Talk:List of MythBusters episodes

This article was nominated for deletion on May 5, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Wikitable Layout

Could we change the wikitable layout to match the standard on wikipedia? Most wiki episode pages have their listings in this format: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Dad!_episodes). The currect table is difficult to maintain and is very ugly. 3rd Party applications that rely on wikitables are unable to parse this type of table. Anyone care to change it and make it look nicer? Kalistorm (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose new sections should be appended at the bottom of talk pages. Anyway, your proposal sounds good but seems to be really a major project.Kxx (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Uk airings

I noticed a ip user is now adding the uk airdates since a lot of the epsiode are premiere there first, however i know a lot of the season 7 and some 6 aired in the uk first but i wonder if there be aproblem with changing these odler ones?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Should the UK listing not be on their own page? This seems to be confusing for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.90.174 (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope that is a defintive, there no need for two articles, it says original airdate not american--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why on the US page we are noting the "Discovery Channel UK" this is confusing in my opinion. I would think it best to only list the US airings on a US site / page for the show. Jsholm (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

THis is english wikipedia not american wikipedia so uk airing are valid--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the show, period. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. The fact that the show is American does not preclude us from providing information about its presence in other countries; and there is certainly no reason to create separate articles about non-U.S. showings. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok... to solve this problem we are going to use the US airing dates as the show is produced there. If the UK viewers wish to know the airing dates for their local areas, they should consult a UK programming guide. This is wikipedia, not ukpedia.LostMK (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"We" are? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not a dictatorship. It's not USpedia either. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want personalized localized information that is not relevant to the source you can change .com to .au or .co.uk or whatever the fuck your kind does. Keep it out of our wikipedia.LostMK (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Seasons on this article now out of sync with the season sub articles

The table looks really nice, but the seasons listed in this article are now out of sync with the season sub articles. In addition, there currently isn't a source listed on the table on where the season breakdown is coming from and how the seasons are supposed to be broken down has been a matter of dispute. Jon (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The conversion to {{Episode list}} format was a direct conversion of the existing tables. The sync problem existed before conversion.[1] I noticed some discrepancies when I was double-checking after converting the custom tables to use {{Episode list}}, but decided to convert the tables as they were, rather than to try to fix up the errors as part of the conversion. There are bound to be errors when you have two sets of lists for each season. Ideally the episode lists for each season should be in the individual season articles and transcluded here to avoid unnecessary duplication and, hopefully, lists being out of sync with each other. Regarding references, there were very few references and quite a few uncited claims that didn't match the data in the lists before the conversion. More references definitely need to be added.

Season breakdown is a problem with this program. The various reliable TV Guides don't seem to agree with each other so it's hard to work out season boundaries. The traditional method of breaking down sublists is to name them according to the season, ie MythBusters (season x) rather than MythBusters (200x season) but, given the confusion over the season boundaries, it may be more useful to break the episodes down by year, as has been done with the season sub articles. The individual seasons would then be named "200x season" rather than "Season y: 200x" and the episodes broken into groups according to the year they were aired. This is not difficult to do. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I say use the dvd for breakdown, as teh austrlain and american release are the same for seaosn 1-4, season 5 onwards is a bit tricker--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's because of the discrepancies with season 5 onwards that it's probably best to stick to years. We need something that's consistent and unlikely to be changed. The sub articles are ordered by year. If the episode lists are moved to the sub articles and transcluded, consistency should be maintained, regardless of any inconsistencies in DVD releases, TV Guides etc. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

no the dvd release are consistant i jsu tmeant that season5 is about to be released on dvd so until seaosn 6 is out we wouldnt knwo for sure but going on the dvd would be a start and defintive relaibel source--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You've just demonstrated my point. Ordering by year is immediate and essentially final. Ordering by DVD means ordering by some other method until the DVD is released and then re-ordering to match the DVD. If we were to re-order by DVD then that means that there would always be two methods of ordering until MythBusters is finally cancelled. That is not consistent, means extra work and makes no sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really it done on other shows where a smiliar problem arise. Mysolution would be put all epsiode that are not in season 1-5 into seaosn 6 and when seaosn 6 is annocued put all epsiode not in season 6 into 7 and so then it will be constiant and sicne it no using episode lsit it quite easy to do--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Doing that falls very squarely under the heading of original research. It's unnaceptable. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Unindent 1

No it doesnt, if the offical season release sasys it not part of it then has to be part of the next season or else it a wild episode. But splitting by year is as much original research as my way because your giving th impression seaosn 1 is year x season 2is year year xy etc. my way is based on discover own information but i am pretty sure discover has a episode guide for it which is then officla and the bes tot use--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok here is offficl list from discovery uk

[2] <-- season 6 [3] <-- seaosn 5 which you will fidn matches the dvd so the other dvd would be acceptabel to use for season 1-4--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the order is a wee bit differnt but the uk airs them in different order so i stick with american order but it means both are confirmed--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

here is the season 5 dvd from discovery [4]--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but yes, it does make it OR. Putting season 7 episodes into season 6 is OR because you're making an assumption. It's not verifiable that the current list of season 7 episodes is part of season 6. On the other hand, if you simply list the seasons by year, not as they're listed now, it's not OR because it can be verified that the episodes aired in that year. The Discovery channel episode guide, which is cited in the article, lists the episodes by year.[5] Discovery.com is referenced in the actual episodes so that is clearly the main site and the reference we should use. Discovery.co.uk is a regional site. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It does nto matter it a regional site it eralibel source and can rpovide and enoguh information to pslit itno proper seasons. and putting seaosn 7 epsiod einto seaosn 6 until it is clear what season there ar eis not original reseash if you want it that way you put them into a caterogu unknown season which are nto splut intoa season article--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My point was that different regional sites have different airing schedules to each other and the main site. What we end up with with is a whole pile of "reliable" sources that contradict each other so what site do we use? The UK site? The Australian site? The US site? You're in the UK so you seem to prefer the UK site. Beyond Productions, which make MythBusters, is an Australian company so there's an argument for the Australian site. However, the program is produced (mainly) in the US and the US site is regularly referred to in the episode so that's the site we should be using for consistency. There's no real argument for using any other site over the US site.

Once again, putting season 7 episodes into season 6 is original research. There are no sources stating that the episodes are in season 6 which means that including the season 7 episodes in season 6 is speculation. The second sentence of Wikipedia:No original research covers this. Please read the policy. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I stated a american site the american discovery shoip sit ewhich list everything for season 5, i just gave the uk site the shows as addiotnal proof that season 5 is what the amreican site says, even if it original research if you placing a episode into aunknown season whith that title and no season article is created utnil later people will be able ot understand that the episode does is in unknown fo rit season, if i can find a australian sit ei will provide that to i just against people saying americna shwo so american sites only--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're ignoring the fact that the season articles are already named according to year and episodes in the season articles are grouped by year. You're also ignoring what I said yesterday, i.e. that ordering by DVD season means ordering by some other method until the DVD is released and then re-ordering to match the DVD. If we were to re-order by DVD then that means that there would always be two methods of ordering until MythBusters is finally cancelled. It's not consistent and if we were to re-order by DVD season that means having to move and re-write all of the sub articles as well as this one to maintain the required consistency. It's a lot of work and, given that it took five months just to convert this article to use {{Episode list}}, it's work that won't get done. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

TO be honest i am not bothered wether it is split by year or seasons, but i think seaosn splitting is the best due to the fact people know where they belong. I am jsut bothered with your relucantance that only the american site can be used since it americna show. I acutalyl agree with you americna site should be used as the primary source. But use the other sourse liek uk one to help sort otu season 6 and 7 until the dvd come out. And always follow the order that it airs in america not the uk or australia, not sure if the dvd order if different should be followed. i am just totally in limbo as to why the reculantance of the non americna site--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with season splitting, but the sub articles have been split by year and the {{Main}} links in each season link to these articles. The fact that the season lists and the sub articles don't match is what started this discussion. It's a lot of work to move and rewrite articles to split by season to ensure that the sub articles match this one. Splitting by year seems the quickest and easist fix, and there's nothing wrong with splitting by year. Since the US website's episode list splits by year, rather than season, this seems the least confusing way of splitting. I don't actually have any problem with using information from the UK site. It just seems more logical to use the US site, for the reasons that I've stated. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair point , but the work to reorganise will be quite easy once we move evrything over to the main articles maybe something we can lok at int he future then?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Unident 2

\since we are goign with season by years can we remove fromt he section headers season 1 : xxxx=xxxx to season xxxx-xxxx as this is inaccurate and suggest that season 1 is all the episode that aired in that year which is against what we have argued about--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's on my ToDo list. It's not as simple as just changing the headings. Quite a few things have to be changed. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be better to move the stuff over to the season articfle and then do the work on it form there and transclude the data back here without the short summary and in essence make this a true list. I can fix the season headings if oyu want wotn take much work--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a lot easier to get this article correct and consistent throughout, and then move the tables to the season articles. Episodes have to be moved between seasons here and the season overview table needs to be changed as well as changing the headings. This all has to be done before the tables can be moved to the articles. Otherwise, you have to work on eight articles at once, rather than one or two. I've already stated in my user space, rather than doing the changes here in a disjointed fashion. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

page layout change

why was the layout of the page changed. its not easy to read like it was. Simple layouts are always better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.163.8 (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

due to wikipedia polices as it better in episod elist foramt--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Better if episode contents are better formatted. Putting the phrase "Myths tested" in every single content box is unnecessary.Kxx (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

True but that is clean up work--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The "ShortSummary" field, where the "Myths tested" are listed now, cannot have a custom name so it's necessary to include a label to avoid any confusion. However, there's no reason why it can't be removed if that's the consensus. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Episode numbering

I can't see how the episode numbering for this article was decided upon and there's no source for production numbers. Any ideas? --AussieLegend (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I say removing things like the mini myths and best of to a sections called other, and the specials which are in the lsit of special episodes go to section called specials as, until seaosn 5 the special where nto part ofthe regualr season, there where just the best btis form previosu epsiodes., i say remove the produciton code completely unless a realible source is found--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point I don't see any real reason to move any of the specials to separate sections. Special episodes are still episodes so they can still be listed with the rest of the episodes for that year. Lots of TV programs have specials, but they don't usually break them out into separate sections, or sub articles. I see no reason why the special episodes can't be merged into the individual year articles. This would provide consistency between the articles. It's peculiar that Discovery includes some specials in the individual episode lists but doesn't include others. We don't have to follow that here, and shouldn't if we want to provide a consistent list. As for episode numbering, I agre ethat we should drop the production numbers. They don't really provide any useful information and since they're not cited, I suspect they're OR. I think we should stick to traditional episode numbering as used in most TV articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

agreed then the production code will go. fair enough about the specials, mythbuster until season 4 or 5 had specials that where that not par tof the regular epsioe but from seaosn 4 or 5 they then became regular episode even though they where specials. but the best of episode i think should be removed as there not really episode there jsut 5 minute short with the best clips from other episodes previously.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Article rework

As per the earlier discussions on this page, I've now completed conversion of the article to list episodes by year, in line with the sub-articles, using the official Discovery Channel episode guide as a source. The guide doesn't include some of the earlier specials so I've gone to other articles for sources. For consistency, and because they're cited, episodes are listed by US airdate, although the UK airdates have not been removed. It should be noted that some of the episode titles have been changed to reflect the title on the Discovery Channel guide. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now moved the 2003 episode list to the season article and transcluded it. More work is required for the other articles and they'll be done as time permits. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Will you havea problem if i use sublist so the summaries are not translcuded so this remains as as list of episode only ocmpeltely? btw no problem with changing the names as discovery uk general releases shorten version of hte names for epg data and i said before the uk usualy airs them ina different order--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there would be very little point to this article without the episode summary field transcluded. Looking for a particular myth would require looking through all of the individual season articles, which is time consuming. It's not as if the summaries contain alot of information. It's just a bare list of the myths tested. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough just it is way most lists do things but isee your point--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)