Talk:List of Castle episodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

question

In "Home Is Where The Heart Stops", What is the "theme song" (I guess) he's humming while waiting in the car?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.160.200 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 October 2009 UTC

Edit war

This page has been temporarily protected from editing due to repeated edit warring. Discuss these issues here on the talk page, and pursue dispute resolution if needed. Use {{editprotected}} to notify an administrator of any changes supported by consensus that need to be made during the protection period. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for getting the edit war stopped! This does, however, stymie our efforts to correct and reference the ratings, which one of our edit warriors first reverted, then hid. As such, it punishes us all for the actions of two editors. Drmargi (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked him/her to discuss this matter, he/she did never respond. Edit summaries where never used to explain the edits made either. I can't force someone to have a discussion. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 17:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

True enough, but you chose to continue the war, and as a result, we're stuck. My concern is more with the mods choice to protect the article when a good 72 hour block would just as easily solved the problem. Drmargi (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's the price of edit-warring. After certain editors received a 3RR warning they settled down for a few days. They did the right thing so you can't block them for that past offence. The editors involved have produced some reasonable edits in other articles so it would be unfair to block them for their edits here. They haven't broken any rule that would justify such a block and a block would prevent them from any editing at all. That leaves blocking this article and that was done to protect the integrity of the article. All that needs to be done is for involved editors to discuss and agree on the edits to be made. If that doesn't work, and the edit-warring resumes after the block is lifted, other matters, some more punitive, can be pursued. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but we're all still being punished for the actions of two editors, and that's wrong. The 3RR violations stopped, but did the edit war? Only briefly, and I'm not convinced good edits elsewhere are germaine. Moreover, the block leaves several reasonable edits by cooperative editors, notably to the ratings, unfinished. There's a greater good issue here as well. --- Drmargi (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Song in When the Bough Break

The song "Everybody Loves Me" by OneRepublic was used in this episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.10.87 (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

If the ratings for each episode are to be put here, there has to be some discussion as to what ratings are used, there has to be rigid consistency (ie, all the ratings have to be calculated in the same way, without exception), and the reader has to be told IN this article which type of ratings numbers are being used. Live+7 numbers are misleading and irrelevant, IMO. Networks pay little attention to them unless they greatly increase a show's audience, which is not the case with Castle (a very old-skewing show). I'm going to wait a bit and see how this shapes up, but there will be edits if I see inconsistencies. Still, better that the viewing numbers be exaggerated or inconsistent here than in the main Castle article. So progress.  :)Xfpisher (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Copied the Nielsen numbers from the original ratings table, so it should be good for now Flapjack727 (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just letting everyone know that I am going ahead and make the ratings hidden. Feel free to unhide them when references are added, until then it's all unsourced and doesn't belong here. Three new ratings where added without source, you must have got these from somewhere, without a source they're just made up. When you unhide them, either do for all of them per season or hide the number and unhide every |Aux2= otherwise you'll mess up the table. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 07:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And whose fault is that? I'd suggest you tread very lightly and avoid finger pointing right about now. Given the block that your edit warring brought on was just lifted, I'd suggest you give people a couple days to add sources, and then start worrying about the need to hide unsourced ratings. Or better yet, why not do what's done most places and put in a tag asking for sources first? Drmargi (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This should have been discussed in the three days that the list was protected. Drmargi's suggestion seems the most appropriate. If citations aren't supplied within a reasonable amount of time, the figures should be removed. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The ones who added the ratings in the first place (here and previously on the main page) should have presented there sources. It has been a week since it was requested to add references and none have been added, this has nothing to with the protection as you or anyone else who wants ratings could have done this from the beginning when adding a rating. Tommyjgrimshaw just added three new unsourced ratings, they came from somewhere and the source should come along with them, without a source they should not have been added in the first place. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 13:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As I made abundantly clear at the time both here and on your talk page, I wasn't going to take the considerable time and care it would take to add those citations while you and another editor were engaged in an edit war over barely discernible trivialities of formatting. You've already reverted the addition of the correct ratings by one editor as "unsourced" and I had no interest in getting in the way of your draconian "my way or the highway" approach to editing. Moreover, I'm finding your "where did they come from" rationale a bit disingenuous, given you know perfectly well there was a table on the main article that contained all these ratings, with sources, that was being moved here when you and Rosie started your editorial pissing contest. Thankfully, another editor has taken a more moderate approach and used the tags most editors would, and we can get on with the process of accurately sourcing those ratings. I hope you can now be patient and allow the sourcing process to go forward without any further interference, recognizing it will take some time and research, as I indicated earlier. Drmargi (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The ratings for season one never had references and the ones from season two should have been brought over. I removed the initial rating because they where new and unsourced and there was at the time a full blown table on the main page and it was unnecessary to have them twice. Which was removed by you from the main page and added to the episode list, unsourced also the ones which had a source, which you left out with the move. I removed those because they where unsourced, which in itself is reason enough to delete them. You then re-added them under the statement References to follow which never did. It was only then that 1989 Rosie came along and started to change the entire formatting of the page. As for my draconian way of "my way or the highway" approach to editing (unlike your disagreement to settle on which type of rating should be used); there is sourced info on wikipedia and there is no place for unverifiable material. The newly added ratings by Tommyjgrimshaw where never on the main page so no, I have no idea where they come from. Taking the time and research necessary should be done before adding info to a page, not afterwards. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 15:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added references for season 2 since it was easier to add them then to continue this pointless discussion. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 16:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thwarted attempts to clean up the article.

I attempted to clean up the article in a series of edits today,[1][2] but have been thwarted in my attempts by Xeworlebi, one of the editors involved in the recent edit war that got the page protected, who seems intent on keeping errors in this article.[3][4] The edits I made were numerous:

1. Template:Cite news states that |date= should be written out in words and both |date= and |accessdate= should be in the same date format as in the main text of the article. Despite the format in the main text of the article being "month dd, yyyy" Xeworlebi chose to use ISO 8601 format when he recently added citations for the ratings figures.here and here The edits corrected this.
2. Only the first word of headings is capitalised unless subsequent words are proper nouns. My edit corrected capitalisation errors in the article but they were re-introduced by Xeworlebi.
3. {{Episode list}} provides for episode linking to specific table entries. This is most easily done by giving each entry a "series number" which increments for 1 to the total number of episodes in |EpisodeNumber=. |EpisodeNumber2= is then used to provide an episode number within the current season. Using "x (yy)" in a single column complicates the linking process and causes confusion. The linking doesn't work properly when episodes are numbered as in this edit. My edit corrected the linking issues, but that too was reverted by Xeworlebi.

In his first edit summary Xeworlebi made a number of arguments:

1. "Undo WP:YEAR "The full closing year is acceptable" " - This is selective quoting. Immediately before that WP:YEAR states "A closing CE year (AD year) is normally written with two digits". "Normally" indicates that this is the preference.
2. "and is used throughout all episode lists." - Actually it's not. There are just as many episode lists that use the two-digit closing year. The two-digit closing year is the standard across Wikipedia, Articles should be consistent with other articles. In most cases, using four digit years is simply a matter of somebody not reading the Manual of Style, or ignoring it.
3. "undo giant space wasting edits;" - The amount of space that proper formatting uses is minimal.
4. "makes editing harder with random spaces everywhere)" - Quite to the contrary, when the field beginnings are obvious it makes it a lot easier to edit fields. This has been a standard in coding for at least the 33 years that I've been doing it.

The last two arguments are inconsistent with Xeworlebi's own additions to the article. The citations that he added included numerous unnecessary spaces. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel your pain, Aussie. Now you see why I complained so loudly about the block. Xeworlebi plays the innocent, but has clearly acted to keep the edit war going, stifle efforts to source the references (despite his bogus boo-hooing about having to do it himself) and generally acted as the contrarian. I hope any further action to keep this from occurring again will go to the source this time. Drmargi (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You know I can read this right? If you want to be smug about how you drove someone else to do something you promised to do please do it in private conversation. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 09:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping the episode list would be left alone for a little while, but the entire page was changed without discussing first. If you do changes to the entire formatting of the page discuss it first. Which I hoped was going to happen after the previous incident. Regrettable it did not and ended us here.

1. You are correct, and in the latest edit this was not changed. As I just reversed the edits you made the first time because they where to many to differentiate.

2. Sorry, but trough your massive changes I forgot a single one.

3. Perhaps. Switch the rows, but calling the Series # and Season # takes up a big share of the space, which unnecessarily crams the rest of the table.

Second part

1. It is normal' as in the regular practice for episode list to use the full date.

2. same thing, it is. Both are allowed and has nothing to do with reading the MOS. It just happens to be that most episode lists prefer the full date. Since both are allowed they should be left like they are and edit wars over these are just silly.

3. Calling your preference the proper way sounds like WP:OWN

4. Referred to previous and next point.

5. The random spaces everywhere was refering to the space right after |EpisodeNumber= etc, not in the references (which I didn't alter) example image. Adding a space before the parameters is helpful as it is easier to differentiate a new parameter and just an overlapping line from the previous one. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a coding page and that most users don't use fixed with fonts. There are single spaces that are useful in separating one from the other and then there are the entire lines of spaces to attempt a code base formatting, which are useless.

Example for page. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 02:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The edits I made were primarily administrative and correction of errors so they didn't need to be discussed. You don't simply revert because there are too many changes for you. If you don't understand them, ask on the talk page of the article or editor. Reverting is what caused the previous edit war and resulted in the 3RR warnings. The changes were actually detailed in the edit summaries, so I'm not sure what the problem was. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you made changes to section names which can cause links to stop working and a bunch of nonsense spaces which actually makes it harder to edit. And now 1989 Rosie came back and changed the section header capitalization again, which I don't disagree with. But again without discussing first. Basically the only differences between my edit and your reversal is the code based structuring, date formatting and the series overview which has padding and the use of the Start date template. The padding just result in a nicer looking table and the use of start date template eases the date formatting consistency. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 09:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just addressing one of your earlier points: In regard to the image you linked to, if you use default editor settings, as most people do, the edits are perfectly lined up,[5] not as shown in your image. This is regardless of whether you use Firefox, Internet Explorer or what resolution you use. Most text editors use fixed-width, not proportional fonts, despite your protestation to the contrary. When coding articles, and you are coding whether you like it or not, (Wikipedia articles and html are not WYSIWYG) you should always use a fixed-width font. When you don't use a fixed width font it's easy to introduce errors and misread something, as is clearly the case in your image.

Moving to your most recent post, specifically "And now 1989 Rosie came back and changed the section header capitalization again, which I don't disagree with", this demonstrates the point I made about not reading or ignoring the MoS. WP:Headings categorically states, "Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case. Thus Rules and regulations, not Rules and Regulations." That makes this edit wrong, because it should be Season overview, not Season Overview according to the MoS. As for the differences between our edits, they're far more than you claim, as I've detailed in the first post. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually use standard setting, and that doesn't change the fact that code based structuring like this is unnecessary and a waste of space.

That was bad phrasing on my part I meant that I didn't agree with that change, and didn't disagree with your change. The sentence was different in my head, I didn't revert it because 1989 Rosie would just undo it again and it would start all over again. I agreed with you and didn't change that. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 11:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Begining of episode 6

In the beginning season 2 episode 6, Nathan Fillion was dressed up as Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds, the character that Nathan played on the hit show Firefly. I would like to add this information to the summary of episode 6. Are there any objections? If so is there someplace else this information could be shared?Mantion (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You might also include his reference to Buffy and that he played Caleb in the final season. 173.34.131.122 (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is more about Nathan Fillion, and belongs on his page. Drmargi (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It was cool to see "Rick Castle"'s Halloween costume was "Space Cowboy" (Capt. Mal Reynolds of Firefly, the role he played on his old series) and it is directly related to episode 6 (OK playing Caleb on Buffy (the Vampire Slayer) is related to Fillion and Halloween but not directly related to Season 2 Episode 6. Let's play rule nazi and call it trivia and undue weight in a thumbnail plot summary and leave it in Talk. 67.232.89.31 (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

18-49 Demo

I added the 18-49 demo beside the viewers, and the 18-49 demo is what the network look at for chances of renewal, but it was removed. If a show gets only 5 million viewers, and 4.3 of them are within the 18-49 range, it WILL get renewed. Basically, viewers are meaningless when it comes to chances of renewal, and, if anything, the viewers should be removed, not the demo. Pic Editor960 (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is, we don't have a crystal ball (see WP:CRYSTAL) and can't use the article to predict renewal. The point of the ratings (and I'd argue none of them is notable) is to give the reader a rough sense of viewership, not to make a prediction about renewal. The template was not designed for demos, just for overall viewership. Drmargi (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I know we can't predict renewals, heck its a surprise it got renewed for a second season in the first place, put Demos are more notable than viewership. Pic Editor960 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Only if you have insider knowledge of how they work. The template is designed for overall viewership, not for demos, etc. You might want to add a table to the main article. Drmargi (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The other option is to create a separate section, perhaps something along the lines of List of The Big Bang Theory episodes#Weekly ratings. This is more appropriate than trying to add more than basic information about anything to the template. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured songs

Are these at all encyclopaedic or relevant? It seems trivial information at best. Are these actually credited, or is the inclusion of the information original research? --AussieLegend (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I was thinking the same thing. The music is in no way featured on this show, unlike some other shows. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That makes three of us. To my mind, they're far from encyclopedic, but rather a collection of fancruft and red links. Drmargi (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They're gone! --AussieLegend (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done, you! Drmargi (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tables

Discussion: Should the first 2 columns in the tables be labeled "Series Episode #" and "Season Episode #" (as they have been for a while), or "#" and "Total"?

I have to agree with Drmargi about the tables. The original way makes so much more sense, and makes it easy for people to follow. "#" and "Total" are so ambiguous.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My only suggestion would be to switch the series and season number, so the first column contains the episode number for the season, and then the total number of episodes.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

# and Total sound like we're doing addition - they're too vague. The editor insisting on this change has an issue with edit warring over such changes, and cited Sanctuary, where she's been warring, as an example of her format's use. We're going to have to be careful of this. Order of season v. series doesn't make me no never mind as long as it's clear. But let's leave that alone until we get the major issue resolved. Drmargi (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree to leave it for now--I was just sick of Coral Bay (is it really Rosie?) warring. I think being more descriptive is better. As you say, season first or series first isn't super important, but clarity IS. And "#" and "Total" are not clear here, IMO.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm no big fan of the really long table headers, as I find that it stretches the table out, creates unnecessary white space and reduces space for the other parameters which vary in size. I find it self explanatory. But the total amount of episodes should go first, otherwise there are two episodes that get the same link name. For example, [[List of Castle episodes#ep1]] produces a link towards that episode in the table. If there are two episodes that are numbered 1 you can't link towards the second one. With the total number of episodes in |EpisodeNumber= you can also link towards episode 1 of season 2, 11 overall, with [[List of Castle episodes#ep11]]. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 22:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment about the coding for season and series. Very good to know, and it kills my suggestion, and explains why it is the way it is! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I too agree that "#" and "Total" are too ambiguous. They are used in many articles but it's a mistake, for the reasons stated above. "Series episode #" and "Season episode #" are more descriptive and the best option, since they describe exactly the purpose of each column. @Logical Fuzz (and others), it's probably a good idea to look at the documentation for {{Episode list}} to see exactly what can be done with the template and what the requirements are. It's enlightening and I fear most people editing episode lists have never even bothered, although this is probably true with most templates. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to {{Episode list}}. I'm still a newbie (obviously) so that is very helpful! Wish more people would read it, though. The warring gets old. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Where ordering is concerned, I'll go with the group. As long as it's clear and makes sense, I'm happy. Drmargi (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers

There have been at least 8 edits removing "spoiler" content in the episode summaries recently. These edits were each followed by reverts to restore the information. Editors please note, Wikipedia does not censor for spoilers. This is an encyclopedia. Please see WP:SPOILERS for more information. In a nutshell,"it is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Spoilers are no different from any other content." Thanks! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Although the IP's and accounts reverting are from all over the map, there seems to be a concerted and regular effort to remove that summary, using the same re-editing most of the time. The latest one replaced the summary with a plagiarized summary from ABC which is troubling. It could stand a short edit to make it more concise; one could hope that will solve the revert problem as well. Drmargi (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that the summary could use an edit to sharpen it. (It does tend to ramble more than the other episodes.) I don't remember the episode well enough to do it myself, but hopefully someone will be drawn to the task. I agree that it might solve the revert problems. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it once I finish a project I'm working on. The whole season's worth need help, but they'll have to keep until Wednesday, then I can get to them. Drmargi (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering! :) --Logical Fuzz (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh... Guess I should of checked this page before removing a spoiler myself... It seems odd that the status quo for every episode description across most of the US TV shows on this site is to provide a brief description of the premise, and yet when one episode has every major plot twist explained in what is supposed to be a short description, it is treated as somehow normal. Whether or not the rules allow for spoilers, that episode description was wildly out of place compared to all the others surrounding it. 112.141.49.160 (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, no one has made an effort to shorted the summary because of its length, just tried to censor the spoiler, which violated WP:SPOILER. I just gave it a good editing to tighten it, but without concern for whether there is still a spoiler or not. The episode has been broadcast, therefore details of the story are no longer spoilers anyway. Drmargi (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, and a good compromise. I have taken a look at some of the archived debates on the spoiler page and have come away with mixed feelings, but I wont argue with the current ruling. Pity though... I previously found wikipedia to be a fairly safe resource when reading up on TV shows that had aired in the US but were yet to be aired over here in Australia. While spoilers on the individual episode articles are to be expected, the possibility having them show up on the episode lists worries me... I guess I'll have to take care in future. 112.141.179.97 (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that spoiler removal isn't occurring just here, it seems to be happening with unusual frequency at other lists as well. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Have we noticed any overlap in IP's/users? Drmargi (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Episode order

I was looking at the sourcing for the 24 episode order for Castle, and have mixed feelings about whether it belongs in here yet. CastleTV is a fan site, and a pretty thorough one, but there's no primary source for the information cited, and I can't find any other reference to the additional order anywhere other than Monsters and Critics, which may have picked up the news from CastleTV. Nathan Fillion hasn't even tweeted about it, and he tweets from the set pretty regularly, which makes me wonder if this is accurate. We can probably leave it alone for a day or two, then if another source can't be found that's reliable (ie. Hollywood Reporter or Variety), remove it. Drmargi (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I also found what you found. CastleTV can't be classified as a reliable source so it can't be used as a source. I've replaced it with {{citation needed}}. I considered restoring the old Variety reference but that, on its own, didn't support the the number shown. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it seems premature to change the episode order to 24 without a good reference. I sort of cringed at citing a fan site--even a comprehensive one. The reason I added the tag was because I had searched and couldn't find a valid source. I hoped it would say to people: "We need to find one--please help" rather than reverting back to 22 episodes. I do agree with if we can't find a source in the next few days, a revert is in order. Right now the accuracy is clearly disputed. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a reference from TVbythenumbers which says that ABC has confirmed it. Made me laugh, though. It appears the fan site was bugging them to publish the news, but they wouldn't until they had a confirmation. I'd still like an ABC ref, but this is better than what we had before. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sensational text from Drmargi

If you watch episode, you should know that that time they think they cornered the killer, they actually did, but just didn't knew he hidden in secret room. Theres nothing at that point that suggest that he not is the killer, only comes later when Castle figgurs it out. Just sensational and lame "or did they?" maybe add "dun dun duuunnn" aswell.CoralRosie (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thought so, high and mighty "DISCUSS!!" in summary edits, but when discussion is here, you to busy hiding your edit warring behavior from talk page. Stop using request for discussion to edit war! CoralRosie (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, be civil to other editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring over episode part placement

Once again there is edit warring over the placement of part numbers for episodes that are paired but which do not officially include the part number in the episode title. In this case the episode pair is "Tick, Tick, Tick..." and "Boom". There are several methods of identifying an episode as part of a pair. The first method is the one being reverted to in this article:

Episode	Title
28	"Boom!"
(Part 2) Beckett is left homeless.

The episode title is placed in "|Title=" and the part number is included in "|ShortSummary=". The episode title is automatically bolded by the template.

The second was recently demonstrated by one of the main creators of {{Episode list}}:

Episode	Title
28	"Boom!" (Part 2)
Beckett is left homeless.

Here the episode title and part number are placed in "|RTitle=", leaving "|Title=" vacant. The episode title must be manually bolded with the part number left as regular text.

• i.e. - "'''Boom!'''" (Part 2)

The third method is to place both the episode title and part number in "|Title=".

Episode	Title
28	"Boom! (Part 2)"
Beckett is left homeless.

As demonstrated by the creator of {{Episode list}}, either of the first two methods is acceptable for this episode pair. The third method should only be used where the part number is actually part of the episode title and is therefore not appropriate in this case. The edit warring that has gone on today is unacceptable. One of the involved editors made 5 reversions while the other made 6, both clearly breaching the three revert rule and both have been warned. This matter needs to be discussed, civilly. Any edit-warring is not in the best interests of the article or editors' editing privileges. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have initiated this discussion twice before, once on Drmargi's talk page, and later on on the Leverage talk page both times Drmargi declared his way the only way and refused to discuss any longer, using the fact that it was on his talk page and not on an articles talk page as an excuse for holding discussion off and edit war instead of discussing. He constantly asks for discussion but when an attempt for discussion is made, he's nowhere to be found. Looks like he's doing the exact same thing in his newly acquired edit war with CoralRosie. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 08:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it; the other editor has initiated discussion only when left no other option. I'd gladly discuss this with someone who is interested in discussing the issue. The trouble is both this editor and CoralRosie (a WP:SFA if ever there was one) seem hell-bent on making this about me, not the issue, in very much the same manner and soon turn the discussion that direction. The angry stance and lack of civility are represented well above. Meanwhile, my position on the options are on record: one is ambiguous and suggests (Part #) is in the title, the other clear and in the form used by American publications to describe two-part episodes. I can see no advantage to placing the descriptor (Part #) in the title box, which indicates it's part of the title, when placement along with the remainder of the episode description is equally visible, equally clear and entirely unambiguous. Drmargi (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who initiated conversations before and who did or didn't do something, the matter is being discussed here now, so we can finally resolve this, even if it means getting other editors involved. Remember, Wikipedia works on consensus, not personal opinion. A warning though, consensus built by using sockpuppets, or by editing using your IP address to give the impression that multiple editors support your point of view, is not consensus and is unacceptable. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your opinion has been noted, but you haven't made any effort to actually discuss this and walk away after claiming your way the only way. You have made a bigger effort on edit warring than discussing the matter. The fact that an episode is a two-parter is notable, as it means that you won't be able to completely follow the story of the second episode if you haven't seen the episode, putting it were it has been put for years, in the title box makes this clear. You accept that when a two-parter has the same name this should go in the title box, putting it for half the cases in the title box and the other half in the summary is inconsistent and would actually be confusing. Two-parters have been indicated by putting (Part 1)/(Part 2) in the title box for years, and have been accepted by the vast majority of editors of those episode lists and those who reviewed and promoted them to GA and FA status, this I would think stands for something, however you just dismissed it as "singularly unconvincing". _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 16:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Outside view per post at the Television project: If the title does not have a Part 2, it doesn't belong in the title. It also does not belong in the summary as it is not summary but descriptive. A foot note, if needed, to indicate it is actually a two part episode is fine, otherwise just let the summaries speak for themselves. I see no reason to note it otherwise. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the article

A well meaning editor has split the article into four today. This is somewhat premature but I've corrected the errors he made and completed the tasks he didn't perform. However, if there is consensus that the split was premature I have no problem with merging the content back into this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge it back! I find these splits unnecessary additional steps to individual seasons' articles that produce a series of fragmentary individual season articles, and also cost the reader the ability to gain an overview of the totality of a series' run. Thesa articles should never be split without consensus to do so first. Drmargi (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

While it's technically fine for the article to be split without consensus,[6] you are correct; consensus should have been sought. I've merged it all back. If others join the discussion and decide to split, the changes are easily undone. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I recognize that, which kept me from reverting both this one and In Plain Sight, which now exists as three miserable fragments. It's odd, though; for any other similar edit of this scope, consensus would always be the common-sense move. Drmargi (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor who split the article, and didn't do a very good job at that, hasn't sought consensus anywhere since he began splitting articles with his very first edit, of which he has 419 in total. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely problematic. But what troubles me is you get the projects, like the TV project, who can effectively usurp consensus by the setting a common style, then enforcing it by means of individual editors. Likewise, but to a lesser degree, with the some of the template designers. That's a big issue in my book. Drmargi (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You might care to check out this discussion. You're not alone. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OH, good! I just glanced at it, but will check it out. We may have a groundswell developing here! (ETA) Great read, and a good rationale not to split. Would you do me a favor? Go look at the main list of episodes page for Plain Sight, then follow on to the individual season pages. Can you see any reason we should collapse them back down into one article? Talk about pointless splitting of an article, very in line with the issues articulated in the discussion you linked. Drmargi (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The same issues apply to Plain Sight. There isn't enough content to justify the multiple articles. The succession boxes are ridiculous; their functionality is part of the infobox. When articles are split, the episode tables in the season articles should be transcluded to the main list as per Template:Episode list#Sublists. There shouldn't be two sets of tables as this increases the chance of errors, especially when the season tables use {{Episode list}} and the main list uses a custom table. If the guest stars are really important, they should be in the season articles, not the main list article. This should really be discussed there, not here though. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My thinking, too, but I wanted to test the waters first. Shall we take it there? I'd have to depend on you to do the restoration if we prevail - my skills don't extend to that level. Drmargi (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Premature split

This article is far too short to split, and a split should have been preceded by discussion and consensus to do so, regardless of size. The individual season articles have no content but a cast list and episode summaries, and do nothing but add an additional unnecessary step for the reader. These unnecessary splits of short articles have become epidemic of late! See the discussion on the discussion page for List of In Plain Sight episodes for details regarding model articles and split guidelines. Drmargi (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the heading, Aussie! I didn't even notice the continuation -- you'd think I would have! Drmargi (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

New attempt to split

A new author has attempted to split the article, recolor the season tables, with no effort at discussion or even an edit summary. I've reverted the second attempt, and requested discussion. Let's see if we can get this headed off, before we get a new edit war. Drmargi (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The attempted split was no better than the previous version of the article and the split was improperly executed. I still don't see a reason to split. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And why just Season 1? Drmargi (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Season 3 heading

Xeworlebi is correct.[7] Without evidence of an actual end date in 2011, Changing the heading to include the year is WP:CRYSTAL. Arguing that the season will end in 2011 because of the number ordered,[8][9] is WP:SYNTH. Citations need to directly support claims. 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. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I know the difference between verifiability and truth. A full-season order means just that: the show will run the full season, and the full season September 2010 - May 2011. That the dates are not explicitly stated in the source doesn't make it any less verifiable; the term season is the verification. Reverting that edit is nothing more than use of a policy to misinform by overly literal application. Drmargi (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been had numerous times at numerous articles and the consensus is always the same. A full season order doesn't necessarily mean that the show will air for the whole season. It just means a whole season has been ordered. There are plenty of shows where a whole season has been ordered and didn't complete a season. Better Off Ted, for example, was taken off air before the last two episodes had aired. Firefly had three episodes unaired. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And that's WP:CRYSTAL, far more so than my edit could ever be seen to be. What we know, and what is verifiable at the moment is that Castle has a full season order, and is scheduled for the full 2010-2011 season. If and when it's cancelled early, the 2011 date can be removed. But leaving it out on the basis that it might not go the whole season (and we won't even go into its ratings) is using a "what if" scenario that may never come to pass is far more WP:CRYSTAL than adding the date based on the fact there is a full-season order, and thereby the expectation by ABC that the show will go the whole season. Drmargi (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Scheduled doesn't mean will definitely be aired. In any case, the only episodes we have confirmed are airing in 2010 so leaving the heading as 2010 is appropriate. When there are 2011 episodes confirmed is when it should become 2010-11. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the recent rollback of episodes for Medium from the full 22 to 13. CBS was only a couple of double episode Fridays away from burning the whole thing off in 2010, in spite of an initial full season order. Which is why we don't assume on Wikipedia, (like we could that Castle's numbers would prevent it from a premature cancellation) and we don't predict. We verify, and until an episode is verifiably scheduled for January, we can't post that info. KnownAlias contact 16:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

David Grae vs David Grace

Two different people? Same person misspelled? I'm looking at the writer column here. Scott Ritchie (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch; happen to have that season of Castle still lying around on some old DVD+RW's and that episode, (202) "The Double Down", does indeed give writing credit to David Grae. I'm fixing. KnownAlias contact 02:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The press release for that episode shows the writer as David Grace. It was probably a typo. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Series #/Season # and No./#

There's been a lot of debate on Wikipedia lately about how to label the columns for episode counts. Too many IPs and new editors seem to think "Season #" is the number of the season, as opposed to the number in the season, and either change all of the numbers to the number of the season to match what they think the header means, or change the header to "Episode #", not realizing that both columns are episode numbers in their own way. The most recent suggestion popping up is the "No./#" solution, popular for those who favor the smaller column widths, but questioned by many as being further unclear, as both symbols merely mean "number", and require some kind of table explanation to which "number" means what. I came up with this solution in response to this conversation also taking place Covert Affairs and White Collar. I'm hoping this attempt might bring some clarity to the situation. I picked this page because it's a popular show (not at that Glee level, but popular enough) currently experiencing a high traffic volume, doesn't have independent season pages to mess with just yet, and because it has a prominent hidden note addressing this very issue. Feedback is appreciated...I'm not trying to act unilaterally. This is simply a "test case". KnownAlias contact 14:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Experiment moved to List of In Plain Sight episodes. KnownAlias contact 14:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit late in the season to make big changes here. Let's try it at List of In Plain Sight episodes instead, and see how it goes. Drmargi (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Also done. KnownAlias contact 14:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

So I see! It's a great idea to try it with a couple articles, and I thought having them on the same network might draw some of the same editors to the discussion. IPS is just ramping up as USA has recently released its May schedule. It's also one where Kevinbrogers edits, which is helpful. Drmargi (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:Spoiler

Included in the season 3 finale is the following comment:

Do not remove content from this episode summary because you think it is a "spoiler". WP:SPOILER specifically states that doing so is unnaceptable [sic].

While removing content from a page just because it's a spoiler is unacceptable, including or protecting content for that same reason and barring debate on whether it should be included is also unacceptable.

That being said, there is a fundamental difference between a plot summary and a plot synopsis that, admittedly, Wikipedia does not officially recognize. See here. Namely, that a plot summary is not simply concise, it is meant to leave the reader in suspense. Calling it such is disingenuous to the reader.

From the Spoiler page itself:

When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served.

This content is not serving an encyclopedic purpose. If it were, it would be a proper synopsis of the plot. If it indeed were, all of the plot "summaries" on this page would include similar vital plot information.

Furthermore, while there may not be an official Wikipedia content guideline on the issue, to serve an encyclopedic purpose, an article should only include information that is being sought for. When a reader comes to view the List of Castle episodes article, they are likely only looking for just that, a list. While it is appropriate to include a short blurb about the episode to perhaps jog a reader's memory as to whether they've seen it, it is wholly inappropriate to include spoilers for spoilers' sake.

It should also be noted that in addition to departing from every other plot summary on the page, the sentence in question departs from its own plot summary.

A secret is revealed about Captain Montgomery's past and the identity of the third cop. At the end of the episode Beckett is shot and Castle tells her that he loves her.

The first sentence here is coy and does not reveal more information than is needed. The second sentence drops all pretense, changing tone significantly in the pursuit of a spoiler. Lordcheeto (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So what's your point? That you want to take the information about Montgomery's death and Castle's declaration of love out just because they're spoilers? No one has indicated they can't be discussed (debated), much less barred debate -- not only is that contention disingenuous, it's downright inaccurate. Rather, until now, no one who objects to specific language describing details of the final episode has voiced any objection to having the content included or their work reverted on the article talk page, as they have the option to do. You may want to be more selective about the source you cite to defend your position regarding content of a summary, and review WP:RS; your children's book authors' personal site would never stand the test of that guideline. Plot synopses/summaries are handled differently across publications, depending on their individual manuals of style. Some treat the two as synonymous. Again, what's your point?

One important point is ovelooked here. Spoilers are advance knowledge of the events of an episode or series of episodes. Once broadcast, the content of an episode is not, by definition, a spoiler. Castle is a U.S. show, and the episode in question has been broadcast in the U.S. Therefore nothing that happened in the episode is a spoiler any longer. Once an episode has been broadcast, there is an issue of personal responsibility at play: if you read the article knowing the episode has been broadcast, it's your choice and what you learn is your responsibility. It's not the responsibility of the Wikipedia to twist itself into knots avoiding spoilers on the outside chance someone somewhere hasn't seen an episode. That's neither reasonable nor realistic. Be an adult, avoid the article until you see the episode, and you haven't got a problem.

Meanwhile, you overlooked the key topic sentence to the paragraph from which you life your quote above:

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.

I see nothing here that suggests you want to do anything but remove the information that Montgomery was the third cop involved in Beckett's mother's murder, that Beckett was shot at his funeral, and that the shooting lead Castle to spontaneously tell Beckett he loves her simply and solely because they're spoilers in some part of the world. Drmargi (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I was the person who added the note.[10] I did so because, despite clear instructions in WP:SPOILER and multiple previous reversions, the content continued to be removed several times in one manner or another.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Addition of the note wasn't meant to bar debate, it was meant to head off future attempts to ignore WP:SPOILER which specifically states "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." --AussieLegend (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"That being said, there is a fundamental difference between a plot summary and a plot synopsis that, admittedly, Wikipedia does not officially recognize. See here. Namely, that a plot summary is not simply concise, it is meant to leave the reader in suspense. Calling it such is disingenuous to the reader." That's were you're wrong, the short summary is only short in the sense that it should be 100–200 words, not that it should be short of information, the summary should cover the entire episode including the ending, which in many cases like this one is the most important point of the episode. Summaries are not teasers, nor should they be. The encyclopedic purpose is providing information, there's nothing inappropriate about providing relevant information. The relevance of the ending of the episode is no different then the beginning of the episode, removing either one is detrimental to the plot. Being ambiguous does not help anyone who wants to use wikipedia as it should be, an encyclopedia, which is for information. If you think the wording is bad, then improve it, deleting it is not improving it. Your entire point is based on the assumption that these summaries should be teasers, when they explicitly should not. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hvg47, 29 May 2011

In the description for Season 4, Episode 24 remove the sentence "At the end of the episode Beckett is shot and Castle tells her that he loves her. " as this is a major plot twist and a spoiler. Readers who have not watched the episode may not want to read it.

Hvg47 (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Please read WP:SPOILER. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note this has been discussed in the section above. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.69.68.4, 1 June 2011

Please remove the ending to the season three finale "At the end of the episode becket is shot and castle tells here he loves her." it ruins it for those who haven't seen it yet.

75.69.68.4 (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Please read the above two sections. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Readers should exercise a measure of personal responsibility if they don't wish to know the outcome of an episode already broadcast in the US. Drmargi (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Episode List Layout Change

Can I make a suggestion. Could someone change the list of episode layout to the way Desperate Housewives or Gossip Girl is since there are three seasons with a fourth on the way. Liam74656 (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's generally done when there is enough distinct on a season-by-season basis to merit individual articles, and when the main episode document is overly long. Thus far, neither applies here, so there's no need. Drmargi (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Season 4

Is there a reason the episode list from season 4 was removed? It's already halfway through, not still upcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.27.174 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Just browsing and saw a redundancy in the language in the last sentence of the second introductory paragraph: the word "season" is repeated unnecessarily. Only reason I made a Wikipedia account was to clean up typographical mistakes like this as I encountered them so I don't have the reputation to edit this article. Ronahgatling (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Page Format & Episode Titles

Is there a reason why the format of this page can't have separate sections for each season? A lot of other shows have done it, for example, The Big Bang Theory, which is into its fifth season now with a separate link for each season. I also agree with the above poster, we are halfway through this season, why aren't the titles of future episodes that have been announced not listed on this page yet? Please get on this as soon as possible. Us fans would really appreciate it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.52.111 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There are separate sections for each season but there are not separate articles because there is not enough encyclopaedic content to warrant splitting into separate articles. All future episodes that have been announced by reliable sources are listed in this article. This is not a fan site, it's an encyclopaedia and all treatment of content must be encyclopaedic. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Writer/director for "The Limey"

Can these be added? They are Elizabeth Davis (writer) & Bill Roe (director) https://twitter.com/#!/TerriEdda/status/179383280502714368 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyellowgreen (talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Season Page.

Ok. So I was wondering when it should be time to split the article in to season pages. So, I did a season page, but I haven't linked it to the article. Here's the page, Castle (season 4), So wondering, should we start splitting them soon? considering now Season 5 is coming up. If we do, there's already a page for season 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvlover96 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a standing consensus NOT to split the article. This was last discussed only a little over 3 months ago above. The article is certainly not long enough, as discussed above. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And even if the article were long enough, is there enough content about individual seasons to merit individual articles? We're rushing headlong into article splits these days without considering that critical factor. As a result, far too many are simply article stubs with the episode list appended to them. --Drmargi (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think about it, season 5 premieres in September and the articles may need to be split soon. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look rather than just think, as of now using a very loose interpretation of the definition of readable prose, there is still only 28.6kB of readable prose even after 4 seasons. At the rate content is being added to this article, there'll be no need to split until at least season 7. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Splitting into seasons

On my my talk page, I was pointed to prior discussions on splitting this article. Having separate seasons, would seem to be worth considering now that this episode list page is getting quite long. In addition, Season 4 just won some People's Choice Awards and had some notable character changes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm generally opposed to these splits. The individual articles make it more difficult to access content, spreading what works on one page across multiple pages for no good reason. There is rarely any substantive content on the individual season pages that isn't already in the main article on the show. Generally, all they house is a long-winded summary of the season that could just as easily be accessed via better-written episode summaries (versus the TV Guide model that seems to be accepted in most articles, and is far from encyclopedic.) A couple changes of cast (one, really) and a People's Choice award simply isn't a compelling enough reason to fragment a nicely constructed single article. --Drmargi (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If we were to split the article, season articles would have to be split properly, with appropriate attribution and at the correct locations (Castle (season x), not Castle (Season x)) and in accordance with Template:Episode list#Sublists. Season articles should include infoboxes, episode lists are transcluded to the episode list, we don't just remove episode summaries in the episode list article as that leads to duplication errors. Season articles require much more than to simply duplicate what's already in this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Go for the move! Bob Mono (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I really believe it deserves to be split into articles because otherwise the page is too long. New Girl, for example, have only 14 episodes aired and it already got split into an especific article for the current season. I read it and understand the rules to split an article. I just don't understand what's the big deal in making one for this series considering most series have their own articles for each season. CarterEllis19 (talk) 20:56, March 3 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of what it "deserves" but rather whether there is sufficient content by season to merit a split. So far, I haven't seen it. Moreover, based on WP:SIZERULE, the article is well within length parameters for a single article. As for the show you cite, what was done there isn't germane. Every show article is different, and the product of the consensus among the editors of that article. Moreover, the article you refer to is comparable to this one, not a seasonal article, so your argument doesn't hold.

We have already discussed the issue of splitting the article at length and reached consensus, as you can see here: Talk:List_of_Castle_episodes/Archive_1#Splitting_the_article. Please also see User_talk:AussieLegend/Archive_11#Castle_Episodes, which discusses the standing consensus and how SIZERULE applies, with another editor who tried to split the article against consensus. --Drmargi (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read the consesus page, sorry for the incovenience. CarterEllis19 (talk) 22:28, March 3 2012 (UTC)

No inconvenience at all. The trick is to check a talk page, and to discuss, when you make a move this major. --Drmargi (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

For example, after the show hits 100 episodes it can be split into seasonal articles? The article I made for season 1 featured production of the show (which is not present in any other article), final numbers for the episode's ratings and I had planned to include the DVD cover of the season. I would really appreciate your opinion on that. CarterEllis19 (talk) 22:36, March 3 2012 (UTC)

There are no hard-and-fast rules, but splitting articles is generally something better left to much more experienced editors. You need a good body of content for all four seasons, and right now, I don't see that you have it. I'd argue that 80-90% of seasonal articles should be deleted and the one list article restored; DVD covers and extended summaries just aren't enough reason to split into seasons. What I'd suggest you do for now is add a Season 1 subsection to the production section of the main Castle article. But be sure what you have is reliably sourced! That's key. I know where Castle is filmed, for example, but can't add it because I've never been able to find a reliable source to verify it. --Drmargi (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, if Castle is renewed for a sixth season, then we should split the page into separate season articles. I think by then it will be rather long and it would be best if we split the page by then. --AlexKnightNZ (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As of right now, the article still has just under 38kB of prose, which isn't long at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Premiere ratings

There has been an off-and-on battle the last couple days over the ratings for Castle's fifth season opener. I finally did some homework, and it appears clear that the original Zap2it/TV by the Numbers article with the broadcast finals include a typo, under-reporting Castle's ratings by one million viewers, making 11.45 viewers correct. Frankly, I'm surprised, and disappointed the source didn't issue a correction. Later releases on the same site, and an ABC press release as well as both a Broadcasting and Cable article and a Variety article note a two-million viewer gap between Revolution (at 9.2 million) and Castle at 11.4 million. I've made the correction here, citing the Futon Critic republication of the ABC press release, and another editor has done so on the main article, citing a newer Zap2it article. --Drmargi (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Castle's 5th season premiere was viewed by 10.45 million viewers. Below is a link to the top 25 most watched shows of the week ending September 30, 2012 which included the premiere episode which aired Monday 24 September 2012.

[19]

Below are the Monday Night Rating Finals for Monday September 24, 2012 of which states Castle was adjusted downwards from 11.45 to 10.45 million viewers.

[20]

The 11.45 listed on all other webistes are the overnight ratings and Overnights are not alout on wikipedia and these sites dont usually post the finals, TV by the Numers does,. Liam74656 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The press release is from ABC, and is based on final ratings. You have one source, which can make errors, citing 10.45 (and not specifically stating adjustment down from what earlier numbers, or why) and numerous sources citing 11.4 or 11.45 and a 2 million viewer gap between Castle and Revolution (at 9.21 as noted above). Moreover, you have no source that Castle was adjusted down a full million (versus the normal .2 million or so) because of an overrun of DWTS; it always ends at 10:01. Finally, you're assuming all the sources I cite are based on fast nationals versus final ratings, but nothing to back it up. The preponderance of sources say 11.45 million and we have to go with that. TBTN does make mistakes. --Drmargi (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are the overnight ratings from last Monday, http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/09/25/tv-ratings-monday-revolution-the-voice-tumble-the-mob-doctor-goes-lower-partners-series-premiere/149991/ and as you can see the ratings were adjusted downwards from 11.38 to 10.45 million viewers. Liam74656 (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've not placed a warning on your talk page indicating you are in danger of breaching WP:3RR for persistent reverting of disputed content during a discussion. You will be subject to block on your next revert. You have your sources, I have mine, and more. You have ONE source, I have multiple that indicate 11.4 million, including the network. TVbytheNumbers is not the definitive source; the network is. --Drmargi (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Production order codes

I have a source at ABC Studios who provided me with last few months of aired episodes production codes. I thought I could include them here, but certain anal editors here need sources quoted for everything. Which would be fine if this article was for something real world, however it's for a fictional TV show listing, which I'm surprised some other anal editor doesn't class as a EPG for ABC. Plus I wouldn't quote my source by name as a production codes are only for internal use within the industry. Helmboy (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

All content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. The content that you added constitutes original research, which is unacceptable. Removal of the content that you added has nothing to do with editors being anal, it was done completely in accordance with our policies and guidelines, which also include Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

THIS is hardly research, it's a episode listing for a fictional studio produced show. The research argument only applies to when writing prose or quoting data for a article. :sigh: Helmboy (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid your assertion is incorrect. As indicated in the lead of Wikipedia:No original research, "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Your claim that "the research argument only applies to when writing prose or quoting data for a article" does not support your assertion since you you were "quoting data for a article" when you added the production codes, which you acknowledge does not come from a reliable, published source. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Aussie has this nicely covered. It's time for you to learn how Wikipedia editorial policies work, or you're headed for ANI and the blockhammer. BTW, in all established forms of English, we use "a" before a noun beginning with a consonant, and "an" before a noun beginning with a vowel, so it's 'AN episode listing'. That's a very basic grammatical error an ten-year-old shouldn't make, much less a self-labeled journalist, amateur or no. --Drmargi (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

And we only have your word for all of that. What you added is not verifiable, and give the incorrect terminology used, I see no reason to treat the content as other than meriting an immediate revert. Production codes are included at the end of every television episode in the U.S., hardly internal use. I expect an apology for the personal attack, and am serving notice that the next one will result in a report to the appropriate notice board. I suggest you study up on some basic sourcing and civility policies at Wikipedia. --Drmargi (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The only studios that release their full production codes in public accessible ways are Fox and Warner Bros. as they generally burn them in on their end copyright info slates. Other studios such as CBS/Paramount, NBC-Universal and ABC/Disney are private and only listed via internal networks, VPNs and feed header slates. So if you don't allow this you will never get prod. codes for content from any of these studios. PS, some Canadian studios release partial codes on their end slates in the form of a ISAN. FYI, the nbcuni use off2 as the prefix for their production codes for Parks and Recreation, as the filmed pilot was internally labelled as "The Office 2" Helmboy (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In most cases production codes serve no useful purpose, so there is no need to include them in articles anyway. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is wrong on so many levels, I can't begin to correct it, nor is there any point in doing so. Regardless, you may style yourself as a so-called "amateur journalist", but the Wikipedia rule is quite clear: source it or leave it out, particularly once an edit is challenged. And as Aussie said, why are they needed anyway? Production numbers give us a sense of order of production; if anything, that's all we need. Frankly, leaving all the issues raised aside, I have a hard time trusting anything you claim is insider knowledge given you're in New Zealand. Insiderish jargon lends no credibility to what you say. A verifiable source will. --Drmargi (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please state one production company besides Fox and Warners that make production codes publicly available! "Amateur journalist" was a sarcastic joke at editors applying policies to trivial edits. As for the importance of prod. codes, first they are in the template used, second sometimes air date order does not follow story order and production order does, and third they make good reference material. As for insider knowledge I have been in the broadcast industry down here for years and like all non-US broadcasters in most case we get content and material in exactly the same way as a US local station does. The only difference is we are provided 25 frame converted source material. Helmboy (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is really tangential to the discussion. The mere fact that the production codes are unsourced and clearly constitute original research is justification enough for their exclusion from the article. However, I will point out that inclusion of a field in a template does not mandate its use. In fact, |ProdCode= is clearly marked as an optional field. There is no doubt that production codes are useful, Futurama and Firefly are two examples where production codes serve some purpose, especially so in the case of Firefly, but such cases are the exception and the use of production codes here is certainly not required. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please name one Warner show listing on this wiki site that quotes a source for prod. codes they list. As all of these codes are sourced from viewer observations of the end credits or the more recently used FastFox site which due to only a secure front end allows for direct links to internal pages. All users of these sites are governed under contracts that the only thing users can make publicly available is material used in marketing. It is not meant for a wiki reference. Also it is good in terms of uniformity with other episodes lists to include these codes. PS, they are codes and not numbers as most of them are a mix of letters and numbers. Helmboy (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

TV episodes are acceptable primary sources for production codes. Where the production codes are not included at the end of an aired episode, an inline citation from a reliable source is required. Many episode lists do not include production codes so including them is not "good in terms of uniformity with other episodes lists". --AussieLegend (✉) 02:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

With most broadcasters using alternative split screen credits how would you know if the original credits included it or not and this would go against your general rule of a "reliable source citation" needed. Also what 's the special criteria require for shows to make your special list of "production codes" allowed? Sounds like a bit of a dictatorial idea to me. Helmboy (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally got proof of productions codes only because when a Disney show hits the milestone 100 episodes they publish the graph of those episodes. Other than file names that are publicly available there will be no available source to cite for the latter episodes. I might as well take the rest of them down and stick a real non-profit TV wiki such as TVIV. As for renaming Production to production number that is just being over descriptive as anyone can see that they are numbers. :sigh: Helmboy (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got a reliable source for 101 - 519, but that's all. Why all the petulance? Just hang on until you have the final few, then add them, rather than depending on an odd-ball source such as the one you used. As for the heading, this is an encyclopedia; what's the big deal if we add a fully descriptive heading? BTW, this isn't a TV wiki, it's an encyclopedia, and the standards are different. Maybe TVIV would be more satisfying. --Drmargi (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you read the last post, there will NOT be the same kind of source for latter episodes. Those 101 - 519 were only published for the 100th episode that marks when studios start selling syndicated re-runs. Also technically, the ABC site those come from is for commercial media outlets, not for the public and encyclopedia reference use. Disney, NBC-Universal and CBS studios do not publish publicly accessible production info. Fox and Warners are the only companies that include their codes in publicly viewable copyright video slates and that would be classified as first had research and not a bonafided quotable reference. If this site is not for TV details in wiki (ie, TV wiki) form then why are there TV shows on here? As for petulance, it's just plain facts. Helmboy (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Season articles

I believe we should create separate season articles for Castle. I have heard arguments that there is not sufficient material, but many other ABC shows have still created separate season articles. Shows such as Body of Proof and Brothers & Sisters have separate season articles, although there is little information and they have either a smaller or about equal number of episodes as Castle AlexKnightNZ (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Both of the examples that you've given have more content in the season articles than we have here, Brothers & Sisters significantly so. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, however, Castle has just as much information, we only have to find it. As a matter of fact, I would be happy to find the information. AlexKnightNZ (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I join AlexKnightNZ - it is well about time to split the article into separate seasons. Castle is about to be renewed for a sixth season (no official announcement yet but essentially a done deal) and has very high rating: it makes no sense why other similar shows (including ones with much lower ratings and less information available) have separate articles per season and this one doesn't. I will be glad to provide more content for the articles. Plenty of information is available online, enough to fill doesn't of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtemisiaHohen (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Then start by drafting proposed season articles in your user space, so we can get an idea of all of this extra content. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You can view a draft in my Sandbox (User:AlexKnightNZ/sandbox), It's just missing a plot outline rrteally. AlexKnightNZ (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That looks fantastic, AlexKnightNZ. I am new to Wikipedia and not very proficient with all the tools. However, if there is any way I can provide help for this project (sources, drafts, gathering information), I am not. And by the way, Castle has officially been renewed for 6th season now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtemisiaHohen (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

As with any page, it'll need some cleaning up, but... it looks pretty good. If you want to take the time to make one of these for every season... I don't see why we can't have them. Kude90 (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing new in it, and the cast table is overdone. This isn't a show with any recurring characters to speak of; a narrative table would work better. What will the season articles add that we don't already have/know? I can't see anything. --Drmargi (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The ratings table is also redundant, since it just repeats what is already in the episode table. There's really nothing in the article that isn't already somewhere else. What we need is season specific content, such as production details etc, that isn't anywhere else, not just rehashed content. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"Still" referred to as a clip show

I added the information that the episode "Still" is a clip show, and had it reverted with the explanation "Not really", so I'd like to get some other editor's opinions on it. In my opinion, an episode which is roughly 50% footage from previous episodes, as is the case with "Still", qualifies as a clip show. What do other people think? Euchrid (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this episode is a great example of a clip show. Tons of flashbacks, used to move the main plot along. Makes sense to me.Kude90 (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Got a source? I don't regard it as a clip show and it's not necessary to the summary. --Drmargi (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

[21] Source.Kude90 (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice one. As far as necessity to the summary, if an episode has a different format to the rest of the show, that should be included. Euchrid (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Air Date for Season 6

Although it is a US show, the fact that it airs a day earlier is mentionable in the air date column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.189.0.113 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with this. 122.105.135.233 (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. We've tracked U.S. dates for the previous five seasons along with U.S. ratings for a U.S. show. It's a simple matter of consistency. There's no need to add Canadian airdates, especially given they're only a day early. You can add a note that the episode was broadcast a day ahead in Canada. --Drmargi (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a source that the remaining Castle episodes will return to Monday? It would simplify the note and cut down on the squabbling. --Drmargi (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Airs Sundays in Canada. http://youtube.com/watch?v=8T-utuHPiW0 Edited note, will need to be changed if an episode doesn't air the day before. DarkProdigy (talk) 07:49 and again a bit later on, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Dates

This is a pretty small grievance but the reference for the viewing figures for "The Lives of Others" is dated as being accessed on March 3rd, 2013 but the episode first aired nearly a month later on April 1st. Biggs Pliff (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

So why not just fix it? We get vandals in who change dates for no good reason all the time. --Drmargi (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)