Talk:List of Castle episodes

Season 6

As of yet, there are no episodes scheduled for season 6. All we have at this time is a premiere date so we don't need a disproportionate amount of content by having a poorly worded statement in the lead (use the active voice and not everything is a revelation!) a row in the table that merely states the premiere date and a "season 6" section that says something different to what is in the lead. (The lead is supposed to summarise key points in the article). The "revelation" that the series has been renewed is redundant to the premiere date, so that isn't necessary at all. All we need is the premiere date, but we don't need it in the lead, the series overview table and in a separate section at the bottom of the article, all supported by the same citation in triplicate. Some of the IPs changing this are clearly not reading what they're changing. This one has some silly statements in the edit summary. "Season 6 is showing" - No it isn't. It doesn't start for 2 months. "A single table row for a season that WILL show isn't an "entire section" - The table isn't what is referred to. What is referred to is the season 6 section, which contains only a single statement that should be in the lead, as should the citation that is being used, which the article has in triplicate. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, both on wording and excessive placement of one tidbit of information. The Season 6 section can be started in a couple weeks when ABC begins to release (not reveal, for heaven's sake) its fall episode titles. --Drmargi (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Another editor has tried to improve the article,[1] but the citation is still there three times with the redundant table and section. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Episode 3 plot summary refers to a character called McCord with no explanation of who he or she may be - is this Beckett's new partner in DC, in which case there ought to be a mention of him/her in the episode of first appearance. RGCorris (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

McCord has now been added to the episode 2 plot summary, but still no explanation of who he/she is ? RGCorris (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't been following this discussion. I happened to add McCord to ep 2 when I was shaping up some of the plot summaries, but it hadn't occurred to me that she hadn't been mentioned before. I added a mention of her and her role in the first ep summary. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Dates

This is a pretty small grievance but the reference for the viewing figures for "The Lives of Others" is dated as being accessed on March 3rd, 2013 but the episode first aired nearly a month later on April 1st. Biggs Pliff (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

So why not just fix it? We get vandals in who change dates for no good reason all the time. --Drmargi (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Time to separate?

Most multi-season, hour-long dramas have a separate page for each season where they can list guest actors, provide a summary for any season-long story arcs. go into more detail. Now that this series is into its 6th season, might it be time to do this for Castle? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Splitting the article has previously been addressed. What we don't want to see is a split where season articles have not been split properly. That means they must be properly attributed, transcluded properly and so on (see WP:SPLIT), and contain more content than just an episode list. What we don't want to see under any circumstances is this, this or this sort of thing. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to see an editor provide a compelling or even reasonable reason to split the article. "Because everyone does it" doesn't work for me, particularly given the lack of content failed splits have had. Consensus for some time has been to leave this one intact. --Drmargi (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The main article does seem to be conspicuously lacking any general discussion of the story arc over the course of the show. Considering the show is serialized to a degree, it would seem to be worth adding (not that this would necessarily warrant a split). --Fru1tbat (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

References should be mentioned regarding the title of the episodes

Many of the titles refer to popular music, film... titles (Murder, he wrote/Dial M for.../The good, the bad and the baby...) This should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxilicioustomcat (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

We can't do that without sources that confirm the links. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I am new, so please excuse the dumb question but for example it could be added that "Murder, he wrote" refers to the TV-servies "Murder, she wrote" (Link to the TV-series) like it has been done at the "Gossip girl" article here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_Girl_%28season_1%29

where you can read "the title refers to "The wild bunch" etc."

I would like to add these kind of information as this kind of "joke" is often used in series but I did not know if it is allowed and requested.

I must admit that I do not really understand what you meant with "sources that confirm the links" - a link to "Murder, she wrote" would not be enough in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxilicioustomcat (talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. If you want to say "the title refers to..." you need to include a citation from a reliable source that confirms that is what the title refers to. A link to an article is not appropriate for a couple of reasons. One is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source (Wikipedia is only a tertiary source) and the other is that the article doesn't confirm the claim. You can't simply assume that what you think is the case. That is the very essence of what we call original research, and is not permitted. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, just because others do it, it doesn't make it right, nor repeatable. — Wyliepedia 06:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In this case, it's unlikely anyone associated with producing the show (i.e. a truly authoritative source) will ever state explicitly that a given episode title refers to a film title, because the connection is so obvious (and so trivial) it's not worth mentioning. It seems a shame to me that links that readers might find interesting (even if they're a bit trivial) can't be made because the allusion is never discussed directly and therefore is not strictly verifiable. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So although it is for many people more than obvious that "Murder, he wrote" refers to "Murder, she wrote" it can not be mentioned because it must be said somewhere, that the episode "Murder, he wrote" refers to "Murder, she wrote" and though this an information which shows the popcultural references used it has to be left out? I rest my case. Can someone please delete the references in the Gossip Girl article then? Otherwise this would be some kind of double standard, I think because there is no source for "We used "The wild brunch" as a reference to "The wild bunch"" because it is something nobody being keen on popular culture would deny. And it shows the creativity of the producer to use such references, like it has been done on various occasions (Gossip Girl just being one example.) But ok - if you have to follow the rules then this information shall be left unspread. Thanks for the info which in my humble opinion shows one of the problems of the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxilicioustomcat (talk • contribs) 10:21, March 17, 2014 (UTC)‎

One of the "other problems" at Wikipedia: Users not signing their posts. Also, feel free to register and fix Gossip Girl yourself. — Wyliepedia 14:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As a new user I did forget to sign my posts, I am very sorry and appologize for this. I did not know whether to delete something or write something without asking was alright (yes, I did read the wp-introduction) and wanted to avoid wrongdoings. I will delete the references at the Gossip Girl etc. articles myself now that I know that those kind of references are not alright and that I can do that without having to ask furthermore. Thanks.Maxilicioustomcat (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two fundamental and probably insuperable problems here: a) even if we see what we believe are plays on other titles in the episode titles, we don't know that's the writers' intent, thus the need for a reliable source. Covert Affairs clearly uses song titles by a given artist for its episode titles (Bowie, etc.) but we had to leave it out for some time because we didn't have a reliable source to establish that was the writers' intent. Without a reliable source, we think, but we don't know; and b) even if we do know, is it encyclopedic? Frankly, this kind of play on words is commonplace in TV episode titles. Castle does more than most in all likelihood, but it barely rises to the level of trivia. This is far better content for the Castle wiki on wikia or someplace similar.Drmargi (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

One other thing to be taken into consideration is page size. No one has tasked themselves with creating notable season pages, which would reduce this article's size. Because of that, adding extraneous borderline trivia, such as title origins, would extend this page further and cause even longer load times for visitors. I would also like to think that Castle viewers/visitors would be culturally hip enough to catch the title inference, since Rick usually alludes to it in an episode. Thanks. — Wyliepedia 06:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

The IP 106.51.44.224 has recently been removing summary information without giving a reason. I suspect it is to prevent spoilers, rather than to decrease the length of the page. As of 20 March 2014, I will no longer revert this individual's removal(s), as I have informed them on their talkpage to come here and discuss it. I leave it to others to take up the mantle. — Wyliepedia 14:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(UPDATE: I have changed the offending summary, since I added it, and informed the IP. However, I asked them to air their issues here, rather than edit warring. I also made no promises to keep out future episode spoilers.) — Wyliepedia 06:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your change. WP:SPOILER is quite clear that we don't edit for spoilers; moreover, the outcome of a broadcast episode is no longer a spoiler. The original description was appropriate, and did not need to be edited. Doing so opens the door for continued reverts for spoilers and potential edit warring. --Drmargi (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could think about what people want from this page. I think most people who visit it are trying to see which episodes they missed, and they don't want to be spoiled. Who would want to read a 2 sentence summary of the entire episode? That content belongs on the episode page. I would vote for removing spoilers. Scottygang (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And how many episode articles does Castle have? One. Episode articles are like season articles, you have to have enough content outside of a plot section to warrant them. If you don't, you have episode summaries here. I can list a half dozen Episode Lists whose summaries are far worse than Castle's. — Wyliepedia 03:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doesn't matter. Local consensus (and we don't vote) can't override policy. Please see WP:SPOILER, which very clearly says we don't remove spoilers. Regardless, the episode has been broadcast, and its content is no longer a spoiler. It's up to readers to exercise personal responsibility if they don't want to see something. --Drmargi (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, (personal attack removed), and it was funny for little while...maybe it's time to go spoil another show? I'm sure you'll be able to stop anyone trying to fix this page, but really that just says more about how little people actually care about this dumb show. Scottygang (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Last I checked, almost 10 million people care about this show, which is only around a million less than its timeslot competitor. And since you can't be adult and civil about this, because you aren't getting your way, my part in this conversation is over. — Wyliepedia 05:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Either be civil or find somewhere else to play, Scottygang. Calling names will accomplish nothing but getting you blocked. WP:SPOILER governs the summary content, period. --Drmargi (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attack and warned the editor, so no more needs to be said on that for now. WP:SPOILER is very clear on the issue of spoilers: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site, and we treat content encyclopaedically, which means we don't concern ourselves with spoilers. It's that simple. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@CAWylie, soooo your argument is that the show is so insanely popular it only has one episode article? @Drmargi, your argument: "X is not a spoiler, therefore X should not be removed because spoilers are not removed" absolutely cannot be a serious argument, which is why I thought you weren't being genuine. @AussieLegend. You are certainly wrong. Only fans read this. If you think people who aren't fans idly read episode summaries of castle episode you're deluded. Also, if we're supposed to be encyclopaedic, why don't you remove all of the original research done on this page? All of the episode descriptors should come from the official website, not from a random kid who watched the show then tried to type up a description. This is inherently NOT an encyclopaedic undertaking, therefore your "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia" argument doesn't apply here. You can't uphold one policy by violating another. It's not that simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottygang (talk • contribs) 21:25, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is. Consensus is against you, policy is against you and you've lost. End of discussion. --Drmargi (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Abitrary break

Ok, not to open up this whole can of worms again, but it looks to me like there was a lot of personal anger (personal anger I really don't understand) tied up in this discussion and not a lot of logical treatment. I'm posting on the talk page because I noticed the same thing, that a number of the episode descriptions straight-up tell you who the killer is. Having read WP:SPOILER, I don't think the issue is quite as cut-and-dried as editors here are making it out to be. The point of WP:SPOILER is primarily about not posting spoiler warnings, and while it does say information should not be removed because it is a spoiler, that doesn't mean spoilers can't be removed for other reasons. The point Scottygang makes about encyclopedic treatment involving sourcing the episode descriptions from the ABC website seems legitimate to me.

All that aside, I think the main point is being missed here. Why does this page have descriptions of episodes? Many other "list of X episodes" pages do not include these episode descriptions.

See List of Archer episodes, List of House episodes, List of Scandal episodes, List of Dexter episodes, etc.

Some do - the only one I've been able to find so far is List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, and these descriptions are short, pithy, and do not contain extensive plot detail. I think the case could be made that these descriptions do not merit inclusion even on that page.

Which brings me to the final issue: the episode descriptions on this page vary substantially in quality and length (many are quite poorly written), and are very much inconsistent in whether they provide spoilers (i.e. fully detail the plot of the episode) or not. They frequently editorialize the events, places, and characters. So rather than starting an edit war and everyone getting all pissed off, could someone please lay out a calm, rational defense for episode descriptions? Thank you. Gruds (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gruds That's because the lists you are giving have separate articles for each season. If you click on the Season's articles you will see the descriptions for each episode. Shows that doesn't have separated pages for each season, such as "Castle" and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode" that you also mentioned, have the descriptions in the "main" list. The short summary has to be a specific amount of words as it was said above. The reason some of the summaries here are shorter and not detailed is probably because no one seemed to bother to write them. That doesn't mean we have to remove them all or cut the ones that have a full summary. Personally, if I had the time and could go through all the episodes I would edit more detailed summaries for all of them but it's impossible. If someone else has the time to do it, they are welcome :) TeamGale 01:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

TeamGale is spot on, in this instance. I personally didn't start global editing until two years ago, which is Season 3 in Castlespeak. Since then, I've added more detailed summaries than the re-written press releases for the episodes. — Wyliepedia 02:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to add...is normal for press releases not to spoil the story since they are released BEFORE the airing of the episode. From the moment the episode was released this is not an issue. It happened to me in the past to be spoiled, because I didn't know that WP is not spoiler free, but after that I never read a description if I hadn't seen the episode or the movie. If someone were spoiled but instead keep reading descriptions knowing that they might contain spoilers then it's their choice and they don't have the right to complain or remove the info from the article because they don't agree. Rules are rules. Just how I see it. TeamGale 05:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to defend my position on this matter beyond what's already been said. Policy supports the edit, and the burden is on the editor removing it to gain consensus, which he hasn't done. All I can say from here is that I agree with Wylie and Team Gale. This is a non-issue that continues to rear its head because non-American fangirls refuse to exercise a little bit of personal responsibility and want to apply message board standards for spoilers here. --Drmargi (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing episode summaries

I'm watching Season 6 for the first time now and am using this page to provide a succinct, spoiler-free summary for each episode. As I've done with many other shows that I binge-watch, if I come across an episode summary that is either too long, sloppily written or provides spoilers (such as, in the case of this show, who the murderer is), I will edit the given summary to make it more in line with the rest on the page. Please don't revert my edits unless there's a legitimately good reason to do so. I'm happy to discuss what constitutes such, but I'm only editing in order to improve this page and Wikipedia as a whole. If you have an issue with my edits, please talk to me on my talk page before reverting. Thanks! Ilva (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)