Talk:List of Teen Wolf (2011 TV series) 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.

Season 5

Many shows are split into two for a mid-season finale, however these shows do not require a split in the Overview Table. No source has been provided that Season 5 will contain two story arcs, as Season 3 did (hence why Season 3 is split into two in the Overview Table). Season 5 should be split into two once and only once a source states it'll have two arcs, else it's simply not necessary. A season with one arc being split into two, simply for a common mid-season finale. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We wikipedians are aware of the difference between a mid-season finale and a two-part season, with two different arcs within the same season. However, you do not seem to have actually read the source provided on the Season Five section, which clearly states "Executive producer Jeff Davis announced at Thursday's Comic-Con panel in Ballroom 20 that the series will return for an expanded two-part 20-episode run". Read it here. Please notice that I'm revering your change again and that if you undo it again you'll eventually violate WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR and face a potential block on your account. Artmanha (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As will you, given that you're reverting me and those reverts count. "Two-part" does not define whether it's two-part due to a split arc, or two-part due to a mid-season finale. For example, this source states that "The show is not expected to break the story line between parts for season 5, like it did in season 3 if you remember that", and this information is duplicated with multiple other sources. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, those reverts count against you, and that is not considered a reliable source. In accordance with WP:BRD you have to find a reliable source that confirm your information before doing any changes. And please notice that while it's under discussion the status quo reigns per WP:STATUSQUO, meaning you shall only make changes regarding the matter after a reliable source is provided. Thank you - Artmanha (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any source defining that the "two-part" for Season 5 means that it'll be a two-story arc either. So why is it that I need to provide a reliable source where you do not? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because when the season isn't divided in two parts, yet there is a "winter/summer break" on the airing schedule on television, it is not called a two-part season, because when you watch it later (be it online or on home video) there isn't any division on it, therefore it is not a two-part season. We call it mid-season finale only for the sake of people knowing the show will take a brief break on airing schedule. As it was called a two-part season, it means that whether or not the story arcs are different, they will be divided and called Season 5A and 5B, as it happended with Season 3. Lots of shows have mid-seasons break but none of them have the season called a two-part season, neither does their Wiki tables divide their seasons. But that isn't the case on this season of Teen Wolf. And regarding your question, while there is a reliable source confirming the information of the current version (which by the way, wasn't me the one who posted it) there isn't any reliable sources confirming your information which leads the users to think it as either rumors or simply vandalism. And by WP:STATUSQUO we remain with the current version, following Wikipedia's rules. Thanks for understanding - Artmanha (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is unbacked up speculation. "they will be divided and called Season 5A and 5B", yet nowhere has it been called such yet. As I said - speculation. And if we're going by policy, WP:TVOVERVIEW states nothing about separating them in the first place. Going by the examples given, each season should have a single row. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it appears to be enough of a reliable source for it to be able to be used in the article for Season 5, under production. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Artmanha: "It's a well-known rule that season pages are for season details, and episode pages are for the episode listings" is not a Wiki rule as far as I'm concerned. So, this article should go by how you see fit, and only as you see fit, as if you own the page? Also: Check other TV show pages ie: Glee Read WP:OTHER - just because other articles do it, doesn't mean it's right and fit to be done here. I'm not sure how this is even up for discussion. An episode listing page - use for it is in the name. Episodes. A season page - user for it is in the name. Season details. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, we are not going by what I think it's right, but by the WP:STATUSQUO, besides the page was going too well for four seasons until you showed up trying to change everything according with what's on your head. Yes, everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but their changes must be according to Wikipedia's rules and, regarding to this matter, you're not showing any. These information about the season are only to be here until the season starts airing on television, until then, it is kept here to avoid confusion regarding the upcoming season's information. Second of all, stop trying to use my arguments against me, specially where they do not fit. And just because I'm the one trying to let it here, for the sake of the article, doesn't mean I'm the only one; it just means I'm the one with enough patience to deal with unexperienced user who think they are right no matter what and don't know most of the Wiki rules to back them up on discussions and yet get involved on them like yourself. First find a rule saying that it shouldn't be here until the season starts airing, then, try to continue this discussion. Thank you - Artmanha (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because insulting me and calling me inexperienced is an extremely mature way to go about this. You continuously say about how I have no rules to back my edits - neither do you. Nowhere does it state in Wikipedia policy that season details should be on an episode listing. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insulting you by any means. I'm sorry if you felt that way. And what you didn't undestand until now is that those are not my edits. I'm just trying to show you that you shouldn't go around undoing other users stuff simply because you don't agree with them or you don't think they are correct. I don't need any rules showing they should be there because any information is useful, be it necessary or not, but for you to take them off, you do need to show the reason why (using Wikipedia's rules), and this isn't me saying. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Once the season starts running, I'll remove the information myself, as was done with the previous seasons of this show. Hope we got on the same page again. Have a lovely day. - Artmanha (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not undoing their edits because I disagree with it or think it is incorrect, definitely not. I'm removing it because there now exists a designated appropriate place for this information, and leaving it here gives duplicate information both here and there. Hence, with this, I see no reason to keep this information here when it already exists in its appropriate place. As an editor with over 2,000 edits, I feel that I've done enough to know what I need about Wikipedia policies. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Artmanha: ? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that this information regarding the upcomimg season is to be there ONLY until the season starts airing. Regardless being written on other articles or not, it helps users to not make confusions. This was exactly how it happened with seasons 1 to 4, and how it happens with most of other TV shows articles. Once the season starts airing, these information is to be taken off, but until then, please stop undoing it. Thanks for your comprehension regarding the matter - Artmanha (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy stating that information should be duplicated only until the season begins airing. Simply because other articles do it, it doesn't make it right - check the policy WP:OTHER, and note the lack of ability to use this reason. Casting information has no place on a page that is solely a place to list episodes. It correctly belongs to either the main page or its respective article. The change between the season not airing (current position) and it airing (as it will later this year) has no effect nor connection on/with the casting information here, so there's no difference nor reason for it to be there while the season's not airing, and to not be there while it is airing. With this, I do not comprehend the matter that you propose upon this talk page. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:OTHER policy clearly states "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes" and "In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These comparisons may or may not be valid, but the invalid ones are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales". I don't see how this is an invalid comparison, since it was made simply to help other users (specially the ones looking for new information) not to make any confusion until the beggining of the upcoming season. And please consider that in previous seasons it was done like this and was only helpful, and once the seasons started airing it was removed, as I'm proposing. Please do not say this is an invalid comparison simply because you believe or think it is. That's not an argument. And if you undo this again, before we enter a consensus, you'll start an Edit War and face a potential block on your account (and no, it doesn't apply to me as I'm sticking to the status quo). Thanks - Artmanha (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no clarification as to what the difference is between the information being there while the season isn't airing, then being removed when the season starts. Why? What relevance does this information have to the point between the season not airing and airing? Especially if the information is already permanently in the season article. Is the only reason because that's how it's been done previously? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Artmanha: I await your reply, for your third reminder to reply to this thread. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there is no reason for us to "fight", since both of us want the same thing —to improve this article—, so I've been thinking that eventhough it will differ from what has been greatly done in previous years with this page, I'll remove the information ahead of the proposed schedule. With that I was hoping we could stop feuding. And, BTW, I enjoy the work you've been doing here, keep up the good work! - Artmanha (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season colours discussion

While I understand that, as per WP:TVOVERVIEW, "Colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD artwork... " etc., I would argue that the current season colours for Teen Wolf are overly similar and bleed together. In this case, I think the goal of making the seasons in the list easy to tell apart from one another outweighs an arbitrary goal of attempting to conform to marketing colours, especially given that Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective 3rd party source and not promote any other entity's agenda. Since we're not supposed to start edit wars based on template colours, or change colours that are already established without discussion, I'd like to open up that discussion... does anyone feel there's sufficient reason to maintain the current confusing colours? Joeyconnick (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's not Wikipedia's fault that the colours are similar - which while they may be dark, they're different - and hence we should stick to the guidelines that every other conforming series runs by. We are not promoting anything (how is a colour a promotion??), and we are not here to make Wikipedia colorful, as you seem to attempt to be doing. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to "make Wikipedia colourful"--don't we have a duty to make each season visually distinct, as opposed to difficult to tell apart? I'm not attached to particular colours; just thought we should have some that were obviously different (i.e. at a glance) from one another. As to "every other conforming series" running by this guideline--hmmn, so we should just look at the series that do conform to this feature (it's not a guideline--it says very clearly that the colours "are often" chosen to match the DVD covers, not "must be" or even "should be" chosen to match them) and ignore the ones that don't? That's a very convenient way to argue your point: "Well, here's a group of pages that do it this way, so I think we should do it this way too!"--which ignores the fact that there's also a group that doesn't do it that way. There are several TV series pages that don't follow this convention. If the DVD covers were easily distinguishable in colour from one another, following them would be fine. But following a convention just because some pages do it that way... I think I've heard an argument against that, somewhere. It was something along the lines of:

There is no policy stating that information should be duplicated only until the season begins airing. Simply because other articles do it, it doesn't make it right - check the policy WP:OTHER, and note the lack of ability to use this reason.

So, do you have an argument against visually distinct colours that isn't WP:OTHER? Because I think we'd benefit more from a WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT approach: if we make the colours clearly different from each other visually, we've improved the readability of the article. If we keep the colours matching the DVD covers, then we've... what? Stuck with a convention that is arbitrarily followed in some cases and not followed in others? Joeyconnick (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season 6B in the table

@Joeyconnick: Per WP:TVOVERVIEW, [a] new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season.. This applies to split seasons as well, in an identical fashion - a table or section has not yet been created for Season 6B (within the Season 6 table, as it only contains 6A episodes), and therefore, a row should not be introduced for it yet. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you're getting at. (And thanks for the cleanup of what is currently there.) How, then, do we not show a 6B row without losing the info about when 6A ended? If we leave it as it was, it looks like there is no split season, but we now know not only that there will be one (which we've known for a while), but also that 6A is over. Also, we are listing the full 20 episodes that we know have been ordered/planned at this point (based on reliable sources), even though only 10 have aired... so the approach of not creating a row for the second half of the season seems to be at odds with listing the future number of episodes. Basically, split seasons seem to complicate things. Is there a way to show just the first half of the split? —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point as well. Perhaps it is best ignore TVOVERVIEW in this case, and to leave it as it is. I'll see if I can tweak Module:Series overview to allow the showing of just the first half. Might also start a discussion about the aforementioned guideline for this sort of topic during the MOS overhaul when we get to that particular guideline. (If only they actually aired the whole 20 episodes, it'd be so much easier.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

recent move

Hi StarTrekker... wondering why you moved this? Is there another list of Teen Wolf episodes? The only other Teen Wolf–related series I'm aware of is the animated one, Teen Wolf (1986 TV series), which does not have a corresponding list of episodes, so this move makes the articles title unnecessarily complex by adding in unneeded disambiguation, violating WP:NATDIS and WP:CONCISE. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been told that spin-off articles/lists should follow the disambiguations of their main articles.★Trekker (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TV says: Disambiguation for list of episodes or list of characters articles may or may not need to be used, depending on if other list articles exist. (e.g. NCIS: New Orleans and List of NCIS: New Orleans episodes; The Flash (2014 TV series) and List of The Flash episodes; Mistresses (American TV series) and List of Mistresses (American TV series) episodes, and Mistresses (British TV series) and List of Mistresses (British TV series) episodes). Once again, in order for an article with this disambiguation to properly stylize, the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template should be used. [my emphasis]

So I believe it's only for categories where the names should exactly match the article title (including any disambiguation). —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I guess they can be moved back, personally I think being specific is prefered but if the guidelines are not in support of it that is ok.★Trekker (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]