Talk:List of Dollhouse episodes

Episode 12

Episode 12 is being written by Tim Minear. MultipleTom (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Different info

My TiVo is claiming that "Ghost" is episode 102 and the next to show, "The Target," will be on 20 Feb and is episode 104. 69.138.72.24 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your TiVo is not a reliable source. kingdom2 (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

These are the production codes for the episodes. "Ghost" was produced as second episode, "The Target" as the fourth. Since Dollhouse was shot out of airing order, that's normal. I wonder though why TiVo would use the production codes. --Wiesengrund (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My mythtv box also listed ghost as episode # 102. I would consider merging the pilot with season 1 to accommodate the episode numbers, even if the pilot never airs. Rosenbluh (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mythtv is also not a reliable source. Seeing as "Ghost" isn't going to air, and hence is not part of season one, the episode should be left the way it is. kingdom2 (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "Ghost" aired last Friday as the new pilot. It's the original pilot, "Echo", production code 101, that won't see the light of day. :) --Wiesengrund (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I got the titles mixed up. "Echo" is the one that isn't going to air. Replace "Echo" with "Ghost" in my above comment and I stand by it. kingdom2 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Lost "Echo" source

Apparently, amidst the deluge of new edits that comes with a TV series finally airing, we lost a reference. The only source serving as a reference for why the "Echo" pilot was shelved is TV.com, which is not a reliable source. I know that there was a reliable source at one point, but, most likely in an effort to use as few sources for as much information as possible, it got tossed. Does anybody know what that reference was? kingdom2 (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the most reliable source is Joss Whedon himself.--Wiesengrund (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, but the reference has to actually be in the article. kingdom2 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? MultipleTom (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So that information in articles can be verified! This is one of Wikipedia's oldest policies. If information posted in an article is not accompanied by an inline citation linking to a reliable source that details said information, then the information contributed can and will be deleted. There is no such thing as "trust me, I know this is correct" on Wikipedia. Information must always be accompanied by sources, with VERY few exceptions, this NOT being one of them. 18:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops - I thought by "in the article" you meant in the main body of the source article, as opposed to the comments section - when obviously you just meant as a refernce in this article rather than the discussion section here. MultipleTom (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyvio situation

Seeing as TV.com is user contributed, I don't know if Wikipedia can get in trouble for copyright violations with it or not, but the note under "Echo" is the exact same as what is on TV.com. The original editor must have just copy and pasted it. To all those who do not know - very bad. The problem is that the note is written so well that I can't think of a better way to phrase it, so if someone has an idea for rewording the note or knows the exact details of any possible copyvio scenario, please do something. kingdom2 (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

TV.com TOS. My interpretation is that user submitted content does not become released from copyright like Wikipedia, but the copyright is transfered to TV.com. I agree that it's tricky to reword, but I'm gonna give it a try. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 21:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This:

This episode was originally intended to be the series pilot, but after test audiences found it "too confusing and dark", Joss Whedon decided to shoot a new pilot, "Ghost", to better introduce the story and characters to the viewing audience. It was originally reported that this episode was going to be aired second, after the new pilot, but when it proved impossible to salvage (even with reshoots), Whedon decided to shelve the episode completely.

still needs to be rewritten. kingdom2 (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I recently read WP:Close paraphrasing, which suggests that my change didn't even solve the problem for the first bit. Is there another source for the plot of the episode? As TV.com isn't even really reliable, I suggest we remove the bit about plot if there isn't. As for the rest of it, I might have a go at a proper rewrite later tonight. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 02:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the user-generated content is not a reliable source. But assuming it's true, it seems like fairly significant information, no? We should at least have some explanation of why the pilot was not the pilot. Hope something can be found.

On a really nit-picky side note, remember that Wikipedia content is not released from copyright, but is copyrighted and licensed under the GFDL. The exception is work by users who explicitly release their contributions to the public domain. Fletcher (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Episode Descriptions

Episode Descriptions do not need to give a play-by-play of every episode. A brief, non-spoiler summary will suffice. If you wish to create a full description, create a separate page for the episode.Flapjack727 (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The summaries for the first two episodes are a bit longer than normal, but spoilers are not avoided on Wikipedia. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 02:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The episode descriptions don't need to be lengthened by adding spoilers. The template says "ShortSummary" indicating no more than two or three lines. IMO, if you want to reveal spoilers create a separate page for the episode. Flapjack727 (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The summaries should be shorter, I agree, but the episodes do not meet notability guidelines for episode articles. However, when shortening them, they should not be written so as to avoid spoilers. Wikipedia's policy on spoilers states that "it is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 02:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree: 1) We are not TV Guide, and the little two sentence descriptions give no real encyclopedic information. They serve no purpose other than as a directory or a promotional tool, which we are not. And maybe you've noticed they are often filled out before the episode even airs, indicating they are likely copyvios from some other website.

2) Although many other lists have shorter plot descriptions, many of them also have episode articles in which the plot can be adequately summarized. We don't have episode articles at this point, so a little more plot summary is called for (though not, I would agree, play by play descriptions of everything that happens).

3) A separate episode page is an option, but in my experience, pages for individual episodes are subject to major fancruft, trivia bloat, and little or no referencing. Sometimes they will be deleted or merged back into the list article (this happened with Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles). So we could create episode pages, but possibly this centralized list article can better handle the plot summary.

All that said, I admit my work could use some trimming. If you browse WP:FL#Media many of the lists seem to be around the 100 word range. I think a bit more is called for in the absence of decent episode articles, but I'll try to aim for about that length going forward. Fletcher (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: I reverted and trimmed the descriptions myself trying not to lose major plot elements. Fletcher (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually like the new descriptions. Thanks for trimming them down. Flapjack727 (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to re-address this issue. Should we avoid spoiler content and give ONLY what the episode is about given that I am currently creating main articles for each episode? I have been trying to re-write the episode synopsis to remove excess details that should AND is in the main article, as well as trying to avoid spoilers, most recently with my entry for the Getting Closer episode, which was shortly re-written with spoiler content. Thoughts?Meowies (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up the description of Episode 12 of season 2, because as a biotechnologist the wording of it was making my "special science genome" hurt... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.210.72 (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Separate Episode Pages?

Will this be done? Whedon's other shows have been given separate episodic pages for a bigger eye into the plot of the episode, and co/special/guest stars in the show. Is anyone willing to do this, or (if people agree) will I start the pages. 86.164.141.197 (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, articles should more than plot summaries, and if you do not cite sources showing notability your work may last a while, then eventually get deleted. It's probably better to link to one of the off-site wikis that specialize in plot details. Fletcher (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Already done and still continuing. I hope to go back to do season 1 soon. Meowies (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced spoilers

Recently, an anonymous editor cut summaries of unaired episodes due to unsourced spoilers. For anyone here who hasn't read the spoiler policy, spoilers are not supposed to be censored on Wikipedia. It was okay for the anonymous editor to remove the summaries because they were unsourced, however properly sourced episode summaries should not be removed. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)