Talk:List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

old comments(PLEASE SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE FOR NEW DEBATES)

• Well obviously I'm a No. Having one table not four is irrelevant, there is no problem with this article being too long. The most important thing is that it reads well, and having episodes in chrongical order in far more logical, and easier for the average person to read. Just because it's a special why should it be in a different place? Also, if people look at the List of Dad's Army episodes it uses the current format, and it is Featured list, suggesting this is the prefered format. --UpDown 12:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  No, it just means that the users that supported the FLC didn't object to the formatting. Matthew 12:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  One table would seem to be a better solution than several, in my opinion. So yes, I support a single table. Matthew 12:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  But why is it better? We have no problem with space or length of artciel, so having 4 tables is totally immaterial. How is it better to have specials in a table at the bottom, totally out of order, rather to have them in the correct broadcast order? --UpDown 13:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  It's more organised. Size is irrelevant, as it would still be pretty much equal. Matthew 13:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  I'll agree to disagree. But I fail to see how its more organised to have them out of broadcast order. It goes against all logic. --UpDown 13:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  Well, is there a source that the special episodes are not part of the respective series (e.g. series two, and the 1991 x-mas special)? If not, then why not just list them in the respective series? Matthew 13:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree Mathew; the Christmas special episodes will be in order in one table, for example the 1992 special, the 1993 one follows etc. Its just a much more neater way to have one table, and making table's for one episode seems pointless, i mean the children in need episode, creating a table for a five minute long episode just seems daft. So far its 2 for change and one for not, as votes progress a decision will soon be made once as majority is established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris C. Nichols (talk • contribs)

Could you please sign your posts, as currently you don't. It's not pointless to have one table for one episodes, it shows that it was a one-off special, simple. And it should be in broadcast order, thats just logic. Shifting them all to the bottom suggests they're not proper episodes. --UpDown 17:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• I wasn't particularly involved in this discussion, but somehow found my way here, and I'll weigh in. I currently see no reason for the Christmas Specials to be seperate from anything. I'm not familiar with the series, so excuse my ignorance. But is there something special about the Christmas Specials? (the name notwithstanding) Special in that they deserve their own recognition from the rest of the season? As best I can tell, there isn't. As such, I don't think they should be differentiated from the individual seasons at all, whether in their own box, or a box under the season. If there is a reason for them to be seperate, then I would probably suggest their own table, if only to make it more clean and not cluttered. I  ^{(said) (did)} 10:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Christmas specials are seperate because they do not belong to a series, there are one-off special episodes, and hence should have seperate boxes to reflect this. And why is it cluttered? They each have their own box, which is tidy. As you said "no reason for the Christmas Specials to be seperate from anything", quite, so why put them in their box at the bottom, which makes them look different. They should be in broadcast order, that way they are not being made to look different or special, but clearly shows that they were on-off episodes broadcast between, say, series 2 and 3. --UpDown 11:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Note- the following comment by Edito*Magica was originally placed at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes. I have copied it here, as this is the pertinant place for such comments. I  ^{(said) (did)} 10:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can I please remind you that all Christmas specials would be in chorological order in one table, just as much as they would be separate. None of the episodes in the series tables (plot-wise) are related, yet still remain in the same table: why should this rule differ for the Christmas specials? And its far more illogical to have numerous tables when one would look far more tidier, and easier- a user has to scroll up and down the page to find the specials, in comparison having them in one place- he/she wouldn’t have to do this. Some specials aren’t interrupted by series’ either, yet are still given separate tables.

Again, this chorological business, the episodes would be in order if they were in the same table; except added to this a singular table method would also be neater, tidier and easier for the user, and whether a space is an issue or not, the current method of multiple tables looks most untidy.

The single table method has the advantage of the current method, as well as a chain of other advantages that works better. Two users already agree with me on the K.U.A episode discussion page as well, hence the majority. Surely other users can see that for so many reasons one that table is better than numerous messy tables all over the place? Edito*Magica 10:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You say they would be in broadcast order in their own table. Indeed, but thats still pointless if they are out of sync with the rest of the episodes, which they would be. And again why are you obsessed with the number of tables? This obsession has no place in this discussion, we don't make things illogical purely because it look nicer, this is an encyclopedia not a children's book. And anway, its totally your invention, and indeed POV, that it looks untidy, I think it looks quite the opposite. And lets be honest, no one is going to have difficult navigating this page, the contents list at the top sees to that - so the argument that under my system its more difficult is claptrap. --UpDown 11:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

old related comments

Apparently there is a disupte here about how to organize the christmas specials. First, no more editing till the dispute is solved fellas. The war has gone on long enough, it's peace talks time. I have an opinion at the moment, but I'm going to hold it back for now. I'm curious as to why some people believe the christmas specials should be separated not only from each other, but from the seasons themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

They should be seperated from the series because they are not part of them, so to put them in would be misleading. They should be seperated from themselves because they are not connected to each other in anyway; they are individual one-off specials, why put them together. They should be in their own boxes, to relfect them being one-off specials, and in broadcast order for simple logic. --UpDown 09:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Season 4 of The Dead Zone has a similar episode, "A Very Dead Zone Christmas". That's put in with the season. I don't see why one couldn't put it in, and just make note that it isn't connected to the season's continuity. Or, having a "Christmas Specials" subsection for each of the seasons. It doesn't seem right that it deserves an entire section to itself, if you aren't putting them altogether, and since they are connected to the seasons by at least the fact that they are broadcast at the end of that particular run, then a subsection would seem more appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If it were a choice between putting them in a box at the bottom of page, or at the end of the series page, then I would go for the latter because that way they are still in broadcast order. A subection sounds a good idea, what would it look like? I still there own box is the best idea, as I have said we have lack of space or anything, but I would settle for subections below each series.--UpDown 14:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It would look like:

==Series 1==
Table of episodes here
===Christmas Special===
Table of the christmas special

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine to be. We'll have to wait and see whether Edito*Magica would be happy with that, but I certainly would be.--UpDown 14:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The idea for putting specials at the end of series tables: I don’t see the logic. The series one episodes were shown together, the special is completely separate and shown months after the series broadcast.Edito*Magica 00:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The "logic" is that because then it shows them in correct broadcast order. If you can't see the logic in putting the special after the series because they were shown apart, where is the logic in putting 4 specials years apart in one box? --UpDown 08:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

NOT ONE TABLE

I agree with UpDown 100% The neccesity for the use of one table is extremely questionable and one that lacks evidence. The page is fine as it is now where the chronological order of the tables is easy to use which surely should be the main concern. My vote goes to Updown, NOT ONE TABLE! Editerofmagic 23:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments moved from Wikiproject:Television page

I agree with UpDown. Chronology matters -- especially when a one-off episode has a major effect on the storyline of the series (for example, a Christmas episode of Jonathan Creek added a new character). One-off episodes should be consolidated when appropriate. For example, the editors of the List of Only Fools and Horses episodes page have consolidated the Christmas specials that ran from 1991 to 2003 because they aren't interrupted by a full series, and have consolidated the Comic Relief and other charity specials because they don't appear to be a part of the main continuity. So the original poster has a point, but it is not relevant to every special episode. WindsorFan 09:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The editors of Only Fools and Horses have might a very good decision in consolidating the 1991 to 2003 specials because they are not interupted by a series. We could merge the 1993 and 1994 specials into one box, I'd not object to that, as long as the box is kept in broadcast order. With the charity episode, I would personally still like it to be in broadcast order, but I can see the sense in putting this seperatly at the bottom (although as we don't know the plot, do we need a box at all?). But all other christmas specials should be in broadcast order.--UpDown 11:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes chorology is important and the specials would still be in chronological order in a singular table; except they would look tidy neat and easier for the users who would only have to look in one place top find the specials or read about them. Edito*Magica 17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they wouldn't be in order would they? It would be like having a list of English monarchs, and having all the Henry's or Edward's together because "users who would only have to look in one place"! The users are not as thick as you think, they can navigate, using the contents, between specials. I like the current version of page, with 93 & 94 specials merged, and box removed to Children In Need Special (but if we ever know the plot then we should reinsert box, but in the mean time this is best). --UpDown 18:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Specials

Regarding the specials, I don't agree with putting them in one box at the bottom, out of broadcast order. It is logical to move them out of order; it works perfectly well to put them in seperate boxes within the series; this makes it clear they are on-off unrelated to the series specials. --UpDown (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better to have them together, at the bottom, or put them in with the respective series. Having individual tables breaking up the series looked odd, and as the specials were later released on DVD together, I don't think its that bad to have them out of order. If they are going to be incorporated into the list by broadcast date, they should probably be put back with their respective series tables, but I believe you mentioned the specials were not really a part of the program? (and let me know if I misunderstood that). This is similar to what we do with TV movies and with OVAs for anime series, even if they were released or fall in with the series, they go in a single table at the bottom. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They were not released on a DVD together, but with the series that preceded or followed it. For sitcom pages they send to have their own boxes between the sections they appeared (see FA List of Dad's Army episodes article). I think having it out of broadcast could create confusion, especially if plot information follows on. The specials are part of the programme, what I meant was they were not part of any series; sorry for any confusion on that. I don't believe the seperate boxes would look odd, as I said it represents the fact they were specials that were not part of a series. --UpDown (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Done...feel free to tweak the headers. By the air dates, I presumed they were Christmas specials, but if not the word Christmas can come out. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. They are all Christmas specials. I'll try and work more on the opage when I've finished the Time Team episode list.--UpDown (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should provide an overall summary of the subject of the article. Shorting the lead like Edito*Magica did simply isn't acceptable. Also, it is usually better to use prose instead of bullet lists for the information about the series original run, network, and number of episodes. --Farix (Talk) 22:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Table type

I’ve reverted back to the original tabular layout because it looks better; the new table layout looked odd and drew more attention to the title which was boxed than the actual synopsis itself. Furthermore, there was consensus for making such a drastic change. The alterations that I have recently made to the lead are minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edito*Magica (talk • contribs) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And again, you have been undone. The article has been properly formatted into the established television episode list manner. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well there’s no consensus for your changes, so I have reverted them. “Your” layout looks bizarre, and the original layout, where there IS consensus looks far neater. Edito*Magica (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus.--UpDown (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the {{Episode list}} layout looks just fine to me and has been accepted on many other list articles. I would also recommend including director and writer information into the table, which {{Episode list}} can had much better and also allows the episode summaries to be expanded a bit. I would actually suggestion leaving it with {{Episode list}} until you gain a consensus to change it to this non-standard format. --Farix (Talk) 12:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

When time allows I will expand it. Each episode, I believe, was written by the same person so the writer field would be fairly pointless for this list. I don't know about director mind. --UpDown (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the need for writer and director, if it changed by episode. I mostly just used what was there and on TV.com's general list to help give a start to getting it in shape for possible future FL status. From a quick check of the two sources, though, it looks like all the episodes were written by Roy Clarke and directed by Harold Snoad. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Director, writer and producer was the same for all episodes, so incorporating such information would be pointless. And can I remind you that TV.com is one site, and this is another, thus TV.com’s format does not need to be followed. Once again the tabular layout has been reverted, and it’s not good form to have a range of different colours for tables either. Edito*Magica (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Will you stop it with the revert waring already. Clearly you've violated the spirit of WP:3RR, if not the letter. You are not helping in resolving the dispute. I'm tempted to take this to WP:RFPP until the matter has been settled. --Farix (Talk) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not using TV.com's format, but the established format for episode lists. TV.com was used to look up episode information to confirm the air dates, as the old list had no years. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I ended up doing an RFPP after the same war erupted at List of Goodnight Sweetheart episodes which was protected earlier after Edito*Magica ignored an administrator's request that he not revert anymore. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to side with the owner and his assistant on this one and say I prefer the current table. It seems to be favoured around Wikipedia. The only gripe I have with it is that the coloured-line separators are too thick, but that's a template-specific complaint. - Dudesleeper | Talk 06:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dudesleeper I am getting very fed up with you describing me as the "owner" of these articles, and you recently again did on EditoMagica's talk page. Just because you and I had a disagreement and I watch the page and revert vandalism, or unencyclopedic information, does not mean I think I own the page. Your comments are now becoming uncivil and if they persist I may ask an admin to look into them as they are quite unnecessary. Please move on from the past.--UpDown (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion. There isn't exactly a shortage of evidence to support my theory. The past exists in the present, so it's somewhat difficult to "move on" from it. - Dudesleeper | Talk 12:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because it is your opinion that is no reason to constantly use it. There is no evidence to support your claim. There is evidence we have had disagreements about the article, and that I have tried to maintain the article so it is free from fansite type information. There is no evidence to think I "own" the article, and perhaps you should take it less personally if I believe your edits needs reversion. As I said above, please move on. What has happended has happended. I had quite a disgareement with Collectonian a month or so ago, but we have since worked together on articles without either expressing bad feelings like you do. Perhaps you should follow Collectonian's example?--UpDown (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've reverted many of my edits — I tend to just tidy the article. I do recall you went from point-blank refusing to allow the opening titles description before, in a move of wild abandon on your part, finally accepting it. I'll improve articles in a way I think is correct, not in a way that has to be run by a committee first. Maybe I'll keep a count over the coming weeks of how many reversions you do that in my opinion were unjust. - Dudesleeper | Talk 19:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Think you find that maybe called comprimise; and I now see the opening titles discription (which was far too detailed for Wikipedia) has now been removed. You final sentence sounds like a threat, and is certainly not in the sprit of Wikipedia. I am unsure why you have such a strange obsession with me, but you really do need to get over it. Otherwise I will report you for stalking and insulting me. Please move on.--UpDown (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comprimise, discription and spitit. Interesting. That aside, I see you're using the stock Wikipedia threats for people who don't like hearing the truth. I'm willing to try and work with you in the future; we'll see how that goes. - Dudesleeper | Talk 14:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do try. Even your above comment about my typos is not necessary at all. I really have never met an editor before you keeps such a grudge, its very childish. The "truth" is we had a disagreement, settled it, and I moved on. You didn't so decided to make false and repeated claims that I think I "own" the article, instead of moving on.--UpDown (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected

The page is now protected for 5 days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Colors

Edito*Magica appears to be suggesting that the color used for the first season be changed from CCCC99 (tan) to FFFF99 (a shade of yellow). Here is a side-by-side comparison. I undid his edit as he didn't quite get the code right, but as I noted in my edit summary, discussion would be appropriate. Here is a side by side comparison.

CCCC99	FFFF99

Edito, I invite you to give your view as to why you feel that particular color should be changed. For my view, I have no over all disagreement with it, though I think it would be better to change the season 2 color for more contrast and don't see anything really wrong with the tan. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A number of reasons why I think the lighter colour works better. I feel the tan colour is too dark and dull, the lighter colour is not. It also matches the colour of the box sets and Hyacinth’s wallpaper in the show. I’m a little concerned with the other colours as they seem to look rather odd together, so I will try out some other colour combinations and will be glad to hear what you think. Edito*Magica (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There’s no point in having one colour for one episode, so I’ve put all the Christmas specials in red (which is festive colour anyway), and shows they are all Christmas specials. Edito*Magica (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Colours

Hi Edito Magica. As per your request, I've had a look at the current Episodes Page, and while I think the layout is very neat and tidy, I find all of the different colours a little distracting. I know they have been put in for the purpose of accurate coding, but maybe you could use the same coding scheme but with more neutral colours? Take care, Bee Coz (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I get rid of the colours altogether. This is not a children's book, we can live without colour. They are distracting and totally unnecessary.--UpDown (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note Edito recently changed the colors. Seasonal colors are standard for episode lists, so I do not think they should simply get gotten rid of. Most FL episode lists have them when they span more than 1 season. If more neutral colors are desired, please feel free to suggest some. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the colour scheme, I think what makes it kind of sickly to look at is the loud primary colours. Maybe stick to using pastels only? (e.g. like the pastel pink and lilac on the page). Bee Coz (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the colours are fine. They are both light, thus not too distracting, and attractive. Edito*Magica (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis

I would like further opinions on the synopses. By having Synopsis: before each summary, it adds clarity, and similar to both the title and airdate, labels that particular section of the table. If any other page with this tabular format is also missing such a label, then they too should be put right. I cannot see the logic in having the episode title supported by “Title” if the synopsis is not going to be supported by “Synopsis”, however "obvious" it might be. Edito*Magica (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not appropriate and not something that should be added. It does not exist in any other episode list. Please do not start yet another edit war over your disagreement with the consensus of how an episode list should be format. We do not add the word "Synopsis:" before every one, period. If it were necessary, it would be part of the template. It has never been felt to be necessary. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's completely unnecessary to add something that is obviously assumed. That and every featured episode list doesn't do it either. There's a difference between clarity and pointing out the obvious. Per AnmaFinotera, it would be part of the template if it was necessary, and it is not. Please do not add them to any episode pages. Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Colours

Okay. Have had another look at the Episodes page, and for my two cents worth, wish to say again that the colours used in the headings definitely clash! Actually, I think the colours would harmonise if not for the bright red. The bright red colour is distracting, and makes the page hard to look at. Take it out (replace it with something milder) and the page would be a lot easier to read. Thanks, Bee Coz (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think too many colours are distracting, thus i have reverted the colours to the cream which relates to Hyacinth's wallpaper and colours of the box sets. The Christmas specials should have a separate colours, because they are separate from the series' episodes. Edito*Magica (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking to FLC - some suggestions

I think this list could potentially become a Featured List with a little more work. I would suggest editors work on sourcing the statements in the lead, and on making sure each episode summary is thorough and includes the major plot points of each episode, including the ending. With that done, a peer review and copy edit from an outside editor (maybe from the LoCE) should be all that's needed before its nominated for FLC. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, at some point (when I get round to rewatching the series), I will redo the edit summaries. --UpDown (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Repetitive!

I think we need to come to a consensus that some of the information in this page's lead is removed; most of it is repeating what's on the main page. Wouldn't it be better to say "for more information go to....", because for a user that has already seen the main page and the box set picture, they won't want to see the same things again.

Unless the lead paragraphs feature new information, I really don't see the point in them being there for the sake of it, just to keep exactly in line with the so-called "manual of style". Other views please? Edito*Magica (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A lead paragraph is always meant to be a summary of the whole article. That's policy per WP:LEAD. If you disagree with policy, you'll need to start a discussion there not here.--UpDown (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)