Talk:List of Forever Knight episodes

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

INACCURATE NONSENSE

Black Buddha ep #2: Vachon is NOT a Cockney vampire, that is Screed! Vachon is a Spaniard. Nor does he run Janette's club. Janette gave the club to LaCroix to manage when she left. Vachon is a slacker vampires who crashes in a church. He doesn't have a job and he doesn't do much of anything as he "doesn't like to get involved" in other's affairs. He's kinda just there for good looks. This entire article is pure rubbish from someone who has never seen--nor understood--the episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.24.138 (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BOLD Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Episode notability

Resolved

– Merged

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 contain overly long 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. TTN 12:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the list ought to be turned into a table with the episode summaries and air dates when this is done, so as not to lose the (little) extra information that is available. Incidentally, I don't think that any of these have overly-long plot summaries--the ones I checked are all about a sentence long. Of course, the major effect of this is that we can just copy the plot summary whole from the episode page and replace it with a redirect. --Sopoforic 17:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Please use the Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review process. - Peregrine Fisher 05:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

The list currently has nothing but titles and copyvio summaries. Until it can be redone to remove the copyvio, I've redirected it back to Forever Knight. No usable older versions unfortunately. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not redirect the list again. If it is a copyright violation, please indicate where the source material is coming from so that it can be verified. As well, the appropriate course of action is to remove the offending text, not to just redirect. (This article is already a merge from the individual episode articles; to further merge it is counter-productive.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I indicated it in my initial CSD - the summaries all copyvio from the DVD sets. Removing the offending text is not an easy or simple task. I asked for it to be CSDed because the summaries are in the entire history. I was going to recreate it later without the summaries. When this was decided, I removed the offending text by redirecting it until it could be recreated without the bad stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio text has been removed. DonQuixote (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the redirect. Without the copyvio text, it is nothing but a list of titles, which is not sufficient for a standalone episode list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Over Format

User:Headbomb restored this list from its being redirected to the main article in June 2009 (as noted above) due to its being purely a list of titles after all of the illegal content was removed. I initially disagreed with his restoration, but as he added air dates I figured that was fine and proceeded to properly format the list using the {{episode list}} template, adding a basic lead, and adding the basic ELs. He and I have now been engaged in an edit war with his continuing to restore his hand-coded table format for what appears to be no other reason than the desire to have IMDB as a "reference". IMDB has been rejected as a reliable source numerous times in numerous forums, but that issue aside, I strongly disagree with his continued restoration of "his" format, which is not in keeping with the standards of featured lists nor WP:MOSTV. We discussed some on his talk page, but as he continued reverting during this discussion, I felt it was best to go ahead and post here. I've also posted a note at the Television project to get outside views. Thoughts on his version[1] versus mine[2] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having compared IMDB, tv.com, and the episodes themselves i continued my re-write of the page that was begun before the dramafest. the headbomb wanted to show me his new list and get my opinion since i do edit episode lists quite often. He used IMDB which honestly most of the time is a lot more accurate than it is with this show. IMDB lists the creators in the writers section of every episode; it is a quirk of their system. When was the last time you saw the same two people write 66/70 of a tv show? Exactly. Instead of the colours from The OC i have used the region 1 dvd covers. The show was co-produced by Tele München Gruppe and has recently been released in region 2 in Germany but i could not find a UK release of the show. As i have not watched the series in some 15ish years, other than to today confirm credits with what is in the episodes, i am not writing summaries. It isn't everything but at least what is there i am fairly confident is accurate, unlike the previous versions which had obvious issues IMO. And while this is not really the forum for it and it has been established that it doesn't matter, as primarily a reader of Wikipedia let me say that "something" really is better than nothing. It seems that long ago people who codified policies that are really obtrusive to use of Wikipedia as an friendly encyclopædia. And yes i am to blame for that as i just never said anything until it was well beyond too late. As such i am presenting this list, which i hope is considered a littler "more than something". delirious & lost ☯ ^~нuɢѕ~ 03:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]