Wikipedia

Talk:List of Justice League episodes/Archive1

< Talk:List of Justice League episodes
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Gillespee in topic Images on Page


Realistic expansion idea

...now that the pictures are done. Check out the revision I made to the Destroy series finale episode:

The Justice League reluctantly teams up with the Legion of Doom in anticipation of an omega-level threat. Darkseid at long last launches a full-scale invasion of Earth and while the combined League and Legion battle parademons across the planet. Meanwhile, Superman, Batman and Lex Luthor take on Darkseid atop the Daily Planet building. This episode was the finale to both the Justice League and Justice League Unlimited television series. It can be seen as a finale to the previous Dini/Timm animated Superman series as well, much as the previous season's JLU episode "Epilogue" can be seen as a finale to the stories of both the previous animated Batman and Batman: Beyond series. In the Epilogue Batman episode from Season 2, the basic final fate of both major Batman DCAU characters is explored, while here (and indirectly in the previous episode, "Alive") we see the possibly final fates of Superman's three major antagonists over the years and various series: Brainiac, Luthor, and Darkseid.

What do you guys think of something like that, kept *within* the confines of the table format on this page? A touch of the plot, a touch of the significance (if any) of the episode, perhaps a quick note on the larger role in the overall DCAU continuity? That basic seed (if some desire) can then be expanded out--on a seperate page--just as the episode Epilogue was done up over time. Limit each entry to about 200 odd words? rootology 23:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is all just a big maybe, I should add. I'd prefer to see everything in a slightly expanded summary on the one main page. Looks better, makes for easier reading, and less redundant pages. rootology 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

question

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Was there some kind of consensus that I missed to moving all the episodes from both series to a seperate thread? Seems really clunky and not easily accessed to me. The JL summaries are of varying lengths as well while the JLU summaries are a tight 2 sentences. Why exactly was this done?--Gillespee 18:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want to move it back, do it. I'm not going to stop you moving it back, but that's not to say I won't move it back here. The point was to get the episodes to be more equal in length and summary. KramarDanIkabu (speak) 19:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd rather come to a consensus rather than have an edit duel. Getting the summary lengths similar is a great idea, I'll help. But, I think that they'd work better back in their respective threads. Any other opinions?--Gillespee 06:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Expanding

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Episodes info in other series articles expanded and became articles on their own. Buffy and angel examples show that it doesnt' even have to be a terrific show to deserve articles per episode. So, how are we going to tho this?

Also since there are better episodes, than others, information shouldn't be necesarely even. I mean there are pivital episodes like Panic in the Sky that you need several lines to explain and minor adventures like Comfort and Joy. Info is not flowing naturally this way. There is no wikipedia policies excluding deatails, wp policies rather propose organizing and moving those into more appropiate places (Wikipedia:The perfect article, Wikipedia:Summary style or Wikipedia:Article size). I've heard Dr Who episodes are good examples on how to do this. I mean, several pages all over the internet have the same info, probably from [The world's finnest] or related sources, what good does another one does. --T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 04:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure how to say this, but I think you're wrong. Are there articles on Buffy and Angel episodes? Yes. Should they be there? In my opinion, no. I don't think episodes of a TV shows should have pages about them on an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not your personal Justice League fansite (nor is it mine.) We're writing an encyclopedia. Would Britannica ever have an article on Panic in the Sky? No.

I know that likely rubs you (and some other people out there) the wrong way, but just because you can go on and on and on about JL doesn't mean you should on Wikipedia. Of course, that's my opinion. Obviously, there are other opinions out there (refer to the Buffy pages for examples.) I'm not saying there's a policy against it, I'm just saying I think it's too much. I think the kind of article we have right now is perfect for an encyclopedia. Short episode summaries that help the reader understand what happened in the show. If they want more in depth information, why not, I dunno, watch the show?--Gillespee 05:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Would Britannica ever have an article on Panic in the Sky? No." Heh. Without commenting on the issue at hand, I must say that you've picked about the worst way to illustrate your argument there. Wikipedia:Unusual articles.
The reason we can have articles like this is that wiki is not paper. An argument like "would a traditional encyclopedia have this" does not work. You need to explain why a traditional encyclopedia would not have it, and why we shouldn't either, ignoring space constraints.
That's without commenting on the issue at hand, which I'll do now, since I happen to agree with you. Short summaries are perfect. Complete articles on episodes tend to become unreadable fancruft, actually doing our readers a disservice by their overkill of raw data. This is a very personal stylistic judgement, though, and others will disagree. 82.92.119.11 00:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, (despite your well made points) I think the argument does bear merit. A better way of putting it would be, "If Britannica had no limit on the knowledge they could store or distribute, would they create an article for an episode of a TV show?" In a word, no. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think an episode of any TV show merits an article all it's own. Again, my opinion only (but I am a guy who REALLY likes TV.)--Gillespee 05:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
why can South Park have articles for each individual episode but not JL/JLU? --This guy User:128.54.160.176
It's not a matter of Wikipedia policy or that it "can't" happen, I don't think it should. I think the episode summaries we have are at the perfect encyclopedic level. Likewise, I don't think South Park, Buffy, or Angel episodes should (those are outside my area of expertise though.) It's simply fancruft.--Gillespee 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, articles should be made as expansive as possible, even including individual articles for episodes--This guy User:128.54.160.176

Yep, remember, Brittanica doesn't have a n article about body parts slang either. This has been done with several series, the better example is Dr. Who, remember that it is wikipedia policy Perfect Article to aloud pages about details. So this probably isn't ever a matter of discussion, it's just how wikipedia works. Ask the older administrators. I believe that, in theory, all human knoledge about every single detail will be here sooner or later. We let every editor to expand whatever article he wants to, correct it if necesary and when it doesn't fit we move it to its own page leaving a link here. Actually Wikipedia:Unusual articles points that those articles ARE aloud. Odd, but aloud. I'll be defending good info-expanding contributions here(not just expanding contributions, of course). If it makes the section a stub I'll add a tag to it--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 05:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

An article per episode? NOOOOOOOOO! Wikipedia specifies that it is not meant to be an all-encompassing macropedia. If you want to elaborate on specific episodes, go somewhere like TV.com and elaborate in its episode guide for a show.Wryspy 06:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A great place to expand on individual episodes would be here. 24.131.234.73 04:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There were appearances of a future Justice League in the animated series Batman Beyond as well as mention of Justice League era tie-in's to the new bat's origin. Would at least a link here be productive?

I see T-man has been back from his ban, and working on season two tables. This is good, however, I have redirected the separate episode wikis he tried to create using identical information as found in this page. There simply isn't enough to say about these cartoons that merits a separate wiki. Ther argument that "other shows do it" doesn't fly... let's use some common sense. If and when this page gets too packed with information about separate episodes, THEN we can think about a consensus to split. That's how new subwikis form here, not just because in CAN be done. Thanks, Dyslexic agnostic 15:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Subarticles per episode

Latest comment: 18 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

Every episode of most series has its own article, we should follow that format. I've already created the articles entry, for starters we need to move the paragraphs written here leaving only a line if necesary and the n expand every article as much as necesary. There is no controversy about this, it is a very common practice. Check out Wikipedia:Summary style. --T-man, the wise 23:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

disagree.--Chris Griswold 20:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you? the ruler of wikipedia? check almost any cult tv series. Including Batman: TAS. You only want to make thing personal against me.--T-man, the wise 00:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Cut the drama, please. I simply disagree with you. --Chris Griswold 04:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, he has a point on this one. It is pretty common for episodic television series to have an article per episode. If he wants to take the time to write each one up, I say let him. That doesn't mean that he should expect others to do the work for him. CovenantD 04:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. I disagree with its necessity. I won't oppose his doing this, but looking at the talk page above, where he brought this up a month ago, it appears that others disagree, and I thought it might be helpful to have a consensus. Maybe I am being to cautious on this one. I guess the best thing to do is for T-Man to make his articles, and we can take a look at them then. Thanks for the input, CovenantD. --Chris Griswold 04:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't really have strong opinions on this either way but in reading all the commentary so far, it seems to me the primary rationale for making entries on each episode is because other TV series (i.e. South Park, Buffy) are done that way. Is there another rationale? If there's specific information that is deemed to be missing (like guest voice actors or something) I could see the necessity. I guess I'm just saying that it seems like a lot of work to create dozens of entries for consistency sake. I shudder to think of all the television shows throughout history we'd have to create entries for just because it was done with other shows. Just my two cents.----SilentJustice 02:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SilentJustice and don't think subarticles are necessary here. I think it is much more useful to the reader to have all the information in this page. There isn't enough content to necessitate a summary style article. -- Jeff3000 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. With other episodic shows the content may warrant subpages (rarely). Clearly here it is far more useful to have the information together. Dyslexic agnostic 15:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Howcome my work got rv, after 2 users already approved the entries I made. With me, it makes 3 giving me chance. Turning redirects to articles is hardwork. Who counted votes or what? Is this harassment? If this is WP policy why don't you go redirect all the Batman: The animated Series episodes. They all have entries. They are very simalar series with symilar #of episodes, ratings, quality and even staff and creators. WP alouds this kind of pages. WP doesn't actually have much content restrictions. There is actually a list of ridiculous articles they don't erase or merge, and to me they do that as a statement. To me the WP concept is knoledge about everything as long as its not propaganda, or self promotion (even though you can do it in your userpage). It's free knoledge, you wonder what's whatever about, you go to WP. You wonder what is a JLU episode about, you come here. That's the beauty of this, don't take it away.

If somebody can get aid of an administrator to undo the redirects (I'm not taking that big-ass dutty), I'd be great. If not, I think I'll elaborate episode per episode and encourage others to help me. Although I find that crating entries make articles roll, so I insist on the administrator thing.--T-man, the wise 04:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because another user approves your work doesn't mean that you've reached some sort of magical plateau on which it's untouchable. At wikipedia, we strive for consensus. In this case, we don't have it (and if you want to go with just counting support, it seems more people opposed your suggestion than supported). No one is saying it's wiki policy, they're just saying they don't think it's necessary. And I agree. Wikipedia should be a source of knowledge, but that doesn't mean we should turn it into a TV Guide either. 67.160.61.148 18:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Bah, wasn't logged in.

No ofense, but then, what the hell are you doing here? I always wonder howcome the editors that insist the most in some pages are the ones erasing thins. What, they are making sure every reader know as little about the issue as possible. And they always say to discuss it before, the discussion turned in my favor, and out of the blue, somebody does radycal unproductive work and you say it is ok? what the deal with you, I don't get you and your made up wikipedia policies? There are already episode guides, get over it, why don't you go and try to erase those ones, tough guy who doesn't even have a signature.--T-man, the wise 17:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm not a freak, I'll not fix the redirects in a row, I'll expand episode per episode in a random importance order. Eventually, editors are goint to create separete articles because a list is more practical. I'll do rv twice a day if necesary, to unproductive erasings or rv's. Want to keep the page short, then create the sub-articles. Foot down.--T-man, the wise 17:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again let me offer my 2 cents and begin by pointing out that I am relatively new to Wikipedia, not well versed in all it's guidelines and such. I don't have any problem with individual pages for individual episodes. I'm not sure the need and here's my rationale. I've measured pages in the only simple way I can think of which is how many times I need to click the "Page Down" button in order to see the entire thing. This article is currently 20 clicks. The Batman article is currently 43 clicks. So my confusion is based on why we can't just expand the articles on this page; if 43 clicks are allowable then we seem to have twice the room. If, however, articles of this length are indeed difficult to manage and edit and it is better to create 65 subarticles, then I say let T-Man go ahead and do it. I guess much of it depends on how much detail we're really going to put in these articles. I love these shows but, let's face it, the plots really aren't that complex. Just my viewpoints!--SilentJustice 19:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, it seriously appears that consensus is against this. T-Man, you really need to back down on this. You might think that you can continuously revert others' changes to suit your individual tastes, but thaa's not how Wikipedia works, and since it's you against a number of people opposed (and more will join once they see you doing this), your edits will most likely end up being reverted every time you make them. That or you probably will be banned. --Chris Griswold 20:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't get behind you creating all these articles when you edit something like:

"Lex Luthor manipulates a powerful android, A.M.A.Z.O., who can copy any superpower, against the Justice League."

into:

Lex Luthor manipulates a powerful android created by a late professor Ivo. The robot, later known as A.M.A.Z.O., had the ability to copy any superpower collect all and had a great intelect, but the knoledge of a children. Posing as a father figure to, Lex used and convinced him to fight against the Justice League. Luthow was still in control of Lexcorp through Mercy Graves, who was questioning her loyaty towards him at the time.

You took a simple sentence that sums up the majority of the episode and made it into four sentences with unnecessary detail and fractured English. I'm really trying not to be too hard on you, but if this is what I have to look forward to, I'm not interested. Let the TV nerds who want this information go to an applicable site like TV.com --Chris Griswold 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ok. From now on, I'll post the changes in your user page and you can fix any error. I'll also stop forgeting copy pasting in Word to check spelling and as much grammar as the program can spot. I used to do that always and I became lazy as I started getting nailed almost all spelling, I guess now I'm where I started again :P. Sorry, I'm so ashamed. This shouldn't have happened. In my defense I've achieved that kind of changes in the past in some pages. But always with supervision of somebody like you--T-man, the wise 05:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You handled that incredibly well. --Chris Griswold 08:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have lots of respect for a guy with a sense of humor taking things easy. --T-man, the wise 04:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Foot down

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Ok, in order to shot the hell up those people with the very respectable but wrong POV that there should not be an article per episode, I did a little research.

Relevant examples of articles about episodes

Even this gayass crap has articles per episodes (not that there is anything worng with being gay at all, it's just my very uneducated way of speaking, gayass is ok, the crap part is what makes these suck, of course if you happen to be straight there is a hihg probability of finding geyass things a little not so awesome, hehe...I should shot up...)

It's a shame how close minded people get so posesive about some pages not letting those take their natural course and evolve into better articles.--T-man, the wise 04:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Even this lame crap has articles per episodes

It's a shame how close minded people get so posesive about some pages not letting those take their natural course and evolve into better articles.--T-man, the wise 04:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough of the "gayass" insults. Apologize and/or remove that paragraph or I will take it directly to Shanel. CovenantD 05:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


C'mon, I'm pro-gayass, I even watch Will & Grace every day.--T-man, the wise 05:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough of the "gayass" insults. Apologize and/or remove that paragraph or I will take it directly to Shanel. CovenantD 05:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"It's a shame how close minded people get" This after the gayass comment is pretty ironic to me.--Gillespee 05:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because you have no sense of humor. I'm goofying around--T-man, the wise 05:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ConevantD, I apologize for you not getting what I said at all. Since I revealed apreciation for gay culture within my comment I supposed nobody could get it the way you did. Your culture is full of opened and publicly broadcasted gay jokes of the same sort. The gayness lameness asociation came mainly because of the stereotyped idea that gay people like broadway, Cher, Christina Aguilera, Mariah Carey, Bette Middler (I actually like this last one), Madona, the series Charmed and this kind of not so manly (cliche-manly) icons. While some are very accesible to straight people, other icons of the kind just seem lame.

So I'm sorry you thought I was manifesting homophobia, I thought it was obvious that it was a joke. However, the point was that now that I've proved any kind of series, even mediocre series can have articles per episode, there is nothing to do for you against it. Even if you reach concensus, such prohibition would be against wikipedia practices. It'd be like tyrany, creating your own unilateral law within an article ignoring wikipedia policies.--T-man, the wise 13:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Your "apology" is just as lame as the comments that got you blocked, and just as insulting (whether you see it or not). You also misrepresent my position on the "article per episode" issue; if you look back at the discussion on this talk page, you'll see that I agreed with you. So get over your persection issues and start working with people instead of against them and maybe, just maybe, you'll stop being blocked for disruptive behavior. CovenantD 15:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh sorry about your misreading your position. However you also misreaded me if you think, my comments were hate speech. And yes the apology was as lame as the comments. I was joking, but I suck at it, heheh. I'm a frustrated comedian :P--T-man, the wise 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I see nothing funny with homophobia, intolerance or prejudice. Dyslexic agnostic 08:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Onece again, bull aside

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Ok, in order to shot the hell up those people with the very respectable but wrong POV that there should not be an article per episode, I did a little research.

Relevant examples of articles about episodes

Even this crap has articles per episodes

So I already started following that format. So far I've got season 2 info already in the table. I'll do 3, 4 and 5 later. I need the same help I got with the credits and the images on the season 1 table. I'm also reducing the info here since to reach other symilar series standards I'm creating the articles per episode and therefore we dont need more thatn 2 or 3 lines in this page.--T-man, the wise 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If the episode's are to have their own articles, then pics here are not needed and would in fact be redundant. CovenantD 16:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep making stuff up. You're inventing policies. Check the links, learn a little how it works, then talk. --T-man, the wise 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC). I guess every example has the pics to make the episodes more recognizable. Wikipedia encourages a lot the use of images. Stop qualifying me and work a little on the article all I ever see you do is critizise me, but never contributing.--T-man, the wise 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep making stuff up? I never said it was a policy. I did check the links and some of them have pics, some don't. The ones that do look like crap - too small, too dark, repetitive, show DVD covers, whatever. Granted these are much better than any of those, but this should be a list, not an anamated cell gallery. Move the pics to the individual articles. CovenantD 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I tend not to make major contributions to a page where they're likely to get reverted because they don't fit somebody else's vision. I seek consensus first. CovenantD 17:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't said you call it policies, but you treated your opinions as such. Concensus don't get results, mainly because if you only propose something in the talk page, nobody can see it, because it's only in your head. If there are perfect equivalent pages doing the same, there is no need for concensus. Since there is no ownership of the article, it should be shaped as the other wikipedia articles are. I consensus often lead to create invalid rules preventing the article to improve towards wikipedia standars. that's my opinion. But nevermind my opinion, listen to wikipedia: BE BOLD. There is a reason they don't encourage "reach concensus" that much, as you do. Because they don't want a bunch of people complaining about stuff they didn't create or contributed to in the first place. Your personal "reach for concensus first" policy isn't ideal for WP--T-man, the wise 18:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking it to your talk page, since this has nothing to do with the article. CovenantD 19:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait, what? I thought that the AFD and DRV process was all about consensus (and making arguments based on other wikipolicies). Regardless, you can't get upset that your edits don't stick when other people don't agree that they were necessary or important. In this case, what are we going to get? A slight expansion of an already succinct, accurate summary that only serves to add unnecessary info, leaving each article as what basically amounts to a stub, if that? I don't think we need that, nor does the "other pages do it" argument fly. Just because other pages do it isn't a valid reason to do it again. Rather, that's reason to seek improvement on those pages, if they are out of line. Darquis 06:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's not about our opinion, it's about the fact that it's a very common practice that you're forbidding (the consensus is still tied 3 to 3 votes, not justifying such unilateral redirections, anyway). Even if consensus reach to that decision, it be authoritarian, unfair, and corrupt. The consensus would be an oligarchy within a wikipedia article, since I’d be forbidding stuff you can do in several other similar articles of more and less relative importance, therefore creating incoherence. Relevant examples of articles about episodes:

Finest example: * List of Doctor Who episodes

Adult animated series (very developed)


Categories, what else do you need?

Category:Lists of television series episodes Category:Lists of animated television series episodes

Always remember, never state what wikipedia can or can't do if you didn't check first. Believing the template to follow is the Britannica encyclopedia is a very common assumption. This is bigger, this covers al the minor info and details a printed encyclopedia can’t. TV.com it’s synopsis+reviews, wikipedia is only synopsis yet. But think bigger, I wouldn’t be surprised if in 6 wears each synopsis include the entire script or links to the respective “wikiscript” (‘ making it up, o’course). --T-man, the wise 00:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Two points, my young friend:
    • Just because it has been done, doesn't mean it should. A lot of people eat Big Macs regularly. A lot of people in the Mayan Riviera own armadillos. That doesn't mean it is right.
    • In this case, you have nothing more to say about each episode than one or two sentences. What do you plan to do, insert the scripts? These are 20 minute cartoons! What is there to say that you can't say on the list of episodes page? Why not develop the summary there FIRST, and if others agree with you that the write-up is too long, THEN it can move. But not when you have nothing else to prove other than you can create endless wikis. Why not a page for each issue of Action Comics since 1939? C'mon, let's read up on Action Comics issue 378 for the plot and character development!

Dyslexic agnostic 05:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified, has not reached consensus, never will because it'd be incoherent with significant pages. Check categories below, it's a massive very common practice, as stubs are. Anyone disagreeng should try to erase all the articles in the links I put above to avoid crating incoherence. --T-man, the wise 06:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Redirects are hard to rv, so here is a lis to links to their hystory pages where you can just revert the undesireble edit.

Thank you, T-Man, you are right. It is much easier to reinsert the reverts using the above links rather than cutting and pasting. Dyslexic agnostic 05:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

He also needs to read up on consensus and find out that there is no such thing as a 3 to 3 consensus. When it's split like that, there is no consensus. CovenantD 05:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We're actually on the same page, ConevantD. While I say no coscensus is needed for this (if so, following this line of thinking, my stalker and people agreeing with no pages per eisode must go to all the pages I listed above and redirect and erase all those pages per episode to make coherence), 3 to 3 means no consensus, therefore no deletion or redirect is justified. For such radical act there should be a clear consensus against pages per episode.
I do apologize for what I told you before, I was to harsh. Then again, implying that I do not understand a concept as simple as consensus, is ofensive. You often do this. As often as you tend to talk like if you were stating WP policies when it's just your opinion. To be fear, we all do that at some point, it's a common mistake. I, for instance, always try provide some links (althoug I often forget it). But to asume the others have not readed it it's kind of arrogant. I apologize again if I've done it in the past, like you just did.--T-man, the wise 06:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You're looking at it the wrong way - there is no consensus to create individual articles. CovenantD 07:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Who are the other 3? --Chris Griswold 07:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

When has ever been needed consensus to create articles? I told you before CovenantD, quit making up WP rules.--T-man, the wise 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

He's not saying you have to have it to create an article period, but rather that there is none to expand this article into 60-70 individual articles. Darquis 02:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
As there is precedent from other shows for this, would it be so bad if he took the time to write a page or whatever on each episode, and provide an additional link from each "short summary" on this main back *back* to the expanded article? If someone wants to take the time to do write ups on all 50-60 episodes... why is it a bad thing? rootology 20:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Because he creates stubs and expects others to fill them out. He may say otherwise, but the text you see here is basically what the individual articles were. CovenantD 21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, well that's not good/advisable then. If they were full/proper write ups it would be different. I'd been reading this page for a while but never really piped up. If the individual episode descriptions could legitimately be fleshed out to warrant seperate articles it'd be one thing, but individual JL/JLU episodes are a bit lighter than other shows in plot (relatively). I could see a seperate page for each season being warranted, perhaps. At most. rootology 22:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty much in the guidelines that I saw somewhere - do the entire series first, if that gets too large then split it into seasons, if those get too large then split into episodes. The first part hasn't been finished yet. CovenantD 15:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a good guideline. --Chris Griswold 15:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds pretty good to me as well. There seems to be less to these episodes than even any given episode of the Simpsons or South Park (the two notable half hour shows that get pages per ep) just because they try to pack so much into those shows. That's not even getting into Buffy, Angel, etc. which are hour long (and therefore have more material to cover) Darquis 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
No, the whole list you can use as repertoire is posted above. And yes, it is posible to expand JLU episodes asmuch as the Simpsons of so, since there are comic book, characters and continuitiy references, puting trivia aside (it's also common to find trivia sections in most of the examples)
Thats fine but concensus based on this talk page was to not go to full expansion *yet*. I posted above, a reasonable idea for expansion. No one had commented on it, and I actually expanded the last episode description as an example, for "DESTROYER". Which you actually just undid. Why was it undone? My expanded example (which was accurate) had been there for over a week. Please also sign your posts/edits. rootology 05:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, no, your work was used to complete the Destroyer article. No need to repeat the info.;) Actually if you can expand other episodes you like in the same fashion, it'd be great, and such edits would be backed by the example I posted above and the wikiproject at the top of the page. I'll complete and turn the pivotal ones into articles I mentioned below--T-man, the wise 05:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Images on Page

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Only four more images needed to complete the image boxes. Any takers? Artemisboy 21:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And deny you the chance to finish what you've put so much work into? Heaven forbid! ;-) I've been watching your progress - nice job. CovenantD 22:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Aw, you're sweet. *blush* But seriously, I don't have images for those episodes. If anyone has any, please feel free to contribute. Artemisboy 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
And... done! I changed a few of them to punch up the flow and feel of the page as well (sorry, we couldn't *NOT* use Flash whomping Brainiac, or Luthor crapping his pants in ALIVE), and added shots and a table for the Static Shock ones. What do you guys think? rootology 07:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh and it took absurd Googling to find some of these... sheesh. rootology 07:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • rr1 rv Murdoch vandal -- YES they are the right ones, please take it to take page if you disagree on a given image.)
to Rootology: VANDAL?? It would be smarter of you to investigate instead of speculating! If you went through the trouble of clicking on some of the images you would have noticed that some tell you which episodes they were taken from! Like this and this. Can you read?
As for the others, this one is from season TWO episode "The Terror Beyond, part 1," this one is from JLU episode "Clash" when Metamorpho is fighting the Parasite and this one if from season TWO "Twilight." Now that you've embarrassed yourself why don't you make yourself useful and go look for screencaps that don't have Fair Use rationale and source... like ALL the pictures on the list... and added it to them???
If possible, this page should be locked so that only selected few are able to make changes to prevent any 10 year old with a computer and a Napoleonic complex to screw up other people's work and dubbing it as vandalism. --Murdoch 17:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Holy freak, calm down.--Gillespee 06:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Individual episode articles

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Thanks for finishing with the images. Although stubs are ok with wikipedia. I'll create episode pages one by one starting with the pivotal episodes, then the ones that has already too much info in this page and then at random... Even though there is no precedent of a rule against stubs, from my experience, this method could make the formating easy.

Here is the guideline, I'll do my best with spelling and sourcing, but some editing over my edits could be needed. The new slowness of this project can help all of you with time to paciently change whatever you don't like of my work.

--T-man, the wise 01:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to review the discussion above, specifically where it says

That's pretty much in the guidelines that I saw somewhere - do the entire series first, if that gets too large then split it into seasons, if those get too large then split into episodes.

- CovenantD 02:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to explore more WP articles specifically the ones recomended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes

You mean this? Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes#Creating_articles_on_television_episodes CovenantD 04:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to explore more WP articles specifically the ones recomended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes, I'll expand it slowly and starting by the important ones to please your capricious and not backed by WP opinions. Your link states the most porper way to expand articles like this not that articles per episode can't be created.


Starcrossed, FTMWHE, The once and the Future thing, Secret Origins, Savage Time, Destroyer, Initiation, Injustice for All, I am Legion and from Question Authority to Divided We Fall are all pivotal episodes. For now I'll do those one by one completing the list.


The problem was that some people got overprotective with the list preventing it from expanding naturally and then create the episodes as you are sugesting right now.--T-man, the wise 04:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your link doesn't really back you, since it was never my plan to leave the articles as stubs.--T-man, the wise 05:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I have to point out the guide that says create an article on the show first, if it grows too large then split into seasons, if they grow too large then split into individual episodes? What part of individual episodes should be the last step don't you understand? What other guidelines and policies do you think supercede that? CovenantD 13:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
How is it that T-Man wants to quote non-specific Wikipedia to other people but refuses to respond to clear Wikipedia policies/guidelines that apply to what he is doing? Why are his bans so short when he causes more headaches for editors than most other vandals? Because he has good intentions? --Chris Griswold 20:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You just find that guide and you're using it as a pretext. I know what that guide Recomends (not order), within a context of alouding articles per episode. If an episode grows too big here, then it becomes an article. I'm just doing 2 things at the time. And so that you know, before you, some people use to caim they had the right to keep the episode info short.

WP policies backing me are clear, just check the tag at the top of the page, yo'll find several oficial wikiprojects backing the kind of work I'm trying to do.

If you carefully check why most people are ban, you'll see almost every other baned user had stronger reasons like vandalism or being sockpuppets.

Please, CovenantD, cut the crap. Propose a plan you like, do more editing and I'll meet you at a reasonable middlepoint.

--T-man, the wise 23:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the policy you plan to follow, if you really, care for it, the correct thing would have been copy-pasting the Destroyer info here. Now I'd think you're just being a bully.

Now if you really care for this page, there are many ways you can contribute. For example, I've been filling the production details, as I created the last two new articles. That, if you really care for this page, do it before I do. You can find the missing info here: world finest --T-man, the wise 23:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So be it, I'll expand the info here first, but remember, Covenant, so far, I'm the one resposnsible for all the improvements made on this page introducing formats I copied from the wikiproject above, and the best symilar articles. Righ now, so far the only thing you have don is being an A**** (put whatever word you like better there), for a lost cause. Think furture, sooner or later this page will be made symilar to all the ones I posted, not because of me, but because that's the standart.--T-man, the wise 02:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC) 

Once again, here are several examples of what you can't prevent this page to look like in the future:

Finest example: * List of Doctor Who episodes

Adult animated series (very developed)


Category:Lists of television series episodes Category:Lists of animated television series episodes Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes

Categories, wikiprojects what else do you need? Check carefully ALL the examples, think your answer, check again, think long term, then answer, because the concensus backing me is in all those pages that are strictly equivalent to this little one you think you own--T-man, the wise 02:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the consensus is against you. The people who edited those articles are not editing this article; the people who are do not agree with you. You want to spout off about how editors should share, but you're not. Why can't you just add all the information you want to add to the current page as CovenantD suggests, and then when it gets too big, split it into seasons? You will still get your way, and we will get ours.
I'm offering you a compromise. Please be reasonable and take it. --Chris Griswold 06:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this page some how, is different from all the other sharing the same format. I actually created the separeted articles because previous editors refused to expand it here, because they were also ignoring the list of lists of pisodes above. The guy that redirected the articles is a vandal who has chased, vandalized my page (erasing it all, moving it to T-man the stupid, etc.) and insulted me and you changed your mind because of his edits. Fine whatever, we will follow the now two-men-and-a-stalker-concensus. After all the unavoidable pages per episode will be sooner or later re-opened. And you will have contributed to nothing useful. What have you done anyways?--T-man, the wise 06:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Recruitment

Latest comment: 18 years ago44 comments11 people in discussion

T-man is now going to other TV articles and trying to lure editors to this article. I'm not sure if it woulod be considered vote stacking because there's not vote currently, but I thought the other editors here should know that this is happening. --Chris Griswold 06:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That's very close, but I'd say probably not. Just not very classy. You can just take the the discussion here. You changed your possition Argumentum ad hominem that's doesn't speak good of you either. Here is a little something to help you make your mind about your recent strategy.

In the matter of Cool Cat (talk • contribs) (aka User:Coolcat) — a case decided on October 5, 2005 — the ArbCom voted that wikistalking was unacceptable in the following circumstances: It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy. There are hundreds of administrators available to monitor problem users...Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)'. The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

It's you call if you want to be close to that. I don't mind.

--T-man, the wise 06:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Uh and duuuh!!! they will know what happening qhen they get here anyway!!--T-man, the wise 06:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So here's what I see: I see one editor being extremely rude to his fellow editors and using VERY flawed logic to push what he, and he alone, wants to do. T-man: Don't be a dick. Your history of bans, past behavior, and even behavior on this talk page alone gives other editors a clear reason to suspect bad faith, thus "monitoring is appropriate". It's very clear, if you wish to make an episode article you should first expand the summary on this article till it's big enough to warrant a split. You really need to act more mature if you want your suggestions to be taken seriously. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I suggest a ban of T-Man for being rude above, and calling Chris Griswold "silly" on his own talk page. This is on top of the obsession he has for me on his own talk page. This behaviour breaches the terms of his probation. -- Dyslexic agnostic 07:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Not to be impolitic, but this is just freaking retarded now. Not to be extra blunt, but it's also a wiki article about JUSTICE LEAGUE ANIMATED. I'm as big a nerd and all-around booster of comics and their spawn as you'll find, but again, this is all just retarded.
T-man: just FULLY expand ALL the episode blocks on THIS page. Not spawn pages. Not secondary ones. Destroyer, Epilogue, Starcrossed: that's built up. Those I can see meriting their own page. But JL/JLU **IS** lighter in content. Not every episode merits it's own page. God bless you if you can pull an article out of some of them like Grudge Match. But... do NOT spin them off or link to them as stubs. You want to expand it, hell, so do most of us, *if* the articles per episode can actually work as seperate pages.
My vote is to let T-man expand per episode, as long as they reach full article status. Go crazy. Hell, I'll pump content/data into episodes on THIS page as I did for Destroyer. But don't force your pace onto everyone. It's stupid. The JL pages are something I want to help on. I don't need to deal with this.
I propose that our plan for this page/spawn pages be that: expand episodes to articles one at a time if they merit articles and someone can actually do them. NOT spin off a whole season sub article. That's stupid. I vote as well that all revisions to page beyond this plan for expansion in regards to spin off pages be rolled back. Whos with me? rootology 10:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I am.--SilentJustice 12:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I am, of course; just waiting to see if T-Man will agree to it. He's the only one who can change how this works. --Chris Griswold 17:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Giddyup!!--T-man, the wise 06:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't even see the need for any expansion as it is. The article as it was was succinct, summarized things well without spoiling much, and basically accomplished all that a list should do. I may be the only one, but I think that if we're expanding some articles (Starcrossed, Destroyer, etc.) we should expand them all. And I don't think some (Grudge Match, to recall an earlier example) have the content to merit it. Darquis 07:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
That's why I phrased my idea the way it was. If people actually *can* squeeze content of merit out of them, and want to expand one at a time to stand alone articles for a given episode, above and beyond a one paragraph write up on this page... then that I think would be fine. But yeah, some of them hardly could rate a full article. Grudge Match is a great example. It's basically 18 minutes of (albeit VERY fun) fighting, and 4-5 minutes of loose exposition at best. "Why are you doing this?" "Kick your butt!" "There, now you're free!" Everyone else: "Kick your butt!" ...that doesn't rate an article of it's own... Epilogue, Star Crossed, A Better Wolrd, maybe the Captain Marvel one, a few of the Cadmus/Question heavy ones, Alive/Destroyer (it's really one episode, essentially, and chock full of DC easter eggs), and maybe a few others only... rootology 07:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

T-man banned from this page

  • Actually, he has to. I've just banned him from this page for two weeks, and further ignoring the concerns that other editors have will terminate his mentorship and will trigger the six-month ban clause of the Arbitration case between him and Dyslexic Agnostic. Titoxd(?!?) 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I really appreciate that. --Chris Griswold 08:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just want to reassure all I’ll be going with covenandt, recent proposal. I DON’T think like it. To me stubs help other users notice there is missing info. Even if an episodes plot isn’t that long, to me, it’s nice to have the infoboxes and cast information.

I also want to be clear on something else, I did the Destroyer and For the man who has everything articles and re-formated Epilogue. (The first was redirected, even though I think that was totally uncalled for, specially since that's the series finale) Those are my idea of how an average episode article must end up looking like. I also take credit for the redesigning of this article. before, afterI don't own it, but I did that.--T-man, the wise 20:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Now both Destroyer and Epilogue have been redirected... Wouldn't it be more productive to go destroy the Digimon wikiproject (...yes there tis an entire Digimon project and its somehow linked to the visual arts wikiprojec... and yet no paintings wikiproject)... or expand the Paintings wikiproject. JLU are the all time american classic superheroes... or the all time classic superheroes if you will. By the way, I dunno if that wasn't clear, I like stubs (after all that's why there are stubs tags, that means those are ok according to WP policy), but that doesn't mean I was going to let all those articles in such undeveloped state. If you agree, we can open a sandbox for all of us to work all the all the sub-articles, and then after the approval of 5 editors each one can be launched.--T-man, the wise 09:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were banned from this article. Can you please just go away?--Chris Griswold 12:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I want to figure out how will I keep contributing to this article's developement. How ever your kind and polite way of asking is just too darn charming, so I'm very tempted to do it. Just keep throwing ideas about how to develope this artiple. And I'll follow that as guideline when I comeback.--T-man, the wise 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately his block seems to apply only to the article itself and not the talk page.
Just to clarify, it's not "my" recent proposal. What I produced was a Wikipedia guideline on how to expand lists of television episodes that was adopted by the Wiki-community back in Feb, 2006. One that T-man seems determined to ignore even as he proclaims his intention to abide by it. CovenantD 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Be careful, don't make things up, it's not an absolute rule. It's a guideline,it means that that's the best way to go. Guidelines are also the best way to solve editing conficts like the one we were having, so I recognize bringing it up was smart on your part. I also came to the conclution that I'll always defend other editors stubs as I wish them to defend mine...however, since most editors don't comprehend or care for WP:Stub (specially about entertainment with sorta justified reason) I'll try to avoid if I'm sure that will cause controversy. In other words I'm meeting you in the middle point--T-man, the wise 22:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think T-man needs to be banned from the talk page as well. -- Ned Scott 22:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not sure why he wasn't. He's seemingly banned every other day - he asks to be banned on weekdays because he can't prevent himself from editing - and he doesn't seem to take them seriously at all. --Chris Griswold 05:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey!! I can read you, you know?! Dude, you follow me around way too much. I'm talking here to understand how should I make future edits, learn how much can I push boundaries (your boundaries). Nothing I do here will affect directly the article (if so, I'd bet it will only backfire against my objetives, since I tend to cause massive reverse psychology). And why the casting away anyways? howcome I don't get to play? oh, no... I'm having flashbacks... it's Kinder Garden all over again... Nevermind, please notice. At first I wanted to keep all the stubs active and with wikis in this article, then only the main episodes, then only the main and completed... then I agreed to expand those here first. I actually proposed a sandbox with all those articles as sections, to expand the info there first, and when a section looks good and gets greenlight from 4 editors, launch the episode sub-article. Work all episodes ina sandbox workshop. --T-man, the wise 06:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
So now Chris is accused of being a stalker too... can you say paranoia? -- Dyslexic agnostic 06:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No, he's right. I am going through his garbage right now.--Chris Griswold 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
As a member of the Digimon WikiProject I can say that you (T-man) really aren't doing much to help your image in my view. Also, it's a daughter project under WikiProject Anime and manga, not arts. (it may be listed that way.. but that wasn't the logic). -- Ned Scott 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You're not even supposed to be working on this page right now. And there is no reason to expand this article into stubs that are either copies of portions of this article, or restate the information presented in a less succinct, more confusing manner. Darquis 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen The Ofice?... I'm just like that boss character... :( I just can't avoid picking the perfect combination of somehow originally well intended words that end up in uncomfortable silence and someone feeling ofended... However, I meant that I like stubs, but I won't be pushing those here, since most editors don't share my pov. Ned, I don't understand why you proposed an entire Digimon Project but oppose the development of this. I mean, the JLU is no Illiada, but don't you think the episodes are at list a very little mini-bit more complex (if you don't think so that's ok) and therefore deserves a good development here?

And Darquis, I clearly said my goal is the opposite of what you just said... Rome wasn't built in a day, the fist day I bet there wasn't even a palm house ready.--T-man, the wise 22:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I must have not noticed this comment from before. Even though it's almost a month since T-man said this, I'd like to clarify something: I did not start WP:DIGI, rather, I joined it to help reduce the massive amounts of Digimon articles and fancruft, and improve the core articles. -- Ned Scott 08:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I know I haven't editted much of late, but I am a lurker, so here I go throwing my two cents in. T-man, I believe this comment to CovenantD demonstrates something about your approach to Wikipedia: "Guidelines are also the best way to solve editing conficts like the one we were having, so I recognize bringing it up was smart on your part." You act like this is a giant worldwide debate match and that your goal is to "win" said match. No one here is perfect, but generally, I see most other people as working toward consensus while you are more interested in pushing your POV at all costs. Unlike you, who appears ready to bend any guideline or break any consensus to get your way, CovenantD did not bring that up to smack you down. He brought it up because it's the way things are supposed to be. Please, think about that - we're not about one upping each other, we're about working together. Wikipedia is about collaboration, not competition.--Gillespee 03:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel that guideline was introduced as a last minute "ace under the sleeve" to keep the Article per episodes from happening. If you read above (way above), before this issue, expanding the episode summares in this page wasn't even aloud (you were one of the main opposers of this). It's real weird to me, first no expanding here, then because I learned from other pages (the wikiprojects, more important series like Seinfeld, Lost, yaddayadda, as well as childish ones like Pokemon or Digimon) tha A.P.E.s are not only posible but very common and even encouraged, and decided to bring it up here, suddenly expanding instead is the way to go.

This is the way I see this, I wanted to expand. Expanding is very common, but not as many editors are as as willful to "colaborate" as they are to critizice and debate. I don't think it is fear to do the consensus here, I think if someone is against expanding episode info, his battle is not here but in the wikiproject. I think it's very easy to pick on me, but taking the debate to higher rank pages doesn't seem like a possbility.--T-man, the wise 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You say that isn't your intent, T-Man, but so far that's all I've seen for the most part. There's no need for you to work on the pages directly here either. Can't you create sub pages within your userspace to work on articles until they are completed? That's what I, personally, would do in this situation (were I in your position). I advise you to do the same, that way when you have such ready, you can show someone what your intent is rather than having such needless, lengthy debates. Darquis 02:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggested the same thing to him. At least two people think this is a good idea, T-Man. --Chris Griswold 08:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I posted a very reasonable way to expand far above (#1) that many people liked. Anything else would seem to deviate from concensus and is null and void. Right? Or do we have to play the concensus game EVERY week? rootology 04:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Your proposal actuall rules! I just voted for it above, I missed it, sorry. Also propose you choose the first two episodes "under construction", and propose the next each time as the articles get ready.--T-man, the wise 06:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)



This is the last time I'm saying this, I never said it was Wikipedia policy. You never listen, you assume everyone's against you. Did you even read what I wrote above? " . . .just because you can go on and on and on about JL doesn't mean you should on Wikipedia. Of course, that's my opinion. Obviously, there are other opinions out there (refer to the Buffy pages for examples.)" And there is a very serious debate going on about APE last time I checked, it's not set in stone. But I'm sure you'll twist this into me being mean to you. Just . . . whatever.--Gillespee 07:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Firstly your usage of the :: isn't very good. I't makes you look like if you were replying to my comment just above you, which has nothing to do with you at all. Secondly, I know you didn't imply it was a WP rule. Our local WP made up WP policies maker is someone else. Although he already stopped that tendency. And thirdly, nice try, DA.--T-man, the wise 09:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick of the fact that five days into his ban he STILL dominates this page. Until such time as you follow the process, T-Man, I will revert every single article per episode that you create. How's that for ending debate? CovenantD 09:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Screw You Guys I'm going home

How about that for ending the debate? I petty your last comment CovenantD. I actually agreed to first expand the info in the list article before crating more, and to Rootology's clever proposal, plus proposed a sandbox. What else do you wnated from me? Gradually you went from the rational guy who first relized that if there are thuosands of episode articles creating JLU articles isnt such an uncongruent idea to (just because DA edit warred me blind erasing over 3 times each article, which came to have infoboxes and links that took me hours to create) become some sort of Newman (Seinfeld)-esque "sworn enemy". I'm just happen to be very opinionated, chatty and on vacations, but the negotiation has gone in your favor so far...what are you complaining about anyways?

However... There is a Wiki project on tv series beyond wikipedia... TV IV or something is called. And from my understanding it's a space just like wikipedia but about tv... If that works as I think it works I propose moving all JLU subpages there leaving a brief main episode linked to the one there (but of course, if so make the moving of Digi and Pokemon articles a top priority, sorry but after this, those will be almost only relevant as media phenomenons to WP)So, answer your last comment while giving a kickass debate end, as certain charecter from another product of the idiotic box said: Screw you guys, I'm going home! (you can open your champagne now, Grisworld)--T-man, the wise 09:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support a move from wikipedia to TV IV [1]... not just sup-episode pages, really, but T-Man himself! Seriously, they have a page for JLU [2], with undeveloped subarticles and everything! I am sure he will be loved and appeciated there for his ability to delve into the most detailed minutae. I am not being sarcastic... this is a great idea. -- Dyslexic agnostic 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
We should make a consensus in a higher rank page to decide what to do with excesive tv series information on regular WP. Is there a TV series wikiproject? that'd be the apropiate place to take the discussion of this issue.--T-man, the wise 07:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
heh, I would hope you would know, you've listed your self as a partisipant. -- Ned Scott 09:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I told you to go to them with your concerns already, 'Sport. And the other day, I went to the List of Television Episodes project's talk page and asked editor to come here for comment. Ned Scott came here from there.--Chris Griswold 08:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you paying attention to what I wrote? My concern is why shold wikimedia have the same tv info twice. The time you went there you talked about a whole different issue. BTW, your portrati of me seems very unfear. I was not going to lie and say I agree (before knowing about TV IV) about not creating the episode articles, but I only reverted edits on the article done by a person I don't believe is editing seriously. Covenantd and you supported the stubs at the beginning of the issue, so it was kind of confusing what to do, but if such large consensus agrees on not liking the stubs I was not going to edit against it, and I didn't. My proposals evolved from creating all the stubs, to just the most importants, to create those as I develop one by one, to expand expand the episode info on this article first and finally I just voted to support rootology's proposal. But for know I'm deciding what to do, since I'm not even sure if wikipedia should contain more than one article per TV series anymore. The ploblem is that TV IV and wikipedia are not that linked. I think it's not legal to move info from here to there, but I dunno.--T-man, the wise 12:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
You can't copy or move the pages to TV IV as the license they use is incompatible with Wikipedia's, as they do not allow commercial usage. However, you are free to make whatever contributions you wish to do so at that project, T-Man, and that is probably the best place for the extended detail you would wish to add. Click here to sign up for an account there. Please, however, allow the consensus of Wikipedia editors here decide what content is kept here. Hiding Talk 20:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

sections from talk page removed

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why was the T-man banned section removed from this page? Just curious why it appears that the Talk page is being cleaned up. rootology 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't really removed, just had some weird coding in front of the header. I've restored it. CovenantD 19:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Slight layout change proposal--good long term

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

What do you guys think of losing the "Image" column from the table, and moving the image to be inline with the text in the table box on the body text of each episode summary... with LEFT alighnment? i.e. the image always flush left? It would look better in the long run as the individual text summaries fill up each week. The longer ones will look increasingly wonky and misaligned the more they're fleshed out. rootology 14:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, but I really can't visualize it. Could you maybe do up an example so I (and anyone else who isn't quite sure how it'll look) can judge it? Darquis 00:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
No way.Don't do it. If episode list are kept, the guideline is to use images; if not the article shold just be redirected, no need to take the images first. The images will be useful for the new place of the article on TVIV--T-man, the wise 07:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
He's not suggesting getting rid of the images. Maybe you should re-read his suggestion. Darquis 19:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I realized that, but forgot to clarify. :P I'm ok with the changes if those get done.--T-man, the wise 10:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Two problems with that:
  1. As we've had pointed out to us, most of the other List of ... episodes follows the format that's now in place.
  2. The pics right now are acting as a brake on the amount of info included.
Since we don't want this to get too unwieldy, I suggest leaving it. CovenantD 13:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we don't need to expand. At all...

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Take a look at how Stargate: SG1 does their episode summaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stargate_SG-1_episodes

It can very, very easily argued that a given SG1 episde trumps any given JL/JLU episode content wise. I think we're more than good.

...now for that insane idea in the back of my head to build up the DCAU article to F.A. worthiness... rootology 23:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

what you talkin about, Willy Willis?--T-man, the wise 06:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"What you talkin about, Willy?" - Gary Coltrane as Gernold Darmond in Diff'rent Strikes --Chris Griswold 10:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, It's been a while since last time I watched an episode. I think, the character is named "willy" in the Spanish tranlstion, though.--T-man, the wise 04:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't make things up. There is no such thing as "Spanish." --Chris Griswold 05:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Well, just simply what I said. Go look at how Stargate SG1 breaks down their shows. I don't think we need to ever push expansion again beyond what we have for this article itself. rootology 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of shriking the first two episodes to better fit with the rest of the page. Comments?--Gillespee 02:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. CovenantD 02:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, do your thing. I'm all about this being succinct..I think the major story arcs (Cadmus, the Legion) can be explored on another page (whatever that would be) and that will eventually include a lot of the plot details that could in theory merit expansion here. The summaries that most articles have are great. Darquis 18:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't go for it. You can movethe info to a subarticle, but don't just erase it. --T-man, the wise 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)...Nevermind I took care of the situation. The 3 new articles are completed with the deleted paragraphs, cast, categories, images and filled infoboxes.--T-man, the wise 05:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I go back to creatin pages per eisodes or what? If you have a problem with expanding this, please go to the wikiproject, don't pick on the small fries, just because wikipedia perfectly alouds to do otherwise, that's too easy. SG1 is only one of several hundreds of examples. Pick a method of expanding and I'll go by it.--T-man, the wise 04:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What to Include

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

In rereading some of the summaries posted in this article, I've noticed a bit of a disparity in what information is presented within them. Some of the sumamries reveal the endings to the specific storylines (Twilight and Secret Society, for example), whereas others do not (Fury, Legends, Injustice for All). Personally, I think episode summaries can do without the endings being included. I don't know if this would mean that spoiler tags are no longer necessary. Darquis 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree that the episodes should be more uniform, however, I disagree that endings should not be included. It's a summary of the episode, not the episode set up. I don't see any reason not to have that information. I guess in my mind, we're catalouging info, not writing taglines to get people interested in seeing the episodes, but I'm very interested in what others have to say.--Gillespee 01:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I also perfectly agree that the episodes should be more uniform, and like you, I like the summaries short in this page. When more info is gathered it means that the episode subarticle should be made. I guess we're on the same page, but if editors want me to expand here before creating episode articles, there isn't much I can do for our mutual uniformity+shortness ideal.--T-man, the wise 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Gillespee has pretty much summed up the purpose of Wikipedia. CovenantD 01:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
According to what, may I ask?--T-man, the wise 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess I disagree, but oddly enough, if the summaries were expanded to full pages I'd expect the endings to be there.Darquis 18:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

T-Man's July 27 article re-creations

Latest comment: 18 years ago39 comments7 people in discussion

Have I missed the consensus becoming favorable toward T-Man's re-creating the episode articles? When did this happen? Or did T-Man come off of a long ban and go back to ignoring other the concerns of other editors again? --Chris Griswold 05:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did. However I won't war with you. I'll rather hope for consensus... Gillespee summarized those 3 pages. The logic behind my actions is that if those episode paragraphs are too long to be here, it means the info should be moved to subarticles. That's how WP works. When something gets too detailed, it means its time to create a sub article. Read the Perfect article guideline to learn more on the topic.--T-man, the wise 06:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris redirected the 3 episodes that Gillespee previously summarized here. Fine, expand it here then. This is against Conventions (thats my new favorite word :P), if you have a problem, please, at least have the guts to take it to the wikiproject backing me up instead of picking on this page. I really dond understand you, there is a reason for wikipedia do have general wikiprojects conventions and guidelines. Why create a "ruling elite" making consensus against those general policies??--T-man, the wise 06:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I really want to respond to you, but everything you write makes my eyes hurt. What you write here and the actions you have taken regarding these articles do not show respect for the other editors here. I will continue to revert the articles you are restoring until you stop disrespecting the consensus here or the consensus shifts to your point of view.--Chris Griswold 06:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You're avoiding the point. Gillespee actions were ok, but called for mine. Either that or re expand the paragraphs in this page.

Remember: There is a FULL wikiproject on Digimon, wikipedia is currently alouding a full project about a plotless cartoon... following that logic, creating episode articles (carefully to avoid "scary" stubs, if you wish), like there are literally thousands already on WP (and a wikiproject making it a convention), about JLU doesn't seem that big a deal. I rather have this page uniformely summarized while creating carefully one by one the subarticles instead of having it growing out of proportion.--T-man, the wise 06:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Chris here. I don't mean to be rude or attack T-man, but seriously, T-man, you are not helping by pissing people off. You know what you are doing is pissing people off, and you refuse to consider the concerns brought up or to follow some form of consensus on this. Why? -- Ned Scott 06:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree to what? he only reverted and mocked me. I only followed the consensus in this very page: create the subarticles*AFTER* the synopsis get too big here, just as it happened. Now not letting the page grow naturally either way is just abussive on his part. and ACTUALLY that is against the consensus.--T-man, the wise 00:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you think the people who work on the Digimon project appreciate your insulting it repeatedly? It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not; those people are working together on something, and that is to be commended, not derided.--Chris Griswold 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It is ok to have that Digimon info, but therefore, being JLU a series with a bit more content, it can ALSO have articles per episode.--T-man, the wise 18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd like to point out that WP:DIGI is one of the places I'm most active on Wikipedia. It's also the project that gave WP:LOE it's episode template. Digimon is a kids show, but it's not plotless. Most likely T-man has only seen the English dub, which has had so many edits and dialogue re-writes that some consider it a new work of fiction all together. I doubt he has any clue about what he's talking about. -- Ned Scott 07:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope I've seen both. However that's moot, the point was: being JLU a series with a bit more content, it can ALSO have articles per episode.--T-man, the wise 18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC) ...However, shouldnt the art, paintings be the most developed, then the more serious cartoons and finally the kids cartoons; and not the other way around? There is no coherence. The fact that WP:LOE took the format from WP:DIGI and not from Seinfeld, the sopranos or somewhere else because DIGI was the most developed is kinda sad. WP should cover all human knoledge in detail (that, covers DIGI in detail of course, don't get me wrong) but it shouldn't start from Teletubbies and up, it should go from the most critically acclaimed series and down. Poke and Digimon are clearly media phenomenons, but the episodes are simpler than JLU and way simpler than, say, ER.--T-man, the wise 22:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
So you've seen all 50 episodes from each of the 4 different series (some being better than others), about 200 episodes, give or take, even though only the 4th series was the only one to ever be fully subtitled? The rest only have about the first 10 episodes subtitled.
Also, the episodes of Digimon are currently only summaries. WP:DIGI as so far decided against using individual episode articles. As for the hundreds of 'Mon articles, those were there long before I came to the project, and there are many efforts now to cut the fancruft and merge articles. So your argument that "because Digimon can do it" is wrong. Digimon is not supposed to do it, but it's a large mess that can take some time to clean up. -- Ned Scott 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Without getting into the mess, what WP:DIGI does is as relevant to this article is as relevant as what WP:MED and WP:TROP do with their articles—that is, not relevant at all. Titoxd(?!?) 22:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, it's relevant because it is a tv animaded series. That makes equivalent to this very page. And furthermore, it has **relatively** less complicated episode plots, so it makes logig that this page should be a little (very little if you wish, but a little) more developed.--T-man, the wise 00:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
No. The activity level on one project may not be enough to sustain the decisions a different project makes. You can't compare a project with 200 interested editors with a project with five. Titoxd(?!?) 00:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
My comparation wasn't about editors number, but about episode complexity. I knoe that because I made it, so again. I respectfully think you're wrong.--T-man, the wise 00:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact that a project has a lot of activity usually just means that there is a lot of work to be done, it says nothing about notability. And I would like to point out again that there are no Digimon episode articles.. So if you want to use the project as an example.. it works against you. -- Ned Scott 04:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I still say we're good here. Weren't you going to look into TV IV for an outlet for your desire to expand T-Man? --Gillespee 17:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're avoiding the point, man. Choose were do you wnat to expand, here or in subarticles.--T-man, the wise 18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
T-Man, I respectfully ask you not to strike out my comments.--Gillespee 00:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully answer to you that I didn't . it was Hiding, and he is and admin and was trying to modereate your ofensive tone. I'm keeping Hiding's strikes on my comment, so should you (but ultimately you can do as you wish for all I care)--T-man, the wise 00:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I was a little nervous when I read your reply T-Man. I couldn't understand why exactly that comment had been struck (stricken?) since I did not attack you and I didn't want to get into trouble. However, my fears were without foundation, because it turns out I was right, you were the one who struck my comments. I added my comments at 10:05, July 27, 2006 and you were the next edit at 11:27, July 27, 2006. They were struck in your edit. [3] I'm really trying to be polite T-Man, and I think I've done a pretty good job of giving you the respect you deserve up until this point. However, lying is unacceptable to me. Please stop trying to force the issue. There is no consensus for expansion out to the wazoo, lying certainly won't convince me otherwise.--Gillespee 05:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
And the Oscar goes to.... What the hell are you talking about? If I striked the sentence, the signs would be marked in red. Stating I'm lying is an attack. I quoted below the consensus I was following with the 3 articles. Please, cut the drama, this is just a discussion.--T-man, the wise 07:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you did. It's right there. The text got moved down a few levels, so the strike codes don't show up in red. --Chris Griswold 10:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it would also be in red. I apreviously personally apologized in his page (taking in consideration that I might be wrong, but I don't think so) , I don't get why the drama. It's just a strike.--T-man, the wise 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
So now you admit to it while also still protesting? --Chris Griswold 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I do appreciate your apology. However, if it had been me who had struck your comments, your reaction would be very different indeed.--Gillespee 21:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed not, wise guy. Hiding did so and I like it. Your las comment was a clear attack, the kind of comments Hiding striked--T-man, the wise 21:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not call people names, T-Man. Additionally, you apparently do not like it because you removed the strikethrough from the above comment.[4] By the way: I love the edit summary on that edit. I am flattered you feel that way about me. --Chris Griswold 09:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Tman, I'm looking at the edit history here, and the next edit after Gillespee made his comment has the s enclosed with the less than and greater signs. Unless admins have the power to edit things without it showing in the edit history, I'd have to say you did the editing. You say everything you did would be in red, but that isn't the case. Red marks differences in sections of text (which can include deletion). See how there are slight parts between the comment Gillespee says you struck and your next edit that aren't red (the day this edit occurred, the word user, etc.)? This means that those parts remained the same between edits. In green, it shows what someone added. Note on the edit history how it shows that you added a comment with the strike tags around it, but it was attributed to Gillespee and matched the time and date on his comment? This is because you moved his comment further down when you made your edit, thus causing the red, and causing wiki to believe that you had written his comment, added his name, and put a timestamp on it yourself. That's why there isn't a red s enclosed by angle brackets. At least, if I've understood everything right. Otherwise, are you saying that you didn't make the "you're avoiding the point" comment? Darquis 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the consensus I was following

From your own mouth:

  • No, the consensus is against you. The people who edited those articles are not editing this article; the people who are do not agree with you. You want to spout off about how editors should share, but you're not. Why can't you just add all the information you want to add to the current page as CovenantD suggests, and then when it gets too big, split it into seasons? You will still get your way, and we will get ours. I'm offering you a compromise. Please be reasonable and take it. --Chris Griswold 06:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC) - and I did.

The consensus started as this:

  • Oh, well that's not good/advisable then. If they were full/proper write ups it would be different. I'd been reading this page for a while but never really piped up. If the individual episode descriptions could legitimately be fleshed out to warrant seperate articles it'd be one thing, but individual JL/JLU episodes are a bit lighter than other shows in plot (relatively). I could see a seperate page for each season being warranted, perhaps. At most. rootology 22:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much in the guidelines that I saw somewhere - do the entire series first, if that gets too large then split it into seasons, if those get too large then split into episodes. The first part hasn't been finished yet. CovenantD 15:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC) * That's a good guideline. --Chris Griswold 15:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)*That sounds pretty good to me as well. There seems to be less to these episodes than even any given episode of the Simpsons or South Park (the two notable half hour shows that get pages per ep) just because they try to pack so much into those shows. That's not even getting into Buffy, Angel, etc. which are hour long (and therefore have more material to cover) Darquis 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The seasons thing (as rootology said) was kinda stupid so the idea changed to:

  • I propose that our plan for this page/spawn pages be that: expand episodes to articles one at a time if they merit articles and someone can actually do them. NOT spin off a whole season sub article. That's stupid. I vote as well that all revisions to page beyond this plan for expansion in regards to spin off pages be rolled back. Whos with me? rootology 10:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I am.--SilentJustice 12:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I am, of course; just waiting to see if T-Man will agree to it. He's the only one who can change how this works. --Chris Griswold 17:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Giddyup!!--T-man, the wise 06:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That totally backs the Secret Origins, Enemy bellow and In Blackest Night subartices (or synopsis expansion in the tables) and that's the consensus I was following when I created the subarticles for the 3 first episodes of JL, which Gillespee happened to reduce because it was "too long" already... That, to me, implyes the rootology consensus enters in action. I think Chris only reverted my edits because *I* make the changes. He is rather focusing on my persona, totally Argumentum ad hominem.--T-man, the wise 00:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Please, reply to my comment above here.--T-man, the wise 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

We comment on the content, not the user. Anyone breaching Wikipedia policies on personal attacks is subject to the blocking policy. I hope that is clear. Hiding Talk 09:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I noted it, now. This kind of interventions help me (and others, I think) relize what's actually uncalled for. --T-man, the wise 18:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am not commenting on T-man for the sake of attacking him or trying to make him feel bad. I honestly try to make my comments show T-man that he is affecting the article in a negative way and that he can change that. I'm not here to bully anyone or waste my time. There is a difference between attacks and addressing a user by name. I'll definitely try to tone it down some more, as it can be hard at times.. but if we can't address the issue here then we can't solve the problem. -- Ned Scott 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Err... afecting negatively? check this article before and after I came, most of the changes were made by me. And yes as crazy as it sounds I doubt he has any clue about what he's talking about is an attack and it should stay scratched. We all make mistakes.--T-man, the wise 23:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying you haven't done anything good, but that doesn't give you a free license to behave like this. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Like what? not pretending to like senseless unfear argumentum ad hominem sensoreship when I talk here or following the consensus previously established here (as I just proved above) in the article?--T-man, the wise 05:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Step into my shoes for a while I'm being restricted by people goign against the conventions and they don't even get any real work done. Seriously, would it have been so hard to fill the some credits info? The consensus was especially against stubs, none of the 3 last subpages I edited las was left as a stub, they were fully developed. And recently they don't even analyze my work, just undo whatever I do. Could you imagine how frustrating it is? I mean, I undestand people getting this defensive in huge articles like batman, but here a bunch of people are taking decitions against guidelines in a page they didn't even contributed to. Don't think I'm enjoying myself.--T-man, the wise 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What to do whit the erased info

Latest comment: 18 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion
...User Gillespee recently summarized the 3 top episodes because the info was too much. The previous consensus was expanding the episodes here and then when too much info is gathered, create subarticles. So I did, but there seem to be some disagreements. So, the way I see it this calls for an new specific consensus.--T-man, the wise 18:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, propose how would you expand the episodes info below by choosing:

  1. SUBARTICLES: Avoid making grow un even the episode synopsis on this page by slowly creating the sub articles one by one. The subarticles can be created as sandboxes first (say List of Justice League episodes/In Blackest Night, for example) and laungched as they get approved
  2. EXPAND the tables in this page first even if they get a little uneven.

Comments

Neither --Chris Griswold 19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

aha... so your proposal would be...?--T-man, the wise 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how the first people to vote barely edit the article. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, even if they don't contribute or care for the topic at all (cool with me)--T-man, the wise 06:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ned, The Centralized discusion doesn't say "neither". it says: "(...)However, it may still make sense to add information about a television episode to Wikipedia. The following process is a suggested method of doing so: First, create an article on the television show. Once there's enough independently verifiable information to do so, create articles on each season, or some other logical division, of the show. Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles." In other words "create subarticles as long as those are not stubs"--T-man, the wise 07:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This new consensus you're taking goes agains the convention you quote (and all the rest about the issue)--T-man, the wise 07:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, no. You have not proposed a season article, story-arc article, or detailed plot summary article. You have proposed episode articles. You are skipping "step two". Also, pages in the article namespace can't have sandboxes like our user pages can, the / in the link simply becomes apart of the title of the article. A sandbox page is one that is not using the article namespace. That's a bit besides the point, but I thought I'd mention that. -- Ned Scott 07:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh, yah. Rootology stated the season article was a stupid idea and everybody agreed. The sandbox comment was usefull--T-man, the wise 07:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait a second, that's what you have been calling a consensus? That was one possible compromise with you, not really a consensus. If you look, it's suggested far more that expansion is not warranted for JL, but if you could demonstrate expansion (of good quality) then you might have a leg to stand on. And even then notability might still come into question. Those comments come right after the ones you quote, and such comments are made all through out this talk page. Just because something was suggested does not make it "consensus". -- Ned Scott 08:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait a second, your comment is worst than an attack. YOU are the one that didn't understood. I didn't call that consensus. When I said the sandbox comment usefull I meant that now I know sanboxes only work on user pages. It was a separate comment. What I've been calling consensus is this: Talk:List of Justice League episodes#T-Man's July 27 article re-creations#Here is the consensus I was following before you interupted me, Chris (the best guy ever) whickh you rather ignore. You also have trouble undestanding the Centralized discussion you quote--T-man, the wise 14:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Draquis, where is the " consensus that we don't need these articles", may I ask?--T-man, the wise 07:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to guess it's on this very talk page -- Ned Scott 07:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, where? quote the persons agreeing to it as I did bellow to quote the consensus I was following.--T-man, the wise 07:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Heheh he can't--T-man, the wise 22:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere in that consensus you quoted did it say that you should expand articles here, nor does the discussion going on throughout the page support your position that expansion is necessary/should happen (and in fact, supports the other side). But if you want quotes..well (I'm not gonna even try to preserve formatting)

:Actually, (despite your well made points) I think the argument does bear merit. A better way of putting it would be, "If Britannica had no limit on the knowledge they could store or distribute, would they create an article for an episode of a TV show?" In a word, no. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think an episode of any TV show merits an article all it's own. Again, my opinion only (but I am a guy who REALLY likes TV.)--Gillespee 05:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because it has been done, doesn't mean it should. A lot of people eat Big Macs regularly. A lot of people in the Mayan Riviera own armadillos. That doesn't mean it is right.
In this case, you have nothing more to say about each episode than one or two sentences. What do you plan to do, insert the scripts? These are 20 minute cartoons! What is there to say that you can't say on the list of episodes page? Why not develop the summary there FIRST, and if others agree with you that the write-up is too long, THEN it can move. But not when you have nothing else to prove other than you can create endless wikis. Why not a page for each issue of Action Comics since 1939? C'mon, let's read up on Action Comics issue 378 for the plot and character development! Dyslexic agnostic 05:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
An article per episode? NOOOOOOOOO! Wikipedia specifies that it is not meant to be an all-encompassing macropedia. If you want to elaborate on specific episodes, go somewhere like TV.com and elaborate in its episode guide for a show.Wryspy 06:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't really have strong opinions on this either way but in reading all the commentary so far, it seems to me the primary rationale for making entries on each episode is because other TV series (i.e. South Park, Buffy) are done that way. Is there another rationale? If there's specific information that is deemed to be missing (like guest voice actors or something) I could see the necessity. I guess I'm just saying that it seems like a lot of work to create dozens of entries for consistency sake. I shudder to think of all the television shows throughout history we'd have to create entries for just because it was done with other shows. Just my two cents.----SilentJustice 02:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SilentJustice and don't think subarticles are necessary here. I think it is much more useful to the reader to have all the information in this page. There isn't enough content to necessitate a summary style article. -- Jeff3000 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Every episode of most series has its own article, we should follow that format. I've already created the articles entry, for starters we need to move the paragraphs written here leaving only a line if necesary and the n expand every article as much as necesary. There is no controversy about this, it is a very common practice. Check out Wikipedia:Summary style. --T-man, the wise 23:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
[[[disagree.]]]--Chris Griswold 20:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
How many times do I have to point out the guide that says create an article on the show first, if it grows too large then split into seasons, if they grow too large then split into individual episodes? What part of individual episodes should be the last step don't you understand? What other guidelines and policies do you think supercede that? CovenantD 13:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This is all just a big maybe, I should add. I'd prefer to see everything in a slightly expanded summary on the one main page. Looks better, makes for easier reading, and less redundant pages. rootology 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's just too bad I can't find any quotes that people don't want this expanded at all, and at the least, not expanded into 60 or so articles at once. Darquis 23:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

There is already a page talking about Justice League. There is no need for such redundance on any episode list. I want to take it off. This page should be as summarized as possible.--T-man, the wise 06:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to have intros.. so.. no. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Besides, compared to the giant intro on the Batman enemies page, which I believe you started, this one is short and to the point. The three short paragraphs are a useful introduction.--Gillespee 16:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope, and you're focusing on my person again. Even worst, don't forget about the content. The intro in enemies of batman, didn't talk about batman, that's why it got approved against your wishes. Same way here if there should be an intro here, it should be about the episodes, not the series.--T-man, the wise 18:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
He was talking about the article, not you. --Chris Griswold 19:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope, he was trying to prove incoherence on my part. I like intros, it was the content I didn't like. But I changed my mind.--T-man, the wise 23:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, THE INTRO STAYS--T-man, the wise 19:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Tables finished

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just finished filling the tables. In case you forgot it. Before me this page was a plane copy-paste of the episode synopsis you can find anywhere on internet...

It was I who design and did mos of this work:

  1. The tables
  2. The images (I also categorized each one)
  3. Added all the credits, airdate and episode number info.
  4. Created / reformated Epilogue, For the man who has everything and Destroyer complete with cast, plot, images, trivia and infobox if missing.
  5. Created the format that will be used when the subarticles finally develope.
  6. Put most of the annoying yapping you can read above through all this talk page :P

I basically took the page from this to THIS. And that was the plan all along. I apreciate the cooperation and work from the enthusiastic editors that helped. User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow|T-man, the wise]] 20:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Whilst your work is admirable, please don't attack other users and please read WP:OWN. Hiding Talk 21:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
OK I just took it back. Thanks for the the admirable thing, I really needed that break, man.--T-man, the wise 22:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

This is too small (150px) The pixles look too big compared to the size of the picture. (It's particularly notable in Aquaman's face)

section removed by ChrisGriswold (talk · contribs) for violating fair use rules

This is too big and it's way it was before, I don't mind it but I agree it could be seen as too lage. (200px)

section removed by ChrisGriswold (talk · contribs) for violating fair use rules

This makes the pixels look fairly good and is not that big. (170px)

section removed by ChrisGriswold (talk · contribs) for violating fair use rules
While there isn't yet a guideline on image size, if you look at a lot of the other lists of episodes you'll see that these images are.. very large, so it would help for consistency. List of South Park episodes takes it farther, using a width of 100px (which is small, but mostly still works considering South Park's simple drawing style). I don't really see much more detail between 150 and 200. It's also a good idea to consider the whole Wikipedia:fair use guidelines and policy, in that we're using these screenshots to identify episodes, not to see what's written on the desk behind Batman. But since I don't feel strongly about it, and I'm at about my limit for Wikipedia conflicts right now, I'll go with the flow. -- Ned Scott 01:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The idea is not to spot the eyelashes of the characters, but to avoid the pixels being proportionally bigger to the image (like a 90s videogame). 200px is good to the effect and to the fair use thing ( the full size would be unfair, but 200px is still a fifth of that). And as you said, there is no WP polocy of convention backing you up. However I'll wait to hear the mayority.--T-man, the wise 01:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this. I do not notice a.. pixelation on smaller images... -- Ned Scott 01:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Your answer: It's hard to explain. When you reduce a big picture, there is going to be pixelation. It means the pixels are going to look bigger than the features or details of the image. when you take a small part of a big picture that doesn't happen unless you amplify it. The problem is not the fact that by reducing the size of the pic we don't get to apreciate the details of the backgrout (I don't care for that either), it's the way pixels start showing in curve and diagonal lines and contours. I just looks bad. Experiment with photoshop a little until you realize how it works. I'm and Architect I know all that because I have to draw and print several pespective drawings when I present a building proposal. Big pictures printed in small pages look awful. at 200pk there is pixelation, but it's not that big a deal in context.--T-man, the wise 11:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh, lines seem very smooth on the screenshots when viewed on my monitor. They don't look bad at all. Maybe you need a new monitor.. -- Ned Scott 11:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Tman, are you talking about jpeg artifacts? I just went back to look at articles I used to work on and noticed the reduction--they look fine on my 19" LCD flatscreen on 1280 wide resolution at the small scale Ned put in. For what its worth I like the smaller size too as it will encourage more succint summaries. :) rootology (T) 01:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I like 200px, but Ned modified it to 150 and won't let me change it even to 180px. I think that whole edit was uncalled for. Do you think there is a way we can conect this list to the B:TAS, Batman Beyond and S:TAS lists?--T-man, the wise 21:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

200px was an arbitrary number I picked when the pics started being added. There was no reason behind it other than pleasant viewing. CovenantD 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I was also talking about pleasant viewing, and I do agree 200px is pleasant.--T-man, the wise 22:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In responce to this:

Um, I didn't do that. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry.--T-man, the wise 05:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use

Chris, can you quote this criteria making the images inapropiate. I was just using those to make my point graphic while the discussion is still on--T-man, the wise 10:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image queuing --Chris Griswold 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, coming into this late. Which images is there a problem with? I don't see anything different than the scores of other episode guides. Asking as I uploaded a fair number of these. rootology (T) 01:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Secret Origins

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

I bull aside, Secret origins in not only the first episode, but a 3 part. The subarticle is fully developed, just like destroyer, for the man and epilogue. I think it's reasonable to expand it again. In blackest night and the enemy bellow are in the same situation, but since those are not pivotal, I guess we can pass on those--T-man, the wise 21:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated numerous times above, I still respectfully disagree.--Gillespee 21:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Me too. --Chris Griswold 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

But it is the 3 part pilot. Sometimes presented in a TV movie format. Can you back your answer with WP policy?...Just the pilot--T-man, the wise 21:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too. - Chris Griswold 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC) A=Of course you do. This page never stops to provide amusement and laughtes for you, does it? --T-man, the wise 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, dude. --Chris Griswold 10:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you really think this is fun for me? I hate arguing with you about this over and over and over, but this is the way I see the small corner of Wikipedia that I like to work on being best. It's not fun, it's incredibly frustrating. However, as long as the consensus is with me I will continue to stand up for what I believe is best here. There is no cabal laughing at you behind your back because of this article.
Your RFCU on the other hand, I do find rather amusing.--Gillespee 03:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
As do I, buddy, as do I. -- Dyslexic agnostic 02:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Cut the drama, I wasn't even talking to you. Firstly, I only pointed a guy was laughing at my expense, stating the page "provides amusement for me" is just bat logic. Secondly, I don't even mind so much Chriswolds sarcasm at the worst possible moment. I actually expect it beforehand. I know if I sugest smaller pictures he is going to make screen size each.
Thirdly, you barely "worked this corner of wikipedia", I did most of the work alone(tables infoboxes, pictures, yaddayadda, credits), you only did uncalled for, yet approved deletions. What is frustrating to you, anyway? Righ now the article has been modified your way. Give me a break!, you want frustrating, I'm only trying to convince people of other options with very little success. Stop making this page about yourself (about your sugestions is ok, but not about yourself, your stikes and taking credits for comments not even addresed to you).
Forthly, you said you take it too seriously, yet your final coment about your RfCU, threw all that to the garbage, you are amused.
Finaly, the issue here is the pixels of the images not looking good at 150px and 170-180px as Darquis and me complained. Focus on it, that's the only thing that matters right now. Please don't elongate the meaningless personal issues anymore. Focus on content.--T-man, the wise 22:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait: When was I sarcastic? I find "Chriswold" hilarious, by the way, and thanks for calling me "the best guy ever" so many times. --Chris Griswold 09:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Only like all the time? What do you mean by "so many times" you wrote it, I just striked it. You're the most sarcastic guy ever I give you that. I've tried, but I have to recognize it, you are the king. I do find Chrisworld hysterical too, when it comes to names I'm sort of dyslexic, Gris is gray in spanish, so grisworld didn't sound right the time I wrote it. But now that you explained it to me it's so funny. I'm sorry about that.--T-man, the wise 10:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Other neat examples to follow

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This are Featured lists (WP:FL) that can be followed as templates:

  • List of Planetes episodes: The subarticles are sort of chained like a sequense of articles. This series is equivalent (or at least closer as an example) in plot content. Every episode article is a stub, yet its nicely set up to look good while it awaits its expansion. Most Justice League episode synopsis were at least once expanded and then unecesarely summarized by deletionist users but even if we can't recover most of the expanded synopsis Planetes sets a good example of how to do nice looking stubs
  • List of Oh My Goddess episodes:This one is basically the same. It's interesting to see how the list also includes the tv movies and spin-offs done. Some EppSA are stubs with the initial synopsis and some are fully developed.

--T-man, the wise 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about any of that. This is article is not the same thing as those ones. --Chris Griswold 09:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Cool, oh, wise T-man! Let's make this article kickass like those! We are going to make this article the next on WP:FL! --T-man, the wise 23:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right. Let's better not bother to even comment here and go back to try to make this article as uninformative as posible and focus on undoing blindly whatever bothers T-man.--T-man, the wise 11:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has to comment just because you ask for it. This is not your article. Please stop insulting people and being sarcastic. --Chris Griswold 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of comments

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

This was really inappropriate. Please try to behave. --Chris Griswold 10:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Behave yourself, I took it off by accident and put it back myself before anyone noticed. Bringing that up looks like just trying to create more troble for your amusement.--T-man, the wise 10:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean like insulting me in section headers? [5][6] Oh, and don't say that you put the comments back when Ned had to restore his own comments.[7] --Chris Griswold 10:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Well you brought that upon yourself when you put that best guy ever thing. Actually, its very inapropiate to have headers about people. Talk pages should only focus on the ontent of the article--T-man, the wise 11:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right: Don't make section heads about people, T-Man. It's innapropriate. You only complain about these things when they're pointed at you, but it's always after you've done the same thing yourself. I didn't bring it on myself; you made a section head about me. Don't do it again. --Chris Griswold 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You know, you're not helping your own argument. If you just toned it down a little and were a little more respectful of other people then I doubt we'd be having this whole discussion. -- Ned Scott 10:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What the hell you *think* your talking about? As I said, I created a comments header and the comment was lost after some copy pasting, I'm sorry about that, but I fix it myself. Bringing that up again was uncalled for. Besides, this is none of your business. Actually this whole section should be on my talk page. It's highly inapropiate to have it here. This is what I hate about this page. I get all the work done in the article while this talk page is only used to make consensus against WP conventions and socializate. --T-man, the wise 10:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing that says we cannot have a consensus that disagrees with whatever WP guideline you think supports your minority viewpoint. --Chris Griswold 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Mayority has freedom to do stupid things. Mayority, start wars, elect stupid presidents, aloud Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson or N'Sync to be rich, watch Pokemon, crucified Christ, aloud the jewish genocide, pollute the world, etc. All for the sake of democracy. Thank God for the mayority.--T-man, the wise 23:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a good thing that going against the majority always works. I could cite all kinds of cases to prove that doing whatever you want in spite of the majority opinion can be bad too, but the truth is that neither, used as a blanket statement, is at all accurate. Sometimes "majority rules" works great, others not so much. Darquis 23:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
What WP convention are we going against in not allowing individual articles right now?Darquis 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Good question. None if it's a temporal thing while the synopsis are expanded in the article, as the first consensus. The Wikipedia:Wikiproject TV episodes, clearly states there is nothing wrong with episode subarticles, it actually encourages it. The centralized discussion, Covenandt cited, states that *it's better* to expand the episodes info in an organized way. It even proposes a season subarticles expansion we all agreed was stupid, in this case.--T-man, the wise 23:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not seeing what you mean (probably cuz the link you posted was bad and I'm looking on my own), but I definitely don't remember the season subarticle being turned down though..hell, you quoted the consensus that it was a good idea. I still prefer that it be built in namespace first, that way you don't create articles that consensus is agaisnt while still contributing to a the project and having the ability to show us your proposed changes.Darquis 23:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The *Unoficial* Significant Contributions Recognition Section

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Comments

This section is totally unecessary and I believe contrary to the spirit of cooperation. Who cares who did what? I think you need to read WP:OWN again.--Gillespee 00:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On contraire: I'm encouraging people to cooperate the most by rewarding those who worked hard. Actually when you took credit for [my work here you gave me the idea. That was cheap on your part. You love to take off info, but when you saw the oportunity to take credit for something already done you did. The right thing to do was simply put "recovered lost info Chriswold deleted" on the summary.--T-man, the wise 00:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What on Earth are you talking about? We don't give out awards for just tweaking articles and improving them. I spent hours hunting down little screen caps, resizing, editing out crap like jpg artifacts, resizing, realigning, etc., and I added the Static Shock stuff. The only credit I want is seeing a nice page when it's all done... which, FYI, it sort of is... rootology (T) 01:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sections cant be removed. Even it you don't like it--T-man, the wise 00:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been removed three times now. Please do not re-add it. It is very much in bad faith. Send barnstars to the people you think deserve them, starting with yourself. --Chris Griswold 00:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for starting with yourself part, I'm proposing it a differnet way, clarificating it is nothing oficial. Read the section headers you did above, that could look as bad faith. It can't be bad faith to reward and recognice work. And again, only administrators can take of sections. You complained Be coherent with your own actions. Sections to badmouth users, ok, but sections to reward contributions... God forbid.--T-man, the wise 00:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There are several sections I'd like to take off. But if so I'd reach consensus or ask an admin to do. There is no big deal about the one I just made. Nobody is getting insulted. And people won't forget the guys guys that shaped this page according to *my* (or your if you want) links.--T-man, the wise 01:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Be careful, T-Man If someone removes that again, you can't re-add it, or you will violate the 3RR --Chris Griswold 02:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. Just realized how many reverts you've done over the last day. For your information, your 3RR notice is located here. --Chris Griswold 04:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed it again. If T-man wants to make this list then he should do it on his user pages. -- Ned Scott 02:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Well... that makes it a consensus. A consensus of jealous editors who don't actually contribute, but a consensus at least. Now I agree that the section can be removed. I proved my point, you are just jealous that you don't know how to contribute, we can continue to use this page to continue with the sad mingling.--T-man, the wise 03:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you asking for my help right now? -- Ned Scott 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the edit history again T-Man, that information was not on the page before I added it. Not that I really care about who gets credit, I just don't appreciate you lying about me again. This is collaboration, who cares who gets the credit as long as we make a good article?--Gillespee 03:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be cynical, as I said you did some recovery work recovering with what I completed and Grisworld erased, let's say by accident. That was nice, but dont take anymore credit than that.--T-man, the wise 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Justice_League_episodes/Archive1&oldid=206634623"