![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
As of yet, there are no episodes scheduled for season 6. All we have at this time is a premiere date so we don't need a disproportionate amount of content by having a poorly worded statement in the lead (use the active voice and not everything is a revelation!) a row in the table that merely states the premiere date and a "season 6" section that says something different to what is in the lead. (The lead is supposed to summarise key points in the article). The "revelation" that the series has been renewed is redundant to the premiere date, so that isn't necessary at all. All we need is the premiere date, but we don't need it in the lead, the series overview table and in a separate section at the bottom of the article, all supported by the same citation in triplicate. Some of the IPs changing this are clearly not reading what they're changing. This one has some silly statements in the edit summary. "Season 6 is showing" - No it isn't. It doesn't start for 2 months. "A single table row for a season that WILL show isn't an "entire section" - The table isn't what is referred to. What is referred to is the season 6 section, which contains only a single statement that should be in the lead, as should the citation that is being used, which the article has in triplicate. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Most multi-season, hour-long dramas have a separate page for each season where they can list guest actors, provide a summary for any season-long story arcs. go into more detail. Now that this series is into its 6th season, might it be time to do this for Castle? Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Many of the titles refer to popular music, film... titles (Murder, he wrote/Dial M for.../The good, the bad and the baby...) This should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxilicioustomcat ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
There are two fundamental and probably insuperable problems here: a) even if we see what we believe are plays on other titles in the episode titles, we don't know that's the writers' intent, thus the need for a reliable source. Covert Affairs clearly uses song titles by a given artist for its episode titles (Bowie, etc.) but we had to leave it out for some time because we didn't have a reliable source to establish that was the writers' intent. Without a reliable source, we think, but we don't know; and b) even if we do know, is it encyclopedic? Frankly, this kind of play on words is commonplace in TV episode titles. Castle does more than most in all likelihood, but it barely rises to the level of trivia. This is far better content for the Castle wiki on wikia or someplace similar. Drmargi ( talk) 16:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The IP 106.51.44.224 has recently been removing summary information without giving a reason. I suspect it is to prevent spoilers, rather than to decrease the length of the page. As of 20 March 2014 [update], I will no longer revert this individual's removal(s), as I have informed them on their talkpage to come here and discuss it. I leave it to others to take up the mantle. — Wylie pedia 14:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
(UPDATE: I have changed the offending summary, since I added it, and informed the IP. However, I asked them to air their issues here, rather than edit warring. I also made no promises to keep out future episode spoilers.) — Wylie pedia 06:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@CAWylie, soooo your argument is that the show is so insanely popular it only has one episode article? @Drmargi, your argument: "X is not a spoiler, therefore X should not be removed because spoilers are not removed" absolutely cannot be a serious argument, which is why I thought you weren't being genuine. @AussieLegend. You are certainly wrong. Only fans read this. If you think people who aren't fans idly read episode summaries of castle episode you're deluded. Also, if we're supposed to be encyclopaedic, why don't you remove all of the original research done on this page? All of the episode descriptors should come from the official website, not from a random kid who watched the show then tried to type up a description. This is inherently NOT an encyclopaedic undertaking, therefore your "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia" argument doesn't apply here. You can't uphold one policy by violating another. It's not that simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottygang ( talk • contribs) 21:25, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
Ok, not to open up this whole can of worms again, but it looks to me like there was a lot of personal anger (personal anger I really don't understand) tied up in this discussion and not a lot of logical treatment. I'm posting on the talk page because I noticed the same thing, that a number of the episode descriptions straight-up tell you who the killer is. Having read WP:SPOILER, I don't think the issue is quite as cut-and-dried as editors here are making it out to be. The point of WP:SPOILER is primarily about not posting spoiler warnings, and while it does say information should not be removed because it is a spoiler, that doesn't mean spoilers can't be removed for other reasons. The point Scottygang makes about encyclopedic treatment involving sourcing the episode descriptions from the ABC website seems legitimate to me.
All that aside, I think the main point is being missed here. Why does this page have descriptions of episodes? Many other "list of X episodes" pages do not include these episode descriptions.
See List of Archer episodes, List of House episodes, List of Scandal episodes, List of Dexter episodes, etc.
Some do - the only one I've been able to find so far is List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, and these descriptions are short, pithy, and do not contain extensive plot detail. I think the case could be made that these descriptions do not merit inclusion even on that page.
Which brings me to the final issue: the episode descriptions on this page vary substantially in quality and length (many are quite poorly written), and are very much inconsistent in whether they provide spoilers (i.e. fully detail the plot of the episode) or not. They frequently editorialize the events, places, and characters. So rather than starting an edit war and everyone getting all pissed off, could someone please lay out a calm, rational defense for episode descriptions? Thank you. Gruds ( talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm watching Season 6 for the first time now and am using this page to provide a succinct, spoiler-free summary for each episode. As I've done with many other shows that I binge-watch, if I come across an episode summary that is either too long, sloppily written or provides spoilers (such as, in the case of this show, who the murderer is), I will edit the given summary to make it more in line with the rest on the page. Please don't revert my edits unless there's a legitimately good reason to do so. I'm happy to discuss what constitutes such, but I'm only editing in order to improve this page and Wikipedia as a whole. If you have an issue with my edits, please talk to me on my talk page before reverting. Thanks! Ilva ( talk) 11:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
|ShortSummary=
should contain "a short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode". Reducing plot summaries from 81 and 75 words to 32 and 48 words,
[2] really isn't necessary, as the summaries are succinct enough. If anything, they should probably be expanded. Please note that since we're discussing article content, this is the place to discuss the matter. Such discussions should not generally be on user talk pages. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
12:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)For a long time now we have used the second option listed at MOS:POSS for use of the possessive s, i.e. simply add an apostrophe at the end of a word ending in s. Today, JesseRafe chose to arbitrarily change this, [3] so I reverted. JesseRafe reverted this, arguing "The plural of Alexis is Alexis's", not that we're talking about plurals at all, [4] so I reverted, pointing to MOS:POSS in the summary. I also left a request at JesseRafe's talk page, asking him to discuss on this talk page. [5] However, rather than discuss, JesseRafe has chosen to edit-war, [6] so I've decided to start the discussion. Do we wish to continue the way we've been going for years, or are we going to change the way we use the possessive s? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 08:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I find it funny that Bridget Jones's Diary is used as an example here, but Bridget Jones' Diary (musical) is not. Guess whoever titled the musical didn't get consensus? — Wylie pedia 14:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Castle fans. This old draft will soon be deleted unless someone takes an interest in it. I noticed a discussion about splitting the episodes into seasons; I presume that this page is relevant to that. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
As of yet, there are no episodes scheduled for season 6. All we have at this time is a premiere date so we don't need a disproportionate amount of content by having a poorly worded statement in the lead (use the active voice and not everything is a revelation!) a row in the table that merely states the premiere date and a "season 6" section that says something different to what is in the lead. (The lead is supposed to summarise key points in the article). The "revelation" that the series has been renewed is redundant to the premiere date, so that isn't necessary at all. All we need is the premiere date, but we don't need it in the lead, the series overview table and in a separate section at the bottom of the article, all supported by the same citation in triplicate. Some of the IPs changing this are clearly not reading what they're changing. This one has some silly statements in the edit summary. "Season 6 is showing" - No it isn't. It doesn't start for 2 months. "A single table row for a season that WILL show isn't an "entire section" - The table isn't what is referred to. What is referred to is the season 6 section, which contains only a single statement that should be in the lead, as should the citation that is being used, which the article has in triplicate. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Most multi-season, hour-long dramas have a separate page for each season where they can list guest actors, provide a summary for any season-long story arcs. go into more detail. Now that this series is into its 6th season, might it be time to do this for Castle? Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Many of the titles refer to popular music, film... titles (Murder, he wrote/Dial M for.../The good, the bad and the baby...) This should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxilicioustomcat ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
There are two fundamental and probably insuperable problems here: a) even if we see what we believe are plays on other titles in the episode titles, we don't know that's the writers' intent, thus the need for a reliable source. Covert Affairs clearly uses song titles by a given artist for its episode titles (Bowie, etc.) but we had to leave it out for some time because we didn't have a reliable source to establish that was the writers' intent. Without a reliable source, we think, but we don't know; and b) even if we do know, is it encyclopedic? Frankly, this kind of play on words is commonplace in TV episode titles. Castle does more than most in all likelihood, but it barely rises to the level of trivia. This is far better content for the Castle wiki on wikia or someplace similar. Drmargi ( talk) 16:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The IP 106.51.44.224 has recently been removing summary information without giving a reason. I suspect it is to prevent spoilers, rather than to decrease the length of the page. As of 20 March 2014 [update], I will no longer revert this individual's removal(s), as I have informed them on their talkpage to come here and discuss it. I leave it to others to take up the mantle. — Wylie pedia 14:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
(UPDATE: I have changed the offending summary, since I added it, and informed the IP. However, I asked them to air their issues here, rather than edit warring. I also made no promises to keep out future episode spoilers.) — Wylie pedia 06:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@CAWylie, soooo your argument is that the show is so insanely popular it only has one episode article? @Drmargi, your argument: "X is not a spoiler, therefore X should not be removed because spoilers are not removed" absolutely cannot be a serious argument, which is why I thought you weren't being genuine. @AussieLegend. You are certainly wrong. Only fans read this. If you think people who aren't fans idly read episode summaries of castle episode you're deluded. Also, if we're supposed to be encyclopaedic, why don't you remove all of the original research done on this page? All of the episode descriptors should come from the official website, not from a random kid who watched the show then tried to type up a description. This is inherently NOT an encyclopaedic undertaking, therefore your "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia" argument doesn't apply here. You can't uphold one policy by violating another. It's not that simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottygang ( talk • contribs) 21:25, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
Ok, not to open up this whole can of worms again, but it looks to me like there was a lot of personal anger (personal anger I really don't understand) tied up in this discussion and not a lot of logical treatment. I'm posting on the talk page because I noticed the same thing, that a number of the episode descriptions straight-up tell you who the killer is. Having read WP:SPOILER, I don't think the issue is quite as cut-and-dried as editors here are making it out to be. The point of WP:SPOILER is primarily about not posting spoiler warnings, and while it does say information should not be removed because it is a spoiler, that doesn't mean spoilers can't be removed for other reasons. The point Scottygang makes about encyclopedic treatment involving sourcing the episode descriptions from the ABC website seems legitimate to me.
All that aside, I think the main point is being missed here. Why does this page have descriptions of episodes? Many other "list of X episodes" pages do not include these episode descriptions.
See List of Archer episodes, List of House episodes, List of Scandal episodes, List of Dexter episodes, etc.
Some do - the only one I've been able to find so far is List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, and these descriptions are short, pithy, and do not contain extensive plot detail. I think the case could be made that these descriptions do not merit inclusion even on that page.
Which brings me to the final issue: the episode descriptions on this page vary substantially in quality and length (many are quite poorly written), and are very much inconsistent in whether they provide spoilers (i.e. fully detail the plot of the episode) or not. They frequently editorialize the events, places, and characters. So rather than starting an edit war and everyone getting all pissed off, could someone please lay out a calm, rational defense for episode descriptions? Thank you. Gruds ( talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm watching Season 6 for the first time now and am using this page to provide a succinct, spoiler-free summary for each episode. As I've done with many other shows that I binge-watch, if I come across an episode summary that is either too long, sloppily written or provides spoilers (such as, in the case of this show, who the murderer is), I will edit the given summary to make it more in line with the rest on the page. Please don't revert my edits unless there's a legitimately good reason to do so. I'm happy to discuss what constitutes such, but I'm only editing in order to improve this page and Wikipedia as a whole. If you have an issue with my edits, please talk to me on my talk page before reverting. Thanks! Ilva ( talk) 11:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
|ShortSummary=
should contain "a short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode". Reducing plot summaries from 81 and 75 words to 32 and 48 words,
[2] really isn't necessary, as the summaries are succinct enough. If anything, they should probably be expanded. Please note that since we're discussing article content, this is the place to discuss the matter. Such discussions should not generally be on user talk pages. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
12:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)For a long time now we have used the second option listed at MOS:POSS for use of the possessive s, i.e. simply add an apostrophe at the end of a word ending in s. Today, JesseRafe chose to arbitrarily change this, [3] so I reverted. JesseRafe reverted this, arguing "The plural of Alexis is Alexis's", not that we're talking about plurals at all, [4] so I reverted, pointing to MOS:POSS in the summary. I also left a request at JesseRafe's talk page, asking him to discuss on this talk page. [5] However, rather than discuss, JesseRafe has chosen to edit-war, [6] so I've decided to start the discussion. Do we wish to continue the way we've been going for years, or are we going to change the way we use the possessive s? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 08:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I find it funny that Bridget Jones's Diary is used as an example here, but Bridget Jones' Diary (musical) is not. Guess whoever titled the musical didn't get consensus? — Wylie pedia 14:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Castle fans. This old draft will soon be deleted unless someone takes an interest in it. I noticed a discussion about splitting the episodes into seasons; I presume that this page is relevant to that. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)