Talk:List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 219.89.137.207 - "→‎I messed up=: "
m Reverted to revision 242325804 by SineBot; rvv.
Line 1: Line 1:
==I messed up===
==I messed up===
I tried to add that there were 3 more episodes to Season 2 into the table and now the table is in the external links section :( <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.237.41.221|99.237.41.221]] ([[User talk:99.237.41.221|talk]]) 20:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I tried to add that there were 3 more episodes to Season 2 into the table and now the table is in the external links section :( <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.237.41.221|99.237.41.221]] ([[User talk:99.237.41.221|talk]]) 20:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:fail <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/219.89.137.207|219.89.137.207]] ([[User talk:219.89.137.207|talk]]) 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Episode articles==
==Episode articles==

Revision as of 02:57, 11 October 2008

I messed up=

I tried to add that there were 3 more episodes to Season 2 into the table and now the table is in the external links section :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.41.221 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode articles

Exactly where were all the episodes split from this page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean 'when'? Not sure i understand the question. This page was created late December and it looks like the episodes were created early January -- in short, they were created as they aired, not split off all at once. Fritter (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the pilot episode (and maybe "Heavy Metal", though the reception section needs some cleanup, it's a start), I don't see why any of the others should have been split (and/or created) to begin with. Scanning through, they're nothing but expanded plots. Not only do they violate WP:PLOT, but they don't even fit the spinout criteria at WP:SPINOUT or WP:FICT. Whether they were created at the same time, or not, they are classified as "spinout" articles from the LOE page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged all the episodes that fail basic notability. They either need to be cleaned up and sourced by independent sources, or redirected back to this article. (i.e. a single review from TV Squads questionable professional reviewers isn't enough. See WP:FICT for what needs to be done).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's been over a month. Other than the pilot and maybe "Heavy Metal", the rest of the episode pages need to be redirected back to this page. They contain nothing more than plot sections, and Wikipedia isn't simply a plot summary. The LOE page easily contains all the same information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been done. To all the nay-sayers, allow me to quote User:Sgeureka:
"The articles weren't deleted, they were transwikied and then redirected. None of them were ever AfDed, so what happened in another show's AfD is immaterial to the SG-1 articles. Proper procedure was followed with them (tagging, waiting and discussion), and everything (edit history) is still there. WP:NOT#PLOT says that an article should not consist solely of plot, but most SG-1 episode articles did not pass this inclusion criterion. Policy trumps my opinion, and it trumps anyone else's. If you wish to write an elaborate production and reception section that doesn't fit in the Season 10 article anymore, feel yourself encouraged to revive the episode article. If you can't or won't, then I oppose the un-redirection vehemently. – sgeureka"
Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<====Bignole suggested above that the pilot and (maybe) Heavy Metal not be redirected. I helped rewrite and improve Heavy Metal, which then survived its AfD. I understand the desire for consistency, but then, I also understand the deletionist point of view that articles should stand on their own. If we don't have inherited notability, surely we can't have inherited NON-notability. It's my view that Heavy Metal did stand on its own. Furthermore, the real world info on that page was deleted, not transwikied, as it was not moved to Wikia. And while this was one of the best episode articles for the series, it has only a rather inadequate one sentence summary in the LOE. The redirection thus seems to be a net loss of information. Fletcher (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher's right, I was willing to give "Heavy Metal" some additional time to get cleaned up and expanded. With the DVDs coming out in a few months, they could have something to help "Heavy Metal".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy Metal's real world info doesn't do anything to establish notability anymore than a review of a restaurant in a college newspaper does, in my opinion. That said, I am not uncompromising - I'd rather have an article on Heavy Metal than I would on every non-notable episode in existence. Feel free to revert the redirect. Misterdiscreet (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else agree with me that all episodes should have pages? Misterdiscreet thinks differently, need to know if I'm on my own or he is? Jonesy702 (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you. What were the reasons for redirecting the articles, I wonder? The series easily meets notability requirements, as do individual episodes, having been featured on multiple mainstream TV channels. There is surely plenty of precedent for notable TV series having an article for every episode (e.g., every episode in List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes). WP:PLOT just means the plot shouldn't be too in-depth. At the least, a major change like this should be discussed on the Talk pages to see if there is consensus. If people really think they fail to meet notability requirements, then put them up for an AfD to see what the consensus is. Mdwh (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for redirecting the articles are discussed here. It's the result of a consensus between me and BIGNOLE. As BIGNOLE notes, the episodes had a notability tag for over a month and nothing was done, so the articles were redirected. Fletcher and Hazardous Matt have commented on the redirection since it took place and although they didn't explicitly say 'yay' or 'nay', I'd argue that they tacitly accepted it.
As for your "there is surely plenty of precedent"... wrong. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. What do you propose I do? Police every single episode article for every single series? That's insane. Policing the individual episodes for Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles is hard enough work, as is - I cannot monitor every single episode and if that's what you're suggesting I need to do for these redirects to be justified, you're insane.
And while we're on the subject of precedent, see List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. All of those episodes are being redirected and indeed, for the efforts that have been undertaken in that and it's associated articles, the list has been designated a featured list. That's what all articles should strive towards and your attempt to spin these episodes out into their own articles suggests that you're almost working against that. Why? Don't you want to write good articles?
As for my citing precedent when I've just condemned you for doing so... consider the fact that there's an article entitled WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but that there's no article entitled WP:OTHERCRAPHASBEENDELETED.
As for your AFD proposal... quoting User:Sgeureka:
WP:Articles for deletion should not be misused for merge/redirect proposals. ... Deletion means the edit histories are lost to non-admins, merging/redirection means anyone can access the edit histories.
I don't want to delete the articles or their associated edit histories - all I'm interested in doing is merging them and to that end, AFDs are inappropriate Misterdiscreet (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I didn't read that last one, cause it's kind of too long for me right now, but I do agree that having an article with nothing but a plot section is kind of pointless. That's the kind of stuff for the wikia Terminator wiki or the official Fox Terminator wiki, not here. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that people should AfD them in order to redirect them, I was addressing the claims of non-notability. If they are non-notable, they should be put up for AfD. That's nothing to do with the issue of redirection. As for a consensus from two people - I'm just adding my voice to the consensus that disagrees, and trying to start up a discussion here. My argument is not WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - that refers to the idea of saying that crap is justified if other crap exists. Here I do not consider the articles to be crap, and I am referring to the likely established consensus. I'm not expecting you to police them - I'll be happy to do it, or maybe someone else is.
The SG episodes have been transferred to another wiki, and the link for each episode is given in the article list. It appears that someone has done the job of transwiki-ing but the links still need to be added here for each episode. I don't mind whether the information is on Wikipedia or another Wiki, but I would prefer the episode links being retained, rather than a half job of removing links but not adding in the new links. Mdwh (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my initial redirection, wikia links existed [1], but they were later removed [2]. Since the featured list List of Stargate SG-1 episodes includes external links for every episode, I, personally, feel that their inclusion is justified and would not object to such links being readded Misterdiscreet (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see they were removed because they were embedded directly in the episode title, whereas the SG list has them in a separate column. I agree it would be a good idea to have them back. Fletcher (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, tacit acceptance is a good way to describe my view. I like individual episode articles, if they're good. But these articles were lousy because people kept adding pointless trivia and bloating the plot summary, like it's a fan wiki rather than an encyclopedia. Then when "Heavy Metal" was put up for deletion, the fan boys were nowhere to be found when it comes to trimming plot and adding real world sourcing. If that's the way it's going to be, I'd rather use the list format to manage the content. Fletcher (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right this long winded conversation is all well and good, but how do I get the episode articles back on here with getting into trouble? Jonesy702 (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim the plot summaries to no more than 500 words, and add a bunch of reliable sources that comment upon each article so that they are not all just plot summary. THen you can likely defend them against deletion/redirection. Fletcher (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D&D? Huh?

There's a redirect to this article from Dungeons & Dragons (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles). How did that happen?  Hazardous Matt  16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone redirected (most of) the individual episode articles into the List of Episodes. This is a common, and often controversial, practice for articles that are mostly plot summary. Fletcher (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought that might have been it, but I scrolled through the episode list a bit too fast, it would seem, and I missed that particular listing. I guess it makes sense now.  Hazardous Matt  16:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]