Talk:List of My Name Is Earl episodes

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

RESHMA BABANNAVAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reshma babannavar (talk • contribs) 10:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violations in Season 2 Overview

All the episode overviews for Season 2 have been copied from TV.com My Name is Earl episode guide. This clearly violates TV.com Terms Of Use. VillaFan 05:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the content leaving a basis for the overviews to be rewritten. In future we ask users not to copy and paste TV.com summaries to Wikipedia. Thank You VillaFan 06:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Violations in Season 3?

The later episodes of season 3 (starting at around 3-12) plot summaries seem to be taken from somewhere, but I can't tell where. It may or may not violate a site's terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.17.193 (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break up the page

Should this page be broken up, so that each episode has its own page, and this page just has a little info and link to the episode, like the pages for The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park? JQF 16:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the individual episodes are analyzed in greater detail. If short plot summaries are is far as it goes then this article will be big enough at the end of Season One, and a new one should be started for Season Two. — RandallJones 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, started the ball rolling, creating individual pages and moving info. JQF 04:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, created templates, put info on pages (used synopsis from NBC.com for those without decent/limited info on this page), info needs to be cut down on this page, and the episode pages need to be edited to a more professional standard. I'll leave that to the rest of you. JQF 06:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Pages

Hey, MNIE fans! The following episode pages have NO info on them:

So be a fan, and help update them! JQF 03:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two down, three to go! Lets keep it up! JQF 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All five now have info. Adimovk5 05:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeys in Space?

Can anybody explain the title? I couldn't figure out how it fit into the episode? Might be an interesting fact for the page. -- MisterHand 06:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what it's suppost to mean (but it is the real title). It might be a refference to something like Monkey Wrenchs, that using Monkey's in science experiments (like sending them into space) was their first widly documented job, it may be an in joke for somebody at MNIE, or it may just be some random title ment to keep us (the viewers) occupied while they make the next episode. JQF 16:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode article names

I propose we name all new episode articles with a disambiguator included even when not technically necessary, for example all Episode Title (My Name Is Earl) or even Episode Title (My Name Is Earl episode). This appears to be standard practice with other TV series any time an episode name collides with another article, as Monkeys in space recently did for us, so why not just be explicit for all the episodes? I looked here and here and here but as far as I can tell no WP:MoS standard for episode article naming has been established. Comment? —RandallJones 06:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea, but how about we shorten it to be Episode Title (MNIE), or something like that, just so that the title doesn't get to long. After all, some titles are items off The List, and those can get long. JQF 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are naming conventions about this issue. please take them under consideration - The DJ 23:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airdates

Is it really necessary to mention the UK airdates? In my eyes anything other then "Original airdates" is useless, because when we start naming them for one country we open the door for all 162 countries. In my eyes it doesn't contribute to the articles. It would be different if the show was originally French for instance. Or if the list of this US show was on the Dutch wikipedia. But for UK vs. US, i simply cannot be bothered beyond original airdates. What can be done in my eyes is to mention when the season was broadast in the uk. Like "Season 1 was broadcasted in the UK from 8 december 2006 untill 16 july 2006". - The DJ 23:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quit Smoking

For some reason the episode guide on the side of the episode description for episodes links to an article on quiting smoking, not to the episode Quit Smoking. Quit Smoking is only linked from here. I would fix it, but am unsure of how. :(

Air Dates

I think the air dates in the ep list are getting to be to much. Should all the air dates but the first be moved into the respective episode article? JQF 16:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is standard to only list the air date of the originating country. You are the second person to mention this. Feel free to delete the UK and AUS times. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 16:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and images

The current MNIE episode infobox doesn't have room for an image, as far as I can tell. We need to find a way to put images on the individual episode pages now that we have them. - Peregrine Fisher 01:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode names ain't right

There is a lot of mis-capitalization in the episode names, or is there. Monkeys In Space (My Name Is Earl) for instance. Or is "In" supposed to be capital? It's hard to know because "My Name Is Earl" has a capital "Is." - Peregrine Fisher 09:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all of the episodes to conform to WP:NC. Evan Reyes 22:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Is" is capitalized because it's a verb.134.84.103.21 22:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Name is Inmate (#28301-016)

The Internet Movie Database lists the two-part season premiere as My Name is Inmate #28301-016 [1] rather than simply My Name is Inmate as Wikipedia lists it now. Is there any reason that the pages shouldn't be moved to include Earl's apparent inmate number? Nowah Balloon 09:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode notability

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 23:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the articles some days so some people can correct them. Certainly there are many episodes that are notable enough. For example, the pilot, the COPS episode, etc. -- Magioladitis 21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can just undo the redirects to work on them. TTN 21:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just wait until more people see what is going on before merging the pages into the list. Remember, WP:EPISODE is NOT policy, just generally accepted and does have occaisons where it isn't followed to every fine point. Unless the page is full of fancrufft and original research, it can be improved with DVD commentary from the producers, actors, and writers, media interviews with the cast and crew, if some advocacy group took offense to the show or a certain episode, and all kinds of stuff. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper and there is no due date on completing an article. Notthegoatseguy 13:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TTN, I don't understand you. Episodes' articles are one of the main reasons I'm using Wikipedia. The notability of an episode is debatable, and that'll certainly cause many unnecessary arguments. If someone bothered and wrote an article about an episode (and many more people bothered and improved it), why shouldn't it stay here? Wikipedia is not running out of disk space any time soon. Godfather ♣ Talk ♣ 11:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EPISODE is quite set in place, and it won't be going any time soon. The standards are used to keep useless articles off the site, as this is a tertiary source that relies mainly on secondary sources. For that reason, we have many quality control polices and guidelines. That cannot happen for these episodes. tv.com is probably a very good place for you. You're free to work on summaries, cast info, trivia, and probably many other things related to episodes. TTN 12:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TTN, I'd recommend you read #3 on WP:EPISODE. Merging useful information, such as commentary, will make this article overtly long and then we're back at square one splitting this article up again. Instead of merging, try improving one of these episode articles. You'll feel good. Trust me. Notthegoatseguy 13:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing will be merged to this list (the plot summaries are good enough). If information is important and sourced, then the article can stand on its own. That is not the case for these. As I really doubt these can be improved, I don't really care. TTN 16:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, by definition, you are not merging but deleting. And doing a massive deletion without building a consensus goes against Wikipedia policy. Just because you "really doubt these can be improved" doesn't mean they can't. How much time and effort have you put into trying to improve the articles? If you want to delete these articles, the proper place for that is to nominate them in the Articles for Deletion, not shoving forward with a merge that isn't supported. Notthegoatseguy 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am redirecting, which is how we deal with episode articles that are more than blank stubs. It is up to the editors interested in the articles to assert notability if it is not in-your-face obvious. Seeing as these are television episodes, it is not very likely. TTN 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you haven't done anything to try to improve the articles? If you had, I could see where you are coming from. But you haven't and it seems like you're going to go ahead and get rid of the articles regardless of what anyone else thinks. Being bold is a good thing, but being open for discussion is better so we all can skip the three revert thing/edit war and find what the consensus is. Notthegoatseguy 19:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless shown otherwise, it is better to assume that there is no chance. You're acting as if I have already redirected these. I'm leaving this open for those that wish to assert notability through discussion or through examples. Other than that, the consensus is already established within WP:EPISODE and the policies and guidelines used to build it. TTN 19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of an official Wikipedia policy of "Unless shown otherwise, it is better to assume that there is no chance," or even a guideline or well, anywhere on Wikipedia does it say that. Notthegoatseguy 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it is up to those defending the articles to assert their notability. While it would be nice of me to go search for sources myself, I really do not care given the mass quantity of episode articles that will never become good. It will be easier to wait for the exceptions instead. TTN 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's with the re-directing? Go all out and nominate them for deletion since it seems you're pretty sure they'll never become good. And if it never becomes good, it has no place on Wikipedia, so go for deletion. If you don't, I might. Notthegoatseguy 19:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not mass nominate episode articles for deletion for various reasons. It is a large waste of time due to the fact that it veers from the actual point in about five comments. People that do not care about the episodes vote keep because they fear the episode articles they're involved with will be deleted because of it (We go on a case by case basis). People that do not like the guideline turn it into a discussion over it, though any discussion belongs on the guideline talk page. You then just have random inclusionists that even ignore WP:N, which certainly does not help at all. That does not represent the community consensus, but most admins are unwilling to actually ignore the bad votes (as it is a discussion, so not all comments will be counted).

Then there is just the fact that redirects better serve the purpose of keeping information on the off chance that they do gain sources, and to possibly comply with the GDFL because information may have been taken from them. TTN 20:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Squad has reviews for all the episodes. IGN has reviews for season 2 on. Six episodes have won individual awards. These are reliable secondary sources that can be found in a few minutes of google searching. So, the majority of episodes now have their notability asserted, will you abide by WP:N when it doens't support redirection? - Peregrine Fisher 22:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If those sources can be put together into something decent, sure. Their existence alone doesn't do the trick. TTN 22:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Squad seems to be a large blog site, so unless we have suddenly started caring about the opinions of any random blogger, I have to doubt that it's really a reliable source. TTN 22:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the TV Squad discussion and external article about them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 6#TV Squad as a reliable source. The "bloggers" are paid, are subject to editorial oversight, and TV Squad is a part of Time Warner. They use the word "blog" to try and sound more Web 2.0, but they're really an internet based magazine/newspaper. - Peregrine Fisher 23:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion really doesn't seem to help your case. It would be better if you actually received agreement that it is a full 100% reliable source from people. TTN 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll never get 100%, but true WP:CONSENSUS would be nice. You keep pointing to that discussion, but in that discussion it's clear that some editors don't like the source at all, and, as I've expressed on another page, a lot of their reviews are limited to "this episode was good" and that's it. They don't hold any substance, say anything about the episode that would provide any context. We aren't here to promote television shows, so saying "this episode was good" means nothing. It's one person's opinion that an episode was good and isn't representative of the people who watched it. That is why analysis of the episode is used in reception sections. We could have 20 reviewers saying "it's good" or "it sucked" and that still doesn't tell us anything about the episode itself. People watching it can determine if it was good or bad on their own. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To judge the reliability of TV Squad, I recommend reading the National Review article, since it's objective and from a RS. I'll admit that in the discussion some people didn't like it. They weren't against it because it a didn't meet our criteria for reliable sources, it was based on subjective assessments of how good their reviews were, which isn't something we decide. You keep stating that a reviewer saying they liked an episode isn't the kind of info we're looking for, but again, I'd like to see some policy or guideline that states this is more than your opinion. I'm sure I could find many FAs with exactly that type of information, but as we know "other stuff exists" isn't a convincing argument. We should stick to what our guidelines say, and it's clear to me that these reviews establish notability according to our guideline as it exists. If there is some guideline, or part of a guideline, that shows that I am wrong, I would love to hear about it so that I can give up on a lost cause. - Peregrine Fisher 23:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that TV Squad isn't mentioned on that page. I could have sworn that Jack was against it because of the bias that was present in it being owned by Time Warner. Regardless, we don't determine reliability based on how good a review is, correct, but we do determine if we can even use the review based on what they say (i.e. if they don't say anything useful then we don't use it). Our guideline states that "significant coverage" makes something reliable. I'm sorry, but 1 review saying "it was good" is not significant, or encyclopedic. Your argument is, "if it doesn't mention it specifically then I'm fine to do what I want." If your parents told you that you not to get into trouble, and you broke the law but didn't get caught, it's still the same thing. You are claiming that if some random blogger says "this episode is good" that it makes that episode notable. Fine, since you said "we should stick to our guidelines" then we shall. Our guidelines say "significant coverage". TV Squad isn't significant coverage, it's one source. One source that doesn't provide encyclopedic information in the majority of its reviews. As I stated before, Wikipedia is neutral, and that means we do not promote television shows. If the best you can come up with is, "this episode was good", then all you are doing is promoting the television show. You haven't provided any actual reason to suggest that the show was in fact good, or that it even deserves an encyclopedic treatment. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, the article is about Webslog, inc., TV Squads parent company. Significant coverage is described as more than trivial, and less than exclusive. Those reviews are exlusivley about the episode, so they pass that criteria with flying colors. Still not seeing how our guidelines back your position. - Peregrine Fisher 00:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a good episode" is kind of trivial. It says almost nothing about the episode itself. It says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - That's "sources" not "source", it implies more than just one. Also, just below it talks about "Presumed". "However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined." - Saying "it's a good episode" says nothing about notability. It isn't comparing it with anything, it isn't analyzing it. Further below is "Sources". It talks about having multiple sources. Even if you can find a TV Squad review that actually reviews the show doesn't simply promote it as the most wonderful thing on the Earth, you still need more than just one review. You don't need 20 of them, but you need more than one. " Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article." BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're finally talking about what our guidelines say. From NOTE (footnote #1), "For example, adverts, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of matters that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite the existence of reliable sources." is the only argument that might back up your position. Of which, "coverage with low levels of discrimination" would be the only part that I can see being relevant. I would say that this doesn't apply in this case, however, because they devote good sized reviews to the television episodes that they review. Of all television programs, they cover only a small subset (to my regret). Also, we don't discount video game reviews from sites that review video games, or movie reviews from sites that review movies. Any site devoted to reviewing a certain thing, be it media or technology or whatever, is going to do a lot of reviews within that field. Instead of starting with a premise, that episode articles are bad, and trying to justify removing them by whatever means necessary, we should be happy when we find OOU info for our fiction articles. - Peregrine Fisher 00:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good size reviews? Many times a large chunk of their reviews is recounting what happens in the episode. Again, 1 single review for an episode does not meet the criteria, which kind of uses the plural form of "source" repeatedly throughout the page, and even has a criteria devoted to talking about "multiple independent sources". Saying "I like this episode," or "I don't like this episode" is not OOU information, it's hardly information about the episode. Also, you should remember that just because something may meet the bare minimum requirements for notability does not necessarily mean it warrants separation on its own. Quality over quantity. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film reviews also recount the plot, while commenting on it. It's standard operating procedure for reviews. I fail to see how the opinion of a 3rd party isn't OOU info. You can't get it from the primary source. Anyways, it seems like we've finally come to the understanding that these articles meet our policies and guidelines, and that you and TTN still feel they should be "soft-deleted." Are you going to revert me if I undo a redirect? If so, please take them to AfD so that we can get some outside opinions with an admin to interprate the consensus. - Peregrine Fisher 01:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No we haven't, but I love how you ignore what people say and stick in your own intrepretation. I've already told you that the guideline explicitly states "multiple". You have 1. I must have missed the part in elementary school where they explained how "multiple" equals "one". You've begun thinking that TV Squad is some safe guard against merging articles. Guess what, it isn't. First, most of the reviews don't actually provide encyclopedic information. Sorry, but simple promotion isn't a review of anything. You need to actually talk about how the episode is notable, and not make vague claims of goodness. Show, don't say. Saying "it's good" doesn't show a single thing other than a poor excuse to establish notability. You want to do an AfD for one reason, you know it won't pass. But, you also know that it not being deleted has nothing to do with people actually believing in it needing its own article. AfD means that we delete all the information, as opposed to merging all the information. I could pull up many film AfDs that ended in "Keep" but which turned around and were merged with a merge proposal, with the people saying "keep" now saying "merge". Notability says multiple independent sources. You don't have that. Sorry. When you actually go through those TV Squad reviews, most are unusable so you have even less than you think. I've explained it to you the best I can, but you choose to ignore me. You try and claim that it's all me not liking the reviews. Those reviews wouldn't pass an FAC, that's how I know they don't say diddly about the episode. They have no value. I'm sure there may be some that do, but most of them don't. Find "critical analysis" from multiple independent sources, or enough OOU information to warrant separation from the main article based on WP:SIZE. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that Supernatural episode has only one review, since the two TV Squad reviews are for each half of the double episode. What about these Earl episodes that have two episodes each? - Peregrine Fisher 02:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two episodes each? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry. Two reviews each. - Peregrine Fisher 03:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since, merging in fact means deleting (the only way to merge that I see is to take the summaries in the main article and delete the list section of the episode articles) I think each case must be handled separably with a nomination for deletion and no mass merging. -- Magioladitis 01:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. If we were to clean out everything that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, that would be where the deletion is. Everything else that is viable can be placed on the other page, the key point is that a discussion on how to organize it needs to take place. The page would need to be adjusted in order to compensate for the additional information. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Again, depends on what they say. Take IGN's review of "Get a Real Job". There really isn't any critical reception in that review of the episode. After explaining what happens in the episode, and making note that the episode seemingly parodied Rudy, the rest of it devulges into a discussion on Earl the show, and not Earl that episode. When reviewing the same episode at TV Squad, that's basically just telling me what happens in the episode, except with their interpretation of several events. For instance, "I said to myself, 'since when has Joy ever made any sense?'" Out of the entire review, you could probably come away with the fact that Sean Astin should have gotten more screen time. Mostly everything else is merely tell me the plot from an OOU perspective. So I go back to the fact that it's about what the information says, not simply the fact that the topic gets mentioned. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what's the non-subjective way to evaluate a review? It seems like I have to run each review by you and get your approval. Obviously, this isn't going to work in a wiki, so what part of our guidelines/policies should I apply? Do you see the problem I'm getting at? "Bignole finds TV Squads' reviews to be lacking in..." (finds them fannish?) doesn't seem to be a guideline based approach to evaluating individual reviews (since evaluating RSs apparently doesn't cut it). How do we apply our rules to come to the same decisions that you are making? - Peregrine Fisher 04:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine, you're a grown adult, don't be glib. You know how to survey a review and determine if they are actually critiquing the episode or if they are simply retelling the darn thing over from their POV. You know very well that just because a source is reliable, it has nothing to do with whether the information is any good. This isn't your first go round with reception. It's called judgement. You are grasping at straws with many of those reviews, saying that they are fan when they don't address anything about an episode other than what they think the characters should or should not be doing. If they were approaching it from the actor's performances or the writer's choices, that would be good. You know how to identify critical analysis. If they are talking about an actor, it would be how that actor performed their job in that particular episode. In other words, it would read like, "Jason Lee seemed to phone-in his performance in this week's episode of Earl. He wasn't convincing with the emotional scenes that usually appear to come easy to him, and his comic timing appeared to be off." From there you can easily say in a reception section, "TV Squad's John Doe felt Lee did not care about his performance in "Episode X", he though Lee was unconvincing emotionally and missed his marks in the comedic scenes." It's about real world information, not about the characters themselves. Saying, "Oh, I hope next week they talk about .... and Earl does ...." has nothing to do with critiquing the episode. Read the IGN review above, halfway through they start talking about the series as a whole and not that episode. Not every review is usable, and you know that. There are plenty of reviews that are not usable in Rotten Tomatoes because the critics don't actually analyze the film. Read the reviews. They need to show us, not tell us, why the episodes are good so that we can show readers. We cannot interpret why they thought the episodes were good. Simply saying it was good has not meaning whatsoever, because there's no reason. It's also unnecessary. If they are doing their jobs well, and critiquing episodes, then their criticism--whether positive or negative--will clearly identify their stance and saying "they liked it" will be irrelevant. If the only thing there is that they hated the show, or liked the show, then it probably means they didn't give a reason, which means we cannot write about the "critical reception" of the episode, because there was not criticism. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being glib, it was uncalled for.

You feel that a reviewer saying they liked an episode isn't the kind of OOU info that we want. To me, it's one of the types that we do want, maybe the most important type of OOU info. Reviews are evaluations, and whether a reviewer liked an episode or didn't is the most basic form. It seems that you think that it's self evident that this isn't good info, but it's self evident to me that it is. So, when we have a disagreement like this, we need to look at the consenus. The only consensus regarding this type of thing that I know of is that reviews from RSs are one of the ways we establish notability. Do you know of any other consensus we've reached on this issue? We're talking about a mildly controversial redirection of these Earl episodes, and it seems like you want to be the one who says these reviews aren't good enough. Since I don't agree, we should then follow our guidelines.

Also, we don't control the reviewers opinion, so it doesn't make us a promotional site when we summarize positive reviews, just like it doesn't make us an attack site when we summarize negative reviews. - Peregrine Fisher 15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines also state that if there isn't enough information to support an article, and even something that meets even the basic requirements can, and probably should, be merged into an article of larger scale. We don't have control over reviewer opinions, but we do have control over whether or not those opinions actually hold encyclopedic value. We have already established that Wikipedia is not here to promote products, or damage products. We're here to provide encyclopedic knowledge. One reviewers basic opinion of "it was good" isn't encyclopedic. His opinion of how the writers did their job, or how the cinematography lit a room, etc etc, is encyclopedic information. It seems that, in order to justify the existence of every single one of the episode articles, you are trying to pull even the weakest of comments from a review just to say "they reviewed it, so it's notable." A single person saying it's good or bad does not make something notable. It's hardly significant coverage of anything. Look at the IGN source. After retelling what happens in the episode, it barely focuses on the episode from a review stand point. You're picking 1 aspect of notability and running with it. The over-extended plots, lack of sourced production information, lack of multiple criticisms says that it does not warrant separation from the main article. If you want to focus on each season, then develop season pages where you can talk about character development over the course of the entire season. Everyone is in such a rush to make all these episodes stand-alone article, and there's no concern over the poor quality articles that are created because of that. The guidelines also state that we should focus on developing from the top down, not from the bottom up. Episodes are part of a whole, the season, which is part of another whole, the show itself. We're bypassing steps here. There is not enough information to warrant separation, and even notability guidelines state that just because you can meet the criteria doesn't mean it's in the article's best interest to be separated. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you don't think they're encyclopedic, and you don't think that the amount of information warrants an article. Why is your decision the final one. I disagree with it, so why should your persistence be the deciding factor. You won't settle this with an AfD because they'll be kept, so what else you got? - Peregrine Fisher 18:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking one thing I said and applying it broadly. I think that a lot of the reviews do not have any encyclopedic content in them. I'm sure there are some. Also, stop with this "you think your opinion is the only one" crap. Have I, for one moment, told you that my opinion is the only one that matters? Things are built on consensus, and the simple fact that a guideline doesn't address a specific point doesn't necessarily mean that it's ok to go ahead and wanted, it means that maybe the discussion needs to be brought up in another location that points out that there needs to be clarification on this issue. I don't do AfD because I know, and I have seen with my own eyes, that people will say "Keep" just because they don't want the information deleted, not because they think the episode should have its own page. That is the idea behind AfD, to delete things. People vote "keep" out of principle. I've seen them change to "merge" when a merge proposal. The manual of style doesn't talk about what actually goes in a reception section, so maybe you should bring that debate up there, as you see fit to believe that all you need is some unrepresentative "it's good", while I think you need actual critical anaylsis. It's the same principle behind IMDb ratings. We don't allow user ratings of any kind, because they are highly unrepresentative of viewers to begin with, and there's other voting issues that go along with them. A reviewer's basic opinion, "it's bad", has no representation on whether the episode was or was not viewed that way as a whole. There's no substance, there's nothing to write about. This is an encyclopedia, and it needs encyclopedic information. Start a discussion on the MOS page. Either way, even if you could use every single review from TV Squad and IGN (which, I've already shown that IGN doesn't even stay focused on what they are reviewing), two reviews does not warrant separation. You can disagree with my opinion of those reviews all you like, but even you said we should follow OUR guidelines, and they explicitely state that just because you find reliable sources that show some notability, an article can still be merged into a larger topic. Two reviews does not justify separation. You can write those reviews up as footnotes on the LOE page, or create a season page that discusses the season as a whole. We separate episode articles out because they have substantial amount of information that warrants a separate mentioning. From what I see in the episode articles on this page, they don't have substantial amount of anything. A plot, a quote section, trivia and songs. Quotes go to Wikiquote. Trivia (which is all unsourced anyway) only gets kept if it is relevant, and if it is then it usually has a more specific section to be mentioned in. Featured music is indiscriminate information. It says nothing about the episode in question. We aren't IMDb, we aren't here to list every tiny thing that appears in an episode. I think, according to the guideline, that a list of songs that appear in an episode is discouraged regardless. If the music was important then it should be written in prose, explaining how those songs were used in the episode from an encyclopedic stand point, and not just going "it appeared at 1 minute and 32 seconds into the show". That leaves these pages with basically a plot section (covered on the LOE page). There needs to be more to a page than just a plot and a week review section. You can put the reviews on the LOE page as footnotes, you get the same effect. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we disagree about something that isn't dictated by our guidelines. I wish I didn't have to read giant paragraphs to get to that point, it's tiring. I imagine this will create a giant response, but basically the whole thing comes down to opinion. Guidelines don't preclude these articles, and you think they should be merged or redirected, while I think they should stay as they are. Can you give me a reply that's a few sentences long on whether you agree with this assessment? - Peregrine Fisher 00:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for making you read, I know, it can be a terrible thing. Regardless, there isn't enough information to support separate articles. Most of the reviews do not contain anything that encyclopedic. You can disagree with me over what constitutes an encyclopedia worthy review, or you can simply go to the style guideline page and start a discussion for a better definition. Still boils down to the simple fact of "not enough information to support separation". How about trying to develop the List page, or a season page, instead of complaining that people want to merge those precious episode articles generally never meet our notability and style guidelines. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being sarcastic when I say, thanks for making your post succinct. So, would it be a correct to summarize our discussion as, while you agree they meet NOTE, you don't think they are have enough encyclopedic content to support a page? Obviously, I don't feel this way, but I want to narrow down what is opinion, and what is guideline based. - Peregrine Fisher 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say I don't believe two people, no matter how great the content of their reviews are, could be considered "significant coverage" for a television show that is viewed by millions. If you got other stuff with it, then that's something, but if the only thing there is 2 reviews, then that isn't enough significant coverage to justify splitting a page. Look at Trapped in the Closet (South Park). There are only like 3 actual reviews on the article, but it has so much more going on. It has analysis, it has awards, a developed production section. If you look at the articles on this list, just about everything on their page is stuff we don't put on episode pages. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Again, thanks for your brevity. I should say I respect you as an editor because you're obvioulsy smart, but mostly because I've seen you improve articles like the Smallville "Pilot." Anyways, I haven't bothered to add references to "All Hell Breaks Loose" because of TTN's reverting of my edits, but my estimate is that I could find 8-10 of them. There is also 2x44mins of commentary on the DVDs for the episodes, which could make for a big Production section. Sometimes it feels like I'm being blackmailed into creating a GA, or else I can take my edits elsewhere. This is why I like to satisfy NOTE and then stop. I would like to create a precedent that ep pages are allowed to be improved, and don't have to be created perfect from the beginning. - Peregrine Fisher 03:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the compliment. I'm not saying, and no one else should for that matter, that they have to be perfect, but they should be able to support themselves. What I come across are articles that become housing units for large plot sections and trivia lists. Not every episode gets commentary, and not every show gets a "making of" book. Production information rarely finds its way to the internet, unless there is significance to it, because episodes usually have the same production day-in and day-out. The point of WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT is that we should be worrying about developing what we have. It shouldn't be, "oh we can develop it later," but more "well, we've developed it here, but it's getting too large so lets move it out." The amount of undeveloped episode articles suggests that it is either never going to get done, or that it cannot get done and that is why they stay the way they do. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposal I have is the following: Create 3 articles instead of just one under the name: List of My name is Earl episodes season 1 (2, 3). Then merge information of each season in the following way: All episodes summaries on the top and after a table with the items of the list maintained in the given season (item/episode handled/result). I don't think the songs played in each episode are noteworthy. -- Magioladitis 00:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They generally are not unless there are sources discussing their importance to the episode. I think what you are suggesting is kind of like what I did with Smallville (season 1). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that. It looks nice. -- Magioladitis 22:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Season 1

I started making the article for Season 1 in my sandbox. I intent to put short plot summaries of each episode, the items of the list accomplished/started in season 1 (optional, maybe we have to omit that since Earl's list is detailed enough) and songs heard (optional as well).

If they are any comments, objections, suggestions please right them here. You are welcome to edit to Sandbox in order to improve the article.

Since, I don't have enough time I may take a while to do it. -- Magioladitis 21:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, these will be redirected. If you need the information, you can just take it from the redirects. TTN (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Missing Episode Pages

I don't get it. Every single episode of The Simpsons has its own wikipedia page. Every single episode of Seinfeld has its own wikipedia page. Every single episode of Futurama has its own wikipedia page. Every single episode of American Dad has its own wikipedia page. Every single episode of Family Guy has its own wikipedia page. Every single episode of South Park has its own wikipedia page. Every single episode of Charmed has its own wikipedia page. Every single episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer has its own wikipedia page. Every single episode of Angel has its own wikipedia page. Every single episode of Lost has its own wikipedia page. Every single episode of Heroes has its own wikipedia page. The list of television series with a wikipedia page for every episode goes on and on.

How is any particular episode of Futurama or American Dad more notable than any particular episode of My Name Is Earl? Wikipedia isn't a book with a limited amount of available pages. I wish people would just stop trying to get rid of perfectly legitimate articles. I didn't contribute to any of those episode pages of My Name Is Earl but I did thought they were rather well written. Those individual episode pages were useful in tracking the evolution of Earl's list. They were also useful in identifying the songs used in each episode and which songs were missing on the dvd releases. Could those individual pages be improved? Sure. That does not mean they should be rid of, only expanded and elaborated upon.

I've read the discussion on this talk page and I do not see any consensus anywhere that the episode pages should have been rid of. All I see are a lot of irrelevant discussion and one particularly controversial individual with an apparent obsession with merging articles. An individual that many other people apparently have a problem with.

My intent was to revert all the redirects that this above user has made relating to My Name Is Earl. That is until I realized that the individual has been engaging in this same sort of behavior all over wikipedia and that the only likely outcome of my intended action would be a revert war that I have little interest in engaging. For those unaware, you can still visit the missing episode pages. Search the episode name on wikipedia and when you wind up on the list of episodes page, click on the link in the (redirect from episode name) at the top of the page. You will then be taken to another page that only has a link to the list of episodes page. Click on the history tab at the top of the page and then click on the last date before the user above made all his redirects. --60.241.170.216 (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. I think TTN has just deleted... oh I'm sorry, I mean "made it difficult to find and halted updates on", a very valuable resource, that I for one found useful. I hope at some point in the future, what he's done gets reversed - rst20xx (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started fixing the damage he did to the episode pages themselves. The list of episodes could take a while however- reverting it would remove most of the info on season three that has been recently added.--Stu42 (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful here;

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

Prior to resurrecting any redirected episodes, please form a consensus for specific articles.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Billie?

In "Bad Earl", there is a mention of a "Billie". In an encyclopedia, it is confusing to not see any explantion of who Billie is at all (not even on the main My Name Is Earl page). So, who/what is he/she/it? Where has he/she/it appeared before? Can we edit it in somewhere so it isn't so confusing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.246.0 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Descriptions

I have to say that as well as disagreeing with having descriptions on the episode list at all, the descriptions themeselves are particularly poor. By this I mean they demonstrate poor use of language including grammar and appear to have problems with punctuation too. I'll cite some examples: "karma catches up to him in the shape of a car, and Billie" (poor use of language), "For a while it seemed to really work," (incomplete sentence), "Earl starts dating Joy's deaf lawyer when he still has a void in his life that an education and a job couldn't fill." (incorrect grammar/structure).

Why have the seperate pages for the episodes been deleted? As was noted above, many other shows have seperate pages for each episode, and on their own list of episodes do not include descriptions. I personally think this makes the My Name Is Earl pages less in line with the Wikipedia standard for TV shows. If this show goes on for several more seasons and the same layout is used, this article is going to be bloated. I think The Simpsons template (#/Original airdate/Prod. Code/Title) should be used and seperate pages created for each episode, as was the standard before.

I'd be more than happy to tidy up this section and create pages for all the episodes as I really enjoy the show, but as I understand it there have been petty edit wars and I don't want to waste my time if my work is going to be deleted. I definately think something needs to be done though.

Garyd (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skipped Thursdays

How about some information on why some Thursdays have been skipped for new episodes? The next new episode (Bullies) won't air until April 16th, with two weeks skipped since "Pinky" was broadcast March 26th. Production problems? Crazy network executives that think randomly skipping weeks for new episodes entices the viewers to not jump ship to a different show in that timeslot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 02:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2 missing episode

I don't know how to edit the wiki but season 2 should have Born a Gamblin Man as a separate episode 11/30/06. then South of the Border Part Uno is it's own episode and aired on the same day as South of the Border part dos on 12/7. This increases the overall ep count by one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakeandcat (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes need to be broken up by disk

I use the page to try to figure out which disks I have already rented from Netflix. If the episode descriptions included (or were organized by) which disk they are on (as well as which season) it would help a lot.

e.g., for season 4, episodes by disk are concisely listed here:

Episodes divided by disk, Season 4

—68.165.11.125 (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can check your Netflix history here. —Tamfang (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

water tower

"...,he and Randy trespass on the water tower and steal the flag but no one cares, a plane flies over them and jump up and down to get their attention but fall through the roof. The Government saves after three miserable days. And Earl receives a big check which he is more than happy to pay out." This doesn't make sense. Can someone clarify? 72.152.141.249 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faked Two Characters' Absence

For "Faked My Own Death", IMDb lists Pressly and Steeples as "credit only", meaning that Joy and Darnell do not appear. Is this accurate? —Tamfang (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happened next?!?!

I NEED to know who Earl Jr's real father is!! WHY DID IT END ON SUCH A CLIFFHANGER?! Suggestions, please! Joe Morris (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of My Name Is Earl episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]