Talk:List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Episode 7x9

I didn't realize that this page is semi-protected. I don't edit much on Wikipedia but though I'd give it a try. Anyhow I was directed to put the deets up on the talk page. I apologize if this is not the proper way to edit the page. I had planed on adding info for episode 9 of season 7.

  • Title: Midnight Train to Kingston
  • Season: Seven
  • Episode: Nine
  • Aired: 2013-12-02
  • Commercial Blurb: With notorious killer James Gillies sentenced to die, Detective Murdoch and the rest of Station Four oversee his transport to Kingston. Dr. Julia Ogden wants to attend the hanging as well, to learn more about the villain’s twisted psyche. But the killer seems to be concocting a plan to escape – and kill again.

Glad I could help and learn.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueCygnet (talk • contribs) 02:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Episode Summary

I am willing to write a little more description in each of the episode boxes. However, how detailed can I get? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.10.18.78 (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct Dates?

The dates in season 3 and 4 would seem to indicate that in the UK Season 4 airs each week, one day before season 3? and that in canada Season 4 starts before the end of Season 3??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.134.202 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Mate, the dates are correct. You are probably missing the YEAR when looking at it. Season 3 started in the UK on 16 February 2010 and season 4 started in the UK on 15 February 2011. Season 4 in Canada started a fortnight after the season was available on DVD in the UK. That is the truly crazy part of the broadcast history of the show. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 07:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Series overview

To the editor who keeps removing the series overview. The series overview section in this article is in line with every other series overview on Wikipedia. Please stop removing it from the article. You have been IP banned in the past for doing so, and if you don't stop, I will report you. 89.100.200.187 (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC).

You bounce around IP addresses like you are sampling every service provider in the country but you always remove the series overview table and strip most of the information from the introduction concurrent to your complaining that it isn't right. The tv movies are the basis for the tv series. Originally it was to be a 4th movie but Bravo! executives saw potential for something more regularly on their schedule. Murdoch Mysteries was the first scripted dramatic series commissioned by Bravo!. The show changed broadcasters prior to its premiere. That is not exactly a common occurrence. It has again changed domestic broadcasters for its 6th season. Not many shows go through 3 domestic broadcasters in their first run - CHUM, Rogers, and CBC.
The article has been protected in the past because what you are doing does indeed constitute vandalism of the article. When it is protected others, such as the person who started this section, can't contribute to the article. Most everyone else, with or without an account, does make positive contributions here. The pattern of behaviour is quite suggestive of the holder of a certain account and if it is indeed you then i assume you realise you would have been blocked by now if you had been logged in to make all of these edits wherein you blank entire sections.
The abhorrence of references is another matter that has been most annoying. It is as if you want the Murdoch Mysteries articles to remain "stub" or "start" class. They will never get to "good article" status so long as there is fighting over such fundamentals as including references and comprehensive content. I could have had this at a "B" class by now if not so frustrated with this feud. You wanted UK broadcast dates and you got so much more. Most people would be thrilled but you complain. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 20:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

UK Premier dates or not?

It seems anon is under the impression that they should not ever appear. I think they're valuable although I didn't originally add them. If this implies that we should be including US original air dates, then it makes sense not to include the UK dates because it then could become unwieldy. However, as an encyclopedia there's not reason not to include encyclopedic information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The person presumed to now be editing anon had asked for help with the dates. I had gone through then now-replaced website of Alibi getting the dates for every episode that i could. The lack of information is why season 2 is incomplete. One could assume that they were shown the same day as in Canada, just hours earlier, for the whole season, but i couldn't find anything beyond the season premiere night. For the third season, the information was more readily available as the show had its global premiere in the UK that season and was shown in Canada later. For the fourth and fifth seasons, Rogers just could not seem to decide when it would be shown on Citytv, announcing and then retracting many premiere dates, while Alibi didn't waver; this resulted in the season 4 UK DVDs being available before the season was broadcast in Canada and the season 5 Australian DVDs being release while season 5 was being broadcast in Canada.
People here love to slap US dates on Canadian shows just because some US broadcaster bought the rights to the show. (so hate that) Here it is different as the show is actually a Canadian-British co-production. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 08:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be "try to" rather than "try and"

Please see http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g43.html Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

More at http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/try , Usage section. http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/try.html http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000253.htm http://www.engvid.com/try-to-do-try-doing/ Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Should the three "television films" be included here

The character names are the same but are played by different actors, although Hélène Joy appears in both, but only the third of the films as a different character. The production company is essentially the same. They are mentioned and linked to from the main article, Murdoch Mysteries, but they do not have the plot details or date information provided here. I'm not sure I understand why they were initially placed in this article and I understand why they are being removed, but based on an earlier discussion, it doesn't appear to be a consensus. Perhaps we could form one here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Among the things hard to reference a decade later is what i think is key here. Initially there was to be a 4th movie starring Peter Outerbridge on Bravo!. Due to the success of the movies that fourth movie idea morphed into a series idea. That became a problem because Peter Outerbridge was already starring in another series for Shaftesbury you might know, ReGenesis. It was decided to continue with the series for Bravo! but to re-cast. The three movies are included as bonus features on the UK series 1-3 box set, where they are presented in un-cropped 16x9. The series was also initially intended to be shown on Bravo! in Canada but due to all the media mergers, sales, and acquisitions in Canada in 2007-08 Bravo! and the show ended up going to different owners. Due to the retail packaging in Canada the tv films became, retroactively, collectively known as The Murdoch Mysteries while the series is Murdoch Mysteries. One could view the films as pilots for the series. One could view the films as a mini-series since they collectively are in the same fictional universe, apart from the subsequent series. The press release from Shaftesbury announcing the series says it is based on both the novels and the tv films. Without those three tv films there would not be a series that is to have its 8th season premiere in a matter of weeks. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 08:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing references

It's not clear why any editor would want to remove references from an article that suffers from a lack thereof. Every summary should be referenced. The ratings should all be referenced. Air dates should be referenced. Cast, also referenced. Removing dead links should not be done solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. I could go on, but it's clear that more refs are needed and the article has been tagged for that very reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Anon made the same edits. I reverted again. I also made the point by tagging the material in season one and tagged each section from seasons two through seven. We need more references, not fewer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I have again put back in all of the references i had previously that have been habitually removed by the person who appears to abhor references. Also, broadcast dates are not individually referenced.
As for the first season oddity, that comes from how the Citytv network functioned at that time. There were "network shows" and "off-network shows". Murdoch Mysteries was one of the "network shows" but Citytv didn't require its stations to broadcast the "network shows" at a consistent time across the country but rather allowed each station to decide when such shows would be broadcast. The Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver stations agreed to broadcast the series at Thursdays at 10pm local time. The Winnipeg station, being the only one in the Central time zone, often did its own thing and did so with Murdoch Mysteries, showing it Sundays at 9pm, exactly 4 days before it was broadcast by the flagship station in Toronto. The Winnipeg station was available to satellite tv customers across the whole country so that was the "original air date" of each episode; those who picked up broadcast signals or had cable tv and didn't live near Winnipeg had to wait until Thursday. There is a reference for this in the summary for the first season. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 08:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not impressed that you removed the {{citation needed}} tags. WP:V and WP:RS seems to be ignored by a lot of TV episode articles and that doesn't impress me. Provided that the anon doesn't return and start adding unreferenced information in the future and doesn't remove existing references I won't take it further. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Actor Listed

In the second paragraph at the top, you have Colm Meaney as Inspector Brackenreid. The inspector was played by Thomas Craig. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091909/

The second paragraph states that this is a "prior to the television series". Different series. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2016

There is an episode missing from Season 9. The most recent episode called Wild Child first aired on February 23, 2016. citation: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5157802/ Brookemockett (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Unfortunately IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Can you provide a source that conforms to WP:RS? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Season 9 episode count.

If including the 2-hour Christmas episode in the count, then Season 9 has 19 episodes. Personally, I wouldn't count it as a regular episode.

There 2 more episodes in season 9, From Buffalo With Love (Mar 14) and Cometh the Archer (Mar 21, season finale). Check online listing sites like Zap2It to confirm.

Also, someone asked on Twitter and the @CBCMurdoch account answered them: https://twitter.com/Ian_Crichton/status/707036975711318016

Wayne61 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it was a special, not a regular episode. http://www.cbc.ca/murdochmysteries/episodes/season-9/ The problem was that when those episodes were added, they copied the summary from the CBC website. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Guest star" versus "Recurring star"

In the opening credits, many (most?, all?) Murdoch Mysteries episodes list some "Guest stars". Frequently, some of the Guest Stars are Recurring Stars (i.e., appear in several episodes, usually as the same character). This Wikipedia article usually uses the "Recurring star" phrase to identify such actors, but sometimes the "Guest star" phase appears, notwithstanding that the actor, and associated character, are in several episodes (e.g., Paul Rhys in S4E01, S4E02, S4E04).

A) I suggest that a consistent policy be established regarding actors/characters who are NOT the main actors/characters, but appear in multiple episodes.

B) I further suggest that the policy ought be that "recurring stars" be identified as such (notwithstanding that they are called Guest Stars in the episode opening credits), and the phrase "Guest star" in Wikipedia be reserved for one-time-only appearances.70.26.56.14 (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

10th season

I'm pretty sure the new 10th season doesn't start airing in 2015. I know this is a Canadian show, but if Wikipedia is paying people to form a "Task Force", couldn't they find people who know what year we're presently living in? Hired professionals shouldn't make such amateur typos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.145.134 (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2017

The sentence

Canada's former Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, guest stars in the episode as Constable Peter Armstrong.

is misleading as to the words "former" (he was PM then) and "guest star" (he's in it for about 30 seconds), and would do well to mention what's notable about this constable instead of giving his name. Please substitute:

Stephen Harper, then Canada's Prime Minister, makes a cameo appearance as a constable who fails to recognize the Prime Minister, Wilfrid Laurier. 69.159.60.210 (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

References removed

I see that that the references have been removed again. I have been told this is regular practice and the WP:PRIMARY should not be included anyhow. It's my opinion that references should never be removed. The discussion started at User talk:Klock101#February 2017. This is where the discussion should take place. I fully expect It would be appropriate for anyone who is a member of the TV project to identify themselves. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC Question: Is it acceptable to remove a reference for an episode after it airs or is it still required to meet WP:V?

Including the linked discussion, please be aware of the discussion held at Template talk:Episode list#Clarification on use of RTitle for aired episodes, and the attempted discussion at User talk:Walter Görlitz#February 2017, of which the editor above removed. Anyone is allowed to contribute to this discussion without having to identify where they come from (this comes from the above editor's attack of claiming WP:CANVAS, even while doing it themselves with the page protector). Alex|The|Whovian? 05:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank, but no. My contention is that you and other editors are part of a cabal who have their own opinion. There was no attack of CANVASS, it was clearly an effort to limit the discussion at the editor's talk page to those who are already of the opinion of the cabal. Feel free to read the edit notice on my talk page and keep discussions in one place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Attacks everywere. Just because we don't share your opinion, does not automatically categorize us as a "cabal". And given that it was you who originally posted on the other editor's talk page... You should have originally posted here. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry you think I'm attacking. The project have an opinion. I have reworded my request. I warned the user for removing references against WP:V. I should not have originally warned the user here. That makes no sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
There was no need for a warning over a content dispute that involved yourself. It was not vandalism, as the editor has a specific reasoning. You should have started a discussion here and been done with it. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. An editor was blocked twice for it. I believe that there was a reason to warn. Don't bother to respond. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You do not get to dictate who can and cannot contribute to a discussion - you do not own this article, this talk page, or any article on this website. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right. Since I'm not sure of the point you're making I'll comment on both. In my first comment, I suggested that TV episode editors identify themselves so that it is obvious that they may be arriving with a POV. In the edit prior to your reply, I suggested that you didn't need to respond. That may have been too forceful and I'm paying for the brevity now. Feel free to explain why the editor who removed references from this article was blocked after I reported that. The editor made it clear the was consensus, but the admins made it clear that WP:V takes priority. I didn't mean to imply ownership. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't appreciate being labeled as part of a "cabal" just because I have a different opinion. As pointed out, I sought opinions in neutral places. Also, to be clear, you say a user was blocked twice for removing these references. That's not true - their second block was for edit warring with you, and you were equally as guilty of breaking the 3RR. Klock101 (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
If not cabal, what term would you prefer?
My interpretation that removing RSes from this article was worthy of blocking while restoring those same references was not seems to validate that restorng those sources was exempt from 3RR. Now try to explain why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
In fact, let's ask the admins why the editor was blocked and if my interpretation is correct: @MSGJ: @Spencer:. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY is the policy most relevant to this situation. Titles, air dates, directors, writers, and basic plots cite the primary sources themselves – opening credits, episode guide data, etc. They are the basic "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" described exactly by WP:PRIMARY. Information related to upcoming episodes require additional sources because editors do not have access to those works, obviously. WP:V, which you keep referring to, mentions this exception. You have still not iterated why WP:PRIMARY, a policy, is not sufficient here. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOR is a policy, and PRIMARY is on that page, (I mistakenly thought it was on RS), but you're misinterpreting it. V mentions PRIMARY, yes, but we still need a source. Removing it because it's a primary source is not a "get out of jain free" card. If it's good enough to reference the title, or other content before the air date, it's good enough after as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Basic facts related to primary sources do not require secondary sources as verification. That is the most basic explanation of PRIMARY, so it is not at all a misinterpretation. And it is not just on WP:NOR; the quotation I'm referencing explicitly has the word Policy next to it. The policy isn't just relevant here; this case is exemplary of why it exists: works of art themselves – the episodes – are entirely sufficient as references. Further, your edit warring and hostile conduct have been thoroughly unjustified. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Primary says that primary sources may be used in some cases, but they are to be avoided in others. No clue where you got your interpretation from. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
In some cases. Not all cases. And given that hundreds, if not thousands of articles for television series follow this procedure, then it's obvious which one is followed in this case. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
That other stuff exists is no exception. WP:OSE is a common position for deleting articles. It also applies for deleting references. The fact that this is done in other episodes must stop as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Please provide a full quotation. Because you're either just incorrect or are selectively misreading the policy, which does say "avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Listing basic episode information does not involve any analysis. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. So if someone says something, don't use a novel interpretation of it. In other words, if a source says that a title of an episode is "The Oak Tree Stands" don't interpret that to mean something other than the title.
It does not mean that listing basic episode information does not need a reference. For instance, adding the plot does involve analysis. I have seen that be a point of controversy and a reference would be beneficial there as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a twisted interpretation and most certainly not in the spirit of the policy. Basic information is understood to reference the primary source itself. See our featured episode lists. And no, adding basic plot does not involve analysis. The first Murdoch Mysteries TV film's plot: "A woman is found murdered and naked in a back alley known for prostitution. Detective Murdoch discovers that the woman was actually a housemaid of a prominent family. When Dr. Ogden informs him that the girl was pregnant and had been drugged Detective Murdoch is ever more convinced the girl's death was not an accident." Those are without question "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge," and WP:PRIMARY applies. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Just noting that Walter Görlitz would do well to read this regarding RfCs. The RfC really requires a question, not what amounts to a bit of a rant. WP:RFC also says "it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others." I see no recent discussion on this page. I also do not understand what is meant by the WP:PRIMARY should not be included anyhow. Based on what I can see, I'd have to agree that references are not required for aired episodes, as the episodes themselves are valid primary sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: The discussion happened on the warned editor's talk page. I will clarify the question shortly. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: A clear RfC question has now been added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The question is flawed. WP:V does not require references for all content, only content that is challenged, or likely to be challenged. If something is not likely to be challenged it does not need a reference, so a reference can be removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry you think the question flawed. I can be pointy and add CNs to every point. And your logic that flawed. The fact that a reference had to be added, means that it should stay in place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect. Circumstances can change, which reverses the stance for the necessity of a reference. For example, if the content being sourced becomes a source in itself, it can stand upon it's own, and not need any further referencing anymore. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry you think it's incorrect. By saying "if the content being sourced becomes a source in itself" you need to use the source either way. You can't even spell so I don't think you are correct with this either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Basing a person's argument upon their ability to spell? Careful. The episodes are sources. By adding an already episode, it's already sourced; not everything is an online source. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
There's no personal attack at all. Simply an observation.
But yet, we have {{Cite AV media}}. So either one or the other must be present. One of my primary areas of editing is music. Album track lists and personnel do not require references. Most albums are already referenced by AllMusic or another review site. Yet they are occasionally challenged, and so we request references and can use the Cite AV media template. However, when you add a plot, that needs some reference. And when an existing reference is removed, it's trouble. Trouble enough to get you blocked if you do it enough times. Get it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Still basing the legitimacy of a person's argument based on their spelling on the internet. Bit sad? And I see. It makes sense, you've barely edited any television articles. Your ignorance makes sense now. It's interesting that you still have no-one to support your claims. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Eh, that was definitely a personal attack. You seem to be playing WP:SANCTIONGAME by trying to backpedal on it:
  • "Walking back" a personal attack to make it seem less hostile than it was, rather than apologizing. Klock101 (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The fact that a reference had to be added, means that it should stay in place. - No, not at all. References are added before an episode is released, when the episode does not effectively exist. Once the episode is released, it becomes a source and there is no need for multiple sources.
that was definitely a personal attack. - I concur. It most definitely was a personal attack. It's also rather hypocritical to criticise a person for a perceived error when you have made your own mistakes, such as "And your logic that flawed." None of us are perfect. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - As has been pointed out above, any editor is welcome to contribute to an RFC. It's not quite true, though, that no one has to declare their affiliations; according to WP:PAID, editors who are receiving financial compensation are supposed reveal this. I am not saying this is the case here; this is just for clarification.
I was called to this RFC by the bot; I don't often work on television episode lists. I use primary references as little as possible, but verifying titles is within the guideline for their limited use, so when I first read the discussion (winnowing out all of the irrelevant personal comments) I started looking around for guidance. WP:Primary discusses the inclusion of references to primary sources for verifying routine information; it says nothing about verifying information by not referencing these sources. However, I found Wikipedia:Television episodes, a special guideline for exactly this type of article. While it confirms that references aren't needed for notability (which will have been demonstrated in the main series article), it at first seems silent on the topic of references for verification of basic episode information. Looking further, though, three examples are given of very well developed episode lists, and all three lack such references except in a few cases where, for example, a title changed or was in dispute. The guideline doesn't say why, and neither it nor the "Lists of" section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television specifically says not to include references. I can see that having a citation after every fact in this type of list would lead to a very long reference section; would a compromise solution be to add one or more general references directly in the reference section to a published list of episodes, if there is one?—Anne Delong (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoroughly researched response. I agree that a general reference would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Called by bot. I don't see the harm in keeping the citation when it's available, especially since it may contain information not otherwise available. For instance, you can't list the initial air date and claim it's sourced by the episode itself. I've never seen "originally aired" listed in a tv show's credits. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment on the scope of WP:PRIMARY - the policy does not state that using primary sources for reference is not acceptable. Rather, it tells that they should only be used, as mentioned before, for stating plain facts that an educated person would be able to find in it - such as title, length, actors (or other info that appears in end credits), etc... Removing references simply because they are a primary source seems counterproductive and is against the general spirit of WP:V and other policies requiring sources be given. As such, I do not see why there is a dispute - if the references are relevant and are used to provide genuinely encyclopedic content, then no they should not be removed. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Season 11

First let me say yah for season 11 renewal.

Second, I've added season 11 to the list of episodes, but need some help with something. I'd like to make the font colour for it in white, like some other past seasons, but can't figure out how. The section where it says director, writer, etc... Could someone tell me how or change it for me? Thanks! Mickeydee15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 43 external links on List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Season 12 Episode 2

It will be bumped in QC for provincial elections. Could someone put a note similar to season 7 finale? I don't know when this episode will air. Possibly October 22, when ON has municipal elections.

Mickeydee15 (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Airdates

Is it really necessary that episodes which were delayed in some regions due to local elections have footnotes explaining this? It in no way affects the original air date, and just seems like very minor trivia that's outside the scope of this article. Are there any guidelines about it? Klock101 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. It does the affect the airing in the majority of the "market". My concern was that it is selective. We mention one or two regions (usually only Ontario or Quebec) but wouldn't comment if it were delayed in a smaller province. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, two people is hardly a consensus but it's been a week and nobody else has commented, so I've removed these. If anyone has any compelling reasons to re-add them, then we can do so. Klock101 (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

References for upcoming episodes' info

In response to recent edits by Mickeydee15, please ensure that references are added for writers and directors of upcoming episodes. If you feel these are not necessary, please discuss here rather than reverting the article again. I'm creating a discussion for this here because it's veering dangerously close to becoming an edit war. Klock101 (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2019

Change "178 episodes of Murdoch Mysteries have aired, including three specials" to "178 episodes of Murdoch Mysteries have aired, in addition to three specials". Phantor48 (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done The Wikiformatted text was changed, since it gets its numbers from the table directly, to read as: {{Aired episodes|2019|1|7|num={{:Murdoch Mysteries}}|title=Murdoch Mysteries|specials=3|}} which displayes as: As of January 7, 2019, 180 episodes of Murdoch Mysteries have aired, including three specials.  Spintendo  00:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2019

On the list for season two of Murdoch Mysteries, episode one and episode two has been switched. Season 2 episode 1 is "Snakes and Ladders" and season 2 episode 2 is "Mild, Mild West". The summaries for the episodes also need to be switched. 96.246.103.9 (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Not according to the official website which lists "Mild, Mild West" 2x01 - Jan 9, 2008 and "Snakes and Ladders" 2x02 - Jan 9, 2008. From where does your episode list originate? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Murdoch_Mysteries_episodes/Archive_1&oldid=1136363660"