User talk:GiantTiger001

Smallville Episode #

There seems to be an inconsistency. The Smallville page shows 218 episodes, as you mentioned the press release says, but List_of_Smallville_episodes shows 217 episodes.

19 kid and counting listing

If you read everything that they have on tlc's page http://tlc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=2.15911.56272.39850.x&start=10 then it shows more listing!--M42380 (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the part I deleted on Josie getting her first piano lesson, TLC hasn't listed that episode yet.

Like I said before, she's only 13 months old, how can she be learning the piano, lol? GiantTiger001 (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

have you seen the promo for the new season on TLC? it's shows Josie jumping on the piano.--M42380 (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might wanted to check it out. It was really cute! --M42380 (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She's not pregnant. She was supposed to prove that she was or wasn't pregnant to go with Jessa on her skydiving. She was not pregnant with her 20th baby but she might end up pregnant before Anna's pregnancy ends.--M42380 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it would be nice for them to have a baby born in Feb. 2012; so we will have to wait to see what happens--M42380 (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallmark Hall of Fame

Your persistent efforts to remove good information from this article are not appreciated. If there is any justification for this, discuss it first. Thus far I have seen no explanation for your actions. Eclecticology (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My justification was that a lot material was missing in an article that was in a sorry state. Generally, it's the deletion of material that needs justification, not addition. If it looks messy now that's just because it's incomplete.

Red links are an important part of Wikipedia; they let people know what needs to be done. They need to be encouraged more. The additional details for the programs, give a brief look at some that might me a long time coming yet. Yes, links are meant for what you say, and a much smaller proportion of those for the directors, actors, and famous persons represented in the programs are red. Feel free to fill in the missing articles.

I have paid attention to the Hallmark site, and have been conforming one series of numbers to that; that necessitates making note of the repeats which I would not otherwise have done. The X's are part of an attempt to reconcile the various listings. Note too that the Hallmark site does not list the programs for the first four seasons when it was more or less a weekly program.

As with most TV programs the Hallmark Hall of Fame was produced by seasons, not by years. 1952 was the only year when the program made new presentations during the summer. Eclecticology (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My changes are obviously to improve the article. If you don't like the way I express myself that's your problem; It's difficult to pretend to be an illiterate when one isn't.

As I said above, it's bound to look messy in the middle of an article that covers 60 seasons. Those points can be dealt with after the information is there. I am making links, but you keep deleting them. Eclecticology (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While Front of the Class (film) was certainly a fine movie and I appreciate your work there, I'm not sure it meet wikipedia's notability guidelines for film. See Talk:Brad Cohen#Notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Erik (talk · contribs) found more sources, so I'm working on cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon & Kate Plus 8 listing

Greetings. It's not correct to list "Gosselins, Goblins & Ghouls" as a special, when TLC specifically listed it as the premiere of Season 2. (The episode title, per their schedule, was "Season 2: Gosselins, Goblins & Ghouls". You can't get much more unambiguous than that.) The TV Guide article you're referring to ("Gosselin's latest Kate Plus 8 special") calls it a "special" only in the sense that Kate Plus 8, in an of itself, is a series of specials. Unless you list every episode as a special, it's better to refer to each episode as part of a (spaced out) series. Baylix (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How could TLC possibly have "made a mistake" in calling it the Season 2 premiere? They are the final arbitrators on what constitutes each season, are they not? My opinion and yours is unimportant compared with what TLC deems the beginning of Season 2, and they have made themselves perfectly clear by referring to it as "Season 2". As for the gap, that is not unprecedented and doesn't automatically mean the episodes belong to different seasons. (TLC recently split Season 4 of 19 Kids and Counting with a gap in the middle; it didn't automatically mean that the episodes belong to different seasons, although initially Wikipedia editors assumed it did).

By the way, I never disputed that the Australia episode is hour long (?) So I'm not sure who that message is for. As an aside, though, blogs like that are not good sources for unbiased information. It's better to use official press releases where possible, like this one from TLC, which says much the same thing: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/03/08/tlc-premieres-new-episodes-of-kate-plus-8-on-monday-april-4/85010 Baylix (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this situation TLC is the best source we have. If they say it was Season 2, we should list it as such. It's pointless to argue over whether they "made a mistake". If you are so convinced they were incorrect in listing it as Season 2, perhaps you should contact them for clarification. And again, as an aside, don't point to links like gosselinfamilyfansite.blogspot.com. The same information can be obtained from better sources, such as the the press release linked to above. Baylix (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between saying "TLC premieres new episodes", which this article does, and "TLC premieres a new season". To premiere is a verb; it means to debut new content. You're thinking of it as a noun (meaning the first episode in a series, which can be true, but isn't always).

When TLC wrote the listing in November 2010, they specifically inserted a phrase that never normally appears. That's not an accident. And when they did so, no other episodes had yet been filmed (they weren't going to film again until late December). So they knew when they wrote it that there would be at least a two month gap, factoring in editing time. The fact they had that knowledge, and still chose to insert the new phrase, tends to suggest they intended that episode to be part of Season 2 despite the gap that would follow. Baylix (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I repeat - again - that your multiple articles all saying the same thing do not prove anything. They are all copied from the same press release, and the information is them is identical.

I've already responded to your argument above (about the use of the word "premiere", about the fact that TLC knew there would be a gap, and about the fact that the definition of a "season" is not "a series of episodes uninterrupted by any length of time".) Repeatedly posting articles that use the word "premiere" doesn't negate what I've told you about the definition of the word "premiere", and repeatedly pointing out the four month gap doesn't negate the fact that TLC knew there would be a gap when they designated it Season 2.

Regardless. Keep the page as you wish, if it means so much to you. It really doesn't matter whether that episode is classified as a special or an episode, since it all amounts to the same thing. But don't be surprised when the Kate Plus 8 DVD is released if the episode is simply listed as another regular episode, and not a "special feature". (Unless they have a DVD consisting of four episodes and about ten special features?) Baylix (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to let this issue go, but today TLC have specifically stated on their schedule that the Australia episode is "Episode 2" of Season 2. Therefore the Halloween episode must be number one. There's no other possible interpretation. http://tlc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=2.16396.56493.38994.2 Baylix (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just being silly. Every time one of your arguments is proven false you just switch to another one and pretend that was your argument all along. Before you argued that TLC must have made a mistake. That has now been proven wrong: in fact, they always meant for Halloween to be Season 2, Episode 1, and the Australia episode is Season 2, Episode 2. End of story. The official TLC schedule trumps their Facebook page, because the official TLC schedule is what defines the season. Baylix (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm interested in how your estimates of the gap has evolved from 4 1/2 months, up to 5 months, and is now ballooning out to 5 1/2 months. In all actuality, the period from Nov 28 - Apr 4 is about four months and one week. Not that it's particularly relevant, but you may want to get the figure straight. Baylix (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re your blanking at Murdoch Mysteries

I strongly suggest you take a look at some of the featured and good episode lists, such as House, Grey's Anatomy, or LOST. You keep reverting the episode list to what actually merits quite a few tags for style, content, and structure. You did the same sort of thing in the main article when you removed everything that wasn't current production info and removed references because they are for past events. Overall you keep reverting the collective articles back to a "stub" class when i had them at least at a "C" class. Your removing massive amounts of appropriate and sourced content is borderline vandalism and as such has been yet again reverted. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. References are to be used, whether or not another article excludes them. If they are excluded elsewhere then you ought to add them there not use that as justification for substandard articles elsewhere. As for telling me that i have done more than you asked of me and telling me that the articles were fine before, you are right i did more and no they were not fine. As you want them the articles are stub class, the lowest classification. I am trying to get the main article and the list of episodes to at least C class or maybe B class and you are fighting that with every edit. Please browse through some other tv shows such as Smallville, LOST, House, Supernatural, or some other Featured Article class TV show articles to familiarise yourself with the standards and structure. I realise you often edit TLC reality shows; i did a little bit for a time. The episode lists for the shows that i know of there are no better than List of Blue Bloods episodes which as you can see has a tag for insufficient introduction. Episode lists that are stand-alone articles are supposed to have a paragraph or two introduction to the show. I write them more often than many other types of contribution. You are the only person who has ever objected. List of Chase episodes and List of Welcome Back, Kotter episodes are two examples of articles which i added an introduction to. For additional examples and information on the standards for the articles you can refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Yet again, the tv movies are part of the continuity of the series, they do not belong on their own article. Your repeated blanking of the articles back to stub class constitutes vandalism and you may be blocked for it. I have seen the AfC submission on the tv movies. The decline was appropriate as they do not merit their own article.
As for removing all of the links in the main article, that too is highly inappropriate. Jonny Harris portraying a main character in a multi-season tv show that is distributed internationally should at least have a red link if not an actual article.
If you want to maintain the articles at stub class then the only other option is that i tag them for all sorts of clean-up because as you wish them to be they are sub-standard. That however would only have us fighting over what i anticipate would be your removing the clean-up tags and as such is hardly a better alternative. Look at List of Being Human episodes. That is a proper multi-season episode list. The pilot there is akin the the tv movies of Murdoch Mysteries in that they are not quite a perfect match and that it was tweaked a little before going to series. If you look at The Murdoch Mysteries you find it is a redirect to Murdoch Mysteries because the tv movies on their own are not worth an article. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before you take the claim of IMDb it might just be worth it to look up the schedule for Bravo! for 14 October 2004. http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20041028071812/http://www.bravo.ca/schedule/index.asp?date=10-14-2004 You will find that there was no broadcast of "Under the Dragon's Tail" that day. Also if you check with Shaftesbury [1] you will find that the year of production is 2005, a fact you can cross-check with the Directors Guild of Canada and with Telefilm Canada.
You have a great passion for this show but you lack a working understanding of what the articles are to include, exclude, the standards, and style and function. For example, i despise the tables of cast members because the Featured Article standard calls for prose not a chart, but if a chart is to be used at least have the information correct. Links are to exist, typically once per article excluding the infobox and the references; links are to appear once in the infobox (the creator of Republic of Doyle is also the star so he should only have one link in the infobox but two entries), and with references it is generally every instance where a publisher or author has their own article it gets linked to in the reference. With creating articles on the tv movies i strongly recommend you review wikipedia:notability (films). With your passion and a more comprehensive understanding of the policies, rules, and guidelines (which i do sometimes intentionally not quite follow) you could become a prolific contributor to Canadian tv shows. Or international shows not originating from the United States.
Other than it being appropriate to include the movies i am actually quite the fan of them. Such a fan that after seeing them i forgot all about them for some 5 years. Why include them? Rogers Broadcasting, and thus Citytv, treats them as part of the continuity of the series. CHUM was split in 2007 with the broadcast network going to Rogers and the cable channels going to CTV. The movies were made for CHUM's cable channel Bravo! Since CHUM was in the process of making a tv series to be broadcast on Citytv at the time of the merger/acquisition the rights to the Murdoch novels adaptation transferred as a whole and they ended up with the new owner of Citytv. Probably you are aware that Yannick Bisson is the second choice for the tv series; they wanted to have Peter Outerbridge but he was already under contract with Shaftesbury for another show and they couldn't make it work where he could star in two shows simultaneously on two different networks. The movies in a sense function as a 3-piece pilot for the series. There are other shows that began with a tv movie before going to series. It is almost 1am for me and i am a little tired but i can point you to the first-run syndication series Forever Knight as an example of a show beginning with a tv movie. There are others but my brain is sleeping. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The construct and related articles are different between Smallville and Murdoch Mysteries. If you look at the list of episodes for Smallville you will notice 1) it is a featured list, 2) it has a couple of paragraphs introduction, 3) it includes more than just episodes - ratings info, DVD releases, BD releases, and 4) each season has sufficient content that it has been put into its own article on the respective season rather than putting it in the section for the particular season (that is why there is a "Main article: Smallville (season 10)" just above the season 10 episode list). I haven't seen seasons 2 and 3 yet so if you want to write the episode summaries you can but don't copy them from somewhere.
I don't know any more ways to tell you the date in IMDb for "Under the Dragon's Tail" is wrong beyond pointing to the broadcaster's schedule for the date and pointing out that as of the date listed in IMDb "Under the Dragon's Tail" had not yet even been made so it would be impossible to have shown it on that date. IMDb is almost absolutely unacceptable as a reference on Wikipedia because every once in a while there is found an issue of gross inaccuracy like this here with "Under the Dragon's Tail". [2] delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kate plus 8 listing

the halloween epsoide was part as season 2 not TLC's special but if you want it as season premire then fine. Let's try to work together and not fight on here. I thought that we settled this with 19 kid and counting with Josie's piano lesson. I think that TLC is more of libable website. (I know that i spell libable wrong) Thanks for your time reading this. --M42380 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing; I don't know why TLC waited for 4 1/2 months to return the episode but I question this too. blogspot's website is not really libable because they are fans that report on the gosselins family. I find the more easier website is one on TLC.com. That reports are more finding libable.--M42380 (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and declined; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Murdoch Mysteries (2004). Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 06:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kate Plus 8

I really don't know which edits of mine you're talking about. I've recently been contributing to Ghostwriter articles. –BuickCentury Driver 07:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kate plus 8

I am finding that TLC is more libable site then a blogger page. On TLC, Kate plus 8 is listed their Austrila espiode is Season 2 epsiode 2. Here's my thing that you seem to be think that the halloween epsiode is not the premire epsiode; TLC has the right to air any epsiode that they want when they want. It's finds a way that they decided to wait Five months before bring the show back. They have been waiting for 19 kids and counting to be finished. Along with the fact that Kate plus 8 does not have a normal day to run. It used to be on Sunday but that doesn't mean that Halloween epsiode is part of it.--M42380 (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, M42380. Here's the basic summary.

1) TLC knew there would be a substantial gap because no other episodes had been filmed, yet still designated it Season 2, Episode 1.

2) TLC knew they were scheduling it on a Sunday, yet still designated it Season 2, Episode 1.

3) TLC designated the Australia episode Season 2, Episode 2, three days ago. When, between then and now, did they change their minds and forget to update the website?

4) The gap was 4 months, not 5 1/2.

Baylix (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the show's Facebook page. It says on there "season 2 premiere", right under the photos from Australia. I'm guessing TLC orginally planned for "Gosselins, Ghosts & Ghouls" to be the season premiere and "Australian Adventure" to be season 2, but they changed their minds and forgot to update their website.

Also, I think I've pointed this out before. That *special* aired on a Sunday, instead of Monday, like season 1 & 2 have. There's also that fact that it's been five and a half months. You don't have a season premiere and the decide to wait that long for the rest of the episodes - for any show. GiantTiger001 (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The show's facebook page is not libable website ethier. If you look on http://tlc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=2.16612.56229.38994.x; They show more of Libable site then a bloggger site. It's not a special. Kate plus 8 doesn't have a scheduled day. They set up when they want the show to be on. TLC ordered that epsiode to be posted on Sunday not Monday. Yes, but it's part of the season.--M42380 (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opion on where the Halloween epsiode should go. It's the premire of the season 2 not a special. Kate and TLC sat down and said that they wanted it as a premire not a special. Facebook is not a libable source. It's site that ran by fans. Not their offical page. I am friends with the real Kate Gosselin. She's saying that they have it as season 2 and wishes that you would just drop this and moved on. --M42380 (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the people M42380 and the other person is right that TLC is saying that Halloween is the right for being season 2 premire. These upcoming epsiodes are not the season premire. --Gosselin8 (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch Mysteries (season 4)

My apologies to you. To me, this looked like a copy of the article I linked to in my SD proposal (see this previous revision). Looking at the situation as it is now, I see that I was wrong. Sorry I messed up the article. No hard feelings? Luna ibis 22:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GiantTiger001. You have new messages at Lunaibis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your contributed article, Murdoch Mysteries (season 4)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Murdoch Mysteries (season 4). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes#Season 4. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes#Season 4 - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Luna ibis 19:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2 of Kate Plus 8

Remember when you wrote "Until I can get a look at TLC's April schedule, it looks we'll still be reverting each other's edits. Once I see the network's schedule, then I can say "look" this is the premiere episode." It seems that once upon a time you did agree that the network's schedule would be the final judge in our dispute. How strange that you no longer want to take evidence from the official schedule into account... Baylix (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you accept that we are right and you're wrong?--M42380 (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you accept that maybe tlc and Kate are right? You are using other website as a correct source expect for the fact that Kate plus 8 doesn't have a exact air date. TLC had orginally aired all of Kate plus 8 as special but annouced that it was seasons now. Kate should know what is the season premire was the halloween epsiode not the austrilla epsiode. So please stop changing it. We have been asking you to stop for months. Last week i asked Kate if it was the season premire and she said no it was not the season premire. The Halloween epsiode is the season premire. So once more i ask you to stop changing the facts.--M42380 (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STOP CHANGING IT!--M42380 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch Mysteries

A very select few shows — mainly ones like The Simpsons or Saturday Night Live, which have been on for 20 or 30 or 40 years and have had so many guest stars that the list would overwhelm the main article, and for which guest starring on that particular show is considered a notable accomplishment in its own right which can be sourced to actual reliable media coverage about the appearances — are allowed to have "list of guest star" articles on Wikipedia. The vast majority of television shows, however, do not need or get standalone guest star lists; Murdoch Mysteries is not one of those rare shows that warrants one. Bearcat (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]