Wikipedia

Talk:List of Covert Affairs episodes

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Episode titles

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Have the producers given a reason about why the episode titles are Led Zeppelin song titles? — Loadmaster (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be a recurring thing on this page. If someone were to find a source, would it be okay to add? I don't mind finding one, if it would clear up this whole thing. Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
It would need a source, but is still trivia. Right now, it falls under WP:OR -- just because someone has noticed the pattern doesn't mean it's intended, as much as common sense tells us it must be. To get beyond trivia, you'd need to establish why as well as what. Drmargi (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I would assume they did it because it's awesome. Also, technically episode 3 isn't, as there is no Led Zeppelin song called. South Bound Suarez. There is one called South Bound Saurez, however. The title is either a typo, or refers to the Saurez wine region of Uruguay.
@above Look at the Wikipedia Southbound Saurez. Nobody knows if it was a typo or intended.Yittria (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)YittriaReply
@Drmargi Whether it is trivia or not, it is still a fun fact, whether it was intended or not. As for the "Original Research", take a look at the Led Zeppelin website sometime. It will be illuminating. Walter's Walk (Coda), South Bound Saurez and Fool in the Rain(In Through the Out Door), No Quarter (Houses of the Holy), Communicaiton Breakdown (LZ: I), What is and What Should Never Be (LZ: 2) and When the Levee Breaks (LZ: IV). I Can't Quit You Baby is in two albums(LZ: I and Coda). There it is. Yittria (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)YittriaReply
This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of "fun facts". Looking at episode titles, then looking at song titles and saying they are the same is the definition of original research. Xeworlebi (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Same thing with the upcoming season. All episodes of season 2 (currently) are titles of R.E.M. songs. I can't seem to find a source anywhere though. You'd think there'd be something online about this. Has anyone else found anything at all? Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Use of No and #

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion

Again, we've got editors using two symbols meaning the same thing to label columns containing differing information. It's a pointless and utterly un-encyclopedic way of labeling columns. The Series #/Season # labels are not perfect, as discussed elsewhere, but at least they contain more and differing information. Using two differing symbols for the same word does nothing to help the reader discern what the two columns mean. Drmargi (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

They are misleading, unclear and do not help the reader but to confuse. I've restored it to the way it was. Stop changing this until there's consensus. Xeworlebi (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
My edit was in place when the discussion was opened, and should stay in place until YOU have consensus to remove it. Please revert your edit, per the policy you cite and refuse to abide by -- it's you pushing through an edit, not me. Similarly, please discuss HERE, not via edit summary.
Use of the SAME label to identify columns with DIFFERENT meanings is ludicrous, unencyclopedic, confusing and just plain silly. Moreover, this is an article in American English, and the No symbol is used in European English rather than American English, making it an MOS violation. If you'd be honest, this is about how it appears on your computer screen and column widths, not about how labels inform readers of the article. Drmargi (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, you should read WP:BRD, you made a change from what it was, it was rejected, then you discuss, not revert, what it is when the discussion started is irrelevant, it should be what it was until there's consensus to change it. Also, BRD is not a policy it's an essay, one might realize that if they even glance at it. It's not the same, obviously different. It has been shown over several articles that readers are more confused by the "not perfect" over-explaining headers, which are so misleading users actually take the time and effort to change them all. № is not a European symbol, it is just called the number sign in Europe (and many other places), while the U.S. calls # the number sign, but that is not relevant as it's just how certain groups name the symbol, not its meaning, making this not a MOS violation at all. And… yes and no, it inherently confuses people to the point they take (excessive) action, and yes it does look better in the process. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. We've had this same discussion elsewhere (see [1] as well as the comparable article for Royal Pains), and that was the consensus. The opposing editor indicated in an edit summary that talk on this subject wasn't needed. Clearly that's not the case. It's just mind boggling to assume that the same label on columns with different information is somehow preferable. I wouldn't let an elementary school child learning to create a table be that unclear; how can it be acceptable in an encyclopedia? Drmargi (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Expect it doesn't, also, I'm not sure you understand what consensus is, two editors saying its the same isn't. And stop calling it the same label, unless something is wrong with your computer it isn't. What doesn't make sense is making things so unclear that it doesn't make sense anymore and random editors feel so strongly that it doesn't make sense they take the time and effort to take action. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Now, that didn't make any sense. No. and # mean nothing to the normal viewer. This is an encyclopedia that should be easily understood by the average user, and not use cryptic symbols that seem to have no meaning. Grsz 11 22:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
№ and # are universal symbols, they have a meaning, they are not cryptic at all (both words, "symbol" and "cryptic", are used in a way that looks like you have no idea what they mean). The wording is redundant and actually confuses the reader. Nothing you say has shown that the "normal viewer" doesn't get it, there is however abundant proof that the "normal viewer" doesn't understand "Series #"/"Season #", even more so, you say that # doesn't mean anything to the "normal viewer", yet you use it twice yourself. Xeworlebi (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand what you don't see. If I see No. and #, I know they mean number, but how they are being used in this context is not clear. Series/Season # are not ideal, but certainly provide a bit more direction. Grsz 11 02:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand why you would want to name the columns in such a way they are maybe more precise but just plain inaccurate. Xeworlebi (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
The labels are the same; the symbols are different; if you're going to correct me, be accurate. Semantically No and # have precisely the same meaning: number. Not number of what, just number. For all I can tell, one is the number of actors playing "Angry Birds" and another is the number of actors having tacos for lunch during each episode. Without a qualifier, you don't know what those numbers represent. There is no possible way that two labels imparting precisely the same information about the content of two columns containing different information is clearer and less confusing that labels, however imperfect, containing more and more precise information about the content of the columns. Drmargi (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
No. And a label that means number is more accurate that a label naming it season number because such that would be the number of the season not the episodes. You start over-explaining things and in the process try to give the columns a more precise but ultimately more inaccurate label, which is just plain wrong. Which isn't the case when you keep it simple. Xeworlebi (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'll have a snappy retort once I can make the latest nonsense make sense. Drmargi (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I seriously doubt you'll come up with a snappy retort for once, but let me use some simple words so you to can understand your own nonsense. The columns do not contain the information as you want to label them, they do not contain season numbers, you'r claiming every episode is a different season and we're 11 seasons in, and that every episode is it's own series somehow. That's an inaccurate description of the content of the columns, № and # do not provide blatantly inaccurate descriptions. Xeworlebi (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
At this point, your anger is coming through loud and clear. Perhaps it's time for you to step away from the discussion until you can cool off and look at this with some degree of detachment. Your last couple of responses make very little sense, as another editor as noted as well; moreover, your bossiness and insults are getting us nowhere. Drmargi (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
If you don't understand the difference between the season number and the episode number then I might just need to, as clearly the rational part of your arguments has long passed. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I can't believe it took me this long to go here, but try this; # in<br/>Series, # in<br/>Season. In my opinion, clear, concise, and accurate. Still possible to go to # in<br/>Season 1, # in<br/>Season 2 if there's somehow still any confusion, but unless it's still too early where I am, I really think this addresses everybody's concerns here. KnownAlias contact 13:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd go with that. It's a touch clearer, it actually differentiates the columns rather than just telling us they're columns of numbers by using two different symbols that tell us nothing about what the numbers are, and it will fit in the existing space. We could also try Episode # in place of Season # (or # in Season). I have another idea or two, but let's talk this one around first and see what we think. Drmargi (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have taken the liberty of testing it out on List of Rizzoli & Isles episodes just to see it. It looks good to me. KnownAlias contact 01:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your problem-solving approach. Shall we see how it flies on the R&I article, the revisit the issue here and at the White Collar article? Drmargi (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Appreciated, but it was really just for the visual for the current discussion on this page, since I was already adding the season column in anticipation of the summer premiere anyway. R&I isn't exactly a high traffic area right now. If we're going to get feedback on this (without waiting until June), it also needs to be implemented on at least one page that's currently trafficked at least moderately by more than just one or two die hard fans/editors, and preferably (if possible) something that's recently experienced a similar occurrence so they're responding appropriately to the attempt. I'm up for appropriate suggestions (I'm pondering in the meantime). KnownAlias contact 13:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Actually, just added it to List of Castle episodes, too. Popular show, lots of current traffic, no separate season pages to tinker with yet, and while there are no recent incidents that I've seen, the hidden note in the column header is pretty prominent. KnownAlias contact 13:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Although I'd urge a go-slow approach to the new heading, it does make sense to put try it out in a busier article. It's stable now, but there have been some issues in the past. Could I make a suggestion? Rather than trying it on Castle, which only has four episodes to go, why not revert there and try it with In Plain Sight instead? It's due to premiere May 1 and tends to be pretty active; it's a great time to try something new. Drmargi (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Also added to List of In Plain Sight episodes. KnownAlias contact 14:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Possible source for Led Zeppelin

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's been discussed before that we can't add this information (the episode titles sharing titles with songs) unless a source for it can be found. I may have found a source for this at this website if we still want to include the information. I brought it here first because I'm not sure if it is reliable, and also because I'm not sure exactly how the information would be worded if included. It also alludes to the R.E.M. theme for season 2, though it doesn't explicitly say this. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

That link is currently broken (404). Can we not simply state a publicly observable fact without violating WP:OR? --99.120.130.167 (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Wishful Beginnings" (39/12)-- accuracy vs. length

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The first sentence "Back from Russia, Annie is debriefed and then given an award." in inaccurate: she barely began debriefing when she was whisked back to Langley; and, although it was discussed early in the show, the award was not actually presented until almost the end. Unfortunately, I can't find an alternative wording that I don't think is too long. -- 99.120.130.167 (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Episode summary

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I suggest that - as for most other TV series - the episode summaries are moved to a separate page. The seasons with episodes will be clean to read with all other information. And then those who would like to know more about the episode can go to this page. Vuono (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The only problem with that is creating notable season articles which include more than just episode and cast lists. For example, The Simpsons (season 8). — Wyliepedia 08:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Episode title source

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Here we go again. IP and newly registered users are adding the statement that the episodes will all be named for songs by a band called Pavement to the Season 5 summary without a source. Thus far, we know six of sixteen titles known, and while they match Pavement songs, we do not know a) that the remainder of unannounced titles (including some for episodes as yet unwritten) will and b) that this was the writers' intent. That leaves no option, per WP:OR and probably several other things (including WP:DONTJUMPTOCONCLUSIONS if there were such a thing.) We must have a reliable source verifying that this is the writers' intention for the whole season (see summaries for S1 - S4.) --Drmargi (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • While I agree that we should wait to add it until we have a citation, it's pretty obvious when looking at the announced episode titles so far that the episodes are named after Pavement songs and that the trend will continue (given past seasons). For what it's worth, Matt Corman (one of the creators of the show) did retweet Michael Oates Palmer (a writer for Crossbones (TV series) when he commented on the season's episodes being titled after Pavement songs. Not enough to constitute a citation, but still a pretty safe bet that the trend isn't suddenly changing. --V2Blast (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ten episodes out of sixteen isn't enough to convince you that the episode titles are all taken from Pavement songs??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.119.125 (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

...To add to what I said in my previous reply to Drmargi: the citation for seasons 3 and 4 already states:

Here's an explanation from executive producers Matt Corman and Chris Ord: "Each season we pick a band we love, and name the episodes after their song titles. We try to pick song titles that fit the themes of the episodes, but sometimes they're just songs we love!" (According to the show, Season 1 was Led Zeppelin, Season 2 was R.E.M., Season 3 was Bowie, and it looks like Season 4 will be the Pixies.)

So point (b) was addressed before Drmargi even questioned it (it is intentional). And while it's possible that they'll suddenly completely change course in terms of their naming scheme, it's highly unlikely. That said, here are two sources for the Pavement claim: [2] and [3] (this one's in Greek). I leave it to the rest of the editors to judge whether they're sufficiently reliable. Also, we now know the titles of the rest of the episodes in season 5, so I think it's safe to say they're all named after Pavement songs. --V2Blast (talk) 17:27, November 8, 2014‎

And neither source is reliable. This is the English Wikipedia, which requires English-language sources, so there goes the Greek one. The first source is a tumblr post by someone speculating every bit as much as you are. Find a reliable English-language source and you're good to go. Drmargi (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
You really should check policy before quoting it at other people. From WP:NONENG: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." --V2Blast (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The series has a history of episodes titled after songs from one artist/band per season. With all sixteen episode titles for Season Five known now and all of them matching songs by Pavement, it's save to say that the episodes are in fact titled after Pavement songs, even without a proper statement from any of the series creators. I mean, how many bands/artists are there that have sixteen songs with these titles in their repertoire? --Mariella's boyfriend (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The titles for all sixteen episodes have been revealed. Can we finally say that they're all Pavement songs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.212.85 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2014

...Someone should just tweet Matt Corman or the writers and ask him to confirm that they're all Pavement songs so we can put this pointless argument to bed. --V2Blast (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Potential for edit warring over Season 5 episode title/Pavement song title issue?

edit

It is apparent that all of the Covert Affairs Season 5 episode titles are also titles of songs by the rock band Pavement. However, it is clear that Drmargi does not want that fact inserted into the article all because the fact lacks a reliable English-language source anywhere in the Internet. Also, Drmargi even inserted some hidden text in the "Season 5" section of the article.

Personally, I thought that it would be safe to add that fact once season 5 of Covert Affairs had finished airing (which was on Thursday, December 18), source or no source. I also think it would be difficult to even try to find a source for that fact anywhere.

This is a case of somebody wanting to add an apparent or true fact to an article, only for it to be reverted a short while later all because it lacks a reliable source. That would be a really easy way for users to get themselves into an edit war, and those users could get themselves suspended over arguments like this. Jim856796 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of Covert Affairs episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Covert Affairs episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Covert_Affairs_episodes&oldid=1203634679"