Talk:List of Melissa & Joey episodes
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Discrepancy in episode numbers
editAccording to msn.com's episode guide, which we use as reference in this list, there is a discrepancy in numbering from 12-16. I didn't change much, because MSN.com may be wrong. In fact it seems a sure thing, because "Enemies with Benefits" is listed twice, as #12 and #16. This is supposed to be the opener for the second half of season 1. "Joe Knows" is listed as #13, and "Girl Code" is listed as #14. I can't personally recall "Girl Code" ever airing. I guess I will know in a couple days when my DVDs arrive. Elizium23 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Season 1 page
editi think there should be a new page for season 1, there are enough episodes(30) too make the page seem kind of long. There is reviews and more than can be added as well.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- The page is nowhere near long enough to split at this time. Splitting is normally reserved for articles with several seasons and which is long enough to make maintenance difficult. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure, because although there are only two seasons, 30eps is a lot and the article looks long. i can think of many pages, such as harry's law, that have the same number of seasons and less episode, and that is split. I just think it would look a lot better.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm very sure. WP:SIZERULE recommends that consideration be given to splitting articles once an article reaches 50kB of readable prose. Even using a very loose interpretation of the definition of readable prose, the amount of readable prose in the current version of List of Melissa & Joey episodes[1] is a mere 1.7kB, which is a long way below WP:SIZERULE's upper limit of the "Length alone does not justify division" category. Splitting is typically reserved for shows with several seasons, making the "List of" article overly long, and that just isn't the case here. Based on article growth to date and current size I don't see a need for several years, unless substantial season specific content can be added to the season articles. Without that extra content, splitting forces the reader to look in multiple articles for the most basic episode content that is currently all available in a single article. It makes far more sense to include everything in one page if the only substantial content is the episode tables. The cast and characters information can be included here if necessary, although that should be limited to seasonal cast changes, since the cast is already handled in the main article. Splitting the article results in two articles covering what one currently does and they both need to watched. Managing two articles is almost always more unwieldy than managing one. List of Harry's Law episodes was only split because you split out season one, not because there is some overwhelming consensus to do so. There is no additional content that couldn't be handled in a single episode list. The prose in the main list article and both season articles totals less than 1.2kB, which is less than this article. It should never have been split. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, but after season two, i think this decision should be reconsidered.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Splitting seasons into parts
editIt is completely unnecessary to spilt seasons one and three into two separate parts. It is only one season, one season premiere, one finale. This is just too confusing and has gotten way out of hand.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you, it is outrageous. It is very confusing and also this is the first article I have seen do this, like Caringtype1 said one season premiere, one finale. Seriously, there is colours everywhere? Why? It should be reconstructed. — SoapFan12 Talk 21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
A Decent Proposal (3x15)
editHere says it'll air on January 15, 2014, but it's already aired (don't know dates)200.90.242.13 (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Special episodes
editI think the two special episodes should be added to season 3, since the show filmed the episodes way before they started filming for season 4 DCF94 (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Melissa & Joey episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141025164726/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/23/wednesday-cable-ratings-american-horror-story-tops-night-key-peele-south-park-melissa-joey-more/318297/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/23/wednesday-cable-ratings-american-horror-story-tops-night-key-peele-south-park-melissa-joey-more/318297/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)