This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sgeureka (talk | contribs) at 22:57, 7 December 2008 (→Redirection ("merger") of 1995 to 2002 episodes: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:57, 7 December 2008 by Sgeureka (talk | contribs) (→Redirection ("merger") of 1995 to 2002 episodes: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Television List‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Episode titles
Hi, folks. I've just finished moving a number of these episodes from names like Beyond the Veil (episode) to Beyond the Veil (The Outer Limits), as recommended by the naming conventions guideline at WP:NC-TV. The problem with using (episode) as a disambiguator is that sometimes different television series will use the same episode name — see the "television and film" examples at Awakening or Identity crisis for examples. It's also worth remembering that you don't need to put any disambiguation on a title that's unique, like The Revelations of Becka Paulson. This is also noted at WP:NC-TV, and is in keeping with general Misplaced Pages disambiguation guidelines at WP:DAB. This is just a little clean-up and a friendly reminder. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirection ("merger") of The Outer Limits episodes
Redirection ("merger") of 1995 to 2002 episodes
All The Other Limits (1995-2002) episode articles are WP:STUBs, don't establish WP:NOTABILITY, consist of nothing but plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and quotes (which should be moved to WikiQuote). Since I believed that there are no TOL-enthusiastic editors to fix that (the last TOL episode aired over six years ago), I bold-merged these stubs into this List of episodes. Concerns about the legitimity of this action led to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Galaxy Being, which showed mixed reactions. I have therefore started to restore the TOL episode articles (seasons 5-7 so far) with added {{notability}} tags and hope to find merge consensus afterwards (i.e. now). If the articles continue to lack a raison d'être (see first two sentences), I truly believe that the episode summaries are better covered in an LoE (or season article), with no prejudice against recreation if someone wants to write a proper article per WP:EPISODE. Please avoid recommending to keep the articles if you don't plan to work on them, since that just adjourns any kind of article improvement (whether through encyclopedic expansion or merging). – sgeureka 08:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the 1995-2002 episodes are generally non-notable, with some exceptions. It's the 1964-65 episodes that should be restored to their own articles. --Captain Infinity (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have started a new merge thread below. – sgeureka
- Thank you for taking the time to restore these episodes. Perhaps not all the episodes of the new TOL are notable, but many of them are, even if this series has not yet quite achieved the cult status (yet?) of the old series. And like the old series, the episodes of the new series are also independent stories with little or no continuity between them, which is another strong reason why they should be treated more like movies are, as individual films, not as episodes of a serial story.
- My opinion is that of a viewer/Wikipedia user, by the way. Here in Ottawa, TOL is shown daily on a cable channel, and more than once I found myself using Misplaced Pages to get additional information about the episode in question. It was quite an unpleasant surprise when the episode articles suddenly disappeared! Vttoth (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments. I'll note nevertheless that what appears in this list of episodes now are nearly identical plot summaries from what appeared in the articles, so all that changed was a matter of representation (the rest shouldn't have been there in the first place). Secondly, (and I say this because/although I know where you're coming from) wikipedia is not a replacement for watching a show. – sgeureka 12:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Before I restore any more articles, I want to see some more input from others. That I was expecting lack of input was exactly the reason why I bold-merged the episodes in the first place, and it seems I wasn't that far off. (Why start discussions when there is no-one to discuss things with?) – sgeureka 16:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- See my answer below.Krasss (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
It is a questionable rationale to use the absence of a discussion a reason to delete (let's call a spade a spade; sure, the article histories will still be there, but unless you know what you're looking for, the articles are as good as deleted). Most users of Misplaced Pages don't routinely check the discussion page to see if the article they're reading is about to be deleted. They only complain, as I do, when they suddenly do disappear. Misplaced Pages, like a good encyclopedia, is about providing information. I consulted Misplaced Pages when I was looking for background information on these shows. Suddenly, a lot of that information vanished, for no good reason other than somebody's idea of "cleaning up". What are we trying to do here, turn Misplaced Pages into a Reader's Digest version that only has popular stuff in it? vttoth (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- The plot summaries "vanished" into the LoE, i.e. they didn't vanish at all; the redirects redirected you to each summary in the LoE. The rest of the articles (quotes, cast list and unsourced trivia) was material that shouldn't have been there in the first place (if you disagree, please provide a link to an episode GA or FA ep article that has them). I'd also argue that the articles are much more likely to be kept if editors provide good reasons why the articles shouldn't be merged (volunteering for improvement would be a good start), instead of dissecting and trivializing my intentions. – sgeureka 10:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- As you point out, there is/was more to the episode articles than just plot summaries. I disagree with you concerning their importance. We have articles with similar detail for shows that (in my opinion) are less deserving, e.g., The Simpsons, but no, I am not advocating deletion there either, as the information is useful, disk space is cheap, and I don't see how the presence of useful information can be harmful, even if its utility is marginal. Concerning your intentions, I am neither questioning or trivializing them... I don't know who you are and I cannot see inside your head :-). It is the articles that I am concerned about. (And before someone starts trivializing my intentions, I am not a TOL fan. I just happened upon the articles when I was using Misplaced Pages in the manner an encyclopedia is meant to be used, that is, I was looking up information and found that it was in the process of being deleted.) vttoth (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Instead of repeating my replies from above, I'll point to the issues raised at Wikipedia_talk:NOT#"Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia". But it does have scaling issues and the new WP:FICT proposal for why merging is the best option as long as no-one wants to improve the actual articles. – sgeureka 09:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at WP:FICT I noted a very important sentence: "When merging existing articles into such a list, it is important to make sure that all verifiable and appropriate information is preserved." The reason for my objection to the listifying of TOL episodes was that verifiable and appropriate information (e.g., cast, opening and closing narration which, in the case of TOL, define the episode, other details) vanished. vttoth (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- You skipped the preceding sentences, "If possible, it is often preferable to cover multiple episodes via a combination or list article, rather than individual articles for each episode. Such lists are much less controversial than individual episode articles ". I refute that IBDb-type information like cast lists, quotes and unsourced/in-universe trivia are "appropriate" (if you disagree, please provide a link to a GA ep article that contains such information). Otherwise, any ep article would be justified, since every live-action ep has a cast, and it's easy to come up with trivia and primary-source quotes. – sgeureka 14:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- These rules that you pointed out was developed for episodes of usual TV series, which has a direct common plot of all episodes. But The Outer Limits is an anthology, and it has not a direct plot of all episodes. Also, there is not a direct plot for seasons too. That is why its episodes cannot be merged. Probably, you did not watched TOL, and do not understand this thing. Krasss (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Many shows have planet/patient/mystery/murder_case/monster-of-the-week stories without any connection, and can be covered in LoEs just fine. I don't need to watch TOL to deduce that this also applies to this show. (BTW, entangling editors in endless antagonistic discussions have rarely prevented a merger when the articles weren't up to snuff - and I have time.) – sgeureka 16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, since you appear to be annoyed by our attempt to "entangle the editor", allow me to ask: exactly what is the point of doing an edit when all you accomplish is angering people who actually READ the articles in question, USE them, and, heaven forbid, actually WATCH the shows that the articles reference? For what it is worth, my desire is not to antagonize a busy editor, merely to preserve content I find quite useful and informative (as in, gosh, encyclopedic!)... as a casual viewer of the show in question, not as a devoted fan, which I am not. If you are not listening to people who actually read the content in question, who exactly are you editing Misplaced Pages for? vttoth (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- For everyone's sake, I'll step back from this discussion until someone offers insight to keep the articles while not appealing to various WP:ATA arguments (e.g. your last comment appealed to WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, and WP:USEFUL). Please contact me on my talkpage if the cited policies, guidelines and other reasoning in my initial merge proposal are not sufficient or confuse you. – sgeureka 22:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, since you appear to be annoyed by our attempt to "entangle the editor", allow me to ask: exactly what is the point of doing an edit when all you accomplish is angering people who actually READ the articles in question, USE them, and, heaven forbid, actually WATCH the shows that the articles reference? For what it is worth, my desire is not to antagonize a busy editor, merely to preserve content I find quite useful and informative (as in, gosh, encyclopedic!)... as a casual viewer of the show in question, not as a devoted fan, which I am not. If you are not listening to people who actually read the content in question, who exactly are you editing Misplaced Pages for? vttoth (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Many shows have planet/patient/mystery/murder_case/monster-of-the-week stories without any connection, and can be covered in LoEs just fine. I don't need to watch TOL to deduce that this also applies to this show. (BTW, entangling editors in endless antagonistic discussions have rarely prevented a merger when the articles weren't up to snuff - and I have time.) – sgeureka 16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- These rules that you pointed out was developed for episodes of usual TV series, which has a direct common plot of all episodes. But The Outer Limits is an anthology, and it has not a direct plot of all episodes. Also, there is not a direct plot for seasons too. That is why its episodes cannot be merged. Probably, you did not watched TOL, and do not understand this thing. Krasss (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- You skipped the preceding sentences, "If possible, it is often preferable to cover multiple episodes via a combination or list article, rather than individual articles for each episode. Such lists are much less controversial than individual episode articles ". I refute that IBDb-type information like cast lists, quotes and unsourced/in-universe trivia are "appropriate" (if you disagree, please provide a link to a GA ep article that contains such information). Otherwise, any ep article would be justified, since every live-action ep has a cast, and it's easy to come up with trivia and primary-source quotes. – sgeureka 14:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at WP:FICT I noted a very important sentence: "When merging existing articles into such a list, it is important to make sure that all verifiable and appropriate information is preserved." The reason for my objection to the listifying of TOL episodes was that verifiable and appropriate information (e.g., cast, opening and closing narration which, in the case of TOL, define the episode, other details) vanished. vttoth (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Instead of repeating my replies from above, I'll point to the issues raised at Wikipedia_talk:NOT#"Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia". But it does have scaling issues and the new WP:FICT proposal for why merging is the best option as long as no-one wants to improve the actual articles. – sgeureka 09:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- As you point out, there is/was more to the episode articles than just plot summaries. I disagree with you concerning their importance. We have articles with similar detail for shows that (in my opinion) are less deserving, e.g., The Simpsons, but no, I am not advocating deletion there either, as the information is useful, disk space is cheap, and I don't see how the presence of useful information can be harmful, even if its utility is marginal. Concerning your intentions, I am neither questioning or trivializing them... I don't know who you are and I cannot see inside your head :-). It is the articles that I am concerned about. (And before someone starts trivializing my intentions, I am not a TOL fan. I just happened upon the articles when I was using Misplaced Pages in the manner an encyclopedia is meant to be used, that is, I was looking up information and found that it was in the process of being deleted.) vttoth (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I noted that you have not continued the restoration of the episode articles. Have you changed your mind on this, or have you just run out of time? If the former, we need to come to a consensus because it'd not be a good idea to work at cross purposes, but if the latter, let us know, so that others that happen upon articles that have not yet been restored can do so. vttoth (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I said above, I was reluctant to restore any more articles if I don't get input (but the input has come now). I have since resumed the restoration of articles, and seasons 3-5 are the only three seasons that haven't been restored yet. I'll get to them eventually. It took a week to merge, so it takes a week to restore. – sgeureka 09:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! vttoth (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Redirection ("merger") of 1963 to 1965 episodes
The rationale for merging the 1963-1965 episode articles is nearly identical to that of the 1995-2002 ep articles, with the (some would say huge) difference that notability is not so much the problem (I only realize this now), but the shape of the articles - nearly all of them are sourced entirely from primary sources. When I restored the articles, I have therefore not tagged them for {{notability}}, but {{primary sources}}. It is now a matter of philosophy to keep article stub around for more-or-less notable subjects, or merge the plot summaries (nearly in full) to a list of episodes or a season list until someone wants to improve them the standard set by the TOL ep article The Galaxy Being (or Soldier (The Outer Limits) and Demon with a Glass Hand, although those lack the sources). I prefer the latter option, but I am not as adamant about this here than I am/would be for the 1995-2002 articles. – sgeureka 12:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Sgeureka on this one. Merge. Eusebeus (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree as well. Merge. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. Don't merge. -- vttoth (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree too. Don't merge. Krasss (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Do Not Merge. --Captain Infinity (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Why did you started a new discussion?
The discussion about merging/deleting was finished, and result is clear (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Galaxy Being). Why did you started a new discussion?
This current discussion that you initiated is not about merging, — so as the episodes' summaries are still merged to this List of Episodes. The current question is about deleting the original articles.
The reason of existing of individual articles of TOL episodes is not planning (or not planning) to work about them. The real reason is that there are some people who are glad to see these articles here. If you are not interested in The Outer Limits, or believe that these films has no any importance, — please edit some other articles, you are really interested in. Krasss (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Per discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_48#AfD_consensus_and_future_article_discussions, it is perfectly fine to immediately start merge discussions after AfDs that resulted in keep. Redirection is not deletion and never was because the page histories stay around. The opinion of TOL fans has no more weight than that of any other wikipedian, so my liking or not liking TOL is immaterial to this merge discussion (in fact, it could be argued that non-fans have less of a WP:COI than TOL fans and are more objective what's best). I have explained why I think merging is the best way to go, and now others should share why not merging is even better. WP:ILIKEIT has always been a poor reason to keep articles. – sgeureka 00:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
About images
Also, due to yours vandalism, many images that was used in the TOL episodes (see, for example, from the article The Camp) were deleted as "non used images". So, what do you think, who now must re-create these images? Krasss (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please read WP:VANDALISM before accusing editors of vandalism. Feel free to ask an admin to restore the images (I don't have admin powers), but since the images failed WP:NFCC#8 anyway, I wouldn't bother. – sgeureka 00:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I know that you're not an admin. You must note that removing of these images is one of direct results of your own "merging". Krasss (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This page is too long
This page (with summaries of all episodes) is too long. For this reason, I had created today two new pages:
So, I see a real reason to remove all summaries from the original List of episodes, and I am going to do it soon. If someone is against this transformations, please put your arguments here. I must know your position about this question. Krasss (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support (I was going to suggest this myself, with the possibility of season articles for the 1995-2002 series). Maybe it's enough to turn the current LoE into a dab page like List of Stargate episodes. – sgeureka 12:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too long for what? Is it filling up the bottom of your monitor? This is Misplaced Pages, not a paper encyclopedia. You propose to delete the episode summaries, and on the other side of the fence we've got deletionists trying to delete the OL articles themselves and trying to salve opposition with "the summaries can be moved to the list of episodes". Why don't we just delete any mention of the Outer Limits at all, forever, from the entire encyclopedia. Sheesh, ridiculous. --Captain Infinity (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm proposing to turn the current List of episodes page to its previous state . The summaries (added by User:Sgeureka ) will be just moved to the two new pages, - and nothing pages will be deleted. Krasss (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I think splitting the list into two is a good idea, regardless of whether or not episode articles are merged into them (which I oppose). vttoth (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)