Talk:List of Medium episodes

Format

I'm going to convert the LOE to {{Episode list}} - does anyone object to this? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Cburnett 20:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Format 2

I was in the process of creating pages for the episodes and linking them to the episode list page so I don't understand the point of reverting all the work I did? I know the links weren't relevant the first time but then I fixed them so that I could easily create pages by clicking on them. I only started working on it 3 hours ago so obviously it's going to take a little bit time to create all the pages... Almost every other popular show has a separate page for each episode. Also, "Whatever Possessed You" aired last night. (Raasta123 03:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

The revert I did was because you blindly linked the episode titles. Plenty of the links were linked to articles not about the Medium. I have no desire to stop you from doing work but please be careful where you link. A non-ambiguous link would be: [[TITLE (Medium episode)]]. Also, try starting with one episode at a time. Cburnett 03:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks for checking the page. I know I blindly linked but then I fixed it but I guess we must have done it at the same time? I'll stick to one at a time, thanks. (Raasta123 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)).

Reference links

There seems to be a problem with user Matthew, for some reason he does not want to state reference links but external ones instead removing some valuable reference and reverted my edit three times without giving clear reasons as to why be against reference links, I am bringing this topic here so that others can voice their opinion on this issue and maybe bring in a logical third party to resolve this issue clearly.--Migospia 14:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC) (show)

-Wheres the logic in reverting edits without talk and having a Wikipedia list of TV episodes without listing the references?--Migospia 13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit, the NBC, IMDb and TV.com links are to be grouped as external links, they're not sources (in the case of IMDb and TV.com they are not valid sources as they are not verifiable), the NBC link is a valid source but the actual link contains no source information used. Also fan-sites are not valid sources or in most cases valid links, and Wikipedia is not a links database so fan sites do not belong here. Matthew 09:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You should discuss your issue on the talk page before making an edit, with vaild reasons--Migospia 09:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's actually vice-versa, the link was added without any discussion (and thus no consensus for it) and it has been disputed and should not be added without any discussion. Please see: WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. This edit (which you made) inserted the IMDb link, TV.com, the NBC and "Medium Dreams". Wikipedia's Manual of Style indicates how external links/references are to be formatted/sectionised. Matthew 10:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken I was stating a source/reference, I have seen this in literally many articles here on Wikipedia, so saying that a reference site not be added is ridiculous, it was not an external fan page. I also think external links on a TV list episodes page is inapporate.--Migospia 11:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

and as I have stated, they're not valid sources as per Wikipedia's gudielines/policies. All articles should be sourced, but only to reliable sources - fan sites and user submitted websites are not reliable, they have little editorial oversight. Matthew 11:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said it is a valid source it talks about Medium episodes which have proven to be valid, I have seen websites here used as sources that should not, what is your problem with this site to be used as a reference although the reference is vaild and more importantly it is imporant to the article it is being used.--Migospia 15:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it has published/copied information which is reliable, it is still a fan-site at the end of the day and hence unreliable unless it has some editorial oversight and a long history of providing verifiable history. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources; which I'd already linked to. Addendum: I have no further interest in communicating with you until you have read Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. Matthew 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We have to get a third party in here because you are not understanding me or what this is it is confusing what you are trying to do, They are not external links but sources at least for when I edit the page as well as others, it is just inapporate I believe--Migospia 08:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit to the Medium LOE again. Now I'm not sure how much simpler I can word this: They are external links, not valid source material. Please see WP:V. It doesn't matter if you want to "source" where you got the information from, they are still not reliable.. Wikipedia relies on verifiable information such a press releases. Addendum: Please do not re-insert the spam fan site link which does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for linking. Matthew 06:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated: "not valid source material. Please see WP:V" - It's *not* a valid reference, fan sites /are not/ valid reference material, just having the same information doesn't make it a valid reference. Frankly I'm beginning to believe you run that website, or something. (see WP:COI). Matthew 14:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC) as I will state again, the links you are inserting are *not* valid reference material, please read (emphasis on the read) WP:V. Your actions are bordering on being disruptive now. I've been very clear with you. Matthew 13:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Not one, twice or three times but EIGHT times have I told you to read Wikipedia's guidelines/policies on citing sources. I'll restate it for the ninth time: TV.com is a user-submitted source, it has little editorial oversight and is thus non-credible, the same is said for the IMDb (they are, however, valid external links). Then there is your fan site... it's exactly that a fan site, which demonstrates no notability nor any reputability. I strongly advise you to read: WP:V and WP:NOR -- because frankly I no longer think I can assume good faith agaisnt an editor who shows no interest in complying with Wikipedia's "r&rs". Matthew 14:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC) "clear reasons" - I've given you (and repeated multiple times) several clear reasons backed up by policy/guidelines, you demonstrate ignorance of these as you "clearly" haven't read them.

hidden|Messages I've sent to your talk page...

You have given me no reasons to back up your idiocy so do not say you have, what is your problem against reference links? Here are some links in other list TV articles here in Wikipedia:

http://www.housemd-guide.com/ in List of House episodes
http://www.crimelab.nl/ in List of Cold Case episodes
Plus more are allowed and have been in many other TV list of episodes. Please tell me how listing - http://www.mediumdreams.com/episode-list/episode-summaries/ - as a reference is not allowed even when you are the only one against it? You seem to be a fan of the show too so I do not know why you are trying to harm the article? On top of that you are very rude--Migospia 20:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Read the above. Other articles going against the R&Rs isn't a valid reason to add more. Matthew 20:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What? and what are R&Rs? You must give some other reason as your damage to this article, bring a mod in or something a third party that uses facts because you seem to be the only one against adding full references, and Wiki reverts edits if the link links to a fan page and there was no bot just you, well how can I assume good faith when you continue to be rude on my talk page and here and keep going aganist me and the article--Migospia 10:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Medium LOE

I've reverted this edit, the NBC, IMDb and TV.com links are to be grouped as external links, they're not sources (in the case of IMDb and TV.com they are not valid sources as they are not verifiable), the NBC link is a valid source but the actual link contains no source information used. Also fan-sites are not valid sources or in most cases valid links, and Wikipedia is not a links database so fan sites do not belong here. Matthew 09:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You should discuss your issue on the talk page before making an edit, with vaild reasons--Migospia 09:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's actually vice-versa, the link was added without any discussion (and thus no consensus for it) and it has been disputed and should not be added without any discussion. Please see: WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. This edit (which you made) inserted the IMDb link, TV.com, the NBC and "Medium Dreams". Wikipedia's Manual of Style indicates how external links/references are to be formatted/sectionised. Matthew 10:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken I was stating a source/reference, I have seen this in literally many articles here on Wikipedia, so saying that a reference site not be added is ridiculous, it was not an external fan page. I also think external links on a TV list episodes page is inapporate.--Migospia 11:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

and as I have stated, they're not valid sources as per Wikipedia's gudielines/policies. All articles should be sourced, but only to reliable sources - fan sites and user submitted websites are not reliable, they have little editorial oversight. Matthew 11:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said it is a valid source it talks about Medium episodes which have proven to be valid, I have seen websites here used as sources that should not, what is your problem with this site to be used as a reference although the reference is vaild and more importantly it is imporant to the article it is being used.--Migospia 15:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it has published/copied information which is reliable, it is still a fan-site at the end of the day and hence unreliable unless it has some editorial oversight and a long history of providing verifiable history. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources; which I'd already linked to. Addendum: I have no further interest in communicating with you until you have read Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. Matthew 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We have to get a third party in here because you are not understanding me or what this is it is confusing what you are trying to do, They are not external links but sources at least for when I edit the page as well as others, it is just inapporate I believe--Migospia 08:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit to the Medium LOE again. Now I'm not sure how much simpler I can word this: They are external links, not valid source material. Please see WP:V. It doesn't matter if you want to "source" where you got the information from, they are still not reliable.. Wikipedia relies on verifiable information such a press releases. Addendum: Please do not re-insert the spam fan site link which does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for linking. Matthew 06:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated: "not valid source material. Please see WP:V" - It's *not* a valid reference, fan sites /are not/ valid reference material, just having the same information doesn't make it a valid reference. Frankly I'm beginning to believe you run that website, or something. (see WP:COI). Matthew 14:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

as I will state again, the links you are inserting are *not* valid reference material, please read (emphasis on the read) WP:V. Your actions are bordering on being disruptive now. I've been very clear with you. Matthew 13:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)}}

Not one, twice or three times but EIGHT times have I told you to read Wikipedia's guidelines/policies on citing sources. I'll restate it for the ninth time: TV.com is a user-submitted source, it has little editorial oversight and is thus non-credible, the same is said for the IMDb (they are, however, valid external links). Then there is your fan site... it's exactly that a fan site, which demonstrates no notability nor any reputability. I strongly advise you to read: WP:V and WP:NOR -- because frankly I no longer think I can assume good faith agaisnt an editor who shows no interest in complying with Wikipedia's "r&rs". Matthew 14:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"clear reasons" - I've given you (and repeated multiple times) several clear reasons backed up by policy/guidelines, you demonstrate ignorance of these as you "clearly" haven't read them.

hidden|Messages I've sent to your talk page...

You have given me no reasons to back up your idiocy so do not say you have, what is your problem against reference links? Here are some links in other list TV articles here in Wikipedia:

http://www.housemd-guide.com/ in List of House episodes
http://www.crimelab.nl/ in List of Cold Case episodes
Plus more are allowed and have been in many other TV list of episodes. Please tell me how listing - http://www.mediumdreams.com/episode-list/episode-summaries/ - as a reference is not allowed even when you are the only one against it? You seem to be a fan of the show too so I do not know why you are trying to harm the article? On top of that you are very rude--Migospia 20:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the above. Other articles going against the R&Rs isn't a valid reason to add more. Matthew 20:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes

There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. Matthew 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Ned Scott 18:59, 28 April 2007 (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 have certain bad aspects (though all may not apply) like containing overly long or one sentence 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. Otherwise, discussion will take place here. Please remember that this is not a vote. If you like the information, that's fine and dandy, but your opinion doesn't really count towards anything. The only opinions that do count are ones that that lean towards the inclusion of real world information. TTN 23:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Listing future episodes (Wikipedia:CRYSTAL)

Episode information (title, summary, etc.) should not be listed more than 2 weeks in advance (see Wikipedia:CRYSTAL) because the network can change the line-up at any time, particularly this season with all of the scheduling changes caused by the Writers' strike. Once info is posted on NBC.com/Medium, it's safe to add the info here. --Pisceandreams (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Another reliable source is "The Futon Critic". While they post info more than 2 weeks in advance, it's usually reliable enough to include here on Wikipedia. --Pisceandreams (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Television or an example of an article about a television series that has attained featured status (Cheers) to see how they use capitalization. At least five times now, someone has come in and changed text to "Series Overview" when it should be "Series overview". --Pisceandreams (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When are we going to know the ratings for the last episode of season 6?

Usually they are posted in days... even the complete series are posted...whoever does this, please post them when you get a chance. ThanksJdcrackers (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Here's to season 7, May the Last Season Be the Best: Cheers!!Jdcrackers (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Is season 5 the last season?

Does anyone know if this is the last season of Medium? I certainly hope not, but with all the two part episodes at the end of season 5 I was wondering. Thanks Jdcrackers (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Season six episode titles and descriptions

Earlier, someone Posted a bunch of information for Season Six before any valid information became available to the public (using ER Episode Titles and creating their own episode descriptions) and they seem to still be doing it, as no official source supported the Episode titles given ("Under Pressure", "From a Whisper to a scream", "The Other Side of This Life: Part 1" & "The Other Side of This Life: Part 2"). Is there any way to keep this from happening? 71.166.88.184 (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Avoid spoilers in episode descriptions

Descriptions of episodes should be done in a way that does not spoil the episode for someone who has not seen it. There only needs to be enough information to identify the subject matter of the episode. If you write an episode description, please do not give away surprise endings or include too much information about how the story ends. If you see a description that gives too much away, please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.250.11 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

When are we going to know the ratings for the last episode of season 6?

Usually they are posted in days... even the complete series are posted...whoever does this, please post them when you get a chance. ThanksJdcrackers (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Here's to season 7, May the Last Season Be the Best: Cheers!!Jdcrackers (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know how that happened, or who usually does those, but here they are. KnownAlias contact 03:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Does Medium officially end in December 2010 or January 2011?

Since CBS cut the episodes from 22 to 13 during the 7th and I am presuming the end. Will Medium Season 7 end in December 2010 or January 2011? Does anyone know if Medium will get a good series finale? The show was well written and I hope it continues on as it has developed quite a cult following. My guess is that it will end in January Twenty Eleven to make room for CBS, mid season shows. After a great run, one must say good bye to a great show!Jdcrackers (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I also read that Patricia Arquette said the show will be canceled for the 2010-2011 TV season. I just hope it ends in January so we will get a good series finale. Hopefully the last three episodes will air in January and the last one will be a 2 hour finale. On the other hand, TV guide.com says there are 16 episodes and some of those will air in in 2011. Does anyone know if this is true or will they just be released straight to DVD?Jdcrackers (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok here is the link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412175/episodes it's saying 16 instead of 13. Is this true? I hope so that means 3 more episodes that may be released on DVD if CBS doesn't show them.Jdcrackers (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This site is saying there are 132 episodes instead if 13 were filmed there would be 130. Sorry for all the replies. I am just a huge fan of the series. ThanksJdcrackers (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Medium episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101030114710/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/10/26/cbs-cuts-medium-order-to-13-episodes/69822 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/10/26/cbs-cuts-medium-order-to-13-episodes/69822

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)