Talk:List of Dynasty (1981 TV series) episodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recent edits

I have noticed that my additions to the "episode list" have been vigorously edited. Having read the Manual for Style for television episodes, I feel I should clarify my reasoning for the edits. Given the large number of episodes in the series, I reasoned that adding season by season credits plus guest cast information may form the basis for the Dynasty, Knots Landing and Falcon Crest episode guides to be converted into season by season guides along the same lines as Dallas, which has not only an episode list, but also a more extensive season by season guide. I have noticed that The Simpsons seasons guides does include guest cast information inside the episode tables so I do not feel that these additions are in breach of editing guidelines. I hope my contributions might form the template for Dynasty ( including The Colbys), Knots Landing and Falcon Crest to receive the Dallas treatment on Wikipedia, which will provide the Wikipedia reader with a more substantial overview of these shows, and in turn offer a more informative reading experience. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.178.56 (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Dallas (1978 TV series) episodes and List of Dallas (2012 TV series) episodes do not include cast and producer information. If you are referring to season articles like Dallas (1978 TV series) (season 3), that is a completely different kind of article. I would caution against creating such season articles for the prime time soaps, however, unless you are intending to add more information than these credits, and with sources. An episode list with cast for each season and nothing else substantial would be considered redundant of the main article and the episode list, and would be redirected/deleted as such. Guest cast in episode tables is controversial and exists in some articles, but will be a problem when we seek to promote these lists to Good or Featured status. Lastly, it really doesn't help that you add so many red links and disambiguation links. For example, Gordon Thomson is a bad link because it leads to a disambiguation page, you should be adding [[Gordon Thomson (actor)|]], which gives you Gordon Thomson. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 14:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

THE POINT IS that the information forms the basis for a more substantial episode overview, should an editor decide to proceed with a Dallas-alike season by season article on the series, hence cast and credits are broken down season by season. Naturally more production information would be included in an individual season article as prose with sources provided. All guest cast links have now been fixed. A mere episode list, by your logic, should not contain story summaries, and an episode guide is incomplete without credits. The difference between an episode list and episode guide is, to my mind, negligible. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.178.56 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't add a bunch of inappropriate information in hopes that someone else will fix or expand it. Two different editors have challenged your contributions, and continuing to restore them without consensus to do so is inappropriate. I don't know what you're talking about re: "episode guide" because we don't have those here. A list of episodes encompassing nine seasons should not include a full cast and producer list by each season, period. The Summary field is for PLOT SUMMARY and hacking it with guest cast is inappropriate. The only exception with any traction is linking cast names within the plot summary next to the character names, but many guest cast are not crucial enough in the episode to have their characters named in a short summary. I can appreciate your intentions, but this is not the correct venue for this trivia.— TAnthony^Talk 15:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to keep track of the interactions across articles and talk pages, but by reverting three times on this article in the same day you have violated WP:3RR.— TAnthony^Talk 15:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I had intended to expand coverage of various TV series with sources and prose articles along with production information but thanks to you, any enthusiasm I had has now disappeared. For your information, there are plenty of TV episode guides on Wikipedia - they're just not referred to as such by the editors. A season-by-season breakdown of significant cast and production personnel is appropriate for readers to track the progress of the series and adds context and value, as a more comprehensive informative resource. By your bizarre logic, even an episode list presented without context is mere trivia, since it does not enhance a reader's knowledge of the series in any meaningful way. Differentiating between "episode list" and "episode guide" is silly. The truth is that I find your attitude self-important, officious and petty; and I find you reporting these contributions to a board is risible. I really cannot be bothered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.178.56 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

We have rules about content and behavior that you and I both have to follow. We have format guidelines for lists, and we have format guidelines for TV series season articles, for various reasons I won't get into here. Just because you disagree with them does not mean you can do whatever you want, especially when other editors challenge your contributions. I should also add that Wikipedia is not supposed to be the source of all information on all topics, and that fact that IMDb (and other sites) already can provide, for example, episode-by-episode cast lists, then we are under no pressure to include them here. I'm sorry if this frustrates you, but I have tried to be constructive. I am happy to open a discussion regarding all of this at WikiProject TV if you think Favre and I are the only editors who have a problem with this.— TAnthony^Talk 16:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of this discussion and archival purposes, this is the latest reverted version of the added cast and producer info. Though not appropriate for this list at this time, this information may be useful in future articles.— TAnthony^Talk 15:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I should clarify something for you, and I will use the specific case of Dynasty to do so. The main article, though not complete or perfect, is robust and well-cited. It includes sourced information regarding the progression of cast members, producers, ratings, and other production details and events. List of Dynasty (TV series) characters contains details and dates, as well as a cast overview table. Dynasty minor characters and various individual character articles further clarify cast credits re: seasons. The List of Dynasty episodes provides episode summaries, airdates, and writer/director credits. There is currently no overabundance of specific information in any of those articles that requires splitting out into Dynasty season articles, nor key information missing from any of these articles that needs coverage in a separate article. And while I appreciate the work that went into creating the Dallas season articles, they are almost completely unsourced and contain only redundant cast and plot information already in other articles/lists, and no one has made any significant improvement in years. Frankly, they would probably not survive an AFD if I initiated one.— TAnthony^Talk 18:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be under the misapprehension that whilst Wikipedia should not be an indiscriminate collection of information, it apparently should not strive to be a comprehensive resource for the subject covered. You enforce guidelines, not rules, over form at the expense of content. Incidentally, there is nothing in the Manual of Style for television that indicates that the inclusion of additional production personnel, guest cast information etc. is prohibited in any way on any episode list. A smart editor should want web traffic to stay on Wikipedia, not IMDB. Your citing of the Dynasty section of articles is indeed a case in point. You claim that that this is robust. In fact, beyond the overview article, it is a mess. The reader is expected to navigate their way between unwieldy separate pages on characters and episodes to gain a comprehensive overview of the series, both in terms of narrative and production history. Before I started contributing, the Dynasty and The Colbys pages lacked writer and director credits on the episode lists - something I was happy to spend time adding to the articles. I would argue that Dynasty, along with Knots Landing and Falcon Crest, would be ideal subjects to reorganise into a series of season-by-season articles covering all the bases. This would admittedly require more season-specific content and of course more research. Something I was thinking about starting to draft, but no longer have any real enthusiasm for. Your frankly supercilious dismissal of the Dallas season articles completely misses the point that Wikipedia is fundamentally a palimpsest - every article is still a work in progress. Furthermore, the Dallas season pages, whilst leaving plenty of room for improvement, are more substantial than the Dynasty character pages, which are puff pieces devoid of content other than repetition of information and potentially copyright-infringing screen grabs. I'm afraid I find your attitude pedantic - it drives off potentially good editors who can add something worthwhile to the project whilst adding ammunition to critics of Wikipedia, who claim that the place is somewhat insular and self-important. Finis. 82.4.178.56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@82.4.178.56: I'd like to "reboot" our interaction, so perhaps I should first apologize to you for what probably feels like aggression toward you and your edits, from myself and other editors. My intent was never to dismiss your hard work or turn you off contributing. The TV Project is admittedly very regimented these days and can even come off as draconian in some cases. They are in the middle of overhauling their guidelines based on more recent accepted practices and how TV articles have been evolving, and even I have been frustrated at times. But in general, the Project's assertive members have really improved the quality of TV coverage overall, based on the positive changes I have seen in my 10+ years here. There was a LOT of real crap and some of the most unencyclopedic ridiculousness you have every seen; though of course there still is in some cases.

A couple of things you're completely correct about: the Dynasty character articles are mostly terrible (solely plot summary that has remained unimproved for many years), and the episode lists were improved by your addition of writer and director info. The suite of articles about Dynasty, The Colbys, Falcon Crest, Knots Landing and other definitely need improvement.

Again, I totally and completely understand and even partly agree with your point of view on this; I really like Dynasty and I'm personally very interested in guest cast and obscure plot details. Over the years I've had to reconcile my interest in certain content and trivia against what the community finds appropriate, and both my POV and that of the community have evolved. The biggest frustration to longtime contributors is probably when people not familiar with the "accepted format" come in and make dramatic adds or changes; and while we think we are preserving the sanctity of Wikipedia LOL, sometimes were are probably asserting improper ownership, being close-minded to new ideas, and basically being big babies haha. Still, even when we don't have the time or interest to improve articles, it is a natural instinct to at least try to keep them from devolving any further. I don't think any of the content you have added has been specifically detrimental, but we're all just trying to enforce what guidelines we do have to keep the chaos to a minimum. And BTW, web traffic is really not a concern for the WP community, and the idea that we are not meant to be the comprehensive resource for every topic is not something I made up myself.

That said, I have really thought about all of your comments to date and can really appreciate your work and goals regarding some of these articles. The Dallas season articles are fine except that they are sorely lacking citations asserting notability for certain content, and no one has made any improvement in years. In the current climate, a new article created like this would very likely be redirected until it was improved. But I do like the tidiness and consistency of the Dallas season articles and the fact that they improve the readability of the very long List of Dallas (1978 TV series) episodes by moving the summaries themselves to the seasons. If you are interested in creating Dynasty season articles, I would not challenge them and would try to help tidy/defend them (I can't commit to helping improve them at this time). I wouldn't expect you to be able to make them complete and perfect immediately, but I would ask that you made a good faith effort to make each one a strong Start-class article as you create it. I would see no purpose in nine articles consisting of a cast list and an episode table; this information already exists at List of Dynasty characters#Overview and List of Dynasty episodes and there is no difficulty in readers getting information from there that would require a new series of articles.

The only issue real I can foresee is the inclusion of guest cast in episode summaries; there have been a lot of very intense discussions about this lately, and if it's not explicitly in the MOS it soon will be. There is no "guest cast" parameter in the table template for a reason. I kind of don't mind guest cast info presented this way myself, or even citing it within the text the first time a character is mentioned ("John is shocked when his ex-wife Jane (Laura Leighton) appears at his door"), but incorporating cast at this point will probably only make the content an easy target. Best to create a prose "guest cast" section with (hopefully) some citations. There are some credits though, like stunt coordinators and minor/technical crafts, that unfortunately will never be considered more than trivia in this context. And in general if I were you I would try to slowly create substantive content that is somewhat emboldened against challenges rather than merely dropping in "sexy" unsourced stuff like cast and leaving others to make improvements. It's also probably not a good idea to, for example, essentially sneak in content to History of Blake's 7 that has been previously removed from List of Blake's 7 episodes without explaining why it is appropriate in the new article. Actually, you should use edit summaries more to explain your edits, especially when they could be considered large or drastic. And creating a user name can also help ease other editors who may wrongfully assume that as an IP you are completely inexperienced and possibly disruptive.

If you choose to start creating season articles for a different show, let me know; I can't guarantee others won't challenge them but I am willing to help defend them and provide any guidance I can.— TAnthony^Talk 19:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your message. I have placed Dallas, Dynasty and Falcon Crest on my 'to-do' list. In the case of the latter two, I agree that a season article consisting of only a more detailed episode list would not be productive; and more research into the history and narrative of each season should be done before I could even begin to write individual season articles. However, the Falcon Crest summaries need to be completely redone at some stage. I'd love to expand on The Colbys and Flamingo Road but I'm not sure if there's enough material for individual season articles. I appreciate that there must be guidelines over both form and content, but it does seem that it is rather over-zealously enforced by certain parties. The Blake's 7 credits seemed to fit into the History article because it is specifically written from a production perspective.

As for guest cast information, if it is considered inappropriate for a basic episode list, fair enough. For shows like The Love Boat, Fantasy Island or Hotel which made a point of promoting its guest cast every episode, it's relevant content. But for a season article, dealing with recurring characters and arcs, I feel this information should be included. Including the guest cast in a header could lead to formatting problems, but I think it's fine under an episode summary, as long as all guest cast members are properly linked.

Again, thanks very much. Hope you're well. Carnelian10 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thursday nights

Is there a verifiable source for when in the final season the show switched to Thursday nights? The entire season currently has Wednesday airdates in this list; I've corrected the dates in this list for the last 5 episodes only, pending this confirmation. IMDb.com has the wrong information, dating all final season episodes on Wednesdays, which is probably where the info came from to create this list. TAnthony 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a reference at Shoulderpads.net, so I made the changes and left a footnote with this source. TAnthony 15:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

changing season 3 format to match the others?

I can't see what the difference is is the formatting. Why does it look like that? Garynine (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed— TAnthony^Talk 00:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but it was not even close to being any kind of fixed. Garynine (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to the width of the columns, I believe the problem is your browser, perhaps made worse by the fact that the summary area is empty? The measurements match the other sections and appear exactly the same on my two computers. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No it is definitely not my browser. The episode column width is so much larger than all the other seasons! Why would my browser only affect the third season box differently from the others? Garynine (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you, but I can give you a screen cap from both my computers (different operating systems) and every column is the exact same width as the other seasons. As yourself why the measurements for one section should be made different than the others for its appearance to match the others? I will take a closer look and see if we are perhaps missing a tiny formatting issue or something which is skewing it.— TAnthony^Talk 07:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you expand your screen and then make it narrower and narrower what happens with season three? In my screen the episode number box gets longer and longer but for the others it does not change at all. Garynine (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I tried that, and season three changes exactly like the other seasons (squeezing the window narrower makes the fields shrink proportionately). Hmmm, I know you're not making this up, but I can't imagine what is going on there.— TAnthony^Talk 06:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't understand why but now there is no problem. All seasons are exactly the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garynine (talk • contribs) 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Metheny (Krystle's cousin from Dayton, played by Liza Morrow)- why she is not on the list of "Dynasty minor characters"? She plays a significant role in the last season! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.23.174.19 (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism note

Because I keep having to search when filing another AIV report... the sockpuppeteer who keeps vandalizing this article with deliberate factual errors always mentioning "Firooz Oskooi" is Jaredgk2008 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008/Archive).— TAnthony^Talk 21:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Splitting out season articles

Ilija zmikic and @82.208.209.44: I am halting your splitting out of season articles for reasons I have explained in edit summary and on Ilija zmikic's talk page. But for the sake of this page I will reiterate that:

1. Ilija zmikic has been creating these articles using content from this page and Dynasty (1981 TV series) but refuses to provide attribution as advised
2. These are such sloppy copy-and-pastes that Ilija zmikic does not even fix broken/lost citations in content copied from elsewhere, and does not copyedit or adapt the content into an appropriate format for a standalone season article
3. As the seasons go on, there is currently less and less sourced information about the seasons, and Ilija zmikic has made no effort to find or add any. This means that these new articles don't meet the criteria for standalone articles. All that is being accomplished is splitting out episode tables, which is unnecessary in the absence of content asserting notability for a standalone article.

If you believe more season articles should be created, please explain your reasoning here and provide some information about your intent to meet the content criteria. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)