Jump to content

Talk:Run!

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Run! (Heroes) → Run! — No need for disambiguation ΨΦorg 08:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

[edit]
  1. Support per Quantum Leap and Quantum leap thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - No need for the parenthetical "Heroes" as there exists no article currently entitled Run!. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Episode_articles supports this: "For an article created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name". Since there is no article at "Run!", it seems that per the guidelines, the "(Heroes)" is unnecessary.-Seinfreak37 16:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - The exclamation point should be enough to seperate this article and the one for "Run". If and when there is need for another article entitled "Run!", the parenthetical should be added. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya!) 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - The "Run! (Heroes)" will be a redirect. If people search just "run", they'll be sent to a disambig. There is no other "Run!" on the encyclopedia. I don't see a single good reason to put it anywhere but Run!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.38.83 (talk • contribs)
  5. Support - no other articles with the exclamation point, so there's no conflict - readers searching for other uses of Run aren't going to search with an exclamation point. There are plenty of examples of articles disambiguated by punctuation, see hours... for example. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - per WP:TV-NC. I suggest making Run (Heroes) a redirect as well, that should cover all the bases. --Brian Olsen 17:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support "Run!" is neither a likely typo nor a likely search term for "Run", therefore disambiguation is completely unnecessary. The opposite problem may actually occur, but it appears that problem has been taken care of. Jay32183 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - per WP:TV-NC and the parent naming conventions it's very simply. Only disambiguate when necessarry. How many other Run! articles are there? none. case closed. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support unless there is anything else that is called Run!. Voretus 20:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per WP:TV-NC and the Arbitration Committee case that affirmed it. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - I've been convinced. Support the move. Cheers, — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 23:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support to move per WP:D (don't disambiguate 'just in case'), and per WP:TV-NC (episode articles don't need disambiguation is title is unique). Also, per very similar request for moves in the recent past (Star Trek episodes, TMNT episodes, The Wire episodes, and Lost episodes, which where also all closed as move. --`/aksha 08:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - As per WP:TV-NC, not difficult to add a redirect page Run (Heroes episode) and there is a line currently for the Run disambiguation page. -- Marcsin | Talk 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

[edit]
  1. Oppose - the exclamation mark is not sufficient for disambiguation, particularly given that readers may not even be aware that one exists in the episode title. --Ckatzchatspy 08:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - per above. --ParalysedBeaver 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Ditto. Valaqil 14:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose (obviously, as I'm the one who db'd it. It just makes it simpler in the future. What if there's a Run! CD or song? All the other Herores episodes are (heroes) at the end, so for continuity its better methinks. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 16:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose namely because without the (Heroes) attached who the heck will know what the article is even about? Has everyone forgotten about the naming convention nc:precision? 205.157.110.11 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose David Fuchs has it right. When another series names an episode "Run!", in a week or in a year, this article will be right where it needs to be, instead of needing to be moved so that both episodes can have the qualifier in parentheses. Plan ahead. This episode would not trump the episode from another series just because it came first. Doubt it? You've never seen a Hollywood producer borrow an idea instead of having an original thought? Chris the speller 15:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose the Run! (Heroes) is better than Run! for later disambiguation. Even better would actually be Run! (Heroes episode). Many television show episode guides are marked in this fasion: Title ('television show' episode), and I believe that this should be the standard.Transcendentalstate 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, Wikipedia isn't a television show episode. Wikipedia is wikipedia, and our convention is to not disambiguate when there's no need to disambiguate. WP:TV-NC had a massive discussion about this only a few month ago, and resulted in clear consensus to not disambiguate when the title is unique. I challenge you to find one other well-edited TV series that has episode articles always disambiguated (well-edited as in it's not some obscure series where one person has created the articles and no one else has really cared to edit them.) --`/aksha 13:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I am incorrect. I just checked out Veronica Mars, Lost, and The Simpsons, and it appears that my desire for disambiguation was overly zealous. I don't like that no one else wants to disambiguate like me, but, well, so be it.Transcendentalstate 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

[edit]

To those opposing:

The "Quantum leap" example is based on the presumption that those articles are sufficiently disambiguated. Just because the two pages are located where they are does not mean that the placement is correct. Further to that point, Quantum Leap is a redirect, not an article - and there is still no firm consensus at that page as to where it should redirect (i.e. to Quantum Leap (TV series) or Quantum leap). --Ckatzchatspy 18:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go!, No!, Wham!, and What? - all examples showing that punctuation has been generally accepted as being sufficient disambiguaters for otherwise common words. So far, on Wikipedia, there is only ONE instance of Run! - this episode. Its proper title is Run!. If people were to search for Run (without the !) looking for this episode, they would be taken to the proper disambiguation page where they would see Run! listed. I'm not sure what the problem is. I feel that this discussion should only be taking place if the episode were actually entitled Run (no !) - in THAT case, the (Heroes) disambiguater would be required. Here, it is not. -Seinfreak37 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Episode_articles supports my thought process: "For an article created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name". Since there is no article at "Run!", it seems that per the guidelines, the "(Heroes)" is unnecessary. -Seinfreak37 14:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seinfreak37, why is this issue so important to you? You're actively campaigning posting on opposing user talk pages, and broadcasting for assistance ("please help!") at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Punctuation as sufficient disambiguation and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Feedback/Assistance Needed (Heroes episode). It's a simple page move discussion, some people support it, some oppose. Why all the fuss? --Ckatzchatspy 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a lot in these discussions that people post their opinions, then don't return or engage in further discussion. This is not a vote, this is a discussion, and many people don't realize that. I find it rather disheartening when people oppose something that is rather clearly stated otherwise, in my opinion. I'm not so much campaigning for people to change their mind, but to rather continue the discussion outside of their original Oppose or Support comments. I wanted to be sure that my opinion had official backing, thus I engaged in research. This move and the opposition to it honestly threw me for a loop and made me question if I had misunderstood disambiguations all this time. It's a learning experience. -Seinfreak37 17:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well I wasn't aware that there were in fact naming conventions set on this sort of thing. By all means, move it back if you wish and just redirect this one. But I just don't see this as such a ig deal either way. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, perhaps "campaigning" is too strong a term then. However, keep in mind what you said just now: "I find it rather disheartening when people oppose something that is rather clearly stated otherwise, in my opinion." You're convinced that the exclamation mark is sufficient for disambiguation purposes, while I am not. I don't feel that minor differences based on punctuation or capitalization are necessarily sufficient for disambiguation purposes, particularly in an online environment such as Wikipedia. The simple truth is that the people operating the computers aren't perfect - that they will make mistakes while typing, leave the CAPS key on, or skip punctuation. In the interest of building a better, more reliable information source, we should take these factors into account. --Ckatzchatspy
This is true, Ckatz, but do you really think those same imperfect users who fail to punctuate or capitalize corrrectly will know to throw (Heroes) on at the end? The name of the episode is "Run!". If someone searched for that, they'd go to the page. "Run! (Heroes)" would be a redirect. Anyone who searched for "run" or "run." or "Run." or some other wrong variation of punctuation or capitalization would be sent to the more general Run disambiguation page. This is also supported by Wikipedia guidelines. To wit: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Episode_articles states "For an article created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name. It's really that simple. There are no other articles named "Run!", and there are guidelines that spell out what to do in such a case. Mark it zero. 216.165.38.83 18:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every oppose vote is in direct contradiction with the arb com decision about naming article about individual episodes, and lack a complete understanding of the disambiguation guideline. Jay32183 19:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. All the oppose arguments don't hold up either. The naming conventions explicitly say we do not plan ahead. If anyone types Run! and expect to end up at Run, then looking at the article he will understand sufficiently quick he made a typo, and adding (Heroes) to "explain what the article is about" is also directly going against all current naming conventions. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a better image.

[edit]

Could someone get a better image? Perhaps a screenshot of Parkman after he was thrown out of the window. dposse 13:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got one but it doesn't go as well with the article, while the Hiro one does. (You can't help but chuckle can you :-P) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite funny. However, a picture of Parkman unconscious after Jessica threw him out the window would be alot better for this article then a single comedic moment. That event is way more important in this episode then the vulcan sign. dposse 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think Hiro's escapades in Vegas are just as important. I think an image of Matt on the shop sign doesn't represent the episode well. I have however uploaded an example so as to allow overs to voice an opinion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about one of Sylar and Mohinder? That was also a fairly important development, and could be a much better image than the one currently used (a long shot with a barely recognizable Parkman) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.38.83 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This episodes main storyline wasn't about Sylar, though. Most of the episode was taken up by Parkman and his fight with Jessica. dposse 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one, which my friend took: http://i16.tinypic.com/4i5a2hy.jpg 24.83.211.180 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even see Matt from the index of the episodes. I think another would be better. 137.82.96.26 20:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was another, someone else complained about that as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The complaint with the other image (Hiro giving the Vulcan salute) wasn't about how legible it was, but how it didn't really capture the essence of the episode. The solution might be to find a Matt image that's easier to see, either for both places or just for the index. --Ckatzchatspy 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind do you suggest? I will ask my friend to make one. I really do like this one though (and not because my friend took the cap). :o) http://i16.tinypic.com/4i5a2hy.jpg 24.83.211.180 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a picture of Matt, but this time showing Parkman right after he was thrown out of the window. There was a great close up shot of him when he landed on that sign. Or, perhaps the scene where Parkman handcuffs Jessica and is pointing a gun to the back of her head. dposse 01:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite?

[edit]

I have to disagree. The article is very long but it's not written so badly that it needs to be rewritten again. I think the tag should be removed and replaced with a clean-up tag or something. It seems only one person feels this way? I think it should be trimmed down at the worst. 137.82.96.26 08:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is definetly more than one person who thinks that way. At least one of the WP:HEROES contributors felt that way, I feel that, and I think most of the regular WP:TV people would think so as well. This article is nothing more then a plot description and that is simply not enough. To see what a proper article on a television episode should look like, see Homerpalooza or Cape Feare. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an episode guide. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't meant to offend you. I just find it weird that nobody is doing anything to actually fix the article if they think it is so bad. 137.82.96.26 04:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other good examples of how this article should be written are Pilot (House) and Abyssinia, Henry. Although, try to avoid using "IMDb Trivia" as a source, not reliable. Jay32183 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at those. Thanks. 137.82.96.26 04:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was pretty long. I tried to clean it up. 24.83.211.180 06:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the rewrite tag is there is because this article needs alot of work. If you wanna see how a Heroes plot summary should look like, check out: Unexpected (Heroes), Fallout (Heroes). dposse 15:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any huge differences to be honest. I don't get it.... 137.82.96.26 21:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me either. I edited yet again, but the tag will probably remain. Heh. 24.83.211.180 22:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point i was trying to make wsa that the aricle was too long and too much of a play-by-play of what happened in the episode, which could be a violation of copyright laws. It looks like it has been fixed now, although im gonna make some small edits. dposse 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been tagged AGAIN. Egads. 137.82.96.26 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the most 3 recent summaries were tagged. Did someone get a bit tag-happy??? 137.82.96.26 05:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Plot summaries are not permitted per WP:NOT#IINFO. Please do not remove the tag until the section focuses on the main plot elements and not a scene-by-scene writeup of the episode. The plot section shoudn't be more than 5 or 6 paragraphs long. Featured articles for films are of that length, even though a film is generally longer than your typical hour long television program. --Madchester 18:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That a[[ears to be a blatant lie, "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is dominated by the plot summary, when it is not permitted per WP:NOT#IINFO. Other editors above have already provided excellent examples of TV episode articles contain a plot/synopsis section of appropriate length. Thanks. --Madchester 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, Pilot (House) is a featured article, and it's only slightly shorter than this. If there's fat that can be trimmed, then do it, but this is actually a fairly lean episode summary by WP standards. At this point, a higher priority should probably be trying to find real world context or other info to flesh out the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until the DVD set is released with audio commentary from the cast and crew, it will be difficult to include such cultural references and influences without it being considered original research. I think that condensing the plot details per WP:NOT#IINFO is a good intermediate step until such additional info is released in said DVD set. --Madchester 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Fix" has 820 words and is not tagged. This article has 732 words. Is it okay now? 24.83.211.180 00:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Run!&oldid=1202601141"