Talk:List of The Wire episodes: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 388: Line 388:


::::[[#Episode notability|Just up here]].--[[User:Opark 77|Opark 77]] ([[User talk:Opark 77|talk]]) 09:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
::::[[#Episode notability|Just up here]].--[[User:Opark 77|Opark 77]] ([[User talk:Opark 77|talk]]) 09:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::Hmmm, OK. Then I'm inclined to think the tags should be removed. As you say, there seems no prospect of consensus to merge. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 05:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:40, 17 March 2008

WikiProject iconTelevision Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Removed Synosis

why was this done? this makes finding individual episodes an enormous pain. 75.67.76.100 (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Fucking smartass editors. Please restore.

Renamed

Why did I rename this? Because the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Episode_list_style_guide said this was the correct page title. Markkawika 11:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regions

Why were the Region 4 DVD details removed from this page?

Move discussion

There is a proposed move of several episodes of The Wire that don't follow standard wikipedia naming conventions. More info and voting/discussion at WT:TV-NC#Proposed moves for episodes of The Wire. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure this is clear to everyone -- There is currently a massive dispute at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). As part of that dispute, a group of editors has taken it upon themselves to ignore existing objections, and work their way through Wikipedia, changing category after category to a different naming convention. The next target on their list is "The Wire", and they are planning on moving many articles. If you like the Wire categories the way that they currently are, please go to the "Proposed moves" poll, and say Oppose to try and stop this change. If, however, you like the idea of changing everything around, you should Support. --Elonka 23:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This massive dispute is currently 13-3 in favor of moving in compliance with the guideline. Elonka's objections have been heard, but are not sufficient to negate the application of the guideline. If anyone has any problem with the guideline or the move specifically, you are more than welcome to contribute to the discussion at WT:TV-NC. –  Anþony  talk  15:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that would be 14...as nominator, my support is a given. Is it generally acceptable for the nominator to add an entry in the "voting" list? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being nominator automatically means you support. But i don't think there's any reason not to add an entry in the voting list. Most people just don't bother i guess. --`/aksha 00:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of people supporting the move, are the disruptive group of editors who are working their way through Wikipedia, ignoring valid objections. For awhile, they'd been moving pages and claiming, "See, no one's complaining." Then, once complaints started, they switched to, "Well, not many people are complaining." Then, more complaints came in, and they're now, "Too bad, we have more votes than you." This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Consensus: "at times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors ... This is not a consensus.". --Elonka 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An example will be nice Elonka. For example, how about you provide us with an example of a complaint? That is, a complaint made by an editor NOT involved in this conflict, regarding us moving an article which they edit on?
Because from what i've seen, the effects have been quite the opposite. I can remember times when outside editors from affected articles (and/or wikiprojects) have noticed the moves, and obviously approved by chipping in and helping. --`/aksha 09:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second that request. Virtually all the complaining I've seen has been from Elonka and Matthew. Consensus is rarely unanimity, and when the minority can't get their way, it's not "ignoring objections". Whether an objection is "valid" is a matter of opinion - if consensus says an objection isn't "valid" enough to act on, that's the way it goes. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the full version of the guideline Elonka quoted, it reads a bit differently when it's not selectively edited: "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." --Milo H Minderbinder 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys (Milo H Minderbinder, `/aksha, Anþony) keep insisting that it's just me and Matthew, but you know damn well that's not true. You've gotten complaints at the TMNT pages, complaints from Star Trek and The Wire editors, and a long list of other names too, but you seem to just shrug them off, rather than acknowledging that there are multiple (easily over a dozen) editors disagreeing with your actions. Please stop being disruptive. --Elonka 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have all those pages watchlisted and certainly not everyone's talk page, so I may not be privvy to everyone who's issued a "complaint" -- perhaps you'd like to englighten me if there are so many. In my statement above, I noted only that the move request is currently passing by an overwhelming margin, typically not something that I would expect from a "massive" dispute. I also encouraged anyone who disagrees with the application of the guideline to make their opinion heard, which is what JeffStickney did. Several other editors who were not previously involved in the debate have also voiced their opinion in support of the move. That's how these things go. Some people want the move, others don't. It's pretty clear that a lot more do than don't, so I really don't see how it's disruptive. –  Anþony  talk  21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, where exactly have I said "it's just you and Matthew"? I have said it's a relatively small number of people. I have said it's a minority. But where have I said that. There's a place on WT:TV-NAME where editors can object to this move, and right now I count four objectors. I don't consider that "many", I don't think the average reasonable person would. I don't think we can be expected to assume the opinions of others who don't make the effort to participate in the discussion. I don't "shrug off" the dissenting opinions. But since the consensus clearly goes the other way, I'm not sure exactly what you expect me to do with those opinions in regard to naming articles, what do you propose? I'm not sure specifically where you get your "over a dozen" number, but I'm sure if the same inclusion criteria were applied to those who disagree with you, we'd see greater numbers there as well. Virtually any action on wikipedia can draw complaints - but action doesn't come from the presence or absence of complaints, but the comparison of those complaints with the comments supporting the action. And I think in this case that comparison has been made clearly and repeatedly.
Finally, you continue to make the accusation of disruption with no specifics to back it up. What exactly have I done that you consider disruptive? Requesting RMs, on which people offer their opinions over a period of several days, and an admin declares consensus or not and moves the pages or not? Do you consider that disruptive? Is it disruptive to point out that those complaining are few in number? Is it disruptive to point out that the quantity of your complaints has far outnumbered the number from people actually editing the pages that have been moved? Please clear this up for me: what specifically have I done that has been disruptive? And might I ask that you reserve accusations of disruption for situations that warrant it instead of using it as a veiled personal attack? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend letting the RFAR play out and quieting things down here. The messages are getting longer and nastier. I'm sure Elonka will produce a list of easily over a dozen people disagreeing with the actions. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are currently in Request Moves, which is the proper way of getting contraversial moves through. Although i disagree that this move is contraversial at all, Request Moves is a fair and open method to carry out any move. If there're many people unhappy about the move, then it should show in the Request Move survey. --`/aksha 09:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(editor's first post in wiki-discussion, so blame any inappropriety on my beginnership) Why not create a concise 'List of Wire Episodes" page and leave these episode synopses untouched? Or do nothing, because this list already exists? Many people might need a detailed description of every Wire episode for numerous reasons. For one, I need it because I have to translate it for my little country's little public television. Deleting this enormous body of many peole's work is nothing but a big loss. But why delete whole articles anyway? Unless for false information, I mean. What are we running out of, terabytes? What standards are we defending? Why create precedent for anything? The articles of the group are all fine, and though it is not a proper argument, I have to mention that The Wire is a matchless masterpiece, and even if it weren't, no article hurts anyone who is not interested. anapazapa 23:40, 10 October 2007 (CET)
That comment was inappropriate (just kidding =P). This discussion is long dead, and has been for ten months now... if you have something to say, I suggest you start a new section or comment on a newer one. east.718 at 02:27, 10/11/2007

Proposed moves for episodes of The Wire

This discussion was originally held at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), but has been placed here for archival purposes.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. I am aware about the ArbCom case and all the wikidrama, but, as lawyers would say, "an appeal does not stop the process"; the supermajority seems to be clear. Duja► 09:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey I

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support votes

  1. Support per nom. --Serge 21:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support All per nom. And I commend him for doing a WP:RM when every destination page was a redlink. Nice show of compromise. Unnecessary but still a nice gesture. Should set a good precedent moving forward. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, although the nominator should really have posted a notice at Talk:The Wire (TV series). Andrew Levine 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support the moves, and support the nominator. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per the reasoning behind the existing guidelines, not just because they are guidelines. Jay32183 22:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation: When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate. Nohat 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support since target names have no naming conflict and are simpler. --Polaron | Talk 23:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, no need for unnecessary disambiguation. --Brian Olsen 02:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, per all above, previous comments, etc etc. Details available upon request. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, per nom. I don't even see why this is necessasary. All the target pages are red links, couldn't we have just had them moved without going through WP:RM? --`/aksha 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we could. This request is merely a courtesy, one which ideally should show that the moves are not controversial or disputed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support for all the same reasons. Just to comment on "future-proofing" though. This would make sense for only the very obvious one (like we once went through with "School Reunion"). That being said, the absence of even those "obvious" ones means that there is no article name conflict; if it's that important, once the more "obvious" article is actually created the page can be disambiguated/moved/whatever. If it's not, then it makes little difference since there's not going to be any information on that page for the reader to find anyway. So first past the post is the simplest solution. Also note that the question whether there is an article name conflict also should take into account uppercase and lowercase letters, e.g. "School Reunion" may have no page of its own but "School reunion" might, so that situation needs disambiguation. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support This is further evidence that RMs for every move is unnecessary. –  Anþony  talk  04:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per all above. Disambiguation is a necessary evil for resolving namespace conflicts, not a categorization mechanism. --Fru1tbat 12:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support The nomination says it all. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support (Not that IMO putting "Strong" before the vote make it any more important .. but have to counter those "Strong opposes"..) This vote is not even necessary. There was no consensus for pre-emptive disambiguation of episode titles. -- Chuq 01:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support (as nominator) --Milo H Minderbinder 13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. There is no need to disambiguate if there is not going to be a naming conflict. The pages should be moved as suggested, and in the future, we will deal with the individual pages' disambiguation if the issues arise. —taestell 04:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support: Thank you Elonka for notifying me of this discussion. As the author of many of these articles I apologise for not following the naming convention as many people see it in the first place. I can see this has consumed quite a lot of time already. I would like to request that anyone moving the article pages updates all the links that relate to them.--Opark 77 14:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose votes

OpposeMany of the titles, ie "Straight and True", "Game Day", "Stray Rounds",etc are common expresions even if such articles don't exist at the moment. The current way they are names "future-proofs" the articles and keeps them all consistant in how they are named.JeffStickney 23:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Resign from debate While I have not changed my mind on what would be more appropriate, I believe keeping this project on hold is doing more harm than good. A lot of people have put a great deal of work into this growing "The Wire"'s entry from a stub to a major project with a featured article at its core. Updates were done frequently and regularly but now it seems to have stalled with 4 episode articles yet to be written, and if this debate is stalling the project then it is not worth it. Of the 4 yet-to-be written articles, "Final Grades" would require a disambig as there is a novel named "Final Grade" (without the s but too similar of a title). The others can probably be named directly. Also, the support votes include Andrew Levine, a "Wire" editor and administrator who has put a lot more work into this project than myself. I watched this project grow up from a stub and don't want to see it dragged down by all this petty bickering. If you guys want to put in the work to move the articles I won't stand in your way. On this particular issue, I quit.JeffStickney 22:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite impressed with this Jeff. Thank you for placing the overall quality of Wikipedia ahead of your personal opinion on the matter. I agree that "Final Grades" vs "Final Grade" will almost certainly confuse people. Jay32183 22:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong oppose. The articles are just fine the way they are, the guideline page is clearly in dispute, and this move is a violation of WP:POINT. Rather than working through the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, a group of editors is trying to force agreement with their side of the issue by systematically working through multiple categories and pushing through moves before the dispute is resolved. This particular move of the episodes for The Wire is just one more attack on a long "hitlist" of television series.[1] Thousands of articles are being affected by this small group of editors, and this pattern of disruptive behavior must stop. --Elonka 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongly oppose — Mainly per Elonka; also consider the fact we are writing for a reader.. the suffix makes it much easier for them (I believe that is what Jeff is saying as well?) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose: as per Elonka. If the interested editors involved decided that this worked best for their show, and their naming/linking practice is clear and consistent, I fully support their judgment and practice. Riverbend 15:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Whether this naming convention is in dispute is irrelevant. Last I checked, WP:DAB was not in dispute, and it states quite clearly: When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate. No matter what this category-specific guideline says, it does not trump a Wiki-wide guideline. --Serge 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(responses to JeffStickney's vote, moved here)

Could you clarify if you oppose all, or if you oppose some, specify which? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of 50 episodes only 19 were nominated for a move, and the reason so few were is that the titles themselves are common expressions. "Back burner", "cleaning up", "Stray round", "Moral Migetry", "Game Day", Pager and Detail (without the word "the") are common expressions, and "Soft eyes" appears to be a local expression. Moving these articles will lead to disambig conflicts in the future. The ones I have listed would narrow the list down to 11. Eleven articles named with one convention and 39 named with another (or 19 named one way and 31 named the other)would serve no purpose other than to confuse editors and put a lot of bad links into articles. The way it is currently set up is completely consistant, completely organized, and runs no risk of future disambig conflicts. The proposed moves guarantee confusion.JeffStickney 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this move would bring all of the articles into following the same guideline. You seem to be looking at it as all articles have disambiguation and then you remove it when it isn't necessary. You should actually look at it so that no article has disambiguation and then add it only when necessary. That's the most effective way to keep things simple. Nothing will happen to the links because redirects will be left in place. Page moves are easy so there's no reason to worry about future confusion, we can move the page back if and when it's needed. You may also want to think about what would happen to Wikipedia articles if you extended your argument beyond the scope of television series articles. Jay32183 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "guideline" is in mediation right now, and a specific dispute is when exceptions are to be made. One exception specifically mentioned on the mediation page is the case where the majority of the episodes would require disambig. This show's episode list was proposed WHILE THE POLICY IS IN MEDIATION and BY THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE MEDIATION DISPUTE. That makes the proposed move a bad faith nomination as per WP:Point as mentioned below by Elonka. The people proposing moves for show after show after show need to cease and desist UNTIL THE MEDIATION IS SETTLED. This is akin to the police making arrests to enforce a bill before it becomes law.JeffStickney 08:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The formal mediation will fail, and the informal mediation is.. well.. informal.. -- Ned Scott 08:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" is exactly why the naming-convention-police should not be going to show after show after show to enforce strict adherence to one specific rule. You just gave one of the best arguments for opposing.JeffStickney 08:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mediation is unlikely to go forward, primarily because of what you just said. If the minority is going to use mediation itself as rationale to advance their cause, it's hard to accept that they're entering mediation with good faith. Most of us would rather not have our agreement to discuss the issue turned against us. –  Anþony  talk  08:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that at least four of the supporters here have had little or no involvement in this discussion. Among the opposes, only JeffStickney has had no involvement. 4 to 1. The overall voting is 12-3 which is a ratio of 4 to 1. The counts of the original poll was 26-7 or a ratio of nearly 4 to 1. The counts for the Lost moves was 15-3 or 5 to 1. No matter how this issue has been sliced, the ratio comes out around 4 to 1. If WP:POINT is to be alleged or faith questioned, surely it should be in regards to people who keep seeing a 4 to 1 ratio and still loudly and publicly claim that there's no consensus. When have you seen a 4 to 1 ratio of people carried all the way to two forms of mediation and - ultimately I figure - ArbCom? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff mentioned "future-proof"ing, so I think he meant that there could be a future conflict with some other concept. If that's true then it would have to be reasonably predictable, as with ship name. I'm not sure these are reasonable predictable, as in there's no garuntee that there will be another thing with that name, but there is always the chance. Jay32183 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(response to Matthew Fenton's vote, moved here)

I fail to see how naming would make any difference for a reader, especially if the redirect exists (as it would if the pages are moved). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, we're all interested editors. Any one of us can edit any part of Wikipedia and express an opinion in any matter, whether or not we have been actively editing articles related to it previously. I personally have WP:RM on my watchlist and frequently weigh in when a matter needs attention. It also leads me to find articles to which I can contribute positively but may not have discovered otherwise.
Secondly, there's no history of any discussion or agreement to use the dab tags and no rationale for their use was provided prior to this RM. Therefore, this RM is the decision, made among interested editors, to exercise our collective judgement and establish a practice appropriate for The Wire. The Wire may indeed qualify for an exception, but no convincing argument has yet been made. Feel free to suggest one. –  Anþony  talk  16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't being clear. I didn't make a determination of who was or who was not an interested editor. Of course we can all edit wherever, and of course none of us should be limited to particular pages or topics. My goodness. I understand that a group of editors who have never been involved with a project can create a different concensus by going to each project and outnumbering whoever was already there. All I am saying is that I support the current disambiguation arrangment, however it was decided - I don't have the same perception of what should qualify as an "exception", and I would favor pre-emptive disambiguation for titles that are also common words or phrases. Everyone else can, of course, do whatever in the world they want, although I agree with Elonka that while there is still a dispute resolution process (or 2!) in the works regarding naming conventions people ought to be showing a little more restraint. I will continue to disagree with proposed moves as long as this is still under such stressful discussion and until the conflict has been resolved. Riverbend 17:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the decision. Now. It's not that consensus has changed, there was simply no consensus before this. So we're having the discussion and allowing everyone who wishes to express their views so we can establish that consensus. Further, I strongly disagree that mediation somehow negates the application of the guideline. I wish only to discuss the matter on a substantive level when other parties have been completely focused on bureaucratic details. I've invited you to explain why you think The Wire deserves an exception but you chose instead to talk about mediation and dispute resolution. How can we have a discussion if one side isn't willing to participate?
I've already said that I will not be participating in the MedCab case. The MedCom case is practically dead already, but I'm tempted to pull out of that if my agreement keeps getting thrown back at me as an excuse not to discuss real issues. –  Anþony  talk  08:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wire discussion

Would you care to explain why you are starting a discussion here without leaving notification on the affected pages talks? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the affected pages now have move notices on their talk pages, with a link directing interested editors here, within half an hour of Milo posting here. Let's not get hung up on insignificant procedural points. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to state for the record that I'm incapable of editing seventeen pages at once. Even with pages previewed ahead of time, I wanted to double check wikilinks and such. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use a tabbed browser, open 17 tabs, paste in everything applicable, go through each window and hit "Ctrl+Alt+S" - or use AWB. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give the man a break, Matthew. Not everybody has a tabbed browser, and not everybody can use AWB. (For example, I can't use AWB because I'm on a Macintosh.) He and others got the notices up within half an hour. Would it kill you to assume good faith once in a while? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Josiah said... Now we're criticizing edit speed and computer literacy? I didn't think this little row could stoop any lower but I was wrong. One of my computers would probably crash if I tried to open 17 tabs - anyone want to take a pot shot at that fact? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: JeffStickney's arguments, what do you mean by bad links in articles? You mean redirects? Why are redirects bad? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right page

shouldn't this be on the Talk:List of The Wire episodes page? We are discussing edits to those articles, not edits to the "naming conventions" article. Longterm editors of "the wire" pages and people who have "the wire" pages in their watchlist are largely not seeing this or participating. Putting this discussion there instead of here would be a better test of whether there exists a consensus for that particular show, as to whether or not an exception is warranted.JeffStickney 13:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view no it is not, each episode should have an individual discussion, as you can see from above I my self had to give notification to the main article as the person nominating them only started a discussion here. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely not true. I did give notification to the main article, as well as the episode list and each individual article nominated. I did not "only" start the discussion here. You did not "have to give notification", you were just unwilling to wait the few minutes it took me to add notifications to all the articles. I'd appreciate if you'd focus on the subject at hand instead of trying to distract from the discussion with trivial matters of process. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You made notification here at "21:05" and then to RM @ "21:08"; You started tagging @ "21:11". Sorry but this is far from trivial for me in such an extremely controversially disputed situation. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the List of The Wire episodes article is the one article that encompasses all of the affected articles.The "naming conventions" article is not and this discussion page is supposed to be about edits to the "naming conventions" article only. JeffStickney 13:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you mis-understood me sorry, like you I don't think the discussion belongs here, your suggestions seems to be okay. As a note WP:RM does say: "Moves are discussed at the discussion page of the article to be moved." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter where the discussion takes place? Every applicable article plus the list page were updated with a clear edit summary and in a non-minor edit. This would have lit up the Watchlist of anyone who had a vested interest like a Christmas tree. And arguing over a six-minute timespan?! That's downright petty. Please explain why that's supposedly an issue. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because he may fo never given notification had I not started the ball rolling; at best he should of given notification first. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Matthew. Milo could hardly have given notification of the page move request before he put it up: editors would have followed a link to nowhere! Of all the insignificant aspects of this inisignificant debate, this is probably the most insignificant. All the affected pages have been notified, and I believe they would have been even without your prodding. Please drop this aspect of the matter. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter exactly where the discussion takes place, as long as the talk pages have a clear note about where the discussion actually is. Remember, these are electronic files we are editing, not real "places". It really doesn't make a difference as long as all are informed. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reason it's here is because there's currently a big debate/contraversy going on here. The tag on the talk page of all wire articles (including the main list) will inform any editors of Wire articles to come here. However, placing the discussion here also informs everyone who's participated in this debate to also participate in this request move. --`/aksha 00:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag "NOTE: this talk page is currently being archived very quickly due to extensive ongoing conversation. For earlier discussion in this RfC, please see archives" is one very clear reason why this talk page does not need to be cluttered with a discussion that should be placed elsewhere. The other reason is that "The Wire's" regular contributors are largely underparticipating in this debate (out of 19 voters only 2- myself and Andrew Levine are regular "Wire" contributors while the other 17 are regular contributors towards the "naming conventions" page).- That bias is the direct result of placing the discussion on the wrong page. Yes anyone can follow links, but its simple placement here guarantees overrepresentation by editors who otherwise have little interest in "The Wire" and underrepresentation by the people who have worked hard on "The Wire" pages. Lets put this discussion in the appropriate place, as per Wikipedia policy, so we can see where the consensus of regular "The Wire" contribtors truly lies.JeffStickney 02:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move of this poll (but not restarting it!) to the Talk:List of The Wire episodes page per Jeff's argument. --Serge 03:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For all the same reasons everyone else has mentioned, the actual location of the poll while it's taking place doesn't matter. However, for the purposes of archiving the discussion for future reference, it should probably be at Talk:List of The Wire episodes. So I actually support moving the poll but I repeat Serge's sentiment that there's no need to restart it. –  Anþony  talk  10:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, isn't it possible your friends just don't care? If an article's submitted for deleted, it's not discussed on the talk page; if a category is submitted for deletion, it's not discussed on the "category talk". The banners and whatnot might be discouraging, but if a person is genuinely interested- No. If these people really give a damn, why wouldn't they come here like you did? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to any closing admin: This move, and other requested moves, are currently the subject of an open ArbCom case. An injunction has been requested to stop all page moves while the case is in-process. For further information, please see the ArbCom workshop. --Elonka 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, you're statement is misleading. The Injunction has NOT been approved by the ArbCom. So there is no request to stop all page moves from the ARbCom, as youre statement implies. Also, an injunction means people like me can't move pages, but it doesn't mean to freeze all Request Moves. Further more, this Request Move is already over - it's been more than 5 days and has been placed on the backlog section of WP:RM. --`/aksha 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Can we archive the move proposal?

I'm not sure how to do it, but that way we can keep the talk page readable and less cluttered for new suggestions.JeffStickney 13:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be best not to archive just yet. First, an ArbCom proceeding is pending which refers to the move request and, second, it's not customary to archive a section that is less than 72 hours old. If you can give it another week, it would be appreciated. Folks should have no trouble finding new discussions at the bottom of this page (as is standard for talk pages). —Wknight94 (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too late, I already archived it. The original is still up at WT:TV-NAME, so people can either reference it there or find it easily from this page. I really don't think it's a big deal having it on the archive page (especially since it's just a duplicate copy for the convenience of Wire editors), but if there's objection, it can certainly be moved back. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We must have all crossed paths. I archived it too at /Episode Naming Debate before seeing the comments. You can revert if you want, but I'd rather just keep this uncluttered.JeffStickney 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the reasoning. Since when do we archive things that are less than 3 days old? And since when is a move request on a small talk page a hindrance to discussion (I've seen talk pages with three move requests interspersed with zillions of other discussions - all with no archive)? And my user talk page is 74 KB and overdue for archiving but I'm not touching it until after the ArbCom ruling. I suggest moving it back. Otherwise, one of you will at least have to find all of the links to this in the ArbCom and fix them (and risk having your arm chewed off for altering someone else's evidence, etc.) WT:TV-NC links should be fixed too. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that the discussion should be saved here, not at WT:TV-NC. The move discussion is really more relevant to this page than to the guideline and it doesn't need to be in both places. Since there are several links to it from ArbCom, it can sit at WT:TV-NC for now though. Once it does get moved here, it makes no sense to create an archive for this page immediately. The move discussion should be available for The Wire contributors to see the discussion and understand why some pages aren't disambiguated. If this page ever fills up (as in much more than the 40kb /Episode Naming Debate), then it should be archived. –  Anþony  talk  20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My head is spinning. Now this lives in three places?! TV-NC, here and in this talk page's archive? Can't we just leave it wherever it originally happened? That's where the edit history is too. Can I please just delete the archive here now? Its name should just follow a standard "Archive 1" format anyway - otherwise people will get confused. The history is supposed to be easy to follow. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the archive: it lives in two places. Once ArbCom is through, remove it from WT:TV-NC and post a link here: it lives in one place. The history is preserved at WT:TV-NC, the same as normal archiving. –  Anþony  talk  22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA Drive and Peer Review

I believe that this article can, with a little more work, move in line as a featured episode list alongside the likes of The Soprano episode list. As it stands the articles primary weakness is the very short episode summaries, something which was an issue with the original Sopranos episode list and also a problem that crops up in other episode lists that are nominated. Once each episode summary is longer (between 2-3 sentences usually works) the page will be in very good shape. What other additions do contributors think can be made? Qjuad 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the summaries and I'm willing to help out. --Opark 77 10:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always seem to say this but we should look for FU rationales for the images and refer to them/relate them to the episode where possible.--Opark 77 10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is a must. Qjuad 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of screenshots

The use of screenshots here seem purely decorative. To examine a typical rational provided:

  1. It is a promotional screenshot from a television series;
  2. It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the DVD of the show in any way;
  3. Copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the program because it is low resolution;
  4. The image is accompanied by a summary of the episode.
    All true.
  5. The image is significant because it identifies a group of starring characters;
    How is identifying a group of starring characters significant to a 2 line plot summary? To give an example: "Daniels and McNulty's evidence of political corruption is rejected by the FBI. D'Angelo is convinced to stand with his family by a visit from his mother. Business resumes in the pit with Bodie and Poot leading the way (pictured)." The summary gives me a very brief outline of some of the events of the episode. The appearance of Bodie and Poot is not of great significance to this article, nor is the fact that they "lead the way". You have to explain why illustrating that one little line of the article "adds significantly" to this list. ed g2s • talk 14:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Purely decorative" is purely subjective. If you would agree that's it's possible for images of this type to used appropriately, we could work on what the minimum requirements are. Anyways, I don't know if you watch the show, but Bodie leading the way as they start there drug business up again is a significant plot point. It's a major plot point of the episode, so illustrating it significantly adds to this list. - Peregrine Fisher 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I also feel compelled to point out that all of the screenshots are free, promotional downloads. I will see to updating the rationale for all screenshots in the coming couple of days. Qjuad 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to our episode list article Ed. Thank you for your input. I completely disagree that the screenshots seem purely decorative. This is an argument that I am aware that you have had several times before and I have followed some of the previous discussion and attempted to meet some of the standards you suggested for other articles by providing fair use rationales here. Please respect the consensus of editors involved in this article that these fair use rationales are sufficient and help us work towards improving them where possible. You can clearly see that we are in the process of adding fair use rationales for further images from the prior discussion on this very page so please do not respond in a reactionary manner as images are re-added to the list with fair use rationales.

Identifying an episode with a few sentences of plot is a difficult task for the reader. Television is a visual medium and providing an image that relates to one of the key plot points in an episode allows the reader of the list a greater chance of recalling the episode. Tying the image in with the plot summary or the title further enhances this effect. These lists are reference tools for the reader and having images increases their usefulness and therefore images significantly add to the article.

I propose a further addition to the FU rationales already in place - "the image significantly adds to the article List of The Wire episodes by providing a visual connection to episode for the reader and enhancing the usefulness of the list as a reference tool by making it easier to identify the episode this image is taken from."--Opark 77 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that as long as they are supported by the text, the screenshots are appropriate and allowed by WP's fair use policy as well as the recent decree from the WP powers that be. Ed, you need to get consensus instead of using "decorative" as your version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Minderbinder 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opark asked me to contribute to this discussion; let me say first that I have no strong opinion on the subject. The pictures never bothered me. However, since it was brought up, I really don't think the pictures add anything. Many of the pictures seem generic (to me). The ones that are very specific to an episode ... I don't know, it doesn't seem neccessary. For instance, is a picture of a bunch of people sitting on the bench watching the basketball game really that much more indicitave of the basketball game subplot than the line "Prop Joe and Avon have their annual East Coast/West Coast basketball game" [or, you know, whatever the exact wording is]? To my mind, it doesn't add anything. I think having the screenshots within the episodes makes more sense (also, they're much more visible in the articles than on the list, where they're tiny). ThatGuamGuy 23:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)sean[reply]

Some editors might remember that I used to defend the use of screen shots in LOEs, but I can no longer do so. Removing the screen shots does decrease the quality of these lists greatly, significantly so, however, our free content goals are a higher priority. I hate to see screen shots go in these lists, but they conflict with the goal of Wikipedia to have free content, free of copyright red tape, to be able to be reused by anyone for any reason. Even if the majority of the community has no problem with using this many fair use images, that can never override our free content goals. We feel like Wikipedia is a bit ours, and we should, but this issue is out of our hands. Identifying individual episodes in a list is a great thing in our modern media arts world, but that's not why Wikipedia is here. Our free goals actually limit us in being truly complete, but being free is that important. I hope more of you will come to this same conclusion, as I have. -- Ned Scott 23:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say that keeping the images on this list is not worth fighting over. Frankly I would be happier if we finished the recaps for the last few episodes of S4 than quarrel over this. (Alas I have been very occupied...) Andrew Levine 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We really should be talking about this over at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. It's a big issue that really has nothing to do with any individual page. - Peregrine Fisher 00:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. The screenshots clearly contribute to the content of the article, and I find it frustrating that this debate continues. The same users who are now calling for the removal of images here have previously called for the images to be removed elsewhere because they didn't provide a fair use rationale. All of the images used in this article provide a fair use rationale, and now that's being challenged as well. While I don't intend to attack the editors who are raising this new objection, I find it incredibly frustrating that this cycle of hard work (uploading the images, tagging them, implementing them) seems to be constantly attacked. I've followed a few of these debates and it is my understanding that when the images contain a fair use rationale, they are allowable (as can be seen in lists throughout Wikipedia). I also understand that consensus is paramount, and I've seen no such consensus here or on the Fair use page for the removal of the images. As such, it's my opinion that the images absolutely should stay. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's handy (it really helps in quickly finding an episode) and it's legal. If it weren't, it wouldn't be used in many, many other pages (just take a look at which pages use the No Screenshot image, and that's just the ones with missing screenshots). The English Wikipedia allows unfree fair use images, live with it. Cristan 01:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you guys don't understand that Wikipedia's goal is to create free content, and you don't understand how important that is. As odd as it sounds, that means sacrificing quality to some degree. Only the most vital situations should have fair use images at all. I wish we could just wait for people to learn this lesson, but the problem is only going to get bigger. Please don't be offended, but you just don't understand and we can't wait for you to understand. -- Ned Scott 01:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for a patronizing tone; we are all quite aware of Wikipedia's aims. Qjuad 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was also asked to participate here, and due to time constraints, I cannot make a lengthy argument. I do feel that the images should remain, but this is a discussion better undertaken at WP:FU.
There was also a rejected amendment proposed to WP:FUC point 8 that said that "the material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." -- what the crux of the argument here seems to be. east.718 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: the English Wikipedia allows Fair use (in contrary to for example the Dutch Wikipedia), so I don't really think the argument was very convincing. Like East718 said: if you disagree with fair use, you shouldn't be discussing it here.
A personal note: I don't get where all the fuzz is about. If fair use applies for Wikipedia, it would most likely do for anybody else. I'd bet my PC that no one will be sued for using this file. The source is the official HBO site where it is available to download for anyone! I can't possibly think of any reason why these files shouldn't be considered "free". (remember that this was a personal note)
I think we should continue this discussion on if this fits the Wikipedia fair use policy or not. And judging by the large number of similar articles with similar images, and that it has a nice fair use rationale and the correct licence tag, I see no reason why this case would be different. Cristan 01:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is more evidence that shows just how much you guys don't understand the situation. Wikipedia has free content goals, not because of legal concerns, but because we wish to make content that can be freely used under the GFDL. The Wikipedia Foundation itself is going to tighten our fair use restrictions because this issue has gotten so out of hand, and the community has been unable to self correct the matter. Quite literally, this is not in our hands. The more we abuse fair use the more likely it is that we will no longer have the privilege to use any fair use images. I don't want to see that happen. -- Ned Scott 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Wikipedia Foundation itself is going to tighten our fair use restrictions". Until then we'll keep the images, because they comply with the current policies. Cristan 01:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that in waiting that long we likely endanger other, more legitimate uses of fair use. -- Ned Scott 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about the foundation. If they issued a decree against these LOEs, Ed and others would have the images removed in a week (day?). Also, there's very little that could create a WP destroying fork, but removing FU might be one of them. They'll be very careful to not overreact, if they are against these pages at all. Also, I don't see how these articles hinder creating free content. The free content is the same, with our without the images. People bring it up repeatedly, so I must be missing something. Someday I would like to hear about someone who was hindered in some way. - Peregrine Fisher 02:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the solution is very easy: have Wikipedia host it's own fair use fork. Use meta data placeholders for where FU images would be, with IDs. On the FU fork server, you can upload images that correspond to those IDs. You would only be able to edit the articles on the Wikipedia side, but one could easily make templates to adjust layout for when images are and are not present. The masses would have their fair use images and Wikipedia would have a master copy without fair use images. It's an idea I've been playing with for a while, and I think it would work. Even if Wikipedia didn't technically host the fork, people would still be driven to go to Wikipedia in order to edit the actual content, and then it's not actually a fork at all. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this debate should be handled on Wikipedia:WikiProject Television rather than here as fair use images in episode lists is uniform across nearly all television show list articles. A fair use violation argued here would be a fair use violation across every single TV article. In my own opinion I believe there is a point where the fair use criteria is being used excessively and this is one of those cases. –– Lid(Talk) 03:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes

There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. Matthew 18:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Ned Scott 18:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of the episode notability guideline. I dispute that it is unlikely that real world sources can be found to assert notability of these episodes and plan to research and add that information in the coming weeks. I request an extension to facilitate this process.--Opark 77 23:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what would count as real world sources, but TelevisionWithoutPity.com has begun recapping all episodes of The Wire in detail (going back to season 1 and writing 10-14 page entries about each episode, to catch up with the four seasons already released). And Slate had several of its writers discuss every episode of the fourth season as they aired. (You have to click on the numbers 1-30 in that grid, in the article header on the Slate link, to see the different discussions for the various episodes--I don't know why such a bizarre method was chosen for navigating it.) The Slate articles frequently discuss real-world relevance of episode details, if that's any help--but only for the fourth season. 24.90.146.245 08:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is helpful, thank you. The Baltimore Sun ran weekly articles by David Zurawik throughout season four also but unfortuantely these are pay archived after a time and I am very poor at the moment - does anyone have college access?--Opark 77 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a ton of databases on hand for work, I'll be back in a couple of days with all those articles. east.718 at 04:27, 10/10/2007
Hey Opark, do you remember the names of any of the articles? A search for D. Zuwarik by author turns up around 1,800 results, but a search for Zurawik (author) and "wire" (title) turns up only these:
  • Fourth season of 'The Wire' spoiled by hot black market: Bootlegs, illegal downloads diminish suspense, revenue David Zurawik and Sam Sessa. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: Oct 18, 2006. pg. 1
  • Critically hot, 'Wire' gets renewed for fifth season David Zurawik. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: Sep 13, 2006. pg. 1
  • Local figures, riveting drama put 'Wire' in a class by itself: Show, returning Sept. 10, moves to Baltimore schools David Zurawik. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: Jul 12, 2006. pg. 1
  • Survival of HBO series going down to 'The Wire'; [Chicago Final Edition] David Zurawik, Tribune Newspapers: The Baltimore Sun. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Dec 17, 2004. pg. 3
  • TELEVISION & RADIO; Marines to fight bureaucrats in `Generation Kill'; Makers of HBO drama `The Wire' will tackle a miniseries on the early days of the war in Iraq.; [HOME EDITION] David Zurawik. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Mar 2, 2007. pg. E.24
east.718 at 04:43, 10/10/2007
If merges were to take place they should be into separate season by season articles rather than this episode list as the article would become overlong.--Opark 77 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see that you're working on them, but you should try to condense the information more. You should generalize the reviews and what they stand for instead of just explaining most of the details. The same goes for production. TTN 16:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that generalization is preferable but lets keep content discussion for the individual articles and notability here.--Opark 77 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


TTN, give a little time. First the data is compiled and then it will take a few people a little time to edit it down. These pages are works in progress. Give it time. ThatGuamGuy 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)sean[reply]
TNN, despite what you think, your interpretation of the rules is not the only one which counts, but since you are raising the objection, it's also up to you to point to a show where every episode does rightly have its own page, so that we can see the standard you are holding this to, and adjust the pages accordingly. ThatGuamGuy 02:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)sean[reply]


TTN, I'm a casual Wiki reader/user and wasn't aware of these notability guidelines. Looking around, I see that Lost also has pages for all of its episodes (List_of_Lost_episodes) with what doesn't seem to be any greater real-world information, and even fewer reference sources. (There are some episodes for which this is untrue--for instance the third season finale, Through_the_Looking_Glass_(Lost), has many references and is a featured page--but looking through the other episode pages, that seems to be very much the exception; for example, here's a different episode chosen at random: S.O.S._(Lost). It has no reference sources or real-world information whatsoever.)

I'm not trying to assert that "Lost has them so The Wire can too"--I'm trying to clarify what, if any, difference there is between the notability of the specific episode pages for the two series. Am I correct in assuming that you just haven't gotten around to merging the pages for Lost (that's my first guess), or is there some difference I'm overlooking which makes those articles acceptable within wiki's notability guidelines? If there is some feature of those articles which allows them to pass inspection, I'd be interested in seeing if it could also be done for The Wire's episodes. 24.90.146.245 08:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I was assuming good faith, but now that I've seen his talk page and some of the many complaints about his activity, it's apparent (from his own words, even) that he's deliberately avoiding high traffic pages and only attempting to do this to articles with lower traffic (see the links just given). He realizes that in the absence of consensus (which he scorns the need for--scan any number of references to "consensus" or "unilateral" on this or most of his other archived talk pages), he can't succeed with these merges and deletions for high traffic articles, therefore he neglects to make the attempt, favoring lower profile articles--as he put it, "once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones". While his opinion on notability is certainly worth considering, I'll take it more seriously when he's not trying to back-door this policy on thousands of low-traffic pages without ever testing it on the higher profile series.

He's said that the only consensus he needs is the notability guidelines as he interprets them; yet he generally refrains from showing this with the episode articles for high-profile or featured shows, while applying them frantically to lesser-known articles. I understand that wikipedia is not a democracy, but neither is it a court with him as sole judge and enforcer. If this were TTNpedia I'd have much less room to quarrel with his unilateral reshaping of the entire TV section to fit his vision of the notability standards. 24.90.146.245 16:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mistake consensus for the number of people that agree or disagree with an action. If we went with numbers, most policies and guidelines would be irrelevant. The set polices and guidelines represent consensus for that reason. The reason I stay away from larger series is due to the fact that it'll get me nowhere. The amount of fans makes it hard to get anything done. Now, don't confuse that with actual consensus; if it's anything, it's just a "consensus" to revert per their fan interest. TTN 16:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines are just there to serve as guidelines; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so rules are not to be applied blindly. ["If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."]
On a seperate note, speaking as a writer (and a would-be director), I strongly object to the idea that individual episodes of television shows are not notable acheivements. But that's a seperate issue. ThatGuamGuy 17:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)sean[reply]
  • My take is that if you asked me, sight unseen, to recommend whether articles for each episode of this series were warranted, I would be inclined to say they were not - but now that the articles exist and are of such consistently high quality, I would object to removing all of this hard work. Especially if the controversial measure of "notability" is the only rationale for doing so. I think a more productive way to begin improvements from here would be to work with the other editors on condensing un-encyclopedic content and then to re-evaluate the possibility of merging-and-redirecting. The quality of the content is more important to Wikipedia than the way it is distributed in the namespace. --Dystopos (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a proponent of the status quo: each ep it's own article. Moving them all into one list would make it unpleasantly long and harder to understand. Each episode has enough going on, and enough side-information to keep it on it's own page. Especially on a show like the wire, I think each ep deserves its own page. --Boris Barowski (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources

Season 1

Season 2

Season 3

  • [22] - anti-heroes on TV
  • [23] Colesberry obit
  • [24]
  • [25] - preview
  • [26] - Peabody
  • [27] Laura Lippman profile
  • [28] short S3 premiere announcement
  • [29] In depth S3 preview
  • [30] Stringer's death
  • [31] Stringer profile
  • [32] Profile of many minor actors in S3--Opark 77 17:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season 4

  • [33] season renewed
  • [34] drug gangs watch the wire!
  • [35] DeAngelis obit
  • [36] S4 review
  • [37] Snoop profile
  • [38] episode summary
  • [39] short S4 retrospective best of 2006
  • [40] Fran's engagement
  • [41] Fran's marriage

--Opark 77 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Zurawik articles

Look at my edit here. I need your help. east.718 at 04:44, 10/10/2007

Thanks very much for looking East. I found the articles through the Baltimore Sun archives. There are also some older ones that might be of use. I've put links to the abstracts below:
[42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] --Opark 77 10:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are ghosts. EBSCO and ProQuest both carry the Baltimore Sun, but doesn't seem to have these (the only Zuwarik article it has is Survival of HBO series going down to 'The Wire'). Findarticles turns up nothing. Got any other suggestions? east.718 at 19:22, 10/10/2007
Wait a minute... if I remember, the Sun opened up their archives for free use. You should be able to find the articles easily now. east.718 at 19:24, 10/10/2007
Got a few of them. [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] east.718 at 19:36, 10/10/2007 19:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those East. These articles were all listed as pay for full access in the Baltimore sun database when I found them. How did you manage to get them for free?--Opark 77 10:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google, IIRC, the Sun opened up their archives back to 2003, but they remain sneaky about doing it. east.718 at 15:09, 10/11/2007

Transclusion

I've set up pages for each season of the show and moved the episode list data there. I have copied the transclusion system used at List of Lost episodes to ensure the information on the season pages and the main list remains consistent. I note that there is a perceived loss of functionality to the list from some anonymous editors. I think having a shorter main list with more detail on the season pages is preferable and follows a precedent set by the Lost episodes featured topic. I would like to emphasise that no information has been removed and all of the short synopses I worked hard on are still available on the season pages. However, I'm happy to change the transclusion if lots of people want the entirety of the information to be duplicated. I have included main article links to each of the season pages under each season header in the main article and hope that readers interested in finding out more information will go on to the season pages from the main episode list.--Opark 77 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with the extended information on this page, I think shorter lists with separate pages for seasons can be useful for series with lots of seasons e.g. List of The Simpsons episodes, but for a series with five, quite short, seasons I don't think this page was too big. Quadparty (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Amsterdam" NOT "Hamsterdam"

Contrary to popular belief, ep.304 is called AMSTERDAM and NOT HAMSTERDAM! Can someone change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdpeck2147 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it, really? The information is conflicting. I believe "Hamsterdam" to be the title but I could be wrong.–FunkyVoltron talk 11:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • HBO's episode guide gives the title as "Hamsterdam". That may have been changed after production since apparently the mispronunciation was made on-set and only later incorporated into the script. ([80]) --Dystopos (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always heard it as "hamsterdam", a bastardisation of the dutch city, with intent. --Boris Barowski (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument isn't about the malapropism - it is definitely Hamsterdam within the series. We're wondering what the episode title was.--Opark 77 (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm not sure why we're wondering since it's a current HBO series and HBO maintains a fully-fleshed-out website about it which gives the titles of the episodes. Even if they did change the title after the fact, we have precedent for accepting changes like that as authoritative. --Dystopos (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

I think we need to change the way we structure individual episode articles in order to better conform to the standards set by WP:TV. When I started these articles I basically only wrote guest stars and plot sections. Now I think each article should aim to include a production, plot and reception section (along with references and external links). I think plot should contain the plot summary (which should be around 10 words per minute of screen time), first appearances and deceased sections as these are all in universe. Production should contains information on the cast, crew and credits, the epigraph, the title reference, locations, music and links to other works. Reception should include viewing figures, reviews and any awards or nominations received. What do people think? If there are no objections I will begin restructuring the episode articles to meet this format soon.--Opark 77 (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

There's a merge notice on the current article, also one pointing here on Hamsterdam (The Wire episode) and I guess the others too.

I'd oppose the merge. The article is plenty long enough as is. Andrewa (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear precedent for keeping individual episode pages for notable series. gren グレン 10:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too would oppose the merge - the article would be massive - likely so large that we would be motivated to split it into separate articles. Quadparty (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the proposal has been up for a few months, we're working to improve the articles and the consensus is against merging shall we begin removing these tags?--Opark 77 (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a justification for this merge proposal somewhere? Where? Andrewa (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just up here.--Opark 77 (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, OK. Then I'm inclined to think the tags should be removed. As you say, there seems no prospect of consensus to merge. Andrewa (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_The_Wire_episodes&oldid=198798600"