Wikipedia

Talk:List of The Closer episodes

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

Table accuracy

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just finished making a sizeable number changes to writers and directors for Season 1, and a fair number to Season 2. Episode order is now correct for S1 as well (two were in reverse order originally.) Most appear to be errors made because editors used the IMDB rather than the broadcast or DVD as sources. The tables are all accurate now (barring a few stray errors), with credits drawn from the DVD's (S1/2) and original broadcasts (S3).

A couple notes: -- Several episodes have writing credits as Story by and Teleplay by This indicates the person credited as writer on our table wrote the script, but another writer developed the story versus written by where the writer also developed the story. Mike Bercham has several credits like this, basing stories on his own experiences as an LAPD Homicide Detective (see Ruby, for example.) In these cases, I've added Story by: (Name) to the beginning of the episode summary, and will add a note by the writer's name indicating they wrote the teleplay only. -- Use of ampersand (&) versus and (and) varies in the show's screen credits. All credits have been corrected accordingly. Baldwin & Coveny usually write in this order, and are credited with the ampersand, but have occasionally written as Coveny and Baldwin, credited with 'and'. The use of one versus the other generally indicates different degrees of collaboration, but I'm unsure just how each author's contribution is weighted in such cases. -- I've removed the colored bar between the episode title/credits and summary. I found this enhanced readability and reduced clutter a bit. With the fourth season due to go into production soon (the first episode should go out for casting in about two weeks, meaning we'll have a title) the article is getting long and the tables needed a bit of tightening up. Drmargi (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Season Four Table

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Episode titles for Season Four will be added to the table every 10 working days, roughly. These come from open casting calls widely available on the web. I'm going to remove the request for individual cites and provide a note to serve as a general citation for all titles. I've also restored the full table. The table cells aren't empty: they provide production numbers and airdates. This is commonly done when a new season starts. --Drmargi (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've replied at Talk:List of Burn Notice episodes. Thanks! Matthew (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for adding a source, Doc. However, the source you provided doesn't list the title for episode one. Further problematic is the episode synopses; where are you sourcing them from? I'm assuming that the website (Showfax) has further information for subscribers (like the title for episode one, for example). Can you confirm this as I'm not a subscriber. Matthew (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's correct, Mafeu. Crew, summaries, et.al come from that source. --Drmargi (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Great stuff! Does the same apply for Burn Notice too? Those episodes were removed because they lacked a source. It seems like they can be re-added now though (citing Showfax). I've removed the citation requests and cited Showfax for the crew and summaries. Matthew (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I put the table back and updated it. You go put the citations where you want them. I checked the guidelines on tables of episodes and there is no policy stated or implied requiring the table not have empty cells, and tables like that were all over the place in September when the new season started in the US. These titles will come fast - why not leave it in place? --Drmargi (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I just think a lot of empty cells is useless as they're empty. However, the primary problem (sources) is resolved, and the empty cells issue is not worth fighting over. I'm not going to remove them again. Matthew (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I can't argue with the uselessness point, if they're sitting there doing nothing. But to my mind, the table is a work in progress, and is inappropriate when its incomplete. And bear in mind, it's also a lot of work to set one up and rather frustrating to have it reverted when there's no guideline precluding one. Glad that's settled!! --Drmargi (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Two-Part Episodes on The Closer

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I see an editor has come through, twice, and collapsed the three two-part Closer episodes into one listing. While two of the three were broadcast in a two-hour block, the exception being "Till Death Do Us", these are separate episodes, produced back-to-back, not concurrently or collaboratively, with separate writers and crew. It is incorrect and entirely misleading to list them as one episode in one entry. Drmargi (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree. On the TV guide it appeared as two separate 1 hour shows. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. There's no justification for collapsing the episodes into one listing especially when they're broadcast in two parts. What concerns me is this particular editor has done this on several shows. Drmargi (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
The only thing that might be confusing to this user is that they appeared right after the other. It would be exactly the same if they aired one part one week and the next a week later, so maybe this needs to be explained? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
The first time "Serving the King" and "Next of Kin" were broadcast, they were shown back-to-back; "Tll Death Do Us" never was. Now, they're rerun in two part time slots as often as not. A note can handle that issue, just as with the extended version of "Ruby" and the commercial-free versions of the Season 1 - Season 3 openers. That's far clearer than lumping two episodes together in one box. Drmargi (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I meant explained to this user, its pretty much obvious as you're saying. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh! Sorry, I didn't realize that. Either way, I'm going to add a few notes covering the points we discussed above. You articulated a need I had noted as well in a private comment to the editor in question, which suggests it really does need to be done. Drmargi (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Viewer statistics

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

You recently removed my addition of viewer statistics citing lack of data for earlier episodes. I do not find this a valid reason to not display the information as I feel it significantly adds to the article, with or without data for all the episodes. You also mentioned edit notes which I was unable to locate. Please explain your reasoning better and if you could point to me to the edit notes it would be most apprecaited. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you want one editor to respond, please put the question on his/her talk page. Some while back the issue of adding viewership data came up. Cable ratings data are hard to find, and often inaccurate. There is little or no ratings data for the early seasons of The Closer, leading to the decision not to include ratings. Adding out-of-date ratings data to one season that has ended is in the realm of esoterica. It's not notable, but really just fancruft. I can see adding a table with first episode and last episode data, which are the only ratings data that have long-term meaning. But the rest adds nothing but meaningless clutter. Drmargi (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I wanted it to be aimed at a single editor, but open so others could see and respond. Whose decision are you referring to? Either way, the issue has come up again and I believe it should be added. I don't consider viewer statistics, which are universally understood, as fancruft. That would be the color of their tshirts. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

First, I would find the other numbers. TV By the Numbers, which you are using, should be able to go back to 2007. I couldn't find anything at ABC Medianet. Here's the thing, at this time it doesn't matter if the numbers are only on one season because this isn't FL material right now anyway. As such, any info is good info. Now, when the time comes that this page is nominated for FL status, if there are gaping holes in the ratings info (like missing whole or partial seasons), then it won't pass because it will lack comprehensive coverage. Until then, I say let them stay to encourage outside readers to try and assist in finding the other numbers for the seasons.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I can't agree with the notion that "any info is good info," especially where TV shows are concerned. That's a Pandora's box no one wants to open; my that standard I could add what color shorts the director wore on a Tuesday - it's info, after all. Obviously, that's absurd, and it's also why we have WP:NOT as a standard. Ratings have meaning for a limited period of time, after which they add nothing. There seems to be a little cabal of TV fanatics imposing one standard for table construction and adding fancruft to these tables, including dated ratings data, and reverting any editor who dares to disagree by claiming policy. That flies in the face of the basic Wikipedia principles, and is not acceptable. It is also not acceptable to revert an edit once consensus has been requested. Drmargi (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
When I said "any info is good info" I was referring specifically to the Nielsen statistics, and nothing else. Ciao.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Based on the complete lack of response from any dissenting editor on the talk page, consensus was reached as far as actual discussion is concerned. There is no cabal. We believe that the data is useful. We are not trying to ruin the principles of Wikipedia, or claim ownership of an article, or add unreasonable amounts of fancruft. We simply believe that the viewership statistics are interesting and useful information. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
If/when it would be nominated for FL, provided the numbers don't exist as far as we are able to find, why would that be grounds for removing the available ones? The information in the article would be a reflection of available data. We can't be expected to offer information that doesn't exist, and provided the statistics we do offer are done so in a neat and unobtrusive fashion, I feel any available statistics would be a useful inclusion. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's worth it to have the viewer numbers when they are available. Not having them would be like saying you can't make an article unless it has all information possible. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
To Odie, as far as FL is concerned, if you only have half of the Nielsen ratings then you won't pass FL. Just because you cannot find a source listing the information doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's highly unlikely that the show would have only a portion of its ratings published, given that those ratings have been published for many years before this show was even thought of. Given that they could be in printed sources, or hidden away in others that are not directly related to Nielsen ratings, if you don't find them then you have an issue with comprehensive coverage. You cannot argue in an FLN that "you couldn't find them", at least not if you want this page to be FL. They're there somewhere, because you already have some.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Season 5 Plot outlines

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I just edited this page to include the plot outlines of the already aired season 5 episodes. I just found however another editor just removed them because I copied them from the TNT website. How could this be construed as plagiarism or a copyright infringement??? It was a very general plot outline, not revealing any details of the episode outcome. (TBird100636 (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC))Reply

It is a copyvio of TNT not The Closer. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't matter which. TNT copyrights all the material on its website, and that's an explicit copyright violation and given you didn't attribute them to a secondary source, plagiarism. Drmargi (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

A plot summary should reveal details of the episode outcome. It's an overview, not a hook to get someone interested. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Tables on The Closer

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Rosie, you don't get to arbitrarily change tables that have been in place for five years on the article for "The Closer" and declare them "shit." Your edits are not civil, and must be discussed. In changing the DVD table to add needless season information that's already in the tables below it, you also removed a number of very important notes regarding the original broadcast of episodes, and removed formatting that makes the table more readable. You need to discuss changes and wait for consensus before any further revisions. Drmargi (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're STILL refusing to discuss the changes you're making, and removing important information regarding the show. It's possible to add columns to the table in place and not change the formatting to add your data. You were willing to discuss on Castle; do it here, too!! Because you're removing important information elsewhere on the page I'm going to have to treat this as vandalism if you don't stop. You MUST discuss once you're asked to. Let's not have an edit war over this, Rosie! Drmargi (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Series overview

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Seasons Episodes Season Premiere Season Finale DVD Release
1 13 June 3, 2005 September 5, 2005 May 23, 2006
2 15 June 12, 2006 December 4, 2006 May 29, 2007
3 15 Juner 18, 2007 December 3, 2007 July 1, 2008
4 15 June 14, 2008 Febraury 23, 2009 May 26, 2009
5 15 June 8, 2009 December 15, 2009 -

I find this table better because she give more informations. 1989 Rosie (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It just shows the start and end dates instead of just the year. Seems reasonable. What is the problem with this chart Drmargi? I've seen similar ones used elsewhere. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
The information is fine, but she always make the changes by adding a new table rather than adding information or columns to the one in place. When she does, she takes out the padding that makes the table easier to read, something we've discussed with her endlessly, then refuses to talk unless someone gets fairly directive with her.
Rosie, why don't you just add a column to the current table for Season Finale, and leave the table formatting in place. And DON'T remove the notes from the episodes in the main tables. Those aren't references from outside sources. Drmargi (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Season Episodes Season Premiere Season Finale DVD
release date
1 13 June 3, 2005 September 5, 2005 May 23, 2006

Ratings

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When episode pages get very long, it is routine to make season pages and make the episode page a list of episodes with the descriptions, etc on the season page. Knowing that, I think it is counterproductive to remove ratings (when sourced) because though this page will not reasonably be able to have ratings for every episode of the series, it is possible to have the ratings for each show in the later seasons. By removing them now, it will be more work to track them down again when the page is split. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Far too metaphorical for an encyclopedia?

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

(Moved from Drmargi's talk page)

In the first place there is NOTHING in the Manual of Style that even mentions non-use of metaphorical language, let alone how much is too much, so that's your POV. When talking about themes in film or television, metaphors are inevitable, because interpreting a theme from images presented necessarily involves the metaphor of the image used to express the theme, as well as character and plot.

Second, the sentence specifies 'What we see.' What we see is the character struggling to navigate. We also see and hear her constantly requesting clear directions. This is not metaphorical - its completely apparent, and the theme of Brenda's newness in LA comes mostly from those images. We dont see the character 'building a new life' as this is vague, non-specific and subjective. We certainly dont see anything regarding her 'leaving Atlanta' because the first episode opens in LA. And yet you've reverted to these inadequate and flat out wrong clauses twice. What exactly do YOU see that conveys the theme? Mdw0 (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC) "Reply

That's all well and good, but this discussion should be on the article talk page. Please review WP:BRD. Drmargi (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
This BRD stuff can get annoying when people forget the first rule of R is to NOT revert - its to be bold again with a better edit. Mdw0 (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Reply
More reverting to inaccurate and vague text. More ignoring of the detail of BRD. I'd love to see if you've got a sensible defence. Mdw0 (talk)

Moving discussion to the end, where it belongs, and added note this was moved from your talk page, which you should have done. Will respond later, when I have sufficient time. Drmargi (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

In that case, how about you quit reverting until later too. If you havent time to justify reverts, then you havent got time to revert. Sensible defence of reversion is still not apparent. And the above messages were from your talk page, not mine. but its OK, I've fixed that. Mdw0 (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Reply
I'm not obligated to discuss the instant I return the article to where it should be once BRD came into effect. I was attempting to locate some text written by James Duff, which was the foundation for the summary as it stood, which is why I indicated I'd respond soon. You have continued to force the edit, which in turns justifies my reverting it. The burden is on you to stop reverting and talk. You've done the latter in the correct place at last. Perhaps now we can move forward at least. The bullets under revert in BRD are strategies, not mandates. I acted entirely within guidelines, however tiresome you find them. This isn't a trial, and I'm not a suspect who must defend herself. The burden to justify a change falls on the editor making that change -- where is your rationale for the more narrowly proscribed theme of navigation, especially given Duff has written time and again about his vision for the season as a woman alone, building a new life?
To the point, I found your edit both narrow and metaphorical to the point it would not be meaningful to anyone who does not watch the show regularly. In his blog on TV Guide's online site, James Duff was quite clear that Season 1 was about Brenda's struggles as a woman alone, both personally and professionally, building a new life. The driving metaphor used in the first few episodes related to the early days in her new city and new job, but they were followed by metaphors relating to redefining herself, losing then taking back power, and finally being a leader to her team. It is clear in the pilot that she has just arrived from Atlanta -- she's living out of suitcases in a hotel, and it still unpacking boxes in her office. The original text IS accurate, and more complete than the navigation metaphor you persist in using. Drmargi (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Edits dont automtically invite reversion just because they're not discussed first. You'd reverted twice without even a comment, then said the edit was 'too metaphorical' which is also wrong and which I questioned, before finally getting around to mentioning you were retrieving reference material. That's pretty poor communication. However, that's by the by now.
Regarding the edit, I think you're getting your themes mixed up with your scenes. Navigation problems aren't a theme - they are a scenic device used forward a story. Used repetitively they are part of the building blocks of a broader story that conveys a theme. We do not SEE her 'building a new life' or 'redefining herself.' They are themes which are reinforced by ongoing scenes and develop over a whole series. If you want to rewrite that section so that its about more than just what we see, with those broader interpretations you've mentioned above, be my guest, but it has to be one or the other. Either the line is about what we see or it isnt. My point is illustrated by what you've mentioned above about living out of boxes - that is what we see. We dont see her 'arriving from Atlanta', so how is saying so accurate or complete? I have included the main device used to illustrate Brenda's unfamiliarity with her new city - her navigation problems, and its not just the first few episodes at all - its throughout the first series. Its repetitive use is the major tool for the establishment of Brenda's situation and is a good example of the themes being established by what we SEE. If you dont like it, try an edit of your own that does use what we actually see. Either that or change the line so it talks about themes and doesnt mention what we see - but leaving the line as is will leave it telling an untruth. Now of course it could be that I'm taking the word 'see' more literally than you are, but when it comes to writing about film and television (and image-related storytelling in general), using that word 'see' in any non-literal sense in this article IS far too metaphorical. Mdw0 (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Reply

Wow, so this has been going on. Okay, to address, you say we don't "see" her building a new life, we "see" her getting lost in Los Angeles. We "see" her living out of boxes. I'd proffer that's how we see her building her new life. Through the elements that make her a "fish our of water"; the parts that make up the whole, if you will. You've only listed one of those parts as the penultimate definition of that insecurity and uncertainty, and I'm not convinced that's the case. To define them in so narrow a term as to the specifics, we're now forced to spell out the specifics in order to paint a clearer picture of her dilemma. Just getting lost in the city doesn't paint the broad stroke. There's also the difficulty with working for the man she had an affair with, the resentment of Commander Taylor and his squad; you would have to spell out more of those other elements as well to paint a clearer picture of what you say you're trying to say with this edit. I feel it's better to keep it simple and define those parts as a whole..."building a new life". And we don't see her depart from Atlanta, I grant you, but the series begins on her first day on the job, and she hasn't even met her squad yet, nor they her. She, as it were, "just arrived". That would be the metaphor. KnownAlias X 02:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Its not 'just getting lost' though is it? Its an example that illustrates the theme. The line establishes what the theme is supposed to be, and then professes to outline how this is done by saying what we see. She's in a new city and we can see this because of her trouble navigating. She's also living out of boxes etc, but I'd only use one example to keep it simple. Then I'd use an visual example for the other point - battling Taylor and/or Flynn to show her alone in a man's world. I'm not wedded to my particular edit, but a correction is needed because the examples listed are not what we see. The line is trying to say that the broader theme is established with certain examples, which to me made sense, except the couple of things listed were bad examples because they aren't what we see. They were examples of vague story arcs that needed to be much clearer and simpler examples. If its decided that the line is better used by describing the broader examples listed above that's fine too, but the line has to reflect that and be rewritten to remove 'We see this by.' Even the wording is poor - 'after leaving Atlanta' is completely wrong and could've at the very least been corrected to 'arriving FROM Atlanta' instead of being reverted multiple times to something that's obviously incorrect. If we use some of the points and examples raised in this exchange, concepts that better show how the theme is illustrated we can have a section much superior to whats there now. Mdw0 (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Reply
I might be inclined to agree with "We see this played out"; it's slightly less encyclopedic a statement, though the more I look at it, I'm personally more concerned with "played out" than I am with "we see this". But it feels like you're picking knits with the "leaving Atlanta"/"arriving from Atlanta" discrepancy, as she can't arrive from Atlanta without leaving it. And I simply disagree with you about keeping it "simple" by providing only one example of such specificity. It paints too small a picture, and would require more examples to convey the point. A broader language capturing the thematic idea of these examples is preferable to a general listing of the things that happened to her. I'd be inclined to try something more like this; "According to James Duff, the theme for Season One is a woman alone largely in a man's world but also in a new city. We see this played out as Brenda attempts to be taken seriously as leader of the PHD, and as she builds while establishing a new life in the unfamiliar terrain of Los Angeles, after leaving her home in Atlanta." KnownAlias X 11:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'd be fine with that. By keeping the line talking about broader themes and removing 'What we see' this edit would make it consistant and coherant. Perhaps 'Brenda struggles to be taken seriously while establishing...' Mdw0 (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Reply

Season Pages

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think that now is the time to create season pages. What do you think? 68.44.179.54 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why? What content will you add that's not already here or in the main article. --Drmargi (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Agree with Drmargi. This show is soon to be over and unless you can research and source material, outside of the basic tables, that can't be covered here or in the main article, then it's pointless to clutter up the Wikiworld. — WylieCoyote 23:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Substandard summaries

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

re: (from above):

A plot summary should reveal details of the episode outcome. It's an overview, not a hook to get someone interested. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • In reading through the extant plot summaries, I find the majority of them violates this sage advice—they are written as teases smacking of likely copyvio copies of DVD or television guide info paragraphs. Such need rewritten in new language, not using phraseology from such sources. They are at the least, unencyclopedic and need fleshed out with rewrites to exclude such marketing teases and vagueries.
For example: But as the Priority Murder Squad chips away at the perfect veneer of Heather Kingsley's life, the killer's motive hits a little too close to home for Brenda. (s01Ep2)
  • The above is clearly not an appropriate summary, but more something one would find in marketing blurbs trying to elicit more viewers without revealing plot details. Our summaries are by definition supposed to be complete and hence give up plot details. IMHO this one is also someone's interpretation, to my interpretation, a misleading conclusion. Brenda's emotional linkage was feeling betrayed and left down by a lover-superior (Pope) apparently having fallen prey to the tired old lie that her married would-be-paramour was about to divorce his wife—not being tempted to murder because of a mythical prenuptial and pregnancy.
FrankB 17:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
I realize this actual section of the talk page is old but I didn't want to create a new section for the same basic topic. I am rewatching The Closer on binge mode right now, and I popped by the episode page to double check where I am, because I fell asleep with auto-play running last night, and I realized the description on episode 2-22 is wholly inaccurate to the main storyline of the episode. While correcting it I realized a lot of these descriptions are quick blurbs from IMDB that aren't very useful. So I'm going to work on improving these summaries as I go through the episodes. But I just wanted to note that am working from S2E09 on at this point. Depending on how long it takes and how much work is involved, I may go back and do the earlier episodes after I've done all the episodes forward from here.
I'm specifically trying to be thorough in these summaries, without including superfluous details, and I would appreciate any feedback on how well that's accomplished. CleverTitania (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Season 1

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The summary for Season 1 is way too long and could do with some serious trimming and copy-editing. Tad Lincoln (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Some editor came in a while back and rewrote it along with the lead to the main article. I've been promising myself for ages that I'd do something about then, since they're laden with POV and other "commentary", for want of a better term. I've just restored the original S1 summary, which stood for years. --Drmargi (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of The Closer episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of The Closer episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of The Closer episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Heroic Measures

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The entry for Heroic Measures is far longer than any other episode. Is there any reason for that ? == Beardo (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_The_Closer_episodes&oldid=1205841043"