Talk:List of V (2009 TV series) episodes

annoyed

put in the rating allready.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.246.254 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 29 April 2010

There are two giant tables for the ratings. Not sure what the problem is. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 05:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think he was just waiting for the previous night's numbers to "Heretic's Fork"; Anabelhalliwell was in about a half hour after that to provide them. Perhaps a rather impatient fan looking to see if V survives to fall. KnownAlias contact 10:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Short Plot Summaries

Wow, we went from having articles with detailed plot summaries to two-line summaries. Great job on getting rid of so much information! We definitely wouldn't want to inform people about the episodes, better to just mention that they did in fact exist /sarcasm... the original articles tagged with "Merge" were very in-depth. I don't see why they were cut down to two sentances a piece. Most well-written articles about TV series and episodes contain a much greater degree of detail. I suppose most of this information is still available deep down in some article histories and edit summaries... but if I add it I think whoever felt the need to delete it in the first place is going to come back and remove it all with a click of a button... so it's not worth my effort. But then again I had the luxury of reading the original articles so I already know what happens in these episodes, the people who come here now will not. Glad we could do them this disservice (and I really, really detest the continual removal of content from wikipedia, if you can't already tell). Lime in the Coconut 18:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think they were redirected...and I got to read the content for the first four eps a few months ago.--Eaglestorm (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you are correct... instead of merging them into the article like the consensus agreed to, somebody simply deleted all the content and replaced it with a redirect. That's not AT ALL how it's supposed to be done. NO CONTENT WAS MERGED into this article. If you want to know what happened, look at the article history for each "merged" episode and you can see the former plot summaries. I will say they are too long to be included, but the current 1-2 sentance summaries are a joke. Lime in the Coconut 16:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

1-2 sentence plot summaries for non-notable episodes are standard here. I suppose they could be expanded to 3-4 sentences if the information is notable, but otherwise... Oh, and the articles weren't "in-depth" - they were massive plot summaries with the occasional bit of trivia included. That's why they were merged at AfD. I gave the articles a month after the AfD for someone to merge them, but no-one could be bothered. So it's hardly fair to complain about it now, is it? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Template:Episode List, which is used here, I see that the "ShortSummary" parameter is meant to contain 100-200 words. In this article they're generally around 50 words, so an extra 50-100 words each would be reasonable. The old episode articles had plot sections of around 1000 words, so restoring everything is a non-starter. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting an article where the AfD ended not in delete but merge is wrong. That no-one bothered to merge them is irrelevant to you ignoring the AfD outcome and deleting it anyway. You took it upon yourself to complete the AfD which said merge, so you should have merged, not deleted. WP:MOSTV suggest a 100–200 word count with up to 350 for complex story lines. The summary for "Red Sky" is 169 words and covers the entire episode, unlike most of the rest which are written like teasers. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fix it then. If something is merged and no-one with any relevant knowledge can be bothered to do it, then the only thing left to do is redirect. We aren't going to leave the unmerged article there for ever until someone gets round to it; doing so would be ignoring the decision of the AfD. The history is still there to use. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm bad at writing decent condensed summaries, and I know it, that's why I didn't merge them. Deleting the page when the AfD outcome is to not delete but merge is not upholding the AfD outcome, and saying that otherwise you ignore the decision of the AfD is just plain wrong, because the AfD didn't say delete, it said merge. If you don't want to uphold the AfD outcome, then don't touch the matter and leave it up to someone who will. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The AfD outcome was upheld, because there is a summary of the episode in this article. If I'd redirected it to an article that didn't contain the summary, then that would've been wrong. However, since it's now nearly three months since the AfD and still no-one's bothered to do a proper merge, that tells me one thing; no-one really cares. Therefore, the redirect is completely correct (and don't forget, a redirect is only a bold edit anyway - if I'd actually deleted the original article that would've been wrong, but I didn't). Black Kite (t) (c) 20:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I just tried merging some of the previous content from There Is No Normal Anymore into this article. Its summary now stands at 122 words (still well within the bounds of WP:MOSTV - in fact a bit more could even be added). Trouble is, since I don't watch the show I'm not sure if it addresses the important bits. What do others think? Alzarian16 (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It reads better. I'm in the same boat as far as summarizing the articles myself... I haven't seen the shows and only read the original, overly-long plot summaries. To be honest, after I read them, I really didn't see the need to come back to this article other than mild curiosity. I'm not a follower of the show, I just don't like to see useful information removed because it didn't appeal to somebody. I now see that there are copyright implications for having really detailed summaries in addition to it being kind of unencyclopedic. All this came after the AfD where I looked into other shows (like the Sopranos) which have 1000 words plot summaries for every episode. I didn't know the WP:MOSTV even existed, it would have been nice to have it referenced the next time a AfD comes along like this. Lime in the Coconut 16:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to do something about this. There is No Normal Anymore is a start, but the most of the episodes have summaries that are so short as to be useless, and could also read much better.-Zyrath (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Spoliers?

Sorry I missed the prior discussion on length of plot summaries, but looking back it overlooks one important point - spoilers. The entire episode gets detailed, sometimes scene for scene. Too many "list" articles for TV shoes seem to be trending this way. I come here to check episode names, but get a face full of unwanted info, hard to not accidentally read massive spoilers. I think this is why episodes deserve their own pages, keeping the "episode list" articles down to 1-2 lines max, giving enough of the episode setup without spoiling the whole thing. For that much detail, make a separate page? Examples: Fringe has no plot in the episode list. Simpsons has no plot, Lost has no plot. Warehouse 13 has 1-2 lines, no spoilers. V had 1-2 line, no spoliers, but now... now you can't look up high-level series info without seeing low-level episode info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoebiusJones (talk • contribs) 00:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a guideline against spoilers for fictional works. Wikipedia is not the only site on the Internet in which you can look at what are upcoming episodes. The reasons the summaries are longer and contain full plot details is because there isn't individual episode articles. Most likely, because they would just contain a plot summary, which does not meet the notability guidelines. The reasons some other "List of...episodes" pages contain the really short "teaser" summaries is because individual episode articles are created where a full plot summary is written; or if not, then the editors are not interested in adding a longer summary. Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Season Pages

I think we should make season pages for the show. 68.44.179.54 (talk) 00:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of V (2009 TV series) 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/20091211062851/http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=120409_01 to http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=120409_01

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) 02:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)