Talk:The New Normal (TV series)

Boycott

One Million Moms is a fringe group without a large amount of supporters and their opinion is irrelevant and I'm removing that. Amkutzko (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

iTunes release/unaired

An editor has repeatedly re-added episode 108 (Para-New Normal Activity), which was pre-empted by Hurricane Sandy coverage on October 30. Some of his edits include the statement "The episode will not be broadcast", which he sources to a tweet by producer Ryan Murphy. The actual October 30 tweet directs followers where to download the "unaired" episode, but does not say it will not be aired. I have reverted for two reasons: a) because the iTunes release date is not a broadcast date (this statement was removed by multiple editors both here and in the article for Go On, which was also pre-empted) and: b) because Murphy's tweet is too ambiguous to definitively state the episode will not be aired. Murphy simply describes it as unaired, but gives no indication as to its future. Release to iTunes, like DVD release, is commercial enterprise, not broadcast and release in any secondary form does not belong in the episode list. Moreover, it's not important to the article to note that the episode was pre-empted; that sort of thing happens all the time, and does not merit the added note. --Drmargi (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason the episode should be listed as the eighth episode is that it was always intended to air as episode eight and was the eighth episode produced, so it's very likely that the episode will air in that position for international airings - which we'll find out in a few weeks. And if the episode ever airs in the US, then it could be moved to episode 12/15/whatever. Then there is also the fact that we know this episode exists, so why is it hidden in the first place and instead not just put at the bottom of the table with 'TBA' for the episode number/airdate with the note about the pre-emption/itunes release. It just seems weird to omit the episode entirely.... - Wattlebird (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is, you're proposing placement based entirely on conjecture, and what might happen in another country at that. We deal in verifiability and reliable sources. This is an American show, and the table should reflect American broadcasts on the original network. Remember, too; U.S. show rerun, and the episode will have a rerun slot. It's far more likely that NBC plans to stay on their original broadcast plan through the network sweeps period, for which specific episodes are produced, then broadcast the pre-empted episode later. As for order of production, do you have a source that it was the eighth episode produced? TV shows routinely shoot out of order to accommodate a variety of contingencies. Even if it were produced to be 108, the network makes the final determination as to broadcast order, as happened here. As far as I know, the episode was hidden because its status is unknown (another editor did it); I don't see any real harm in showing it with the TBA and notation about pre-emption, but the iTunes release does not belong there; that's commercial, not broadcast distribution. You could note the iTunes release with the discussion of DVD's and other commercial distribution. --Drmargi (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We know it's the eighth episode produced based on the production code as it appears in the end credits of the episode, which I have from before it was removed. The production code is 1AVS07, which makes it episode eight once you factor in that the pilot had a different production code (1AVS79). - Wattlebird (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it aired or not, it's still the 8th episode. It will be the 8th episode when the DVD set comes out. 8th is 8th. Put it back. 108.81.116.63 (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wattlebird, I'm relieved to see someone around here knows the difference between a production code and a production number, so we do know it was shot eighth. 118 you don't know that it's going to be broadcast, nor when, nor if the DVD will treat it as the eighth episode or not, just where in the production order it was shot. However, none of that matters a whit; the table is numbered in broadcast order, and until such time as it's broadcast, we can't place it accurately in the table. As for whether it should be hidden, that's a topic for discussion here, not the latest reason to edit war. And 118, you might want to dial down the order giving by an order of magnitude, remember this is a collaborative project that is governed by consensus, and read WP:CIVIL. --Drmargi (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As a user and editor of Wikipedia for many years, I don't need instructions about how to use Wikipedia. Common sense says it was #8, it was filmed as such and supposed to air as such. It should be included as such, with the note that was in the edit that it didn't air because of Hurricane Sandy. And yes, it will be #8 on the DVD set. Common sense again. You don't need a crystal ball for common sense. 108.81.116.63 (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Then as an experienced editor, I would expect you to observe the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia without needing to be reminded of them, something not in evidence in either post. Common sense doesn't play here; WP:VERIFY and WP:RS along with WP:CRYSTAL do. Returning to the point, the issue of how the episode should be numbered is moot; whether it should show before broadcast, given the repeated IP errors, should be discussed. --Drmargi (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing says an episode has to be broadcast, except for those who don't want Para-New Normal Activity in the episode list. The episode number parametre is for "A number representing the episode's order in the series." It is not specifically for broadcast. The order in the series is not always the order of broadcsat. Just look at Firefly. Watch it in the order originally broadcast and try to convince yourself the Blu-ray or iTunes release has it wrong. The original air date parametre is for "This is the date the episode first aired on TV, or is scheduled to air." It was scheduled 8th. It wasn't swapped out for another episode. The order in the series is 8th. If not for a hurricane at halloween the halloween episode would have been broadcast. There is nothing which prohibits use of "unaired" in the date field. It is a serialised show so broadcast of any episode out of sequence would be really obvious. Imagine NBC holds the episode until halloween 2013. If the timeline progresses as it has been Goldie would have given birth by then. Would NBC think noone would find the episode to be out of place? It is a hard-core halloween themed episode so showing it at any other time of the year would be just as out of place. NBC likely won't broadcast the episode. The episode exists. If the show gets second-run syndication it would probably appear 8th then. The bit "the iTunes release does not belong there; that's commercial, not broadcast distribution" speaks to really not understanding the commercial nature of television and relocating mention of the episode to the DVD section is just silly. Should not an episode be in the section on the episodes? How crazy for me to think that. When an episode isn't broadcast there usually isn't so much information about it available and it almost never is released on the internet instead, while the show is a going-concern. Omitting the episode because some don't like the means of initial distribution is totally 'i don't like it' censorship.
For those who wish to cite the Go On episode for comparison i would recommend you review the intensity of the halloween content. The Go On episode barely has anything to do with halloween. The New Normal's episode was entirely about halloween. Personally i don't care if a halloween episode is shown in November; how many shows have christmas episodes in the first week of December. Being Canadian i see many shows with thanksgiving themes a month after i celebrated thanksgiving.
If broadcast of an episode is sufficient proof of existence to merit removal of references to the title, air date, director, et. al. then would not release on iTunes be sufficient proof the episode exists and one can confirm from the episode itself who wrote and directed it. If an iTunes release is insufficent because it is retail then information for unaired episodes garnered from a subsequent DVD release would be likewise unreliable and unacceptable. And yet DVD releases which contain episodes not shown on television are considered quite reliable sources for the relevant information. DVDs are released in certain markets and do go out of print. That isn't really so different from a show being released only in some countries' iTunes stores and then being removed.
The tweet from Ryan Murphy would be a reliable source for the existence of the episode. But we don't cite the existence of episodes that have come available to the public here on WP. The first 8 episodes of Sanctuary were released on the internet. Wikipedia doesn't deny their existence because they didn't appear on TV and WP doesn't call them 2 episodes because of how they were re-edited for the DVD and BD releases. The final two episodes of Drive were released online so as to qualify for an Emmy award nomination because they considered internet and broadcast interchangeable and they needed at least 6 episodes. The significant difference here is that the episode not shown on TV is neither the first nor the last but somewhere in between. It really shouldn't be a big deal but some people take broadcast as gospel and anything that differs to be faulty. CBC broadcast season 5 of Murdoch Mysteries in an order different from its initial broadcast in the UK on Alibi and its original domestic broadcast on Citytv, which both match the DVD release, and CBC swears everyone else is wrong. Clearly at least one broadcaster is wrong. Therefore not all broadcasters are always correct and the assumption the broadcaster knows best is a faulty assumption.
For anyone who might not know, i filled in the episode lists, up to the controversial episodes. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the first article I have seen where an editor would argue that the producers' episode order is trumped by broadcast order. Para-New Normal Activity must be included in the episode list. The broadcast date does not need to be included if iTunes does not count as a broadcaster. But not including the episode in the episode list is disingenuous. It is unreasonable to argue that not including this piece of information in the article illustrates a more accurate picture of the subject. Every other article on episode lists on Wikipedia seems to follow this convention. Therefore, I think that, if there is a dispute as to whether this information should be included in the article, the episode should remain on the list until said dispute is resolved. DJ1AM (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Many episodes from many different shows are aired out of order. Look at The Office or Community and see how many of the episodes' broadcast order doesn't correspond to their production code. It is common practice on television shows, especially with comedies. The reason we don't re-organise the list based on production order instead of broadcast order is because the broadcast order is almost always maintained for home media releases, i.e. the episodes on the DVD correspond to the order in which episodes were broadcast, not produced. Futurama is the only exception I can think of, where the DVD releases reflect the production order and were re-arranged from their broadcast order. Just because PPNA hasn't been aired yet doesn't mean it won't before the season is over. In fact the episode was already rescheduled to be broadcast as episode 16, but was then taken off the schedule again. The most logical course of action is to wait until the season is over to see if they air it out of order, or as a special, or even as a bonus un-aired episode on the DVD. Also disputed content is always removed from the page while under discussion. Only when an agreement has been reached should it be re-added to the page. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Though the most logical position of the episode would be in its originally intended position in the episode order, I see how, due to its status as unaired, the episode has not been definitively established as canon. But until it's status is established, the episode should be included somewhere on the article's page. It cannot be disputed that this episode exists. But the most appropriate place for this information is up for discussion DJ1AM (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we need to explore how often pre-empted episodes are included in these tables prior to broadcast. I can't recall ever having seen one, and this may be an issue better addressed on the Project Television discussion board, given it potentially sets precedent. Pre-emptions are common as dirt, and pre-empted episodes are shown later. I'm not sure what's so special about this that it's worth all the agro except NNC has gone ahead and begun selling it via iTunes. --Drmargi (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is about common sense. Plus, iTunes counts as a legitimate publisher. DJ1AM (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Common sense is not a Wikipedia criterion for evaluating the inclusion of content in an article. Please refrain from adding controversial content during an ongoing, and in this case heated, content dispute. --Drmargi (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Episode_lists/structure episode order is determined on a case by case basis for every series. For The New Normal, production order supersedes broadcast order. And common sense is ultimately the basis of every edit in Wikipedia. DJ1AM (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In your opinion. I disagree. The prevailing order across Wikipedia is U.S. broadcast order. Moreover, the production codes are not indicators of production order, just intended broadcast order. Got a reliable source for production order for the season to date? --Drmargi (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think i have written it before but nothing says the broadcast is the mandatory sequence of listing other than Drmargi. I disagree with Drmargi on the appropriateness of mandatory adherence to US broadcast. I do agree with Drmargi that the prevailing order across Wikipedia is US broadcast, even for non-US shows. I openly laugh at Drmargi inferring that the Hallowe'en episode of The New Normal was intended to be broadcast in March and that it being the 8th episode produced is essentially absolutely irrelevant.
What makes this so different from any other show i can think of in the moment is the fundamental serialisation of the plot of a sitcom. Most sitcoms are produced with some flexibility for broadcast and some shows are made almost independent and reasonably could be viewed in any conceivable sequence and not be obviously improper. That really does not work with a holiday themed episode of a serialised sitcom which at its core revolves around pregnancy of the main character.
Considering "disputed content is always removed from the page while under discussion" the episode list will be skip-numbered so long as Drmargi and i are both alive. O wait, the disputed content is now included in the article! LiamNolan24 adds it back in and since it is how some wanted it all along it stays. I shall assume that if i alter the content to how i want it or remove it entirely due to it still being under dispute i shall earn a vandalism warning or maybe a block. Considering previous edits by Drmargi and SchrutedIt08 have repeatedly removed mention of original scheduling of the episode from the article on the grounds of irrelevant trivia and the like and Drmargi's stance that sequence of production is in no way indication of proper viewing sequence i see this as futile. But that doesn't mean the dispute is resolved. That is the old normal for us. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 23:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Drmargi is correct about this — the order and numbering of the episodes should be by broadcast date rather than production order. Because the template already includes production code information, it would simply be redundant to insist that both fields have to order the episodes in the same way.

And, for the record, all of the prior removals of references to the episode's unaired status were done before the episode aired, at a time when we did not yet have any way of knowing whether (and/or when) the episode was going to be rescheduled later in the season, or whether it was just going to stay permanently unaired and get packaged on the DVD as a bonus feature. Once an airdate for it was announced, it became appropriate and acceptable to mention the rescheduling, so that people don't sit around wondering why a Hallowe'en episode was airing in March — but until we knew what was actually going to happen to it, it was just insider trivia that was correctly not mentioned in our article yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And for the first time ever Bearcat i really do disagree with you. An episode that exists and is publicly available via legal means yet has not been shown on television you call "insider trivia that was correctly not mentioned in our article yet". That is a very concise summary of exactly what i contest to be total bullshit. That the broadcast status of it was uncertain is exactly reason to include it not to exclude it, and further its broadcast status has no bearing on its existence, verifiability to exist, or relevance to the subject of this here article. In its time it was a very trendy topic and TPTB deemed it necessary to strike it from the record on Wikipedia. This seems to be a recurring theme where Drmargi and i absolutely conflict. Drmargi seems to hold DVD release as trump with a dislike of iTunes and a strict adherence to first-run broadcast while i don't think that highly of DVDs, do value the releases via iTunes, and realise that broadcasters do sometimes shuffle episodes for their own shits-n-giggles (see Don't Trust The Bitch In Apartment 23 for a recent example of nigh total randomised broadcast). We disagree and eventually we just give up because we both realise we do very much disagree and grow tired of telling each other why... until the next show.
Bearcat, since you are in Canada perhaps you at some time saw the Defying Gravity DVDs at HMV or FutureShop and noticed the sticker which mentions the package contains bonus unaired episodes. If you are a fan of the show you probably watched those so-called unaired episodes on SPACE since the Canadian broadcast didn't cease when the American did (though the Canadian HD did cease). That is but one reason why i don't hold DVD releases to be so perfect a standard. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort. And yet again, you place your tired agendas ahead of commenting on what was actually said. You don't have a clue what I think or what I might do; that's clear from the gross misunderstanding of my comments you display here. Stop pretending you do. As usual, you're way wide of the mark. --Drmargi (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Deliriousandlost, you do realize that you're now arguing against an abstraction, right? The episode did air in March, and thus is now listed in the episode list (and the production section does contain a brief mention of why the episode aired so obviously out of sync with its temporal reference points, but we don't need any more than that brief acknowledgement.) And if the episode had instead been held back for the DVD without ever actually airing on network at all, it would still have gotten added to the episode list once that fact was properly confirmable and sourceable. There was never any serious question of permanently excluding it from the episode list — it was just a question of waiting until we knew how its eventual distribution was actually going to be handled. So is there any real point in continuing to argue about what we should have done three months ago, when the real world has already fixed the problem for us? You're certainly free to debate whether the episodes should be listed in broadcast order or production order — but just be careful not to lapse into arguing against total exclusion instead, because it has aired and is in the episode list, and thus "total exclusion" simply isn't the issue. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Refusal to broadcast

I've just reverted, and not for the first time, the efforts of one or more editors to add content to the section on Salt Lake City station KSL's refusal to broadcast the series. The additional content, I feel, is designed to suggest the station did so because of the gay themes and characters, but is not supported by reliable sources. While there's little doubt that the gay couple, along with the surrogacy (also frowned upon by the LDS) were the primary reasons KSL refused to carry the show, the sources provided simply do not state the reason for the stations' refusal to carry the show beyond some general rhetoric about being offensive to families. Attempts to suggest, insinuate or otherwise lead readers to infer more specific reasons are decidedly violations of WP:POV, and the excessive length (including quote) regarding the decision not the carry the station by a show in a modestly-sized market simply does not pass WP:UNDUE. Why give them the attention? The edit as it stands covers the pertinent facts, is verifiable and adequately presents the situation. The rest is unnecessary. One station refusing to carry the show simply isn't that important. --Drmargi (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed here. It warrants a brief mention, certainly — but it's not appropriate to editorialize, and the situation doesn't require any further detail than the article already provides. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"Unplugged"/"Pardon Me" production codes

As I noted in my edit summary, this is not actually a mistake. I studied the end credits of both episodes carefully and they both carry the same production code 1AVS08. Anyone know what's up with that? -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

They were probably shot at the same time; it happen a lot. --Drmargi (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the credits would have listed the 1AVS08 code incorrectly. The right production code will come out eventually when the episodes are registered on the U.S. Copyright Records database. Wattlebird (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Episode 9 is 1AVS09 as when two episodes go to post production at about the same time where the credits are added, they are done in order which is reflected by the air date. When the production number doesn't follow air date order is more for either last minute re-shoots (appears much later) or storyboard order (production codes can be all over the place). This show appears to be storyboarded in production order and since 1AVS08 wasn't incremented it can't be a re-shoot. Also given 1AVS09 hasn't appeared at this stage, episode 9 is 1AVS09.--Helmboy (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a source to that effect, we have to show what's on screen, and that was both numbered as 08. --Drmargi (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Found a source for the 09 prod code for "Pardon Me" : here -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Live+7 DVR rating and total viewers

Since Nielsen is releasing Live+7 DVR figures, and tvbythenumbers is reporting them, shouldn't we add a new column for the total amount of viewers, or maybe mention the final audience in the current viewers column? Live+7 DVR figures are taken into account by programmers when editing their reports on a TV show. Shouldn't the Wikipedia mention the actual total? Mentioning the next-day audience reports is something from the 20th century. If we have the technology, and we have the media reporting it, and we have the possibility to add them, I think the Live+7 DVR figures should be counted in Wikipedia tables too. Specifically for The New Normal, these figures show quite a huge increase in total viewers. I am sure there readers would like to know the actual, final audience. --Bravid86 (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I went through all the DVR figures from tvbythenumbers and only once it gave Live+7 DVR figures in viewers, but they did give alot rating wise so I added a table along with regular viewers, regular rating and share. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That table was previously removed; those ratings figures are understood by few readers and takes waay too much space for the little information it imparts. --Drmargi (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of other TV pages have tables like these, they are informational and should be kept, you don't own this page so stop edit warring with everybody. Wants the harm of having the table other than people can learn? JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. Once an edit is reverted (which I did), it's time to discuss. You chose to revert again. BRD isn't policy per se, but it is the established practice and the community expects editors to abide by it. Trying to force an edit in will do nothing to help your case. If the edit is sound, you'll be able to gain consensus for it.

Meanwhile, the table takes a lot of space, and provides very little information. Few readers know what a rating and a share are, what the demo means, and how it all affects the show; the only figures that really matter are the season end ones. These tables are fancruft; that other articles have them or that you took at lot of time to create the table isn't germane. --Drmargi (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes but you continue to challenge everybody edits, anyways they can be very informational to somebody who actually understands these numbers and someone who doesn't can easily just skip over the numbers, maybe we could link the Rating and Share to Nielsen ratings. You say the only figures matter are the season end ones, no it's actually how well the show performs throughout the season, if someone wants to know how well there show they watch is doing they can look it up on a informative table like the one I made. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss this when you're prepared to discuss the contribution the table makes to the article. In the meantime, see WP:UNDUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE for a start; 18-49 rating/share as the key demo are the basis for ad rates, not renewal decisions. Your table is all 18-49 data, then total viewership, which doesn't match. --Drmargi (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

See this. Although this is how they (Nielsen) determine what shows they predict will be renewed or cancelled, but still - shows with higher ratings tend to get renewed even with low viewers. Harry's Law is a perfect example, show had alot of viewers, but poor ratings and ended up getting cancelled. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware how the ratings work, and that's not the point of the discussion. Please limit your comments to discussion of the need for the table. --Drmargi (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to prove to you how these ratings are relevant for somebody wanting to know if there favorite show will be renewed or cancelled. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, you're not, and you're not making a case for the table. If readers want to know whether their show will be cancelled, they can use Zap2it or any of a number of media websites. You miss the point of why we're here: we're not here to document possible renewal/cancellation; we're here to create an encyclopedia. Leave the what if's to the fan sites. --Drmargi (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to make a case for the table but you think that these ratings are useless and unnecessary. If they are then why do so many articles have tables like the one I made? Are you going to go and remove those too? Also who created the last table, and why was it reverted was it you. Just because you think the information is useless doesn't mean somebody else might find it useful. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said last night, you're making an argument for ratings, and what you think they do, but not telling me why the table is needed in the article. --Drmargi (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

How about we wait until the season is done and we can add the total ratings? JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's ordinarily done, and makes good sense, since it sums up the show for the season. It's just the individual ratings/share for the demo by episode that creates a huge table and fails the policies I've noted above. We had the same discussion on another show page and the table was removed for much the same reason. --Drmargi (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So you're suggesting to not include ratings and share? JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

In the summary table for the season? Not at all. That's often done, and perfectly appropriate. --Drmargi (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay so just wait till May then add it in? JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think so. Maybe drop a message on the talk page of the admin who locked the page and let him know we've come to resolution; perhaps he'll unlock the page (although there were two content disputes last night). It's worth a try. --Drmargi (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So to clarify we don't want the ratings/shares or we do? Because if you don't that's going to be a problem, because as I said before many other TV Shows include Ratings/Shares. But yes the page can be unlocked as I have no reason to revert anything currently. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The season ratings table with viewership and rating/share for the season, etc. is IN; the episode-by-episode table is OUT, for the reasons I cited above. That other shows do it isn't relevant, nor is it a good argument for one here. --Drmargi (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine, since I won't get what I want anyways JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No references for credit differences

In reference to Drmargi's undo, you can not provide any ref or proof for any differences as one copyright prevents putting up a video proving it and nowhere would a so-called legitimate commercial site reference it. Bottom line there must be some leeway with the citing sources. (Personal attack removed) Helmboy (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The verifiability policy is bedrock, and expected by the community. So is WP:NPA. Your word isn't sufficient, and calling me a (removed) is a personal attack. --Drmargi (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) There is a large amount of content that the only proof is visual and protected by copyright as with all commercial shows on this site. You want proof go and download a non-US broadcast copy or find a DVD. Your reasons for not including this information is completely illogical and unfounded. I consider the mindless reversal of edits a personal attack on my time and willingness to provide information. Helmboy (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Proof is not the standard. Verifiability is. I'll be happy to discuss this with you when you're sufficiently well versed on basic policy to understand that, and can discuss in a civil manner. (I've removed both of your personal attacks, as WP:NPA allows me to do.) --Drmargi (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, then I believe the rules state only that unreferenced material can be challenged. Your lack of belief does not constitute a legitimate challenge as you have either not seen any credits or just the NBC mini ones.Helmboy (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC

Policy states unsourced content can/should've be removed. You have not provided a verifiable source, and the burden is on you to do so.--Drmargi (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Just for you I have provided a clip that is hopefully acceptable for both your site rules and for fair use copyright use at http://sites.google.com/site/xhelmboyx/credits/.Helmboy (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Inserted video file has been removed. Video such as this is copyrighted, and the file is far too large to be included. Please review the policy (there being no rules on Wikipedia) regarding reliable sources and regarding use of copyrighted material. --Drmargi (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Haven't I proved that they exist????? Can the text have a external site ref to the video?????? What do you want???? What is the real problem???? Helmboy (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is not about being able to simply demonstrate that the song was used in the episode. The question, rather, is whether there are any reliable sources out there to attest to the fact that the song's use in the episode was notable enough, either as an aspect of the song or of the episode, to warrant mention in our article at all. Many, many TV shows use songs on their soundtracks, but that doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should maintain a list of every individual song that a particular TV show ever used — so what you need is not a primary source which demonstrates that the use of this song happened (such as an AVI rip of the song's appearance itself), but rather a secondary source which demonstrates that the use of this song was notable enough to warrant being singled out in an encyclopedia (such as media coverage of the song's use in the episode.)

And yes, there is a large amount of content out there that is both visual and copyrighted — news reports, etc. But we can still cite that stuff where it's relevant and appropriate; we just can't link to or host a copy of that video content that isn't itself in accordance with copyright law. (Frex, if CNN has a video copy of a news report up on its own website, we can link to that, or we can just cite it without linking anywhere at all — but we can't link to somebody else reupping a copy of their news report to YouTube, and we don't permit somebody to reup a copy of their news report onto our servers.) Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Good points, Bearcat. I must say, the more I think about this whole issue, the more I find myself thinking "so what?" ALL American shows have end music that eventually appears on syndicated presentations and on DVD's, even if not on first-runs. What's so special about this one that it needs to be included in the article? Consequently, I've begun to seriously question the notability of the content. --Drmargi (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The point was that for the pilot a different end theme was used to tie in with the last scene, but was dropped by the US network for some stupid promo material. The text as to illustrated that this is just another show that gets bastardized by the broadcast networks. While this may not be of interest to a broadcast news network, it is important in the history of the show's broadcast history. Further more it proves that the only way to prove it was with a video, which brings up the lack of respect editors have in calling other editors liars by expecting references for almost everything. Finally one even wonders why TV shows should even be included when an encyclopedia should only be real world facts, not TV shows that either fictionalized or some game based reality show and should therefore be left to more appropriate sources such as TV IV. Helmboy (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Two points: a) the change of end credits happens with every network and many cable shows in the U.S. This is nothing new and nothing unique, thus Bearcat's and my comments re: notability; b) NO ONE CALLED YOU A LIAR. Yet again, you stoop to personal attacks (in your edit summary) as well as inflammatory accusations in an attempt to win the day. I expect that comment to be withdrawn. Wikipedia expects editors who add content abide by WP:VERIFY and WP:COPY -- and WP:NPA, and other edits can and will challenge unsourced edits. You've put in five time the energy needed trying to dodge that fundamental issue instead of finding the secondary source needed. You're making, and taking, this far too personally. --Drmargi (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY, WP:COPY and WP:NPA are all subjective to the situation and as stated one wonders why a strictly enforced encyclopedia article such as this one should even be included due to the sitcom being a fictionalized commercial work as with most TV shows. Also are the production codes for the issue with "Unplugged"/"Pardon Me" are still valid for inclusion as foxfast.com links are no longer valid (due to being restricted) also one could say that all the codes should not be included due to WP:COPY as they are only on video slates and restricted marketing material.Helmboy (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The point not being made here is that on a few occasions The New Normal ustilised what i would guess to be some very costly music and in the first episode that happened to be for the end credits. Using John Lennon's Beautiful Boy in full in the season finale couldn't have come cheap. Drmargi's comment suggests a belief that episodes natively exists with the credits as styled by whomever the US broadcaster is, which is really not true. It is the iTunes, BD, and DVD where the native credits are almost always found. (If you get a pre-broadcast version of a show from NBC they have at times offered them on iTunes with broadcast-style credits including a trailer for the series, as was done with Chicago Fire.) The end credits for The New Normal had Baby Love for episode 1 and the theme for episodes 2 and 3 and since episode 4 the credits have appeared over the last scene and therefore have no theme music. If you can find somewhere that reviews the music used in the show it is almost certain that Beautiful Boy would be featured since use of a whole song is rather uncommon but Baby Love might not get any mention because it wasn't part of what was shown on tv in the US. While Baby Love's appearance is quite appropriate it probably wasn't the best use of funds given the limited audience it would get with domestic broadcast. Anyone who got a screener of it probably enjoyed the music but it would be pretty awkward to write about something which most people didn't see and hear in the episode. When Baby Love was used in Detroit 1-8-7 as the ringtone for the expectant father/rookie detective many places reported on it. You would need something like that for The New Normal.
As for the production codes, yes that was really funny to see the error via iTunes, but they are not themselves copyrightable by any law i am vaguely familiar with. I would think it something akin to copyrighting the copyright notice. They are also available from various other places, such as the FOX air travel syndication catalogue and the US Copyright registry catalogue. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My comments suggest nothing of the sort; in fact, quite the opposite. If you were ever to read what I write with a reasonable degree of comprehension rather than simply looking for something to hang yet another cheap shot on, you'd know that. --Drmargi (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No broadcast info for non-English-speaking countries?

A while back this info was removed on the basis that this is a english version of a US show page, which I have no idea of how that makes a difference when the material that was removed was not a non-english translation.Helmboy (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is done based on a rather xenophobic clause that was added to the manual of style a year and some back which effectively demands censorship. It assumes people from other countries don't read English Wikipedia and that if they do they should specifically not be informed who broadcasts a show originating from an English speaking country where they live. (Wikipedia is not a TV guide if you live in Greece but it is if you live in Michigan.) It further assumes broadcast is not in English in countries which are not predominantly English (aka the idea of subtitles is summarily dismissed). It has the implication that dubbing of shows somehow makes them less worthy. Even the dubbing of a Canadian show from English to French is a sometimes contentious matter even though the country of origin and broadcast is bilingual. Basically anything that doesn't originate and happen in English is presumed irrelevant. To take the principles established by that clause and do a reverse-onus it would mean shows such as the Danish hits Broen and Forbrydelsen probably should be red links on English Wikipedia because they are either dubbed or subtitled and originate in Danish rather than English and their broadcasts in English speaking lands is rather irrelevant. When English shows are commissioned by the likes of Sony for their global AXN collective it is a bit awkward because USA/UK/Canada/Australia/etc are part of the international broadcast but so far there are only The Firm and Hannibal which fall into that group since it is something new and usually the 'presumed American' kicks in and it is said to be an NBC original series even though they really aren't. With something like Jo which is an English show which originates from France and was commissioned with the intent of international sales rather than domestic broadcast it seems that most people just don't want to touch it at all, possibly because it was first broadcast in Italy by RAI and was dubbed in Italian with a secondary native English audio track. That article wasn't even created until a month after the series one finale was broadcast. I think you can guess what i think of the anti-English clause but many other people really do seriously love it like a pizza and beer and won't give it up. I do prefer the information about foreign broadcasts but it is a mountain to climb to get it re-permitted. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Episode list

I just wanted to call attention to the fact that while every other episode of the show just has a brief plot description not unlike what you'd see in TV Guide, episode #9 ("Pardon Me") stands alone in having a much longer and more detailed (but also rather poorly written) summary of every major plot development throughout the entire episode. The description for that episode should be significantly trimmed (and copy-edited) to be more consistent with the rest of the list's format. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the summaries for the first episode through The Para-New Normal. Due to the shit-storm that started i declined the option to continue with the 9th episode, mostly because i do consider it the 9th episode, and do agree with you that Pardon Me is a bit excessive in detail for a brief summary. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 02:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. The summary in question is only 166 words long, well within the 100-300 limit set by Template:Episode list. If anything the other summaries should be beefed up to include more information. Please don't remove information from one summary just because the others don't have enough. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So long as it doesn't become like Being Human i don't really have much objection. I was more thinking at the time that something was better than nothing. I wasn't watching them as i wrote them so i didn't have every detail so fresh in my mind. I also like to cover the show without giving away the specifics of each scene. My opinion on what constitutes "brief" is likely to vary from what others might think. I do however don't agree with your assessment that mine "don't have enough". Really, nothing says the summaries have to be within so many characters or words of each other that what now is is violating something. That being said if something i wrote is only 97 words then please know i didn't count them. I aimed for about 3 lines per episode. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 04:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's valid to suggest that the other descriptions should be expanded instead — but as of today they haven't been, and thus "Pardon Me" stands completely alone in having a more detailed episode summary than any other episode. Its summary also isn't particularly well-written — for just one example, it doesn't even have a period at the end of its final sentence. But whether we trim "Pardon Me" back or expand the others instead, we have to actually do it at some point — we can't just leave everything the way it is right now. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)