Talk:List of Twin Peaks episodes

Boxes

5th September 2006 - I'm unable to get the boxes showing the episodes right, but I proose removing the pointless 'image' box just to make the synopsis' easier to read. - Gerry Shannon.

Episode 1x07 "The Last Evening" did not air on Thursday, May 24, but on Wednesday, May 23 at 10 PM, cf. [1] and [2]

Besides the content I already removed, a lot of the remainder seems to have come from here: http://www.twinpeaks.org/archives/references/episode_guide This should be looked into, and the proper actions taken. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Pilot release info

When Twin Peaks Season 1 was released on DVD in the US, the pilot epsisode was not included. It remains unreleased on DVD in the US to this day. I assume there is a simple explanation involving who owns the rights to the pilot, but I have no info on it, and I think that info should be included in the listing by someone who knows. Druff 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of images, info ect.

The lack of pictures, information and links for actual episodes for one of the most influential American cult television series of all time astounds me! I’ve added a few image captions, and began the page for the first episode – but does anyone want to improve the page further, perhaps by adding / searching for images that fit the episode? Angel2001 10:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is not enough information given for each episode. I have just finished watching Series 1 again, and have lots of notes about the storylines. Any objections to me fleshing out the episode information on this page? I don't know how to create separate pages (one for each episode); if that's the more approporiate place to put more information, I will put it there if someone sets up the pages. Logicman1966 (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Twinpeaks2.jpg

Image:Twinpeaks2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Correcting episode numbers

I have adjusted the numbers of the episodes. The episode numbers given were incorrect, according to both of the DVD editions of the series. The DVDs do not give a number to the Pilot, so it should be episode 0, not '1' as it was given here. Hence, the episode that was described here as 'episode 2' is called 'episode 1' on the DVDs. I have reworked the list to correct this error and make it more user-friendly for readers watching the DVDs.Cop 663 (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to reply to this earlier, but kept forgetting. Anyway, I want to add my input. While I understand what you mean, but to say the pilot is episode 0 (meaning...it's not an episode?) is actually a little more confusing than anything. The only reason for the renumbering is because the episodes were originally untitled, meaning the second episode is actually titled "Episode 1" because television pilots are considered a "pilot" and not referred to as the first episode. To use this thinking, you'd have to label every pilot on all "List of episodes" pages as episode 0. If we were to go by the DVDs, then technically all the episodes should be renamed to "Episode 1", "Episode 2", etc. The EpisodeNumber parameter in the episode list is used for episode numbers, not episode titles. Again, I understand that "Pilot" is not "Episode 1", but it is still the first episode. Also, Wikipedia is not meant to be a guide for users who are watching the DVDs. I'm not sure if anyone else will put their input in on this. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to reply to this earlier, but kept forgetting. The point is, should we use numbering from a reliable source, or should we make up our own, special numbering system that we think is better? The DVDs are a reliable source for how the makers of the series want to number the episodes (the numbers that I used appear on the "Definitive Gold Box Set", which is approved by David Lynch himself). Is there a reliable source for the numbering system that numbers the Pilot "Episode 1"? I don't think so, but correct me if I'm wrong. If you don't like calling the Pilot "0", just leave EpisodeNumber blank. I really think this should be changed back, as this isn't just about the DVDs, but about the way the episodes are normally referred to in published material (e.g. Greg Olson's biography of Lynch uses the same numbering system as the DVDs).However, I'll hold off for a while in case you want to continue this rather pause-filled conversation. :) Cop 663 (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't need a reliable source for these episode numbers, they're numbers. They start at 1, then goes up sequentially. Again, the only reason this seems to be a problem is because the episodes are untitled, and the first episode is titled "Pilot", because that's what first episodes of television shows are referred to, meaning episode 2 is titled "Episode One" and so on. I don't know what else to say besides what I've also said now, but how can you logically say the first episode is episode 0 and the second episode is episode 1. Eliminate the fact they're titled "Pilot", "Episode One", etc., that logic makes no sense. I will reiterate the point I'm trying to make, the only reason this is a problem is because the episodes are untitled, if they were titled, it wouldn't be a problem. But, we're talking about the numbers not titles. Plus, the episodes are titled on this page. Don't take any of that in an "angry" manner, I just find this whole thing somewhat baffling. ;) —Drovethrughosts (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No anger is felt. But we have an impasse. You can indeed logically say that the first episode ought to be episode 1. You can also logically say that the makers of the series call the second episode "episode 1" and we ought to note this fact. So, instead of renumbering the episodes, would you object if I added an extra parameter called 'DVDnumber', that would at least inform the reader of the alternate numbering system? This won't look pretty, but I think we need it for clarity because it's confusing for readers to have Wikipedia doing something different from other written sources. Cop 663 (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your side to this, but I want to know if you understand the points I've brought up. The fact that the first episode is titled "Pilot", meaning the second episode is titled "Episode One". You understand this right? And that the only reason the numbering is a concern is because the episodes are technically untitled. If the episodes had titles, there would be no discussion whether the "Pilot" is episode 0 or 1. Anyway... I'm not a fan of that compromise, it seems odd and silly to have two different numbering systems, this thing isn't rocket science. My compromise suggestion is that we make the titles for the episodes as they are on the DVD, meaning "Traces to Nowhere" would be "Episode One", etc. and move "Traces to Nowhere" to the AltTitle parameter, as how "Northwest Passage" is the alt title for "Pilot". But, we leave the EpisodeNumber columns alone. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the episode titling, since you're concerned about everything here matching the DVDs. —Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that they're untitled, and that that's the only reason we're having this discussion. But we still have to have the discussion, because there are two numbering systems and it's confusing. Anyway, your compromise seems OK to me. To be honest, I think it will look odd and silly either way, but the situation itself is odd and silly so that's unavoidable. The episode titles are a good point - I didn't mention them because my main concern was the clarity of the table, but I can certainly agree that relegating them to 'alternate title' would be more accurate since they don't seem to have been created by the makers of the series. Cop 663 (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So, are we settled on the compromise that we add the DVD/original episode titles and move the current titles to the AltTitle parameter? —Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Cop 663 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done —Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all the hard work. :) Cop 663 (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

'Beyond Life and Death' article

Since the official episode titles are just designated "Episode 1," "Episode 9" etc., shouldn't the "Beyond Life and Death" article be retitled as "Episode 30 (Twin Peaks)", especially since someone created an "Episode 2" article without giving it the title "Zen, or the Skill to Catch a Killer"? Just figure we may as well be consistent with the title style. Any thoughts? SchrutedIt08 (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I just moved it, to fit with consistency, and since those are the official titles. Although, it's actually "Episode 29". Thanks for bringing this up. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Parental guidelines ratings of individual episodes

Wasn't sure where to put this, since I didn't want to put this on the talk page of every single episode page, but here seems as good as anywhere else.

Every individual episode page mentions an "original" rating (TV-14, etc) and a current rating, sourced from tvguide and iTunes, respectively. I disagree with the commonly-used wording for these. Quoting Episode 16's page, "The episode was rated TV-14 during its original broadcast in the United States,[10] though it was later rated TV-PG.[2]" None of these episodes had original ratings, as they aired years before the ratings system existed. 146.79.231.130 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Season 3 vs. Miniseries

Should we be listing the Showtime revival as a third season? None of the sources provided explicitly state that it is considered a third season, just that it's a continuation. After all, Live Another Day isn't considered a ninth season of 24, but a separate entity that fits into the continuity of the original series. I'm not really that fussed either way, just wondering what others thought. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to "miniseries" or better yet, "limited series", because it's not being referred to as "season 3". The official press release states "limited series" and various reports also say "limited series". Mark Frost responded to the question of "Are you looking at this as Season 3 of Twin Peaks? with "Not really, but just because my brain doesn’t work that way. I’ve always said that Twin Peaks to me was like a novel we filmed every page of. So this is more like we found another volume of the saga, and now we want to bring that to life too." Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to counter that -- the production numbers for 24 list Live Another Day as a Season 9. (9AFF01, 9AFF02, 9AFF03, etc), not a new entity at all. Whether or not it's being referred to a season 3 of the show, it is, in fact, a season 3 of Twin Peaks. The moniker of "limited series" really doesn't make sense in this case (as if it ever did), especially because this next installment is not a stand-alone entity divorced from any other medium. It's another 9 episodes of Twin Peaks, which to the casual observer would be a season 3. If it's just me, that's fine, but this type of stuff kills my OCD.2605:E000:99CA:7300:9106:54CB:69AA:DFA4 (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Series Overview" -> Limited Series

The hidden edit note on the series overview stated "do not add the limited series until a table can be created for it" A table was created, therefore the limited series was added.

"WP:TVOVERVIEW"; 'Series overview' states when a television programme has produced more than 2 seasons, a series overview table should be created.

Only yesterday the third season of the Twin Peaks series had its announcement of the premiere air date and episode number. Therefore, this is included on the 'series overview'.

@Drovethrughosts: reverted my edit saying note was ignored. It was not ignored (see text written right above).

If you believe it should not be included, please discuss why and when it should be. As far as I can see, an additional table was created for the Limited Series, now including it on the series overview. 82.37.3.182 (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting what it's meant to mean. WP:TVOVERVIEW refers to not creating rows for seasons in which episode tables do not exist. There is not an episode table for the limited series because we usually wait until we know the episode titles. Per WP:TVOVERVIEW, "A new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season. (See: WP:TVUPCOMING)". Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Twin Peaks episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110114013806/http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/epquides/twinpeaks.htm to http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/epquides/twinpeaks.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 Episode List/Summaries

NOTE: I think someone should add episode summaries from the main article here. I've tried, but I can't figure out how to do it. It doesn't show me a table to edit. Can someone else do this please?

Season 3 episode titles

Any specific reason why the episodes are only titled "Part 1", "Part 2", etc. in this article and not by their titles according to the Showtime Website? Toben (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Because those are the titles. "Gotta light?", etc. are episode descriptions. Just compare those pages to this for example, where it's clear where the episode title is and where the description is. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Ratings section

I think I understand the reasons that the ratings section and the graphs are being removed, but I strongly disagree with them. Graphs are powerful visual tools that make data more accessible; graphing the ratings for Twin Peaks is especially useful because the decline in ratings (and the resulting cancellation) are such a crucial aspect of understanding the overall history of Twin Peaks.

For the benefit of other editors watching this page, here's the edit history (from my perspective):

• The graphs were added by Frietjes in August 2018, merging it from templates that had appeared on separate pages (like Twin Peaks (season 3) ([3])
• Wikipedical removed the graphs in January, and essentially said the section was redundant to the ratings column in the episode lists ("these ratings are already presented in the episode list")
• I added the section back, saying: "It's true that the episode list already includes a column for the ratings, but that doesn't seem to be a good reason to exclude a separate ratings section—especially since the graphs are a far better presentation of that info than the numbers in the columns by themselves."
• Radiphus reverted with the following edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Brandt Luke Zorn: Having two graphs for the same show is confusing. Especially when one of the is measuring viewers in millions and the other in thousands. Also, the second graph is about a single season. The use of the template in this page seems inappropriate and it would be better to avoid this mess altogether."

I don't think the graphs are inappropriate in the context of this show's development and I don't see what's confusing about having two graphs (or two scales).

The Return/the third season is generally well-understood to distinct from the first two seasons. The Return was a revival far removed in time from the airing of the original series. Even without any background knowledge of the show's history, this aspect of Twin Peaks becomes immediately apparent to almost anyone who tries to learn about it or watch it. From a practical standpoint, the way most people encounter this show would be as two distinct units, with the first two seasons as one chunk and the third season as a distinct chunk. Consider, for instance, that a person coming across the show on Netflix (or any other streaming platforms that may happen to license ABC's Twin Peaks) wouldn't be able to stream the third season, since the third season is a Showtime exclusive. To the extent that someone might be bewildered by the separation of the two graphs, the reason for doing so is easily explained by the large gap of time and the completely different production companies—as well as the practical utility of displaying the very different number ranges, since the third reason's ratings were much, much lower than the debut episode's peak in the dozens of millions. So rather than being confusing, it makes sense to draw a Twin Peaks novice's attention to the separation between the two portions of the show. As to the fact that "one of the [graphs] is measuring viewers in millions and the other in thousands": the units are clearly labeled on each graph. If a person wants to read the info contained in the graphs and is graph-literate at a middle-school level, they will quickly see and understand the labeling.

I can't say I'd necessarily endorse using graphs on every list of TV episodes—some may be prohibitively long and would be better suited to articles about individual seasons. But here, a mere three seasons is digestible. Other episode lists of comparable length use ratings templates: List_of_Hannibal_episodes#Ratings, List_of_Mr._Robot_episodes#Ratings, List of Orphan Black episodes#Ratings. Here's the full list of articles using Template:Television season ratings. Visualizing this info with a graph seems, to me, to be self-evidently useful and informative. At worst it's merely redundant, but I can't see any actual harm or downside in presenting the info this way. It's no more redundant than the fact that Bob_Dylan#Discography lists his studio albums, even tho the list and sequence of albums could be extrapolated from the preceding biological text in the same article.

I've tagged involved editors throughout; in the interest of a fuller discussion, I'm also going to tag the editors Frietjes indicated had created the original graphs (minus those who appear inactive): HugoVert, AlexTheWhovian, Brojam, Universe1609, Drovethrughosts, User:JayCoop. —BLZ · talk 04:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Brandt Luke Zorn: Thanks for the tag. I'd say that my opinion on the inclusion of television rating graphs has evolved into indecision. Because of streaming services such as Netflix and Prime, broadcast and cable TV shows have suffered a ratings decline overall, which makes me question the usefulness of including television ratings at all on Wikipedia. I remember editing these tables a few years ago and Episode 1 of any given show would start off strong and then the ratings would decline with every succeeding episode. I know that Game of Thrones is an exception to this, but there may come a day when we'll have to stop using these tables or ratings altogether, perhaps within the next decade. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 05:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you're right. No doubt Nielsen-style ratings will likely become less and less relevant over time, both because of the streaming model and because big companies like Netflix keep their viewer stats completely internal. Prospectively, ratings info will become less and less useful for new shows—but historically, for shows that debuted well before the streaming era, I think it remains relevant info (much as album sales will remain historically significant info about pre-streaming era music). —BLZ · talk 07:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that keeping track of ratings is useful for many TV shows preceding streaming services, but at some point, there may be a cutoff date on inclusion of such ratings in the future. It must be noted, however, that ratings could continue to be included in Wikipedia articles if streaming services decide to release viewership data. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 20:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

My recent restoration of the section has been reverted again by Radiphus. This time Radiphus's edit summary was: "yes it is stop edit-warring". I take the accusation of edit-warring seriously. I've only reverted twice now, and only once to one of Radiphus's edits. If I were to revert Radiphus now, it would be my third revert total on the page. (3RR is generally about three reverts within a 24-hour period, not a total number of reverts.) I brought this topic to the discussion page before my second revert. I presented my reasoning to revert and I tagged Radiphus, so there's no way he missed my post. I only made my second revert after some time had passed and he still hadn't responded to this discussion—plus, no one else spoke up for his position. Radiphus: if you want to express your reasons for removing the ratings section, just do so here. I wanted to open a discussion. Please respond and make your case, or stop making arbitrary removals without discussion. —BLZ · talk 21:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I made my case in the edit summary. What's the point in repeating myself here? There are no other articles on TV shows that use more than one graph, just like there are no other articles that use a television ratings graph for a single season. The reason why this is the case should be obvious to anyone graph-literate at a middle-school level. The inclusion of these graphs in the article is absolutely confusing, redundant and inappropriate. I have nothing to add here. Let other editors express there opinions if they wish, instead of trying to change my mind. Radiphus (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The point is not to repeat yourself, but to respond to what I said. That's why I took this to the discussion page. If you don't think you have any more to say, then you don't have actual reasons for reverting, only your conclusions and personal judgments. You say that no other episode lists have more than one graphs; that's fine, but that doesn't account for the possibility that Twin Peaks may have distinguishing qualities that would justify including more than one graph. As I said above, there are numerous reasons that it's sensible to treat the two eras of Twin Peaks as distinct chunks or even as separate works.

Even supposing you're right, I don't understand how your objection to splitting the graph in two leads you to conclude that the solution is to remove the graphs entirely. —BLZ · talk 19:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ratings sources

The rating sources for the original series have been deleted because they come from a self-published source using magazine scans which is a copyright violation. I have done my best to replace the references but there is still six episodes from season 2 that I cannot find citations for. Is there anyone that can help with me this? Plus, this article is an FA, I doubt it'll be able to stay as that if there's citation needed tags. I'm going to ping @Grapple X: and @Gen. Quon: because I believe they they have access to newspaper archives. Thanks if anyone can help. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do.—Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: Found 'em! Should be good to go.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Very appreciated! :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

We can just cite the magazine itself in any case--the copyright violation would be in linking to the scanned images, but if you have viewed the image to read it you can just cite the content itself as an offline source. Think of it like citing a book source, but the way you've read the book to know what you can cite from it is that you pirated a scan--it's still verifiable and accurate at the end of the day. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 18:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)