Talk:List of Primeval episodes

Ep. 9

It's rather amusing trivia that in episode 9, when the victim moves the jukebox to block the station waiting room entrance to the Smilodon it starts playing Get It On by T.Rex! -- Arwel (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers for series 3

Who the hell keeps saying a german won the Design a creature comp?? It hasn't ended yet so stop changing it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.104.109 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no proof a meteor will come through an anomaly. Removing section... Nemesis646 (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

where did you got the spoiler for season 3? please give me a anwser soon. i hope its all true^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.215.121.88 (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC) and where did you got the info of the t-rex? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.215.121.88 (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not put the info up, do not ask me. Nemesis646 (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone in particular, but where is the proof for the number of episodes in Series 3, and the T-Rex in Episode 23? --Ac02111993 (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

why first 13 episodes and now 10 ?! who put the info of the dimetrodon, phorusrhacos/gastornis and t-rex in ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.215.87.49 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

it has been confirmed that were will be 13 ep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.215.80.135 (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The only place I can find that says anything about 13 episodes is DouglasHenshall.com, and it is not conclusively confirmed. To quote: "It is thought that Primeval Series 3 will have thirteen episodes". I think this should be made clear. If you you do have any other evidence for 13 episodes, please provide some sort of link.User:Ac02111993

The third season hasn't even begun filming yet, so it's a pretty safe bet that all this "information" about what creatures will show up is 100% speculation. I wouldn't mind if it was true, and there is going to be an episode where a tyrannosaurus rex goes on a rampage. But unless there's some actual sources besides what people think will happen, it's still just speculation and doesn't belong on the page. --FuegoFish (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, someone has put up proofless summaries for Series 3. The fact that they provided the airdate as "Who knows? Maybe tomorrow..." shows it to be false. Deleting now... --Ac02111993 (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted all the bullshit summaries for series 3. No sources are given, nothing on the ITV site or anywhere else to support this. Please don't put it back UNLESS YOU HAVE A SOURCE. 210.17.143.172 (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the unsourced episode descriptions for series 3 again. Please don't restore unless you can provide a source. Jihg (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be the same person doing this, as they keep posting the same episode summaries again and again... --Ac02111993 (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WTF?! 18 episodes?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.215.121.123 (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ah, when will this madness end, fine u know what i'll make up my own spoilers my self, he-hahaha

This idiot posting from 79.215.* (t-dialin.net, Germany) keeps posting the same bogus summaries, every day or two. I left a comment in the page asking him to discuss his changes. He hasn't, and has just reinserted his summaries. We must assume that he is not just pigheaded, but malicious. 210.17.197.41 (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And now the vandal is changing other info, not just inserting his bogus summaries. I reverted wrong dates for series 1. This is getting pretty annoying. 210.17.193.79 (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed he also deleted my reference to his IP above. I put that back. 210.17.193.79 (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And again, the vandal changed the (German) IP listed in the above comment to a different (French) one. I reverted it. 210.17.143.27 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And again, reverted dozens of edits the vandal posting from 79.215.* made to both the article and discussion page.210.17.198.247 (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting more vandalism by 79.215.*, He also trashed the article. Barsoomian (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Have to revert every day the vandalism here by 79.215.*. What a stupid waste of time. Sign up for a login and discuss what you're trying to do. For a start, your 13 "spoilers" Are obviously bogus, since we now know there will only be 10 episodes. Barsoomian (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

why dont you delete the spoilers? cuz it wasnt me who put it up again? anyways there are fake cuz there isnt any phorusrhacos in series 3 but another terror bird called titanus. also the competition creature will appear in episode 8 not 7. that was written on dougies site... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.215.92.222 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There aren't any spoilers there. And if you want to contribute, get an account and take responsibility for what you do. Barsoomian (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've put a month's semi-protection on the article. Hopefully it will introduce a bit of stability. Apologies if it inhibits any other editors - if you think is a month is too long, please leave a note here or on my talk page. -- Arwel (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

btw im not the only one who post the spoiler which are true look in the history morons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.215.88.54 (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Look, "79.215", if your info is "true", explain where you got it from. If it's got a credible source, cite it and no one will complain. Barsoomian (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Our friend 79.215 continues his vandalism. Reverted again. Barsoomian (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Primeval Roundtable with Tim Haines and Adrian Hodges

woot new spoilers! 10 episodes and a crocodile from the future! Primeval Roundtable with Tim Haines and Adrian Hodges

-- see [1]
(replaced text with link Barsoomian (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

• —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.215.110.20 (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only detail from the "Roundtable" linked above that belongs on this page (it's "List of Primeval episodes", not "General speculation about next season") is the simple fact that there will be 10 episodes. All the rest -- general stuff like who will be returning, new characters -- should be worked into the main Primeval page if anywhere. And no point in mentioning things now known to be incorrect (Someone saying there would be 13 episodes.) Barsoomian (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Name: Tgirl Is Stephan going to be in seires 4 because some people say he is going to be in it. I am just checking Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.128.235 (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode Titles

I am aware (and disappointed) that there are no official episode titles and realise why the titles on the page are as given, but given the normal convention is to use the "SOOEOO" format, might not it be a good idea to change the titles so they keep with this format (whilst leaving the links in tact for simplicity's sake) if there are no objections to this I will make the appropriate changes on the 6h of September.Benv-b92 (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from the ITV site it seems they use "Series Two, Episode One", etc., rather than continuous numbering as is here now. I don't know that we need to use the fairly cryptic "S00E00" format though (familiar as it is to those who download episodes). Barsoomian (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, who decided to number the episodes here continuously? It's pretty confusing, as everywhere else, most particularly ITV itself, uses series:episode format. So I will renumber them as series:episode. Barsoomian (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted a bunch of fake episode titles someone inserted. You can find these on various fan sites -- eg freebase but not on any ITV webpage or DVD. Presumably just made up by someone. (As if they would really title an episode "Ptera-ble News" -- have some common sense.) Also a bunch of links to episode articles; quite pointless as they all, except the first and last, just redirect back to this page. Barsoomian (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

BBC America Air Dates

Should we include the air dates for the U.S. like some other multi-national shows listed on Wikipedia? I would think we should, as the U.S. is just getting the first series now. 24.17.159.119 (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Episode 13

Any reason that this episode redirects back to this page? It's the only one that does so, all other episodes have articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.139.27 (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

episode links

weeks ago, all the episodes up to series 2, except episode 13, had hyperlinks to that page. Why are nearly all of them suddenly gone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.163.32.101 (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Episode 13 (Primeval) closed as redirect (the episode article didn't meet the threshold of inclusion for wikipedia), and all other episode articles that were just like that were also redirected. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Air date Ep. 14

I just watched the first episode of the new season/series on the German tv channel Pro7 (which also co-produces Primeval). Shouldn't that change the "Original Airdate" in the table to "23 March 2009"? — Tauriel-1 (☎) 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode 4 was already aired yesterday in Spain (channel Cuatro), dubbed and all. How is it possible this isn't in the UK yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.23.2 (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand, the series was completed and ready to be aired all the way back in January. However, scheduling conflicts prevented ITV from airing it that early as there was no slot where they could run the new episodes for ten weeks. This was likely a factor. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK then, but what should be inserted as "Original air date" in the table if ITV is one of the "last" channels to air Primeval? The UK dates seem to be a bit random. ;-) — Tauriel-1 (☎) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the general practice is to use the first air date of the country that produced the show, though I'm really not entirely sure in this case. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Every group of TV show articles handle it differently. For example, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and List of Stargate Atlantis episodes list the world premiere dates with the corresponding TV channel in brackets. The same could be done here, but it doesn't have to. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess it just comes down to what we as a group prefer. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, according to http://primeval.tv/, the German channel Pro7 is also (co-)producing Primeval: "An Impossible Pictures production for ITV and Pro7. Distributed by BBC Worldwide" (last paragraph of start page). But I think it's OK to use the UK dates. (Then we won't have to change all the dates. :-) — Tauriel-1 (☎) 20:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

series 3 information?

Is this true? http://primevals3.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.104.211.190 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Some random fan blog with no sources given. Barsoomian (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Eps 17/18

Episode 17 - since it's almost certainly part of the story arc, how about a mention of Christine's anomaly and Future Predator experiments?

Episode 18 - could do with a tidy up. We've got two versions of the same synopsis at the moment...

87.194.104.79 (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Oops - forgot to log in! This section was actually me.... Mittfh (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the episode yet (still downloading), but if it's included in the episode then it's certainly worth a mention. I don't know why a second summary for episode 18 was added, but I've removed it and re-written the first one to make it more concise. I think most of the summaries need re-writing to be brutally honest; some are too short, there are a lot of grammatical errors, etc. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ep. 17 -- the newspaper hack and his boss didn't go through the portal; they were squashed under the foot of the G-Rex as it made its way back into it. We didn't see the grisly end, it was obscured by some equipment, but the article is wrong saying they went through the portal and it was then locked. -- Ralph Corderoy (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If we didn't see it, how can we be sure that it happened? Do you have a source for it? MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You can clearly hear them getting squished underneath the G-Rex before it heads into the anomaly. 80.177.217.162 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

episode pages

Months ago, all of the pages for each episodes except 1 and 6 got deleted. Are we never getting them back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.104.211.190 (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the interactive episode on their website?

It was promoted during season 3. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI: "List of creatures in Primeval" could be deleted

The related article List of creatures in Primeval has been nominated for deletion. If you want to express an opinion for or against, please do so ASAP, before 6 Jan 2010 at [2].Barsoomian (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Gorgonops not Inostrancevia

The gorgonopsid in episode 1 and episode 6 is definitely Gorgonops and not Inostrancevia. I don't care if Gorgonops never co-existed with Scutosaurus or Coelurosauravus, neither did Anurognathus with Pteranodon. Also, I seem to be the only one who notices the faint letters "Gorgonops" beneath the title "Gorgonopsid" in Connor's computer profile of the animal. I changed the species from Inostrancevia to Gorgonops sp. once and I was frustrated to see it changed back. I am going to edit the page again and do not want to see it edited back again, do I make myself clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.137.134 (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Series 4 info

On this page: [3] is a cached version of a BBC press release giving synopses of the first 3 episodes. Current version seems to have omitted the synopses. But I think this is reliable enough to be used in our article. Barsoomian (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC) I include the full text of the synopses here:

Copyright violation removed --AussieLegend (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh great. Someone added fanfic summaries for the rest of the season. (Apparently sourced from a primary school creative writing class.) Then the clean up deleted all my cited summaries along with the crud. So I reinstated them, with the full ref tags. Let's see if these survive the over-enthusiastic fans, and the over-enthusiastic deleters. Barsoomian (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Only the summary for episode one was cited. It was removed because it was a copyright violation and the others were removed because they were uncited. I've just removed the summaries for episodes one & three because they too are copyright violations. Despite being press releases, the content is copyrighted and use of the unaltered text constitutes a copyright violation.[4][5] This is true anywhere on Wikipedia, which is why I've just removed the text of the press release from this thread. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The text IN THE ARTICLE was not a copyright violation. I had summarised and cut it down from the text in the press release. A few words do not constitute a copyright violation. The usual rule of thumb is at least 10% of the original "work". What there is left is certainly fair use. I placed a full copy here, on the discussion page, to prove what my source was, as all the nuts are out with their fanfic summaries. So I will restore the summaries in the article, as they are correctly cited, and NOT copyright violations. And I've rewritten them again, you won't find more than a phrase verbatim. I don't understand how anyone could be concerned about copied text from a press release anyway; that's the whole idea. Your citations on the subject are discussion and personal opinions, not policy, and in any case do not support your apparent interpretation that nothing at all can be used from a press release -- in fact you are insisting on a level of protection of press releases more than any normally published text would be. Barsoomian (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The text was most certainly a copyright violation. Significant portions of it, in fact more than 80% of what you wrote, were lifted straight from the press release.[6] --AussieLegend (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not a copyright violation. You have it backwards: the issue is not how much comes from the source; it's how much of the source is quoted. That was fair use. If it were 80% of the press release (which is 1900 words long), it might be a problem. "Lifted" from a press release?! A sentence from a haiku is a violation, not from a press release. We're talking about verifiable sources, not copying homework. In any case, I've rewritten the damn things "in my own words" so I hope you are happy now. I still find the whole concept of such deep concern concern for a press release's copyright bizarre in the extreme. Barsoomian (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

New episode sypnoses information Sources:http://primeval.on-my.tv/os —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.106.53 (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

These aren't "new". They're from TVrage, and they're (except for the first three, which have already been entered here) the same made-up bullshit that has been pasted, and deleted here several times. We need an official source, not a website that any anonymous person can use to publish their fanfic. However, they are pretty hilarious. Barsoomian (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Webisodes

By convention, webisodes are listed separately to aired episodes regardless of when they were released. This is similar to the way in which DVD releases are treated. The most obvious reason is that they are a different media. Webisodes aren't part of the normal episode sequence and therefore shouldn't be located amongst normal aired episodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

By whose convention? Where is this "convention" documented? And in this case, the Webisodes most certainly ARE part of the episode sequence, set a few months after the end of Series 3 and about 8 months before the start of Series 4, by internal references. I don't see any analogy with DVDs, they're not equivalent to "DVD extras" if that's what you mean. These were meant to be seen before the beginning of Series 4 and were released a week before it began. They introduce the new characters and setting.Barsoomian (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that conventions don't actually have to be written down don't you? Perhaps I should have said "standard practice", for it most definitely is. While the webisodes may be set between the series, they are not aired episodes and not part of the episode sequence. They are extra to it. They are not seen by those who watch the series on-air, only by those who seek them out on the internet, just as the DVD extras are seen only by those who buy the DVDs. If they were also shown on-air, then adding them to the aired episodes list might be appropriate but if the only media they exist on is the internet, then they go in a different section, as per standard practice. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to confirm that. So it actually isn't a formal policy, you just think it should be. And again, these are not "DVD extras", they ARE part of the episode sequence, until you displaced them that was. In the words of ITV they are described as "Exclusive Episodes". Which is why they're included in this article at all. They are "aired" online, deliberately just before the Series 4 TV episodes. You don't know what proportion of viewers have seen them or not; and it doesn't matter. This hasn't been done often enough to become a "standard practice". I have seen other shows with webisodes that really are separate from the main plot, but these are integral to it. I don't see how anyone is helped by you insisting on putting these out of sequence. If they are eligible to be listed at all in List of Primeval episodes (and since you didn't try to delete them, I assume you agree they are) then what is the point of putting them in the wrong order?Barsoomian (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're putting one and one together and getting three. Like writing episode summaries in your own words, instead of copying someone elses, it's a standard practice. If you don't think it is, please show me some lists where the webisodes are mixed in with the episodes. I can show you plenty where they aren't, like List of Stargate Universe episodes and List of Eureka episodes, just two currently airing programs that use webisodes. As much as you might not want them to be, the webisodes are more like DVD extras than normal episodes. (They'll probably be on the DVD as extra material) They aren't aired, they're only available on the internet. They're not integral to the plot in that you can happily watch only the aired episodes and not miss anything. There was no warning at the beginning of the first episode to run out and watch these first; they weren't even mentioned until the closing credits had started. As I've already indicated, they are a different media, they weren't aired, so they don't belong with the aired episodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm maintaining a page called List of Primeval episodes. Not List of Primeval episodes broadcast on TV and I see you putting them out of order because "they are more like DVD extras" ?? WTF? They're episodes, That's what ITV calls them, not just me, however broadcast, not outtakes, or whatever. They're meant to inform the viewer of what has happened before Episode 4.1. They are set in a definite sequence, all between Episode 3.10 and Episode 4.1. I don't watch the shows you mention, so I can't say if your analogy is correct. I do know that for THIS show, it is correct to list them in broadcast order, and intended viewing order, not separated due to whatever "media" they initially happened to be. Oh and very classy for sniping at me about the other unrelated issue. Barsoomian (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Lists of episodes are traditionally for aired episodes. That's why fields in {{Episode list}}, like "|OriginalAirDate=" are named the way they are. Of course, that doesn't exclude listing other media but we group them accordingly, aired episodes in one section, webisodes in another, DVDs in another and so on. As for your last comment, may I remind you of this attempt at point scoring? And this was inappropriate canvassing given this edit. It now taints any comment made by that editor. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've discussed the subject at hand, you keep trying to reignite an argument on an unrelated subject. I'm unpersuaded by your arguments, the Stargate and Eureka webisodes you cite don't seem seem analogous in function. Here, episodes are episodes. They involve the same central characters in the same setting, deliberately bridging the end of Series 3 to the setup of Series 4. They're not some Rosencrantz and Guildenstern sidelight on the "real" episodes, they are part of the main story development. This is a list of episodes. There is no rational reason to list them out of sequence if we list them at all. So I'm reinstating the original chronological and logical ordering, which was endorsed by at least one other editor, who you also reverted (that was before he was "tainted", so I think it counts, if you're keeping score, as I'm sure you are). Barsoomian (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition to canvassing, it's poor form to change disputed content during a discussion. That's edit-warring. While you may be "unpersuaded", please remember, you do not own the article as this action and some of your statements imply that you believe you do. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who is uninvolved up to this point, I have to say that it makes little sense to me that the webisodes would be placed after Series 4. The first reason for this is internal chronology; the webisodes serve to bridge the gap between series 3 and 4, and take place in the year between the events of 3.10 and 4.1. Placing them between 3 and 4 makes sense beyond just the timeline; what sense does it make to the reader that canon information is detailed out of order? And where will they go following the airing of subsequent series? Will the order be Series 1-2-3-4-5-6-4 webisodes? The longer the program airs, the less sense that it will make to have the information out of chronology. A final reason why it makes little sense is because of the year that they were aired. Each series is followed by the year of broadcast, so having 2007-2008-2009-2011-2010 again comes across as nothing more than nonsensical. Placing the webisodes between series 3 and 4 makes much more sense to me for all of these reasons. Remember too that Wikipedia has no policy on precedence, so arguing that we should do this in Article X because that is how it is done in Article Y is nothing more than a variant of WP:OTHERCRAP, which really is not a good justification for any decision.

I also do not believe that Barsoomian was canvessing; having read his message, the wording seems more like a notification that a discussion was underway on a subject that the other user might be interested in. Nowhere in the message was there a request to respond in a manner that would support Barsoomian's position; just a request for a level-headed editor who does not have prior editing conflict with you to respond so that the discussion does not end in a stalemate between two editors who refuse to back down either which way in order to achieve consensus. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Although several editors have contributed to this article, the only editor that Barsoomian contacted was the one editor who had moved the webisodes back to where Barsoomian wanted them. His message to the editor was not neutral, it was complaining about the only other editor involved.[7] The selected target of the message and the message itself seems aimed at evoking an "opinion" in his favour. Limited posting of a biased message to a partisan audience is clearly an attempt at vote-stacking. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Make a formal complaint in the appropriate venue if that's what you believe. I'll delete the invitation, without any admission that it was inappropriate, as we do have a third opinion now. Note that I didn't contact Melicans; we've butted heads before so you can't accuse him of being partial to me. Try to argue the issue here.Barsoomian (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's too late to delete the invitation. The damage has been done. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Tragic. Such awful damage was done. But we'll just have to buckle up and soldier on. And I see you have contacted everyone except the editor who you reverted on this question. Well, I'm sure that's all perfectly fine and above-board. Barsoomian (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you had already notified that editor, notifying him again was both unnecessary and inappropriate, --AussieLegend (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I knew you'd have a good excuse for excluding him. No problem then. Barsoomian (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Webisodes if aired are important to a series.If the webisodes contain important info creditable to the series to make sense of mysteries, questions and reason ( which they do ) it is essential for then to be listed on the list of episodes. Also the purpose of Wikipedia is list as much info as possible. --Marker10 (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue of discussion isn't about whether they should be included or removed; I don't think anybody has been arguing for their removal. Rather, it is about whether the webisodes should be listed between Series 3 and Series 4 or after Series 4 in the episode list. Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Webisodes if aired" - The point is the webisodes haven't been aired. They've been streamed in a different media to the episodes, just as DVD extras appear in a different media to the episodes. They don't get episode status just because they exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The definition is in the title: Webisode - an episode especially of a TV show that may or may not have been telecast but can be viewed at a Web site. They may have been broadcast on a different medium, but that in no way detracts from their status as an episode. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Lets make this EASY: There is a very high chance these will not appear on DVD, its also very unlikey these clips will get a broadcast on tv. So, would alot of people be able to see these? its very very doubtful, if a note was made about these then that would be alright but I doubt these will ever see the light of day again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 17:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the DVD will be out soon, so we'll see then. Though I would be amazed if they weren't on it. Don't know why that's relevant to this discussion one way or another. In any case, they are available now on ITV and BBC America, and will be floating around the Internet , Youtube etc, indefinitely. Plenty of TV shows are listed that were broadcast once and never seen again in any format. Barsoomian (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Can ANYONE provide another wiki page which also hold Webisdoes on them? I have not seen any, so why should this be the first one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There would be no point it would only hold five small episodes.--Marker10 (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've provided two above, List of Stargate Universe episodes and List of Eureka episodes. It's fairly common to list websides now, but they're always in a different section to the aired episodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The Webisodes are set during series 3 and 4 so why should they not be listed in between them, all the episodes in the list are supposed to be in chronological order. --Marker10 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If they're set during series 3 and 4, why are they listed only as series 4 webisodes? As I've indicated above, webisodes are always placed in their own section, regardless of their position in the timeline, because they aren't part of the episode list. Yet can bet your life that when the DVD is released, if it includes the webisodes, they won't be listed before the season 4 episodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

They were obviously made during the production of Series 4, and were released a week before Episode 4.1 was broadcast, using only the new cast members, the new ARC set, and none of the non-returning cast of Series 3. If you have a better idea for a title, please suggest it. ITV's webpage calls them "Exclusive Episodes", but that doesn't help much. I've seen them called "Series 4 Prequels", but they're technically not prequels, though it seems that showbiz is broadening the definition of that word to include what is more correctly a prelude or prologue. I did think that it needed to be clear they were webisodes so I put that in the heading. (Personally I title them collectively as Episode 4.0 on my own compilation.) The title though has no bearing on the sequence of episodes, which is unambiguous: after 3.10, before 4.1. Barsoomian (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The voiceover at the end of episode 1 calls them "exclusive prequel episodes" and since actual episodes are authoritative, that's what they are. They're not mentioned at all at the end of episode 2. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That was a continuity announcer (he also talks about other upcoming ITV shows), it's not part of the episode. The actual webpage they're on is called "Exclusive Episodes". But elsewhere they do use the "prequel" word, though as an adjective (uncapitalised) than a name. I don't think they can be definitively said to have an official name yet as a group. If the DVD has something sensible we might use that. Barsoomian (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

4.6 Post-apocalyptic

Regarding impending revert war about summary of 4.6:

... and Gideon dies from an illness and is revealed to be Matt's father and from a post-apocalyptic future.

We are SHOWN the world that Gideon and Matt come from. It's clearly post-apocalyptic. If we were going to take several paragraphs summarising the episode, we could say that "it suggests", or whatever. But in a few lines, we just cut to the chase. The next episode confirms it so it's just pointless pedanticism to waffle about other interpretations, OR, Synthesis, or whatever. At worst it's a "spoiler", which Wikipedia doesn't avoid.

Dialogue from 4.6: @ 02:45, (after scene of blasted, smoking landscape):

[Gideon] Ah. I was... dreaming of home.

Dialogue from 4.7: @42:15

[Emily] From where? The future?

[Matt] Everything there is either dead or dying. We exist underground because the surface of the planet can't sustain life any more. It's sterile... because of something mankind did.

Barsoomian (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't use what occurred in episode 4.7 to to go back and explain what happened in 4.6. That breaches WP:NPOV, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH. You can only report what actually happened in each episode as you saw it. We discussed this at Talk:List of Primeval characters#Original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, now and then. It's "crystal ball" to talk about events that we don't know. WE KNOW NOW FOR A FACT, as I cited the dialogue above-- it was clear in 4.6 and spelled out in 4.7. And when we "discussed" it before you were wrong then too, but I didn't have the energy to argue with you. You weren't supported by the other editor that took an interest, it's not just me. And your other labels above are equally wrong. NPOV? WTF Are you talking about? I have no idea how even you could find that applicable. SYNTHESIS: The only way to "report what actually happened" without "synthesis" is to watch the show on video. The act of writing down and summarising 45 minutes of video into three lines of text by its very nature is "synthesis". If you want to be literal, and you obviously do, it is literally impossible to summarise any show without falling foul of one of your beloved acronyms. If you can't credit was was SEEN ON SCREEN AND SPOKEN then it's hopeless to argue with you. So again, I will withdraw from the argument, but do not concede. Barsoomian (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We can only report what an episode actually conveys. Anything else is original research. Making a statement about an episode based on what occurs in a subsequent episode is WP:CRYSTAL and there's plenty of precedent for that. The other editor actually did support what I said when he said "Saying that Gideon saw his home in an apocalyptic future before he died would be original research", even though he hadn't seen the episode. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. And your declaration that you were "supported" by the other editor is both synthesis and NPOV. And irrelevant since 4.7.Barsoomian (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks.[8] The other editor was clear in what he said. What he argued against was exactly what you were doing. There was no synth or non-NPOV involved. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Personal"? Disagreeing with your judgement isn't "personal". Lodge a complaint if you think otherwise. (I found your statements about my edits in your edit summaries pretty insulting, if you want to go there.) And as for the actual issue: what was conceivably "crystal ball" when the related issue came up before episode 4.7 was aired, is now recorded fact. Though it was perfectly clear in 4.6 despite your entertaining alternate interpretations, which I'm sure even you put no credence in.Barsoomian (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Calling somebody "wacko" in an edit summary is a personal attack. As for my edit summaries, I don't see how "r" (short for reply) can be offensive but if you think it is.... As for your "points", we've been over this and you haven't produced anything that supports your claims, then or now. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't call you a wacko. I didn't call ANYONE a wacko. I wrote one word, not including any reference to you. Maybe I was referring to my own statement, wasting time on this triviality. Maybe I was humming "Wacko the diddlyo" and typed it by accident. Frankly, I don't remember. You're being NNPOV and using SYNTHESIS again to assert that. And "we've been over this"? Who is "we"? I think you mean that you've told me and I should shut up and do what you say. Sorry, but no. Barsoomian (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Original research

Regarding this edit, where exactly was it shown to be Gideon's home? Where was "home" mentioned? Did Gideon mention home? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See the dialogue I quoted above. Thus I put quotemarks around the word "home", because that was the exact word he used. I didn't say it was "the future post-apocalyptic earth" even though that's completely obvious and confirmed later. Barsoomian (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Citations: It's pretty inane to cite the same episode as you are summarising as the source, but I did that as it's preferable to having "citation needed" tags cluttering it up. Incidentally, "--" is a common ASCII representation for a dash. A (single) hyphen is not a dash. But to make you happy I put a real ANSI dash "–" in, I usually don't bother in web pages. Barsoomian (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• And a secondary source. Primeval Episode 4.06 Review "So that landscape Matt was dreaming about back in episode one is his home." Barsoomian (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Webisode numbering

The following discussion was copied from my talk page by Barsoomian. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't put numbers on the Primeval Webisodes as a joke. I put them there so as labels so they could be cross referenced. The number is arbitrary. I used 23.1 as it's after 23 and before 24, which is where they fit. Now you've broken all the links I made to them because of some numerological idea you have. How about you discuss something like this before messing it up? And yes, I see you have "fixed" some links. Not all. You can find the rest and fix them; or if not we can just revert to the way THAT WORKED before you leapt in. Barsoomian (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"All the links" is somewhat of an exaggeration. The sum total was 3 in the creatures article, which you could have fixed in less time than it took to write the above. Using "23.n" as the episode numbering was not appropriate as it gives the impression that these were related to episode 23, which isn't the case. Had you picked a less ambiguous method of numbering, the fix wouldn't have been necessary. You might note that I didn't whine about it on your talk page. I just changed it. I really don't see why you see the need to be so confrontational. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you see something wrong just fix it without the drama. One positive thing you could do, since you are obviously so interested in Primeval, is to go through the creatures article and make it consistent. I did a preliminary cleanup but there are still issues, especially with the infobox and it's getting a bit top-heavy on the non-free images again. That's likely to bring more attention than this and this if it's not addressed soon. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You broke the links, putting in your own idiosyncratic numbering, without any discussion, snarking at me in your edit comments, and continuing to lecture me above. Where is the "collaborative effort" in that? And you criticise me for not tidying up the mess you made? There isn't any "ambiguity" in the numbering I chose. It's perfectly clear that 23.1 comes after 23. Who knows where "w1" goes"? I do not accept your statement that the decimal numbering is "inappropriate"; just to be clear. (List of Jericho episodes has an episode 11.5, for instance, which no one complained of getting a "wrong impression" that it was related to episode 11. Maybe you should go there and "fix" that. ) But like other issues, that I do not choose to take it to the mat does NOT mean that you have proven your point; only that continuing the argument is not worth the time. You can have your w1, now that you've wasted both out times to sort it out. As for the images, I don't care one way or another. Some people like to upload them. Other people like to delete them. They can sort it out between themselves. Barsoomian (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It was 3 links that I missed, get over it. You added your own confusing numbering without discussion so I really don't see what your problem is, unless you're asserting ownership of the page. Where exactly was the "snarking"? The system you chose is ambiguous, because 23.1, 23.2 etc seem to have something to do with 23, and therefore season 3, when they're related to season 4 and its episodes. The Jericho example isn't a good one becasue ep11.5 is an actual episode, not a webisode, that aired between episodes 11 and 12 and is directly related to episode 11 and the rest of the first part of the season. Looking at actual webisodes, List of Stargate Universe episodes uses a completely different method of numbering its webisodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Jericho: 11.5 was a recap episode after a 3-month break. Like the Primeval webisodes, it was meant to introduce the following episodes. There was no implication that it was "son of episode 11"; it was just "after episode 11". Meanwhile, the next group of Primeval webisodes will intro Series 5. Under your logic, they will be w6, w7 ... which really will look like they follow w5 rather than 4.7. But you've got a few months to rationalise that. You have some idea that you have to segregate webisodes from TV episodes; that is your prejudice and is just going to cause confusion when the program makers, as in Primeval, are not following your rules. Barsoomian (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

When 11.5 aired is irrelevant. It was still an actual episode that aired in the middle of a season. The Primeval webisodes were not in season 3 or 4, they were "broadcast" in a different medium between seasons. You can't compare them to Jericho. The only valid point you've raised is that Jericho 11.5 isn't the "son of episode 11". Will there be a "next group of Primeval webisodes"? Have you seen anything that confirms there will be or are you just assuming? If there are and the the numbering needs fixing, we can do that then. It's not a big deal. For now there is no confusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Your obsession with segregating the webisodes into a separate sequence is the source of the "confusion". There was none with my numbering. You weren't "confused" were you? And don't chide me about crystal balling on a talk page, I'm trying to anticipate problems now when it's simple to fix. Just reverting your ill-considered renumbering would do it now. Barsoomian (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You're making no sense. The webisodes were in a separate sequence before the numbering started. Confusing is giving them an episode 23 number when they're not part of episode 23 or season 3. Anticipating problems is fine but the problems you're anticipating are not actually a problem because the numbering can be changed at any times. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Discussion above, up to 16:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC), copied from User_talk:AussieLegend#Webisode_numbering. Continues below on this page. Barsoomian (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As you like to say, we already discussed that, and the consensus was that they were positioned between Series 3 and 4. There is no ambiguity: they are set between episodes 23 and 24. They are not in a "separate sequence". There is one, linear sequence of episodes, web and TV alike, and there is no need to complicate the numbering, as you have done by creating an independent branch. the only problem you have cited is that people might imagine that these were part of episode 23. I can't say if anyone really is that dumb, but I think we should give readers the benefit of the doubt and assume they aren't. If you have no better argument, then I can't see any reason not to revert. Barsoomian (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And now you're making even less sense. The webisodes were physically positioned between S3 and S4 but they were in a separate sequence because they weren't in the numbering sequence at all. You added that here. I really don't see why you're so upset about the numbering. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

They're not "in a separate sequence". They all occur between episodes 23 and 24. You keep trying to put them in a separate sequence, first by positioning, now by numbering. The only thing "separate" about them is the medium, already made clear by the word "Webisodes" in the title. Still waiting for you to give a reason for messing with this. Barsoomian (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

They still are between episodes 23 and 24, but because they are between those episodes a numbering system that relates them more closely to episode 23 and season 3 than season 4 is inappropriate because they're not part of that season. As for "messing with this", I've given multiple reasons, multiple times, as can be seen by the discussion above, as to why the numbering that you added is inappropriate. I really don't see your problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You've given the same reason, several times. If in your mind 23.1 "belongs" to series 3, despite it being clearly labelled "Series 4 webisodes " and in a different colour even, I'm sorry, but that's your problem. Your solution is worse, for the reason I've outlined, also several times. Now that this discussion is here I'll see if anyone else cares to comment. If not, I'll revert it to the simple and logical numbers initially used. Barsoomian (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the reasons that I've given. "23" is a series 3 episode number, not a series 4 number. Your reason for not using the wx numbering is that if more webisodes appear, then a numbering problem will occur. There are two problems with this: one is that there is no guarantee there will be more webisodes. You're just assuming there will be. The other problem with that is that numbering systems are not fixed in stone and there is a very simple (actally there are a few) different numbering systems that can be used so that multiple sets of webisodes can be handled. It's just a matter of collaborating to get the best result. However, statements such as "If not, I'll revert it" indicate that you don't wish to collaborate and believe that you own the page. Please don't try to start a revert war over this. Disruptive editing, and assertion of ownership over articles only leads to one thing. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you've decided that episodes will be referred to as "Episode x.y" where x = series number and y = episode number within the series, and are referring to webisodes in the format "Series x webisode y",[9] I've changed the numbering to more closely match that, and changed to the "Wx.y" format. "W4.1" therefore means "Webisode series 4 episode 1". If any series 5 webisodes do eventuate, they'll be "W5.y" and there will be no direct link between the different series. Since you'll no doubt insist on placing the webisodes between series 4 and 5 and not immediately after the existing webisodes, this wouldn't be a problem anyway. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You're accusing me of all kinds of absurd things, simply because I don't hold your numerological beliefs as holy writ. You changed the numbering without a word of discussion. Instead of reverting, I tried to discuss it with you here, and now you accuse me of lack of collaboration. And now you've done it again, acted "boldly" to put your new idea into effect. If anyone is trying to assert ownership it's you. Your "new" system is silly and cumbersome. You claim that "ep23.1" implied a relationship between that and episode 23. It doesn't, other than it follows it. Now you have "W4.1" = "Webisode series 4 episode 1". Which implies pretty unambiguously that there are 4 series of webisodes. But you wanted to mark your territory by implementing your cunning plan without bothering to discuss it. When have you ever "collaborated" anyway? You just keep going for fait accompli. Sneering at me and telling me to "get over it" if I point out any problems. For the last time: the number that you are so obsessed with is simply a chronological sequence number. It does not need to have any other information (format, especially) encoded in it. All it needs to do is allow the episodes to be easily put in the correct "overall" order. That's still obscured in your "new" system. You've added more signifiers to the number, instead of a simple sequence number, the only one that is actually needed. You've made a dog's dinner of it rather than a simple clean implementation. God help any third party who tries to make sense of what you've done. Barsoomian (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of anything that can't be proven. On the other hand, you've made absurd accusations such as the "snarking edit summaries", but when I challenged you to show proof, you ignored me. It's really hard to try to work with you in improving this article when you demonstrate double standards. You've made sweeping changes to this and related articles all without a single word of discussion but when somebody else makes a change that you don't agree with, you criticise them for not discussing. The reality is that not everything needs discussing. When I changed the episode numbering you didn't try to discuss, you just made a scathing attack on my talk page accusing me of messing things up.[10] You oppose a simple and unambiguous numbering system "wx" in lieu of one that links to a season 3 episode "23.x" and expressed concern about future webisodes so I looked through the articles and came up with an alternative that is consistent with your desired episode numbering format and you're still not happy. The Wx.y format does NOT "imply pretty unambiguously that there are 4 series of webisodes", it merely states that these are the webisodes for series 4. That there are not four is very clear from the episode list. I agree, the alternative does contain too much info but it's based on your preferences. The problem is that you don't like the simpler version either. The 23.x version is inappropriate, for reasons that I've explained. The "23." portion does imply there is a relationship with episode 23. 1=episode 1, 2=episode 2, etc, right up to 23=episode 23. Therefore, 23.1 is episode 23.1 and that's not the case with your numbering. Webisodes are not broadcast episodes, their very name tells you that. There's no reason why w shouldn't be used to indicate that it's a webisode, not a broadcast episode. It doesn't obscure the episode order because the episode order is clearly laid out in the article. So where do we go from here? --AussieLegend (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't blame me for the mess you made. Nothing you did was "desired" by me or based on "my preferences". You have absolutely refused to consider what I actually suggested. Barsoomian (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Quite frankly, is this really such an issue that it is worth delving into a massive row? At the very least a little more civility on both ends would result in a much more productive conversation. Quite frankly you both raise good points and I agree with some points on each side. I agree with AussieLegend that numbering them as 23.X is not necessarily best because they fall between series 3 and 4, and the 23.X label implies a series 3 relationship. If we consider the webisodes to be a series 3.5 then I could conceivably see a label of 3.5.X, but that is probably the least accurate option. I agree with Barsoomian that the label W4.X is just as inaccurate as 23.X, because the four implies that this is the fourth webisode series; episode W4.3 could conceivably be read as the third episode of the fourth webisode series. Yes, most people will realize that this is not the case, but not everyone who uses Wikipedia is the sharpest nail in the toolbox. It also adds a complexity in that every other number refers to the episode, not the series, so some may even read the webisodes as being a part of episode four placed way out of order in the episode list for some random reason. Why not just label them as WX? It follows the pattern established with the other episodes, and viewers are aware that this is the webisode number. Some sort of compromise shouldn't be too difficult to reach. Melicans (talk, contributions) 11:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I still advocate 23.X: it lets us use the same sequence for all episodes, and it clearly indicates the order. It's consistent with the "Overall" number for TV episodes, so you can use the same table format for the webisodes as TV episodes (only omitting ratings) instead of customising. I really don't see how it presumes that they are part of Series 3. The decimal should be a signal enough that it's not a "normal" episode, and that is confirmed since in every case when cited the link labels it a "webisode", as of course does the destination, the table. The problem with wX is that it throws away the chronological link with the TV episodes. And also, as mentioned above, should there be another batch of webisodes preceding Series 5, numbering them continuously from w6 on (rather than 30.1) implies they follow w5, rather than (TV) episode 30. For what it's worth, in my own numbering when I label my DVDs, I call them collectively "Episode 4.0", and individually 4.01, 4.02... But I've tried to extend the existing sequence rather than radically overhaul it to that extent. Barsoomian (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either of you are giving Wikipedia readers the credit they deserve regarding the W4.x numbering. They're generally smarter than that, which is saying a lot - I maintain a number of kids TV program articles where editors can't understand simple instructions like "Do not add copyright violations" and "do not link this name" and where 3RR breaches are a constant threat. However, I added that only in an attempt to compromise and I'm more than happy to go back to the much simpler Wx numbering advocated by Melicans. I honestly didn't expect any controversy when I originally added it because it seemed like the most simple and efficient system. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So, you introduce an unnecessary change, when challenged introduce a more complicated version, and now offer to revert to your original. How magnanimous. We get to choose Aussielegend option A or B. THAT IS NOT A COMPROMISE. NONE of your proposals are "simple and efficient". All are both more complex but supply LESS information than 23.X. Why don't we "give Wikipedia readers the credit they deserve" and see if they can cope with that? And you "didn't expect expect controversy? You knew it was my edits you were reverting, instead of discussing your concerns first you just bulldozed them aside, you courted controversy. Barsoomian (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've said above, there's no need to discuss everything. The vast majority of changes to Wikipedia go undiscussed. You certainly didn't discuss these changes with the two other editors involved before making them. That you expect others to discuss changes to your edits, but don't see the need to discuss yourself, is an example of the double standard that I mentioned above. You were the one who copied this discussion from my talk page hoping for further input. You got further input, from an editor you invited,[11] and his input is that he prefers the wx numbering over the 23.x numbering. I really don't see what your issue is now. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted a bunch of silly edits by ONE (not two, look at the subsequent edits) anonymous editor, similar to those made before by another, possibly the same person, who obviously is not reading any discussion. What is your point in mentioning that? Do you seriously equate those edits with mine? Do they require reams of comment on a talk page that will never be read? If so, that's a serious charge. It also demonstrates that you're tracking my edits, looking for an opportunity to take issue with anything I do, and delete it with a disparaging admonition. And yes, I invited Melicans ot take a look at this. I was fully aware you would be reading that and would try to make it look like canvassing or whatever. Unable to do that, you still cite it as if it was something I had tried to conceal. As for the actual subject; I read what Melicans wrote for myself, I don't need your interpretation. Barsoomian (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I stand by what I said, but can we please concentrate on the topic at hand? Melicans and I prefer the Wx numbering while you prefer the 23.x numbering. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You listed various edits I've made, in a different article, and characterised them in the worst possible way then if I respond, you claim I'm going off topic. And when not slagging me off, you were restating someone else's post. Otherwise, I don't see anything on topic that requires a response. If you are implying that I should withdraw my objection to your numbering, no, I won't. Both of your systems are flawed. The latter one is the worst, so on that I agree with Melicans. Do what you like, I won't endorse it, but I won't revert it without consensus. Barsoomian (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, it seems that none of us agree with the last changes I made so I'm happy to revert those. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• When copying whole discussions from somewhere else you should always let readers know that's what you've done, both to avoid confusion, and to allow them to verify the edit history, since it's not going to appear in the history of this page. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. As someone said "If you see something wrong just fix it without the drama." Barsoomian (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of upcoming episode titles/dates

Discussion copied from user page.

Dates of future events are by definition speculative and best left out. In a few days the shows will (probably) have been broadcast and the all the details will be indisputable. Also, the moment a blank episode slot appears, a flood of fans descend to fill it out with all the speculative details they've seen on some fan site, or just made up. If you want a schedule of future shows, there are plenty of places to find them. (tvcountdown is pretty good.) Wikipedia is a record of facts.Barsoomian (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

However, there are numerous precedents to suggest that when upcoming episode titles/airing dates can be [verified] that they should be acknowledged on a series' episode page. So, I leave it open to other users. Should this information be included? Aeturnid (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? Make a case other than WP:other stuff exists. I've explained my reasoning, and this list of episodes has been plagued from the beginning by speculative content filling up any "future" episode the moment it was listed. The article was protected several times because of so much garbage that was pasted in over and over. I used to try to rewrite press releases to make summaries of future episodes myself, but came to realise that is no more than a waste of time. You can't document something in the future, no matter how "reliable" a source is, it can be reneged on in a moment. How is it you assert your link to a programmes schedule is "verified"? Nobody guarantees future broadcast dates or information. And "episode titles"? Do you watch the show? The upcoming titles will very likely be "Episode 5" and "Episode 6". But we'll know in a few hours. Summary tables should have actual facts in them, not speculation, projections, guesses or promises. There are a dozen fansites that live and breathe that kind of thing, but we don't have to mirror it. PS Welcome to Wikipedia, I guess you were one of the IP editors who I've been reverting. Sorry if that ticked you off. Barsoomian (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. As the page stands now, there can be some confusion as to whether the series has ended at four episodes. You yourself suggested the use of "Episode #" as each episode's designation on this page, so for this particular article's purposes those are the episode titles. I concede that both summaries and dates could possibly be speculative or change, but the fact of the matter remains that as of right now, two more episodes have been produced. Even if the show were suddenly cancelled, and those last two episodes never aired, they would still exist and thus as fact, belong on this page. So, make a case other than WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. Aeturnid (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no "confusion". The introductory text clearly says there are six shows in the series. The table reflects those that have aired, as those are the only ones we have any real information about. A TV show's "birthdate" is its first airing (or if not aired, first release on DVD). Anyway, thought I think it's a bad idea, as explained in my post below, I'll uncomment the last two eps. Though how it benefits anybody at all I can't imagine.Barsoomian (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." There is a general consensus that episode content that is verifiable, regardless of whether it is in the past, present or future, can be included. The requirement for future content is that it must be sourced. If a source is included, the content can be included. However, the episodes here rarely include sources and this was the case with this revision of the article. As far as Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is concerned that essay doesn't mean that the fact that other articles exists should be discounted. Certainly, the fact that so many TV episode lists exist with future episode content is evidence that the wider community accepts the inclusion of future episode content. To use some common-sense, if we were to exclude content simply because it's "not a fact till it happens",[12] we couldn't include discussion of NASA's plans for the three remaining space shuttle orbiters after they are retired, estimated completion dates of buildings or or the next US presidential election. The reality though is that WP:V is our main guide. If episode content is verifiable it can be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say future events couldn't be discussed or mentioned in the text in general, where the context and the sources will be clearly shown. The specific question here is the summary table where there is no way to differentiate between dates of past events and scheduled future ones if you start putting them in. (Yeah, at the time they are entered, they are clearly "future". That distinction can be lost later.) And I see that putting both kinds of information (historical facts and scheduled ones) in the same slot is degrading the integrity of the information presented. Being "verifiable" in the sense you mention is the lower bound of acceptability. It's an abuse of the language to define "verifiable" as "having a reliable source". GWB "verified" that Saddam had WMDs. The hard line here has been due to the incredible amount of speculative crap and fanfic that was posted as factual. The titles are reliably known, being merely numbers, there isn't much value in just listing those. But seeing as the show has only two episodes left, ratings are about 10% of a few years ago, so perhaps the fever has abated. So I'll uncomment the last two episode slots and see what happens. However, I do believe the finale date should not be published in the table until the day it happens. A scheduled TV show is not an historic fact, to equate it with the date of a presidential election is pretty silly. Elections aren't postponed for celebrity scandals. TV shows are. Barsoomian (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wanting an episode list to offer the content in prose up until the episode is broadcast and then move it on the page into the list, which is the primary content, is just foolish. But you seem to be advocating that approach. If you can't tell the past from the present from the future then perhaps you need to inform yourself better about the Gregorian calendar because most people are able to look at a date and know when it is relative to the time they read the date. Your premise is essentially that all people are stupid, which is really offensive. I don't need a "this event has not yet happened" disclaimer included with mention of the episode of The Glades for 10 July 2011 (11 days from now).
As for Aussie's take on the verify policy, it is equally absurd. As he presents it it is ok to and even called for to put forward things that are not true but which are verifiable. If i could find an article in National Geographic which says that Tasmania is in the middle of New Mexico it would be verifiable but sooooo not true.
Bush lied to go down in history as a war hero. His claim was published by most every media outlet around the world. Turns out none of it was actually true. Bush telling the world of weapons is a little different from itv releasing the schedule for the next group of episodes of Law & Order | UK. Bush can't ensure the weapons are possessed by the bad guys (well technically he can but just go with this ok) while it is entirely up to itv when itv shows LOUK. Or, you could verify that you are making a lasagna for your dinner but by your reasoning until you have eaten the lasagna it is not appropriate to mention. itv knows what they schedule as much as you know what you want to do for having read this. That you have not yet done it does not inherently negate your intention to do it. Just because the new episode of LOUK won't be on for a couple of weeks doesn't mean that itv hasn't announced it and doesn't intend on showing it in a couple of weeks. And when scandals come up things get changed. Kind of like that episode of Cougar Town which was preëmpted by Barack Obama in the USA but which was shown as originally scheduled in Canada. There is a reasonable expectation that you are not lying about the lasagna you are going to make for your dinner and there is a reasonable expectation that ABC didn't foresee the shooting in Arizona of the senator which resulted in the episode of Cougar Town not being broadcast. There is a reasonable expectation that there will not be a massive hurricane and an earth quake the day the people of the USA vote in the presidential election. Anyone can change their mind about their meal or reschedule a tv show or get shot by surprise or be the victim of a natural disaster. When the party in charge expresses their intent the reasonable belief is that they intend to follow through on their declaration. But shit happens. And articles get edited accordingly.
On a related matter, the titles are all "Episode NUMBER" so really how hard is that to reasonably anticipate!
The olympics are intended to take place in London next year. Sure preparation for the events have begun but the events themselves have not so does the preparation not count until the medals are awarded? This came up via a 3-degrees-of-watchlist random reading. I just noticed that the entire series appears to have now been shown. This probably doesn't matter much. O well. Read the above or not. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 16:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

References and external links

References and external links are two different animals. References are reliable sources that are or can be used to reference article content. General references are reliable sources that support content in the article, but which are not displayed as inline citations. In the case of this article, the general references support most of the content in the article but using them as inline citations is unnecessary, as well as being hampered by the common, but unnecessary, practice of removing citations for episodes that have aired. It's because they are general references, as opposed to just external links, that they're in the references section, and not the External links section, which contains links to sources of dubious reliability that can't be used as references, such as imdb and tv.com. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If long-standing editors (such as myself, for instance) are unaware of what this category is supposed to signify (one I don't recall seeing in any other article), how are general readers supposed to understand why, for instance. "Primeval: Episode Guide. MSN TV" is in one list while "List of Primeval episodes at the Internet Movie Database" is in another? If a reference isn't cited, either delete it or move to "External links". If a link really is "dubious", just delete it. This list of references that aren't referred to is pointless. I assume you have WP:ACRONYM that supports this concept? If not, I see no reason not to clarify it.

And specifically, the ITV link is dead. And I see no reason that the MSN link is more respectable than any of the others. It cribs a couple of lines from the episode summaries originally from ITV, exactly as does TV Guide and TV.com. The only information IMDB has are dates. I will remove the dead and useless references at least. Barsoomian (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

NB My edit comment was (mistakenly) just "dead links", though the MSN link was live. Please don't make an issue of that, I have explained the deletion above. Barsoomian (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you aren't aware of the differences, it's all written down, as I've indicated with the links I provided. MSN TV is regarded to be a reliable source because it meets the requirements as per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, especially that it has editorial oversight, while imdb is not regarded as reliable because it's user submitted and lacks editorial oversight. Even dubious links like tv.com and imdb.com can be of interest to readers, we just don't use them as sources, but we do include them in the external links section. Everthing added to Wikipedia must be verifiable and including a list of general references provides an easy way for editors and readers to verify content that doesn't have a specific reference. It's useful when, for example, edits are made to articles that seemvalid but are not supported by reliable sources, such as this edit, which appears valid but is, in fact, not. General references are a valid part of Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What other articles use this odd format? And look at the rubbish at the MSN link. I don't know about other shows, but it contributes nothing to this one. Barsoomian (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not an odd format, it's mentioned several times in the MoS and many articles have a list of general references. Some, like HMAS Anzac (FFH 150), are quite extensive. The heading is used to identify that the references are general references because some editors, especially those who seem oblivious to the MoS or who just haven't bothered reading it, don't seem to understand what they are. Some editors even add to the list of general references, rather than providing specific references where they're needed, even if the reference they've added is only used once in the whole article. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Primeval 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/20101220225309/http://www.itv.com:80/drama/primeval/exclusiveepisodes/ to http://www.itv.com/drama/primeval/exclusiveepisodes/

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) 21:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Primeval 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://archive.is/2013.01.13-222519/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.itv.com/drama/primeval/exclusiveepisodes/

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) 05:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Primeval 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/20101226165845/http://www.itv.com/drama/primeval/exclusiveepisodes/credits/ to http://www.itv.com/drama/primeval/exclusiveepisodes/credits

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) 01:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)