Talk:Guess What's Coming to Dinner?

Untitled
Is there any supporting info for this quote? "There are five final Cylon models, versions of the Cylons who rejected the planned genocidal attack on the Twelve Colonies." I do not recall any supporting info that indicates that this is true.

Nup, nothing in the episode to support it. Will delete it.--Sqrnookle (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability
The notability tag was removed citing "consensus and precedence", well I don't see consensus and Wikipedia is not run by precedent. From Notability (fiction): "Articles on a work of fiction (a book, movie, television series, video game, or other medium) should demonstrate notability by citing critical reception, viewings or sales figures, development and other information from reliable sources.".

I think the notability tag should stay there until this has been accomplished. 1 !=  2  13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's common practice to do episode summaries of each episode. You could make the same argument about nearly every episode of every show that is also exhaustively chronicled in wikipedia. Why not add the tag to every episode of BSG, B5, Star Trek in all its incarnations, the Simpsons, etc etc etc? I'm reaching for why you're putting the tag on this particular episode rather than making this a general topic of conversation elsewhere, such as at the village pump.


 * I'm not reverting your tag, but I do think it is inappropriate. Wellspring (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not add the tag to every episode of BSG, B5, Star Trek in all its incarnations, the Simpsons, etc etc etc? — Fully agree, most of those should be tagged accordingly. You're welcome to do that. dorftrottel (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since every other episode has a summary, why suddenly opt for a notability warning on this individual episode? Stupid, downright stupid. Ex penumbrae (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Every article needs to demonstrate its notability, particularly articles about fictional works. Our common practices are not always are best practices, if other articles of this nature exist without demonstrating notability it is because they have not been cleaned up yet.


 * This is a great opportunity to improve the article by documenting what effect the episode has had on the world. Have there been critical reviews? Has the episode been used in any significant way by anyone? Has it been quoted or referred to in any other context by any other reliable source? This should all be out there and if it is not then it should not be an encyclopedic article. Our articles need to be based on reliable sources, not a fan fiction site or original research.


 * If this article's notability is not demonstrated by some reliable sources I am going to look for some, and if I can't find any I will consider nominating this for deletion. Chillum (was 1==2) 00:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh any my reason for choosing this episode was that I looked it up after watching the episode. I am not about to go through every article of this type and mark it, I don't have time these days. But if I encounter a page in my general reading that has a problem I will take notice. Please don't call things I do stupid unless you have a much better reason than simply disagreeing with me. Even then you could probably find a more civil way of saying it. Chillum  00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What effect the episode had on the world? Must everything on Wikipedia be Earth-shattering? I don't fully agree with the fact that each episode must prove it's notability on it's own; there is something to be said for consistency. The TV series is a whole and the episodes are part of it. Just because one episode is less notable then others shouldn't mean that it shouldn't have an article. That deters consistency as a whole. Readers may rightfully ask why one episode has an article while other don't. Go with summaries, or articles, but please be consistent. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 01:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)