Talk:List of Dirty Jobs episodes

The Discovery Channel website doesn't list the "revisit" jobs episodes (like "Dirtest Water Jobs") anywhere, so I'm going to move them here to "Season 2.5" since they're not really season 2 nor season 3. Wl219 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL

From Links to be avoided:

13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

The subject of the article is Dirty Jobs episodes, and only relevant websites (on episodes of Dirty Jobs) should be linked. This is policy. Attempts at inserting links to commercial websites for the companies that are featured in the show will be reverted. Wikipedia is not an advertising database or linkfarm. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

These are the links Gustafson removed:

• http://www.crowleycheese-vermont.com/ (from the Cheese Maker episode)
• http://www.freundsfarmmarket.com/cowpots/index.html (Poo Pot episode)
• http://www.merryvale.com/ (Wine Maker episode)

I still dispute the removal of these links since I believe they're appropriate in the context of the article (WP:EL#What to link #2), which is to provide more information about the jobs and people featured on Dirty Jobs. I also dispute their unceremoniously rude removal by Gustafson, but he has apparently appointed himself "The Decider" on this matter, so what can you do. Wl219 20:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Table format

I reverted the table format that was changed by Pascale989 as I do not agree that it is a better format. With nearly 500 other articles using the {{Episode list}} template, it does not make any sense to change to an entirely different non-standard format, especially since there a movement to convert articles to use the template. Additionally, the "Production Number" is unsourced and does not appear to be any official production number/code. The "Season Number" also appears to be a made up code. Before this becomes an edit war, I would like to solicit other opinions on what the preferred table format should be.

Here is Pascale989's version and the previous version. -- Gogo Dodo 23:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Redoing Table

Im quite sure a vote will show that this new table is quite a lot better, it is far easier to look at. Either way there are season numbers missing that are found on the same sites already listed, if you dont know how to number these then dont edit them, I do a lot of data archiving and this is the best method. Format the table however you want, but the season numbers are not only wrong the way it has been, but there are no episode specific season numbers. I dont care whoever is an admin, this site has incorrect/lacking information and will be changed or i will put up a new page. Look at every source listed and you will find no seasons match, im currently trying to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascale989 (talk • contribs)

Season numbering

Its common place to do digital archiving of episodes by labeling season numbers XXXX, first 2 are season number and second two are the episode from within that season. Production numbers typically are sequenced by when they were made not shown, this is what was currently on the web site and have correct numbering I think, i didnt change any of these. Production numbers usually aren't used to reference episodes by sequence because it isnt neccesarily the order of air date, which is what people generally organize by. Discovery channels list of episodes is incomplete, and Tv.com's season numbering is different from discovery's, but before i even changed anything the wiki page matched none of its listed sorces in respect to seasons. The Episode list has no field to enter season numbering for episodes, so it needs changing. Tv.com recently removed the season numbering column, and counting is annoying. Look at stores for the dvd's, you will see "from season 2 episode 25" for example, the 25th episode within season 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascale989 (talk • contribs)

While the labeling of seasons numbers/episodes as you say may be common, the list should be what the actual show's production code is, not what you believe it should be. Discovery does not list any production code nor do they list any code as you have proposed, therefore, it should not be included. As for the Episode list template not having a season column, that is correct, because the seasons are broken up by sections already, so the column would be redundant. -- Gogo Dodo 23:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as this half season thing, someone is making this up, im not the one making false numbers, typically you do something like an "other" section, where you might call it "The best of dirty jobs" or something, since its just a recompilation of repeated episodes. Usually this season/episode thing is pretty cut and dried but the history and discovery channel does goofy things sometimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascale989 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I agree that the Dirtiest... episodes section is mislabeled, but the problem is that as you said, Discovery does not clearly label their seasons. So we make do as best as we can. -- Gogo Dodo 23:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at tv.com i realized they have made another change that i just noticed, the production column i had should be labeled episode number, they used to call it production number. When archiving episodes from media to a hard drive, episode numbers dont work well, almost every sorting algorithm for playlists goes through and sorts numbers from left to right, so for instance episode 20 will come before 18, seasonal numbering corrects this and is far more robust, its also very widely used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascale989 (talk • contribs)

Merge proposal

i see virtually identical content between these tables. Any unique info should be merged into one page. Stuph 12:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the virtually identical content is that the creator of that article forked a copy of this article after a content dispute over the production number and the use of the {{Episode list}} template. See the discussion above and the editor's Talk page. There is very little to be merged and a redirect should be done as was done last month. -- Gogo Dodo 18:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected the article. Sorry to the dude who created it, but ya don't get to create a fork because you're not happy with the original article (PS: Those "codes" had no sources.) Matthew 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources for season numbering

Seriously, If you cant understand season numbering stop editing wiki pages. You dont need sources for it, if you use that as an argument, I can equally argue that I see no sources for using a base 10 numbering system.