Notthegoatseguy (talk | contribs) |
Reply |
||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
::::::::I have never heard of an official Wikipedia policy of "Unless shown otherwise, it is better to assume that there is no chance," or even a guideline or well, anywhere on Wikipedia does it say that. [[User:Notthegoatseguy|Notthegoatseguy]] 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC) |
::::::::I have never heard of an official Wikipedia policy of "Unless shown otherwise, it is better to assume that there is no chance," or even a guideline or well, anywhere on Wikipedia does it say that. [[User:Notthegoatseguy|Notthegoatseguy]] 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::As I said, it is up to those defending the articles to assert their notability. While it would be nice of me to go search for sources myself, I really do not care given the mass quantity of episode articles that will never become good. It will be easier to wait for the exceptions instead. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:34, 9 October 2007
Copyright Violations in Season 2 Overview
All the episode overviews for Season 2 have been copied from TV.com My Name is Earl episode guide. This clearly violates TV.com Terms Of Use. VillaFan 05:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the content leaving a basis for the overviews to be rewritten. In future we ask users not to copy and paste TV.com summaries to Wikipedia. Thank You VillaFan 06:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Break up the page
Should this page be broken up, so that each episode has its own page, and this page just has a little info and link to the episode, like the pages for The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park? JQF 16:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, if the individual episodes are analyzed in greater detail. If short plot summaries are is far as it goes then this article will be big enough at the end of Season One, and a new one should be started for Season Two. — RandallJones 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, started the ball rolling, creating individual pages and moving info. JQF 04:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, created templates, put info on pages (used synopsis from NBC.com for those without decent/limited info on this page), info needs to be cut down on this page, and the episode pages need to be edited to a more professional standard. I'll leave that to the rest of you. JQF 06:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Episode Pages
Hey, MNIE fans! The following episode pages have NO info on them:
So be a fan, and help update them! JQF 03:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Two down, three to go! Lets keep it up! JQF 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Monkeys in Space?
Can anybody explain the title? I couldn't figure out how it fit into the episode? Might be an interesting fact for the page. -- MisterHand 06:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what it's suppost to mean (but it is the real title). It might be a refference to something like Monkey Wrenchs, that using Monkey's in science experiments (like sending them into space) was their first widly documented job, it may be an in joke for somebody at MNIE, or it may just be some random title ment to keep us (the viewers) occupied while they make the next episode. JQF 16:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Episode article names
I propose we name all new episode articles with a disambiguator included even when not technically necessary, for example all Episode Title (My Name Is Earl) or even Episode Title (My Name Is Earl episode). This appears to be standard practice with other TV series any time an episode name collides with another article, as Monkeys in space recently did for us, so why not just be explicit for all the episodes? I looked here and here and here but as far as I can tell no WP:MoS standard for episode article naming has been established. Comment? —RandallJones 06:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea, but how about we shorten it to be Episode Title (MNIE), or something like that, just so that the title doesn't get to long. After all, some titles are items off The List, and those can get long. JQF 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- There are naming conventions about this issue. please take them under consideration - The DJ 23:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Airdates
Is it really necessary to mention the UK airdates? In my eyes anything other then "Original airdates" is useless, because when we start naming them for one country we open the door for all 162 countries. In my eyes it doesn't contribute to the articles. It would be different if the show was originally French for instance. Or if the list of this US show was on the Dutch wikipedia. But for UK vs. US, i simply cannot be bothered beyond original airdates. What can be done in my eyes is to mention when the season was broadast in the uk. Like "Season 1 was broadcasted in the UK from 8 december 2006 untill 16 july 2006". - The DJ 23:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Quit Smoking
For some reason the episode guide on the side of the episode description for episodes links to an article on quiting smoking, not to the episode Quit Smoking. Quit Smoking is only linked from here. I would fix it, but am unsure of how. :(
Air Dates
I think the air dates in the ep list are getting to be to much. Should all the air dates but the first be moved into the respective episode article? JQF 16:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it is standard to only list the air date of the originating country. You are the second person to mention this. Feel free to delete the UK and AUS times. — Scm83x hook 'em 16:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Infobox and images
The current MNIE episode infobox doesn't have room for an image, as far as I can tell. We need to find a way to put images on the individual episode pages now that we have them. - Peregrine Fisher 01:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Episode names ain't right
There is a lot of mis-capitalization in the episode names, or is there. Monkeys In Space (My Name Is Earl) for instance. Or is "In" supposed to be capital? It's hard to know because "My Name Is Earl" has a capital "Is." - Peregrine Fisher 09:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed all of the episodes to conform to WP:NC. Evan Reyes 22:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Is" is capitalized because it's a verb.134.84.103.21 22:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
My Name is Inmate (#28301-016)
The Internet Movie Database lists the two-part season premiere as My Name is Inmate #28301-016 [1] rather than simply My Name is Inmate as Wikipedia lists it now. Is there any reason that the pages shouldn't be moved to include Earl's apparent inmate number? Nowah Balloon 09:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
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 23:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Let's keep the articles some days so some people can correct them. Certainly there are many episodes that are notable enough. For example, the pilot, the COPS episode, etc. -- Magioladitis 21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Someone can just undo the redirects to work on them. TTN 21:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Or you could just wait until more people see what is going on before merging the pages into the list. Remember, WP:EPISODE is NOT policy, just generally accepted and does have occaisons where it isn't followed to every fine point. Unless the page is full of fancrufft and original research, it can be improved with DVD commentary from the producers, actors, and writers, media interviews with the cast and crew, if some advocacy group took offense to the show or a certain episode, and all kinds of stuff. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper and there is no due date on completing an article. Notthegoatseguy 13:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
TTN, I don't understand you. Episodes' articles are one of the main reasons I'm using Wikipedia. The notability of an episode is debatable, and that'll certainly cause many unnecessary arguments. If someone bothered and wrote an article about an episode (and many more people bothered and improved it), why shouldn't it stay here? Wikipedia is not running out of disk space any time soon. Godfather ♣ Talk ♣ 11:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- WP:EPISODE is quite set in place, and it won't be going any time soon. The standards are used to keep useless articles off the site, as this is a tertiary source that relies mainly on secondary sources. For that reason, we have many quality control polices and guidelines. That cannot happen for these episodes. tv.com is probably a very good place for you. You're free to work on summaries, cast info, trivia, and probably many other things related to episodes. TTN 12:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- TTN, I'd recommend you read #3 on WP:EPISODE. Merging useful information, such as commentary, will make this article overtly long and then we're back at square one splitting this article up again. Instead of merging, try improving one of these episode articles. You'll feel good. Trust me. Notthegoatseguy 13:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing will be merged to this list (the plot summaries are good enough). If information is important and sourced, then the article can stand on its own. That is not the case for these. As I really doubt these can be improved, I don't really care. TTN 16:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Then, by definition, you are not merging but deleting. And doing a massive deletion without building a consensus goes against Wikipedia policy. Just because you "really doubt these can be improved" doesn't mean they can't. How much time and effort have you put into trying to improve the articles? If you want to delete these articles, the proper place for that is to nominate them in the Articles for Deletion, not shoving forward with a merge that isn't supported. Notthegoatseguy 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, I am redirecting, which is how we deal with episode articles that are more than blank stubs. It is up to the editors interested in the articles to assert notability if it is not in-your-face obvious. Seeing as these are television episodes, it is not very likely. TTN 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- So you haven't done anything to try to improve the articles? If you had, I could see where you are coming from. But you haven't and it seems like you're going to go ahead and get rid of the articles regardless of what anyone else thinks. Being bold is a good thing, but being open for discussion is better so we all can skip the three revert thing/edit war and find what the consensus is. Notthegoatseguy 19:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Unless shown otherwise, it is better to assume that there is no chance. You're acting as if I have already redirected these. I'm leaving this open for those that wish to assert notability through discussion or through examples. Other than that, the consensus is already established within WP:EPISODE and the policies and guidelines used to build it. TTN 19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have never heard of an official Wikipedia policy of "Unless shown otherwise, it is better to assume that there is no chance," or even a guideline or well, anywhere on Wikipedia does it say that. Notthegoatseguy 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, it is up to those defending the articles to assert their notability. While it would be nice of me to go search for sources myself, I really do not care given the mass quantity of episode articles that will never become good. It will be easier to wait for the exceptions instead. TTN 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)