Talk:List of Drawn Together episodes

in depth summaries

where are the articles for each epidsode? I am willing to make very detailed descriptions of episodes and i think they should be on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.136.35 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

New layouts

I've been trying to rework the trivia sections on each episode page to hopefully make them a little better organized. I moved the pop culture parodies and other references into a section called Cultural References, and made a section called Animated Cameos listing the famous characters (Speedy Gonzales, Popeye, etc.) that appear in certain episodes since they're a significant part of the show and probably deserve special mention. I also created a section called Notes and Inside References for behind-the-scenes trivia, references to other episodes, character info that is revealed, and other interesting details and oddities.Raymondluxuryacht 22:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to say thanks - Nice lay out. Tom C 7/4/06

Production codes

Some of the production codes seem to keep getting switched around a LOT. Could we possibly find out the true production codes for each episode, and then keep them there?Raymondluxuryacht 04:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comedy Central's website lists "Captain Hero's Marriage Pact" as 205 and "Clum Babies" as 204. Since that's the closest thing we have to an official source, I've changed the episode list to reflect that. TV.com lists them the other way around, but I've found that site, while a good source of info, is not 100% accurate.Raymondluxuryacht 08:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The second episode of February is simliar. When I put the info for A Tale of Two Cows, I put the production number on comedy central's website. --Evildevil 16:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars music

Starting from, and most frequently used in Episode 12: "Captain Hero's Marriage Pact", I'm very sure the orchestraic string music that plays in the background comes from the love theme in Star Wars Episode II. Either that or I'm a very nerdy nerd. Can anyone else confirm and maybe insert it as trivia? --61.6.203.213 12:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't know. This would be a great bit of trivia if we could confirm it. Unfortunately, I'm not enough of a Star Wars expert to offer any insight on this; I only get the really obvious references.Raymondluxuryacht 06:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I just rewatched ep. 12, and the music definitely isn't the "Across the Stars" love theme. It is very similar to Leia's theme, though without any sort of input from the music director I don't think it's worth adding as trivia (since it'd be POV). Virogtheconq 01:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Season 2 over?

Season 2 is over, as proven by the Season 2 Rewind, already in progress on Comdey Central. Just thought I'd mention that, seeing as that 'To Be Announced' makes it look like more episodes are already underway for this season. ~JeramiahWindsor (20:23 EST. December 29, 2005)

The season is only half over. The Season 2 Rewind was just showing all of the Season 2 episodes so far. The show's been given a full thirteen-episode order, and that's not including "Terms of Endearment", which is supposed to air as well.Raymondluxuryacht 06:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Episode Lists

I was thinking about formatting this page so that it fits the formats set forth by Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes. Please see List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes for an example. This project would involve moving each episode's information into individual articles, and creating a more visually appealing table as the main page. I can easily get screenshots for this, so it's probable that this will look really good, and make the main page a little less crowded. Does anyone object? tiZom 20:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea at all. This seems to be one of the fastest growing TV pages on Wikipedia. It's obvious based on the activity here that the show certainly has a large following, and people have all kinds of info to contribute about each episode. I'd say it's definitely warranted.Raymondluxuryacht 22:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A 'yes' vote from me. Example here?--naz 05:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and start creating some of the other episode pages. If someone can come up with a good table for the master episode list, we'd be in great shape.Raymondluxuryacht 06:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The episode pages are done, and I put up a rudimentary table on the mainpage. If anyone could help out by providing screenshots for the table, I'd be much obliged. :)Raymondluxuryacht 10:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. I'm still new-ish to Wikipedia and I find it amazing how relatively easy things are done around here. I have the first season DVD-quality episodes loaned to a friend but as soon as I get them back, I'll upload some pictures for the list and individual episodes, along with other information for the infobox. Again, wow. --naz 13:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the image placeholders temporarily, mainly because it seems this page is visited often, and it just doesn't look that great to have them there. It is very easily undone, as I just turned the Image placeholders into comments. Once you've got those screenshots, you can upload them, and replace my comments. I don't know of any format for naming the images, so do whatever, just remember to keep them at 100px on this page. :o) tiZom 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea Wikipedia has auto image-resizing capabilites. Ah well, live and learn. Season 2 images are now up. --naz 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Any idea when you can get the Season 1 screenshots up? I've got some low-quality pics that I could put up there temporarily if you want...
Looks great, btw :o) tiZom 20:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks beautiful... thanks!!! tiZom 15:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. --naz 15:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Lost font

would the "Lost" style logo from the s3 midseason finale be a better image placeholder than the DT house? I want opinions before I go ahead and change them. --Evildevil 03:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be.Raymondluxuryacht 03:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

All right. I'll make the change then. --Evildevil 04:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
And it's done. I added it to the Parking Space 2 and Charlette's Web eps too.--Evildevil 04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use removal

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. -M^ask? 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So, does this mean nearly every television screenshot will be taken down at one point? --Evildevil 05:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability

The result of the discussion was do not merge or redirect. DWaterson 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The true result was to redirect all per the lack of any defense besides WP:ILIKEIT. TTN 23:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. That is unlikely to happen, and these only have certain bad aspects (though all may not apply) like containing overly long or one sentence plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list.

If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. Otherwise, discussion will take place here. Please remember that this is not a vote. If you like the information, that's fine and dandy, but your opinion doesn't really count towards anything. The only opinions that do count are ones that that lean towards the inclusion of real world information. TTN 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Admittedly, there maybe isn't as much as real-world information as there could be, but the articles aren't totally devoid of it. And I, for one, would be willing to try to improve them in this regard. These are very thorough, informative articles that could definitely be given the necessary improvements.Raymondluxuryacht 05:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Real world information means development and reception backed by reliable sources. I don't see any here, and I doubt there is enough unique content available. TTN 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose These episode articles used to be a single article, but was split when it got too long- and there were less than half the episodes there are now. If we pared it down, people would keep adding back to it, and we'd be right back to the same place. There's simply too much information to condense it down that much. Also, unlike many television episode articles on Wikipedia, these don't merely state a summary of the episode; they also contain information on the series' references to cultural events, as well as on the social commentary it makes.. Missnickers 07:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Each episode needs a few sentences here at most, and a paragraph if sourced season articles are created. The cultural references are unsourced trivia, so they have no baring on the length. If people keep bloating it past that, it'll be reverted, and protected if necessary. TTN 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they indeed do need to be just in a list. They are cluttered and I see no signs of them improving. A popular show doesn't instantly make all episodes suitable for articles here (especially when they turn into dumping grounds for any little note on the show). In my view, just about any TV show should be in list form here... as Wikipedia TV episode articles are in poor shape for the most part. As TTN said: a few sentences do the job just fine. They shouldn't turn into madness (similar to how Family Guy episode articles and so on are). RobJ1981 06:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose What makes these articles any different from the hundreds of articles around for specific episodes of other television shows?--Evildevil 03:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

They're not any different. That's why these and most other episode articles will be redirected eventually. TTN 14:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose If we are going to merge episode articles with this page, why not do the same with South Park, ect.? To date there are no plans to merge the South Park episode list with the episode articles, so why do it here? Zachorious 04:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The South Park episodes will be cut down eventually. Though, unlike this show, some of the episodes have been given real world information. Trapped in the Closet (South Park) is even a good article. TTN 13:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Got a South Park example that's considered a decent article and was for an episode that did not create an almost global controversy? I think Trapped in the Closet is a terrible example in comparison to the Drawn Together episodes. --Evildevil 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as per the consistency-with-other-shows argument. Also, wikipedia isn't paper. Cool beans, that's an overwhelming opposition to that ridiculous proposal. Someone can take off the merge tag from the episode articles now. Artiste-extraordinaire 07:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

These will be redirected soon due to the fact that only WP:ILIKEIT arguments are present. Please remember that this is not a vote, so the "majority" here means nothing. TTN 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several arguments present, and none of them are of that variety . Quit dismissing everyone's opinion because you don't agree with it.Raymondluxuryacht 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The only valid argument to keep deals with actually providing sources that assert notability. Anything else is just a blanket statement made in ignorance (all of the above opposes go against our basic policies and guidelines). We do not count those in actual discussion. TTN 19:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course these should be redirected. They fail WP:EPISODE completely and the idea that they should stay because other non-notable episode articles exist is simply a clarion call to further action: Aux armes citoyens! Formez vos bataillons, Marchons, marchons! Eusebeus 13:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as sourced. There are several sources (TV.com, IMDB, etc.) for episodes of any show of reasonable popularity, which is why WP:EPISODE is rarely followed for almost any show that anybody watches. Oren0 23:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No actual arguments have been presented, so these will be redirected soon. TTN 15:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OpposeI don't see why they should. One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it documents many popular culture facts. Wedineinheck (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just stumbling here, I am compelled to point out the gross illogicality of this proposal. First and foremost, WP:IAR, so anything I am about to say about policies is moot, however, this is clearly WP:POINT as any merging will be reverted. It is also, as mentioned above, going against previous (and current) WP:CONSENSUS for this article, and the consensus for the rest of Wikipedia, which as said above, seems to be perfectly happy to have thousands of articles about Books, Films, Episodes, Characters - all of which are technically WP:OR and not WP:NOTABLE. I do agree that these articles seem to violate some policies, however the removal of them will, unnecessarily, violate more and create irritation for the hundreds of users that have contributed to them. I feel that we have to choose, do we let Wikpedia become the "Sum of human knowledge" or do we make Wikipedia the sum of all apart from a few things that we don't want of human knowledge. As these articles are of reasonable quality and are not causing much dispute, I see no reason to delete them beyond WP:WL, WP:EPISODE and other related guidelines are present to stop wikipedia filling up with Unknown Programs (Series 1)(Episode 1) kind of stubs - they should certainly not be cited as a reason to remove content. Conrad.Irwin 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have just reread the guideline under which these merges were proposed - this merge is actually not the way in which it advises dealing with existing articles. I agree that they are not formatted according to the guidelines, and so I will replace the {{merge}} tags with {{cleanup}}. Conrad.Irwin 09:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to show that there is a possibility. All of the whining above only shows that they have to resort to ignoring policies and guidelines to "keep" these. TTN 11:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just in the balance of fairness can you show that there is no possibility? The merging of these articles can only be achieved by ignoring several different policies and guidelines as well. Conrad.Irwin 16:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Redirect - WP:NOTE beats WP:ILIKEIT every time. --Jack Merridew 12:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

  (side note; in the future such section headings should be:
  

  Episode non-notability

  --Jack Merridew 12:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Could people please read WP:ILIKEIT before suggesting that any of the arguments above are of this form.

However my main point is, as stated in the WP:EPISODE policy if there are problems with an article, it should be proposed for deletion. I feel that there should be no need to quote this at people, but what else can I do.

Before executing a merge, ask yourself:

1. Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article?
2. Are more sources available?

If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", it is probably better to avoid merging or redirecting. Instead, consider improving it, or offer suggestions for its improvement on the talk page.

The answer to both these questions is yes; in that the list article already contains enough information to be a good list and allow people to navigate their way through the articles, adding more content will make it unwieldy and hard to use; and yes in that very few sources have yet been cited - and so there are lots more that can be.

If there is a wish for the entries of individual articles to stop existing then they must be submitted to AfD and not just hidden. Conrad.Irwin 16:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

These articles shouldn't be merged - but as this seems to be being ignored can we please ensure that what happened at Mighty Max (TV series)#Full_list of episodes does not occur here. It is going to take editors a long time to try and extract all the information from the pages that were turned into redirects as it takes at least three page loads just to read the old content. Conrad.Irwin 16:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course they should be merged, or simply redirected — list has bits enough, already. I just took a close look at The Other Cousin — where's the notability? How many WP:NOT violations? No sources — except the bits that are about the movie they're quoting. If you want this kept, find some sources. What did Sarah Silverman say about this? That the check cleared? --Jack Merridew 13:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at Mighty Max (TV series)#Full_list of episodes — and it's fine. That whole show was to promote the British Mighty Max toys; see: WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. --Jack Merridew 13:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What I was objecting to on the Mighty Max list was that each episode used to have an article - which was why the list contained no information. Then the articles all got redirected, but the list still contained no information - now people are having to struggle to the old versions of the article pages to rescue the content from them. Moving the content across is what WP:MERGEing means. Incidentally discussing an advert with a NPoV is not advertising.

Unless the content will be taken from these articles and put into the list - which is an odd thing to do because the list contains enough information - then it is not a merge, it is deletion and as such must be discussed at AfD.Conrad.Irwin 21:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirection is not deletion, as it is used to allow others to salvage content, and possibly bring it back upon finding information. TTN 21:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but neither is it merging - perhaps we need a different template that would more accurately express the intention. It has been proposed that this article be a redirect to List of Drawn Together episodes Conrad.Irwin 20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Unless you can name at least ONE cultural show on Wikipedia that doesn't have thir own episode articles. I don't think you can. TheBlazikenMaster 11:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I Love Lucy has only two episode articles and it is far more notable than this show. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good rationale ("So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet."). Stardust8212 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose on grounds of length. The article would become extremely long if merged, and would need to be promptly split again. DWaterson 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Wikipedia policies overrule flimsy notions of praticality, everytime. Artiste-extraordinaire 15:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Although their were a number of policy-based arguments in favour of merging and redirecting, an overwhelming majority were opposed on various other grounds. DWaterson 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have reverted the closure. It was closed by someone who was involved in the discussion, and thus should not be closed by them. I find it interesting that the person who closes it even says that policy supports the proposal, but even though consensus is consensus among policy backed arguments, he says the articles should not be merged. I suggest someone get an impartial admin to close this dicussion, or just take it to AfD if you would rather. — Soleil (formerly I) 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and redirect them when I get the chance. The point of these is to form a discussion to see about potential improvement, rather than to form any sort of number consensus anyways. Either that, or I'll have to place each episode up for deletion. It would have to be one at a time, though, so that would be annoying. TTN 00:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, TNN. You're a real Wiki-team-player. Just make sure you get alllll the content when you merge them articles. That's a good chap. Artiste-extraordinaire 15:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please wait for an admin to close this topic as suggested above. Of course deletion has to be one at a time, unless you want to make a generalisation that because they are from this series, they must meet your criteria for destruction. I think that the sensible option is to ask an impartial admin to close this discussion, however if you plan to go a head with the merge anyway, please do try and preserve some of the content. Conrad.Irwin 18:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

An admin is not needed to close a discussion, especially as quite a few have the same bias as you guys, so it would be a double standard (I would easily accept a merge "verdict", but I would still go against a keep). There is no content to preserve, so I don't get what you're talking about. If you're interested in fan content such as extended plot summaries and cultural references, tv.com is you place. The content has no encyclopedic value here. TTN 19:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am quite happy for the closure to be reverted and reopened (as it has been), although I do not consider that I made any mistake in closing it myself despite having been involved in the discussion. You will note that it was more than a week after I made any contribution to the discussion that I closed the discussion, as it appeared to have been more or less dead and had been open for over a month. In any case, I agree here with TTN that an admin is not required to close a merge/redirect discussion. What I cannot agree with is TTN's implication that he, "would still go against a keep" - ie, he is unwilling to accept consensus and is apparently threatening to carry out his own redirection whatever the consensus verdict. I would consider that a violation of WP:POINT. In any case, I suggest that it is still high time that this discussion be closed as consensus is clearly overwhelming and it has been open well over a month now. DWaterson 18:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please show me where it states in WP:CON that numbers overrule policies and guidelines. This is not a vote, so numbers are completely irrelevant unless both sides have policies and guidelines on their side. And that usually only allows us to judge "no consensus." You have stated that this also follows them, so there is no arguing there. I really do not want to waste time with a revert war, but I'll probably just go ahead soon. TTN 19:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It doesn't matter how many of you like these articles, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia grounded in the real world, and in-depth plot summary must be justified by real-world information. If this information cannot be found, the episode articles will be redirected until that information is found. This comes from a greater consensus on Wikipedia than just one talk page. -- Ned Scott 20:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean like real-world credibility? Which Wikipedia has by the barrelful. Feel free to improve the articles, Mr Ned Scott. Artiste-extraordinaire 03:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean real world information, like commentary, production information, etc. -- Ned Scott 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OPPOSE If you merge this, you would have to merge all Simpsons episodes, South Park episodes, Family Guy episodes. Come on people, get with the times. The public has spoken about what they like to see on Wikipedia.

The Great and Glorious Merge

TTN is an unstoppable deletionist juggernaut, so the merge was going to happen anyway. At least with someone other than her/him doing it, we're able to save the plot summaries at least, which I guess wouldn't otherwise have happened. I'm sorry it had to come to this, since the sort of approach TTN and her/his comrades have to Wikipedia makes for a bad atmosphere in this place, and I'm starting to hate this site because of it. FYI, Wikipedia has no credibility whatsoever, whether or not it's full of useless knowledge, and as a whole has no encyclopaedic value anyway.

Lastly, I'd like to give a big thanks and sorry to all the editors who diligently made and developed the episode articles, especially the inside jokes and cultural references. You did a fantastic job, and I for one appreciate your work. For a show like this, that sort of information made my veiwing experience all the richer for being able to understand the many complex and subtle jokes those guys put in. For what was essentially a compendium of unnotable fancruft, it was a great compendium. But as TTN says, it seems that tv.com is us place. Shantih. Artiste-extraordinaire 03:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The merge is horrible, simply horrible. I went to Ghostesses in the Slot Machine just two days ago, and when I return to Wikipedia I find myself automatically driven to the merge. I have to say, it's an ugly and nearly obscene template/merge that has occurred here. It was easier to read, easier to follow and less to download with each individual episode, and I for one set this article aside as a good example of why merging should be limited or stopped altogether on Wikipedia. It's bad enough the South Park nuts are doing it with Imaginationland; now I have to deal with this shit? As Captain Hero would say, "I've seen better templates shaved into the pubic hair of Asian whores." --Iwriteu 05:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Although it was this or TTN takes a hatchet to the whole thing eventually and we're left with no content anywhere and an ugly revert war with deletionists. Artiste-extraordinaire 11:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Although your willingness to do the merges is noble, copying and pasting is not an acceptable merge. The summaries should be short paragraphs. No more. Follow something like this. — Soleil (formerly I) 03:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh. Artiste-extraordinaire 04:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Episodes from seasons 1 and 2 have been put down and redirected. They're in a better place now. If anyone wants to move the plot summaries from the season 3 episodes, as well as a screenshot from the main storyline (if there is one, if not then whatever) feel free. Also, someone's going to have to amputate the episode links out of the Drawn Together template box. Artiste-extraordinaire 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reversed your merges. Merging is not a cut and paste replacement. When merging like this, you need to take a short synopsis of the episode, and place it here. Not copy and paste the entire page; that defeats the entire purpose of the merge. — Soleil (formerly I) 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I didn't cut and paste entire pages. That would have been absurd, and a lot of entertaining yet useless fancruft (like trivia, cultural references, etc) would have gotten through. I just moved the plot summaries, each episode's song and a screen cap. If you feel the need to condense them a little bit, then feel free to do so with the content that we have. I don't see what getting rid of large slabs of material just to start again with the synopses will help.Artiste-extraordinaire 11:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh. Whilst I have some sympathy with the thrust of Artiste-extraordinaire's argument here given TTN's apparent unwillingness to accept a consensus decision, that was a bit of a daft stunt wasn't it... Cheers, DWaterson 19:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. Why don't we just delete everything on Drawn Together? It's not as if it's any good. Artiste-extraordinaire 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this discussion still active? The templates are pretty annoying... Btd (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Wow. Just wow. I thought Wikipedia had fair and unbiased admins, but now I see that it's full of the same strict rule-nazis present everywhere else. Maybe these admins should take a look at their behaviour, and question whether they're making Wikipedia a better site, or making it into their own personal site. Darth static (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No point in deleting and redirecting episodes when same summaries exist for other shows

So why were the episode summaries deleted? Yeah the reason was given that it goes against wikipedia's real world notability policy......but the fact remains that there are hundreds of episodes of for example Family Guy and South Park that are still around that also supposedly go against such policies (which is arguable). So unless those go away, whoever deleted the episode summaries really has no power to keep it that way. So I don't see why some of you who worked tirelessly on the articles don't put it back. It's not like TTN and others are admins or anything (or are they, it doesn't say on their profile). Even if, admins need to explain this hypocrisy and why other series with episode summaries haven't been cut down to size. Zachorious (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The truth is that the guidelines apply to all pages, so quite a few of the Family Guy, South Park, etc. episode pages would have to go too. What is preventing this with all these shows is the hube fanbase they all have on Wikipedia. For a better and especially a more reputable encyclopedia, this whole load of junk has to go, and I think ultimately the fans will be convinced of this.

In the meanwhile it's not a good argument to point at all the other messy articles floating around in your defence. The guidelines are being applied one issue at a time, and if you agree with the guidelines, please address it at the source (it's not like they're supposed to be set in stone). For a start I would love to see some kind of consensus so that these reverts can stop. Either the defenders of the guidelines (sounding more Star Wars-y all the time …) yield to the fans, or the fans agree to take their trivia lists and plot summaries elsewhere. Surely this can be resolved. — Mütze (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that discussions about individual Drawn Together episodes have taken place here, here, and here, and that each of them has determined by general concensus that their particular episode was not sufficiently notable to have its own article. Neelix (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

HEy PLEASE

I made several corrections to the article, please do not undo my arrangements and that the errors had to fix it so no one will confuse understand?.--OliverDF (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Your changes appear to be incorrect, they contradict information posted elsewhere (e.g. on tv.com). Please explain why did you have to make these changes. -- X7q (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)