreed that moving the text is a wise choice. Cheers! I now support this as a guidline in the interest of harmony. --

2560: 940: 886:

of this page so far. The arguments you give to process are not backed by any policy describing such a process. Hence,

669: 1322:, and other episodes that, for some reason, have received heavy media coverage (like that episode of CSI directed by 38: 2417:. When I pointed him out to this page the first thing he did was to try to remove the guideline tag off the page. 395: 209: 372:

references or real-world significance. Had the stub method not been abused so badly, I would agree with you. --

2270: 1690: 1572: 834:

Do we have consensus for this becoming a guideline? Radiant thinks we do. Is there widespread agreement? --

650: 615: 1599:

Well if this isn't the page that for the notability criteria of TV episodes, is it necessary to create one (

314: 230:

Science Fiction Television Series: Episode Guides, Histories, And Casts And Credits for 62 Prime-time Shows

1983:

I'm fine with this being a stylistic guideline, and not a notability guideline. As far as I'm concerned,

205: 646: 611: 301:

episode is from 2001 and the movie is from 2005. More sources = better, fewer sources = worse. Cheers.

2595: 2568: 2545: 2535: 2523: 2509: 2488: 2459: 2456: 2450: 2433: 2430: 2424: 2407: 2390: 2372: 2338: 2326: 2307: 2290: 2280: 2253: 2242: 2132: 2103: 2092: 2058: 2029: 1991: 1974: 1960: 1957: 1949: 1932: 1922: 1897: 1887: 1861: 1852: 1849: 1839: 1819: 1782: 1779: 1764: 1750: 1747: 1740: 1717: 1666: 1656: 1653: 1647: 1633: 1623: 1594: 1585: 1538: 1529: 1496: 1479: 1427: 1402: 1378: 1360: 1350: 1284: 1275: 1242: 1232: 1201: 1102: 1061: 1051: 1036: 1023: 1010: 986: 973: 957: 948: 920: 869: 838: 817: 764: 746: 732: 712: 700: 677: 654: 640: 619: 601: 583: 542: 524: 491: 452: 403: 400: 376: 358: 355: 344: 329: 317: 305: 263: 158: 132: 98: 737:

As a style guideline, I have no problem with it. In fact, let's categorise it as a style guideline and

2144:

Without knowing about this discussion, I thought up of some guidelines to actually post on this page.

1356:

source, and a primary source at that. Other wikipedia policies strongly recommend not doing that. --

2414: 2176: 2038:

It needs to, in that case, be emphasised that the word "notability" occurs only once, in the link to

477: 438: 1945:

outlet for information. That would be the best thing to do if episode articles cannot be forbidden.

1302:

I completely agree with the process outlined here. However I would like to point out that Step 3...

1028:

Fifthed. There may still be some disagreements about exactly what should or should not be noted, or

2531: 2484: 2403: 1811: 1640: 1987:

is the only notability guideline that we require, and most (not all) TV episodes will fail that.

2318: 2212: 2109: 2069: 2006: 1694: 1506: 1252: 1248: 1209: 1079: 897: 890: 846: 794: 783: 707: 578: 519: 487: 448: 2587: 2439: 2297: 2043: 1918: 1883: 1724:

Is there a way to set an actual precedent for the management of all of these episode articles?

1630: 1582: 1476: 1399: 1375: 1357: 1347: 1323: 1281: 1239: 1198: 1143: 1048: 1033: 970: 835: 761: 757: 743: 718: 637: 629: 598: 539: 281:

in another show. It may well be, but without a source stating that the writer intended scene

241: 1332:

unless secondary sources exist about individual episodes, separate articles cannot be created

1319: 1032:

it should be expressed, but I feel that those can be handled through regular discussion. --

217: 125: 114:

bit. Everything we write is "original" in the sense that it's not copied from anywhere else.

1652:

We should leave this guideline as it is. It's the version that has consenus, after all. -

1568:

with the edit summary "This isn't a MOS guideline - it's a notability guideline", and then

2556: 2221: 2168: 2051: 1881:, except it seems that the "discuss" step was given insufficient time and opportunity. -- 1471: 1067: 936: 722: 665: 472: 433: 169: 2322:

secondary published sources, but the show itself or its episodes didn't win any awards.

1019:

If there are no objections, I am going to unprotect the page in the coming day or so. --

2506: 2447: 2421: 2264: 2100: 2065: 2055: 1988: 1836: 1807: 1616: 1493: 1467: 1336: 1075: 1058: 1020: 992: 983: 953:

Heh, not at all - I just don't believe they need to be deleted if they have potential.

790: 373: 341: 245: 2438:

Except that's not the problem here. Don't get me wrong, I use your same logic to give

1878: 1848:

They don't violate our policies, and they illustrate problems with our guidelines. -

1554:

and that most of us agree it's something that should be followed by article authors.

1463: 1315: 213: 1603:) that will clearly define inclusion/exclusion parameters? We already have them for 2580: 2564: 2368: 2323: 2303: 2276: 2238: 2206:

It also is helpful if there is continuity between the episodes, but in the case of

2192: 1663: 1644: 1608: 1591: 1555: 1424: 954: 944: 928: 697: 673: 562: 429: 290: 201: 2301:, which wins BAFTAs year in, year out, so #2 really should be #1, and vice-versa. 1057:

Not really needed, there's already an existing consensus for these guidelines. --

297:

episode that said the episode title was a parody of a movie title, problem is the

2574: 2520: 2515: 2387: 2335: 2314: 2229: 2217: 2172: 2047: 1984: 1535: 1459: 1420: 1371: 1367: 558: 185: 95: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1419:

Also, note that "style guides" give guidance on details of language usage (see

1149:

tag to the top of the article. This will add a notice and add your proposal to

2552: 2225: 2198: 2186: 2160: 932: 661: 302: 155: 1445:. I believe this guideline more closely approximates those pages rather than 2443:

cruft-cut here and there, but the potential for that article series is huge.

1178: 1161:

Link any existing discussions related to the proposal to your proposal page.

394:

show, they're going to make them for another. That's how I started. I saw

173: 577:

Now that, would be a good, simple, easy-to-understand inclusion guideline.

222:

Television Comedy Series: An Episode Guide to 153 TV Sitcoms in Syndication

154:

wikis et al. where most of these articles would be more appropos. Cheers.

2542: 2287: 2250: 1971: 1946: 1929: 1894: 1858: 1761: 1737: 233: 197: 189: 1458:

As a notability guideline, this page would only repeat the policies on

1122:

Create a new page with a rough draft of your proposal. Try to include:

552:

that guideline. I'd be much in favor of doing something like that here.

237: 181: 503:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Untitled 16th episode of Lost season 3

226:

Television Westerns Episode Guide: All United States Series, 1949-1996

2207: 110:

I think for the "no original research" thing, the emphasis is on the

1070:, but feel free to try. Do note, however, that this page is over a 2002: 1502: 177: 2154: 1470:. In that case, it becomes redundant and an unnecessary form of 636:

a guideline to invoke to justify the deletion of an article. --

193: 2054:

gives you licence to create as many episode stubs as desired.

2413:

Hi everyone, Cool Cat is talking about me and the episodes of

2099:

Because it's better to be clear, than it is to be ambiguous?

471:

I've been bold and added WP:EPISODE to the IncGuide template.

25: 2152:

The show has won at least one national televison award (e.g.

882:

by Inshanee. Note that you've given zero arguments about the

2167:

The episode itself has won an award for it's content (e.g. "

1534:

Yup, we have more important tasks than wrangling over this.

1132:

A brief summary of your proposal. Make sure it's actionable.

514:

This is a great example of what an article-subset guideline

236:, but all sorts of publications devoted to specific genres ( 2005:

was getting too big, but that doesn't make them different.

1872:

The best way to avoid hundreds of unnecessary AfDs is to

991:

It looks good to me, easily guideline-worthy. Fourthed.

632:

as a guideline on how to develop classes of articles and

610:, would be a fundamental change in how we handle them. -- 1760:

argument because, otherwise, there is no basis for it.

1579: 1565: 1562: 1108:

No need for new rules, we already have it covered. Per

875: 753: 628:

really change the current way they are handled. I view

1135:

An explanation of the reasoning behind the proposal.

721:, applied to TV episodes, with some specific tips. 2262:opinion - hence why articles I think articles like 2236:I've worded this very carefully. Comments on this? 1443:Knowledge:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) 982:I'm all for it and have been for a long time. -- 565:on a subject, do not write about it on Knowledge. 1329:Therefore, should it be explicitly stated that 1119:to see if any relevant policies already exist. 969:that a particular article isn't necessary. -- 277:in one show is a parody or reference to scene 8: 2042:, in the whole guideline. So claiming that 2228:" has sourced production information, but " 1548:Knowledge:Avoid trivia sections in articles 1439:Knowledge:Avoid trivia sections in articles 293:. Not too long ago I removed a bit from a 354:is done, the sooner we can expand them. - 1188:after discussion, it can be re-listed at 1835:the closing admin does a head count. -- 1730:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Kept Man 1340:_About_going_from_Step_2_to_Step_3": --> 1192:to invite further review and discussion. 624:How so? My impression was that it would 2317:). Some shows such as the 1960's show 1190:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Policies 1184:If a policy or guideline discussion is 1170:Knowledge:Requests_for_comment/Policies 1320:episodes that have sparked controversy 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 119:A plot summary isn't really original 7: 105:with a summary of a summary anyway. 2573:Just using the Wiki guidelines at 1601:Knowledge:Notability (TV episodes) 24: 18:Knowledge talk:Television episodes 1728:After seeing the push for one at 1298:About going from Step 2 to Step 3 1186:still problematic or inconclusive 1164:Post a link to your proposal on 1129:explaining what you're proposing 779:"Not listed as a proposal" is a 432:for a LOE by season done right. 426:List of That's So Raven episodes 29: 1166:Knowledge:Village pump (policy) 2066:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy 2040:Knowledge:Notability (fiction) 1447:Knowledge:Notability (fiction) 1110:Knowledge:How to create policy 497:Articles for untitled episodes 1: 1505:gets overly large otherwise. 1468:notability of fictional works 694:Knowledge:Television episodes 535:Knowledge:Television episodes 289:, to make that connection is 204:) to the not-obvious-at-all ( 1151:Category:Knowledge proposals 789:. The page was built out of 634:not, under any circumstances 424:See the abysmal pit that is 306:17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 264:17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 159:15:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 133:09:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 99:07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 2396:Intension of this guideline 2268:are better than those like 2628: 2148:An episode is notable if: 1975:18:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1961:18:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1950:18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1933:17:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1923:17:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1898:16:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1888:16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1862:11:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1853:05:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1840:05:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1783:05:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1765:02:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1751:02:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1741:02:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1718:08:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC) 1667:19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 1657:17:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 1648:17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 1634:17:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 1624:16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 1595:16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 1586:16:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 1539:09:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 1530:08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 1497:01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 1480:22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1428:22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1403:18:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1379:19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1361:19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1351:17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1341:17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1285:11:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1276:11:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1243:09:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1233:09:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1202:09:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1177:Work towards establishing 1103:08:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1062:00:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1052:17:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1037:16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1024:16:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1011:22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 987:21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 974:19:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 958:23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 949:19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 921:14:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 870:14:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 839:14:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 818:08:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 765:21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 747:21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 733:20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 713:20:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 701:20:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 678:09:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 655:19:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 641:19:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 620:19:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 602:19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 584:19:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 543:18:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 525:20:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 492:05:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 453:05:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 404:03:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 377:02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 359:23:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 345:22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 1466:and the guideline on the 396:List of Deadwood episodes 210:Sabrina the Teenage Witch 188:) to the not-so-obvious ( 2596:22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 2569:20:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 2546:18:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 2536:18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 2524:18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 2510:10:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 2489:09:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 2460:06:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 2451:06:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 2434:06:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 2425:06:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 2408:05:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 2391:23:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC) 2373:22:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC) 2271:Live Together, Die Alone 1691:Template:Notabilityguide 2339:22:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 2327:19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 2308:13:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2291:13:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2281:12:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2254:12:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2243:12:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2133:08:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 2104:02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 2093:13:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2059:13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2030:13:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 1992:13:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 1820:12:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 318:19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 2565:WikiProject Television 2385: 2365: 2234: 1398:to write articles. -- 945:WikiProject Television 674:WikiProject Television 2379: 2358: 2146: 1879:Bold, revert, discuss 1806:comment was added by 206:Are You Being Served? 42:of past discussions. 2415:List of Air episodes 2177:Best Friends Forever 1615:, why not for TV? — 1475:Style guideline. -- 1374:(if toned down). -- 830:Evaluating consensus 557:If you can find no 285:to reference scene 2319:Batman (TV series) 1621: 90:Original Research? 2534: 2487: 2440:Cardcaptor Sakura 2406: 2356:How's this then? 2298:Coronation Street 1823: 1617: 1472:instruction creep 1464:original research 1324:Quentin Tarantino 758:User:Minderbinder 711: 692:I generally like 653: 618: 582: 561:information from 523: 489: 467:IncGuide template 450: 323:Change guidelines 315:Geoffrey Mitchell 291:original research 242:Soap Opera Digest 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2619: 2594: 2591: 2584: 2530: 2483: 2457:Peregrine Fisher 2431:Peregrine Fisher 2402: 2377:I would prefer: 2129: 2127: 2125: 2123: 2121: 2089: 2087: 2085: 2083: 2081: 2026: 2024: 2022: 2020: 2018: 1958:Peregrine Fisher 1850:Peregrine Fisher 1801: 1780:Peregrine Fisher 1748:Peregrine Fisher 1736:point me to it? 1714: 1712: 1710: 1708: 1706: 1654:Peregrine Fisher 1620: 1577: 1571: 1526: 1524: 1522: 1520: 1518: 1272: 1270: 1268: 1266: 1264: 1247:Thread moved to 1229: 1227: 1225: 1223: 1221: 1148: 1142: 1099: 1097: 1095: 1093: 1091: 1008: 1005: 1002: 999: 917: 915: 913: 911: 909: 895: 889: 878:dated Feb 16 200 866: 864: 862: 860: 858: 814: 812: 810: 808: 806: 788: 782: 730: 710: 649: 614: 581: 563:reliable sources 522: 488: 485: 484: 481: 475: 449: 446: 445: 442: 436: 401:Peregrine Fisher 356:Peregrine Fisher 330:Peregrine Fisher 261: 258: 255: 252: 218:Dukes of Hazzard 168:was directed by 130: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2627: 2626: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2589: 2582: 2579: 2398: 2222:Humanitas Prize 2119: 2117: 2115: 2113: 2111: 2079: 2077: 2075: 2073: 2071: 2016: 2014: 2012: 2010: 2008: 1802:—The preceding 1726: 1704: 1702: 1700: 1698: 1696: 1618: 1575: 1573:Notabilityguide 1569: 1516: 1514: 1512: 1510: 1508: 1391: 1300: 1262: 1260: 1258: 1256: 1254: 1219: 1217: 1215: 1213: 1211: 1146: 1140: 1117:existing policy 1089: 1087: 1085: 1083: 1081: 1076:well advertised 1006: 1003: 1000: 997: 907: 905: 903: 901: 899: 893: 887: 856: 854: 852: 850: 848: 832: 804: 802: 800: 798: 796: 786: 780: 726: 532: 512: 499: 482: 479: 478: 473: 469: 443: 440: 439: 434: 325: 273:say that scene 259: 256: 253: 250: 228:, and Philips' 170:Jonathan Frakes 126: 92: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2625: 2623: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2498: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2471:stub-articles. 2468: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2444: 2418: 2397: 2394: 2384: 2383: 2364: 2363: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2265:Army of Ghosts 2204: 2203: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2169:Homer's Phobia 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2096: 2095: 2033: 2032: 1995: 1994: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1964: 1963: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1904: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1843: 1842: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1754: 1753: 1725: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1636: 1551: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1499: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1431: 1430: 1416: 1415: 1411: 1410: 1390: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1316:Pilot episodes 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1299: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1194: 1193: 1182: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1162: 1158:Get feedback! 1156: 1155: 1154: 1136: 1133: 1130: 1120: 1106: 1105: 1064: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1014: 1013: 993:Andrew Lenahan 989: 979: 978: 977: 976: 963: 962: 961: 960: 925: 924: 923: 874:Specifically, 831: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 647:badlydrawnjeff 612:badlydrawnjeff 587: 586: 574: 573: 569: 566: 554: 553: 531: 528: 511: 508: 501:I have AfD'ed 498: 495: 468: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 384: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 364: 363: 362: 361: 348: 347: 324: 321: 311: 310: 309: 308: 267: 266: 246:Andrew Lenahan 240:, Cult Times, 164: 163: 162: 161: 136: 135: 116: 115: 107: 106: 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2624: 2597: 2593: 2592: 2586: 2585: 2576: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2544: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2533: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2522: 2517: 2516:verifiability 2513: 2512: 2511: 2508: 2503: 2499: 2496: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2486: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2458: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2432: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2423: 2419: 2416: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2405: 2395: 2393: 2392: 2389: 2381: 2380: 2378: 2375: 2374: 2371: 2370: 2360: 2359: 2357: 2340: 2337: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2325: 2320: 2316: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2306: 2305: 2300: 2299: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2289: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2279: 2278: 2273: 2272: 2267: 2266: 2261: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2252: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2241: 2240: 2233: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2214: 2209: 2201: 2200: 2195: 2194: 2189: 2188: 2183: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2165: 2163: 2162: 2157: 2156: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2145: 2134: 2131: 2130: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2102: 2098: 2097: 2094: 2091: 2090: 2067: 2063: 2062: 2060: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2031: 2028: 2027: 2004: 2000: 1997: 1996: 1993: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1981: 1976: 1973: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1962: 1959: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1948: 1934: 1931: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1921: 1920: 1914: 1910: 1905: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1896: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1886: 1885: 1880: 1875: 1871: 1870: 1863: 1860: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1851: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1841: 1838: 1833: 1832: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1784: 1781: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1766: 1763: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1752: 1749: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1739: 1733: 1731: 1723: 1719: 1716: 1715: 1692: 1688: 1687: 1668: 1665: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1655: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1646: 1642: 1637: 1635: 1632: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1622: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1593: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1584: 1580: 1574: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1552: 1549: 1544: 1540: 1537: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1528: 1527: 1504: 1500: 1498: 1495: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1481: 1478: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1460:verifiability 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1429: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1417: 1413: 1412: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1401: 1397: 1388: 1380: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1359: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1349: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1333: 1327: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1296: 1286: 1283: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1274: 1273: 1250: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1241: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1231: 1230: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1200: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1180: 1176: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1160: 1159: 1157: 1153: 1152: 1145: 1137: 1134: 1131: 1128: 1124: 1123: 1121: 1118: 1115:First, check 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1104: 1101: 1100: 1077: 1074:old, and was 1073: 1069: 1065: 1063: 1060: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1050: 1038: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1022: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1012: 1009: 994: 990: 988: 985: 981: 980: 975: 972: 967: 966: 965: 964: 959: 956: 952: 951: 950: 946: 942: 938: 934: 930: 926: 922: 919: 918: 892: 885: 881: 877: 873: 872: 871: 868: 867: 843: 842: 841: 840: 837: 829: 821: 820: 819: 816: 815: 792: 785: 778: 777: 766: 763: 759: 755: 750: 749: 748: 745: 740: 736: 735: 734: 731: 729: 724: 720: 716: 715: 714: 709: 708:Seraphimblade 704: 703: 702: 699: 695: 691: 679: 675: 671: 667: 663: 658: 657: 656: 652: 648: 644: 643: 642: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 622: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 604: 603: 600: 595: 591: 590: 589: 588: 585: 580: 579:Seraphimblade 576: 575: 570: 567: 564: 560: 556: 555: 551: 547: 546: 545: 544: 541: 536: 529: 527: 526: 521: 520:Seraphimblade 517: 509: 507: 504: 496: 494: 493: 490: 486: 476: 466: 454: 451: 447: 437: 431: 427: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 405: 402: 397: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 378: 375: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 360: 357: 352: 351: 350: 349: 346: 343: 339: 334: 333: 332: 331: 322: 320: 319: 316: 307: 304: 300: 296: 292: 288: 284: 280: 276: 271: 270: 269: 268: 265: 262: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 214:Hawaii Five-O 211: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 183: 179: 175: 171: 166: 165: 160: 157: 153: 149: 145: 140: 139: 138: 137: 134: 131: 129: 122: 118: 117: 113: 109: 108: 103: 102: 101: 100: 97: 89: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2588: 2581: 2501: 2494: 2399: 2386: 2376: 2367: 2366: 2355: 2302: 2296: 2275: 2269: 2263: 2259: 2237: 2235: 2211: 2205: 2197: 2193:The Simpsons 2191: 2185: 2159: 2153: 2147: 2143: 2110: 2070: 2007: 1998: 1943: 1919:Black Falcon 1917: 1912: 1908: 1884:Black Falcon 1882: 1874:not nominate 1873: 1734: 1727: 1695: 1641:WP:INCLUSION 1631:Black Falcon 1583:Black Falcon 1507: 1477:Black Falcon 1400:Black Falcon 1395: 1392: 1389:Disputed tag 1376:Black Falcon 1358:Minderbinder 1348:Black Falcon 1331: 1330: 1328: 1313: 1301: 1282:Kevin Murray 1253: 1240:Kevin Murray 1210: 1199:Kevin Murray 1195: 1185: 1138: 1126: 1125:A statement 1107: 1080: 1071: 1049:Kevin Murray 1045: 1034:Black Falcon 1029: 996: 971:Minderbinder 929:User:Matthew 898: 883: 879: 847: 836:Kevin Murray 833: 795: 762:Black Falcon 744:Black Falcon 738: 727: 638:Black Falcon 633: 625: 607: 599:Black Falcon 593: 549: 548:Actually, I 540:Kevin Murray 533: 515: 513: 500: 470: 430:Boston Legal 337: 326: 312: 298: 294: 286: 282: 278: 274: 249: 229: 225: 221: 202:The Prisoner 151: 147: 144:The Simpsons 143: 127: 120: 111: 93: 65: 43: 37: 2230:My Two Dads 2218:My Old Lady 2173:My Old Lady 2046:supercedes 1421:Style guide 594:and develop 186:The X-Files 36:This is an 2226:My Musical 2199:Family Guy 2187:South Park 2161:Doctor Who 2044:WP:EPISODE 1909:productive 1689:Note that 1578:was added 1127:at the top 823:articles". 719:WP:SUMMARY 630:WP:EPISODE 608:as written 559:verifiable 510:Great work 299:South Park 295:South Park 148:Family Guy 2507:Ned Scott 2502:continued 2448:Ned Scott 2422:Ned Scott 2101:Lankiveil 2056:MichelleG 1989:MichelleG 1837:Ned Scott 1808:MichelleG 1619:Sandtiger 1494:Ned Scott 1337:Sandtiger 1179:consensus 1059:Ned Scott 1021:WinHunter 984:Ned Scott 891:shrubbery 876:this edit 784:shrubbery 754:this edit 374:Ned Scott 342:Ned Scott 224:, Lent'z 174:Star Trek 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2561:contribs 2220:" won a 2052:WP:HELLO 1816:contribs 1804:unsigned 1566:reverted 1564:, I was 1144:proposed 1139:Add the 1068:WP:CREEP 941:contribs 670:contribs 572:article. 234:TV Guide 198:Gunsmoke 190:Farscape 152:MacGyver 121:research 112:research 2467:online. 2324:Dugwiki 2224:, and " 2208:sitcoms 1664:Dugwiki 1645:Dugwiki 1592:Dugwiki 1556:Dugwiki 1425:Dugwiki 955:Matthew 884:content 791:WP:CENT 698:Dugwiki 238:Starlog 182:Pokemon 150:wikis, 146:wikis, 128:`/aksha 39:archive 2521:Addhoc 2388:Addhoc 2336:Addhoc 2213:Scrubs 2196:, and 1605:people 1536:Addhoc 1297:Q: --> 1249:WT:HCP 516:should 483:Jester 444:Jester 96:Qarnos 2553:TheDJ 2362:list. 2112:: --> 2072:: --> 2009:: --> 2003:CAT:G 1913:still 1697:: --> 1613:music 1609:books 1509:: --> 1503:CAT:G 1255:: --> 1212:: --> 1082:: --> 933:TheDJ 900:: --> 849:: --> 797:: --> 728:juice 723:Mango 662:TheDJ 303:L0b0t 178:Buffy 156:L0b0t 16:< 2575:WP:N 2557:talk 2514:The 2495:know 2369:Will 2315:WP:N 2304:Will 2288:Nemu 2277:Will 2251:Nemu 2239:Will 2175:", " 2171:", " 2155:LOST 2128:< 2088:< 2048:WP:N 2025:< 1999:Note 1985:WP:N 1972:Nemu 1947:Nemu 1930:Nemu 1895:Nemu 1859:Nemu 1812:talk 1762:Nemu 1738:Nemu 1713:< 1611:and 1525:< 1462:and 1441:and 1372:WP:N 1368:WP:N 1326:). 1271:< 1228:< 1168:and 1098:< 1072:year 937:talk 916:< 865:< 813:< 666:talk 651:talk 616:talk 550:like 530:Note 480:SWAT 441:SWAT 194:Monk 2543:TTN 2532:Cat 2485:Cat 2404:Cat 2216:, " 1396:how 1030:how 1004:bli 756:by 739:not 626:not 338:any 257:bli 2567:) 2563:• 2559:• 2551:-- 2482:-- 2274:. 2260:my 2190:, 2179:") 2164:) 2158:, 2061:. 1818:) 1814:• 1607:, 1576:}} 1570:{{ 1318:, 1251:. 1238:-- 1197:-- 1147:}} 1141:{{ 1007:nd 1001:ar 998:St 995:- 947:) 943:• 939:• 896:. 894:}} 888:{{ 787:}} 781:{{ 676:) 672:• 668:• 260:nd 254:ar 251:St 248:- 216:, 212:, 208:, 200:, 196:, 192:, 184:, 180:, 176:, 124:-- 2590:八 2583:十 2555:( 2202:) 2126:t 2124:n 2122:a 2120:i 2118:d 2116:a 2114:R 2086:t 2084:n 2082:a 2080:i 2078:d 2076:a 2074:R 2023:t 2021:n 2019:a 2017:i 2015:d 2013:a 2011:R 1822:. 1810:( 1711:t 1709:n 1707:a 1705:i 1703:d 1701:a 1699:R 1523:t 1521:n 1519:a 1517:i 1515:d 1513:a 1511:R 1449:. 1335:? 1269:t 1267:n 1265:a 1263:i 1261:d 1259:a 1257:R 1226:t 1224:n 1222:a 1220:i 1218:d 1216:a 1214:R 1181:. 1172:. 1096:t 1094:n 1092:a 1090:i 1088:d 1086:a 1084:R 935:( 914:t 912:n 910:a 908:i 906:d 904:a 902:R 880:6 863:t 861:n 859:a 857:i 855:d 853:a 851:R 811:t 809:n 807:a 805:i 803:d 801:a 799:R 664:( 474:⇒ 435:⇒ 287:Y 283:X 279:Y 275:X 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Television episodes/Archive 2 - Knowledge

Index