Talk:List of Angel episodes

Please help complete the Angel/Buffy episode articles. See what needs to be done on this sub-page of WikiProject Buffy:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes

Also please help update any major changes made to episode articles on that page so that progress can be mapped. many flaws for 1 lorne first appeared in season 2 episode 4 also instead of making up dates and times go to tnt.com thats where official page is more errors in here than any article ive ever read get official sources so it is fact not guess

Synopses

Thanks to the following for allowing use of their synopses on wikipedia:

• Angelicslayer.com - Many synopses used for 'expanded overview' sections of wiki.
• BuffyGuide.com - Many Buffy 'short synopses' used in 'summary ' sections at wiki.

Angel episodes

I have fixed the first 8 infoboxes and generally tidied up the articles, I'll try to get through them all by the new year. I've also added a screencap to each episode in the infobox.--Cooksey 14:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

crossovers

I have a note that "Primeval" precedes "Blind Date", but I don't remember how they're connected. —Tamfang 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merge. 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.

Keep. It's been nearly a year since this proposal was made, and the last comment was made in April. It seems there's a consensus to keep these individual episode articles. If this is not in keeping with the recommendations of WP:EPISODE, then perhaps WP:EPISODE needs to be reconsidered, on the principle that policies and guidelines should generally follow practice rather than dictate it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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 contain overly long 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. TTN 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge. Let fancruft die the painful, ignominious death it deserves. SFT | Talk 21:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as is There is plenty of real-world analysis for both Angel and Buffy, both from the novels and papers on Buffy studies as well as interviews with cast, crew, writers, and so on. Kweeket 23:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Care to identify the episodes who have articles with enough real-world info to keep them separate? SFT | Talk 02:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was briefly looking through the articles, and honestly I couldn't find a one that had adequate real-world info. However - that does not mean the information isn't available, it just means it hasn't yet been added, partially because Project Buffyverse encourages people to add trivia and quotes instead of real-world, well-sourced information. I feel that Angel episodes, unlike many television series, genuinely have material that is appropriate to an encyclopaedia, as there are papers and books analysing specific episodes. To me it makes more sense to mobilise people to add the scholarly analysis, director commentary, and critical responses to the existing articles rather than scrap the entire project and rebuild later.

In summary, I'm opposed to merging these articles not because they're so great, but because I think they could become great, provided the community realises the direction the articles need to take. Kweeket 02:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to actually have these fixed up right away. It is fine for you to show that they have the potential to become good. TTN 11:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll list some potential sources.

The Gothic transgressions of Angel specifically examines "Darla".

The BBC has dozens of interviews with the cast and crew of Angel.

Reading Angel: The TV Spinoff With a Soul. A collection of articles analysing Angel episodes, characters, and themes.

Salon's take on the first episode of Season 5.

“Queen C” in Boys’ Town: Killing the Angel in Angel’s House. Examines Cordelia's character through specific moments in Angel episodes.

Five Seasons of Angel: Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Discuss Their Favorite Vampire edited by Glenn Yeffeth

Examination of the series finale

Blood Relations: Chosen Families in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel by Jes Battis

Looking at season 4 of Angel

The 100th episode of Angel.

Analysis of Season 5 of Angel

Some interviews with the writers of Angel

A critical look at the first episode of the season from Salon.com.

An essay that examines the politics of Angel, taken from the book Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale.

Walking the Fine Line Between Angel and Angelus

Joss Whedon: The Genius Behind Buffy appears to have a few chapters on the making of Angel.

Demonic Maternities, Complex Motherhoods: Cordelia, Fred, and the Puzzle of Illyria seems to take a close-up look of some of the events of Season Four.

The Evolution of Joss Whedon’s Vampire Mythology and the Ontology of the Soul deals with "A Hole in the World" and "Destiny (Angel episode)".

Interview with J. August Richards, who plays Gunn.

Casting information for the episode "Hell Bound".

Sexuality in Angel, specifically "She" and "I Will Remember You".

Interview with Amy Acker; has her thoughts on the episode "Waiting in the Wings".

A list of additional books and articles on Buffy and (to a lesser extent) Angel

There really is a lot of material out there - many of the articles I linked above have ample footnotes citing more esoteric (or off-line) references to additional writings on Angel and Buffy. Kweeket 23:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't Merge, Keep it the way it is!! srstorey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srstorey (talk • contribs) 20:54, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I object. Please use the Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review process. - Peregrine Fisher 05:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove excessive unsourced content, tagging stubs where necessary. Despite my own contributions to TV-episode articles, I must agree that WP policy doesn't allow much of the excessive writing on these episodes, for a variety of very good reasons. However, the above list of avenues for sourced, out-of-universe information suggest many of these episodes can meet notability guidelines set out at Wikipedia:Television episodes. They seem to have significant potential for becoming examples of good episode pages. Therefore, effectively deleting everything by replacing all articles with redirects to Angel (TV series) seems a bit hasty. Can we flag these articles en masse for review, to encourage editors to make substantial progress in, say, a month, before more drastic action is implemented? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge - I'd rather see episode pages merged into a season article like Smallville (season 1) (which is GA). The huge plot summaries could be transferred to Buffyverse Wiki so we don't lose them completely. That way, fans can still have access to their plot summaries and triva sections, but Wikipedia can remain encyclopedic and out-of-universe. Paul730 08:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge - These articles are unsourced and unsourceable drivel, information derived almost entirely from watching the episodes and not third-party sources. They would have to be started from scratch, and in most cases even that will not be possible. Quatloo 09:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The sources Kweeket points to show clearly that notability can be established for these episodes, so they have the potential to meet WP:EPISODE. Trimming the long plot summaries and trivia sections is a matter for clean-up, and not served well by turning all the pages into redirects. There is no deadline. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've no doubt that the episodes are notable, and they shouldn't be redirected to Angel (TV series). However, many Angel episodes (except for Season 1) are part of a larger storyarc, and an overall season article like Smallville (season 1) might be more readable and accessible to non-fans rather than deferring to other episodes so the article makes sense. It would just be better, IMO. Paul730 21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading this discussion with interest; unfortunately I'm not yet sure where I stand exactly. I agree that the articles as they currently exist are unacceptable, and something needs to change. Cleaning up and expanding them would be wonderful...but I know I don't have the resources to do it, which would likely require at least one guidebook. I'd love to see it happen, though. If that's not possible, I also like the Smallville proposal.--Jeff-El 22:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Otherwise it will be too large and unorganized. It's wonderful the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.124.151 (talk) 01:38, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Keep. the individual pages have enough valid content to justify their existence. 16:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The proposal to restructure the episodes like Smallville (season 1) would work if the articles didn't contain so much information. As of now, the articles for Angel episodes are structured and written in the same format as other episode articles in the Buffyverse. It would seem backwards to me to throw out information that has been standard within a subject's scope. Why single one thing out of the entire Buffyverse out and structure it in a completely different way? --SquatGoblin 16:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge - What can be done and what is done are not the same thing. That is like saying 'look at the google hits'. You must actually go through the sources and determine if there is anything there that says an episode needs special mentioning on its own. Please look at the individual episode articles for The Simpsons (season 8), where all have achieved GA status. There needs to be an assertion of notability, not speculation of it. Articles should not simply be plot summaries, nor should they contain original research, and trivia should be avoided. Quotes have a place at Wikiquote. "Timing"?? I have no idea what that is, but continuity is not important to an encyclopedia. I've seen a misguided step on these Buffy related articles to ignore things that "do not have continuity with the series". That isn't what Wikipedia is for. These articles fail WP:FICT, WP:NOTE, WP:WAF, WP:EPISODE, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:PLOT, WP:RS...the list goes on. If you want an expanded plot summary, I suggest using a Wikia to write it. Someone mentioned DEADLINE, but if you read the essay (which that is what it is), it also says that there is no rush to create these pages when they easily fail guidelines and policies. I suggest merging them all and working on them individually until you can satisify the guidelines and policies. Nothing has to be GA or FA, but it still has to meet all the relevant policies and guidelines. Remeber, Wikipedia is about quality, not quanitity, and there seems to be some ownership issues that float around this Buffverse Project, that I have seen for my own eyes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think any subject that has also been the subject matter of fan fiction will seem to have ownership issues floating around. I also think that just because you don't know something, doesn't mean it isn't significant. The timing section of the Buffyverse articles is basically a chart that illustrates where that particular episode or story (ahem, issue of a graphic novel if we can appeal to some sticklers) falls in the story arc. It's not so much about continuity as much as cohesiveness. Perhaps the chart is confusing to some, but I'd feel pretty confident that out of context bits of information wouldn't be as useful to someone just checking out the articles. In all honesty, I don't have as much experience with Buffyverse article editing and discussions as your opinion suggests you do. I just personally would rather read about the show than watch it, but as someone who isn't invested in the show, I feel a much more profound understanding of the how based on how things are and feel pretty strongly that breaking it up would lessen the quality of learning.

I wouldn't compare this subject matter to the Simpsons or Smallville; like apples and oranges. The Buffyverse is a pretty huge franchise with comics and series of multiple spin-offs too. If you're reading about a character in the Buffy comicverse, but something you want to learn about relates to Angel, and then jumps back to Buffy from specific episode to issue to episode, the simplified structure from a merge would be inadequate. Neither the Simpsons nor Smallville "universes" are built in that manner. --SquatGoblin 06:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, Smallville has comics, magazines, a spin-off that didn't air, action figures, viral marketing campaigns...it's kind of in the same league. But since none of the episode articles satisfy any of those guidelines and policies I listed above, and the suggested move on those pages says to merge to a larger topic, then disagreement is irrelevant. Notability is not inherited. If you have trouble with being able to organize information, I suggest finding someone with better organizational skills to help you. Canon is not what is important on Wikipedia, regardless of what the Buffy fans believe. We are not here to provide fictional biographies as if they really happened. Please satisify the above guidelines and policies if you do not want an article merged. Simple as that. Merge them, and then work on each on individually. Quality over quantity. As can be seen from the first season of Smallville article, you can write a very comprehensive page that details an entire season. How to tackle comic books and the other similar material? You create an "Adaptations" section on your page. There you can discuss how the season was adapted, if it was, and how it reflected back on the television series (but with sources, and not personal opinion, as that would be original research).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have known that Smallville has comics, a spin-off that didn't air, toys, or magazines because it doesn't seem like that's included here on Wikipedia (just seemingly the comics and the show). On the other hand, all that information for the Buffyverse exists including information on 13 different comics, as an academic field, and Angel as the spin-off show (one that actually aired). I still wouldn't compare it to Smallville as it seems to have had a much larger cultural impact whether or not Buffy-fans are fanatical or not. I also don't think the Smallville Season 1 episode listing is comprehensive enough to be a source of equivalent nature to the Buffy/Angel episode articles.

Not comprehensive enough? Those Buffy/Angel pages are bare beyond a plot and lot of original research. That's lack of comprehension.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Comparing apples and oranges... as someone else said, just because it's poorly written doesn't mean it should be done away with.

And really, there's no need for you to make personal or presumptive attacks ("If you have trouble with being able to organize information, I suggest finding someone with better organizational skills to help you."; "Canon is not what is important on Wikipedia, regardless of what the Buffy fans believe."). As I've said before, I'm not all that invested in the show. I enjoy reading a Wikipedia article about each episode rather than watching it for crying out loud. The last thing I'll end up doing is putting in the amount of effort and investment you're suggesting. If you're going to be insulting, you might as well be apt and observe that as laziness rather than incompetency.

I made no such personal attack, I made a statement about finding help for these pages. Let me clarify, as I'm looking at what you said, I was not directing anything to you personally, I was speaking to the whole project. If the whole project cannot find a way to organize things better, my suggestion was finding someone that could help. Being too close a subject can cause that, as I myself often seek outside opinions on things I am working on because of that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are quotes of what you said. If you feel like you haven't made any attacks, then good for you, but "you" is commonly used to direct speech at the person you're conversing with (Will you pick up John?; You need to clean up your room; or "If you have trouble with being able to organize information, I suggest finding someone with better organizational skills to help you."). From the looks of your other extensive edits, it seems this sort of tone is common from you. --SquatGoblin 22:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, it seems like you've a pretty good investment in regulating the unencyclopedic fans you seem to think dominate and are unique to the episode articles of the Buffyverse, so have at it. I put in my vote, and that's what I'm doing about the merge. If you think I'm taking what you said too personally or misreading, might I be the first to point prefacing an argument with "Um" can be taken as pretty condescending. Um, you do get that, right? I'm guessing not by the tone of writing you have with the responses you've made all over the Smallville talk page. Your contributions and work is great, but your sardonic attempts at sarcasm aren't necessary. --SquatGoblin 06:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Isn't this site for the benefit of the users? Clearly, the user base of this site wants there to be entries for specific episodes of TV shows because there are an enormous amount of them. The self proclaimed Wiki-police should thus just abide and focus more on fixing vandalism and inaccuracies (which they are doing a crappy job at one might add) and less on being pompous. When they are done with those more urgent things, they can feel free to these more trivial matters. In related news, it would be highly ineffectual to merge all the episodes into one single article due to the sheer amount of episodes and also the size of each episode article. Would not only burden the servers with unnecessary traffic, it would also make the site less accessible to users that are still on slow connections. Also, it also makes it less easy to navigate and make it, although this might perhaps be just my personal opinion, look like crap. (Djungelurban 02:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

To address the issue that has been brought up of "a merged page would be too long"... no it wouldn't. Smallville season 1 has the same number of episodes as an Angel season, give or take, and that page is not too long. The current Angel pages are only the length they are because of the unnecessarily long plot summaries, pointless trivia, and "Timing" boxes. Such information needs to be condensed or deleted anyway if we want the pages to be good quality, so "it would be too long" does not seem like a valid argument. Don't those "Timing" boxes fail WP:NOR anyway? Many non-canon material is not confirmed to take place at an exact point, so guessing where they fit into the timeline is original research. Paul730 18:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge until Angel fans are willing to create better articles for individual episodes. Alientraveller 17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the above opinion. If we're willing to give the articles time to improve, then merging them would be both pointless and counter-productive. --Jeff-El 17:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, there has been plenty of time to improve. WP:EPISODE, WP:NOTE, WP:WAF, WP:NOR, etc ..all those guidelines and policies are not new. Some have been rewritten, but the only thing that has changed has been the clarity by which they address the issues. At the moment, all the episodes fail completely. That is why it is suggested that they all be merged and that you focus on working on them one at a time. The whole reason behind the first season of Smallville page is because no every episode is notable, not even Smallville, which has been around far longer than Angel was. Nothing is inherited, and there isn't even a current size issue, nor is there a size issue on the Smallville article. Size complaints are an excuse to separate articles, but the excuse is usually unfounded since no one has tried to write a more organized, comprehensive (and recommended by all those guidelines) page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The policies may have existed for a while, but the militant enforcement of those policies is new. That being said, I agree these articles are currently unacceptable. However, many of the episodes ARE independently notable, with academic papers written on specific themes or plot arcs within a single episode (not to mention DVD commentary and interviews on production details such as choice of camera angle, music, and lighting), and so at this point it's a matter of inserting the available information. I would like to see a handful of articles worked on exhaustively - maybe in the form of a Project Buffyverse collaboration - until they all meet WP:EPISODE. I'm hesitant to begin work myself, because it seems like it might end up pointless if everything is merged. Kweeket 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be in your best interest to focus on a single article and show that it can be brought up to the correct level. There's no rule that says they must all exist or none at all. If a single article meets the criteria it should stay, if after the redirect/merge a group wants to bring more articles up then they can be reinstated (though if they aren't meeting the guideline after that point they are likely to be redirected again). If there really is enough info out there then your work won't be pointless, if there really isn't enough material out there then you'll still be contributing to a much better season page. I'd say pick one and have at it, if someone doesn't do something they'll simply remain unacceptable. Stardust8212 19:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if an episode is notable, it should have it's own article. There's no reason we can't have a Angel Season Five article which contains links to particularly notable episodes like Smile Time (Angel episode), for example. However, not every episode is notable, so a season article could cover the ones which aren't. To use Smallville as an example yet again, there is an article for Smallville (season 1) and Pilot (Smallville), both of which are good quality. Paul730 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Kweeket, the point is not that the articles can be notable, it's that they are not asserting anything at the moment. Also, not every one will be notable. DVD commentaries can be great, but sometimes there isn't enough viable information to warrant a separation. It doesn't make what is viable any less important to Wikipedia though. There were a couple of episodes of Smallville in season one that had a decent amount of information more than the others (some eps didn't have anything at all), but it just wasn't enough when it was pulled out (I pulled it out just to see, hoping I could have another episode article to link to). If it's there, great, if it isn't then it isn't the end of the world (or Wikipedia). You may write up a season page that has all this OOU information on it (BTW, you're more likely to find reviews for an entire season of a show than for every episode of a season) and find that some random episode that isn't even particularly important to the series, or liked by fans, actually has so much stuff written about it that it does warrant separation. Like has been mentioned before, it isn't "all or nothing."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep--Like it or not, people come to Wikipedia for information on individual episodes. Yes, there are many badly written episode articles, but that's no reason to totally abandon them. Better to work on strengthening episode article guidelines.Konczewski 16:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Agreeing with above; each episode is notable, and many users come solely to read the episode synopsis and production details. While there are many other websites for them to do this on, it does not mean that Wikipedia should not have a article for each of them as well. It isn't a question of notability, as its easy to find good sources for these types of articles, but more of does the wikipedia community want an article for every episode of every television show. As Kweeket pointed out near the beginning of this discussion, most of these articles are not great, but could become great with a little work; and isn't that the whole point of a wiki? Think outside the box 11:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode article guidelines are clear, so is WP:NOTE, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. If you can do it, then do it, but remember there isn't a deadline to have them completed, nor is there a deadline to have them created. Most of them will never meet the guidelines for existence, they aren't like The Simpsons' season eight episodes, or the series in general (which has been around for 20 years). The point of Wikipedia is quality, not quantity. That means, if the better quality article is one that encompasses a season, instead of 20 individual episodes then it should be done. You cannot say "that wouldn't be better quality," because you haven't tried it. The process achieved here has been one that ignored what the guidelines stated to do. You've been shown an example of how you can write a season page, but it was dismissed because it didn't have some information about comics, etc etc. Sorry, that isn't an excuse. Smallville (season 1) is an example, key word "example", of how you can write an entire season article when episodes articles fail the guidelines. Nothing was said that an Angel (season 1) article couldn't include all that and more. You guys keep saying, "with a little work" the articles can be made better. Well, "with a little work" you can make a season article that's better than all those episode articles combined. If you want to do "a little work," then I suggest starting with the broader topic, because the more specific you go the hard it is to find things.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be on a one man crusade here, Bignole. You've debunked everyone's valid comments just because there is some guidelines saying otherwise. Hyper Girl 12:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There's actually several guideline and policy failures (I listed them, several times), and I'm not the only one that suggested a merger here. I'm sorry if I'm offending the delicate sensability of the Buffyverse Members by suggesting that all the episode articles fail several guidelines and policies, and would be better off listed on either just the LOE page, or on a season page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep--The episodes are notable, the articles are well-written and contain good analyses and continuity notes, and out-of-universe perspective is maintained. Noneofyourbusiness 00:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out what episodes are "well written", "contain good analyses", and "OOU perspective"? Continuity notes are unencyclopedic, they are only understood by fans of the show to begin with. These overly long plots, and excessive quote lists border on copyright infringement. Those "Timing" sections are basically original research, because I see no sources discussing the importance of the timeline itself, let alone establishing that any of those episodes fall in those exact places.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Of all the non-notable fancruft cluttering Wikipedia, an isolated set of articles about a popular TV series is a pretty low priority. The policy, as written, is crap. Yes, not every obscure TV show should have dozens of articles about it. And yes, a lot of these Angel articles need work. But having incomplete episode guides where only the "notable" episodes have full articles is absurd, messy, and bound to create even more pointless, endless fighting. Nasarius 08:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia isn't here to be an "episode guide". The reason for an episode list is because they would normally be found on the main article, and then be the first thing split off when the article becomes too large. Secondly, Wiki isn't a list of plot summaries, and that includes a list of articles that contain just plot summaries. Lastly, just because something is a television show, even less important than another television show or film, does not mean we should ignore it. That's like saying, "oh, there's vandalism on all these pages, but they aren't important pages so we can ignore it."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep: The episodes are really beneficial, because some people want to know the endings before they even watch the show, because it is cool. The articles are needed, and hello, haven't we merged enough articles already?! Pokemon Buffy Titan 05:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "it is cool" is not good enough reason to keep an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a substitute for actually watching a show, no matter how much fans like reading plot summaries. You say the articles are needed, but you provide no real argument for this. Paul730 06:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep: because some kids may refer to Wikipedia if there's a head-scratching episode that they've never seen. I would like to argue against merging the articles because some kids, including me, check a few episode articles out one day, only to find out the next day that the articles have been erased. Notable examples are of Ben 10, Teen Titans and Pokemon. That's why I'm campaigning against merging the Angel articles because of the eps I've never seen. I do hope you would consider my reason. Pokemon Buffy Titan 12:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry but Wikipedia does not exist to provide kids with plot summaries of their favourite TV shows. I'm sure Wikia has specific wikis dedicated to the shows you are talking about; Ben 10 Planet, DC Animated Universe Wiki, and Bulbapedia. Wikipedia is supposed to concentrate on encyclopedic information, and it is impossible to do that unless notability can be etablished. Just because you have not seen an episode and would like to read about it does not make that episode notable enough for an entire encylopedia article to itself. Paul730 15:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge. At least the list of episodes should be merged into the "master list". — Aldaron • T/C 15:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, for reasons stated above. --LoreleiLynn (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep the articles are generally well written. If the articles are individually problematic then they should be considered invidually, not en masse. Additionally, this claim " All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes." seems patently broad on the surface and seems like it's the result of making a value claim about the series in general rather than about the content of any particular wikipedia page. 04:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Okay, several issues to address here; first of all, Bignole is not on a "one man crusade". He is not the one who proposed the merge. In fact, his attention was only brought to this discussion when I asked him to join in because his knowledge of policy is better than mine. He is not the only one who supports a merge. Secondly, how on Earth are these articles "well-written"? The plot summaries are ludicrously long, the only "analysis" is fans' personal interpretations, and there is barely any OOU perspective at all. Please see Pilot (Smallville), Through the Looking Glass (Lost), Homer's Phobia and Trapped in the Closet (South Park) for just a few examples of how TV episode articles should be written. Thirdly, some episodes are more notable than others. Therefore, some deserve Wikipedia articles and others do not. As Bignole already said, Wikipedia is not an episode guide for fans. The only consistant argument I've seen in this discussion is "We like having articles for each episode, so we should keep them so the fans will be happy." Excuse me, but don't we have a Wikia for Buffy/Angel fans? If you want plot summaries and trivia list, write them there! There's so many promises of "the articles can be fixed up in time" but who's actually doing this? Nobody seems to be willing to get off their arses and actually improve the articles, so why should they exist? I'm sorry if anyone finds this comment rude, but we can't just ignore policy to keep some fanboys happy. Paul730 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you Paul, because I've been trying to fix up the articles for the last couple weeks, as has Lots42 and others. The articles I've probably done the most to are "Not Fade Away", "Destiny", and "You're Welcome" but I've also been putting some effort into "Heartthrob", "Darla", "Over the Rainbow" and several more. I have todo boxes on the discussion page of some episodes as well, listing sources I haven't had a chance to go through yet. There is a LOT of information out there, and I think it's possible to bring some of these episodes up to the caliber of the article pages you listed above. Kweeket 00:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you've been working on these pages, why do they still look the worse for wear that they did in the beginning? I see some sources in a reception section, but the plots are still overly long (something that should probably be the easiest thing to fix), that OR "Timing" section is still there, or in the least still unverified. We generally don't put "Cast" sections in episode articles because they have regular cast members that appear in basically every episode (and an episode article is really just a split off of much larger articles, so you'd be repeating what is already listed there), but any important characters (and the actors that played them) can be easily listed in the plot section. Goof sections fall under trivia. I understand what you are trying to say, that you are trying to fix these pages, but nothing significant has happened to them. Also, you said something really important in your last sentence, "it's possible to bring some of these episodes up to caliber." That's just the point we've been trying to make, not all of them can be brought up to even satisfy the guidelines and policies on Wikipedia, let alone be good enough to become GA or FA (which isn't want the guidelines and policies demand). Some may be able to, but most probably will not. Angel is not The Simpsons, which is a much more popular, and thus written about, show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bignole, your tone is bordering on offensive (as SquatGoblin has pointed out earlier in this discussion).

Do WHAT? All Bignole has done has been point out the numerous Wikipedia policies these articles are in obvious violation of. Please quote the exact phrases where Bignole has taken an offensive tone and explain how they were offensive in context. SFT | Talk 06:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles I've been working on - like many other articles on Wikipedia - are works in progress. I agree, the plots are too long, WAY too long. The timing and cast stuff I left because it is still useful and I was going to let the community decide whether they should stay. The goof sections will be removed, as will all the trivia and quotes.

As I was looking for sources for these episodes, I kept finding articles that also referred to other episodes - critical essays, interviews with cast and crew, opinion pieces on E! or TV Guide...I put some of the sources I found into my todo lists on the episode discussion pages, not to mention the list I found at the very beginning of this discussion, most of which I haven't even used yet. I also don't own the DVDs, and I'm sure there is directory commentary that could be used to flesh out the production details sections.

Not all episodes will be able to satisfy the guidelines, certainly, but there is information out there that doesn't exist for say, Friends. You bring up The Simpsons, but honestly, once we get the plot summaries trimmed down and remove the trivia/quotes - a huge undertaking just by itself - most of the Angel episodes are on par with The Simpsons episodes articles past the 10th season or so, and some have the potential to be as good as the earlier Simpsons episodes. Kweeket 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not all The Simpsons episodes need to have their own article. The only reason they haven't gone under review is because it's one of the largest set of articles on Wikipedia, and has already shown that it can make an entire season GA status. They are working to correct their problem, but you can be assured that their time will come when the articles that are in bad shape are reviewed. Saying there are sources is like saying there are tons of Google hits, it means nothing unless it is shown that the sources actually provide encyclopedic information. I don't mean to down play your work, and I apologize for sounding that way, but my point is that everyone here that is supporting the existence of all these articles is doing so on the grounds that either: A) They simply "like it" B) they can be fixed with more time. I'm sure some can be fixed, but what was suggested before was that since it is obvious that not all can meet all of the guidelines and policies, and that notability doesn't vanish into thin air over time, neither does reliable sources for information, and since we are not deleting anything that the pages should be merged so that focus can be given to each one individually until it can be determined that there is enough information to warrant separation. You don't have to follow Smallville's example. Lost (season 1) is a featured list that has OOU information in it. You have to remember that even if the articles can be cleaned up, and OOU info can be found, it may not be enough. Part of the guidelines say that sometimes articles are just too small to support themselves and are better off being part of a larger topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My primary opposition to merging is that the articles are very unlikely to be improved if they're merged; you have to be fairly experienced in order to figure out how to edit a page that instantly redirects. To me, it seems like the most powerful function of Wikipedia is that "Many hands make light work" and together we work to make something better than what we might create alone. There is encyclopaedic information available for these episodes, and many of them can become great articles, but the likelihood of that happening is less if most people can't see that work needs to be done. Kweeket 22:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

They're unlikely to get improved where they are. Unfortunately, the less experienced editors tend not to know how to improve articles to begin with (trust me, ask Paul about my initial edits to Wikipedia that I showed him). Merging or not merging won't change that. If I may make a suggestion that would help eleviate the situation that you are concerned about. You redirect all the articles here, because at the moment, none really qualify. Then you create a community sandbox. You make annoucements on this talk page to find as many sources as possible for as many episodes as possible and you load all the sources onto the sandbox's talk page. Then you systematically go through each source and determine if there is anything useful in it; there are plenty of FA episode articles to show you what content is encyclopedic. Then, when you've all decided that there is enough content to separate an article, then you start working on that article in the sandbox. When it's ready, you can simply remove the redirect and paste the new information in the article. This way everyone knows about the article that is under construction, as you'll all be disussing it on this page, and everyone that wants to lend a hand can do so. This also eliminates unnecessary vandalization and edit wars because it's a project that is under construction, so there is more discussion taking place about its improvement then would be on a mainspace article. Another possible solution is to create season pages and work them up like Smallville. I know you hate that example, but the fact remains that it proves that you can write an article that contains information on every episode in that season. It doesn't even have to follow that format, there are ways to write it so that each episode receives individual treatment, just on that one page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for saying that nobody is getting "off their arses" to improve the pages. Just letting off a little steam at the end of my rant, lol. Thank you for trying to improve these articles, but it isn't so much a case of tidying up what's there, so much as completely rewriting them. I have complete faith that some of these episodes are notable and can make great articles. That's what frustrates me; because Buffy and Angel are such good quality shows and they deserve good quality articles about them, instead of the fancruft that currently exists. Looking at "Not Fade Away" as an example - we don't need both a plot "summary" and "expanded overview", it's redundant. One's too short, the other's too long, let's have a balance. The "acting" section has potential if you bulk it up a bit, as does the "reception" section. The rest looks unnecessary; why do we need to write Spike's "Effulgent" poem? Why do we need a cast list of minor characters? These "timing" boxes need getting rid of. They're riddled with OR and are just pointless. They'd be good on Buffyverse Wiki, but not here. Anyway, I hope these articles can be improved. But as Kweeket implied and Bignole picked up on - not every episode is going to warrant an entire page. Paul730 09:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well no, you're kind of right. I haven't seen too much work on the pages, except for what I've done and some plot trimming by Lot42. It's pretty disappointing that no one else is getting involved, but it looks like from the votes above that many people are happy with them they way they stand. However I, like you, have a desire to see these articles become great, maybe even GA someday. As for your questions, I was trying to work within the constraints of the Project Buffyverse standards, which is why I left the "Plot summary" and "expanded overview" (but trimmed like, 6 paragraphs, no exaggeration), "Timing" and "Cast" sections. Is there an established standard for listing minor cast members, or should it not be done at all? Anyway, I think the project standards should be changed to be more in line with the general rules of WP:EPISODE although I think that the continuity section is very relevant to a show like Angel or Buffy in which plot arcs are drawn out over years. Kweeket 22:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello people. This discussion's ostensibly about episode notability, but it seems to have quickly expanded into an unfocused mishmash of "Everything anyone's ever disliked about an Angel article". I'd suggest it be pared down to the matter at hand, which is whether or not Angel episodes have enough reliable sources to merit their own pages. The articles' current quality is not pertinent to this, it's a side issue that should be addressed with improvement if/when notability has been addressed and established. --Nalvage 09:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, these Angel episodes are as notable as any other prime time television show, and as such have plenty of reliable sources - bbc, imdb, tv.com - so yeah, they are notable. Think outside the box 12:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

First, finding a source and finding something applicable are two different things. Second, IMDb and TV.com are not considered reliable. Also, the BBC source is just a list of the episodes. That has nothing to do with notability. TV Guide lists the episodes, that is not significant coverage.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Brian Tjoe-Nij's thoughts

KEEP! Hello everybody. I'll try to make list of arguments for my stance.

Let me open by saying that I think I know where the Merge peeps are coming from. I get it, you come here for a long time, you wanna see everyone follow the rules nice and clean and you have high standards too! Below, I make six points to as why that is not always, and in this case too, a good idea.

First of, there seem a lot more votes towards Keep than for Merge. I have counted just 3 Merge-people (Bignole, Paul730 and SFT), while there are 13 people wanting to Keep: Srstorey , Kweeket, Josiah Rowe, SquatGoblin, Djungelurban, Jeff-El, Konczewski, Think outside the box, Noneofyourbusiness, myself (Brian) and 3 unsigned. The mergers are much more fanatic about their cause, at least they make a lot of (but not more than the total of Keepers) entries per capita for their case.

Wikipedia is not a democracy. SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, there's a conversation killer for ya! Wikipedia is not a dictatorship either.

There's another..

So, it's not a democracy? Dude, that's all well and good, but if no consensus can be reached because a small number of people block a larger group, then majority consensus is the only alternative. Remember, we don't just yell keep-keep-keep (this is what you think, but we don't), we have actual arguments. --  Brian Tjoe-Nij  05:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Second, I don't see what there is to gain by merging. What is the upside?

The upside is making the articles not break half a dozen Wikipedia guidelines.

Merging isn't the only way to bring these articles into compliance. As I said above, I have been working on some of the episodes (for example, "You're Welcome", "Darla", "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been", "War Zone" and others), and have a lot more material to add. I have no illusions those articles are great, or anywhere near complete - but they don't suck, and they do follow the general TV episode guidelines. I believe many of the Angel episode articles could reach at least the standard of the ones I listed, especially especially notable ones such as "Smile Time" or "Not Fade Away". Kweeket 06:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Several have remarked that this won't improve the actual quality of the articles. This leads me to suspect that the delete crowd has an ulterior motive,

What? Because "Keep"ers say it won't improve the quality, obviously the "Merge"rs have an ulterior motive??! SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Common sense should tell you that it won't improve quality, not us. --  Brian Tjoe-Nij  05:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

which might be just to do away with articles about TV shows they deem irrelevant.

Angel and Buffy are two of my favorite shows ever. This has nothing on anyone's part to do with what we think of the TV shows, and it's offensive for you to suggest that. SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay so your intentions are good, so we should say yippie-ka-yea go ahead and prune? The road to hell is paved with good intentions

This, however IS specifically against at least one Wiki policy: "Deletion and undeletion are performed by administrators based on policy and guidelines, not personal likes and dislikes" Deletion policy. Of course, I don't claim to know this for sure, or to be able to look inside their minds ... Seriously, merging will lead to one huge (in your view, but not mine) low quality article, while now you have 110 of such articles. Unless, of course you hope that the sum will less than it's parts. That is, somehow by merging, the actual content will less, smaller.

Obviously that's the case, since one of the "Merge"rs' main points is to radically prune (for example) the policy-breaking epic plot summaries in each article. SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thirdly, if you dislike the structure or quality of the articles so much, why don't you improve them yourselves instead complaining about it? All the energy of the complainers put in coming here, could have been put into improving of the articles. Make a template (following your beloved Smallville maybe?)

You accuse the Mergers of taking offensive tones, and then you whip out sarcastic words like "your beloved"??? SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you started it AND denied it afterwards. IMHO that gives me at least two times to be sarcastic back. But I won't. I'll try to be not sarcastic from now on. Ok?

If you think some section can be improved: Put your money where you mouth is! Or rather, put your energy where your complaint is!

We're trying to establish consensus -- another WP policy -- before making major changes. Obviously we're never going to succeed, but whatever. SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

;) Dare I suggest, 'do it yourself'? It would show good intentions for you do so without deleting content.

Oh! So we should delete content ourselves without deleting content! What a suggestion! SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So now you're being deliberately obstinate? Flippant? Or do you truly don't understand me here? OK: You can change the structure of an episode article by putting all content into categories you like. Thereby you don't destroy what someone else took painstaking hours to write, and still maintain some uniformity. I suggest making a section "Other/Misc" for stuff you don't know what to do with or truly don't want. I for one accepts that this will lead to large sections of "other".--  Brian Tjoe-Nij  05:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fourthly, the complaining Mergers give the impression that they are ordained to decide what Wikipedia is about. AFAIK it seems they want: a repository, as concise as possible and preferably peer-reviewed. This seems to be a little too much to expect. Everthing Bignole writes has somewhere in it the phrase "this is not what is wiki is about!" I'm sorry, but it says nowhere that Wikipedia has to live up to academic standards. You say: "Well, Wikipedia isn't here to be an 'episode guide'/a list of plot summaries." Oh yeah? Says who?

The folks who put WP:PLOT in an OFFICIAL WIKIPEDIA POLICY, among others. SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, the policy also says that it's not set in stone. I see the reasoning behind the WP:PLOT, and I might even agree with it up to a point, but if people are gonna come here and make elaborate plot descriptions ... *shrugs* To say that not every episode is relevant is also not along the WP policy of no elitism. From Jimbo Wales "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. " And who decides what is relevant or not? Also, quoting: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Who will say what is reliable? If one magazine costs 15 cents but contains only true factual information but another expensive glossy or the NYT contains errors, which is reliable? Things evolve, and people deal, so ... --  Brian Tjoe-Nij  05:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For all practical purposes, Wiki is already an episode guide, a film database, a scientific repository, a Who's Who, an CIA fact book, an geographical database, a collection of maps, a discography list and much more. I don't see why it can not be an episode guide AS WELL. In short, your argument of 'quality' is bordering on the elitist. More importantly: as long as nobody gets paid, there's always likely to be some sort of quality issue. Also, what is good quality? We all like to say 'I know what good quality is!' but it doesn't work like that, these things should be decided by consensus. The guidelines don't work. It seems to me that what Wiki surely is NOT, is a dictatorship where the few decide what is good for the masses. Also, so what if the articles are based on the observation of viewers themselves? Where is it written that these are less valuable or true than those of an underpaid and overworked hack from an obscure website? If Wiki is about consensus, and the consensus goes towards episode guides, then what of it? Wikipedia should be what Wikipedians say it is. If you want to have an elitist website whereby only a few have editing rights, there are other places for that. The uniqueness of Wiki is that anybody can edit. This brings certain drawbacks with.

Wikipedia policies already have a greater consensus than any number of vocal fans in the Buffyverse WikiProject. In theory, that consensus should override the local one. Of course, it never will, because anything the Mergers did would obviously be immediately reverted. SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you say WP is NOT a democracy, then you can't claim majority on the WP policies ... You can't have it both ways. That crap doesn't fly. To me it would seem more logical that in both cases the majority gets its way: I agree that the WP policies are there by a majority. I hope you can agree as well that you are outnumbered on this subject of Keep vs. Merge--  Brian Tjoe-Nij  05:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fifthly, let's talk relevance. There aren't many spin-offs that have lasted 5 whole seasons, there are even less spin-offs that have generated academic debate and academic articles. Surely Smallville is not discussed in a way that the Angel-Buffyverse is discussed, I don't know about the Simpsons, but I think except for their ability to piss off Fox, there's not much societal discussion. Also, Angel has generated much more in the way of comics, novels etc.

None of which is relevant to relevance, unless the out-of-universe papers and things are important parts of the episode articles, which is almost never the case. SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That it's not relevant is merely your opinion. Mine and at least 10 others opinion is that these articles ARE relevant. Or, you could explain yourself more fully, and your definition of relevance.

Sixth, allow me to repeat what was said before: your vehemence debating this issue seems utterly misplaced here, frivolous and facetious. You seem on some sort of quality mission, while you could do good work fighting vandalism elsewhere. Unless of course you qualify 'a list of minor characters' as vandalism ;)

You need to look up the words "frivolous" and "facetious." SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, constructive criticism, wow. I get that you don't think you're frivolous. Think of it this way: You are like cops ticketing old people who jay-walk, instead of going after thieves and murderers. Talk about relevance .... --  Brian Tjoe-Nij  05:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, I don't want to give the impression that I think you Mergers are arrogant, time-greedy, energy-stingy, know-it-alls with a hidden agenda to erase all TV-fare you don't like from Wikipedia.

Which, by saying it, you obviously do think. If you didn't want us to have that impression, you would've used your Backspace key. SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not implying that at all.

Of course not. SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But it seems a bit odd to me that you complain so much about the articles, while you don't even take the time and energy to at least mention or list those policies you say many Angel articles are in breach of. Even just for arguments sake.

Except that Bignole did: "These articles fail WP:FICT, WP:NOTE, WP:WAF, WP:EPISODE, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:PLOT, WP:RS...the list goes on." Of course he was ignored. SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And still, if he and you wanted to make a good point, please state WHY you think the Angel articles are against WP:FICT, WP:NOTE, WP:WAF, WP:EPISODE, WP:NOR, WP:V, or whatever. If he or you had said something like "I think these articles are against wp-fict because of this and that" that would've gone a long way towards creating consensus. Instead you just pissed people off, mostly.

And also pointing to your own episode guide as shining example of quality seems a little disingenuous. "Look at my work, that is high quality! Everything else is sh...!" That approach does not seem balanced, fair and just

disclaimer: if you are all mods or admins with the power to erase lil' ol me, then of course I haven't said a thing ... ;)

Seriously: I apologize if my words seems harsh or unfriendly, it wasn't intended to be and some of your words seem harsh to me! Also, not a native speaker, and the exact emotional value of some words is sometimes difficult to judge.

--  Brian Tjoe-Nij  (Contact me) 04:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem close enough to a native speaker to be able to accurately convey your intent. SFT | Talk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you! Also thanks for my very own section, I'm flattered ;)  Brian Tjoe-Nij 

Recapping, I think we should KEEP , because you are outnumbered, there's no significant advantage other than pruning (which reeks of elitism and is unnecessary for size), my suggestion that you do some of the work has been met with non-constructive sarcasm (Ask not what your country etc), the content has relevance. You have not managed to convince me of your point. My suggestion: - Make or use a per-episode template, with a large miscellaneous section. - Don't worry about WP:Plot too much, this is one of those times that an excetion is warranted. Ultimately, its the people who come here who make or slightly alter policy. --  Brian Tjoe-Nij  05:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

KEEP! - Angel TV episodes affect a lot of other media. There are all new original novels based on the material therein. Same for comic books. And it all ties in with Buffy, which is -still- going, in official Joss-Whedon-says-so comic book form. For example, a big Angel episode had it's entire premise turned upside down by one panel in the official comics. (It was the one where Spike and Angel find Buffy...it turns out it wasn't her at all to begin with). As I understand it, the same re: says-so is going to happen for Angel. P.S. We also have the action figures and the models and the merchandise and the actors and the plots tying in with each other and Buffy... Lots42 (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

They're based on the events of the show. Each episode compromises one part of the whole show. Each episode does not show notability (please read the general notability guideline: WP:NOTE). What you are doing is looking at this from a canon stand point. Wikipedia does not care about canon. That is something that is plaguing these pages already. Fanboy editors who refuse to allow certain content because "it's not canon". That is the same problem affect all the Buffyverse pages. That, or they try and either limit the content, or put it in a place away from the other information labeling it is non-canon. As for comics, toys and merchandise, you are describing things that make the show notable, not things that make any one particular episode notable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

vvvvv-Courts67-vvvvv I say keep it as it is. It is currently a comprehensive and easily navicable setup and if you merge it with other stuff you are just going to confuse people. Besides there is no way you could display the information as accurately as this by merging it with stuff. Besides if its the quality of the articles that need to be work on then 4GS I'll write them. Soo... Yea. ^^KEEP^^!!!!!! :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.225.178 (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_bold.png

Time for RFC

Since this discussion is getting nowhere, is it time to ask for outside input? I think this debate more than qualifies for RFC. SFT | Talk 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a great idea. Stardust8212 23:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also agree to that idea. I hope that one will works.--Nicolealmer 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The notability of many/most individual episodes of Angel is contested. Some believe that many/most of the individual Angel episode articles should be condensed into list articles, while some believe that all the individual articles should remain and be given time to be brought into accordance with Wikipedia policies.

Comments

See the epic section above this one for The Discussion So Far. If you have been involved in the discussion above, PLEASE DO NOT POST YOUR OPINION IN THIS SECTION. (Except maybe sometimes, but only in response to outside people, not to start an original thread....) I think for best results, this section should be reserved for outside people responding to the RFC. SFT | Talk 04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Yes, some of the articles might need some more work, but I don't think that's reason enough to delete them. I don't find this collection of episode articles to be remarkably different in quality from other TV shows'. For example, I think Salvage (Angel episode) is a better article than Heart of Winter, and many of the other articles from List of Jericho episodes.

As for the notability criteria, I don't think we can generalize and say that every Angel episode is unworthy of an article. If you think a particular episode or article fails the criteria, then AfD it, and we'll see where that takes us. You should also compare this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager), which, as User:G.A.S pointed out at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#Episode review lessons learned, indicates that high profile series' episodes are unlikely to be deleted — Ksero 15:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Ksero's reasoning above. Buffy and Angel seem to have a fairly active WikiProject; there's every reason to believe that the episode articles will be improved. unless 22:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Breaking my own rule to correct this misimpression: The Buffyverse WikiProject endorses, in its goals for episode articles, breaking the very Wikipedia policies the "Merge"rs on this page have cited. SFT | Talk 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't say that I agree with that bit of policy at all, so my statement and vote stand. unless 10:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Ksero, and per Konczewski further above. Captain Infinity 11:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a merge would be far too large and unwieldy or arbitrary; Doctor Who and Lost have many more and comparative numbers of episodes with individual articles, respectively. Angel has a lot of notability as a series dealing with vampires in the modern world and as a continuation of Buffy and of Joss Whedon, and others', careers. -Kez 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - Wikipedia is not a democracy, so the number of keep votes (regardless of provenance) is irrelevant to discussion. Guidelines and policy are paramount, and need to be respected; numerous ones were cited and either argued against or disregarded. Which is fine, but not at an article level - if you disagree with the guidelines, discuss them at large at their pages. Until then, their implications stand. I would suggest that the project bring the articles to the season level, polish those season articles to at least GA standard, and then consider your options from there, with the side-benefit of focusing the project on a smaller number of articles more likely to be brought to a higher quality level and thus making the project look more organized. Girolamo Savonarola 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  
• Keep - Wikipedia is ALSO not a dictatorship, so we can't have the ridiculous situation where one arrogant deletionist with ulterior motives decides something, with which 10 other people strongly disagree with. Also, you can't say: WP:PLOT stays because that was decided by a majority, but Angel articles have to go, even IF a majority wants them to stay. Girolamo, if you want high quality, write them yourself. Stop telling others what is good for them. Lead by example. Also, sofar all deletionists have been extremely lazy making their arguments explicit: Just fill out: "This Angel article is against .... (some sorta guideline) because of ... and, .... and .... etc.
  

Why is this hard? listing a bunch of rules-names won't cut it. Brian Tjoe-Nij 05:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep While I am mostly a reader and rarely an editor on Wikipedia, I believe I am entitled to my input in this discussion. I have seen similar discussions about other television shows and I can understand where everyone is coming from. There are bad, unsourced, and completely in world articles about television shows. Angel episodes tend to go in another category. Buffy and Angel have both been studied in the world of academia. I have been known to reference Buffy in some of my works when I was a university student. The reason why Buffy and Angel by extension are notable is that they redefined many preconceived ideas about television, characters, genres and even gender limitations. These issues are explained on wikipedia and many works are cited. However, without a proper framing, these studies mean nothing. You cannot define the characters without explaining where they came from and how they developed.

At this point, however, a line should be drawn. Every episode is notable because of the fact that the whole series is not only notable, it has been studied both as a breakthrough in television series but also as a revolutionary work that redefined some societal values. But every detail of each episode can be irrelevant. Goofs, continuity errors , and trivia should be avoided unless they concern either the production or the characters (subjects that have been studied). The plot cannot be removed simply because it concerns both production and characters, subjects that have been studied in academia, but it should also be limited to broader ideas, going into details only when a specific scene was studied and can have quotes attached to it. (Sorry, this reply was much longer than I expected.)Youkai no unmei 16:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If the fan material can keep itself basically self-contained, I don't think it's hurting anybody, even if it spreads to many pages, and people who are doing serious research aren't going to find these pages anyway. The only real advantage to Merging that I see (other than complying with policies that I suppose I am calling into question) is to make the "Random Page" function less likely to come up with a "fluff" article. And that doesn't seem to be such a huge priority to me. That a limit is needed to "what is notable" is clear, otherwise we have vanity articles on everyone on the planet. But if the series is already considered notable enough to have an article and an episode list, I would be inclined to allow the fans to create whatever individual episode pages they want. 151.13.16.18 16:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Surely two essential parts of a good encyclopaedia article are lack of personal opinion and usefulness. On the first part, these episode articles are not items of pointless fandom, nor are they vanity pieces. Secondly, given that the academic notability of Buffy and Angel is clear, these are useful pages for "serious people", as well as many of us ordinary users. One might complain that the plot summaries are original research, but that is to miss the point of the "no original research" guidelines - which is to stop people propagating their own ideas. These plot summaries are entirely uncontroversial. One might think that a TV series must by definition be a piece of barely tolerable fluff - but in that case one would just be being a snob. One might fear that we were running out of space - but we're not. Merging would only result in a loss of information, not an improvement. A loss of information about the series, and about actors who passed through this series (which is what I use these pages for most). User:VsevolodKrolikov 10:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I know I presented my opnion in the above section, but I'd like to reply to some of the comments here. First of all, to Brian, you claim that we can't have the ridiculous situation where one arrogant deletionist with ulterior motives decides something, with which 10 other people strongly disagree with. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Many (though not all) of the "Keeps" on this page suffer from "I like it" syndrome - we like the show and we like coming here to read about it. This is despite the fact that the current articles totally fail Wikipedia policies such as WP:FICT, WP:NOTE, WP:WAF, WP:EPISODE, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:PLOT, and WP:RS. Earlier in the page, Brian was complaining that the Mergists failed to mention any policies that the articles violated ("But it seems a bit odd to me that you complain so much about the articles, while you don't even take the time and energy to at least mention or list those policies you say many Angel articles are in breach of. Even just for arguments sake.") even though they had been mentioned and linked to already. When these policies were pointed out once again, Brian claimed that "listing a bunch of rules-names won't cut it." before accusing Mergists of being "lazy" for not fixing the articles personally. Throughout this entire discussion Brian has shown a disregard for Wikipedia policies and suggested that Mergists have an "ulterior motive" and are "arrogant". I'd like to assume good faith, but frankly, comments such as "I don't want to give the impression that I think you Mergers are arrogant, time-greedy, energy-stingy, know-it-alls with a hidden agenda to erase all TV-fare you don't like from Wikipedia." come across as extremely passive agressive and border on personal attacks. Brian's argument seems to boil down to "It's ten against one" despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy.

In response to some other comments, many editors have claimed that the episodes are notable because the show is notable. This is not true. While the show is, of course, notable, notability is not inherited and not every episode is notable simply because the show is. By saying "it's notable because the show is notable", you are admitting that the episode is not notable on it's own merits, and is only part of a larger notable topic. By that very logic, the episode should only be mentioned in a "List of episodes" article, because it's not notable by itself. Kez claimed that "Angel has a lot of notability as a series dealing with vampires in the modern world and as a continuation of Buffy and of Joss Whedon, and others', careers." That argument would mean that Angel only deserves mention on the articles, vampire, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), and Joss Whedon. I'm kidding, of course, obviously Angel is more notable than that. But each episode article also needs to establish individual notability. It isn't a case of running out of space, it's a case of Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. If the episode can establish individual notability, great, I would love nothing more than to see 110 good Angel episode articles. However, I doubt that all 110 episodes can establish enough notability to be as good quality as articles such as Pilot (Smallville), Through the Looking Glass (Lost), Homer's Phobia and Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Some of the opposition in this discussion seems to be from people who think that because we are proposing a merge, we are disrespecting Angel as a show, or implying that television episode articles are inferior to other articles. I've seen several comments saying stuff like "Well, if that show can have individual episode articles, why not this one?". "Other stuff exists" is not a sufficient argument. I am a huge Buffy and Angel fan, why is why I would rather see one good "List of episodes" article like Smallville (season 1) than dozens of terribly-written episode articles full of original research and unnecessary plot detail, just for the sake of having them. Quality over quantity.  Paul  730 02:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Comment Referring to not being an indiscriminate collection of information is a little disingenuous. These articles have a clear format. They are not spilling over. By definition, if there is such a format, the information is not indiscriminate.

In terms of usability, it would be much less helpful and far too cluttered to have one very long page with a large, hard to organise set of issues where parts of episodes are notable (indeed, doing so would verge on original research). It's simply better with this content to have a series of shorter pages. Although notability is not inherited from overall show to every single episode, wikipedia needs to be usable. The advantage of a hypertext encyclopaedia is that one can manage content like this. There is nothing wrong with more information; the rules governing episodes, writing about fiction and so on are about cutting out waffle and non-verifiable material. They're not simply about cutting.

Comparisons with other popular shows is also misleading. For Buffy/Angel the academic cultural and literary studies notability does not lie in individual episodes (unlike for example, the closet episode in South Park, or many Simpsons episodes), nor in the technical aspects of a vampire myth (Whereas Smallville, for example, is largely notable in its development of the superman myth), but in its representations of adolescence, female empowerment and the nature of good and evil, which cut across episodes. It is better for the sake of presentation and completeness to tidy up what there is now. A determined absence of completeness, from the point of view of the end user, does give the impression that Wikipedia is short of paper. This is not saying "I like it", this is looking at the specific content we're dealing with.

Although wikipedia is not a democracy, it is also, explicitly, not run solely by technical policies systematically arbitrated by the untouchable (here I refer to redirects and complaints of 3R violations that have happened with other shows' pages in the face of sometimes overwhelming opposition, and/or without notification to those who have spent time contributing). Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy WP:BURO. Wikipedia is based on consensus. So many people are questioning the assiduous application of various policies on this topic that one cannot simply say "you're wrong and I'm right". Given the reactions of many sincere wikipedians that actually use these pages are negative towards the deletion of this kind of information, (and on wikpedian grounds), one has to reflect upon one of the five pillars of wikipedia "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". By all means there should no unverifiable information, nor any original analysis, but nor should there be excessive enforcement of the letter of policy when it strikes many as counter to the value and purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia.

In any case, I don't believe the rules are being cited in the right spirit. Bignole with the support of others has suggested that these episode pages violate WP:FICT, WP:NOTE, WP:WAF, WP:EPISODE, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:PLOT, WP:RS - and on looking at each one (I'm new here, don't bite), each claim to violation is at least debatable, and many of them reparable (and so a matter for the buffyverse project rather than the episode guide police). The placement of fandom novelisations in timelines is clearly original research and should be taken out, but the timelines themselves are not - they are an integral part of the shows. The plots may be too long, so we can just cut them back. "Verifiability" does not mean that primary source information is invalid, but that we should increase the level of valid secondary sourcing. The assertion that WAF is violated seems petty; where it is violated one can correct, but it's hardly endemic.

In short, although wikipedia is not a democracy, it is a place where common sense is meant to reign. I appreciate the efforts of editors, but I can't help feeling that this discussion has an analogy in "otherstuffexists" - other episode redirects are justified, and so, apparently, this one is too. VsevolodKrolikov 07:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Paul

First, I want to point out that your concern that not every Angel episode can become a WP:GA is not the issue here. Although the goal of every article should be to eventually become a GA, just because an article is not a GA doesn't mean it shouldn't exist at all. Wikipedia allows for a continuum; all articles start off as a stub and over time improve until they match the quality of the TV episodes you listed above. Second, I'm going to focus on the guidelines you said many Angel articles currently violate (as that is the reason we have come to this merge proposal) and indicate how each could possibly be resolved.

To refresh, the claim is that many Angel episodes violate WP:EPISODE standards because they fail to assert notability, are not verifiable, contain original research, are not written from an "out-of-universe" perspective, and have excessively detailed plot summaries. Specifically:

1. WP:NOTE - Many Angel articles do not sufficiently establish notability, because they lack references to reliable secondary sources covering the episode. Because they do not cite secondary sources, they are not verifiable and therefore fail WP:V. Lacking reliable sources, they therefore also fail WP:RS. The WP:FICT guideline that Paul mentions is another reiteration of the important of notability.

2. WP:NOR - The "Timing" templates that appear on every Angel episode is original research.

3. WP:WAF - Some contain information that is written in an "in-universe" style.

4. WP:PLOT - Many of the plot summaries are too long and detailed.

Solutions:

1. Angel, unlike many television shows, has had a great deal written on specific moments in specific episodes in a number of books and articles (some scholarly, others not) - see Buffy studies. There are also copious cast/crew interviews, Angel-themed magazines, and the typical coverage that most shows get in TV Guide and so on. I've been working to add some of this information to the articles, and so far I've only been stymied by lack of time, not lack of reliable sources. Given this, I think many of the articles can assert notability (WP:NOTE) using reliable (WP:RS), verifiable (WP:V) sources.

2. The timing templates can be easily ripped out.

3. This is an issue in some articles, but not most. Typically, the section where this is most likely to occur is when people discuss "Continuity" or "Arc significance". I'm dubious whether that information should stay at all, unless those aspects are mentioned by a reviewer or by the director/writer, with an appropriate source. Nevertheless, an easy fix.

4. Many plot summaries are way too long, but this is a matter of trimming them down. This is not difficult, just time-consuming.

Issues 2-4 are fairly trivial. The most important hurdle is asserting notability - the issue that sparked the merge proposal in the first place, and one that will take the most time and effort to resolve. However, since some episodes can be proven to have significant coverage by reliable sources, doesn't that make it more likely that other episodes would as well? That seems to be the spirit applied to The Simpsons, in which people are more tolerant of lower-quality articles due to the high number of Simpsons GAs. The result is that inferior pages are given the time they need to improve, and slowly become GAs as well, perpetuating the cycle. If the stubby pages were immediately squashed or merged, I doubt that the Simpsons project would have as many excellent articles as it does.

I would like to see the merge effort abandoned for now. The consensus has been overwhelmingly Keep, and some episodes do assert notability, which suggests others may as well. I think we should step back, get some work done, and maybe attempt to merge Angel episodes one by one if, after a reasonable time, no effort has been made to find sources or follow WP:EPISODE guidelines for that particular article. Kweeket 10:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that the episodes are not going to be merged following this discussion, but I wanted to voice my opinion anyway to address some of the dangling issues in this discussion, such as Brian's "It's 10 against 1" argument and "It's notable because the show is notable" type arguments. I'm aware that this discussion is not about whether the articles are currently GA or not, but I doubt that some ever could. Something like (and this is hypothetical, I have no sources to back it up) "Billy (Angel episode)" could potentially reach GA because of the controversial nature of the storyline. But some filler episode that's only setting up the season finale is less likley to have recieved as much attention in the media. I'm also aware that Wikipedia is not governed solely by policy and that common sense and consensus are crucial, but many of the arguments that I addressed above were simply not sufficient to oppose the merge (Brian's accusatory comments and the "Let the fans write what they want" comment). If these episodes are not merged, I at least want to see them not merged for the right reasons. And a look at "You're Welcome (Angel episode)" and "Darla (Angel episode)" show that of some the articles are improving anway. So at least something good came from this discussion. :)  Paul  730 12:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out Kweeket, how long do you think these articles need to be given in order for it to be clear that they won't satisfy the notability criteria for article existence? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? Forever? Notability is based on Verifiability, and verifiability is clear on the issue of the burden of evidence lies with the person that adds it. Meaning, you cannot say "the sources are there" and then follow that up with "just give me time to show it". The point of the merge is that, even you agree with this statement based on your own wording, not all episodes will meet the criteria. Since this isn't an "all or nothing" concept, meaning the ones that do not can be merged and the ones that do can live their life in the open air of freedom. Notability needs to be asserted with sources, not banter that sources exist. Not really seeing a problem with merging all that do not meet the criteria, and then unmerging them when you have the time to actually assert the notability of that given episode. Wikipedia is about quality over quantity, and being useful isn't a reason to have an article. Other than the people that think "every episode is notable for just being an episode", I think its clear that we agree that not all of them can satsify the criteria. That to me seems like it would be easier to merge that ones that do not, and since you've brought up a good point in that it takes time to be able to work on these episodes, unmerge them when they can be satisfied. The article for the last episode of the series was created on April 28, 2005, over two years ago. It has promise, but I would be willing to bet that I could take all the OOU information from that page, and all the episode pages and create 4 season pages that mimic the Smallville season pages, and make all that information coherent. Just because Smallville's season pages don't discuss everything that Angel or Buffy might discuss, does not mean that they can't, or that Angel and Buffy cannot look just like Smallville, but have additional sections that Smallville does not have.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out to bignole that being useful isn't a reason to have an article refers to telephone directories or good restaurant guides as not being the right kind of useful. The grounds it gives for usefulness being a proper criterion for inclusion are the extent to which it helps people navigate a subject - which the episode articles clearly fulfill. As for how long it may take - there is no deadline, so there is no need to push this with such urgency. Merging the Angel episodes a la Smallville will only diminish the opportunity for people to improve the episode articles (what they don't see they won't know used to be there). Don't demolish the house while it's still being built - there are people improving the articles at the moment, and it has been noted that articles are improving, albeit slowly (not everyone has the amount of time to this unpaid work that many of the merger people seem to have). It also is undeniable that the notability of Angel is greater than that of Smallville, given already cited scholarly and other references. There's no need rush through changes that are clearly against consensus. Otherwise it would start to appear like a small crusading cabal are saying what goes - which is certainly not what wikipedia is about.VsevolodKrolikov 15:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also - to have a Smallville-style episode guide with extra sections would simply be unwieldy, given the amount of information that would need to be added.VsevolodKrolikov 15:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to VsevolodKrolikov - WP:DEADLINE states "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." which is actually counter to your own argument. Also note that WP:USEFUL, WP:DEADLINE and WP:INSPECTOR are all essays as opposed to WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:V and WP:RS which are are policies and guidelines. I'll ask now for the same thing I've asked for in previous discussions of this type. I think the best way to move forward is for the people who think the articles establish notability should create a list of articles which currently meet standards or for which they could provide WP:RS to show that the articles will likely meet guidelines in the future. We could then agree which ones do not meet policy and perhaps come to an agreement to allow improvement of the remaining articles. As others have stated before me, not every article of every series is going to be notable, that's on par with claiming that every person that ever lived should have an article which I'm pretty sure we all agree is not correct. I do think there are some notable episodes of Angel but as I've never seen the show I can't tell you which ones they are. Stardust8212 16:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vsevolod, first, a cabal is a secret organization...and there would be nothing secret about the merging of articles. Angel more notable than Smallville? Empirically supported evidence of this? Don't demolish the house while its still being built? You've had, in the least, 2 years to build this so called house. Right now, it wouldn't even qualify as a shack. You have no idea what a Smallville-style Angel season page would look like Vsevolod, because you've never seen one. Don't make presumptions of things you have no experience with. What additional information would need to be present? Given what I see in the episode articles that actually pass notability, it looks just like Smallville articles structure-wise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bignole, if other editors can have no idea what a Smallville-stle Angel season page would look like, perhaps it would be prudent for you to create one in the sandbox, and then offer it to replace what exists now. This is not stalling; I re-read your suggestion above that the reverse be done post-merge, and to be honest, as a new editor on here, it seems to me that that arrangement seems more likely to intimidate and put off people who are not technically experienced editors. In other words it would be less conducive to producing a comprehensive and proper encyclopedia. To call the current episode articles "not even a shack" seems agenda-pushing rather than fair judgement. Compared with what has been judged as GAs (many of the Simpson's episodes) they certainly have the framework, if not yet the detail (which, as another editor said, is certainly out there). (I was surprised that DVD commentaries - i.e. what I would have considered non-independent sources, are a large part of the citation basis of at least some of these GA articles). As for notability of the subject, I was making clear reference to the academic literature analysing Buffy and Angel, a short list of which (with pointers to other lists) was posted above. I am not aware (and I've looked for it) of any similar-depth coverage of Smallville. There are also academic conferences and credits in reputable Masters courses available concerning Buffy/Angel. Is all this not empirical evidence supportive of notability?

Perhaps it would be best to lay off attempts merge, but consider notice having been served on people interested in improving these articles to get on with it? I registered as an editor (two days ago, not two years ago, btw) simply because of the suggestion to merge that appeared here; others may have been drawn here by it too. Surely there are other demons for you to slay in the meantime?VsevolodKrolikov 15:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's evidence of notability for the show, not the episodes, and does not suggest "more notability" than any other show on the market or off for that matter. The subject of Buffy/Angel is vampirism, which has been around for a very long time, and is the subject of lots of scholarly work--it would only make sense that new forms of work would incorporate the most current usage, especially shows that were as popular as those two. As for the sandbox idea, the thought crossed my mind but then another one crossed it right afterward. That was, why waste my time showing you how it would work, when the outcome of said experiment will most likely involved Buffy fans reverting back to the basic "I like individual episode pages, regardless of what you do" mentality. Why would I assume such a thing, because there was still that mentality when I created the Smallville (season 1) page. It had nothing to do with how well it was structured, or coherently written to incorporate all the episodes, it was the simple fact that they just wanted individual pages, period. You're saying that instead of building a comprehensive page, we should create dozens upon dozens of pages that fail many policies and guidelines, in the hopes that one day they will be fixed. Well, given the age of the articles already, I wouldn't hold my breath that "every" article will be fixed, or can be fixed. Kweeket has done a great job on many of them, but there are 110 episodes overall, and I cannot see 110 individual articles meeting all the relevant guidelines and policies. Saying "there's sources" and actually reading those sources and implementing them into 110 articles are no where near the same thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, Buffyverse episodes are complex enough to deserve their own articles. Just like The Simpsons case.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Good god, I'm starting to hate this stupid site. Whatever happened to the idea that Wiki wasn't paper, and that we don't need to put pointless limits on the content? The notability requirements and anti-trivia stance are driving this site straight into boring-town. Wikipedia is never going to be an accepted academic source, so the pursuit of "encyclpedic style and content" is pointless. Let these articles stand, because they aren't harming anyone. If you continue along this path, Wikipedia will be no more than a hub to other Wikis and Wikia. It's a goddamn shame how terrible this site has become since the policy Nazis took over.

Keep, It's better that their are detailed episodes, it makes finding out information about significagnt episodes, favorite episodes and arcs. Lumping everything together turns people the wrong way. easier.-- ShidoIkarji26 (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Also, I don't really understand the argument about the timing section, unless we're just debating whether or not books and comics should be included. I believe the argument is that it violates the original research guideline, but if we exclude written works, it's not original research in that the timing is based on air date, which is not research but merely fact. So again, if the argument is to remove the written works, I don't really have an argument for that, but removing the list that shows relative air dates would be detrimental to the articles because the order in which they happen is relevant; it's not just a "fanboy" thing about being canon, as someone put it. Tiger of Doom (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I think some people slightly misunderstand the very concept of merging. It is to condense eternal stubs into full articles, and only that. Information should be presented in whatever format serves it best - not modified to fit the format. In this case, episode-article format is the only effective one.

Buffy (including its close spinoff Angel) is also among the most influential TV shows created, and likely the most influential fiction one. I don't like it much (and haven't edited any of these articles), but like it or not, it's not a fan thing - BTVS is the show which has more critical coverage than any other modern show; unfortunately, the referencing here lacks yet, but there are tons of material to go on with. These are shows which created tropes, which were taken as reference by other producers, which had look-alikes created after them, which actually had a multitude of printed articles analyzing them. If we go out deleting per-episode articles, Buffy should be the last one to fall under this.

Bignole, it's not some live action adaptation of Superman comics; the most watched TV show is evening news, but if you take a bit more interest in what actually had legacy, you'll find Buffy (and at times its spinoff) to pop up more often than anything. Not because of "vampirism/demonism", which were used as metaphorical means to refer to people's inner demons, at least as the critics write, but because of their means of expression. That phrase of yours has made me less than confident that you have read about these shows beyond the Wikipedia articles. If that is the case, I would suggest to redirect your efforts to subjects you have more first-hand familiarity with. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The suggestion to merge is based on a poor interpretation of WP:EPISODE, which is itself does not exactly have widespread support. older ≠ wiser 21:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Angel is notable enough to require individual episode summaries. --LoreleiLynn (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I use these pages all the time, and I bet many others do too. They are not hurting anyone the way they are, I think it looks plenty professional, it would be terribly unorganized if re-structured into seasons, and Angel is plenty notable enough to require individual episode entries. Just look at the fan-base for this show! People who are not fans probably would get something out of them as well. Each article is fairly lengthy, and although do need more out-of-universe items added, it wouldn't make sence to merge at this point. These Wikipedia guildlines are just that 'guidlines' - not strict policies. I get the impression from reading this discussion that if it was up to a democratic vote, the KEEP would win by far. Angel surely inhabits some minor cornerstone of American culture. DougCube (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge. I'm no expert on either Angel or Wikipedia, but I tend to take the view that if you want to read the plot of every TV show ever there is probably going to be several websites where you can do that. If Wikipedia had a page on everything they might as well abolish the rest of the internet altogether. Can we keep Wikipedia for notable entries only please? Swindon LS12 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I came here through writing "Hero (Angel episode)" in the Firefox search box because I've learned that episodes well-known series have pages named following this logic. If you look at the article for this particular episode, you can see that there is a lot of information, not just the plot summary (although it does seem too long). This episode is certainly notable and there's no way it could be included as a part of a list page without either important information getting cut out or the page becoming heavy to load due to insane length. I haven't looked at the articles for the other episodes in this series so I can't evaluate their contents, but if you went down the road of creating a list of episodes and writing short summaries of non-significant episodes there and having detailed articles for significant episodes such as "Hero", you would end up with constant bickering over which episodes are notable and which not.--Seko (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Damn, this discussion is yonks long. Don't merge anything, its great the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.118.185 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. If any episode pages in WP are to be kept - and the style guide says there are some that should be - these are among the better ones to keep. They've got good amounts of content, and not just plot summaries, and they display it in good, clean fashion, comparable to the samples on the policy page. I'm not a huge Angel fan - I've only ever seen one episode of it - but this argument is asinine. Alsadius (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

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.

Disambiguation

I noticed that the episode pages whose titles require disambiguation (like "Lonely Hearts" and "Bachelor Party") are currently disambiguated with the suffix "(Angel episode)". Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) recommends simply using "(Angel)" instead, except in cases in which that would be ambiguous or confusing, such as Darla (Angel episode). At some point in the next few days I'll go through and move the articles that need to be moved (so Lonely Hearts (Angel episode) will move to Lonely Hearts (Angel)). I don't expect this to be controversial — this is just a heads up. The old titles will remain as redirects. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Buffy next — but not right away. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Charisma Carpenter during season 4

In the Season 4 episode articles Charisma Carpenter is always credited as Cordelia, but considering her possession shouldn't she be credited as Cordelia and Jasmine in "Spin the Bottle" and "Inside Out"; and then only as Jasmine during the episodes between the two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.50.121 (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Episode Articles

I am in the process of reverting all of Drovethrughosts' edits. The ones where he moved all the articles from saying Angel episode in parentheses to just Angel. The reason why I feel it necessary to change it back to Angel episode is because you never know where there might be another television series with an episode that has the same name. Comments anyone? Shaneymike (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. (WP:TV-NAME) Shaneymike (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking away episode synopsis

I really don't think it needs to be done. By doing so you make it harder for people to find out what each episode is about. By taking away the plot synopsis, which was put in place many years ago, you force a visitor to click on each episode to get an idea of that they are about. This hinders anyone doing a quick search for a certain episode. The point of this page is to give quick and easy refrence for people to browse. Taking away the synopsis and the crossovers does not help. They should be left alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miscue (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No one's taking away the episode synopsis', articles have been created for the individual seasons of Angel so content can be expanded further. Please take a look at the season articles to see. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant the mini-synopsis on the episode list. By taking those away you are adding un-needed mouse clicks as a user has to search individual episodes for information on them. The information that Xeworlebi removed and added does not make the browsing of these episodes easier, it makes them harder. Miscue 20:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, they are not taken away, they're right here. It's a common practice on Wikipedia for television shows to have individual season articles (look at any major show on here and it will be the same). Just take a look at the season 1 article of Angel and see how much the information has been expanded. Please stop undoing the edits. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. My apologies I was having issues due to my browser and wasn't seeing the new pages. I will step back and let you clean things up. Sorry for the issues. Miscue (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Pairing with Buffy episodes

Shouldn't it be noted that many Angel episodes were paired with a Buffy episode and they were showed one after the other? It was like a two parter with the Buffy episode the first and the Angel episode the second part. 80.98.146.68 (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)