Talk:Thomas & Friends series 2

Thomas Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thomas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thomas the Tank Engine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ThomasWikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Thomas & Friends task forceTemplate:WikiProject ThomasThomas articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Episode titles

Okay, I can't find evidence right now to support either way, but why do people insist on deleting the U.K. titles of the episodes? If anything, the U.S. titles have more justification to be deleted since Thomas and Friends is a U.K. that was brought to the U.S. So, please, can someone provide a valid reason to keep deleting U.K. titles? Until I see justification, I think it's best to keep reverting the edits by these anonymous users who update the titles in dozens of edits in 20 minute spans.--Metros232 18:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Falzon

As noted on the Season 1 Discussion page, Brian Falzon is not a real character from the Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends TV Series. We would appreciate it if whoever it is that insists on blatantly putting this fake character into these pages would kindly stop. Thehalford 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"View Episode"

As with the Season 1 article, linking to Youtube is an illegal practice. Any such links will be deleted quickly so as not to breach copyright practices. Thehalford 21:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous content

Superfluous content has been popping up fairly regularly in this article and others recently. Please see WikiProject Thomas for further discussion on this.

Superfluous edits include: Goofs, "first time we see X's angry face", appearances of non-character rolling stock, and other such additions. Superfluous comments such as these detract from the article significantly, and will be removed or reverted.

Gonzerelli 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Comes to Breakfast

This episode has stepped well and truly into edit war territory. First and foremost, I apologise for not taking this to the Talk page earlier, as I've (unfortunately) become used to editors who don't read the talk pages.

The main point of contention here is that a comment regarding Duck taking Thomas to the works, and this scene not being prtrayed in the TV series, should be added to this episode.

My main objection to this is that it is an extremely minor point which does not affect the plot. If we were to go through each of the four seasons and point out each individual discrepancy between the TV Series and Railway Series, well we'd be here all day. Also, this is an article about the TV Series, not the Railway Series. According to WikiProject Thomas, it is not appropriate to go into any incredible detail about the Railway Series in a TV Series article.

The counter-example used was "Whistles and Sneezes", from Season 1, which notes that the episode was an amalgamation of two stories from The Railway Series (Gordon's Whistle, and Henry's Sneeze). This is hardly a direct comparison. In the case of W&S, it was two FULL stories which had been amalgamated - quite significant. In the Thomas Comes to Breakfast case, however, I'll point out again that we're talking about a very minor scene which does not affect the plot.

I have allowed a comment about this episode to remain on the individual page Duck the Great Western Engine, which could quite easily be deleted (and may be in future, depending on how the Character Page Rationalisation Mini-Project progresses), but as I said I've left for now. If you want to take the time to point out all the discrepancies between the Railway Series and the TV Series, I suggest you make a fansite for it, because I can't for the life of me see how it has an appropriate place on Wikipedia.

Gonzerelli 06:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the comment of the original closing scene of TCTB shouldn't be noted, then we might as well delete all the other comments that viewers would know just by watching the TV Series, such as saying "Introduces Trevor the Traction Engine" or "Duck's First Accident". It's just a bit of Trivia, that merely states that Thomas Comes to Breakfast actually ends with Duck taking Thomas to the works, and shouldn't affect the plot. As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference whatsoever between the Duck/Thomas statement and the Whistles and Sneezes comment. And another thing, I do not - repeat - DO NOT want to start any crappy fansite or anything like that.

But I won't put that statement back until this debate is solved. And by the way, I heard that you and some other users are part of some Wikipedia:Thomas group or something like that. Tell me about it, please. Jienum 19:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Thomas can be accessed via links in the infobox at the top of this page, or within my previous post. Your knowledge would be put to good use there I am sure.

As for the debate at hand, at this stage it is your personal feeling against mine. I would like other people's views on this, preferably with some knowledge of both Series and these pages.

Gonzerelli 05:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My view on this is that it's a very minor point. I'd say that in terms of trivia, the first appearance of a character is worth noting, but the appearance or non-appearance of a character in a brief scene that doesn't really affect the plot either way isn't notable enough for inclusion. It's all a question of whether someone who wanted to know about 'Thomas Comes to Breakfast' would want to know that. Honest Tom

It was proven wrong in the end. That person on the forum was lying about Duck taking Thomas. But the Ringo Starr portrait and "Daisy/Daisy for Hire Trilogy" comments should stay. Jienum 17:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, at this stage. Only since I've actually heard "Daisy Trilogy" (never heard "Daisy For Hire", so it won't be retained - and before you mention it, YouTube is not a reliable source!), and because Ringo is such a pivotal part of the first two seasons. I'm wary of setting a precedent for superfluous comments, but these two trivia points are perfectly justified. Gonzerelli 02:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featuring / Introducing

A couple of points to make on this.

How a character can be introduced in an episode, but not featured in an episode, I'll never understand... So if they're down as "introduced", they should be in "featuring" as well.
Please do not add "not yet introduced" to cameo appearances, it is very messy. Also, it is made clear when characters are introduced, in the "Characters introduced" section.

I am considering removing the "Introducing..." points from episode summaries, and leaving that to the "characters introduced" section. The characters' introduction should surely be highlighted in the textual episode summary in any case.

Gonzerelli 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - If a character is "introduced", they must also be "featured". This is now a "rule" across articles for all seasons. For WP:THOMAS, Gonzerelli 06:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brake Van

Why do these sentences keep getting deleted?: Percy agrees that it's a shame. Gordon scoffs that it's all about a broken signalbox. James is very annoyed by the Spiteful Brakevan. Henry says the twins did well in the snow. All the engines agreed that it's not fair.

Firstly, the section to which you're referring is in fact The Deputation.

And the reason... Because they are just plain superfluous. As it is, there are three paragraphs / 10 lines / 228 words of text before even getting to the episode notes. The detail above doesn't need to be gone into, to make the section longer still. The sentence "Gordon, Henry, James and Percy are equally upset, and try to think of something to help the Scottish twins" will suffice.

Check out WP:THOMAS for further reasoning behind this.

Gonzerelli 02:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]