Talk:List of Falling Skies episodes

Episode table
Can somebody please get the episode table looking like the List of Glee episodes and the List of Lost episodes episode grid..? I can't seem to do it sadly. I would lie the tables to look like this as I intend to create a page for each episode as they ear, much like Glee and LOST. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyDarmodyRules (talk • contribs)
 * The table looks fine for what it has now, if you have a (sourced) episode title, you add it in Title (with the reference in RTitle), which you can link to the page of the article you have created. If you want to add a (sourced when not aired yet) episode description you unhide ShortSummary (remove the ) and put the summary there. You have added a episode title, either unsourced or sourced by an unreliable source such as IMDb. You've also tried to add a second episode number column, that is not needed until there is a second season. (FYI you need to add a header row for that and add EpisodeNumber2 for every episode to do that). And you have seemingly randomly changed other parts of the article that don't really make sense to me, or were otherwise unsourced. Also, please use the preview button, or use the sandbox when preforming test edits, or if you have specific requests, you can always ask for help here.   X  eworlebi (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Episode titles
The pilot is called "Live and Learn" and the 2nd episode is called "The Armoury". You are idiots. Please stop removing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyDarmodyRules (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of the word "idiot" is completely uncalled for. The IP is doing the right thing.  SpoilerTV is not a reliable source.  You should know this by now, because you have been told this a number of times, when your "facts" were removed on various different pages.  Provide a RELIABLE source for the titles, or they will continue to be removed. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was harsh. I do apologize.

To the writers of the Falling Skies episode recaps: please check your mechanics, grammer and syntax in your writing. Some of the recaps are atrocious, sophmoric and incongruent. In writing the recap, focus your writing on telling the whole story, not just a play by play. Remember to give limited commentary, as it is likely to tempt the reader into watching the show. Obviously use the military jargon intended by the show's author and director, think "what are they trying to show us?" or "what lesson of warfare are they demonstrating?" --wintersgato (talk)

Also, I checked the word 'skitter'. That is the correct spelling, not 'skidder'. Yet, the original spelling is confusing. Didn't Tom state in episode 1 or 2, the reason the humans called the enemy 'skidders' was because their movements 'skid' across the floor? (citation needed).

Season 1
This discussion has been moved here from User:Knownalias's talk page out of respect for WP:BRD and to include other editors of this page in the discussion. First off let me just say that what you are doing is WRONG! ..."no need to distunguish a season 1 until we KNOW there's a season two...wait for renewal." ? That is so stupid. Does the fact that it hasn't been renewed mean that the upcoming season isn't SEASON ONE and will air in 2011? No! Look at The Killing. Its list states that it is currently in its first season despite the fact AMC has yet to renew it. I will continue to revert your edit until you give me a valid reason not to. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyDarmodyRules (talk • contribs) 15:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. If it's cancelled, there is no "season 1", only "a season", or, more accurately, "The Complete Series". Calling it season 1 before there's a season 2 to qualify it amounts to original research. The fact that The Killing is doing so, and incorrectly, by the way, is not a valid excuse. Claiming "someone else is doing it" doesn't make it right (2 seasons cancel 2 wrongs).  KnownAlias  X   15:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree, but not for the reasons you describe. I agree that it shouldn't be on the page because it is a single sub-section section, which is pointless. The purpose of sub-sections is to separate different ones under a section, if there's only one then there's no need for a section and a sub-section as the same result can be had with just a section and no sub-section. But that doesn't mean that this isn't season one, for example Defying Gravity had only one season and the DVD box states "The Complete First Season", same with The Dresden Files. So no to the sub-section at this point but just because it's pointless. On the other hand they're already assigning people for a second season in case they pick it up.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * How could it be complete if it was never planned to be a one season show to begin with? Just calling the first season not "season 1" but "the complete series" would then be nothing more but covering up the fact that the series got cancelled before its real ending. Well, after the cancellation that is. 93.195.85.50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC).

Episode dates
Though the dates of episodes have been announced, still it's WP:Crystalball to list them in the table as if they were facts -- all the way up to the "Season finale: August 7, 2011". They'll probably be when the show is broadcast, but not necessarily. Shows can be and often are cancelled or pre-empted on little notice. So I will comment them all out, except the premiere. Barsoomian (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The dates are sourced, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply to sourced content, it's about assumptions made on repetition. It would be wrong to report an unsourced date just because the show airs every week and therefor the next one should be 7 days later. This however is sourced properly. Reverted.  X  eworlebi (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A sourced prediction is still a prediction. A scheduled event in the future is not an established fact. Someone stating they're going to do something is quite different from it actually happening. As it stands since your revert these predictions have the same presentation in the table as facts. In text they could be qualified. And I thought Wikipedia was serious about distinguishing facts from non-facts. But have it your way. Barsoomian (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just putting in my two cents, but I agree with Barsoomian. I think the Futon Critic listings are relied on too much as an accurate source of episode dates. As you say, it is a prediction from TFC, not a fact. Unfortunately, this happens on many TV pages. It is different if further info is available (titles, etc. from a press release), but just dates = just an assumption by TFC. While for cable shows it is easier to predict the airing dates (vs. broadcast TV, with a higher likelihood of pre-emption), it is still a guess.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if that is the case, the Falling Skies listing shows a rather uncommon event in the two-hour season finale, not common for TNT or, really, any other cable network I know of. This would suggest (my own WP:OR, I admit) that they're going by some kind of information, especially since, as Logical Fuzz eluded to, they also have the titles for those dates.  I'm more than inclined to trust the information.  Is the Futon Critic a perfect source?  No, but what source is?  I've personally been fighting with TV.com to accurately update their In Plain Sight listings to affect the same listings on MSN TV, which I know used TV.com for a source in addition to their usual and main source of Zap 2 It (and was finally successful, by the way).  But The Futon Critic has proven a reliable source of information in the past.  And the policy, as it is pointed out on the page, is verifiablility, not truth.   KnownAlias  X   13:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Futon Critic clearly separates known dates and predicted dates; for which the have "(Projected Date)" listed.  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. Known dates of unknown titles are always identified with an "Episode 00" or "TBA" in place of the title.  In fact, all of USA's current airing and soon-to-debut shows on The Futon Critic clearly show all dates through July titled, all dates through August with "Episode 00" and all September and beyond dates as "(Projected Dates)", making a clear distinction between what they know and what they don't.  And if you go on USA.com and look at the program schedule dates for August, the show titles are programmed, but no episode titles have yet been given, even for the repeats, while all of June and July is completely programmed (USA is actually the current source for pretty much every pending USA episode title on Wikipedia right now), but no programming exists for September.  Meaning that Futon's information for USA can actually be verified with the network source proving that information is accurate.  I firmly believe in Futon's due diligence.   KnownAlias  X   15:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Executive summary: see Dewey Defeats Truman. There is no such thing as a "known date" for an event IN THE FUTURE. (Aside from time of sunrise, say.) All you can say is that it's scheduled. Networks announce these schedules and change them with no notice. If a show tanks they just pull it. It happens all the time, especially with a new show.   In another context I was lectured by some of the same people here about how other sites copy information from Wikipedia and so we have to be complete and reliable. Well, putting every broadcast date 2 months in advance is certainly NOT reliable. It really is nothing but Crystal Ball, whether it's from an Ouija Board or a network programmer. You can cite a source saying the world will end in 2012. Won't make it less of a Crystal Ball prediction.  In an episode table there is no differentiation between dates of events that have happened, are real historical facts, and dates that someone says are going to happen. They all appear to have the same authority.  Episode NAMES are different -- though still subject to change, they're probably already in the can, some have been seen in previews, and will appear under that name sooner or later, which is why I did not delete any of the names, only the dates. I really don't get this obsession some have with "documenting" events days, weeks, months, even years  in advance, seems to be particularly prevalent in "highly anticipated" TV shows and movies. Just wait till the damn show has aired before you give it a date, then it's done and it doesn't have to be corrected when it doesn't pan out. Why is that unreasonable? Is there some acronym that embodies "Wikipedia is a repository of facts, not a schedule so you can program your Tivo 2 months in advance"? There should be if there isn't. Barsoomian (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I repeat, the standard is not factuality, it's verifiability, and we can verify the information whether it is subject to change or not. We report the information as it currently stands, and as it currently stands, TNT plans to air those episodes on those dates. There are plenty of editors, myself included, more than happy to update that information should the facts change even if, apparently, you are not.  Even the info on my DVR is subject to speculation; I have on more than one occasion had to manually program a show to correctly record it because a news or sporting event postponed it by an hour or a number of days, but it doesn't happen with such a frequency that I stop relying on the auto-program function.  And what you suggest could happen to the schedule doesn't happen with such a frequency that we should outright mistrust the information.  The source is reliable, the information verifiable; everything here is in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and standards.   KnownAlias  X   17:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's certainly not factual, and no, you can't "verify" information about SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET. I'm afraid it's actually impossible. Unless you have a functioning crystal ball? If you mentioned such planned dates in the text, suitably qualified, that would be fine. But you're putting them in the table, exactly the same format as a past event. You are creating a situation requiring someone to come along later to clean up any of your "verified" dates if the network changes its schedule.  That you promise to do so is nice, but as a general policy, it creates articles full of scheduled future events, and if the eager editor who fills in all these dates from some schedule  finds something better to do with his time, a year later a reader will just assume these actually happened as the dates indicate; whether the show went to air or not. I ask: Why do you insist on presenting planned future events the same as actual historic events? What good does it do anyone? What harm does it do to wait until it has gone to air, for real? Barsoomian (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We can verify these are the planned, intended dates; if you want to propose changing the header to "Scheduled/original air date" I might be up to arguing for it. But eliminating existing information because you deem it clairvoyance just doesn't sit with me. We're not pulling these dates out of thin air anymore than The Futon Critic or TNT are...this is existing information.  Even WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."  Almost certain to take place.  Speculation must be well documented if preparation is not already in progress.  It is well documented, preparation is taking place, and it is almost certain to take place.  Criteria met.   KnownAlias  X   18:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You can " verify these are the planned, intended dates". You've repeated that a dozen times. But that IS NOT what the table says. It says "Original air date". Not the "scheduled/predicted by the Futon Critic/whatever  date". It's the date it actually happened. And you cant know OR VERIFY that till it does happen. The format is exactly the same for actual broadcasts that have happened and planned ones.  Speculation (which is what this is, no matter how well founded you think it is) must be labelled as such. It is not.  No, I do not want to change the header to legitimise this practice. You know it would never be accepted anyway as it only affect upcoming shows like this one where a  frenzy of fans vie to be the first to paste in any facts they glean. As there is no place for speculation in the table, it should just remain blank till it's actually known. Barsoomian (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, we make the table say that, like I suggested before; like THIS. Is it really so distasteful?  KnownAlias  X   18:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead if you're serious. Less than an hour I guess before someone reverts it. Alternatively, you can footnote it. But the last time I tried to make such a fact clear in a footnote, Xe insisted on deleting that too. Barsoomian (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Silly anyway, obviously future dates are scheduled and past dates are not. A little common sense might be in order here. There's no need to "legitimise this practice" as it is already legit everywhere else, this is widely accepted.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'd go so far as to call it a clear consensus. Barsoomian is only the second editor I've run into since December 2010 who's complained about it; every one else seems to understand and accept it just fine.   KnownAlias  X   18:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear there is a consensus to ignore logic. While AT THIS MOMENT it's clear what is a future anticipated and unverified date, in a few weeks months or years it isn't. The dates can remain and the links they were sourced from are probably dead. The dates become accepted as "fact".  This show is high profile enough that it will be corrected, but you're following a practice that encourages people to paste in scheduled events and treat them identically as historic facts. A show could be announced and some editor creates the page and list of episodes and dates, all "verified" according to your lights. The show airs once and is cancelled. The article can remain as a "record" of events that never happened. You're creating an unstable article knowingly, assuming that someone will come along and work out that the dates you put in are notional and clean up the mess you are making. Doesn't always work out. If the dates are left blank or commented out, at least the dates that ARE there are real no matter when you happen to be reading it. Barsoomian (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides, you also worry that people will forget a page when a show is cancelled and not update "projections"? Worry that dead links will compromise the integrity of Wikipedia? What about dead pages? When a show that has already happened goes off the air and out of favor? What happens when Agnew suddenly defeats Nixon because nobody's watching that page and some editor decides to change history? That's a more realistic, prevalent and ongoing problem than the one you're worried about. Truth be told, I've fought that battle on and off on the List of King of the Hill episodes since before it went off the air. Even did an archive search a couple of times in the edit history to verify the dates when they were originally entered. As long as we're talking about what ifs; if someone changed an air date today for the List of M*A*S*H episodes, how do you know if they're vandalizing the page, or correcting an act of vandalism from three years ago that nobody noticed? There are no guarantees, but at least the practice you're so vehemently against is on active pages with active editors. KnownAlias X   13:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, "Dewey Defeats Truman", then "We Declare Gore the Winner". Name me any relevant events between those where the media had to eat crow?  Like I said, it doesn't happen often enough to justify doubting everything until it's lying dead at our feet.  I've yet to see a page that didn't have at least one ardent fan removing cancelled dates when the show didn't live on.  Again, could it happen? sure, but policies for notoriety and sourcing and speedy deletion can remove those warts if they come.  Notoriety says in part that not every article needs to exist.  The mechanism is in place to remove problem articles, and the mission of Wikipedia is not to simply avoid them.  It's nice when we can, but it would discourage a lot of editors that would have to immediately make an encyclopedia-worthy article out of the gate, instead of getting their feet wet, then getting help from the community to make it better, which I always understood to be a part of what Wikipedia wanted and was about.  You keep complaining about what might happen, but the most recent example you can cite is still "Dewey Defeats Truman", and that was a number of journalism standards ago.  Face it; it just doesn't happen that often.   KnownAlias  X   11:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's bad practice on any article. On one like this (Spielberg!) there will be plenty of people correcting it, yes. What that means is editors wasting their time putting up predictions, and later confirming or correcting them instead of doing something useful.  Future dates of  a TV show are worth anyone's time? Wait till it's a simple recorded fact then do it once and do it right and then you can forget it.  The worse problem is the less popular shows, when some editors will follow your example and start off exactly the same way as this, but not follow up, leaving a page with a bunch of dates on it that a year later, who knows where they came from or what relationship they have to reality.  But I'm sure you'll take care of all of those too. Barsoomian (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not really an argument, this is a simple fact of Wikipedia, anyone can put anything on a page, if no-one is there to verify it or correct it it will stay on the page forever. If new fats come to light some articles need entire rewrites because all the info has been proven wrong, that doesn't mean we don't put it in the page in the first place. You say this is a problem but is it? If you have any indication that this is wide spread issue or even a single example were it is then please do indicate those articles.  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "That's not an argument"? Looks like one to me. Why do I have to justify my position? How about you explain why it's a good idea to put notional dates into a table alongside real ones. Barsoomian (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to justify your position because the consensus of practicing editors considers it an acceptable, common practice and doesn't see the problem with it, because you have yet to convince the rest of us of it's merit, and because you're in the minority of people who want Wikipedia to somehow be static; get it right the first time and move on. But the majority, as you can see, see it for what it is; organic.  Changing, evolving and expanding with the information as it becomes available.  We're in the active process of getting it right.  "Encyclopedia" means "a summary of information", not "a summary of historical information".  That changed with Wikipedia, went out with the Encyclopedia Britanica which is one of the things Wikipedia is not.  Which, I'm betting, is why the policy is the more flexible verifiability, which can change, rather than the more rigid standard of truth, which doesn't.   KnownAlias  X   14:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have already justified my opinion above. And specifically you're ignoring the documentation of the template you are using. But since several of you want to continue putting  pretend facts in the article regardless, you indeed have the power to continue to do so.  So I'll get out of your way. Barsoomian (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems this discussion has spilled over to Template talk:Episode list if anyone's interested.  KnownAlias  X   17:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Chicken Little told me the sky is falling! The sky is falling? I feel like i have read this many times before on many other episodes lists. The season finale of Falling Skies was a few hours ago. There were two episodes. O my!!!! Did anyone bother to consider the entire season schedule and episode summaries was released by TNT? It wouldn't be just The Futon Critic you could have sourced to; TNT releases Word documents which you can link to. If you think the domestic first-run broadcaster is an unreliable source for a broadcast schedule then there is no resolution to your concern. You might want to propose deletion of next year's olympics article because London could be hit with a massive earthquake in 13 weeks. Much like the olympics don't just happen one day tv episodes don't magically poof into existence when broadcast. There are months of planning and work that goes into it before you get to see it. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 09:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Falling Skies 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140610005949/http://www.tntdrama.com/shows/falling-skies.html to http://www.tntdrama.com/shows/falling-skies.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)