Talk:List of Drawn Together episodes: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:26, 4 November 2007

New layouts

I've been trying to rework the trivia sections on each episode page to hopefully make them a little better organized. I moved the pop culture parodies and other references into a section called Cultural References, and made a section called Animated Cameos listing the famous characters (Speedy Gonzales, Popeye, etc.) that appear in certain episodes since they're a significant part of the show and probably deserve special mention. I also created a section called Notes and Inside References for behind-the-scenes trivia, references to other episodes, character info that is revealed, and other interesting details and oddities.Raymondluxuryacht 22:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say thanks - Nice lay out. Tom C 7/4/06

Production codes

Some of the production codes seem to keep getting switched around a LOT. Could we possibly find out the true production codes for each episode, and then keep them there?Raymondluxuryacht 04:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Central's website lists "Captain Hero's Marriage Pact" as 205 and "Clum Babies" as 204. Since that's the closest thing we have to an official source, I've changed the episode list to reflect that. TV.com lists them the other way around, but I've found that site, while a good source of info, is not 100% accurate.Raymondluxuryacht 08:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second episode of February is simliar. When I put the info for A Tale of Two Cows, I put the production number on comedy central's website. --Evildevil 16:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars music

Starting from, and most frequently used in Episode 12: "Captain Hero's Marriage Pact", I'm very sure the orchestraic string music that plays in the background comes from the love theme in Star Wars Episode II. Either that or I'm a very nerdy nerd. Can anyone else confirm and maybe insert it as trivia? --61.6.203.213 12:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. This would be a great bit of trivia if we could confirm it. Unfortunately, I'm not enough of a Star Wars expert to offer any insight on this; I only get the really obvious references.Raymondluxuryacht 06:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just rewatched ep. 12, and the music definitely isn't the "Across the Stars" love theme. It is very similar to Leia's theme, though without any sort of input from the music director I don't think it's worth adding as trivia (since it'd be POV). Virogtheconq 01:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2 over?

Season 2 is over, as proven by the Season 2 Rewind, already in progress on Comdey Central. Just thought I'd mention that, seeing as that 'To Be Announced' makes it look like more episodes are already underway for this season. ~JeramiahWindsor (20:23 EST. December 29, 2005)

The season is only half over. The Season 2 Rewind was just showing all of the Season 2 episodes so far. The show's been given a full thirteen-episode order, and that's not including "Terms of Endearment", which is supposed to air as well.Raymondluxuryacht 06:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject: Episode Lists

I was thinking about formatting this page so that it fits the formats set forth by Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes. Please see List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes for an example. This project would involve moving each episode's information into individual articles, and creating a more visually appealing table as the main page. I can easily get screenshots for this, so it's probable that this will look really good, and make the main page a little less crowded. Does anyone object? tiZom 20:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a bad idea at all. This seems to be one of the fastest growing TV pages on Wikipedia. It's obvious based on the activity here that the show certainly has a large following, and people have all kinds of info to contribute about each episode. I'd say it's definitely warranted.Raymondluxuryacht 22:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A 'yes' vote from me. Example here?--naz 05:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and start creating some of the other episode pages. If someone can come up with a good table for the master episode list, we'd be in great shape.Raymondluxuryacht 06:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The episode pages are done, and I put up a rudimentary table on the mainpage. If anyone could help out by providing screenshots for the table, I'd be much obliged. :)Raymondluxuryacht 10:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast. I'm still new-ish to Wikipedia and I find it amazing how relatively easy things are done around here. I have the first season DVD-quality episodes loaned to a friend but as soon as I get them back, I'll upload some pictures for the list and individual episodes, along with other information for the infobox. Again, wow. --naz 13:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image placeholders temporarily, mainly because it seems this page is visited often, and it just doesn't look that great to have them there. It is very easily undone, as I just turned the Image placeholders into comments. Once you've got those screenshots, you can upload them, and replace my comments. I don't know of any format for naming the images, so do whatever, just remember to keep them at 100px on this page. :o) tiZom 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea Wikipedia has auto image-resizing capabilites. Ah well, live and learn. Season 2 images are now up. --naz 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea when you can get the Season 1 screenshots up? I've got some low-quality pics that I could put up there temporarily if you want...
Looks great, btw :o) tiZom 20:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks beautiful... thanks!!! tiZom 15:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. --naz 15:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost font

would the "Lost" style logo from the s3 midseason finale be a better image placeholder than the DT house? I want opinions before I go ahead and change them. --Evildevil 03:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be.Raymondluxuryacht 03:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I'll make the change then. --Evildevil 04:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it's done. I added it to the Parking Space 2 and Charlette's Web eps too.--Evildevil 04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use removal

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. -M^ask? 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, does this mean nearly every television screenshot will be taken down at one point? --Evildevil 05:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode notability

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposed merge and redirect. 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 discussion was do not merge or redirect. DWaterson 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The true result was to redirect all per the lack of any defense besides WP:ILIKEIT. TTN 23:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. That is unlikely to happen, and these only have certain bad aspects (though all may not apply) like containing overly long or one sentence plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list.

If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. Otherwise, discussion will take place here. Please remember that this is not a vote. If you like the information, that's fine and dandy, but your opinion doesn't really count towards anything. The only opinions that do count are ones that that lean towards the inclusion of real world information. TTN 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Admittedly, there maybe isn't as much as real-world information as there could be, but the articles aren't totally devoid of it. And I, for one, would be willing to try to improve them in this regard. These are very thorough, informative articles that could definitely be given the necessary improvements.Raymondluxuryacht 05:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real world information means development and reception backed by reliable sources. I don't see any here, and I doubt there is enough unique content available. TTN 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These episode articles used to be a single article, but was split when it got too long- and there were less than half the episodes there are now. If we pared it down, people would keep adding back to it, and we'd be right back to the same place. There's simply too much information to condense it down that much. Also, unlike many television episode articles on Wikipedia, these don't merely state a summary of the episode; they also contain information on the series' references to cultural events, as well as on the social commentary it makes.. Missnickers 07:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each episode needs a few sentences here at most, and a paragraph if sourced season articles are created. The cultural references are unsourced trivia, so they have no baring on the length. If people keep bloating it past that, it'll be reverted, and protected if necessary. TTN 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they indeed do need to be just in a list. They are cluttered and I see no signs of them improving. A popular show doesn't instantly make all episodes suitable for articles here (especially when they turn into dumping grounds for any little note on the show). In my view, just about any TV show should be in list form here... as Wikipedia TV episode articles are in poor shape for the most part. As TTN said: a few sentences do the job just fine. They shouldn't turn into madness (similar to how Family Guy episode articles and so on are). RobJ1981 06:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose What makes these articles any different from the hundreds of articles around for specific episodes of other television shows?--Evildevil 03:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not any different. That's why these and most other episode articles will be redirected eventually. TTN 14:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If we are going to merge episode articles with this page, why not do the same with South Park, ect.? To date there are no plans to merge the South Park episode list with the episode articles, so why do it here? Zachorious 04:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The South Park episodes will be cut down eventually. Though, unlike this show, some of the episodes have been given real world information. Trapped in the Closet (South Park) is even a good article. TTN 13:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got a South Park example that's considered a decent article and was for an episode that did not create an almost global controversy? I think Trapped in the Closet is a terrible example in comparison to the Drawn Together episodes. --Evildevil 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per the consistency-with-other-shows argument. Also, wikipedia isn't paper. Cool beans, that's an overwhelming opposition to that ridiculous proposal. Someone can take off the merge tag from the episode articles now. Artiste-extraordinaire 07:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These will be redirected soon due to the fact that only WP:ILIKEIT arguments are present. Please remember that this is not a vote, so the "majority" here means nothing. TTN 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several arguments present, and none of them are of that variety . Quit dismissing everyone's opinion because you don't agree with it.Raymondluxuryacht 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only valid argument to keep deals with actually providing sources that assert notability. Anything else is just a blanket statement made in ignorance (all of the above opposes go against our basic policies and guidelines). We do not count those in actual discussion. TTN 19:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course these should be redirected. They fail WP:EPISODE completely and the idea that they should stay because other non-notable episode articles exist is simply a clarion call to further action: Aux armes citoyens! Formez vos bataillons, Marchons, marchons! Eusebeus 13:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as sourced. There are several sources (TV.com, IMDB, etc.) for episodes of any show of reasonable popularity, which is why WP:EPISODE is rarely followed for almost any show that anybody watches. Oren0 23:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No actual arguments have been presented, so these will be redirected soon. TTN 15:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbling here, I am compelled to point out the gross illogicality of this proposal. First and foremost, WP:IAR, so anything I am about to say about policies is moot, however, this is clearly WP:POINT as any merging will be reverted. It is also, as mentioned above, going against previous (and current) WP:CONSENSUS for this article, and the consensus for the rest of Wikipedia, which as said above, seems to be perfectly happy to have thousands of articles about Books, Films, Episodes, Characters - all of which are technically WP:OR and not WP:NOTABLE. I do agree that these articles seem to violate some policies, however the removal of them will, unnecessarily, violate more and create irritation for the hundreds of users that have contributed to them. I feel that we have to choose, do we let Wikpedia become the "Sum of human knowledge" or do we make Wikipedia the sum of all apart from a few things that we don't want of human knowledge. As these articles are of reasonable quality and are not causing much dispute, I see no reason to delete them beyond WP:WL, WP:EPISODE and other related guidelines are present to stop wikipedia filling up with Unknown Programs (Series 1)(Episode 1) kind of stubs - they should certainly not be cited as a reason to remove content. Conrad.Irwin 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reread the guideline under which these merges were proposed - this merge is actually not the way in which it advises dealing with existing articles. I agree that they are not formatted according to the guidelines, and so I will replace the {{merge}} tags with {{cleanup}}. Conrad.Irwin 09:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to show that there is a possibility. All of the whining above only shows that they have to resort to ignoring policies and guidelines to "keep" these. TTN 11:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in the balance of fairness can you show that there is no possibility? The merging of these articles can only be achieved by ignoring several different policies and guidelines as well. Conrad.Irwin 16:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Redirect - WP:NOTE beats WP:ILIKEIT every time. --Jack Merridew 12:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(side note; in the future such section headings should be:

Episode non-notability

--Jack Merridew 12:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could people please read WP:ILIKEIT before suggesting that any of the arguments above are of this form.

However my main point is, as stated in the WP:EPISODE policy if there are problems with an article, it should be proposed for deletion. I feel that there should be no need to quote this at people, but what else can I do.

Before executing a merge, ask yourself:

Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article?

Are more sources available?
If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", it is probably better to avoid merging or redirecting. Instead, consider improving it, or offer suggestions for its improvement on the talk page.

The answer to both these questions is yes; in that the list article already contains enough information to be a good list and allow people to navigate their way through the articles, adding more content will make it unwieldy and hard to use; and yes in that very few sources have yet been cited - and so there are lots more that can be.

If there is a wish for the entries of individual articles to stop existing then they must be submitted to AfD and not just hidden. Conrad.Irwin 16:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles shouldn't be merged - but as this seems to be being ignored can we please ensure that what happened at Mighty Max (TV series)#Full_list of episodes does not occur here. It is going to take editors a long time to try and extract all the information from the pages that were turned into redirects as it takes at least three page loads just to read the old content. Conrad.Irwin 16:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they should be merged, or simply redirected — list has bits enough, already. I just took a close look at The Other Cousin — where's the notability? How many WP:NOT violations? No sources — except the bits that are about the movie they're quoting. If you want this kept, find some sources. What did Sarah Silverman say about this? That the check cleared? --Jack Merridew 13:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at Mighty Max (TV series)#Full_list of episodes — and it's fine. That whole show was to promote the British Mighty Max toys; see: WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. --Jack Merridew 13:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I was objecting to on the Mighty Max list was that each episode used to have an article - which was why the list contained no information. Then the articles all got redirected, but the list still contained no information - now people are having to struggle to the old versions of the article pages to rescue the content from them. Moving the content across is what WP:MERGEing means. Incidentally discussing an advert with a NPoV is not advertising.

Unless the content will be taken from these articles and put into the list - which is an odd thing to do because the list contains enough information - then it is not a merge, it is deletion and as such must be discussed at AfD.Conrad.Irwin 21:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection is not deletion, as it is used to allow others to salvage content, and possibly bring it back upon finding information. TTN 21:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but neither is it merging - perhaps we need a different template that would more accurately express the intention. It has been proposed that this article be a redirect to List of Drawn Together episodes Conrad.Irwin 20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unless you can name at least ONE cultural show on Wikipedia that doesn't have thir own episode articles. I don't think you can. TheBlazikenMaster 11:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Lucy has only two episode articles and it is far more notable than this show. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good rationale ("So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet."). Star dust 8212 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on grounds of length. The article would become extremely long if merged, and would need to be promptly split again. DWaterson 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but Wikipedia policies overrule flimsy notions of praticality, everytime. Artiste-extraordinaire 15:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Although their were a number of policy-based arguments in favour of merging and redirecting, an overwhelming majority were opposed on various other grounds. DWaterson 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 The result of the discussion was '''do not merge or redirect'''. [[User:DWaterson|DWaterson]] 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
+:The true result was to redirect all per the lack of any defense besides [[WP:ILIKEIT]]. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 23:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 All of the episodes of this series fail the [[WP:EPISODE|notability guidelines for television episodes]]. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)|real-world information]] from [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|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 [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Fair use|plot summaries]], [[WP:TRIVIA|trivia]], and [[WP:NOT#DIR|quotes]]. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list.