Talk:List of Flight of the Conchords episodes

Merge

These articles do not establish any sort of notability. They need to be redirected here until such a time at which they can establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These episode articles have been through a previous 'Marked for Deletion' process (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally (Flight of the Conchords)), the result of which was an almost unanimous 'Keep' vote. BigBadaboom0 (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That really doesn't matter. Redirection separate from the AfD process and it can be done afterward. Those were just standard inclusionist keep votes with no substance anyways. TTN (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What consitutes appropriate notability in the case of TV episodes? I understand there have been extensive discussions in the past on this subject. My impression was that there was no real consensus. The episode "Sally Returns" was nominated for a 2008 Emmy for directing. The episode "Yoko" was nominated for an Emmy for writing. Two songs - one from "Sally" and one from "Bret Gives Up The Dream" were nominated for Emmys for "Outstanding Original Music And Lyrics". BigBadaboom0 (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at List of Carnivàle episodes. Over one third of the episodes were awarded (or at least nominated) in some kind, mostly Emmys (10 noms plus 5 wins for 24 eps). Still, there were neither (useful) reviews nor significant production information per episode to write even one proper individual episode article (B-class or higher). – sgeureka ^t•c 20:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose several of the episodes are Emmy award nominees and the articles appear to be coming along nicely; merging would not be an improvement. Tim! (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask which ones come along nicely in your opinion (so that we're all on the same page)? – sgeureka ^t•c 20:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If the WP:Original research is removed ("Cultural references" section), and the WP:TRIVIA ("Notes" section), we'd be mostly left with a list of songs (can be covered in the List of episodes, see e.g. List of Scrubs episodes) and plot (WP:NOT#PLOT). Awards can be covered in the LoE as well, see e.g. List of Carnivàle episodes. The "Filming locations" are fishy without sources, but are probably fine. The only episode article where I see some potential is the pilot. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. These have more interesting content than most TV episodes. Before these articles were deleted, I would like to see some precedent where episode articles with content over and above a mere synopsis were removed. There is precedent for keeping them however - most Star Trek episodes have very little content. There is a small amount of original research with regard to cultural references. Some have references to back them up, but most of those that don't are so obvious that they don't really require separate verification. Most of the filming locations can be verified with Google Streetview (I think most actually do link to streetview). BigBadaboom0 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Episodes of internationally broadcast and critically acclaimed show. Unlike the proposer's stipulation, there is no "need" to delete these. What a lot of users don't understand is that these kind of comprehensive articles on popular show episodes make Wikipedia stronger and they are an example of why Wikipedia is so popular. --Oakshade (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month and there is not a consensus for these merges. The tags will be removed. --Oakshade (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (2013)

MERGE

Consensus clearly favors merging, any user is free to perform the merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Right now, the time to merge should be right. I made a grave error by ignoring the consensus, made long ago. For now, the show will not be definitely back, and there are now 22 episodes. Unlike List of Twin Peaks episodes, the list is no longer strong to stand alone. Even with awards, I am doing what's best for quality and Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just at the edge where a merge may make sense. If you take out the guest star list from the series article, that clears enough space for the episode list (which includes the guest stars - info is not lost), but this just puts the article on the rather large (acceptable, but large) size, and that may be a good reason to keep them separate (which is an acceptable solution - an episode list doesn't need to be notable if the show it is about is.) --MASEM (t) 17:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I must remove the one-time characters list. Merging the list makes the one-timers list redundant. --George Ho (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and use extended content templates - Yeah I would merge and use extended content (EC's) for the episodes. Although TV series can stand alone, episodes do not. I would leave the cast and guest stars as is, they are good article body. Leave the series overview as is placed above the season episodes in separate EC's.

Season 1 (2007)
Table goes here

Season 2 (2009)
Table goes here

Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 23:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems like a good idea to me: it's a bit silly having a stand-alone article for the episodes of his relatively short-lived series, and the Flight of the Conchords (TV series) article would be strengthened by merging this in. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.