Talk:List of Ghost Whisperer episodes/Archive 1

Airing Order Discrepancy
Episode 2x19 allegedly aired before 2x18. Might want to reflect that in the episode guide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.27.206 (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

List of Ghost Whisperer episodes notes

 * Large whitespacing was intentional to protect those viewing from spoilers. therearenospoons 08:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Those who have knowledge of the summaries of the last two episodes of the season, Miss Fortune and Condemned to Repeat as well as Demon Child feel free to add them.
 * Added a primary episode template example to the Pilot episode. Follow this format for future episode pages. Thanks. therearenospoons 08:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ehm, is it really necessary to create seperate pages for all these episodes? Personally i don't see much use for it. Ghost Whisperer is not Lost, Simpsons, Friends etc..... I'd rather see it compacted into a single page in an List of episodes table or in the way Grey's Anatomy creates their listings. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 09:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yah, the plot summaries are really short, so they wouldn't take up too much of the page.


 * I just made it as a template if anyone wanted to do it. No biggie :) -therearenospoons 05:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot Licensing Update
For future screenshots, please use the following template for the licensing, which is modeled after the Style Guide Featured List standards. All current screenshot licensing has been update to this standard.

Fair use : The following should be the text on all Ghost Whisperer screenshot image pages that are used on this article:

{{pre| A screenshot from the drama/fantasy/thriller television series Ghost Whisperer.

Rationale for fair use in List of Ghost Whisperer episodes
This picture is being used in Wikipedia's episode listing for the television show Ghost Whisperer (CBS). Although it is subject to copyright, the editors of Wikipedia, among them myself in particular, feel that it is covered by US fair use laws because:


 * It is a low resolution still image;


 * It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the related product in any way

Further, we believe our use of the image is fair because it is not being used merely to decorate the related article, but rather:


 * Aids commentary on the plot outline;


 * Poignantly illustrates the related episode

Particularly because:


 * It illustrates the significant moment which characterises the episode in question.

}}

Thanks :) -therearenospoons 05:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Latin Phrase
What is the Latin phrase in the episode "Dead to Rights" that is written on her husband's back? JaJaon 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "mors dilecti" TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

2007-2008 episodes
Due to the continuing, with no end in sight, writers' strike and kind of according to the Spoilers policy, I removed all the TBA eps names and dates. This season may never happen so it's best just to wait until the strike is over and official word comes rather than speculate. Please, this is being done on many prime time ep pages, please respect the reasoning. There are no more filmed episodes or written episodes at this point so until the strike is over, the ep list is current and correct. CelticGreen (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

gabriel
which episode does gabriel first appear in? Vitual aelita (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am guessing when the stewardess from season 1 crossed over (in season 2) w_tanoto (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

extending the plot?
I know that it is not normally done in TV show (with exception of The Simpsons - it has separate articles for each episodes), but can we expand the plot per episode here? At least for season 1-3, because those seasons are finished. It would be better if season 4 plots can be expanded as well. w_tanoto (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Season 5
OK, I don't think the s05e03 summary is real. I'm 80% sure it's written by the same guy who wrote that Gabriel/Romano is comming back. Because "At the end of the episode, Melinda's baby's heart stops beating."... It's not a baby. Aiden's 5 years old. I think it has to be edited to 'TBA', because there aren't any polt lines for this episode in the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.23.160 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Cleanup
I noticed a few episodes in Season 4 had large blocks of text added onto the episode detail, that included major spoilers. I deleted them, to make sure the episode detail was only the official one! Just informing of a clean up. Please try to look out for this, because I've noticed this before. 72.49.27.34 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ghost Whisperer
hey fans of Ghost Whisperer, I would like to say that this show is one of the best shows ever and just saying not to finish this show up and continue with it. so yea anyone can write and give their comment on this. Thank you very much;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.66.122 (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

6.2
The section 6.2 is not necessary, i think season 5 ratings must be with the season 5 episodes. Please can I/someone delete the section 6.2?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.226.231.6 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Chat
Abby:Whats up I love ghost whisperer and i want to talk to some fans so put your name and then what you have to say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.72.190 (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea!
Hey, thanks a ton to whoever started slpitting the articles into separate seasons! It looks really good, and makes alot of sence. Nice job. 69.61.249.178 (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

songs on episode Dead Man's Ridge
I watch all the reruns of the show. Loved the songs on this one episode. would anyone know how I can get the titles from the show?

thx cathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathy eldredge (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Series Overview
Like List of The Secret Life of the American Teenager episodes and List of Smallville episodes, why do we need an overview table? "The first problem is that it's unnecessarily redundant. First, and this is especially true for series that are shorter lived, why do I need a table that is telling me how many episodes were in each season when I can look right below it and see how many episodes were in each season. The same with the season premiere and finale dates. Given that the section headers should have the years of broadcast listed, the average reader will see when a season aired and go right to it if they have a question about it. Now, on to the last bit that isn't redundant to the rest of the page, the DVD release information. In this situation, it makes no sense for the DVD release info to be the first thing on the page. It isn't the first thing to happen in the production of the show. You don't put a reception section before you put the plot of a film. The DVD info should be one of the last things on the page, because it's the least important aspect of the primary concepts that need to be addressed. All it says is that the show was released for sale." (Bignole wrote that) I agree with this statement and think it should apply to this page also.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * Like so many episode lists, including featured lists like List of QI episodes, List of Numb3rs episodes, List of 24 episodes, List of Joking Apart episodes, List of The O.C. episodes and so on, the series overview table provides a summary of the episode tables and usually includes the DVD releases to avoid unnecessary duplication. It's not mandatory but most lists do so because it avoids the need to scroll down through the article to find the information. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually am okay with the format this article has. At least its neater than most, so for now I guess it will work.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I'm sorry but Wikipedia SUCKS!
Yes! And the people who think they know everything also. Removing all the unreferenced ratings?! How dumb is that? I, myself, put the ratings for Season 2, I just forgot to put references. It's from ABC MediaNet, as Season 1's ratings. Probably the third season's too, it was edited a long time ago, so... And... deleting a pic(screenshot) only because it's not described well, who the hell needs to know what the purpose of this screenshot is? And is it a low res or not... Deleting a whole article for an episode because half the plot overview is copied(ok, I kinda understand it) but this ruins the article. Everyone is making it look extremely bad only because Wikipedia has stupid rules that no one needs to follow. I'm sorry for saying that but that's what I think and everyone has the right of his own opinion. So I quit editing this article(and not only, whatever) because it seems all of you just want to make it look really bad. God won't forgive anyone who doesn't put references, cause you know... Wikipedia says so. P.S. No need to answer that, I know you love your precious rules. I just put up my thoughts and commented how stupid the rules are for me. P.S. 2 Oh, and... when Season 5 was still airing, why the hell did someone always delete the average rating for the season to date? Every single show I watch had a to date average viewership, but nooo... Ghost Whisperer doesn't have the right for a nice article. You know, Wikipedia stuff, right? Wiki? Wicked. 87.126.146.31 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to re-add them with sources.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Archiving
As indicated in this post, there were active conversations on this page that shouldn't have been archived. I've restored all of the archived threads, as there's simply no need to manually archive. The bot will do that soon. I've set to archive all conversations older than 30 days. Once the older threads have been properly archived, it can be changed to 90 or some figure that's more appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Splitting this article
As seems to happen all too often these days this article has been split into individual season articles without linking the articles together. Furthermore, all of the episode summaries have been deleted and I was wondering why the article has been split in this manner. The split hasn't been carried out properly and a fair bit of work is required. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you doing ? delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 22:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Follow-up comments: You might want to check with Manual of Style (television) about the episode summaries not being there on the list when there are season articles. Cancelled shows are allowed to have season articles. If it were not so i would expect the season articles of LOST to be redirected any day now. Granted, the Ghost Whisperer season articles were somewhat sparse but things start somewhere. I am in favour of a split that allows the individual seasons to be expanded on.
 * The colours you put in when you undid all of the season articles were atrociously wrong for Ghost Whisperer. It is a dark, mysterious show. I was going to put it back to what it was but instead i went through the cover art and picked colours from there. Season 5's colour that i put in is from a bootleg release as the official cover art is not yet available. Even with your colours it was hard on the eyes to have a blue link to the seasons in the list with the red, orange, gold, and greens in the background so i put them back to beside the colours. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 01:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct, episodes summaries are not normally included when TV lists are split into seasons. However, the method in which they were excluded from this list was not the way in which they are supposed to be excluded. The correct procedure is detailed at Template:Episode list, as we previously discussed at Talk:List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes. Here, the episode tables were copied to the individual season articles and then the tables here had the episode summaries stripped out. (This is a trademark of the editor who did the splitting. He/she has been a right royal pain over the past months!) This duplication has resulted in discrepancies between the ten season tables spread through six articles. You are also correct that cancelled shows may have individual season articles. In fact any series can have individual articles but there must be some justification. As they existed, the separate season articles provided nothing more than what was already here; therefore there was no justification for the split. There still isn't. Splitting with the intention to expand the articles is justification if the articles are actually expanded but the first four articles were split out on 18-19 May and there has been no expansion beyond extremely basic, improperly split articles. As was suggested to you at Talk:List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes, if you want to expand the articles, start by expanding this article and, when there is sufficient content a split can be considered then. Splitting the article at this point, forcing readers to trawl through six articles instead of one is counter-productive at best.


 * When articles aren't split, episode summaries are normally included in the article and this is not the case with this article. There are no episode summaries. Before I reworked the article, there were no links to the individual season articles, so the average reader had no way of finding the summaries. With the season articles still redirected, there are now no summaries at all, which is not the way it should be.


 * When I examined all six articles it was clear than there were numerous errors and inconsistencies spanning all six, so I re-merged them in my userspace in order to correct those errors. The errors are far too numerous to list all of them but included use of inappropriate bolding, headings that weren't compliant with the MOS, incorrect fields, fields in incorrect order, inconsistencies in the way writers and directors were presented ("name, name" in some and "name & name" in others), over-linking, incorrect spelling, links to the wrong articles and referencing errors. There were originally 68 bare references that I fixed, to avoid linkrot. I then noted that many of them were to pifeedback.com, which is a user forum and therefore is not a reliable source. (This has previously been confirmed at WP:RSN) For this reason I've removed them. I should have also removed the ratings figures but I chose to leave them in the hope that somebody might cite them using a reliable source. However, in a way that is tantamount to vandalism, ChaosMaster16 has reverted all of the changes made in the past two days, reintroducing all of the errors and inconsistencies that had been repaired. I intend reverting to your version shortly and directing him to this discussion.


 * Regarding the colour changes that you made, I don't have an issue with this if these are the DVD colours, but it needs to be noted that the colours you've used, are different to the original colours used here, I changed from the original colours because more muted tomes are a lot easier on the eyes to most people. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Follow up: I've now reverted the changes made by ChaosMaster16. In doing so, I noticed that the heading changes that Deliriousandlost made had introduced an error. In the original list, "Aux1" and "Aux2" had been used instead of "WrittenBy" and "DirectedBy" for the writers and directors respectively. This results in the two columns being swapped from the positions indicated at Episode list. The new list uses "DirectedBy" and "WrittenBy" as they were intended for directors and writers respectively. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do thank you for redirecting me to this discussion. I have had the discussion somewhere before about Pifeedback being a reliable source. (I think it was at a TV portal or something) Since there are no other reliable sources to provide the final ratings, and since TravisYann(misspelled?) is considered a reliable source by Tvbythenumbers.com (which is a reliable source), as long as the reference links to Travis's post, it will be okay to use as a source. That is why every single episode for season five uses that as a source, which you removed. There will be no other way to cite those numbers because no reliable source states them. Therefore, we either use Pifeedback.com, or we remove the numbers which would be really unneccesary when we had sources leading straight to where I (and other users) got the information from. Other than that, I have to say everything looks really good, and thank you for takng the time to do that.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * Actually, there has been some discussion about whether or not TVbytheNumbers qualifies as a reliable source. There were some quite valid points put forward at the most recent discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. These included the fact that it's a blog published by two individuals. WP:SPS states "self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable". (emphasis added) --AussieLegend (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's what i really want to say i have done, but i am not here to fight over column widths and colours. The what and the why is explained. Consider it or not. I spent the better part of a day of my life disagreeing over colours and columns and rows only to still find a tree-way stalemate.
 * Headings not compliant with MOS? Yes i goofed in merging the versions and not flipping writer and director headings but i did make use of DirectedBy and WrittenBy. However, Aussie, your use of  and   runs afoul of every list, featured or not, that i can recall having ever read on WP. The accepted presentation is   and   or simply   and  . You unnecessarily forced the larger width of the episode number columns and thereby forced the air date onto two lines when viewed at 1024x768. That made every single row that is not a summary two lines in depth. That on its own is an awkward read. When combined with the default grey for the summary it essentially blurs the two together. I put in a white background, #, and also again removed the season number links from over top to beside the season colours (because blue link on blue background is just extremely hard on the eyes). That works nicely at my resolution and for those of you who may be using 1280x800 or higher it will give you some empty space so things are not as crowded as they are for me. Anyone viewing using 800x600, there is no viable fix for that short of converting the date to "2002-04-17" (which i believe is an MOS violation). For the same squishing reason i think the ratings in the series overview gets to be a bit much. It is not detrimental at 1024x768 but it is not too visually appealing either - everything is squished on the right and spacious on the left.
 * Regarding the colours, i spent about an hour trying to find 5 colours from the cover art that would work together and still be representative of that used for the majority of the cover art while also not being too bold. I almost went pixel by pixel but when setting the colours it was a right pain when only 3 or 4 of 5 would work i would need to swap out. Long process considering the similar colours used in seasons 2, 4, and the bootleg 5; 1 & 3 were right easy. I hope the official season 5 has a different colour. The official cover art should be released soon.
 * I do just have to ask, what are episode summaries being referenced for? And to a blog? Using a malformed link too? With a date that is the better part of 4 years preceding broadcast of the episodes? I highly doubt anyone had the summaries that long ago, and even if so we are not to be copying summaries and citing the source of the copy. Not that i can say this is a copy since the link goes to the main page because the specific page, if it did exist, is no longer at that location which makes no sense since these were retrieved hours ago.
 * pifeedback.com, i don't know it. As far as i see in articles and discussions there is the broadcaster or the ratings provider (primary sources) or there are things like pifeedback and tvbythenumbers (apparently unacceptable secondary sources). How to reconcile that with the requirement to include sourced ratings when available? The way i see it one of four rules has to be broken: 1) use primary source 2) use unreliable secondary source 3) go unsourced 4) omit the data despite MOS suggesting it be included.
 * As to the split being inappropriate due to lack of additional content, Aussie, i would remind you that you split NCIS DC and you stand by it despite 6/7 of them being very much comparable to the Ghost Whisperer seasons. Further comments about NCIS are not here as this is not an NCIS or user talk page.
 * If anyone wants to question my suggested changes of the tables find me after i get some sleep. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 18:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Headings not compliant with MOS? Yes i goofed in merging the versions and not flipping writer and director headings" - Headings not being MOS compliant is nothing to do with writers and directors.
 * "The accepted presentation is " - WP:SOFIXIT. I only used those headings because they're the least problematic as there are people who don't bother to read the hidden comments that you deleted and change the season # column to all the same number because they think it actually refers to the number of the season. Your claim that it's the "accepted presentation" is wrong; it's just one of a number of accepted presentations.
 * "what are episode summaries being referenced for? And to a blog? Using a malformed link too?" - I have no idea what you're talking about. What you've said doesn't seem to make sense.
 * "pifeedback.com, i don't know it." - I do, it was discussed at WP:RSN. It's not a reliable source.
 * "i would remind you that you split NCIS DC and you stand by it" - At the time List of NCIS episodes was split it used a custom table. After conversion to use Episode list the article was about 160kB with about 82kB of readable prose. (This article came up at only 32kB of readable prose - less than half of the NCIS article and not comparable in size at all!) Physically the article was getting too large to manage and the readable prose was right between WP:SIZERULE's "Probably should be divided" and "Almost certainly should be divided" figures so, yes, it was time to split it. Today that same article would be about 215kB with 106kB of readable prose (ie beyond the "Almost certainly should be divided" figure) so clearly the split was justified. This is unlike List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes, which you decided to split when it was only 42kB with a mere 13kB of readable prose. Was there a point to your driving down this path? --AussieLegend (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is one point, you drove me out of NCIS and then i just happen to pick some obscure documentary programme to get away from you and find out you were already there, so i abandon that. Then you pop up here. When i walked away from NCIS that should have been a big hint. When i walked away from How The Earth Was Made that should have been a huge hint - i even said i was done with the show. When i ignored your talkback left just to defy me and rub it in that should have been an absolute hint. To come back later and rub it in that you can edit my talk page if you want to and that it is to my peril to ignore you is exactly why i keep walking away. Take a hint. I may not edit here too often as a lot of people used to but when shows get cancelled the editor base drops off and that is where i come in. This is my niche.
 * If you don't like my split of NCIS LA then too bad. You won that battle. Stop complaining about it. Stop bringing it up every chance you get. This was a purely GW discussion until you felt the need to bring in NCIS. Our extreme disagreement regarding NCIS has almost no relevance to Ghost Whisperer.
 * The references that make no sense in the summaries... Right now they are 55 and 56. They go to dead links on SpoilerTV, which happens to run on blogspot. They are dated as being from July 2006 and retrieved on 27 June 2010 and are referencing season 5 episodes from March and April 2010. How can something claiming to be from 2006 reference something that didn't exist until 2010? And since they are dead links is there any reason they are there? Dead, unreliable, and misused should = removed.
 * That your position had prompted me to look into merging the seasons of NCIS should be telling you that you ought to improve your own split before you tell others that theirs are bad. Not everyone is going to get picky over the page size. More often than not it will moreso be on the presentation of information, and if there is any, outside of the episode list. As Ghost Whisperer is 5 seasons and over 80 episodes it meets those requirements for a split. So what if noöne expanded on them to your satisfaction in the last 40 or so days. On that reasoning i would be merging NCIS right now. Logic flawed. You could have fixed the errors you noticed on the respective seasons and made sure there was the proper transclusion to the list of episodes and been done. Then none of this would have happened. Instead you undid everything, drastically changed the formatting and colouring from what it was with no explanation other than 'fixing'. While it was what got my attention that the seasons had been split you made a mountain out of a puddle. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 05:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "you drove me out of NCIS" - Huh? As far as I can see you've never edited NCIS. You split List of NCIS Los Angeles episodes, which was opposed by everyone. Nobody drove you anywhere
 * "that should have been a big hint." - A hint as to what? where are you going with this and how does it relate to this list. I'm having trouble working out exactly what your problem is.
 * "i ignored your talkback left just to defy me and rub it" - Again, nothing to do with this program. The talkback was left because you stated a preference for primary sources, then spat your dummy and left before I had a chance to point out that Wikipedia uses reliable, secondary sources and primary sources can only be used under certain circumstances. As for "defying you", sorry God.
 * "Our extreme disagreement regarding NCIS has almost no relevance to Ghost Whisperer." - Then why bring it up?
 * "The references that make no sense in the summaries..." - Again, WP:SOFIXIT. Instead of writing volumes about stuff that is irrelevant, fix the issues that you see as a problem. I had no idea about the references, I just merged things and fixed the obvious errors.
 * "That your position had prompted me to look into merging the seasons of NCIS" - I don't know why you were prompted to re-merge NCIS, which would be inappropriate given the information I've provided above, but it has no relevance here. Please stay focussed on this list and what is relevant to it.
 * "As Ghost Whisperer is 5 seasons and over 80 episodes it meets those requirements for a split." - I don't even really understand what the reasosn are, you're not making yourself clear. The readable prose is only 32KB so size alone doesn't justify a split. The split articles provide no extra information over what this list provides, other than general cast information that is already in the main article. Agin, this doesn't justify a split. Splitting one article into 6 makes it hard for readers so that's a good reason not to split.
 * "On that reasoning i would be merging NCIS right now. Logic flawed." - Yes, your logic is flawed. Size alone justifies splitting NCIS as I explained in my last post. Size does not justify splitting this article. You can add another 68kB of readable prose before it definitely should be split. BUT, if you can expand the season information with ratings, real world responses to the episodes and so on, a split could be justified with much than the extra 68kB.
 * "You could have fixed the errors you noticed on the respective seasons and made sure there was the proper transclusion to the list of episodes and been done." - As I've already said, there's no justification for splitting the article and there are several comments in the edit histories of this and the season articles where opposition to splitting was clear. The split was forced by two editors, one of whom has caused concern amongst a number of editors across several articles because the splits were premature. There was simply no justification to do what you suggested.
 * I'll ask you to, in further responses, please stick to what is relevant to this article and perhaps write a little less. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Aussie, you have merged many shows in the last month on the argument that there is no consensus to split. Most of those had been split for some time now. The MOS permits the split, especially here, so i ask you why the crusade. There is no consensus for the merge that i can see. It is just you merging each show you come across. Seriously, would you care to explain this. Multiple seasons is a requirement for season articles. Each show i have found you merging has multiple seasons and can qualify for season articles per the MOS on that criteria. You are, as that phrase goes, "wanting it both ways" and this whole cross-show-merging appears to be full of "i don't like it so merge". Might this have anything to do with your declared preference for episode summaries on the main list and such being contrary to MOSTV when season articles exist? delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 22:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The articles that I have merged were split without consensus and the majority of them were merged only after discussion with other editors. As I've clearly indicated several times, and this is a fact agreed to by editors in those discussions and supported by WP:SIZERULE, the size and lack of additional content in the season articles did not justify the split. While MOS may permit the split, it doesn't mandate it. The requirements for splitting are deliberately blurred because of the differences between articles, as in the case of this and List of NCIS episodes, where there was significantly more content there for the same number of episodes here. It's especially counter-productive to split one small-medium size article into multiple even smaller articles that require readers to trawl through multiple articles to find the information that they are looking for. Your suggestion re my preferences is ridiculous considering the number of articles that I have split in accordance with Template:Episode list. --AussieLegend (talk)


 * Here is another silly suggestion for you: Sizerule is also discretionary. You treat it like mandatory. If the summaries on NCIS were all within reasonable lengths then those first 6 seasons of NCIS you split could be one page per both the tv mos and sizerule. As to wanting summaries on the list in addition to the season article, that was i believe a primary objection of yours to my writing a season article for NCIS LA. Here is a third silly suggestion: step up, own your splitting of NCIS DC, make somewhat respectable season articles for NCIS DC to the point where they would not be merge-worthy if there were only 5 seasons, and bye-bye, you negate my claim to your applying a double-standard. It is that simple. They need not be featured lists but i believe all of the NCIS DC save for the most recent season are infobox, one paragraph, and episode list, or exactly what Ghost Whisperer is. That makes each of seasons 1-6 of NCIS DC, on it's own merits, presently totally merge-worthy. That there are so many seasons should not be used as an excuse to create substandard season articles. Apparently we share many of the same interests in tv shows. We could potentially have this disagreement on many shows. I presently have 6 shows on my own wiki that i am working on season articles for. When ready they will replace the episode lists on ENWP. They range from 2 through 10 seasons per show. At least 2 of them could be split per sizerule right now but that would leave them not much better than NCIS DC and as such i hold off on splitting them on this wiki. While it is true i could expand NCIS DC i am not the one who split it and then told others that their splits that resulted in articles of like quality were unacceptable. NCIS DC is one of the 6 shows i am working on on my wiki. Ghost Whisperer is another.
 * As to an example for my side of the coin there is the featured List of Numb3rs episodes, which was classed as featured after the split into seasons was done. Each season is little more than a summary of the season and the episode list. That would mean that with some ratings referencing you could seek featured class for List of NCIS episodes. But it would mean accepting that splits can be done without the need to cite sizerule as the reason for the split and that the season can be primarily the list of episodes. Tough choice.
 * While others may have been merged after discussion with other editors the only discussion i can find about Ghost Whisperer is your edit summaries from your merging and this that came about as a result. Oddly enough it was you Aussie who was my inspiration to do a split and expand of Ghost Whisperer once all of the fuss about cancelled or not had passed. I figured if it was good enough for you to do to NCIS then surely you would not object if i did likewise to Ghost Whisperer. Then you popped up here with a different opinion from what i anticipated. Out of pure aid for future plans might you care to declare your episode count threshold for having season articles. I thought 107 would be enough. What about 150? I would rather not make plans and have you pop up to object again. As you know, it does take some time to properly split or merger seasons.  delirious   and   lost  ☯ 16:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Here is another silly suggestion for you" - Just rememeber, you said this, I didn't.
 * "Sizerule is also discretionary. You treat it like mandatory." - Clearly I do not, as I've given reasons other than WP:SIZERULE as to why articles shouldn't be split, and some as to why splitting before the sizerule recommendations might be appropriate.
 * "If the summaries on NCIS were all within reasonable lengths then those first 6 seasons of NCIS you split could be one page per both the tv mos and sizerule." - I don't know what you deem to be a reasonable size but Manual of Style (television) says that "a brief summary of the plot (100–200 words; upwards of 350 words for complex storylines) is applicable." The 138 episodes in seasons 1-6 average only 92 words per episode, short of the minimum suggestion. Taking "100–200 words" as a reasonable size, the article would have been split long before it was, possibly as early as season 4.
 * "As to wanting summaries on the list in addition to the season article, that was i believe a primary objection of yours to my writing a season article for NCIS LA" - You believe wrong. What I said was merely a comment about transclusion.
 * What you're working on on your own wiki is irrelevant here. This page is for discussing improvements to this article, not for discussing what is happening elsewhere. Please stay on topic. If you want to discuss non-List of Ghost Whisperer episodes matters, the place for that is on your talk page, provided that it is Wikipedia related, of course. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just love how you justify NCIS and are all over Ghost Whisperer. Does this mean i can have NCIS? Or will this bickering hop over there should i edit those articles? This show was my getting away from you and the conflict we have. Your firmly planting yourself at Ghost Whisperer has me not moving on to another show for fear of you following me wherever i might move to next. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 03:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really want to get away from me, I suggest you not edit anywhere. I go anywhere I see the need, as everyone is entitled to do. As for "having" NCIS, I suggest you read Ownership of articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, you said it; my concern that you will follow me around is not just imaginings. We both look for a need. As to what that need is i can't speak to your motives with any certainty. There is going anywhere there is a need to work on an article. Then there is following me when i find a new article that needs work in trying to get away from you. Maybe you didn't notice but you own the NCIS articles, which is why i asked if we could trade and why i left them in the first place.
 * Since you all but outright promise to follow me to a different show and you make it nearly impossible for me to make any improvements here your telling me to not edit is not really a joke. It is more of a threat. Per your own actions here the first thing to be done to NCIS would be the removal of all ratings and refs for US for seasons 6 and 7 and LA s1. I have a feeling that would meet with stern objection and an AN/I thread. So, what it comes down to is you have cornered me and told me to surrender (retire). delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 07:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We are now decidely off-topic and I don't intend continuing this totally irrelevant discussion here. if you want to continue, do so on your talk page. This is not the place for it. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One edit for one rating + ref and you can't accept it. I was already corrected to use start date in cite templates so i have been. I didn't think many people would have the patience to read through the LA Times for refs so i went looking for season 5. I found one for season 3 and thought why not add it as it is still better to have one than none. Now what i could find for season 5 is there too. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 09:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't accept it because it's wrong and so was whoever corrected you. As I indicated on your talk page, with reference to the instructions in the relevant templates, dates should be in the format used in the article. As far as I'm aware, templates were never used and it's being used as a clumsy way of circumventing date unlinking. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't accept that you removed 17/18ths of season 3's references with no explanation. As such i have put them back in the article. They are final numbers, cited to reliable sources even you normally accept and make use of yourself. If the removal was not a mistake on your part you really should explain yourself. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 06:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From my edit summary and the fact that TyDwiki made four consecutive edits, (none of which included edit summaries) it should be clear that I simply reverted to the wrong revison. That this was the case should have been made more obvious by the fact that I didn't revert the other citations that TyDwiki added. Thank you for correcting my error but please, try assuming good faith for a change, stop being so confrontational in your editing, which is perilously close to being uncivil and, of course, use appropriate edit summaries, which are supposed to be "a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page", not a question or something different altogether. Thank you. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

pifeedback.com as a source
Would you mind me asking you to link exactly to where the discussion about Pifeeback.com is that states its not a reliable source? Also, would it be wise to open another discussion about it?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * Here is all i could find. Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 65 It is a really short discussion. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 05:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS (part of Identifying reliable sources) tells you why pifeedback.com is unreliable. It's a group of forums and "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". --AussieLegend (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion clearly just states two people against the source. And, no offence at all, its just you and some other guy. There should be a bigger discussion about it.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * The discussion was initiated after pifeedback.com being unreliable was raised by someone else on another page. When I checked WP:SPS it seemed to confirm that pifeedback was indeed not WP:RS. The response at WP:RSN confirmed this further. I'm happy to raise this again at WP:RSN but WP:SPS is clear and i don't see a different response. --07:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should. Theres exceptions to what is and isn't reliable, and I feel this is a prime example. Where else will we get the final ratings and source them?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * I have already done so. Although only a single response has been made to date, it pointedly reinforces the position that pifeedback.com is not a reliable source. Why do you think this source deserves an exception? --AussieLegend (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Tvbythenumbers.com is a reliable source. In its post, they link to Travis Yann, the guy I am linking to. Would this guy just make up some random numbers and post them so thousands can look at them in amazement? The posts are in line with the initial numbers, but they are the final numbers. (Sorry if I am getting too geeky) If tvbythenumbers is reliable, then when linking to its post with Travis Yann, it would also be considered inreliable, therefore the sources used in the article are unreliable also. It just makes everything more difficult.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * Actually, there's debate over whether or not TvbytheNumbers is a reliable source because it's a blog. Blogs are also covered by WP:SPS. From what I can gather, your argument is that because TVbythenumbers links to posts by somebody called Travis Yann who posts on pifeedabck.com, pifeedback.com is a reliable source. Umm, No. We don't know who Travis Yann is so we don't know how reliable he is. His name is "Yanan", not "Yann" by the way, and it's an alias. As for whether or not "this guy just make up some random numbers and post them so thousands can look at them in amazement", that's irrelevant. Wikipedia requires that "readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Because we don't know who Travis Yanan actually is, we don't know how reliable his sources are. His posts don't qualify as reliable. Because pifeedback.com relies on people like Travis Yanan, it's not reliable and neither is tvbythenumbers.com for the same reason. This is covered by WP:SPS. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mind me asking a simple question: What is BEST for the articles on Wikipedia in these situations, in your opinion?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * I wish I could give a simple answer. I'd never really looked into tvbythenumbers until relatively recently and had let additions to articles slide by. Since there's no definite consensus you can probably use tvbythenumbers but expect the information to be challenged and, if there's a better source available, use it. Pifeedback is definately out though. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that there are no better sources other than these two, whether reliable or not. Particularly for Ghost Whisperer here, we have no other sources. What would be best for wikipedia in this case would be to keep the sourced ratings, whether reliable or not. Using this method would therefore allow different perspectives of both sources be challenged by the reader only. Presenting the source for them to click on to directly lead to where we have taken the information from can allow the reader to determine if they think it is reliable. In this situation, it is not neccesary for Wikipedia to interfere with the judgements of its readers. Sourcing the information in no different manner than usual, meaning in no special way, or a neutral way, we do not impose whether they should or should not endorse the source where we have gotten the information from.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * If you're going to cite WP:IAR as a reason for ignoring core policies such as WP:V then you should make sure that you follow the links in its single sentence. The first of these, "improving" states, "it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter." The precise wording of WP:V is: "it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". It would be best to use common sense and allow good contributions; being too wrapped up in WP:V is only going to cause the removal of sourced ratings, therefore not improving the article in any way. We are not misleading the user in anyway when we predent the pifeedback.com source because the information is clearly there. But that is my opinion, which obviously differs from an averae Wikipedia user. Because of this, we should allow the source and have the reader be able to determine if it is reliable or not, therefore ignoring WP:V and making a dangerous assumption. "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." Improving wikipedia would be to provide the ratings. And the only sources for them are these two.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * I'm not sure what words of that are yours and what are quotes but, regarding "being too wrapped up in WP:V is only going to cause the removal of sourced ratings", ratings aren't sourced if the source is not reliable. If the only sources you have are not reliable, then the information shouldn't be in the article and if you put it in, it can be removed. If you persist in restoring information that has been removed because it's poorly sourced you might end up blocked. You really need to think about whether it's worth losing your editing rights. People have been blocked for far less. I really have to take issue with claims that the ratings are only available from two unreliable sources. Where are they getting them from? They must be available from somewhere. If they're not, then the claims aren't credible. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

He does claim to get them somewhere. But I try to search on Google, Bing, Dogpile, exc. for them, but I don't find anything. The point I am tryign to make is: If it is reliable or not, leave it. When someone wants to see where we got the information from, they click the link and decide for themselves if the sources are reliable. Its simple and resolves the dispute over this issue by Ignoring the rules. And, by the way, since season 2 and 3? is not sourced at all (before your edits and now), we should remov them completely, unless you disagree?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * Aussie, did you see my response?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * Sorry, I thought I'd already replied but I got side-tracked with another discussion and some vandal fighting. After much research, I can accept the tvbythenumbers refs, only because there is no consensus as to its status as a reliable source. However, in the discussions that I've initiated at WP:RSN, there is absolutely no support for pifeedback.com and, as it's a forum, it clearly falls into the category of WP:SPS, meaning the information from there can't be included in the article. We don't add information assuming that readers will be able to follow links so they can decide whether or not a source is reliable. If it's not reliable, it doesn't go in. As Editing policy says, "a lack of information is better than misleading or false information— Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable." As for the uncited information from season 2 & 3, yes, that should be gone. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the discussion you initiated, there is only you, some other guy, and me. Honestly, that isn't a consensus. As WP:IAR, doing what is best for Wikipedia, is what is right for Wikipedia. In oder to be fair(er?) I will quote some materal from you and I here at the discussion you have started. I'll also ask some people to ontribute to the discussion (without telling them to side with me or you). I'll just give them the link and kindly ask for any feedback they would like to give.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * There were two discussions and three five people, including me. There was also the original discussion that prompted the WP:RSN enquiry. However, consensus is not necessary when a website is clearly a self-published blog. Nor is WP:IAR carte blanche authority to ignore core policies. Given the additional responses at WP:RSN, are you convinced yet? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that there has been many more responses, should I o ahead and re-add the ratings with citation flags?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * No content should ever be added with citation flags. This indicates it's unsourced and is immediately subject to removal, as per WP:V. There's plenty of precedent for this. If you can add using the LA Times informat, as suggested at the RSN discussion, then do so but adding poorly sourced or unsourced information should never be done unless it signifcantly adds to the article. Raw ratings figures don't significantly add to the article unless there is some real-world, cited analysis included. Many articles don't even include ratings. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please look at the discussion. There are about four users (including me) who agreed to use that format. It was agreed upon by consensus. If you object, please post a reply on the discussion there, not here. If a consensus comes against it, then I would happily leave it alone.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16


 * Here is the correct place to discuss edits to this article. You are clearly misreading what was posted at RSN. Betty Logan posted "Personally I would try to source the figures with the LA Times data, and if any can't be sourced then perhaps fill in the blanks with the pifeedback numbers but add a citation needed flag in those cases" but then followed it up with "Those match up with pifeedback too, but the LA Times seem to publish these figures every week so I'm betting you can source every single one of the missing figures with the LA Times, so this may well be a redundant discussion." That was the only editor who came anywhere close to supporting use of pifeedback.com and even she said "Internet forums don't meet the criteria for WP:RS and recommended using LA Times. On the other hand, Dlabtot & Davtra rejected the site outright, as did Cuchullain from the original discussion. Deliriousandlost made no comment on pifeedback. The only other editors to post in the discussion were you and I, making 7 in total for both discussions. There is clearly NO consensus to use pifeedback.com; in fact consensus (four out of seven editors) is against it, so I suggest you revert your most recent edit, unless you can clearly show a consensus for your edits. Who were these three editors who supported you? --AussieLegend (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This would be one of those mega ultra extremely unheard of rarities wherein i agree with AussieLegend. Intentionally using unacceptable sources and self-tagging is aesthetically messy and is more a distraction than benefit, not to mention it serves to undermine the acceptable sources too. Avoiding the standard tag may look better but you still call into question the reliability of those references i spent hours searching through the LA Times site to find. Not every week is available from the LA Times it would seem, unless you go the route of paid access. I too am calling for you to revert the edit that inserts pifeedback and notes questionable reliability of the season 5 section. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 04:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ChaosMaster, while i am all for discussing things.... how many people does it take to say "No" to pifeedback before you stop inserting it? It is more than Aussie and i. There is much of the noticeboard discussion, and most recently Hipocrite removed them. You reverted that to reïnsert them. Do you realise that is a tag that if a third party reviews and thinks to remove then they do for being unreliably referenced. That is what Hipocrite did. To some the intentional insertion of unreliable references repeatedly could be seen as disruptive editing. Aussie and i disagree on many things; if we agree on something take it as a sign that it is likely not wrong. Please take some time to think on this.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 10:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As more and more people join the discussion at RSN, thanks to ChaosMaster16, pifeedback gets less and less reliable but that doesn't seem to matter here. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since ChaosMaster16 hasn't seen fit to demonstrate consensus at WP:RSN for use of pifeedback.com, since there is no consensus for that, and as he hasn't reverted despite our requests, I have now removed the references to pifeedback.com again. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly puzzled as to why you reverted consensus based edits. Clearly the current consensus is that it is not a reliable source, however as an ongoing discussion, the consensus for the time-being is to leave the Pifeedback sources with flags on this page, and reverts to the page should not be made (which is why I will not revert your edit). Chaos Master Chat 16:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm more than puzzled as to why you believe that consensus is to leave the pifeedback sources, sinces that's never been the consensus. It was suggested by a single editor as I explained above. I challenged you to provide proof of your stance two days ago and you still have not done so. Since you went out canvassing, another eight editors have given their opinion that pifeedback is not a reliable source, one has been rather non-committal and one has indicated support for pifeedback.com. No editor, other than Betty Logan has ever suggested that "the Pifeedback sources with flags" be left. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC).

Actually, I have just taken count of who is for and against, including you and I. It seems to be dead even at six for and against, with 2 ifs for it and 1 if against it. So I would say there is no consensus for or against it at this point. And if all we are going to do here is argue about whether these people are for or against it, I think after a few more days, we should start a discussion and commenting whether someone supports or opposes it with a limit, that way there will be no discussion on that. But please don't jump ahead and do this as soon as you see that I suggested it. Also, as it is obviously clear that there is no proof where anyone gets their information from, I don't see how LA Times or TVBTN is anymore reliable than Travis Yanan. I suggest we take the ratings out of this article completely until we can settle on RSN whether we will continue to use the ratigns on Wikipeia. Chaos Master Chat 17:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We must be reading different discussions because I've just tallied it and your figures aren't even close:
 * Not reliable
 * AussieLegend
 * Cuchullain - "Definitely not reliable"
 * Dlabtot - "Hard to conceive of an argument that would be used to justify this as a reliable source"
 * Davtra - "From what I have gathered: use the original sources. Full stop/period."
 * Hipocrite - "Open access forums are not reliable sources, fullstop. Use the ratings as published by Nielsen/LATimes, fullstop."
 * Sulmues - "Pifeedback.com is not a reliable source"
 * Maccy69 - "I don't think WP:IAR applies here", "It's about as open and shut a case as I've seen - you can't use a forum as a source"
 * Jack Sebastian - "wherein TVBtN is barely inclusive as a source, which opens the door to a far more questionable source like Pifeedback.com."
 * Rlevse - "Blogs/chat forums/etc rarely meet RS standards. I'd say get rid this one too."
 * TeleComNasSprVen - "it seems to me that this pifeedback.com does not appear to be a reliable source, and should not be used under most, if not all, circumstances."
 * Rocksanddirt - "regardless of actual accuracy of checkable numbers, a forum is extraordinarily unlikely to be any sort of a reliable source."
 * Cliff smith - "there's clearly no consensus that Pifeedback is a reliable source"
 * Deliriousandlost - " i agree with AussieLegend", "how many people does it take to say "No" to pifeedback before you stop inserting it? It is more than Aussie and i"


 * Reliable
 * ChaosMaster16
 * Xeworlebi - "If those posts on TV by the Numbers are accepted so should the ones on Pitfeedback."
 * Katherine Daisy Anderson - "I don't really see that pfifeedback.com is necessarily any less reliable than other source of ratings data"


 * Non-committal/not stated clearly
 * Betty Logan - "Internet forums don't meet the criteria for WP:RS. I don't see why the other regular source on there can't be used.", "Whether this makes pifeedback a reliable source or not I don't know"
 * MikeAllen - "The forum, I'm still unsure about"
 * SimonTrew - "All my opinion is, why can't the figures wait for the LA Times and Nielsen Media figures to be published"


 * I don't see how you came up with 6 for, or the total that you did. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not reliable
 * AussieLegend
 * Delarious & Lost
 * Dlabtot - "Hard to conceive of an argument that would be used to justify this as a reliable source."
 * Hipocrite - "Why is this even being discussed, at this point? Open access forums are not reliable sources, fullstop."
 * Sulmues - "Pifeedback.com is not a reliable source."
 * Maccy69 - "you can't use a forum as a source"
 * Rlvese - "Blogs/chat forums/etc rarely meet RS standards. I'd say get rid this one too"
 * Rocksanddirt - "regardless of actual accuracy of checkable numbers, a forum is extraordinarily unlikely to be any sort of a reliable source."
 * Cliff smith - "there's clearly no consensus that Pifeedback is a reliable source"


 * Reliable
 * ChaosMaster16
 * Davtra - "From what I have gathered: use the original sources. Full stop/period"
 * Betty Logan - "Internet forums don't meet the criteria for WP:RS. I don't see why the other regular source on there can't be used.", "Whether this makes pifeedback a reliable source or not I don't know, but it seems to be reliable in this instance."
 * Xeworlebi - "If those posts on TV by the Numbers are accepted so should the ones on Pitfeedback."
 * Katherine Daisy Anderson - "I don't really see that pfifeedback.com is necessarily any less reliable than other source of ratings data"


 * Non-committal/not stated clearly
 * MikeAllen - "The forum, I'm still unsure about"
 * SimonTrew - "All my opinion is, why can't the figures wait for the LA Times and Nielsen Media figures to be published"
 * Jack Sebastian - "We present neutral, reliable and verifiable information to the reader, so they can form an idea based upon good information." (not in favor of reliability)
 * TeleComNasSprVen - "it seems to me that this pifeedback.com does not appear to be a reliable source, and should not be used under most, if not all, circumstances."


 * Like I said, if all we are going to do is argue about the total, lets start another discussion and commenting whether someone supports or opposes it with a limit, that way there will be no discussion on that. Other than that, I will remove the ratings listed on the page until there is consensus that we will use them on RSN. Chaos Master Chat 18:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The total is relevant because it clearly demonstrates consensus that pifeedback.com is not a reliable source and we don't include information obtained from unreliable sources in articles. Your tally is incorrect. You've ignored Cuchullain, from the May discussion. His opinion is as valid as any one elses. Davtra did not say thatit is reliable. He said use the original sources, which pifeedback.com is not. He even clarified his opinion with "Where is this "guy" getting his numbers from? Source wherever he is getting the numbers from." Use the original sources, not pifeedback (because it's not reliable). Jack Sebastian's opinion was clear, don't use "far more questionable" sources like pifeedback. A questionable source, by its very definition is not reliable. He also said to use the sources from which the pifeedback information was obtained. Similarly, TeleComNasSprVen was clear. "this pifeedback.com does not appear to be a reliable source, and should not be used under most, if not all, circumstances". BettyLogan was also clear. I'm quite amazed that you could misinterpret the statements made by these people. Regardless, even if you believe yyour figures, there is obviously a clear majority stating that pifeedback is not reliable and we do not use unreliable sources. It's that simple and, no matter how much you deny it, it's true. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This ia totally not the right heading for it but Chaos created another issue by archiving the unresolved discussion between Aussie and i so now i personally have issue with Chaos' action on the article page and the talk page. Here is actually notice that maybe just maybe unarchiving of unresolved discussions or the archiving of this discussion might randomly happen six minutes ago.
 * As to this discussion.... Chaos, did you read the full post or just mix up something. "Davtra - "From what I have gathered: use the original sources. Full stop/period"" is about the most brief, blunt, and still descriptive NAY to pifeedback in the discussion. This article was supposed to be my escape from bickering. ChaosMaster, you live up to your user name. And regarding editing anything relating to Ghost Whisperer i remain delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 23:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And for anyone keeping tally i am declaring that pifeedback is better than nothing but i still would go for TVByTheNumbers or CBSPressExpress or ABCMediaNet or anything else save for MSN TV before resorting to use of Pifeedback in anything i edit. For anyone wondering why i single out MSN TV it is because they have info weeks before the official press release for anything comes out from the relevant broadcaster. That makes it BIG TIME unreliable as it all goes back to an unknown source at _____ network. Given the sporadic publication of info by the LA Times and people only realising because of my comment a few days ago that ratings info is Nielsen's business and that getting all the data costs i fear that this is now moving toward the removal of all data on ratings. There comes a point where "ignore all rules" and "who the fuck wrote this policy" become the only champions of common sense on Wikipedia. For ratings that is likely a day or two away. Not having any ratings is the least beneficial move to make. Every show that was cancelled due to poor ratings would be subject to revision because then whatever data was used by the author of the newspaper article citing the cause for cancellation would be known to be coming from an unreliable source at its core and is really nothing more than published speculation being passed off as fact. If Nielson isn't reliable then BBM and BARB rightly go in the bin too. That takes out the USA, Canadian and the UK ratings. Then what becomes the point of episode lists. And let us not forget the season rankings and ratings are likewise also all unreliable and need would need to go. If it goes to all paid-for references being unacceptable then just delete the WMF and hang up a nice fair-use closed sign because all of the books used as references anywhere where paid for by someone. This may read a little dramatic but it is not improbable that someone will actually try this out. Worms, can of = opened delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 00:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you are delarious and lost when you wrote that, which by the way I agree with. Use other sources before Pifeedack. It sounds logical to me. Aussie? Also, just FYI for Aussie here, if that is the case, that would mean that the ratigns that list Pifeedback on the episode list now (wow just less than 10? this page is so unrelaible) should remain, because frankly, Betty Logan (pretty sure) and I, possibly others, have tried to find other numbers and have failed to do so. Chaos Master Chat 01:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverted page as per ANI discussion. Chaos Master Chat 02:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Somehow i mostly escaped the ANI thread and only found out about it a few minutes ago. What prompted me to look was the idea to use CBSPressExpress.com for the weekly press release with the final numbers or TheFutonCritic.com's reprint of the CBS press releases. TFC misses a press release once every 9 months or so but if you have the patience to read through A LOT of entries then you should find all of the numbers from one or the other. Aussie has expressed problems with accessing the CBS press site from Australia when we were over at NCIS LA so if that is still the situation then i guess use TFC's reprints of the releases. Just be careful as sometimes CBS releases the overnight numbers too. I mention this because ABC's comperable ABC Medianet is accepted as a source. It took me looking into it for other reasons and seeing Ghost Whisperer in the press releases to remember that GW was on CBS (brain freeze now melted). delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 07:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to TyDWiki for the older seasons's ratings however there is now one problem - Season 5 mixes overnights from TVByTheNumbers and finals from LA Times. Everything should be the finals, since they are available and all but s5 uses them exclusively. If someone wants to change the tvbtn's refs in s5 to the finals that would be sweet. I've done 3 ½ seasons' ratings elsewhere in this sitting and just need a break right now from ratings. Cheers delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 05:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That was my whole point of keeping Pifeedback or just putting N/A there.... Also, a few more episodes outside of season 5 do that also... Chaos Master Chat 13:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Webisodes?
Do we really need these in the article? Chaos Master Chat 15:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A lot of lists have them. I don't see why we shouldn't. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We should just mention them. The way it is now, its five tables with about 30 or less words each. We can easliy make a paragraph stating there were webisodes rather than listing all 5. Also, we should try to remove the references in the title, which you have to put in a link if you want to direct someone there. Chaos Master Chat 13:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My mistake, its four webisode series, not five. And Might I mention the references are IMDB, whixh is not a reliable source? Chaos Master Chat 13:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the episode summaries should be removed but there is probably a better way to present the data. References should not be included in titles so that's something else that needs to be fixed. You can always use anchor to get around linking problems. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try to fix the section when I can. If you disagree with anything, revert it and say so here. I don't intend to do anything drastic though. Chaos Master Chat 18:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't you copy the section to your userspace and play with it there. That way you can make as many changes as you want without interrupting the article. That's what I usually do. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Rebroadcast on Paramount network
Schedule of rebroadcast episodes? Free fall was last night and was listed as the first air time. 10/05/2021. Jplvnv (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)