Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review/Archive T

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Television episodes | Review

1 That's So Raven
2 20 to 1
3 24 episode review (season 1)
- 3.1 Discussion
- 3.2 Motion to close
4 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987)
5 Thunderbirds

[edit] That's So Raven

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Road To Audition - first article tagged. Does not totally assert notability, but demonstrates potential to do so. Suggest keep. Alcemáe T • C 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it, nor the potential. Please explain. If nothing can be said (in terms of real-world information) about this episode that differs from what you can say about any episode, and is enough to warrant an entire article, then redirect. -- Ned Scott 22:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, this is the one that got nominated for an award. Ok, we can work off of that. I'll see if I can find anything. -- Ned Scott 22:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  - It'll certainly need a bit more than that to exist as a general reception section for the series could easily include it. Is the award really even that notable? TTN 23:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  - It's the "National Association of Multi-ethnicity in Communications" awards, so I'm not even going to go into the potential problems if we call them "unimportant" or "non-notable". When it comes to television, there are the "big" awards, and there are the smaller ones for more specific accomplishments, and we shouldn't neglect those. Say an episode is nominated by 5 award organizations, but they are all minor awards. It's still quite an accomplishment, because television shows are not as big as movies, when it comes to awards. Though, I agree we need more than just "it was nominated..", because that can be said on a "List of" page just as easily. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that we decided if the article shows potential to be notable, it is to be left alone. SIDE NOTE I created a tag to put on the top of articles being reviewed here. I dont know how to create a template for sure, so its not templated. I just made it because it was needed now. Feel free to make a templte, and edit. Alcemáe T • C 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Something the others have pointed out to me, it should show potential not just for notability, but for needing a separate article on the episode. -- Ned Scott 23:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I already alerted them on the talk page. You can replace the notability tag with the review tag though if you like. (Back to the discussion) I thought it was "if they have potential then we do an extensive review", because "potential" isn't really "establishment". The potential could turn out to be nothing, and the best result could be to merge it with the parent because of that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So? Decision? More dicussion?Alcemáe T • C 23:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So far, nothing has asserted that this can become anything more than this is now, so unless someone has any real objections, I would say that this is over (though it should be left open for a bit as it is the first one). TTN 00:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Ned said he might try and look for something. I'll go scouwer IMDb. They are unreliable, but at least they can generally point you in the right direction to look. I'm waiting on making a decision until at least some of the regular editors of the page show up. I don't want them saying "you closed it too fast, I couldn't respond" and then initiating another AN/I. Right now, this episode is the only one we have, so I don't feel bad if we spend a little more time on it than usual, so that people (that's everyone) can get used to the process. I think after a little bit of time, we may be able to handle these things in a faster manner, but I would like to give a little more than usual for the first couple to get people into the act of participating. They want consensus, well this page is attempting to reach a consensus. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How long was it decided that these reviews would last? I think 2.5 hours probably isn't long enough. For what it's worth, I think nomination for an award is appropriate assertion of notability and that the article should be tagged as a stub and allowed to build from that. Star dust 8212 00:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as they need to I would assume. But as we stated, being nominated isn't that much for an entire article, when it's something you can easily stated on the parent article. This, This episode received over 4 million viewers during it's premiere, is helpful, but no sourced came with it. This, This is the only episode to be a "musical", is helpful, but we need a bit more information than that (like some reactions to it being a musical). Right now, since we are giving it an "extended shelf life" on the review board (which, I have no problem giving them till tomorrow, or until another episode pops up in the category. No one said we couldn't have multiple reviews going on, and I would like the see the first few taken slowly...~~unless the next one is a bare article that doesn't have anything to review~~ which doesn't appear to be the case..lol), someone should be looking for this information right now. If this had been like the 20th review we had done, I would vote to "give a little more time" and move on to another article, with the comment that the review would recommense after a certain amount of time to see if someone has taken the steps to fulfill the suggestions. That's my opinion of how I would work it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Clear Redirect to the episode list. Winning a minor award can be mentioned in its entry on the list of episodes. There is nothing here that satisfies the episode guideline. Eusebeus 01:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Merge the award information can be merged with the episode page. There is nothing else here to warrant its own article, and does not seem to offer much potential for improvement. Gwinva 13:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: Merge and redirect.

will complete this action and then archive as per talk page. Gwinva 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] 20 to 1

see: here

[edit] 24 episode review (season 1)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the discussion was to redirect all of the episode articles to season's list of episodes.

The following is an episode review discussion that is intended to evaluate articles for individual episodes. See WP:TV-REVIEW and WP:EPISODE for more info.

Per WP:EPISODE, not every episode of a TV show should likely have an individual article. This can be for many reasons, such as notability or sources, or even just what format fits best for that show.

One thing to note about 24 is that even if each episode was notable, one-episode-per-article might not be the best format, given the nature of the show. Many episodes were filmed and created at the same time, then later edited for their desired episode format.

I have reviewed all of the following pages, but have not yet done any research off the Wiki regarding the episodes. Aside from basic infobox information, and cast credits on the first article, none of the articles contain real-world information. The first and second episode articles contain expanded plot sections, but all the rest (22 articles) contain very short summaries, all of which would fit easily into a list of episodes.

I support merging to a single season article, such as 24 (season 1). Anything you can generally say about a single episode will be true for all of the episodes, or at least more than one. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I have just read all of the above articles and concur with Ned's assessment. I frankly expected to see much longer plot summaries - most are about three short lines of text and are not even wiki-linked to obvious related articles. I suggest that anyone who cares about these to merge the plot summaries into a list of episodes article (which seems to not exist) or 24 (season 1). The above episode articles should then be redirected as appropriate. --Jack Merridew 07:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

comment - anyone interested may want to see these: diff oldid - a list of episodes used to exist and seems to have been broken-out to the above articles. --Jack Merridew 08:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

They don't even bother to cite any of the non-reliable sources episode articles usually do, like Imdb or Tv.com. Most of them, like Jack said, have less than a paragraph of information on the plot. Should not be their own article. I ^{(said) (did)} 07:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I support keeping all these articles, they all establish notability (that they're episodes of 24). And they're all decent stubs, with some OOU information. Matthew 09:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you don't understand what notability is. It's not that people know what it is, or discuss it. Its:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

These articles do not establish that. I ^{(said) (did)} 10:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's watched by millions, ergo significant coverage. Ratings are published by ratings trackers like Nielsen, thus reliable sources. Matthew 10:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with I — merely having been seen by however many people does not establish notability. You should stop trotting this invalid argument out and seek a valid one. --Jack Merridew 10:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To pull a TTN: Your opinion doesn't matter as it's wrong (*grin*). You just appear to be disgruntled that your charity article was deleted (for what it's worth, I'd of supported keeping it). Matthew 10:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe my opinion is wrong and I don't know what charity article you're referring to. --Jack Merridew 10:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect - Not a single one of those episodes had anything other than a plot and an image. No Nielsen Rating, no nothing. You say they are watched by millions, but you have no verifiable evidence. Since when did we start citing Wikipedians as reliable sources of information? You want significant coverage, I'd like to see not only Nielsen ratings, but awards, and at least 1 review from a professional writer. Ergo, significant coverage in reliable sources. Neilsen ratings isn't "coverage", they job is to keep track of who watches television. This is why film pages have a criticism section, because it shows the film have had significant coverage. Coverage is people talking about it, coverage is the reporting of data. It seems to me these articles are skating the consensus to not have images on the LOE page, by creating separate articles. They still don't pass non-free image guidelines. The images were not allowed on LOE pages, even ones with synopses. So, a page that is nothing but a plot, would technically be the same as the LOE page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs) [1]

I thought it looked better when there was an episode list on this page. --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against a list of episodes per season, though you couldn't have those images that in there in the link you provided. But right now, the list you provided looks identical to the articles above, except for the fact that there are 20+ articles that say what the one article already said. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with thedemonhog, but also with Bignole since the pictures aren't necessary, and fair use images is a heated topic at this time. Cliff smith 20:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just revisited all of the above listed episode articles and find that there has only been one edit to any of them since User:TTN added the notability tags on June 23 (almost three weeks ago); this is also five days into this discussion. The single edit did not address the notability issue, it added a lot of plot summary. This is not progress. --Jack Merridew 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

This does not seem to be going any further, so we should close it. --Jack Merridew 14:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. No discussion in a week. Time to close. I ^{(said) (did)} 17:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have resurrected the prior LOE from the season 1 history and redirected these pages to it. The plot summaries, for the most part, seem to be copied from what I've just restored. I'm not sure about the screenshots — comments? --Jack Merridew 10:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the screenshots, too: diff. They can easily be restored. --Jack Merridew 11:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.