Talk:List of Nikita 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.

Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a derivative work. See Wikipedia's Copyright FAQ.

Logo

Legalitly asside - I'm sure the CW's lawyers can handle that one with the WikiFoundation direclty - the logo is unneeded here. I don't think it's helpful for the creator of the logo to keep adding it back in based on his own opinion alone, as people rarely spend the time to make something and then oppose its use. Can you please wait for a consensus here that supports restoring the logo? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is just text, and free to use. See Wikipedia:Logos#Copyright-free logos. There is no legal basis for lawyers to handle anything. Images are part of the featured article criteria, and is perfectly acceptable. I've restored the images, please do not remove it without good reason. There is no legality issue, there is no MOS issue, on the contrary, see WP:MOSTV. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just text, then it's not the actual logo .I'm glad we agree on that point, and as such doesn't need to be here. Please don't read the styalized text without a clear consensus from other editors to do so. - BilCat (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop, you're edit warring without basis. Please actually read Wikipedia:Logos#Copyright-free logos, this is a text logo, and a logo as such, just like Coca Cola logo is the logo, but just text. Also please actually read WP:MOSTV. Also, don't deprave the lead from information, you made the lead inadequate. Per WP:MOSTV, the lead should have an outline of what the show is about. You're editing against the MOS and thus consensus, don't request consensus on something that already has it. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could have left the edits as was, talked to me here first, and conviced me you're right, and I'd have changed it back myself. Instead, you act like jerk asserting article ownership, and you discourage a good edit from ever editing TV-related articles again. All to prove you're right, and to intimidate me into backing down. OK, you win. I'll leave your articles alone from now on, and I'll do my best to steer clear of you. Happy? - BilCat (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sad that you can't admit that the guidelines are against your edits, but if you want to use the ownership excuse that's fine with me. You made an edit, I reverted it, you should not have reverted yourself per WP:BRD. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sad that you can't see the arrogance of your own attitude here. I will revert the revert of myself, per BRD as you requested. - BilCat (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) What… ? You say I shouldn't have reverted, I say you should't have reverted my revert in the first place per WP:BRD. You seem to be under the impression that anyone wanting to revert your edits should explain themselves to you before reverting while WP:BRD is the exact opposite. Reverted yourself as in your first revert; not reverting your own revert. Now the discussion is over your self revert was perfectly fine. Please don't attack me because you can't admit you were wrong. I reverted once, because your removal had no basis, you explained yourself and your reasons made no sense, so I gave you the guidelines and reverted, you reverted again and I did not revert that, I responded here, gave you the guidelines for a second time, and waited till you response here, after which somehow by waiting for your response I assert ownership and intimidate you. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to edit any TV related articles you're involved with, so contining this peeing contst is pointless. We're both compentent editors, and we both know better that to keep reverting even after discussion has begun. Yet we did. But you;re attitude here is certainly unwelcoming to outsiders, no matter how right you think you were. I did admit that if you;'d diussuced first instead of reverting me, whether you had the right to or not, that I probably would have reverted myself. That's a tacit admission that you were right, but you were to busy defending your fake logo to notice. That's not my problem. Neioher is this article or the main one from now one. If you;ll check my edits on the Nikita article, you'll notice I';ve made some good contributions there, and removed a lot of junk and vandalism. But now you'll have one less editor doing that, and that's not a victory for you. I'm sorry we couldn't work this out like adults, but we're past that point now, as far as I can tell. Good luck with the TV aricles, as they do regwuire a lot of upkeep to keep out the daily vandalism and other non-prodctive edits. But it's not woth the grief for me to continue. I'll try to stay out of your way if possible. - BilCat (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the page stay until consensus is reached. THUS the logo stays until this is resolved. Thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, calling somebody a jerk is a wikipedia:personal attack, which is a blockable offence. Jayy008 (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate season page

After the last night's Finale I can bet that their bringing Nikita back for second season so I guess Its not going to be a problem if there are made separate pages for each of its season. Nasirakd (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They still need to be notable. Look at Smallville (season 10) for an example. Jayy008 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have enough content for that you could do that, two seasons usually isn't enough to warrant a split based on for example size of the episode list. And with only one season which has actual info for it for now, that should not offer an issue to place any relevant info at the main article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page format

If the season 1 page stays, then this page needs to be formatted differently. Jayy008 (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Nikita 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) 16:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]