Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review/Archive H

Hannah Montana

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

CONSENSUS: REDIRECT ALL Gwinva 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Achy Jakey Heart, Part 1 - Edits and contributions have been made, but nothing to assert notability. Suggest leaving, but putting a description of what notability requires on the talk page, and giving another two week notice. After reviewing discussion, I agree that redirects are in order. Alcemáe T • C 00:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Achy Jakey Heart, Part 2 - Same as above. Alcemáe T • C 00:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Take This Job and Love It! - Same as above. Alcemáe T • C 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No way, if there's nothing to even assert notability then we're redirecting them. The articles had a note saying what was required for 2 weeks already. -- Ned Scott 00:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Going over them, I don't see anything that says it has potential to establish it if we give them more time. Nothing about ratings, awards, critical reception. They are just expanded plots. People are fighting over whether to merge them or not. If they are in a "List of" article, the fight for that is over, because being separate won't make a difference on that page. The same goes for the "Take This Job" episode. It says it's a crossover with another show, but it has no source. Even so, I think one could simply add a "*" next to the episode, and at the bottom say "* This episode was a crossover with ... <ref>".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The only one I think deserves an article at this point is Take This Job and Love it! because of it being a cross-over with Cory in the House, not as big a cross-over as That's So Suite Life of Hannah Montana, but still a cross-over none the less. I'll see if I can find anything to improve the article now. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But you could provide a footnote that mentions the crossover (plus, is it a real cross over, or are some of the characters just being used...i.e. was it intended as a crossover for the two series?...that requires a citation).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the commercials for it advertised it as a cross-over episode, but I'm not positive. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

At the momment, Redirect all. We need something citable for the crossover. But again, other than that I don't see why a footnote could not be created to say that. Unless there is detailed analysis on the affects of the crossover for each show.

Episodes without real world information

Bad Moose Rising

Debt It Be

Good Golly, Miss Dolly

Grandmas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Play Favorites

I Can't Make You Love Hannah If You Don't

It's My Party And I'll Lie If I Want To

It's a Mannequin's World

Lilly, Do You Want to Know a Secret?

Mascot Love

Me and Mr. Jonas

Miley Get Your Gum

Money for Nothing, Guilt for Free

More Than a Zombie to Me

My Best Friend's Boyfriend

My Boyfriend's Jackson & There's Gonna Be Trouble

New Kid in School

O Say Can You Remember The Words?

Ooo, Ooo, Itchy Woman

Oops! I Meddled Again

People Who Use People

Schooly Bully

She's a Super Sneak

Smells Like Teen Sellout

The Idol Side of Me

Torn Between Two Hannahs

We Are Family: Now Get Me Some Water!

When You Wish You Were The Star

You Gotta Not Fight for Your Right to Party

You're So Vain, You Probably Think This Zit Is About You

• Redirect all - Went through them all. Nothing there but trivia sections and goof sections, both of which are unencyclopedic. The only I saw that made me think it could be worth to keep were a few episodes that had awards. When I checked the awards, they were from the Disney channel. I don't see anything relevant on the page, definitely nothing that establishes notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Episodes with rating sources

Cuffs Will Keep Us Together- This, and the following three episodes have a source, a Neislan ratings source. This episode placed 15th...

Get Down Study-udy-udy 11th...

I Am Hannah, Hear Me Croak 7th...

Me and Rico Down by the School Yard 12th...

You Are So Sue-Able To Me and 5th highest rated cable shows of the week. Seems, with a bit of cleanup, notable enough to have an article; I'm trying to be very conservative.

Alcemáe T • C 04:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

At some point I added the Nielsen ratings for those episodes (and I think also Me and Rico Down by the School Yard, which was 12^th in the week) and I had tried to add it with a production section, but couldn't find anything about the production of the episodes or any real world information. Though these might be a start to showing some notability, I really don't think it's enough right now. Maybe there is more information somewhere, but I couldn't find it. Phydend 04:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect - The Nielsen ratings show some degree of effort in cleanup and I'd be willing to give them more time but if nobody is going to come forward and say "I think I can fix this" and even the person who added them them doesn't see a possibility then there's no reason to keep. If something new comes up they can always come back later right? Stardust8212 14:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my thinking. They have some potential, but show nothing right now. There is a possibility if there is a DVD release of the series or something that someone writes later down the line, to give some production details and at that time the articles could easily be created again. With a redirect now, none of that information is lost and it still has the potential to be used if someone finds some notability with them. So if this is to become a "vote" (I think someone was bolding votes in the other review) I'd say Redirect All. Phydend 15:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. If you need help sprucing the "List of" page to incorporate this information in a nice manner, just ask, I'd be happy to help figure out a way to include the merge information in a way that doesn't simply list them on the page. It is good information, just doesn't (currently) appear to be enough for its own article. (I bolded someone else's "vote" to make it easier to find when we finally decided on the outcome).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with the sentiment to Redirect all. If I am rightly following the point made above, I am unconvinced that Nielsen ratings for a specific episode should be on its own grounds for meriting an individual article. Mention can be made in the article list, but it does not of-itself indicate notability unless the share is somehow extraordinary. Eusebeus 18:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• I definitely agree that the template should be deleted. Everything on these Hannah Montana episodes are correctly written, in encyclopedia format. Also, they are grammatically correct, no mis-spellings, no useless information. I don't understand what kind of notability should be established. I don't believe the template should have been put up in the first place. Who put it up?--69.236.177.249 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but one of the rules of reviewing is that you need to be registered. It sucks, but it helps us identify individual users, who could easily be using multiple IP addresses to stack opinions (or votes for that matter). But, to answer you...grammer doesn't make notability. There are guideline pages for notability. Please go to the main article of this page and click the links to some of the other television episode related pages, you should find your answers there. If, after you have read them, you still do not understand, we will try and explain it better for you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't really matter much, since the process itself isn't a vote. He's welcome to leave his thoughts, but all users should know, using sockpuppets in a discussion will get you blocked from Wikipedia, and we do have ways of checking that. -- Ned Scott 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all. The trivia and 'goof' sections should be removed anyway, as they are unsourced, unreferenced and indiscriminate. On most, that would leave only plot -they are too long, and without context they fail Fair Use, therefore warrant deletion under copyright rules. IE. there is nothing left to create an article. It's hard to see how these can be brought to meet notability. Any slavageable material could be merged to the list article (eg adding a 'reception' section for any TV ratings or awards, but only if referenced. Gwinva 13:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all. No notability established, simply over-blown plot summaries. I agree with Gwinva, merge any useful info into "list of" page. Seraphim Whipp 14:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Just curious, is Disney really this secretive when it comes to reaction and production? As for reaction, since your major TV critics generally won't bother with a "silly preteen show", that would make finding information on the episode's reaction a bit difficult (but not necessarily impossible). WAVY 10 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar with Disney TV show DVDs, but I know that episode commentary generally lends a good deal of "production" information. We cannot verify "reaction" based simply on a producer going "it was well received". We need to pinpoint reactions. I've found that it's usually only key episodes that find any form of TV critic commentary, because there are far too many shows on TV for them to follow all of them all of the time. They TV critic/scooper/whatever else you want to call him guy over at USA Today, Bianco (?), often tells his readers "I haven't been following it, been too busy with..." when he does Q&A sessions. I think a lot of times most don't catch up on a series till the DVDs come out, which then you get the "DVD season review".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think Bianco is the guy's name. So you're saying we may need to wait for the DVD's (which only select episodes are being released) to find production info or are there any other places we could possibly search for reliable production facts? WAVY 10 15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • For a show like this, I doubt you'll be able to find much (even with the DVDs). That is a reason that most episodes don't need articles. TTN 15:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm just saying that DVDs are usually good places to find information like that, though, it's not always the case. It depends on the network that produces them. If notability cannot be established now, then they should be redirected/merged with a larger article. There's no need to rush their existence in hopes that one day their notability will be established. Right now, most contain information not suitable, or just simply unsourced, for Wikipedia. It may be wise to start a, if one hasn't already been started, Wikia for that particular series. The idea behind a Wikia is that they usually contain all the more trivial, fannish information that isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. For instances, unless we know why Futurama chose to have all those cultural references, just the existence of them isn't that important, and better suited for a Wikia. As for Disney, I would think (and I could be wrong) that they would be more interested in entertaining the young audience then showing them how they made the show. I don't know how many 10 year olds that watch Hanna, who at the end say "man I wish I knew how they made that episode". It's unfortunate that they don't, but just probably not one of Disney's main concerns. I think their special features would consist of interactive games for the viewers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just added some ratings info on the Achy Jakey Heart saga I found in (print version) today's USA Today. Not sure if it will help (trivia was removed as well). WAVY 10 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, if the Achy Jakey heart episodes are kept, they need to be merged together. Just like The Suite Life Goes Hollywood. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, that if the only thing to be found is a Nielsen rating, we could adapt the "List of" table to have a section for Neilsen ratings. I don't see a reason to keep any episode just because we know how many viewers there were. It's simplistic information that doesn't require critical commentary itself. It's as easy as "This is the rating." And it wouldn't be that hard to add another column on the List of tables.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Every TV show that airs has a Nielsen rating; unless the rating itself is somehow remarkable, it does not satisfy the out-of-universe information of the episode guideline. Eusebeus 10:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like changing the goal posts. I expected this to happen. When a review is added, I bet it won't be judged sufficient. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1 sentence that states "This episode had 4.12 million viewers" isn't enough to establish notability for an entire episode article. It doesn't justify the need to expand a plot, or use a non-free image (since plots are not "critical commentary that justify non-free images"). It's something that can easily be added to a LOE page, and the fact that this is just thought of now means that improved ideas are being created for the larger articles. Right now, the problem is people make these simplistic LOE articles so they can create the individual articles on episodes under the guise that the information couldn't possibly go on the LOE page. Devise a better format.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus Redirect and merge all to List of Hannah Montana episodes. I  ^{(said) (did)} 21:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2nd Review

In the first place, I think everyone agrees that Hannah Montana is quite notable. My opinion is that plot summaries are a necessary element to covering the topic, and that the tiny summaries now on the episode list are not at all adequate for this purpose. I don't feel there is any way to cover the topic properly without having the individual articles. If the plot summaries on the list were expanded, I think there would be spoiler concerns; it's useful to have a very brief summary on the list, with a more comprehensive summary available on the episode articles, to serve people who are looking for different levels of detail. Furthermore, the page would eventually become too long, and there would be no reasonable opportunity to expand the content beyond plot as presented on the list.

Some people oppose having separate episode articles, but are in favor of having articles on the main topic, reasoning that articles should only exist if they present the right amount of internal context. My view is that having separate articles on smaller parts of the topic is simply an extension of the content in the main article and operates on summary style logic. I feel it is an error to focus rigidly on the context presented in individual articles when they clearly represent coherently organized sections of a broader whole. Ideally, episode articles would all be rich in background information in addition to plot, but it is also irrational, "all or nothing" thinking to say that the content should not exist at all (except in an extremely truncated form as part of a list) if that other detail is not present.

Hannah Montana is a notable show, which can be clearly demonstrated through sources, and its episodes are notable elements of the topic, with their plots being verifiable through the episodes themselves. The content on these episodes cannot rationally be expected to grow if their articles are not accessible to ordinary editors, and it is moreover a needless disservice to readers to not provide information that is clearly sought after, and which has already been written and could be presented to them at any time. Everyking 06:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, your point on spoiler warnings is moot, since they technically do not belong here, and therefore are not a concern. Secondly, the length is also not relevant, since the summaries on the list page should not be so long as to make it too long. There is supposed to be like some word or line limit per ten minutes of time, I don't remember specifically where. I'll try to find it. Following that would not make the article too long. No one is arguing about HM itself, we are arguing about the inherited notability that people seem to think applies here. This is no different from music; songs are not notable because the album is. That is the same here. And the argument for their removal is not how long, or "rich in background information", its notability, reliable sources and verifiability. And your last argument, that people want to know about it. Well, if we put everything in Wikipedia that people would want to know about, then why are there regulations on what is allowed and what is not? Everything is interesting to somebody. I  ^{(said) (did)} 06:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1) I didn't say anything about spoiler warnings. I referred to the concept of spoiling plot details. 2) I proposing that the adequate amount of detail needed to explain the plot on a list would lead to an excessively long list. Only individual articles provide sufficient space. 3) I am not contesting that you think HM is notable; I am using the assumption that people agree on that as part of the argument that the topic deserves to be comprehensively covered, and that cannot be done without episode articles. 4) I covered notability and sources in my argument. 5) I did not say that. Everything that is verifiable and notable should go in WP. Everyking 06:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1)Okay, spoilers still aren't a concern, as it was decided that this is an encyclopedia, and that spoilers exist, and should not be hidden. 2)Well, this says your wrong about that 3)See #2 4)Actually, I saw no mention of sources being present in your argument. 5)You didn't but you said it was a disservice to not put information on Wikipedia that was sought after. I  ^{(said) (did)} 06:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1) You are free to disagree with me and argue that the concept of spoilers has no place. I think that indicates a lack of recognition of the fact that our articles are read by people, and people care about these things. Providing different levels of detail addresses this concern as well as giving people the approximate level of detail they want to read (as opposed to one size fits all). 2) It is, of course, relative to how much you think a reader ought to know. I favor giving them as much as we can, within general policy boundaries. 3) - 4) Read it again. 5) It was a buttressing argument, a moral appeal, that kind of thing. I worry about readers a lot, since providing information to them is the entire point of writing the encyclopedia. Everyking 06:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries that are bigger than a few sentences for each episode, or are being used without a larger real-world context, are considered to be excessive. WP:NOT#PLOT. Learning more about what happens in the show does not actually tell us about the show itself. WP:WAF#Fair use goes on to explain how excessive plot can even be a copyright concern. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pilot (House): that's an FA. Count the sentences. And of course learning more about what happens in the show tells us more about the show itself. Copyright is not a concern within the level of detail I am advocating. Everyking 06:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1) I think we should have spoiler warnings, or be concerned by them, but the consensus was that we should not. As such, they are not a concern. 2)Well, policy boundaries, i.e WP:V and WP:RS says that you want to give them too much. 3) Again, that featured list of Avatar episodes says it can be done, and on a featured list quality level. 4)HM has sources, but the individual episodes do not. The sources aren't inherited. To the House argument, if you look, in the discussion on how long plots should be, it says that if it's only plot discussed, not other thing such as critical commentary and the like, its not allowed. See the behind the scenes and reception section? That validates the plot. I  ^{(said) (did)} 06:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think we've covered the points well enough. At heart, it's just an inclusionist-deletionist split. Let's leave it to see what others think. Everyking 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you say so. A side note- Just out of curiosity, I check the House Pilot talk page. There is a rather lengthy discussion on how to reduce the size of the plot. Thought that was interesting, to say the least. I  ^{(said) (did)} 07:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it validates it or not, but the fact that it at least has this real world information generally helps. It's also the pilot episode of House, and there's almost always something to be said about a pilot episode. Hanna Montana episodes don't seem to have any of this kind of information. Although, this does give me the idea about looking for info on the HM pilot. I'll see what I can find, and maybe there will be something to add to at least one of these episode articles. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd support reinstating these articles. A merge would not be beneficial, and thus they should remain unmerged, pursuant to WP:SS. The episodes are clearly notable for being episodes of Hannah Montana. Everyking gibes a very good/strong argument to keep these articles. Matthew 07:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Being episodes of Hannah Montana doesn't make it notable. Being covered be reliable, independent sources does. I  ^{(said) (did)} 07:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion. Which I consider wrong. Matthew 07:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually it's not my opinion. Its those three important policies and guidelines. They say that Hannah Montanaindividual episodes of Hannah Montana lacks notability, and does not have reliable sources. Which cannot be argued. I  ^{(said) (did)} 08:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. If you think it lacks notability and has no reliable sources, just search Google News. Everyking 08:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I mistyped, I meant specific episodes. And just to be thorough, I did a Google News search for each episode, and only two had results, this one and this one So I guess one could argue that those two would have to be kept. I  ^{(said) (did)} 08:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good news! The case for Good Golly, Miss Dolly looks particularly strong. Everyking 09:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This source gives us info on four episodes. It looks like there are other sources for these as well, based on the DVD that includes them. Everyking 09:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You would be correct. Those episodes, and the two I found sources for, can probably be kept. I  ^{(said) (did)} 09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not read every one of these articles (Please, no!) but I looked at a bunch. As I view it they do fail to establish notability. The plot summaries are more ‘well’ developed — which to me is a good reason to trim them down; don't tell the whole thing.

Several points in the above discussion deserve comment. The concept of ‘inherited notability’ is one that needs to be dispensed with. In most cases a tv show itself will indeed be notable, but individual episodes will not be. There may be cases where an individual episode can be established as notable for any number of reasons, which is fine. This would involve reliable sources that are specific to the episode. The other point I'd like to comment on is the endless links to imdb.com and tv.com — the presence of these links is fine, but they do not amount to reliable sources; most of the ones I've looked at for specific episodes are lame in the extreme. --Jack Merridew 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am in complete agreement with Jack on this one. There is simply no assertion of any kind of out-of-universe notability in any of these "articles" as suggested in the episode guideline. Finding references (as noted above about Good Golly, Miss Dolly) does not alleviate the need to find out-of-universe context for establishing notability. They should all be Redirected to the episode list. Eusebeus 10:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What qualifies as out of universe context to you? We now have inclusion on a DVD for four of them. The DVD also includes behind-the-scenes stuff and commentary, according to the article I linked above. Everyking 10:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Out of universe would be things like:

1. Non-trivial critical reaction from multiple independent published sources concerning themes or issues raised in the episode;
2. A demonstrably exceptional ratings pull within the context of the show's overall ratings profile;
3. A significant episode-specific award or awards;
4. A demonstrable cultural contribution that can be related specifically to the episode.

I have rewritten this Friends episode to demonstrate that kind of out-of-universe notability (won an episode-specific award, most watched episode of the series, produced a spin-off show) - probably any of those on their own would be grounds for arguing notability. Other clear examples: Trapped in the Closet (South Park), garnered significant media attention and was the subject of a debate about censorship, etc..., Deep Space Homer produced a culturally significant meme and has been the subject of external references, similarly Happy Days Episode 89 (Fonzie jumps the Shark! - no article) and Point of View (the M*A*S*H episode, no article) for its contribution to and role in television production techniques, etc..., etc.... In my reading of the Episode guideline, the mindless pablum of a DVD commentary track in no way qualifies as out-of-universe unless it can be demonstrably shown that the material itself has notability beyond the narrow confines of the show. I note that two of those episodes I cited do not yet have articles, while we nonetheless have all the highly unnotable articles above.... That simply confirms my view that this is fan-driven content (fine in-and-of-itself) that cares nothing for the guidelines and principles that have been established by consensus across the community (unacceptable). Eusebeus 14:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Eusebeus, your article is so brilliant that it doesn't cite a single source! (Which entails that it fails the guideline WP:EPISODE, apparently (as you say) that's unacceptable.) Matthew 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, I remember putting Neilsen rating information on both episodes of the Achy Jakey Heart saga. WAVY 10 14:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You need a source attached to them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source if anyone wants to add them to the pages (I'll do it when I get a chance if no one does). Right now the articles are actually wrong saying they had a Nielsen rating and actually reporting viewership, but this link gives both. I still don't think this makes them notable, however if there is a source saying it is a record for the channel (see Achy Jakey Heart, Part 2#Ratings) that may make a difference. Phydend 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the reference to both episodes. Phydend 03:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In the interim, over the next few days I intend to search online for more "real world sources" of info for this series. WAVY 10 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any kind of consensus developing here? Is there at least a general agreement that the episodes for which we have found sources should remain? Everyking 05:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the only people who have commented are the people who were active in both sides of the debate, (with the possible exception of yourself) and no one else. So I really dont know. I  ^{(said) (did)} 05:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at Achy Jakey Heart, Part 2#Ratings and note that the source for the rating gives two values for the same show (the higher one is the one in the article) and while this source does say that the show was viewed by however many people, it does not serve to establish notability. If these are the only sources on offer, then these episode articles should be redirected. --Jack Merridew 12:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ratings can also be placed on the list page. -- Ned Scott 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the same ol' discussion, but I think the pages should stay. Recent episodes are easy to add referenced info to, but people don't bother unless they're put on the chopping block. - Peregrine Fisher 19:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they are, then why don't you demonstrate for us? I  ^{(said) (did)} 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And it's not like we can be online 24-7 digging up sources for these articles (or any other ones, for that matter). WAVY 10 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources are not the problem for me, notability is. What is it about these episodes that you can say specifically about one, that you can't say about several? Then if there is something to say, is it more than plot summary, is it real world, is it trivial or not? Then finally, is it enough information that requires it's own article. So far no one has been able to point out anything that passes all those questions. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Notice to everybody interested: While we still have the episode pages available, we REALLY need to pare down the plot summaries. Almost all of the episodes have a "plot summary is too long" tag (possible copyright violation) so at least we can try to straighten that out. WAVY 10 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I trimmed down the Achy Jakey Heart, Part 1 and 2 plot summaries somewhat. WAVY 10 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You should focus on the summaries on List of Hannah Montana episodes as they are the ones that are not likely to be redirected. --Jack Merridew 07:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

motion to close, anyone?

Close how? The discussion above seems to me to be pretty evenly split, a classic example of "no consensus". I know that I'm coming in late, but I'd like to remind participants of something Jimbo said a long time ago. Some of you have seen me quote this before, but some of you probably haven't. It's from the earliest incarnation of Wikipedia:Importance:

"Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap.

I agree with this one completely. --Jimbo Wales"

As Everyking notes above, this is essentially an inclusionist/deletionist debate. My own leanings are generally inclusionist, but I do accept the general principle that not every television episode necessarily deserves its own Wikipedia page. On the subject of Hannah Montana episodes, I am agnostic, since I know next to nothing about the series. (Unlike some editors, however, I wouldn't dare to suggest that my own ignorance is evidence that the series or its episodes are not notable.)

A question I would ask is whether a printed Hannah Montana episode guide exists. If it does, and includes more than cast lists and plot summaries for each episode, I would consider that evidence that Hannah Montana episodes have the potential to meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:N. If not, I would consider that evidence that most individual Hannah Montana episodes (with the exception of the ones noted above) do not have the potential to meet the requirements of WP:RS or WP:N. Would that be a reasonable conclusion to draw? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see a real diff for that quote... and basically it has been addressed by WP:EPISODE.

As I see it, there has been no establishment of notability — something that this review was intended to nudge editors who believe the episodes to be notable to cite sources of.

I have no idea if an episode guide such as you postulate exists. I've seen no references added citing any such thing. If such a guide is extant it may well be some sort of official guide (since we're speculating here!) — and as such it would amount to a self-serving piece of show merchandising and would not constitute a third-party reliable source.

If the episodes are somehow viewed has having the potential to establish notability (w/RS), then the proper place for the current content of the episode articles is in their history just south of a redirect that should remain in place until someone actually does establish notability. --Jack Merridew 11:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought that "I" (that is, User:I, not me) established notability for at least two of the episodes with his Google News search. By the way, I wasn't putting the "episode guide" question out there as a roadblock to closure — it was a genuine question for people who know something about Hannah Montana. I've asked more about episode guides as a possible general criterion at Wikipedia talk:Television article review process, but I thought that this was where I'd find people who might know specifically whether a Hannah Montana episode guide exists. And I'd like to repeat that if it turns out that there is no such detailed episode guide (that is, one giving more than episode summaries and cast lists), I would maintain that was probably indicative that most Hannah Montana episodes aren't notable, and their pages should become redirects. However, that's just my opinion, and I don't really see a consensus either way in the discussion above. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I don't know if this diff from Meta is "real" enough for you, but it shows that the quote was being attributed to Jimbo as early as January 2002. At that time, the Wikipedia community was small enough that if the comment was misrepresented, Jimbo would have corrected it himself, yet as far as I can see he didn't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be sources that could be cited to establish notability in the Google search results given above — I'm not sure just which results people have been looking at; the results are dynamic. I did just look at those two articles and they don't appear to have had any new sources added recently, so the onus is still on anyone who cares to edit those episode articles. re the Wales quote, I was hoping for a diff of an actual edit he made somewhere so I could see the context in which the statement was made. I note that in the oldid you gave he referred to "episode articles with links to reviews" [my italics] — which, if by 3rd party RSs, would establish notability for the episode. --Jack Merridew 08:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I have not been able to find a printed episode guide. If there's nothing else to be said for this matter, we'll be adding a ratings column to the list of eps article, and redirecting once again. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As much as I want to keep them, let's just get some closure and sort the mess out later. WAVY 10 14:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start cleaning up the LOE table and redirecting; I'm not so sure we should include the ratings (the Episode list template doesn't seem to support this well). I'll skip that group for now... comments welcome. --Jack Merridew 09:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The LOE table will have to be reformatted to a version that will allow you to easily manipulate such things if you'd like to include the ratings in the LOE table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished a first pass on redirecting things and have not gotten into changing the LOE table format. I'm not in favor of including the ratings... anyone? --Jack Merridew 14:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sleepwalk this Way
• I Want You to Want Me ... To Go to Florida
• Everybody Was Best-Friend Fighting

We have another issue; not all of the episodes were included in the discussion list and I've not done anything to those (or the block under Neilsan ratings). These are mostly at the end of the LOE and may have been created since the original list was generated or may have been redirected at that moment... I believe that they should be included in this review. --Jack Merridew 14:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Those look more like future (read: speculative) episodes. Not sure what to do with those. WAVY 10 15:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I redirected them, too; they had been redirected after the first review. FYI, the Fighting one had been messed with - I can't be sure it was vandalism because, well, I don't watch this stuff!> --Jack Merridew 09:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional columns can be added to the episode list template by using Aux1=, Aux2=, or Aux3=. -- Ned Scott 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw those and didn't really like the look; I wasn't expecting additional fields in the middle. I may take another stab at it. --Jack Merridew 09:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.