Talk:List of Veronica Mars episodes

Title corrections

As I point out at wikiquote:Talk:Veronica Mars#Title corrections, the UPN.com and TV.com websites and Wikiquote and Wikipedia articles all have mutually inconsistent and self-inconsistent title wording, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization practices — mutually in that they don't always agree with each other, and self in that each exhibits its own failure to follow any single practice. Because I'm obnoxiously detail-oriented, I am fixing the Wikiquote and Wikipedia episode titles and articles to adhere to two basic principles:

1. They will follow Wikipedia and Wikiquote's capitalization, punctuation, and spelling practices, which are identical.
2. The title wording will follow UPN's list, on the assumption that it is most authoritative.

Where these two conflict, the first will be followed unless there is compelling reason to believe the difference was an intentional alteration by the creative team and not just a typo on the part of the UPN web content creator. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote in the Veronica Mars Talk section, I'd go with "Kanes and Abel's." That's pretty much the only one I'd change, since I'm unsure about "Return of the Kane"/"The Return of the Kane" and "Ruskie Business"/"Russkie Business." alliterator 12:25 3 February 2006

We need sources rather than opinions. That's why I stated how I came up with the strategy. The problem with "Kanes and Abel's" is that the most authoritative source I've found so far is UPN.com, which uses "Kanes and Abels". If we could get a reliable, published source closer to the creative team behind VM that disagrees, we should change it back. Same goes for all the titles, actually, although I'd want an explanation of why they misspelled "Russkie" (per Merriam-Webster Online) before changing it back. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's very hard to find a reliable source about episode titles. Take Rob Thomas Online, which spells the episode "Russkie Business" and "Ruskie Business" on the same page. And that's written by Rob Thomas himself. (But if it helps, he has it as "The Return of the Kane." No mention of "Kanes and Abel's" though.) Also, the UPN site isn't very reliable as well - case in point, they manage to misspell sheriff twice. alliterator 11:42 3 February 2006

I'm intrigued that he uses "The Return of the Kane". This supports my new suspicion that the title alludes to Tolkien's The Return of the King. Like you say, though, the "Russkie/Ruskie" thing and several other title inconsistencies in his "Writers Page" text impunes its reliability as a title source. Does he provide a means to contact him with research questions there? I didn't notice one. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

He used to have a page where you could email him, but he recently took it down. Someone I know has his email address, though, so I can ask about the titles. alliterator 17:28 3 February 2006

Also, the WB VM site has them as "Return of the Kane," "Ruskie Business," and "Kanes and Abel's." I think the WB (which produces the show) is more reliable than the UPN site. alliterator 18:13 3 February 2006

The DVDs say the same thing the WB VM site says, so I'm going to take what's on the DVDs as the official episode titles since they would be what was submitted to the studio prior to being filmed and aired on UPN and what would be used for the DVD production. I'd assume they would be checked to make sure that they were the correct episode titles prior to making the DVDs to ensure that no errors would be found after the DVDs came out. So, I would change them to what's listed on the DVDs based on that it's a printed and reliable source for the episode titles and cannot be changed like a website can. Season 2 is another story since there is no real reliable source for the episode titles other than what's listed on the UPN site, so those for now would go according to that. -- HuskersRule 06:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think HuskersRule has a bit more confidence in the quality control of DVD publishers than is warranted, based on my own efforts to determine titles for other shows (like Mystery Science Theater 3000). Still, two authoritative sources, one of which is hard-printed, probably trumps a single other authoritative website. I suppose we must (A) ignore the likely original meaning to go with "Return of the Kane"; (B) run with "Kanes and Abel's" and not worry about how to interpret it; and (C) grind our collective teeth over the misspelling and use "Ruskie Business". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There. I have just moved those episode pages to the titles as discussed here and edited the episode list on the List of Veronica Mars episodes page to reflect those changes also. -- HuskersRule 07:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a note on the recent attempt to correct "Lord of the Pi's" title, which MatthewFenton reverted. Even though I usually grind my teeth over people's apostrophe obsessions, in this case it seems warranted, even by style guidelines. Many do allow the use of apostrophe-s in cases where it would be confusing to omit the apostrophe. Not only does "Pis" not inherently convey the idea of "more than one Pi", it also is too similar to Stosh Piznarski's nickname, "Piz". In the end, though, we must go with the reliable sources, and they appear to have decided on "Pi's". [gnash, gnash] ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Season 3 already?

Where does the information about the Season 3 episodes come from? Shouldn't we wait to put those up until they've aired, or at least put up a warning that these episodes haven't aired yet? Sarahjane10784 04:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The episode titles and information came from the Veronica Mars page at SpoilerFix.com. I also added the Future television template to the Season 3 section to warn people that the information there is for episodes that haven't aired yet.--HuskersRule 04:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

3.03: Wichita Linebacker

Episode 3.03 is listed as "Witchita Linebacker" when it should be "Wichita Linebacker," which is a reference to Wichita Lineman, a Jimmy Webb song. There is no Witchita, Kansas, I believe. User:Alliterator 11:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What i dont understand is where your sources are for "this episode is named after ..xyz.." -- etc, could someone cite this as it could be named after several names. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also CWTV has it down as: Witchita Linebacker thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. IMDb lists the episode as "Wichita," though TV.com lists it as "Witchita." I just think that "Wichita" makes more sense since the song/city is "Wichita." But I think we may have a "Ruskie/Russkie Business" on our hands here. User:Alliterator 08:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

IMDb is user submited, CWTV is the official website, official wins over user submited, any day and hence CWTV = correct. (-: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the Veoh Video Site, which is partially written by Mike Weiss, script supervisor. I'd say that is pretty official and there, it says "Wichita." But we have conflicting sources, so I don't mind if it stays "Witchita." User:Alliterator 14:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now we have definite proof that it's called "Witchita Linebacker": the script. So we should leave it like that; however, I still contend that it should be "Wichita." Because I'm stubborn like that. User:Alliterator 16:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Named after songs

The episodes have "this episode was named after xxx" with no reference to the source, im going to remove this sort of information soon unless it can be sourced as it seems like fan guesswork aka OR. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

John Enbom and Phil Klemmer, the writers of "Wichita Linebacker," stated that it was named after "Wichita Lineman" in the offical podcast on the Veoh Video site, so that should stay. I don't see why the obvious allusions to songs have to go (I mean, what else could "Ain't No Magic Mountain High Enough" be a reference to?), but if you want a reference page, you can also use marsinvestigations.net's Cultural References page (they have one for every episode), so it wouldn't be OR. User:Alliterator 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Writers/Directors on this page

I think we should have writers and directors listed on the episodes for this page as well, because it's a bit interesting to just see it all in one place in my opinion. Also, look at List of The West Wing episodes, List of Arrested Development episodes and List of Grey's Anatomy episodes. These articles and more have writers and directors on them. WestWingFan 22:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad someone decided to add a talk page section concerning this as that's why I removed the additions in the first place. I wanted to have people here come to a consensus as whether to include writers/directors on the page before actually adding them to the page(and also since the formatting was messed-up and needed to be fixed anyway). I'm fine with adding them on the first 2 seasons and the first 9 episodes of the third season as they've already aired and we won't have new episodes until the end of January to worry about. My only problem with the rest of season 3 that has not aired yet is it means having to edit the page every time we get info on who will write/direct the upcoming episodes and even at this moment I only have an unconfirmed mention of who's writing the next 2 episodes, but not who's directing also. This is not to say having to edit many times is bad, I'd just rather not have to edit more than is needed. But if more people like having them on there, I'll accept it and just edit whenever it is necessary.--HuskersRule 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since my last comment I looked around and realized that there's a specific template for List of episode pages that facilitates easier editing and setup for the page which was my main problem with changing the look and adding writers/directors to the page in the first place. If we go with that, I would be fine with adding that extra info to the page and now that I know who's writing/directing the next two episodes and will know within a couple days the third, it won't be that big of a problem to me to re-do the setup with that template. And considering the next episode will be on in less than a week, a decision on whether to do this or not might need to be made soon.--HuskersRule 04:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we are now in the second hiatus of the season and won't have a new episode for another 2 months, I decided to enter in all the info from the current episode list(minus the info at the top since I won't mess with that) into the template I found, adding in the writers/directors from the episodes(including the directors from the rest of the season's episodes) and put it in my Sandbox for people here to look at and decide upon. The obvious things are what green shades to use on the page, considering the talk below on this page, whether to link all writers/directors or to only link to the ones that have pages, the spacing of the cells, but basically anything that you can think of. I mainly copied the setup from the List of House episodes page, save for a couple things, which is why I have the Overview section at the top that I found on there and other List pages. I would also like to know your comments on that, specifically what to include, how big to make it and whether to use green shades like the seasons have or to use colors taken from the DVD sets like the House page and others use, or even whether to include it at all. You can make comments here or on my Sandbox talk page there as I'll see both. I really want to have people give comments on this as I'd rather have a general consensus on what the setup should be, then add it after and not just add it without a consensus and have it be removed or be constantly changed because someone doesn't like it.--HuskersRule 00:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well now that the show has returned and no one responded, I decided to implement the changes I proposed. If anyone doesn't like something that I included on the page, specifically the Overview section, go ahead and fix it or remove it if it's not needed.--HuskersRule 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Character names on episode pages

Due to recent edits on a couple season 1 episode pages, I'm thinking that we should add character names for the guest stars under the actor's names in the infobox on those pages, like on the Buffy episodes and Angel episodes for instance. I originally thought they shouldn't be included and removed them from one of the episodes, but they were then added again later on the same one and two others. I then changed my mind and thought they might be a good idea with a couple tweaks to the setup and decided to ask here for other people's opinions on this since this is the best place to ask regarding the episode pages for the show.--HuskersRule 04:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Colors

can someone change the colors? It's all shades green and it looks dumb. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.206.193 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I concur, it would be useful to change the colours, presently they don't blend with the skin well at all. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not as the green fits with the show and the colors as they stand look fine with the skin. I don't see any problems with the way it looks compared to other pages I've seen.--HuskersRule 00:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should go with another colour, but another shade, yes? Wikipedia errs on the side of brightness, season 2 imo is a nice shade and suitable, season 1 has too much of a powerful tone and doesn't blend, season 3.. well.. is that even a green? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771

Thanks for clarification on your comment MatthewFenton. I too would be fine if the shades on season 1 and 3 were changed as I agree that season 2 is good as it is. Season 1 is okay to me, but can be changed, and season 3 is a little dark on the page and would probably need to be lighter to make it better. But I'll leave it to someone else to decide what shades they would be as I'm not very good at deciding things like this.--HuskersRule 03:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've updated them, what do you think? Matthew 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The color for season 1 is good and can stay, I'm not sure about the one for season 3. To me it looks similar to the one for season 2 and could be darkened/lightened, but as long as other people like it I'll be fine with it. It may have to do with seeing the other colors for so long that it will take me a little bit to get used to these new colors. The one thing that's good is now the colors aren't so contrasting in brightness/darkness with each other compared to the previous ones that the page is easier to look at.--HuskersRule 00:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I used this pretty cool tool to convert them to "pastel colours", I agree that we can do season three better as well, I'll see if I can come up with something. Matthew 15:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we make S2 and S3 a few shades darker or something because i didn't even notice the difference at first. And then have the info boxes on the individual pages match its season colour. Although do we have to use all greens? perhaps a nice matching colour eg: List of Bones episodes dosn't use all the same colour and it still looks nice. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 08:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Codes

Anyone got a citation for "production codes"? Matthew 11:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I know for all the Season 3 episodes the production codes are in the press releases given to sites like The Futon Critic(which is where I get my info on who writes/directs the episodes and anything else to do with the specific episodes). Sites like TV.com and others like it probably have guesses for the third season based on the previous episodes since the show's episodes are produced in the order they air, but they so far have been confirmed as the press releases come out for each episode. For Seasons 1 and 2, the numbers are taken directly from the episodes themselves as they are listed in the end credits for the episodes since the press releases on The Futon Critic don't have production codes listed. I hope that answers your question.--HuskersRule 03:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The screenshots are gone

Whoever made the changes to the format, please re-insert the screenshots. Berserkerz Crit 08:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's nobody's fault here that the images are gone. Apparently the template that is now being used for the page removed the screenshot parameter due to fair use problems, according to the talk page for the template, and now comes up with a blank area since the screenshot part of the template is gone. Since it's looking like it won't be added back in for the near future, the screenshot section will probably have to be removed from the page. --HuskersRule 11:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not go back to the old way of listing the episodes and forget about the new template that was implimented on this page by HuskersRule on May 2? That way the screen shots are still there, and nobody has to worry about the template changing.--M Vallee 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Single episodes

I plan on redirecting these per WP:EPISODE soon. Information from multiple secondary sources must be present for a single episode to need an article. This includes reception and development. Single plot summaries and trivia don't make a substantial article. I suggest Wikia and tv.com as alternate venues for this information. TTN 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah...you need to discuss before you do that move as it is not the consensus. Also, you are just posting that generic message all over every board, and not even looking at the articles....as otherwise you'd be able to tell that most if not all veronica mars episodes include more than just trivia and plot, as there are production details, music info and more in every article most that has come from outside sources... 68.72.141.190

The information is not enough to actually qualify. Unsourced notes and trivia are the same thing. TTN 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

well thats your opinion, but i feel they actually have outside sources if you checked. A discussion needs to be had and a consensus agreed upon before these actions can take place

To anybody that comes here with "The episodes had more than a plot summary and trivial details", all of the "arc significance" stuff is not sourced. Any production details are trivial as of this point or they are also unsourced. The just don't add enough real information. TTN 21:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone does feel like finding sources for episodes Show Me the Monkey, Spit & Eggs, and The Rapes of Graff seems to have the best chance for being improved (just look at their histories to find the articles). They have a few sources already, but the information isn't utilized in a good enough manner to warrant articles at this point. TTN 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN, you're out of line. There's a difference between "be bold" (good thing) and "ignore gathering consensus and delete dozens of articles" (bad thing). I'm as committed as anybody to finding sources for everything in Wikipedia (check my edits), but what you've done does nobody any good. Posting a note here but not on articles' talk pages that you intend to delete and replace with redirects is discourteous to other editors and not an acceptable way to make a change that removes information from Wikipedia and craps on the hard work of other editors. There is a reason Wikipedia decisions are made by consensus and not "oh, nobody answered, time to delete lots of stuff."

I'll be reverting all of your irresponsible edits soon (which will be a pain in the ass) and hope someone can provide some citations. But note, WP:EPISODE does allow the episode itself to be a source; others, of course, are needed. Please do not make major changes in the future without going through proper channels. --SuperNova |T|C| 22:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has just as little traffic as this, so I really don't see how it would have helped. Instead of reverting, how about you discuss how these can be brought up to standards? TTN 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE, which you claim justifies your move, says:

Here are some ideas for what information to include about a television episode, where possible:

• A brief summary of the episode's plot
• The episode's relevance in ongoing story arcs, if any
• How the episode was received by critics
• Information on production and broadcasting of the episode

Most articles on episodes of this show have at least three of the four.

WP:EPISODE then says:

Note: Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia and many articles are stubs. It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub. Before executing a merge, ask yourself:

Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article?

Also do some basic looking for additional source material that could be used to improve the article.

Are more sources available?

If the answer to either of these questions is 'yes', it is probably better to forgo merging or redirecting. Instead, leave the article as it is or consider improving it.

Did you bother to do any of this, or consider any of this? It's pretty clear you did not, and the burden should be on you to justify doing precisely what WP:EPISODE says not to do. --SuperNova |T|C| 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Those sections were not utilized in a correct manner. Just creating them doesn't suddenly give the articles worth. Notes with no sources really don't help anything. Redirecting them only got rid of fluff, and I had a quick look for sources, and I could not find anything that really didn't classify as trivial or non-reliable. TTN 23:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please change it back. As a general rule, I tend to think that the trivia IS interesting, and that a Wiki is a collaboration of knowledge, which includes trivia. I vote for giving them their own articles again...=-= 99.245.143.39 00:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is to be avoided per WP:TRIV. The information cannot be integrated, so it will be removed if the articles are brought back. We only include things on this site that pass WP:V, WP:N, and others. TTN 00:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The music for one thing is all fairly verifiable. Also, in the "Pilot" for the season 1 episode, their are CLEARLY cited Production details from the website of the producer. And I think the manner of the death that is the core of the entire first season is quite notable indeed. Also, it is NOT trivia. I still stand by the fact that you have been a little over-zealous in your redirects...Also, it is a clear violation of the guidelines of WP: Television Episodes...99.245.143.39 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless it actually is laid out in development information, music is not notable. The information in the pilot isn't sourced, and it really doesn't warrant an article. If backed by more information, it can probably be brought back, but until someone wants to bother to prove that it can happen, there is no reason to keep it. TTN 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Production Details are at least sourced...I just FINISHED listening to the DVD commentary which clearly states it! It also has various external links at the bottom that help verify the truth of the synopsis. And it is likely to improve as time goes by, as more and more people edit it. Without those individual articles, the incentive to be edited is far less, wouldn't you agree? It also has a list of guest stars, producers, and other information that will be LOST if you merely close the articles with a simple redirect. Such information is notable, to both the articles of those who guest starred/produced the article as well as the individual episode articles themselves. You also CLEARLY in complete violation of the consensus on this article. I have yet to see one person agree with your redirects on this particular topic. 99.245.143.39 01:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

They have not been properly sourced. Only a few have had anything decent (still not enough for an article). These have existed for a year, and they're not getting any better. It's pointless to claim otherwise. All of that information goes with the articles. We list it if they exist; we don't list it if they don't. TTN 01:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And note, there will be a full project up and running soon to deal with these. They would be redirected eventually even if I hadn't stepped in. TTN 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the "they're not getting any better." In fact, the last time the episode "Pilot" was edited was less than 2 weeks ago, before you did your redirects [a VERY small change, but regardless]. Again, most of the articles do in fact contain more information than just a "plot summary." By redirecting, all you are doing is erasing information that will "go with the article", as well as "reducing the quality or coherence of the article." WP:Television episodes Also, more sources ARE indeed available. It is more than a little pretentious to assume that an show that just aired its season finale, a show that is still GAINING more viewers, will not be improved. I fail to see how the redirects improve quality in any way, shape, or form. [In response to the "redirect eventually"]...and if such a project is indeed on the way, then I will personally add references to the articles and improve their quality. However, I cannot do that if no individual articles exist. Please revert the redirects. 99.245.143.39 01:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If sources can be added, add them. They are not being improved by anyone. The pilot has been edited less than 100 times in over a year, and nothing great has been added. You should sign up, create a sandbox in your user space, and edit the articles there until they are good enough to exist. TTN

Fine. And in terms of guidelines on "good enough to exist?" because I still am of the persuasion that they followed the guidelines in both the WikiProject you mentioned AND Wikipedia's guidelines regarding Television Episodes....Apart from "add sources" and "remove trivia." Removing the Trivia section would have been far more warranted than the removal/redirect of all of the existing articles. 99.245.143.39 01:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the existing episode pages were too short. For a while I had been hoping that they would be improved and expanded upon in the future. This is a catastrophically stupid way of going about it.

(What I can't get my head around is that there is only one person doing this, and everyone else in this discussion is very much against what that person's doing... and yet it happens anyway. I suppose that's just a flaw in the Wikipedia system...)MultipleTom 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That is pretty steep considering a lot of work has gone into writing up these pages and it so happens that a small minority doesn't agree and hence that person has to kill the lot, keeping in mind there are countless other articles that are like this one. But yet nobody kicks up a stink there. (Knows 06:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Wow, that is so, so misguided.

1. The amount of time doesn't matter a lot of work goes into non-notable articles (these), and joke articles, but they are still deleted
2. The amount of people who disagree also doesn't matter. That they like them doesn't make their opinion count. This action has a few guidelines and policies to back it. Only one person has claimed that these really can be improved, but they're speculative instead of verifiable.
3. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a good way to go about things. Other articles being bad doesn't help your case. You would want good articles to be like that to have a case. Other series will eventually go anyways. I've already done around fifty of them. (I never understand how people can think that a sequential project can be all at once.) TTN 10:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and other guidelines and stuff include: WP:EPISODE - This should be obvious enough. The articles fail it and assert nothing to show that they can pass it. WP:N - All articles must assert notability. Trivial reviews and some minor notes don't do that. WP:NOT - We don't just let plot summaries lay around, nor do we keep them because of trivial information. WP:WAF and WP:FICT - These are more specific guidelines on how to write these. They don't meet really anything in them. TTN 10:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cough cough cough cough cough. Firstly, the argument isn't that a large number of people disagree that these articles merit deletion (although this is apparently the case). The argument being made is that NOBODY has been found to AGREE with you. And for that matter, you don't appear to have read the "I like it" policy, which relates to bias and accuracy rather than notability and inclusion.

Secondly, I think before you deleted all those articles, you forgot to read the second half of WP:EFFORT (which your handy shortcuts led me towards): "On the other hand, sometimes an article meets the minimal requirements for inclusion but isn't being worked on very much. This lack of quick progress doesn't automatically mean an article doesn't meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Quite likely it just means the topic is really obscure or difficult to write about. An article should be assessed based on it's potential to be expanded, not punished because no one has felt like doing it yet." I believe those episode articles had big potential for expansion and it's disappointing that, as I have no clue how to restart them now, I can't have a go at improving some of them myself. MultipleTom 18:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you really expect the writers/fans of the articles to agree with me? That isn't how it works. A consensus is built around people discussing the articles and how they meet policies guidelines; WP:EPISODE is all of the support I need. It would be silly to ask a couple of people to come join me. With the second part, that would work with most articles, but not these. Episodes need to work harder to prove themselves due to the fact that less than one thousand episodes will ever need any real coverage here. "They'll be improved" cannot be used to keep them because that would mean to just leave the thousands of episodes that we do cover, even though none will ever be worked on. Anyways, people close to the articles cannot just say "We want them" and get them; they need to show that they can be worked on. TTN 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You say WP:EPISODE is all the support you need, but as I and others have pointed out above, there is considerable disagreement as to whether WP:EPISODE means what you think it means regarding these articles. The proper course now is to try to build consensus as to the next step, NOT to act unilaterally based on one person's interpretation of various guidelines that he apparently has not even read. --SuperNova |T|C| 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You talk of building consensus, but that cannot happen. Episode articles are not proper unless sources are given. Only when sources are provided are the episodes safe. Numbers don't matter. There is no "I think these should stay because..." There is only "Here are the sources that can be used to improve these." This redirecting is going to happen eventually if none are provided. It's just going to take a little longer because the task force is doing a formal tagging thing. Please provide some sources if you really think that these are worthy. Don't just argue because you disagree with the guideline (Have you even read it?). TTN 22:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to restate that. If you would like to discuss the proper sources, fine, but if you just want to say that they're good enough or that they'll eventually be improved, don't bother. TTN 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm the user who originally posted the 'Production Details' on the Pilot page (regarding the alternate plotline for Lilly's murder), which has apparently been taken off, put back on, then taken off again. I just put it back up, because as far as I can tell it would meet the criteria for sourcing and relevance. (I provided both a link to the main website, and a direct link to the free MP3 of the audio file for the Director's Commentary -- which I just confirmed is still active.) What I find even more interesting is the original 'connected' addition that I made on "Return of the Kane" at the same time has not apparently been challenged. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this discussion, but I'm thinking that the whole point of these articles is to post distinct or unique information like this for fellow users. DavidMeek 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Having dug through WP:EPISODE, I'm starting to come down on the "leave things alone" side. Even though the explictly stated guidelines in WP:EPISODE refer to 'Reliable Sources', no music lists and the like, when you actually look at the details of their actual approved examples, they look quite similar to many of the VM pages.

From the List of The Sopranos episodes, I chose Denial, Anger, Acceptance basically at random. It contains production credits, a complete list of guest stars, a very extensive episode recap, list of characters' first appearances, characters who die in the episode, explanations for the meaning of the title of the episode, internal episode references to The Godfather, connections to future episodes in the storyline, and music notes. At no point are there any secondary sources noted for any of this - only the episode itself is (presumed to be) the primary source.

From the List of Veronica Mars episodes, I chose a Season 3 episode Hi, Infidelity also at random. It contains production credits, a complete list of guest stars, an extensive episode recap, an explanation of the episode in relation to the active season plot arc(s), music notes, ratings for the episode, general episode trivia, and external links for episode recaps & reviews.

Comparing the WP 'approved' episode page and a 'questioned' VM page, I'm just not seeing all that much to get worked up about. Again, maybe I'm missing the bigger picture, but given that the official examples provided for WP:EPISODE are remarkably similar to what we're discussing, I think a better discussion would be on cleaning up the existing pages instead of nuking them into oblivion. DavidMeek 22:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point of the examples. The episode articles in "List of The Sopranos episodes" are not the "approved examples". That section is saying "The List of ..." is an approved format for a "List of" page. The "Programme" section is an "approved" example for main articles like. Down further it says "Episode pages" and that is the list of approved examples for episodes. I think there is a more comprehensive list of FA episode articles somewhere, but I cannot think of it right now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Single Episode Article Improvements

Those interested in improving articles relating to the individual episodes might want to consult sites like:

• Mars Investigations - considerable detail on each episode (the linked page describes cultural references in "Lord of the Pi's", for example)
• CW Episode Guide
• TWIZ TV Transcripts (Seasons 1 and 2) - for reference - I linked to a specific episode because the TWIZ homepage was almost unusable due to terrible redirecting ads; change the ep number in the URL for others.

Hope this helps! Any other links or sources would be appreciated in order to improve and expand the episode articles. Please post them below this message. --SuperNova |T|C| 23:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The first is a fan site, so it cannot be used. The second seems to be heavily user edited, so it cannot be used. The third cannot be used as a source, but it seems to just be for writing the plot summaries anyways. TTN 23:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a source for episodes of any TV show, ever, then? Mars Investigations seems pretty thorough, and I'm curious what sources you would find acceptable. Obviously, any deep work on a TV series is going to be produced by its fans, so unless you want to restrict this to books (published only for the most famous series, possibly vetted more than a "fan site", but ultimately by a fan for fans) or nothing at all, I'm not sure what's OK to use. TV.com is also user-edited, I believe, as is IMDB, but they are used by numerous articles on Wikipedia. Sources for any pop culture article are bound to be problematic. --SuperNova |T|C| 02:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

DVD commentary, non-trivial articles, critical reviews, ans things like that are good enough. Basically, that would mean anything that is published (a fact checking site with editorial oversight would be fine, but not a fan site). It can be geared for fans, but it needs to fit WP:RS. TV.com and IMDB are only used for certain things on most articles (ratings), and even then, they're really only used as filler. That is the reason why most episodes don't need articles; they cannot be sourced. TTN 15:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The CW episode list is not user edited at all. The only thing user edited on the site is the CW wiki for the show, and that doesn't really have anything useful anyway. Rvb_strongbad 04:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the case, I don't really see anything besides plot summaries on there anyways. TTN 15:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still a reliable secondary source for plot information (the same goes for the third link). Matthew 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Being a fan site doesn't disqualify a website from being a RS. Generally your average Joe fansite isn't a RS, though. Sites with a history of stability, editorial oversight and factuality do count as reliable sources. Matthew 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A few here and there may be decent sources, but I don't really see it happening in this case because we really cannot accept critical analysis from a bunch of fans (which they even claim to be). There are certain cases where we could say otherwise, but not in this one. That site doesn't really seem like it would help anyways. TTN 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks quite reliable to me. Matthew 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Television Without Pity? It's not a fansite (aside from the fact that the writer appearently enjoyed watching VM) and the articles about individual episodes are not user-edited. Besides a plot synopsis, the episode articles provide arc context and thus could be used as source for that. (@TTN You say "There are certain cases where we could say otherwise, but not in this one." Why? That's just a statement, not an argument.) Blur4760 18:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be pretty much like a blog without the main format. Sites like these are done by random people with no real credentials that I am aware of. Their writing can easily be passed off as pure opinion. They are not fact checking and nothing like goes into making sure that the information is correct (like an editor or something). For these to work as reliable sources, they would need some sort of professionalism in them. You can try asking elsewhere if you disagree. TTN 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Television Without Pity IS edited.

Fair use rationale for Image:VeronicaMarsSeason3DVD.jpg

Image:VeronicaMarsSeason3DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VeronicaMarsSeason3DVD.jpg

Image:VeronicaMarsSeason3DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:26, 16 September 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 21:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am making an objection. The episode pages contain information about cast members, music, and other real-world episode information. Since WP:EPISODE#Reliable_sources states that episodes themselves may be used as reliable sources (and primary sources at that), the presence of a song in the episode or information gleaned from credit sequences can be used without the need for additional sources. Unless you intend to merge all of the cast and music and other information to the already-large episodes list page, Wikipedia would be losing that real-world information. Though in many cases the content hasn't been expanded yet from lists to narrative, as suggested by Wikipedia writing guidelines, it can be. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline; even if these pages aren't perfect yet, they can be improved. As an example of how to get rid of trivia sections, you can take a look at the episode Show Me the Monkey, in which I have gotten rid of the trivia section in favor of a "Cultural References" section, like those found in episode pages of The Simpsons. --Sonicwav 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Cast members do not count towards anything; they are contained within the main article and other sub-articles, so there is no need to single them out in each episode. Music is never actually listed in good and featured episode articles. Real world information has to be important enough to include. What I have seen are quite trivial notes that are rarely sourced. Episodes are reliable sources, but the primary source cannot be the only source (see WP:RS). Take a look at Homer's Enemy for an example of what these need to look like. TTN 20:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to cast members that only appear in one particular episode, not regular cast members. And according to Wikipedia guidelines, episodes can in fact be the only sources when they are used to verify facts, and not justify opinions. Additionally, notability concerns may be met by the fact that multiple reliable sources reviewed each episode, even if they have not yet been cited; as an example, I have cited two from IGN and Television Without Pity (a subsidiary of NBC Universal) on the Show Me the Monkey page. Your opinion that the articles are "unlikely to be improved" is not a valid argument for removal; WP:ILIKEIT#Nobody.27s_working_on_it states that articles "should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet" and that if "there's anything useful towards a good article, the article should be improved, not deleted". --Sonicwav 14:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for those cast members. They can just be placed next to the first mention of the character in the small summary. Please see WP:RS before claiming that episodes can be the only source. As I say below, the sources must be able to provide signifigant coverage. Otherwise, they are just trivial. Show Me the Monkey has a few unrelated points listed, and at this point, they seem like they will remain that way. By unlikely to be improved, I mean that it is likely impossible for anyone to do it, not that nobody is willing. TTN 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, unfortunately, you are going back to your opinion about how you predict the editing of these pages will move forward in the future, without any evidence to back up this position. To prove your argument, please provide evidence that it is likely impossible for anyone to improve these articles, especially since I have already improved one of them by adding multiple real-world sources in just the past 2 days. Past work does not necessarily determine future work. The season 3 DVD hasn't even been released yet, and may provide additional related information for some of these episodes. A book of essays related to the show has been published, and may not have been fully exploited yet.

To clarify, in regards to using episodes as the only source, I do not mean the only source for the article, but rather the only source for sections of fact within the article, such as cast information and plot. --Sonicwav 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the person defending the articles, not myself. You have to show that all of the episodes can be improved without having to dig up and live with trivial information. As of this point, you have not improved that article. Out of the three bits of production, two are completely trivial, and the second one cannot stand on its own. Then you have a few reviews. While reviews are good, they have to be able to build a substantial reception section to matter. If they cannot be used to do so, they should not be mentioned. I realize that you are still working, but you're going to have to step it up quite a bit.

Plot and cast information has no relevance in keeping the article, so what was the point in that side discussion? Did you believe that I stated that they cannot be used to source anything or something.TTN 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia has no deadline, I am under no obligation to step it up a bit. You say that the inclusion of reviews is good, but that I have not improved the article. These are contradictory statements, and opinions nonetheless. --Sonicwav 18:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

IGN has reviews for all the epiosdes in season 3 and part of season 2. TV Squad also has reviews for seasons 2 and 3. So there's two reviews for every episode of season 3, establishing notability for all those episodes. That takes about five minutes of google searching. - Peregrine Fisher 15:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just saying "Here are the reviews" does not establish notability. Can they be used to form well developed sections? Are they more than trivial facts strung together or a reception section that is only able to say "He said... They said... She said... They said... She said... He said..."? If they cannot be turned into suitable prose, then the sources are fairly trivial in their application. TTN 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they do, and so do our guidelines. Why should your opinion be followed and not the opinion of other editors? - Peregrine Fisher 18:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peregrine Fisher regarding the difficulty of one editor trying to proceed with his or her opinion without considering the opinions of others. TTN, you have brought up this issue previously, and failed to achieve a consensus opinion to redirect and merge the articles. While consensus can change (WP:CCC), it does not seem to be doing so in this case. You may want to read WP:CON regarding Wikipedia's guidelines on consensus building, before you make a unilateral decision for these articles that may be construed as vandalism. --Sonicwav 18:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher: Looking at that other discussion, Bignole has already explained this to you in great detail. How about you ask for some outside input before actually claiming that quantity is better than quality? Leave a neutral as possible message somewhere, and ask for input for the Earl discussion, or some new discussion over one one of the television related pages.

Sonicwav: It's sort of hard to judge a consensus with three people in this discussion and four or five in the last one, especially with all of the fan driven enthusiasm in the last one. TTN 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN: I agree. We should set up a request for comment section regarding this issue to encourage others to join the discussion. I haven't set one up before, but I think I will be able to do so. --Sonicwav 18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Peregrine, are you simply applying the same argument to all the pages? Sonicwav, as I've pointed out on other pages, if the episodes do not establish notability then they should be merged. Even the notability guideline states that even if they do meet the criteria they can still be merged. This usually comes because there is a lack of encyclopedic information supporting the article. I looked at a couple of the episodes at random, and if they all look the same, and I remove all the things that are not supposed to be there, they'd be basically a plot, with a 3 bullet production section (which could be incorporated into the plot), and a weak reception section. I saw some review that stated just, "Omar gave it a B rating". If someone read the article in question, he basically just tells you what happened in the episode, often times mocking the episode. I find it hard to take his ratings seriously. On another page, I've shown that IGN will, even when they are supposed to be reviewing a specific episode, tangent off and start talking about the show in general, forgetting about the episode there were supposed to be reviewing. Sonic, you pointed to WP:DEADLINE, but it also states there that there's no rush to create these pages. It's a two way street. They need massive cleaning, and most of the time that also means merging into a larger article, even ones that have a few good sources with scattered bits of information. With those, you create footnotes that hold that information. There is many ways to create larger article organization that allows for episode to be discussed on one page (see Smallville (season 1)). Simply saying "this has a review for every episode" means nothing if you don't look at what they say. Google may have 30k sources of news articles for a show, but only 100 of them may contain encyclopedic information. That is why we have to review the information in question. If it doesn't add anything to the article, then it shouldn't be added to the article. There's this false assumption that just because someone wrote a review that it means the episode is golden. They may not have written anything about the episode. It could simply be a retelling of the plot, with a couple of "I liked that part" or "That was cute" thrown in between plot points. That is not encyclopedic information. Peregrine seems to think that because people disagree with his broad assumption that these reviews are all encyclopedic that it means those disagreeing want it their way or no way. I haven't read anywhere that any editor disagreeing with him has said such a thing. Common sense needs to be used when reading these reviews. Editors should look for actual critical commentary about the episode. Even if all the reviews were perfect and could be used, 2 reviews is not enough to warrant separation from a larger topic. There isn't enough encyclopedic information to support a stand-alone article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! Why do episode pages always have to be ruined. Please do not merge them. They are needed because they provide arc significance details, which make the pages worthwhile. I dont care if wikipedia doesn't like episode pages.......stuff them. Just leave the pages. Why do you care anyways. Some people like them, and what difference does it make to you if they're there or not. You're just wrecking it for us, just so that you have the satisfaction that you are right, or whatever the reason is. Just PLEASEEEEEEEE leave them.

....and I'm not refering to you Bignole when i'm saying all that stuff....just everyone in general. Peregrine and I like these episode pages. Just leave them.... (Wikirocks2 09:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)) P.S. And I know you're going to write a whole page just below this saying why I'm wrong.....but could you please just make it a few lines. :)

Liking a page isn't a reason to keep a page. They violate WP:NOTE, WP:FICT, WP:EPISODE, and probably others. We aren't here to entertain you, we're here to provide quality articles in an encyclopedic manner. If you can say on one page, what is said on 22 pages, then merging is the best option. Since most of the stuff on those pages isn't supposed to be there in the first place, what is left can easily be said on larger page. Wikipedia isn't a substitute for watching a show, nor a trivia house.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The things on the individual article pages really can't me merged. Can't the pages be fixed so they don't violate that stuff? (Wikirocks2 03:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

What exactly cannot be merged?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The 'arc significance' sections. We wouldn't want spoilers on the episode list page, and since Veronica Mars is a VERY serialised show, it would good to have them. (Wikirocks2 09:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Having just glanced through some of the episode pages, I don't see why they can't be merged at all. Currently, they seem to consist of nothing more than a brief plot summary, a list of songs, some orignal research under the title of "Arc significance", and a ridiculous amount of quotes. The "Arc significance" sections are nonsense - they're just random statements that mean nothing to anyone except devoted fans of the show. They're wildly out of context and are completely pointless. Wikiquote exists for quotes, there's no reason whatsoever to have so many lying around. Most aren't even relevant to the episode, they're just funny one-liners that fans have decdided to chuck in because, well, they like them so why not. Once you removed the cruft, the thing you could salvage from these pages are the plot summaries (which are thankfully short, like I said). No notability has been established for any of these episodes on any of the pages I've looked at. They're dumping grounds for irrelevant nonsense and random quotes. Merging them into a "List of episodes" and adding some sourced production information seems like the perfect way to fix them up. Paul730 11:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is no censorship on Wikipedia. Wiki has spoilers, and we shouldn't be "hiding" them from people. They know what they are getting into when they come to a page that has the word "plot" written all over it. You can also create some Veronica Mars (season 1), season 2, season 3 type of pages to merge the episode articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC

If you all are so obsessed with deleting the episode articles...could you at least put them in the Veronica Mars Wikia so that they are there for those of us who want them? (Wikirocks2 06:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Again, no one said anything about deleting anything that is supposed to be in the article. If it is not supposed to be there, then it will get deleted if the page stays or not. You are more than welcome to put anything on the Veronica Mars Wikia that you like, it's just like Wikipedia in that anyone can add anything. I don't know if this show has a Wikia. If not, then maybe you should create one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Quotes and Trivia sections and some of the references within the quotes (of colloquial dialogs) are helpful in understanding the episode, especially for non-native speakers. In my opinion, content that explains something should be found in an encyclopedia but I guess this is not a relevant issue by any of the formal guidelines of episodes ;-) So when you delete the episodes and want to get rid of the quotes, please keep at least the explanations. -- S. 22:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.61.201.204 (talk)

We have a Wikiquote, and a guideline on Trivia. Secondly, quoting an episode in publication, without any encyclopedic content to support it, borders on copyright violation as you are stealing dialogue from the show and publishing it. It usually isn't an issue if you only have a quote here and there, but I've seen articles that virtually quote the whole episode. Secondly, who is to say this quote is better than that quote. They don't hold value to the casual reader. They may be fun to read, but they are not encyclopedic, that is why we have Wikiquote. Explainations of quotes, or scenes generally fall into original research, unless there is some reliable source discussing it already.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If ya'll really want to delete these pages, could you at least let us fix them so that they can stay?! What should we fix? (Wikirocks2 11:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

First, it isn't other editor's responsibility to "fix" articles. Second, the whole point of this discussion is that these articles do not appear to be fixable, at least not at this moment. One day, there may be something to write about "Mars vs. Mars", but at this moment there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources asserting notability for that episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well could we at least keep the pilot, and all the season premiers and finales? (Wikirocks2)

Only if they meet the guidelines and policies. Just because they are merged/redirected doesn't mean they cannot be un-redirected later. Create a personal sandbox and work on an episode article, searching for sources that talk about the episode. Episodes are not inherently notable, nor do they inherit notability from the show as a whole. It's one piece of the puzzle. It's the reason why Smallville's pilot is the only episode in the first season to have its own article, because it warranted separation by establishing notability and provide enough real world content to support itself. The same could be said for any episode in The Simpsons (season 8). They all assert notability, and have enough information to support themselves away from the parent article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As much time I've spent on the episode pages in the past fixing info, adding music and guest stars to the pages, I understand the need to follow the guidelines as they're stated and merge the articles as they don't have enough notability to be keep around as they are. I would agree to creating a page for each season and merging the important info from the episode pages to the relevant seasons as that seems the best way to keep some semblance of information about the episodes (even though I would prefer keeping the pages). As for what to include on those pages, looking (for example) at the Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 4) page, it includes the original air date, writer(s), director, guest stars, summary and music. That seems like good enough info to me, but anything past that would need to be decided upon (like a few important trivia/production details that can be sourced and screencaps for the episodes that have them, but since I don't really understand the policy for where to use them, I don't know if that will work or not). I will start going through the pages and pull out the relevant details and start creating pages for the seasons using the setup I mentioned above and will check here if anyone has ideas on what else to include.--HuskersRule 20:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

:O OMG!!! Finally! Someone who wrote a constructive comment! I love the idea! That kind of page would be great for Veronica Mars! But I have one query. Would the 'arc significance' points be on that page? If not, could we also make another page listing the 'significant points' for each episode? That would be great! (Wikirocks2 08:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

I agree that the Smallville (season 1) and Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 4) are good examples of how the episode pages may be merged into one season page without the content getting lost. My main concern about relinking all of the episode pages to the List of Veronica Mars episodes page is that the list page does not have much content. But if the sourced content (from outside sources and using the episode as a primary source) is carried over appropriately to season pages, I would support this kind of transition. One possible format would be to combine the arc significance sections of each episode page to create a season arc summary section on the new page, with internal page links to the individual episodes that arc points relate to. --Sonicwav 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. (Wikirocks2 05:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

Postgame Mortem

Ok, so I know all the episode pages are going to be merged soon...but still this page absolutely SUCKS!!!! The plot is all wrong, not wrong, but it doesn't have the important stuff. The arc signifiance had bad info, so I changed it (please add or remove facts) and put the real arc sig. stuff. The page needs to be improved....but I guess there really is no point. (Wikirocks2 07:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

If you dont like the information feel free to edit it and improve on it. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 08:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability Part Deux

It's a year later, and despite a lot of arguing, little to no effort has gone into improving the episode articles. Time to call the shots and finally "merge" (often just redirect) the articles? – sgeureka ^t•c 14:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

These should definitely be redirected until such a time where they can assert independent notability. TTN (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to redirect the episodes, but I guess I knew this was going to happen sooner or later. I think I can get a couple of episodes up to GA status, namely the Pilot and the series finale, and assume notability for a couple of others. For now, I say redirect, although could we wait for a couple of others until we determine consensus? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The good thing about redirecting is that articles can be restored without bureaucracy if someone actually wants to work on it. Keeping the pilot and the finale unredirected for a prolonged time is usually not a problem. But from experience, it will be rough to keep plans/promises to significantly improve these articles if you have other wikipedia or real-life joys (I have so far managed 4 GA ep articles in 9 months, one third of my initial plan). This discussion will be open for about two weeks so that everyone can weigh in. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, I have been working on this page itself. I will start working on the individual pages soon. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 15:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, why do you people have to be so uptight about rules and policies? As a fan of the show, I find a lot of useful information in the episode pages, be it the plot outline or arc significance, or even trivia. I think it's more important that content be useful to readers than for it to follow some arbitrary "notability guidelines" and whatnot. And who cares if the arc significance sections are only meaningful to fans of the show? The point is, they are meaningful to some people, and since it does not harm any one to keep them, I see no reason to delete them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.169.128 (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been another month. I know you have been busy with the FLC and with improving the pilot article, which is great. But it's time to deal with the other articles now as well. RecentChanges doesn't show much activity. Corn.u.co.pia said above that the pilot and the series finale should stay around. Are there other articles (no more than a handful) that should not be redirected? (The edit histories of the merged/redirected articles will stay around for future culling and article restoration if someone wants to work on them.) – sgeureka ^t•c 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and redirect (merge if there's something to merge) the season 3 episode articles to Veronica Mars (season 3) now. Feel free to resurrect any articles that you wish to work on (i.e. establishing WP:NOTABILITY or adding so much sourced non-trivial real-world information that they qualify for a WP:SPINOUT). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since there are usually one or two bullet point entries of unsourced production info, but Veronica Mars (season 3) is too darn good as an article, I'll refrain from merging anything and wait with the redirecting for a couple more days so that people can comment here what should be done with that unsourced info (I can't be sure if it's all too trivial to be merged anyway). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected all of season 3. Spit & Eggs had some sourced real-world information, but it seemed fairly trivial, so I redirected nevertheless. Show Me the Monkey had even more sourced real-world information, which I copy-pasted to Talk:Veronica Mars (season 3) so that it can be corporated into the season article easier if it is significant (but it seemed insignificant to me). I'll review and redirect seasons 2 and 1 later. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I had been dreading this moment for a while. Oh well, I guess it's all for the best. Anyways, sorry I haven't replied to you for a while; this page accidentally came off my watchlist, so I was unaware that you were leaving messages. I'll try to ressurect a couple of episodes within the next few weeks. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 23:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular hurry to this? WP:TIND, and Cornucopia and I are still reasonably active on this, even though I've been derailed by an RfA for a couple of weeks. :-S Point is, we'll get around to it, one way or the other. Many of the episodes DO have reviews in reliable sources, that haven't yet been integrated into the episode articles, and I think you've seen both of us take a proactive stand at merging things that clearly don't merit individual articles. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed no hurry, but I haven't been getting any replies here for nearly 1.5 months, so I naturally assumed that people wouldn't care anymore. None of the season 3 articles seemed to be actively worked on either, so I just took action. Should I read your reply to mean that I should wait with the merger/redirection of S1 and S2 and/or leave it to you? I just want to bring closure to this after this one-year merge proposal. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we started in on this improvement effort after the yearlong cleanup started. I would hate to have you redirect a bunch of stuff, and then us undo it and add to it later. No real harm, since the articles don't have to be undeleted to be restored, it just seems like a waste of effort. Note also that we don't have article seasons for 1 and 2 yet, so merging might be messy--I don't want to drop the quality of this article, or of Veronica Mars by mixing it with some unsourced or undersourced stuff from those episodes. Ultimately, redirects or expansions will happen for each of the 64 episodes... but it won't be this week. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also hate to do stuff that you'd only have to revert in the end to get your kick-ass VM wiki coverage. You two are reasonable editors so I am fine with everything you do, as long as something gets done. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not a cardinal rule. Keep the articles as they are. Remember WP is not paper.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Reveals?

Do we want to reveal endings or not? I think, per WP:SPOILER that we really can't conceal the endings, when doing so makes the episode summary unclear. I'll defer to the FLC reviewers' comments, but I think they should stay in. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the endings are best left for the individual episode pages. Not having them doesn't make the summaries unclear, and not every aspect of the episode needs to be mentioned. But, I guess we will have to wait and see what the reviewers think. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've been told to lengthen the summaries. All the copyediting we did to trim them down leaves us plenty of room to include the rest of the plot points. :-) This is going to have to be a collaborative effort--neither one of us can do them all within the FLC deadline, I suspect. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a spoil-sport, but I think the summaries are good as they are. Edwards only wanted them to be expanded so that they didn't seem like teasers. We don't need to include every plot point, all we have to do is make sure the main storylines are presented, and that nothing is vague or teaser-like. Agree, disagree? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have increased the length of the summaries of seasons 1 and 2. Better? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 10:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was fine with them the way they were, but I'm not sure that the revised summaries are as long as they should be to compare with the example ones listed by the FLC reviewer. Consider that The Simpsons episodes are all 1/2 hour, (albeit more intense and less realistic) but the episode summaries seem to be 4-6 lines, over twice what we now have. I've done a bit of copyediting and added notable guest stars, but left the length essentially unchanged. We'll see if we get more feetback that they still need to be longer. Jclemens (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Re [1]: If you want to reveal endings, you can. Remember, WP is not a substitute for a fansite, it's here to present facts in an encyclopedic way. You don't have to mention every aspect of each episode, but in most episodes there's usually two or three main plotlines and they should be covered. If you include what the "issues" are, and how they are "resolved", that's usually good enough. Basically, as long as a reader who has not seen the episode can read the summaries and understand what happened, and would not feel like they still have to watch the episode to figure out the rest, it's fine.

The expansions so far are looking good, by the way. As for if they need expanding more, only you will really know because you've watched them. Matthewedwards 23:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should summarize the article, not contain information not present anywhere else. It really needs to be trimmed and the stuff about the ending of the series should have its own section at the bottom of the page, with a brief mentioning in the lead (i.e. The series was cancelled after its third season...). The same goes for the reception information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I created a new section for the cancellation information, but not for the reception information. I'm not too sure how to deal with it. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Since much of this info is already contained within Veronica Mars, should we just drop it from this article? Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, but just the "Veronica Mars appeared on a number of fall television best lists,[10] and garnered a number of awards and nominations" section. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was asking Bignole's opinion, too. I'm rather neutral on the matter--Just questioning, not advocating, in other words. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"List of" page are generally pretty trim, but they also usually don't have as much info because the shows have more seasons. But, since you're doing season pages as well, I would drop all of that stuff on each season section of this page, and cut the lead to just the necessity. You could keep the overall ratings for each season, some general reception, and the cancellation stuff here (be more succinct and place it in a section at the bottom of the article...one for reception and one for cancelation). Then I would trim those plot summaries down to either snippets of info, or cut altogether. You're creating season pages so you don't need to rehash the same stuff word-for-word over there as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

On second thought about the season average viewership, leave it where it is in the lead and don't worry about a section for it. You could consider that a "summarization" of the viewership ratings for each episode of each season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't seem to be doing season pages (yet), though. If they were, then I'd also advocate to move the season leads there, leaving a short blurb here. But it's a judgement call to do season pages for a three-season show, or summarize all in one place (as it currently is). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Cornucopia, from what I can read, has season three virtually done. I think maybe they have too many projects trying to go through different review processes that it is going to make it diffifult. I might have waited on the FLC until after I had all of the season pages (since it seems clear that they will have them based on Cornucopia's sandbox). Anyway, those are my thoughts based on the future existence of those pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we may be trying to do too much at once, but we're too dumb to know any better. :-) I'm not attached to writing each season up separately, but I'm willing to go along with and help whatever--my priority is getting this article to FLC first. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Veronica Mars 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000937471
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002576393
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/features/e3ifbfdd1bcb53266ad8d9a71cad261604f
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209064049/http://www.projo.com/tv/content/projo_20050928_veronica.11a78ce9.html to http://www.projo.com/tv/content/projo_20050928_veronica.11a78ce9.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Veronica Mars 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/20081205200659/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2002042087_kay22.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2002042087_kay22.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)