A glimpse into SEASON 4 episodes 22 & 23, ENDLESS LOVE & BOOK OF CHANGES SEASON 5!!!!! WILL according to a source FAST FORWARD FIVE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE, so Mel & JIm's.

I liked this show.some people might not like the idea of God appearing in so many different forms (sometimes a punk teenager, sometimes an elderly woman.that kind of thing), but the message of the show was interesting and spoke of God's plan which surpasses human understanding.

Watch Ghost Whisperer Season 2 Episode 1 on online TV free HD HQ part1 tv show trailer tv 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. The hospitals children crossover along with pete.

Link: Ghost Whisperer. Preview for the new GW spisode OMG.JIM. JIM!:o por him! Bloopers - Part 2. All 22 promos for the 5th season of Ghost Whisperer. Sam remembers who he really is!!!

• The should be regarded as a questionable source, especially for future [programming]. Its content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is and strongly discouraged. From established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online fansites are generally not acceptable. -- () 19:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC) This MOS doesn't talk about sources at all, with exception to brief mentioning of where not to get information for a particular section.

Overall, we let provide the information about what is and is not a reliable source. Otherwise, We'd have to have an entire page (like WP:FILM does) devoted entirely to discuss all appropriate and inappropriate sources. Singling out IMDb on this page I think would be inappropriate. It would merely create a constant 'well you didn't say this source was unacceptable' and then we'd have to put that source in as well. If you're willing/wanting/etc.

To create a page for this project then it would certainly be appreciated. 21:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I can see why it is used in film, being the Internet Movie Database the name rather invites use on film articles. It isn't as inaccurate as most people here like to make it out to be. I am rather not fond of creating a list of acceptable resources for articles. See all of my micro/mega-rants about some handful of shows actually being Canadian despite the claims of reliable American media.

I do fear creating an 'acceptable sources list' would create more issue in these matters i work with than it could ever possibly help and in general i don't see a use for such a list given the extreme variety of information the hollywood reporters give to the usa today and yester-year. The futon critic typically doesn't look to have their work used as a reference on WP.;) In the Canadian TV section there are a couple of those evil blogs that are used because of whom the authors are and because in the Canadian entertainment media there just does not exist sources like Variety, Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, The Futon Critic, or Deadline & TVLine. Australia and India and Scotland all have different sources for their programming too.

How global the acceptable sources you include are will depend on whether you garner my appreciation or not, if you make such a list. & ☯ 23:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I'm glad we're getting a thoughtful discussion going. Given what you're both saying, would you agree that we should at least remove from the current page the couple of references that seem to recommend using IMDb. Given the general consensus about its unreliability, what do you think about at least making the page neutral about it? -- () 00:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC) We should definitely take those out. I am all in favor of discouraging its use - and its inaccuracy has led to several disputes in my short time here editing - but the points above about creating a list of resources are well taken.

I will personally continue to delete it on sight from articles I watch. I can still cite - just because it's only in WP Film doesn't mean it's bad advice. () 01:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Where is it supporting its use? The only instances that I can see of its mentioning are: ' The key is to provide real world context to the character through production information, and without simply re-iterating IMDb.' - ' IMDb keeps a comprehensive list of the crew members for each television show; as such, most of the key crew members are already listed in the infobox and do not need to be listed in the article.' - ' This means that IMDb, TV.com, and the other similar websites that give 'fan polls' are not reliable sources of information.' - ' Links to the Official Website, TV.com, or IMDb profile pages should go in the external links section of the article.'

Nothing there suggests a recommendation of use. The first is pointing out that people try and recreate the cast list from IMDb for TV articles that that should not be done. The next points out that IMDb already keeps an extensive list of crew members so we don't need to keep such a list (said lists are never controversial after production to begin with). The third explicitely states 'not reliable sources of information'.

The last thing just says that any link to IMDb should be in the EL section of the article.which is the accepted location for IMDb. I'm not really seeing any other mentioning that 'recommends' its usage. Everything here actually discourages its use. 01:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC) IMDB shouldn't be singled out as the only unreliable source in this MOS. I am not in favor of a new either, as it likely wouldn't be maintained as well as the FILM MOSes.

Either link to as a good guide, or simply point to. – • 09:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Agree with most previous posts here, yes IMDb is an unreliable source, and it pops up fairly frequently, especially for episode titles. Every once in a while there's someone who sticks to the 'IMDb isn't reliable?

What are you talking about?' I see no reason to single out IMDb here. Although the current wording mentions IMDb which vaguely implies that it is reliable for cast and crew members (but just not to simply re-itterate it), or just not for 'fan polls'.

This might need adjustment or simply removal of mention. () 09:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC) I think the only thing that would need rewording would be the addition of 'previously aired episodes' to the mentioning of cast and crew, because IMDb is reliable when it comes to listing the cast and crew of films/TV shows that have been released, just not for unreleased shows. Otherwise, you'd probably need to start a discussion for its removal from pages entirely.

14:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Hi, Big. It's actually not — I work as a journalist who writes about television, among other things, and frankly I'm appalled by how many things I find wrong on IMDb even on current shows for which information is readily available, much less older shows. In any case, the issue is the 'Crew' subsection, which does indeed recommend IMDb, and for neutrality's sake in addition to accuracy concerns probably shouldn't, as most of the those posting seem to agree.-- () 14:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC) It doesn't recommend using it, it states that IMDb lists the crew and so the crew does not need to be listed on Wikipedia. It's not saying use IMDb, it's not judging IMDb's reliability, it's simply stating the list of crew members can be found outside of Wikipedia. 14:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Here's how I read it: By saying something can be found on IMDb, it's saying we can use IMDb for that.

That's a recommendation. In any case, using IMDb as a reference source contradicts the guideline that we only include it as an EL. -- () 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC) My interpretation is that it says 'dont include it here because it's indiscriminate and can be found elsewhere'. Even if it was interpreted as 'you can use IMDb for that' there are other places here that says 'IMDb is not a reliable source for information'.

15:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC) It seems to be saying that 'key crew members are already listed in the infobox' because 'IMDb keeps a comprehensive list of the crew members for each television show.' That's the reason I interpret it as saying that IMDb is used to provide crew-member names in the infobox. It's the 'as such' that clinches it for me. I'm not sure at this point what the argument is in favor of keeping that IMDb mention here. Most of the other editors above seem in favor of removing it. -- () 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC) It isn't intended to be mentioned as a 'we got this from IMDB'. It's a discouragement from just listing every crew member possible because every crew member is not worth mentioning in the article.

As such, IMDB already keeps a comprehensive listing of all crew members, and so we don't need to list every possible crew member. That's all it's intended to say. It's a section whose only purpose is to dissuade editors from creating an indiscriminate listing of all the people that worked on the show. The section isn't about the infobox, but about the 'Crew' sections you find on some season pages that just reiterate a listing of crew members.

It's there to point out what I just said, that simply listing all crew members is not recommended, and if a reader needs a comprehensive list then IMDb can provide that list. That's all that section is intended to say.

Personally, I think identifying a location of where said information can be found can be helpful. It's the same reason why we say we have Wikias for overly detailed plot summaries. We're not advocating their use, just simply pointing out where that information can be found. If there is a better way to word it, then please suggest so.

I'm more than happy to discuss a better way to say the same thing. I don't think simply removing the word 'IMDB' is going to do that though.

21:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure why we simply can't say: 'Key crew members for each television show are listed in the infobox and do not need to be listed in the article. Generally, if there are any important people associated with the show they will be mentioned somewhere in the production information.' I've genuinely been trying to think of a reason why we would not use IMDb as a reference source and yet tell people they should go there for reference information. We seem to be the only ones discussing this today.

Not that I don't like your company:-) but I'm wondering if others might weigh in on the points we're bringing up. -- () 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Let them comment if they want, but I've come to the realization that I don't really care if it's in that statement or not. It's not really going to change how we operate in articles anyway, because we delete anything from IMDb basically on sight anyway.:P I think the argument was based more on a difference in how something was interpreted and not based on any actual difference in how things should operate. I'm happy with your proposed wording. 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC) It's true: We agreed on the essence, which is the more important thing. I've waited a day to see if others in the discussion had any objection, so I'll go ahead and adjust the wording as given here.

I appreciate the opportunity we had to discuss this. As you know, I have great regard for your as an editor. -- () 01:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Naming of characters. Hi I have been copy-editing an article and wondered whether the policy was different form normal MoS policy on names.

Normal MoS says to use a name in full, Fred Bloggs, and following should be 'Bloggs said', 'Bloggs was' etc In many TV articles on characters the articles use 'Fred Bloggs' and then almost all use 'Fred' throughout the articles. Anyone help me here? () 18:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC) I believe the normal MOS is geared toward real life people. In such a case, it's professional writing to refer to them by their surname.

For most fictional characters, they either do not have a surname or it was given to them later and is not common knowledge. So, it flip flops on how we use it. For instance, I would not say 'Voorhees kills camp counselor'. I would say 'Jason kills camp counselor' because Jason is not a real person and most people do not identify him as 'Mr.

On the flip side, I would say 'Ripley destroys all of the alien eggs' and not 'Ellen.' Because in this case the most commonly identified name for the character is actually her surname. So, for fictional characters we typically use the commonly known name as the identifier. That would be like 'Buffy, 'Spongebob', 'Freddy', 'Lois', 'House', 'Kirk', 'Spock', etc. It just depends on what is commonly used to identify the fictional character.

18:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Can you, or someone, write that into the TV MoS then please? It would be of great assistance in the future if needed to be referenced and to ensure copy-editors can easily understand that this is the way it is done on TV articles.

Xp Install I386 Asms. Thanks () 19:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Certainly, but not right this second. I want to make sure that my view on how we handle that matches the same view as others in the community. I mean, that is certainly how I handle it but I want to make sure I'm not sitting alone here. So, let's let others weigh in and if they agree then we can add something in the character section of this page regarding that. 19:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC) BIGNOLE and i somewhat agree:) Personally i never use just a surname but rather title and surname or given and surname as i find surname alone to be the pinnacle of bad style. Summers, Squarepants, Krueger, Laine, Gregory, James,.

Forcing use of surnames when the characters are not known as such if their surnames are even known is not really practical. Just as there are many people who don't know Mr Belvedere's given name or that Dr House has any other name. It gets even worse when the show is about a family and a majority of the characters are named Davies or Cleaver. Ted, Marshall, Barney, Robin, & Lily. Mosby, Eriksen, Stinson, Sparkles, & Aldrin.

One of these just sounds messa and wrong if you have any idea what you are reading or writing about. & ☯ 19:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC) What Bignole and Delirous said.

Mention the first+last name somewhere for context, and then name the character how he is most often called on the show. Agnee Aahatein The Splitsvilla 4 Theme Song Unplugged Mp3 Download. Though, if a character is referred to by his first and last name equally (like on Stargate SG-1), I'd prefer to read the last name. It sounds more professional and less fanboy-like that way. That may depend on the kind of show though. – • 07:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Also, be careful on what you put in the lead sentence. Just because a character has a surname does not mean that that was the original name for the character. For example, was only ever 'Faith' during her appearances on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

The surname of 'Lehane' did not come about until a role-playing game later. Though it's important to note, it's not part of her original name, nor is it her most commonly known name. So, if you got a character who was only ever known by one name for most of a series then then one episode they 'reveal' a surname or something then it's good to note but that article title and the lead sentence should reflect historical accuracy and not recent events. We don't treat characters like they've always had the characteristics they display if they have not always had them. Since they are not real, the argument of 'well it was always there they just didn't show it' isn't accurate and does not apply.

13:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC) If it is a case of one or two characters having both first and last names used freely within the fiction itself, I would consider staying as consistent with all other characters: if they all normally go by first name, then use the first name of this characters, and etc., that simply keeps all the characters in the same degree of formality. Of course, that depends on the work too. If it's a show where the characters are ranking (stargate, star trek, etc.), it is almost always that the last name is used more often. It's consistency within the article/set of articles that is important. -- () 13:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Updates to the MOS Progress on consensus. • rearrange episode list, placement of episode table ( no.

7 accepted, ) • removal of 'Series Overview' table ( denied, see ) • removal of DVD release dates in series overview table ( pending, see ) • removal of unsourced future dates in headers ( no. 6 accepted, see ) • conversion of DVD information to format ( no. 2 accepted, see ) • removal of broadcasting lists ( no.

1 accepted, see ) • removal of interlanguage links ( no. 5 accepted, see ) • cast section format ( no. 3 accepted, see ) • ratings section format ( pending, see ) • removal of excessive coloring in tables ( no. 4 accepted, see ) There is currently a discussion above (see ) regarding 'overview' tables in List of Episode pages. First, I'd like to find out where we are in that discussion.

Secondly, I'd like to have us discuss two more areas of interest. The first being the order in which a page should be layed out. Currently, season pages and some episode articles are starting to put the episode table dead last, or at least behind production info.

I think this is being done based on a chronological order concept (i.e., you make the show then you air it, then it's received, and last released on DVD). I think we need a standard style across the board because this isn't reflective everwhere. My personal stance is that episodes should come first, primarily because their entire existence (per ) is to provide context to the real world information. If they come last, or are in the middle, then they fail to provide that context.

If you're reading about how they came up with a character, or did some effects, yet you have to scroll down to find the corresponding episode just to find out exactly what happened then you're missing the point of the episode summaries providing that context. If the table came first you'd read the summaries and already have a basic idea of what happens in each episode, so when you come across that OOU info you better understand it.

TV is closely related to Film, and this order is the standard way in which film articles are written. The second area of interest is in the DVD release section. Recently in reviews, I've started noticing that the DVD release section becomes less about discussing when a DVD was released, or how much it sold, and more about detailing every minute special feature the box sets have. This strikes me more like we're a vender trying to sell something and less like we're a encyclopedia trying to educate. I could see if the information was more prose based, and we discuss the importance of certain features, but what I've seeing is merely a table that bullet lists the features and looks like the back of a box set.

What are other's opinions on this matter? 13:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Order of the episode table.

Accepted and implemented I think I basically agree on the DVD features issue. The bulleted lists and tables come out looking exactly as you describe and we don't need to list every bonus on the DVD. At the same time, I'd be a little bit concerned if we were too limiting on what features we chose to leave out.

Again, I find myself comparing it to film articles (though both projects do many things differently, there is certainly plenty of crossover). In most film articles I've seen where DVD extras are discussed, the method seems to be along the lines of: 'Bonus features on the box set includes deleted scenes, several making of featurettes (including one specific to the [insert random groundbreaking visual effect here]), and an alternate ending where some other guy died instead of the guy who died in the above plot summary. Additionally, early concept art by [misc.

Awesome effects designer] is included with notes on the development process.' Then sometimes there will be specific detail on things like deleted scenes or alternate endings if there are interviews out there discussing the changes. I don't see why the same approach wouldn't work here at WP:TV. 18:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC) The approach you're talking about is pretty much what I was referring to. I think important stuff can be stated in prose form. I don't think we need to identify every episode that has an audio commentary on it.

I think just pointing that out is enough. I think the 'Ratio scope' is irrelevant as far as the DVD is concerned.

It's probably not too different than the scope the show is filmed/aired in and that's on the main page anyway. 18:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC) A good example of a tv page that needs an overhaul in this area is the series on HBO. The whole article is littered with tables that are more visually problematic than helpful to my eye. While some of the tables there are potentially useful, I see no reason why the DVD releases can't be switched easily to prose.

01:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I agree that DVD stuff shouldn't be too detailed (it should be used for episode pages;-). — Preceding comment added by ( • ) For the DVD info, do you think we should utilize more of a prose setup, and less in the table? I'm not saying no tables at all, but maybe limit tables to basic info like release dates, number of episodes provided, etc? Then allow prose information to cover any important, if anything, special features on said discs? 21:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC) ┌ ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ┘On the DVD issue, is a great example of prose (minus the citation flags). Though I think, looking at it now, that the header name should be switched to Home media. Is also a good example of the section in table format with prose above.

Personally, I don't see how we can make a stand alone section saying everything that can be explained in a table as prose. Then again, do we really need to know that season 1 had 4 discs? By getting rid of the series overview and adding some DVD info to the lead, having the section in prose would be beneficial.

Furthermore, the featured article has a very good section, not too long, not too short. Hopefully my input help. 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC) I really dislike those silly DVD tables in the season pages.

As you said, they just list extraneous details which aren't even important to the average reader. I've been converting all DVD tables to prose in articles that I've been working on, like. I also don't understand the obsession with listing the release date in numerous countries. The region release dates are understandable, but listing dates of specific countries starts to get a bit over detailed. • 11:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC) DVD release section: I don't really have a problem with the DVD tables, but it could be just as well be presented as prose. The DVD extras are what most people buy DVD's for these day.

Suggest moving more info to the episode page. While I agree with that a lot of shows don't have episodic articles because they get deleted and that type of information is then lost instead of moved to other sections where it could be appropriate. Additionally, moving info to episode articles can degrade the quality of the main article and create dozens of mediocre articles instead of a few good ones. I don't really have a preference either way, as long as it doesn't go with mass deletion of information.

() 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I don't think the solution would be to move anything to the episode page--I've already seen multiple Family Guy episode pages that were GA status and they all regurgitated the exact same DVD and production info down the line for that particular season--I think that, there is a lot of stuff that can be cut without loss of true information. For instance, in the page I linked you could technically cut everything on the left side. We don't need to know the languages it comes in, or the Dolby sound quality, the number of episodes, or the disc count. Unless the number of episodes is different than what aired in the season (i.e.

They did not package a controversial episode for some reason), then it should be automatically assumed that all episodes are present and accounted for. The stuff on the right could be easily transitioned to prose content. What we need to ask ourselves is, 'Do we need to identify every episode with a commentary, or can we simply say there are multiple episodes with commentaries from People X, Y, and Z?'

- Can we give a brief explanation of what the featurette is about? That kind of stuff. 03:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC) In my experience, prose works better than overdetailed DVD info tables. Wikipedia is not amazon. Special Features should be summarized and unique things should still be mentioned. – • 07:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Another person agreeing about prose here.

I don't see that we need every feature listed, that information is available on shopping sites. I'd go so far as to say that a feature should be notable to be mentioned, for example the alternate endings on 24 which were used to stop leaks of the final cut, but if it's just trivia, does it need to be there at all? -- 08:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Could we say: ' Features listed about a DVD should be presented in prose format, with focus only going to unique features. Listing of every episode with a commentary track or deleted scenes is discouraged--this is typically found on every television DVD set--this type of information can be readily provided by any sales vendor. Instead, focusing on special featurettes that discuss something unique about the season would be appropriate.' -- 13:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC) IMO perfect.

– • 16:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Reception/reviews of home media. Accepted and implemented How about adding something about including reviews for the DVD/Blu-ray and it's special features/quality etc. In this section?

() 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC) In general, I don't think there would be anything wrong with it, so long as there was something with substance. I think one-liners shouldn't be used, and silly things like 'Critic X did not like the fact that there was no blooper reel' are probably irrelevant. The good stuff is probably going to come from people actually discussing the extras themselves, like commenting on how detailed or non-detailed a particular featurette is, or the fact that the commentary on the episodes was less about what went into making the episode and more about random jokes while watching the show. 19:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I didn't really think there would be anything wrong with it, but is it something we should include in the MOS?

(I think it should) As for reviews does some really in-dept reviews of the quality of sound and audio, not so much on extra's although it goes over the quality/quantity of those as well. And for example has some stuff about the lack of special features and that it was released after the second season premiered.

More in-dept reviews of special features would be nice, but not that easy to come by as most reviews are about the show itself and discuss special features as 'it's nice, or not'. () 20:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC) My thoughts exactly. I think we can add something to the MOS along the lines of, 'If reviews on special features are available, and provide more than a simple passing mention (e.g., Veronica Mars season two DVD lacks a blooper reel and deleted scenes), then it would be appropriate to add that information the Home Media section of the article.' - It can be worded however, this is just a quick example.

20:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC) That implies to only include reviews of the special features' content. Take for example were I added a review from blu-ray.com talking about video and sound quality and that the reviewer found it a bit expensive for just 12 episodes.

It doesn't go into the special features themselves, but I still think it's valuable to the reader. () 21:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC) No, no.I agree. I wasn't intended to isolate special features by themselves. Like I said, that was just a quick example of what we could include. Instead of saying 'special features' we could leave it as simply, 'reviews about the DVD (e.g., special features, sound and video quality, etc.) are available.'

- Or something like that. 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Ah, I thought your comment had a weird contradiction in it, my mistake. How about adding ' Ideally this section also includes reviews about the DVD (e.g., special features, sound and video quality, price/quality-quantity, etc.).' At the end of the section.

() 11:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC) I'm fine with that addition. 15:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Series overview table What are your thoughts on the overview tables that most articles have?

In the discussion at the top of the talk page, it largely seemed like most are fine with them being removed as they were primarily used for navigational purposes (e.g., skipping to a season section or seeing the year of production), which the table of contents takes care of since we've been implementing the production years into the section headers of each season. To me, it's always been overly redundant information, because you're just repeating what an already summarized list is saying on the same page. 21:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC) If we want to resolve the DVD issue, whether prose or table format (more on that later), we should also resolve the overview situation. This issue, in my opinion, should be resolved. Why include a table listing EXACTLY everything that is listed a few inches below? All you need to do is scroll down.

It is incredibly redundant. Suggested that whatever format is used, should be used on all episode lists. I agree with this also. My main issue, first and foremost, is with neatness. The difference between,,, and is purely neatness.

Smallville, being the 'most neat', doesn't have a series overview. X files then gets into a whole buch of '-'s, 'V' gets messed up with the table of contents and the overview, while Law and Order is honestly the only 'neat' one with the overview (but then again, there is still quite a few 'n/a's). The second problem is: isn't the overview a total redundancy with the lead and table of contents? The lead is supposed to give an overview of the whole series's episodes with the table of contents allowing you to click on different sections (whether its ratings or season 5) and give you a more elaborate explanation of what was 'over-viewed' in the lead. If an 'overview' is added, this defeats the purpose of both. The lead is basically the series overview in prose format. 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Addressing the points brought up by as well as some other ones.

Series overview: I did a quick count and this is what I found: from the 62, 25 have a series overview, from those 37 that don't have one, 22 (60%) have only one season, 4 have two seasons and 11 episode lists have more than 3 seasons without a series overview. The 'neatness' ChaosMaster talk about is entirely POV, which I disagree with and a whole bunch of editors seem to as well, looking at a large quantity of episode lists including a series overview table. And ChaosMaster16's removal of them has been objected by multiple editors across multiple articles. The series overview is in widespread use and on 40% of the featured episode lists, 63% if you don't count the single season lists. Adding a blatant 'no overview tables' on the MOS would be a definite no-no.

() 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC) What would you think of a space on this MOS that simply stated 'Overview tables are neither mandated nor restricted, and should be decided upon by the community of editors that work on the corresponding articles as to whether or not they should be used'? This way, it's addressed, but there isn't a specifc restriction one way or the other. My main concern, and this is something that has ocurred in the past, is that some editors see them and think they must be in every article and thus go ahead and start mass adding them to every article regardless of whether the people that edit those articles agree with their inclusion. There isn't agreement over whether they are necessary or not, but I don't really like it when something is simply added to other articles 'because X articles have them'. Every article is different. This is the same reason why we suggest that common sense be used when approaching the DVD information. I think that most people here at least agree that those huge boxes that seem to mirror the back of a DVD boxset are a little unnecessary and the info can be better presented in probably a more terse manner.

How it's presented might just require that same topic consensus as the series overview tables. What I'm looking for more is that for things like that, at least have this MOS detail them. 19:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I like you're thinking. Everything we can't decide on, we should still mention it and say it's neither mandated nor prohibited. That way, we'll have a spot for later mandating or prohibiting it if we want. - () 04:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Agreed.

– • 06:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Makes sense to me. I'd say they're worth keeping on some articles, especially when the number of seasons becomes unruly, but the 'every article is different' arguement is certainly one I agree with. -- 08:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Seems the most reasonable, I don't see this getting a one way solution any time soon.

() 09:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I like series overview tables; however, there really is no point if there's only one season. I support leaving it up to the editors, as every article is different.

• 10:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC) () So, we agree that it should be left up the editors working those specific pages, but the question now becomes what should be included. Personally, I don't agree with the inclusion of DVD information in these 'series overview' tables. They have nothing to do with the series itself. Does it, and I think this is fine (minus the 'Ratings/Share' info that is completely confusing. I don't think DVD/Blu-Ray info should be listed in the series overview section. It's a separate topic IMO.

13:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC) As I've already said in the other section, I don't feel that more sections such as ratings and DVD's belong on in the episode list, these should go on the main page or on the seasonal pages. Adding DVD's them to the overview is, again, wide spread use. () 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC) It's widespread, but that doesn't mean it should be that way. All that means is that one person saw another page use it that way and it eventually trickled down into 'standard'. Trivia pages did this as well. The DVD info has no place at the top of the page like that. It's not part of the 'series'.

It's ancillary merchandising. 14:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC) It means it's perfectly acceptable, and most FL who have a series overview include them, moving them into there own section at the bottom of the episode list article is even less the place for it.

And it is part of the series, in fact it is the series. I think it was correct to stop this discussion because this will just like the inclusion of the table itself go nowhere. () 14:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC) But it isn't actually 'part' of the series.

It's merchandise. You cannot have an American series (or a series broadcast in America) without Nielsen Ratings. It may be hard to find less popular shows, but they are still monitored for viewership. It's standard. Not every show is released on DVD, and know the release date of a DVD box set doesn't provide any real information other than I know I can go to my local store and buy it. Nielsen ratings at least provide info on how well a series performed.

There's no reason to 'stop' the discussion. Right now, it's just been me and you. No one else has weighed in on their opinion about what should be included in the overview table. No reason not to listen to others. 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Ratings in the series overview is the exception not the standard.

Ratings don't really provide that much info about how well the series did, it's all about context, a show with an average of 2.5 million viewers on Syfy is the greatest show ever, on Fox it would get canned after 5 minutes. Smallville has DVD's in a table, Ratings in a table on the episode list. I find that ratings should go on the main page and the DVD's can be added in an overview or also move to the main page. You basically support more even tables. I believe your main reason against the overview is it's redundancy, with DVD info this is not the case. Also the series overview is the infobox of the episode list, it summarized the page, just like the infobox, and it's next to the lead, which also summarized the page.

They do pretty mush the same thing. But I don't see you going against infoboxes. () 20:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC) There is no standard. There are there is merely the current practice. There was never consensus for inclusion or how it should look. There was merely silent following. Silence is consensus in one form, but this is why we are discussing this now.

For a formalized consensus. If you think that ratings 'don't really provide much info', then how much info does a release date for a DVD provide? It's just a date, that is far less important than the other dates in the table (i.e. Premiere and finale). Yes, Smallville has a DVD table and a Ratings table.in what I see as the appropriate place - the end of the article.

There are plenty of times when I feel that infoboxes are unnecessary as well. My issue with overview tables is that the lead summarizes the page, then you have the overview table that summarizes the page, then you have the page which is itself a summary.

How much to we have to repeat for a reader that they can simply look at an already summarized page? Regardless, I already agreed to a compromise of let the editors choose for that specific page. My concern now is that we need language for this MOS discussing that, and discussing what should be in these overview tables.

Personally, I just think it's weird to put DVD information as the first thing on the page. We're not here to sell a product, so why should the DVD release info be the first thing we read about? That's all I'm asking.

20:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I don't exactly see why we should include the overview in the first place. This is what the lead is for. If we have a table stating exactly what is stated above in prose format (Season one premiere, ending, ratings, DVDs, cancellations, exc.) there would be no reason for the lead. Plus, you scroll down, and you see more precise listings and dates, ratings, exc.

Its a total redundancy. I understand Bignole's opinion, and if worse comes to worse, I agree with an article being its own. But then, if we include just the premiere and finale, or just the ratings or DVD, whatever is decided upon, it would become more redundant than it already is.

And overview is meant to overview the series, a plot synopsis. This is meant for the main page of the article and shouldn't exceed a paragraph (or less in some smaller series') in the lead of the episodes. The lead is there to summarize the page. Thats standard on all of wikipedia's articles, and isn't something I'm making up because of arguments sake. Therefore I think we should keep the purpose of the lead on episode page to be a breif overview of the whole series with sections like ratings and DVD info that I can click on and get more elaborite information. The list shouldn't be a lead, followed by a lead in table format, followed by just episodes.

That's not the series. Smallville is the best example of what we should follow.

I can go to the episode list and get a pretty thuro understanding of the series without clicking on anything else. 02:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC) () Proposal text ' While some episode lists include a series overview table these are neither mandated nor restricted, and should be decided upon by the community of editors that work on the corresponding articles as to whether or not they should be used.' , to be added to the section. (also how about renaming this 'Episode/cast listing' as half of that section is about cast articles? () 11:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC) I agree with that. I like the addition of 'editors that work on the articles', because it accounts for editors that prefer to include them from coming in and just redoing pages where those editors elected not to use it.

That said, do you think we should also organize what these tables should look like so that there is at least consistency when they are used? 15:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Broadcasting lists.