Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:53, 28 September 2013

Television C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Terra Nova (TV series). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Terra Nova (TV series) at the Reference desk.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

RfC: Should this article and the episode list article comply with MOS:TV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article and List of Terra Nova episodes comply with MOS:TV, which states "articles should reflect the entire history of a series", or should it ignore the original airing of the series and list only the 13 episodes into which the series has been broken for subsequent arings and home media release? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Background

When Terra Nova first aired, the premiere and finale aired as two, two-hour episodes, not 2 pairs of back to back episodes or 4 single episodes. This was supported by the Fox website at the time but that link is now "dead", (although it is archived at archive.org, which clearly shows the premiere and finale aired as one episode each) so the fact has been declared as "unverifiable" in the above discussion titled "13 Episodes", despite the lengthy discussion at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes#Number of episodes where the Fox website was referenced more than once. However, it is also supported by existing reproductions of the original press releases at thefutoncritic.com, which is widely regarded to be a reliable source. Those press releases quite clearly declare the premiere and finale to be single episodes: The first says "The "Genesis" two-hour series premiere episode of TERRA NOVA" and the second says "the all-new "Occupation/Resistance" episode of TERRA NOVA". (emphasis added) Use of "episode" in both releases instead of "episodes" indicates the premiere and finales were aired as single episodes, which they were, with no breaks between parts and only one set of credits. Transition between the parts of the episodes is so seamless that they appear to be one episode, not two. It was the decision of the discussion at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes#Number of episodes that the episode list should appear in this format but the latest discussion has decided to completely overturn that decision and only list 13 episodes, with no mention of how the episodes originally aired. MOS:TV says "articles should reflect the entire history of a series" but this has been challenged as the statement appears in the "Cast information" section of the MOS. The response to a question about the applicability of the statement was "(and you can send this message to those on Terra Nova's talk page), since I'm the original author and was here for all the adjustments with the other editors, when it was written originally we were talking about the entire article, but placed in the cast section because it just happened to be the place where we had the most issues of people wanting to remove cast members no longer on a series. Obviously, we can place it in a way that it's more clear that we're talking about the entire show/article, and not just one section." In order to comply with the MOS, both the original airing as 11 episodes, and subsequent breakdown into 13 episodes should be mentioned but the above discussion has resulted in complete censorship of mention of the original airing as 11 episodes.

Further notes

• The following are mentioned because they need correction and I would rather not edit the articles until after the RfC, lest I be accused of edit warring (or worse):

1. The reference now used at List of Terra Nova episodes to justify listing 13 episodes is duplicated several times instead of being a reused reference, which is incorrect.
2. The reference is used in the EpisodeNumber field, which is meant for a number only, not for references.
3. The reference refers to a DVD breakdown for a foreign market, which is inconsistent given that all other content in the table refs to the original airing in the original market.
4. In this article, the lead includes the following: "concluded on December 19, 2011 with a two-hour, two-episode finale." - The source used only mentions one episode, not two. The editor who added this assumes that the use of two production codes means two episodes, which is WP:SYNTH. I did correct this, but it was reverted, despite the citation.

Comment on the above would be appreciated as part of this RfC. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• As it is a 13 episode series this should be reflected in the article. However, as 4 episodes were aired back to back in the states, this should be reflected in the broadcasting section. -- MisterShiney ✉ 10:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Episodes were not aired "back to back" in the traditional manner, ie as two separate episodes with the second immediately after the other. They were aired as single episodes with one set of credits each. This is supported by the Fox website (previously thought to be dead but now found to have been archived) and the press releases reproduced by the Futon Critic. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The first episode was aired together with one opening and one closing credit. This episode has subsequently been divided into two episodes on the DVD and in the reliable sources. Yet each has its own writer and production code, which leads me to belive that they are two episodes regardless if they ran together without a break in credits. The last two episodes ran on the same night, but did not run together. Each episode had its own opening and closing credits. They are not a single episode, no matter how many times you say so.--JOJ 13:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that confirms they aired as you say, and not as the reliable sources say? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The ratings (see below) show two episodes. The rel;iable sources confirm two episodes. And a personal question: Did you watch the episodes that night? They aired separately, If you were watching that night you would know that.--JOJ 13:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What the ratings show does not override how Fox aired the episodes - that's just how the ratings were recorded. The DVR copy that I have on my TV right now shows that Occupation/Resistance aired as a single episode, just as Fox and the Futon Critic indicated was the case. The lengths are almost exact - Fox says 1:27:48, my recording says 1:27:47. At 1:27:18 The screen is displaying the editors for both Occupation and Resistance, at 1:27:38 the production codes are displayed for each part. Other than that, the credits don't differentiate between the two parts. At the beginning of the episode, at 05:37 is "'Occupation' Written By Bryan Maone & Barbara Marshall", 4 seconds later, at 05:41, is "'Resistance' Written By Terry Matalas & Travis Fickett", so that doesn't help your claim that they weren't aired as a single episode either. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So I guess that does it. Your DVR must be a reliable source. So now I see what the problem is. Its POV, not Bias. Regardless of how your DVR recorded them in New South Wales, in the United States, the country of the shows origin, they aired separately and are therefore separate episodes.--JOJ 14:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I never said that my DVR was a reliable source. You're claiming that the episode aired as two episodes, but Fox and the press releases say it was aired as one. Even the ratings source used in the episode list refers to a single entity, ie the finale (8-10PM). The ratings link that you referred to doesn't refer to a single episode, it just breaks the ratings down into separate hours. Assuming that means two episodes is WP:SYNTH. The episode is a primary source and may be used to confirm that it was aired as a single episode and that's all I've done. You haven't shown a reliable source that confirms your claim that "Each episode had its own opening and closing credits", and the available sources can't confirm it either. No, the issue here is not POV, bias or mutant space goats. It's WP:V. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Fox aired those final two episodes separately in the US. Are you denying this? As far as a source, the best source found, so far, is the ratings. A plethora of other sources refer to the season has having 13 episodes so that should be a clincher, but you continue to hang on to your single source as some sort of trump card over all the other sources. Its not how this works. But I realize that your POV is slanted because they were broadcast in your country together and not separately as they were in the US. That doesn't mean however that the two episodes should be referred to as airing together, just because they aired that way on your TV. If you want to add that somewhere in the international broadcast section, if there is one, then by all means feel free, but this is an American television production and should reflect the American broadcast, not the foreign one.--JOJ 16:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As much as you may argue that they aired separately, the sources don't support you. The DVR copy (which is from a US broadcast) seems to directly reflect what Fox and the Futon Critic say. You claim "a plethora of other sources refer to the season has having 13 episodes" but that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how the episodes aired, and you haven't provided any sources. The ratings only break down the hours, not the episodes. I'm afraid you are continuing to make assumptions. There really is no point continuing this. As has been pointed out, the RfC is for outside editors, not those of us who participated in the other discussion. Please respect that. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you're not assuming good faith. I am willing to concede that your DVR which recorded the telecast in New South Wales, recorded as one long episode, but you some how cannot concede that it aired in the United States as two separate episodes. That is basically calling me a liar. Its uncivil and unfair to me and all other editors who disagreed with you because they too saw the last two episodes air the same way as I did. I conceded that if you wish to add this to the "international" broadcast section, you are free to do so. Its trivial, but if it will end this long drawn out debate, please feel free to add it. Yet your assertion now is that the infobox should reflect the international broadcast and not the American one. Thats not going to happen. Its 13 episodes. Plenty of sources confirm 13. even the cast members say it was 13.--JOJ 19:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what is written more thoroughly: "The DVR copy (which is from a US broadcast)" - It wasn't recorded in New south Wales. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And how are we to know that?--JOJ 19:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Mr. Shiney. A mention that the first 2 and last two were aired back to back is fine. By that, I mean a single sentence in the article. I does not belong in the infobox. As a side note, even though the author of MOSTV clarified that the "entire history" part is meant to apply to the whole MOS (and he admits it is written in a manner that does make it look like it applies to a section), ill contend it's being misused. "Entire history" doesn't mean every minute detail and despite all the hoopla and fussing about this, the fact that the first two episodes were shown together is trivial. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• If the episodes were broadcast together then they should be listed together in the episode table, as Neilsen rating would be based on the entire broadcast and too difficult to say that someone that came in during the last 10 minutes of the first hour and watched the last hour did anymore more than watch the last hour (yet the ratings will reflect otherwise). In other words, most shows do not maintain the same rating from one hour to the next, yet you're claiming on the episode table that both hours got the same rating. That's inaccurate, especially when the source you're using is saying that during the entire broadcast it averaged 7.24 million viewers. To be true to your own source, you need to keep it as a single entry on the episode table. As was done with the Smallville season finale, which was 2 episodes merged together (as well as another episode in season 9), the info is set as 2 episodes, but the plot is presented as one cohesive story. This is better for reading and also more accurate to how it was released. You should then indicate that it is two episodes, and on the DVD was broken up into two separate entries. That is a reflection of the history of the series, yet still satisfies both (as the episode count can still be 13).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::*Neilsen will often break the ratings into two parts, hour 1 and hour 2. Just like you see done here with NBA games or that is done every week by WWE wrestling . And which sources are we talking about being true to?Niteshift36 (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The source that you have on the LoE page for the ratings for the episode. You have 7.24 listed for both, yet the source lists one broadcast, indicating that it was a 2 hour broadcast. It doesn't break them up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• This source does break them into two parts and lists the same rating for both. May or may not be correct, but it still lists the same number for both. Thsi source shows different numbers .Niteshift36 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That isn't the source on the LoE page, and that number is also not the number in the source on the LoE page. So, you guys can figure out which you want to use, but I can tell you that there is no way it is the same figure for both hours, as I've never seen a show keep the same figure in both hours. They either go up or they go down. I cannot think of the last time they stayed the same outside of the fact that someone didn't have a true breakdown of the hours and listed one figure for each individual hour (which is probably what happened on that page, and why the other source only lists one figure for a 2 hour broadcast).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's not the same source? Really? Obviously it isn't the source used there. I offered them up as possible alternatives. I figured that was obvious enough and didn't think you'd need it explained. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well its possible that they had the same numbers. Its not out of the realm of possibility, nor is there any proof that these are the same number used twice. As far as the source is concerned, they are separate ratings that are simply the same number, not duplicated numbers.--JOJ 13:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, who'd have thunk that coming to a debate to provide a second opinion would lead to incivility from others? Niteshift, I think you're being a little rude in your comment to me. The "realm of possibility" Jojhutton is based on the evidence. If you look at any other show that spans multiple hours you'll clearly see that the ratings change. The point is, it was presented as one cohesive episode upon broadcast, and it should be presented as such in the episode table. That is the history of the broadcast, and it should be reflected as such. The DVD does nothing more than indicate that we should show that the episode has two titles, two production codes, two sets of creative teams, etc. Again, Smallville had this same issue in season 9 and season 10. It works better when written as one cohesive story (that removes those poorly worded--"In the first hour...."--starts. It is better for readers to when reviewing the plot, and again it's reflective of the history of the show. It was presented as 1 episode, and that is how it should be presented in the LoE table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Um, when you start off by talking down to me by stating the glaringly obvious like I didn't know it, it sets a tone. Why would you feel the need to tell me that isn't the source being used? Of course it isn't. Who can't see that? Did you ever think that "informing" me of something that obvious can come off as sounding sarcastic? Regardless, they were separate episodes. That they were aired back to back can be noted in the article, but that does not change the number of episodes. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) So since you have never seen two episodes run back to back have the same ratings, it is impossible? Hardly scientific and not reliable enough to say that the ratings are separate figures that happen to be the same number.--JOJ 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

"Genesis" aired as one long episode, although its been split on the DVD, but not on iTunes. Yet it has two production codes and two writers. But its incorrect to say that "Occupation" and "Resistance" aired without a break. Each aired with its own opening and closing credits and each has its own production code and writer. Thats why they are referred to as episodes 12 and 13. Thats also why the producers and cast members say the show has 13 episodes. Thats also why the sources say that Fox ordered 13 episodes. Its because there are 13 episodes.--JOJ 19:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that there are 13 episodes now. I don't know why you're still on about this. It's how they originally aired that is the issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall the finale having two sepate intros, but if that's the case then I would side with that being broken up, as it was treated as two separate episodes that happened to air on the same day. But, Genesis should be put together because it was aired as a single entry. Yes, there are two sets of creative teams, and I again I point to Smallville. Story-wise, it's more cohesive to write it as a single entry, which was how it was broadcast then to try and split it up when it wasn't set that way originally. There is nothing wrong with having "1/2" under Episode count, and a note explaining that these were 2 episodes that were merged into a single broadcast.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the reason that you don't remember two separate intros for the finale is because Jojhutton is mistaken. As I've said above, the US copy of the finale that I have shows it as one episode, it even matches the time that Fox says it should be (it's dfferent by 1 second but that's neither here nor there) and Fox says it's one episode. I don't have any problems accepting the Fox and Futon Crtic sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not mistaken, it aired as two episodes. I remember very well. And after a bit more research, it seems that the Futon Critic is a foreign, meaning non American website, which means that it most likely is stating the overseas broadcast order and not the American one.--JOJ 20:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Clutching at straws are we? The Futon Critic is widely used as a reference for US TV shows (1,309 uses as of right now) and the press releases that it reproduces are straight from US studios. As I've already said more than once, you can google the text of the press releases and find them on multiple US sites. I'm sorry, but you do appear to be mistaken. Bignole doesn't remember separate credits, I don't remember separate credits, Fox says the finale is 1:27:48 long and the US DVR copy that I have is the same length. It doesn't show separate credits and I've given you time codes for the various elements. All the evidence points to a single episode finale except for your memory. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment RFC's should written neutrally. This is written so badly and with so much bias, it makes my head spin just looking at it. How does the writer of this RFC expect to get unbiased participation in the RFC? I'll tell you, he doesn't. He wants to get his way. This has already been discussed at length. This is just another attempt at forum shopping by and obviously tendentious editor who just doesn't seem to get the point.--JOJ 12:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed that this was not neutral and smells like forum shopping. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As I've pointed out below, that is the question that needs to be addressed so it's the question that needs to be asked. I'll remind you too you that you had an opportunity to participate in the DRN discussion, which you refused to do so, even after being warned that an RfC was a possibility. The purpose of an RfC is to obtain comment from outside editors, not to continue the previous discussion with the same editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• You need not remind me of your trip to DRN. I clearly knew it was there and saw no reason for it. As for your "warning" (love that choice of wording), nobody is shocked at your refusal to accept consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The RfC question was asked neutrally. There is no bias; the separate "background" and "further notes" sections provide RfC participants with sourced background information about how the series was aired originally and how it is presented now, so that they may make an informed decision. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't even see it do you? Asking or should it ignore the original airing of the series and list only the 13 episodes, is biased because you are stating in the RFC that it is a fact that the article is ignoring MOSTV. Its not. Its just your bias that thinks it is.--JOJ 12:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't see how it is biased, since that is the question that needs to be addressed. May I remind you that you had an opportunity to participate in the DRN discussion, which you refused to do so, even after being warned that an RfC was a possibility? Please do not continue to make allegations against another editor, this is not the place for it. The purpose of an RfC is to obtain comment from outside editors, not to continue the previous discussion with the same editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Its all the same, its simple forum shopping. You are going to do this until you get the decision you want.--JOJ 13:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• If the old editor the started this gets to spout his same old tedious stuff, why should others be excluded? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is suppose to be a forum for new editors, but the biased diatribe by AussieLegend demanded a response because it wasn't written from a neutral point of view.--JOJ 18:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Question: Why does how they were aired (ie together or back to back) change the number of episodes? There are 13 epsidoes, with 13 names, 13 production codes. Airing times aside, can we at least agree on that simple, basic fact? Niteshift36 (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• This question has been answered several times. The premiere and finale were aired as single episodes, per the reliable sources that have been presented, including the Fox website (that you argued was dead and therefore no longer verifiable, which is not the case since it has been archived), so the series was aired as 11 episodes, not 13. You know, we did discuss this way back when the series aired, in a discussion you started. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let me try this one more time. I am NOT asking about AIRING. I asked if we agree that there were 13 episodes produced. That is the simple question. Can you please stop your endless soapboxing for one freakin minute and answer what I actually asked? Niteshift36 (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest you read what you actually asked: "Why does how they were aired (ie together or back to back) change the number of episodes?" Airing was an integral part of your question. How they aired shows that they aired as 11 episodes. That's part of the series' history. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• If I eat 2 sandwiches at one sitting or one sandwich at each of two sittings, how many sandwiches did I eat? I didn't ask how many sittings there were, I asked how many sandwiches there were. Get it? How many episodes were there. That is the freakin question. Can you answer that single, simple question with a single number? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• The answer to your question is there are now 13 episodes that were originally aired as 11 episodes. You see, it depends on the definition of an episode. According to Wikitionary, an episode is "an installment of a drama told in parts, as in a TV series" so Genesis is an episode, as is Occupation/Resistance. To most of us, an installement of a TV series, with one set of opening credits and one set of closing credits is an episode. That's probably why Fox refers to them as individual episodes. What is your definition of an episode? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I knew you couldn't answer it with a simple answer. I didn't ask about airings. I made it very clear that I wasn't asking about airings. I didn't ask for your personal interpretation of the definition of "episode". But you're so wrapped up in your battlefield mentality that you can't even answer a simple question. Talking to you is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• You can't ask "Why does how they were aired" and then say you aren't interested in airings because how the episodes aired is an integral part of your question. If you aren't interested, then you have to ask a different question. And please, stop aggressively indenting. You only need to indent one level, not four. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

13 episodes of Terra Nova is 13 episodes. Why is arguing about how to edit the episode list worth everybody's time? Since it is cancelled, like Firefly (TV series), merging the list into the main won't hurt, even when the main article is big. Relisted. --George Ho (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't work out if this is a serious proposal or a joke...? -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• At least he has the number of episodes correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

An RfC for this seems a little premature considering there has been no previous discussion about merging the two articles. It's a totally different subject to what we've been discussing above, so I don't see what it's an alternative to. In any case, I'd have to oppose any such merge until we get the above RfC out of the way. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral. This is the second or third time that rfcbot has tried to induce me to comment on this article. I agree with Mister Shiney. It seems impossible to tell if these proposals are some kind of postmodern satire on Misplaced Pages drama or if they're serious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral. I also cannot tell if this is serious or a joke. Wickedlizzie (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Not a good RFC. This seems like a misuse of the RFC tag to forum shop.  A m i t  웃   17:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seems to me that the prior proposal did not make sense to you. I hope I've done better here than above; here goes. Terra Nova lasted only one season, and I don't see why the episode list must be stand-alone, like List of Twin Peaks episodes. Merging list into parent article could make the article longer, but I would rather have a longer article than a poor-quality list. To make matters complicated, someone proposed comments about formatting both parent and list articles without considering merger. Like Firefly (TV series), Terra Nova lasted only 13 episodes. --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Put the list into the article, it's just 13 episodes, it's not a very long list. Since it was cancelled it wont need to be udpated anyway. Doesnt hurt anybody to put it in. — comment added by 217.39.208.178 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is an inappropriate use of the RfC process. RfCs are part of dispute resolution, used when prior discussion has failed to arrive at a suitable resolution, but the merge proposal has never been discussed. Instead, RfC was used as the first method of discussion. The subsequent poorly attended RfC expired, but was almost immediately relisted. That discussion also expired, and has now been relisted again. If there was a serious attempt at discussing this, instead of jumping straight to RfC for a third time, there might be a better response. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Removed RFC tag. --George Ho (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose some points are well received, but there is no real harm in keeping the list separate.--JOJ 23:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• If we leave the list separate from parent articles of one-season programs, then we may encourage editors to do the same, and we would worsen parent articles' qualities. --George Ho (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is a lot of information in that parent article. Unless there were separate articles for each episode, a separate article that can list specific plot information from each of this episodes is appropriate, even if for only one season. I don't see any evidence that the parent article will suffer.--JOJ 00:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe plot summaries could be skimmed down by removing trivial info. Well, I don't see why we must separate episode list from Firefly (TV series) again; people favored merger there. --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I was neutral on this, as it doesn't really matter whether the episode list is here or at its current location. Convention is to place episode lists at "List of <foo> episodes", so we would keep the redirect for readers who might search there. We need to anyway, as we need to maintain the edit history of the episode list in order to provide attribution. For these reasons, I don't see justification in moving the episode list here. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: WP:SIZESPLIT suggest an article be of "readable prose" length, up to 50k bytes in length. If you add the episode list in with the main article, we're talking 72k bytes in size, based on what is contained in the Episodes table itself. There could be some overall trimwork to get this number down, but some things will suffer for it. Leave it as is. —Wyliepedia 13:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

While I respect your right to oppose, you seem to misunderstand what constitutes readable prose. "Readable prose" is "all viewable text in the main sections only, not including any viewable text in a table or a list, and not including any footer sections" and it is not the same as the file size of the article. This article is 47.5kB but contains only 17kB of readable prose. Strictly speaking, episode summaries are not classed as readable prose because they are contained in the episode table. However, using a very loose interpretation of the definition of readable prose, the amount of readable prose in the episode article is 15.4kB, while the article's file size is 28.6kB. This gives a combined total of 32.4kB of readable prose, not 72kB. Not also that WP:SIZESPLIT provides guidance on when to split an article, it does not concern itself with combining articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

*Support. Even if it goes a little long (which I don't think it will), the series is cancelled, so it won't really be growing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ip is changing the number of episodes and ordering at List of Terra Nova Episodes.

Consensus was to have the episodes as 13, but an ip is changing it to 12 at List of Terra Nova episodes and will not discuss the issue. I want to report the ip, but thought I'd try here first. JOJ 22:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by outside editors in the RfC were that the first episode should be listed as a single episode. There is no valid consensus to list them as 13. I can see the IP's point that they should be listed as 12. The final episode was aired as one in Canada and some places in the US but as two back to back episodes in other parts of the US. This is how it was originally listed but some people took exception. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The correct number of episodes is 12.

There are officially 12 episodes of Terra Nova. The first episode was 2 hours. The final two episodes aired on the same date back to back but were separate episodes. Amazon.com, itunes, the Library of Congress lists them this way. Other Misplaced Pages articles on shows with double-length episodes list hour long episodes as one episode (i.e., Seinfeld).

Production codes are for business use. All episodes of double-length of any series have 2 production codes. That way people get paid for two episodes (since a double-length episode is twice the work).

I'm going to change the information to reflect the correct information, which is 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.154.161 (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If you took the time to read the previous discussion, you may realize that those two episodes that originally aired as one episode, have two production codes and two writers and are billed as part one and part two. Also, those episides air seperatly in syndication. This was brought up in the last discussion and the agreement was to go by production codes. Unfortunately uour edit warring is going to get your up address blocked from editing. JOJ 00:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

How the episodes air in syndication is irrelevant. The fact is there were 12 episodes. If it were decided to air them in syndication in half-hour blocks, would there now be 26 episodes? That wouldn't make any sense. The last 2-hour-long block was produced as two episodes. That's why it's 12 and not 11. Just check the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.154.161 (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The two-hour pilot for Fringe had only a single production code. Production codes don't necessarily mean whether it is a single episode or a double. In this case, two different production codes, as Jojhutton pointed out, combined with the fact that the episode has two sets of writing credits and were identified as being in two parts in the opening credits would seem to indicate that it is two episodes. On top of all of that, the DVD release identifies that the series contains thirteen episodes, which includes the double-length pilot. Check it. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The first episode had a single title (Genesis) and press releases advertised it as an episode, not episodes. It contained a single set of credits with no discernible transition between part 1 & part 2. It was only broken into separate episodes later. The episode as aired didn't mention parts in the opening credits. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Still 13 episodes in my view. Nothing has changed to make me see it otherwise. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

12 episodes were produced. The first was produced as a two-hour episode. It had two production codes because that is how dramas are produced. People get paid by the hour. If any video cameras were used in the production, the people working with that equipment would had 4 paycodes for the two-hour episode (because they normally work in sitcoms and their guild does insurance, etc. by the half-hour). Hence, the codes are meaningless. What matters is the end product. If two people worked on the pizza you ordered, would you call it two pizzas?

The last two episodes were produced as two separate episodes. FOX decided to join them later. The only edit is pretty much to just show only one set of opening/closing titles. There is no producer input because they've all ready prepared for the possibility. Hence, the canon versions of these episodes are as separate episodes, which should be pretty obvious given their separate titles.

Any series that has double-length episodes will have those episodes prepared in advance for syndication and the need to have double-length episodes air as two parts. That's why the DVD's are released that way. The people who put out the DVD often have nothing to do with the production. Often, shows are released with syndicated versions of a show by mistake simply because no one who knew or cared had anything to do with the DVD release.

So the answer is there are 12 episodes. That's the official number. That's what belongs in an encyclopedia. Calling the first episode two episodes is a obsessive-compulsive desire to have everything fit into a nice chart (with one production code, set of writers, etc.) at the expense of accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.154.161 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

We have an interesting situation here. We had a long-standing consensus that the episode list should show the episodes as aired, that is as 11 episodes. Then we had three editors who decided to overturn that consensus and insist there were 13 episodes. Uninvolved editors at the RfC indicated that if the episodes aired as single episodes then that should be mentioned, but that has been ignored. Now we have another editor who claims 12 episodes, and has introduced sources to prove it. This demonstrates that the 3-editor consensus from May is not strong at all, so this really needs further discussion. I know that certain people don't want to discuss it, as evidenced by the refusal to participate in the DRN discussion, but there really is no way around it. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• The "long standing consensus" is gone. I was part of it. Aside from you, who has expressed support for that defunct consensus? As for your RfC, you don't win by default. We all ignored it because you had nothing new to say. Just hearing you say the same thing over and over wasn't going to change anything. In short, that RfC was pointless and it serves as NO indicator or anything other than a lack of interest in duplicating this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that there is very little new information being presented by the ip or by AussieLegend. The fact that there are 13 production codes, 13 writer credits, 13 episodes on the DVD, 13 episodes in syndication, and 13 episodes on Netflix are what I believe motivated the change last May. Nobody argues that the first episode aired as a single entity, but that is not the only factor that was considered. I believe that the stronger argument was for 13 over 12 or even 11, and having AussieLegend or even a new anon ip come here regurgitating the same old tired argument, isn't going to change anyones mind. Unless there is some new information that hasn't been discussed before, there is no point in continuing to go though this again and again.--JOJ 00:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• C-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• C-Class science fiction articles
• Mid-importance science fiction articles
• WikiProject Science Fiction articles