Talk:List of Leverage episodes

Out of order Episodes
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Leverage provides the correct order. Will fix now. Flapjack727 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Official word here: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/02/leverage-second-david-job.html Flapjack727 (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edit has been reverted. What Rogers discusses on his blog (which Wikipedia considers an unreliable source) is the order he and writer Amy Berg think (by his own admission) was the original order they intended the episodes be broadcast.  Since the episodes weren't broadcast in that order, and even Rogers isn't sure what they've listed, which is for the DVD, is accurate, we must stick with the most reliable, and sensible order, which is the broadcast order. Drmargi (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Where does he say he's unsure what the original air order is? You quote "think" although doubt never appears in connection with the air order in any of his Leverage posts. The closest he comes is to write, "I think you can also track the season by Beth's evolving hair-style. Maybe we'll have a competition after the season finale. Figure out the original order based on dialogue and hairstyle, and win a prize!" It's pretty clear he knows what the intended order is. In the second david job post, he writes, "The intended air order, which should be the DVD order," followed by the intended air order.


 * Why, exactly, does the executive producer talking about his own work not qualify as a reliable source? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves Waiting until the DVD is released before making claims as to the order on the DVD is only sensible, but I see no reason why the stated, intended air order should not be included. Steve Checkoway (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * DVD is out now, so the correct order can be updated Flapjack727 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's advisable to listen to the DVD commentaries before you rush in headlong. The order on the DVD is not the correct intended order. Drmargi (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just got done watching "The Fairy Godparents Job" and given the timeline that the FBI agents mention (busting a meth operation during a bank robbery since they last saw Hardison and Parker), It's obvious that "The Bank Shot Job" comes after "The Wedding Job" like it does on the DVD set. The original airing order is all wrong. 99.48.224.237 (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We've established that the broadcast order was not what the producers intended, that Rogers and Berg attempted to reconstruct the originally planned broadcast order (given the show was shot out of order) to post on Rogers' blog, and that the DVD has two episodes reversed, further muddying the waters. The trouble is, aside from noting this somewhere on the article, this isn't really of much use to us. The table must be organized in the order the episodes were actually broadcast. Networks rearrange episodes all the time for a variety of reasons, and tables are always arranged by actual broadcast order. Drmargi (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Some shows that are more plot driven, or where the order has major impact on the show (like Firefly) it is chosen to change the main order to the intended order. But in this case it is fairly irrelevant to the story as a whole. It could be reflected in production codes but I have no source for those for Leverage and since many shows are shot out of order that might not be the case either.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 20:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's very relevant. The story arc around Nate's alcoholism and how the team deals with it makes a lot more sense when you watch them in the intended order. Since this is the order that a) the showrunner has repeatedly stated was how the arc was supposed to progress, and is b) the order that they appear on the DVD, it seems a little odd to insist on the broadcast order. nmw (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The function of the table is to simply report the episodes as/when broadcast, not to provide a running narrative. Putting the episodes other than broadcast order is confusing, and again, depends on Rogers' and Berg's list, which is admittedly the order they think was originally intended, an order that is contradicted by Dean Devlin on the DVD commentary.  That puts the reliability of the blog as a source squarely into question.  Better we note somewhere that they were broadcast out of order (which again, isn't uncommon) and leave well enough alone.  Drmargi (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Most episode lists, when the DVD order differs from the broadcast order, change it after the DVD is released to the DVD order as it is a more permanent and official version then how the broadcaster decided to air it.  X  eworlebi (t·c) 08:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Source for Ratings
Given the interest in posting ratings for the show here, I think there needs to be consensus at to what ratings are posted; overnight, Live + 3 Day or Live + 7 Day, each of which looks at a different viewing period. In the interest of consistency, I would argue the use of the ratings posted on the TVbythenumbers website be the standard. The blog occasionally use for ratings provides overnights, and doesn't figure in DVR viewers, not to mention the reliability issue that is associated with a blog. TVbythenubers is widely used here, and would seem to be the standard for relaible ratings numbers. Drmargi (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Placement of TOC
As I predicted, given the pattern of both editors elsewhere, we've got an edit war of the placement of the Table of Contents. I have reverted to the original form and am requesting discussion and consensus before any further edits take place. Drmargi (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Having a table of contents at all is of minimum utility. My first choice is to suppress it.  Second choice is to move it to the right where it fills otherwise unused space, at least down to a browser width of about 750px.  —EncMstr (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The TOC and series overview both give clickable links towards the seasons but the TOC gives more. Having them under each other creates unnecessary amounts of white space, and creates a repeat effect when scanning the page, which most do vertically rather than horizontally. Having them next to each-other improves the layout. I would however not choose to remove the TOC as it still provides quick links to References and External links, and users that are not that familiar with the series overview setup might find it easier to skip to each season with the TOC instead of the series overview. In case of a very short article that does cross the section limit to trigger the TOC might it be appropriate to suppress the TOC. It might be confusing to users who look for it and can't find it, especially if the page is as long as it is now, I for one still skip to sections using the TOC despite the section overview just out of habit.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 21:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Identifying multi-parters
Apparently having this discussion here somehow makes this discussion worthy of a normal response, after waiting on one for a month. Claiming it has to be done on the articles talk page or it is somehow not worthy is quite ridiculous. Especially if the discussion was initiated somewhere else long before an unknowing admin came by and requested discussion. Demanding discussion yet refusing to respond to the already existing one. The place of the discussion is not a valid excuse to refuse discussion. I fail to see how this is confusing, and not at all how someone would interpreter 13 "The First David Job" (Part 1), 14 "The Second David Job" (Part 2) as being four episodes. I hope that putting this on a different somehow "special" talk page finally will get you to engage.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 17:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Multi-parters are normally identified by adding "(Part 1)", "(Part 2)", … to the title. Resulting in, in this case; "The First David Job (Part 1)" and "The Second David Job (Part 2)" . This is how it is done, and has been done for years, going through peer reviews, good article reviews and featured article reviews without any objection and resulting in promotion. But for some reason these articles don't deserve the same treatment as featured article articles.
 * The initial opposition was that "(Part 1)" is not part of the title, while true, this is how it has been accepted and done for years now. Stating that putting it inside the quotes was inaccurate, which I understood but disagreed with, as it is a valid and widespread way to identify multi-part-episodes.
 * So someone who helped design the Episode list pointed out that, for such cases, RTitle can serve as a "Raw Title", and place "(Part 1)" outside the quotes. Resulting in "The First David Job" (Part 1) . A perfect solution to the problem that it wasn't part of the title itself. Problem solved!
 * Problem solved? No. Somehow the issue has shifted and it has become "confusing" and "misleading", stating that the column is named "Title" and that anything else in it can be somehow misinterpreted as being part of the title. If that was the case than the quotes themselves and the references can be misinterpreted as being part of the title. DirectedBy, WrittenBy, … don't have quotes around them, using the same logic that must mean that the quotes are part of the title. But that's just stupid. Putting "(Part 1)", … outside the quotes removes any misinterpretation, and is a perfect compromise as suggested by Ned Scott, who helped develop the Episode list template, and pointed out a build-in exception just for such cases.


 * You've had the opportunity to initiate this discussion for some time, and certainly should have done so when you made the first change the Castle title, so let's get down off the cross, stop the rhetoric designed to place the burden on solely me and knock off the uncivil oblique finger-pointing. Time to accept some responsibility for your role in this situation, particularly once you were directed to discuss by an Admin.  Moving on to the issue at hand...


 * I stand by my opinion that placement of (Part 1) or any such label in the table box, inside or outside of quotes, constitutes information that is part of the title. You contention that my rationale is inconsistent is silly  -- you changed the format, and I changed my response accordingly.  Taking the label out of the quotes doesn't entirely solve the problem; it's a "perfect compromise" only if your final objective is keeping the label in the box.  I simply moved that piece of information about the episode to the narrative, as the networks do in their descriptions of the episodes, and as I've suggested be done since my first revert ages ago.  It's still there, still clear as glass, and largely solves the problems I cited.  I find the argument that it's done the way you suggest elsewhere singularly unconvincing.  All that means is we have a widely accepted error, at least where American TV shows are concerned.  In standard American English, anything that falls inside quotes and/ore under the label TITLE is part of the title; the footnote number used for references being the lone exception.  Drmargi (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I initiated this discussion a month ago, you however, did not seem to think it was worthy enough for a second response. You keep repeating that an admin requested discussion, but fail to accept that the discussion was already in place, but you seemed not interesting in discussing this and just kept reverting. Without bothering to discuss in the already existing discussion. Using the excuse to not discuss this in the already excising discussion by stating that it has to be done here because and admin requested "Discuss it on the talk page.", not knowing that there was already a discussion in place on another page, nor specifying that it has to be the articles page, which you seem to use as an excuse.


 * Ned Scott changed the format. Pointing out that he helped design the template, and that RTitle doubles as a "Raw title" for just these cases. It is a perfect compromise, unless your only goal is to not reach one, addressing the valid point that it not part of the title. But still keeping it in the place it should be to easily identify multi-parters. You shifted your opposition from specifically stating; "part of title, as placement in quotes suggest it is", "under quotes, and those aren't the titles of the episodes", specifically stating that the problem was that it was under quotes. Which was elegantly solved by Ned Scott to satisfy both.
 * If you constitute everything, inside and outside the quotes to be part of the title, that must mean that you think the quotes themselves are part of the title as well, which of course is ridiculous. Putting it outside the quotes solves the only valid point you have made, that it might be mistaken as being part of the episode. Which when a compromise was made by Ned Scott you switched to being the entire cell.
 * Whether you like it or not Wikipedia is build on consensus. If a technique is in place and has been for a long time it reaches consensus, even if you think it is inaccurate. You should then try to change that before changing a wide spread and long time accepted manner of displaying information. You're not the all-knowing person on wikipedia, many editors have come before on multiple articles, some of them regular some GA, others FA, and have put "(Part 1)" etc. in the title box, where it should go, clearly defining episodes as multi-parters.
 * You appear to have claimed ownership of the article, thinking you are the only person who knows what it should be, ignoring long time standing ways. Refusing to reach a compromise, and not having it any other way than yours. Now even claiming it is how it is done in "standard American English", which is just ridiculous, if you have something between quotes only that is a part of it, otherwise there is no point in having quotes and everything; inside, outside and quotes themselves; would be part of it. And now even calling FA articles and long standing consensus "singularly unconvincing".
 * Your refusal to discuss this for a month and ignore longstanding consensus and now the refusal to reach a valid and fair compromise is staggering, and unexpected especially from you.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 18:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet again
An unusually well-informed IP editor who only appears when this edit is made, and use uses arguments very similar to an editor above, has reverted yet another attempt to remove Part 1 and Part 2, which are NOT part of the titles of the season finales, from those episodes. Removal is consistent with a box labeled TITLE containing the title of the episode, not incidental information that better belongs in the summary. It is nonsensical place this information where it implies it is part of the title: in the title box. This was hashed out at List of Castle episodes where they remain in the summary boxes. Drmargi (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many of us who choose not to have an account, and there is nothing wrong with that. You have done nothing but edit warring on this page.  Your argument makes no sense on site wide perspective.  And I have a dynamic IP address, like most people, and I have made more than just six edits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.36.146.83 (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Then how is it the same IP pops up every time you edit here? Or that you do not know to sign your posts?  Are you prepared to discuss, or just point fingers?


 * Returning to the point, your site-wide argument holds no water. Some titles carry Part 1, etc as part of the title, and belong in the title box.  The four episodes of Leverage do not; see also the discussion of the American English error that occurs when you label something Part 1 without a corresponding Part 2 under the same label.  That this may occur elsewhere does not necessarily constitute consensus; it simply suggests no one has challenged this erroneous use on a widespread basis.


 * The simple fact remains: Part 1 and Part 2 are not in the titles; they simply describe (mostly in informal terms used by the producers) the connected nature of the two episodes. In the case of First and Second David, the stories take place some time apart; in the case of both the S2 and S3 finales, they are separate stories and separate cons with common characters.  TNT does not label them Part 1 and Part 2.  Putting Part 1 and Part 2 in the summary conveys the same information without making the error of suggesting the labels are part of the episode title.  It's nonsensical to continue to revert a correction in order to retain an error, however commonplace it may be.  Drmargi (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * IP change, and they change not endlessly, there are ranges, and they return after time, this IP is not the only IP and I probably will have it again in the future, so far for how the internet works... I know how to sign my posts, but just as so many people I sometimes forget things. The simple fact that actually remains is site wide consensus and it is not your single narrow minded view. As you have probably intentionally done so, you have not responded to the respond above this new discussion. One can only wonder why. In addition to the points made in the previous discussion which you have dropped after a response and then started edit warring again after some time to cover your tracks. I bring up this, do you remove the "Story by" and "Teleplay by" from the "Written by" columns (not here because that hasn't happened yest here) because you think that "Story by" is a writer? No-one does because of the exact same reason as this, common sense. 174.36.146.83 (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not common sense at all. Moreover, what's done in another column isn't germane because the two aren't analogous.  It's fascinating how like another editor's argumentation style yours is: instead of sticking to the point, you attempt to use diversionary tactics to make this about me in a limp attempt at putting me on the defensive.  Stick to the point. You have yet to make a solid argument why the labels go in the title boxes when they work just as well, and correct an American English error (two, really) in the summary box.  Drmargi (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My argument is consensus trough editing and, well, again, common sense. This is not an error, in American English, Klingon, or any other language. How about you actually come up with a reason why you like to initiate this edit warring behavior over and over and over again that is not "That's not how I do it, screw common sense" hey look this is not in quotes, would it be part of the thing in quotes, not at all = common sense. This page now presents a dozen or so valid reasons and comparisons why this has been done and has been accepted so. You have just refuted them by not responding, irrelevant and not comparable. The only argument, well, more of a statement, from you is that you don't like that and don't possess the same common sense as the rest of wikipedia. 174.36.146.83 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Same problem. Not one solid reason to retain the edit as is, nor any meaningful refutation of my arguments, just more attempts to make it about me.  There's a definite echo in here.  You clearly have no intention of discussing in good faith, and you so-called common sense "argument" (which isn't common sense at all) is gossamer-thin, and doesn't cover every edit you care to make.  I've provided several clearly articulated reasons why the Part 1 and 2 labels are both questionable and erroneous.  I've yet to see one solid argument in response, just an attempt to keep this spinning in circles.  I've begun to suspect what we have here is a SPA.  What we don't have is an editor willing to work toward any resolution of the problem.  Drmargi (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look at some of these previous "discussions" on this by you, besides that you never respond more than once, and there are multiple editors who have attempted a compromise, you have refused all and continued edit warring. You agree that it is a two parter, otherwise you wouldn't put it in at all, so that's out of the way. You said it was not part of the title, so it was moved outside the quotes. There have been made compromises but you keep refusing. The only thing that remains is why don't you get that what is outside the quotes is not part of the title. And I don't know why, that to me is common sense. Either everything in the column is part of the title including quotes or it is not, meaning that what is outside the quotes is not part of the title and is just like in the "Written by" column. You keep saying that I'm trying to make this about you, which it is because you're the only one refusing to accept site wide consensus. 174.36.146.83 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And still you refuse to get to the point. Instead you thrum on and on about old arguments in which you were not involved.  That's very odd.  And entirely off-point.  As for the quotes, inside or outside of quotes, you're still putting information that is descriptive in a box labeled title, thus implying the title includes Part 1 or Part 2.  The quotes would only surround the actual title, regardless.  Based on Rogers and Devlin's comments on the DVD's, I accept these are informally viewed as two-parters.  That's not the same as listing their titles with the labels Part 1 and Part 2.  TNT's listing makes it clear that is incorrect.  I've provided three reasons now why it is incorrect.  You have yet to address why it is correct, just skirted the issue and dredged up history as though you're bearing a grudge.  Drmargi (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please list those 3 reasons, because all I see is you refusing consensus, not having common sense and edit warring, laying low, and edit warring again. I have no clue why you don't get that its either everything or not everything, if they are outside the quotes then they are not part of the title point. if they would be the quotes would be also part of the titles, which if you would have the slightest form of common sense you would know they aren't. And I can't use the same valid arguments that others made before me which you just ignored? What kind of reasoning is that? The reason why this is correct is because they are two parters, which you agree with! and just like on other articles this is shown directly next to the title for clarity and consistency with two parters that do have it in the quotes when it is part of the title. 74.118.192.159 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to read two things: first, this discussion, because my arguments are clearly articulated.  Second WP:CONSENSUS.  You do not "refuse" consensus, moreover, consensus is neither fixed nor global, despite your attempts to cast it as such.  I have the right to challenge consensus at any time.  I don't agree that there is consensus for the edit you you persist on enforcing; common practice and consensus are not the same thing.  You might also want to read up on tendentious editing, which reasonable describes your pattern of edits on this IP as well as the other one you are using to for block evasion.  Drmargi (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue of multi-part episodes was discussed at Talk:List of Castle episodes with very little resolution. A major contributor to Episode list made some suggestions as to how multiple parts should be handled and I provided examples there of how the various options looked. The main thrust was that as (Part x) is not part of the title it shouldn't be inside the quotes, something that is easily handled using the "RTitle" field. However, the response I received when I raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television was that parts shouldn't be included at all. While opinions may differ, the one thing that is certain is that "(Part x)" should not be inside the quotes unless it is actually part of the title. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The only argument from you (Drmargi) is not having the common sense to see what is clearly part of the title and what is not. You might want to read up on those yourself, as well as this image, you made an edit, it was reverted, you went straight to edit warring, some time ago a compromise was made and still you went to edit warring. And every once in a while you try again but fail to change consensus again. Common practice is based on a long standing site wide consensus trough editing, that's how it became common practice, if it wasn't accepted it would never have reached the common practice status. And yes, you have the right to challenge consensus at any time, but not to force your view down everyone's throat with your waves of edit warring, which is not establishing new consensus at all.
 * Exactly AussieLegend, so lets stick to common practices for the rest and use some common sense when interpreting. 74.118.192.159 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As AussieLegend stated, the response from Project Television was that parts shouldn't be included at all. They're not part of the title, position inside and outside of the quotes is meaningless.  Part 1 and Part 2 are not part of the title; they simply describe the informal relationship between two episodes and have no business in the title box.  Moreover, by your standard, the edit in place, which removed the Part #s to the summary and included the clarified headings, should stand until consensus is reached.


 * By persisting in uncivil and tendentiously approaching this discussion, as well as making accusations of edit warring when you, yourself are guilty of that (and more), you open yourself up to scrutiny. I find it fascinating that two different IPs in two different states are discussing in almost the same words, making the same points, and making the same spelling errors. Drmargi (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * wow, you really need to check what dynamic IP's are dude, they're dynamic, same person here. By my standard what's currently is in place is correct (duh) and should stay like that just like it was before you started your Xth attempt for an edit war. Again just like "Story by" and "Teleplay by" describe the information, and they're perfectly correct there just like it has been and is perfectly correct here. And you can go ahead and say that they're completely different columns and that just because we capitalize the first word in every sentence that that doesn't mean that we should do it for this special magic sentence. It's like you just scratch your eyes out and refuse to even make an attempt on common sense. "Hello here" is a quote, "is a quote" is not part of it. It can't be any simpler than that. As far as previous discussions go, no new consensus was reached and no-one agreed/agrees with your view at all. Here's a simple how to list:
 * Is it a two parter? Yes
 * Is it done so everywhere? Yes
 * Is something outside quotes part of the thing inside quotes? No
 * Do people have common sense? Yes (in your case No)
 * Has anyone ever agreed with you at any point? Yes (in your case No)
 * Will I attempt this yet again? Not applicable (in your case Yes)
 * Do I want to start yet another edit war over my lack of common sense and failing to persieve what and descriptive information is? No (well in your case Yes)
 * Again another comment completely not contributing to the discussion from your end and twisting every word like an upset housewife. You have already shown that you have no intent to even consider a compromise as one was elegantly provided by a very well respected editor from the episode list template as AussieLegend said. 74.118.192.159 (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you tone down your responses. Keep comments civil and don't attack other editors as you're doing. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, having taken a breather, it's clear the editor and his various sockpuppets are unwilling to discuss in good faith. The edit has been reverted to the place where it was when the discussion broke down, which is where it should have stayed to begin with, had it not been changed by yet another too-convenient IP editor.  The argumentation style of the various IP's/accounts is entirely the same, and entirely focused on attempts to put me on the defensive and demand compromise that ignores any option other than in or out of quotes.  The DVD for Leverage S1 and Leverage S2 do not identify the episodes as Part 1 and Part 2, nor does TNT.  Those are two reliable sources that any such labeling is inappropriate.  I'm at least willing to compromise by leaving the designation in the summary, where such information typically appears in most TV media.  This time, I've formatted the part designation in the fashion used by TV Guide, the definitive American television magazine/website, and TitanTV, the web service that supplies episode summaries to American cable and satellite broadcasters, a third reliable source.  I repeat once again, the "commonsense" argument makes no sense at all, and "that's what everyone does" simply is an excuse to repeat one of two gross and widely repeated errors among television articles (the other labeling broadcast codes as production codes).  Any way you slice it, weighing common practice in TV media and three reliable sources against the thin (and self-serving) "commonsense" argument tips the scales heavily in the favor of removing the labels from the title box.  Drmargi (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And predictably, we have yet another new IP editor entering the fray. Figures. That's some remarkable dynamic IP that manages to bounce from Belgium to Holland to Illinois to Pennsylvania and now to the Czech Republic.  Drmargi (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong, you changed it, and then started the discussion, I've put it back to it's place when this discussion started. Yet another attempt at starting an edit war and blaming me for it, ignoring any discussion and previous common practice and thus consensus trough editing and just doing it your way anyway. And there is nothing surprising about the same person using the same argumentation style over multiple DYNAMIC IP addresses, but you seem to not even understand what a dynamic IP is, or you try to your very best to ignore it. You appear to have never wanting to discus this but just attempting to push your view trough by single responses and running away, and trying again some time later, and now again just editing the page to suit your view on how it should be done, even when no-one else agrees with that way. Now saying you want to compromise by doing exactly what you did in the first place, which is not compromising at all, an attempt on comprising this was made by a well respected editor in this field as AussieLegend said but you have to have it your way at any cost. 93.185.104.30 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No one editor has any greater power than another. We can take that editor's opinion under advisement, but as I said way back when this all started above, that editor has no ownership over the template, and cannot dictate its application.  You're also conveniently ignoring the discussion on Project Television that says the part labels DON'T BELONG THERE AT ALL.  That's consensus, my friend, not imposing the will of one editor.  Drmargi (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No but some people have more respect than others, mostly those who don't constantly get into edit wars like you. And you should go read up on what consensus is, because no new one was reached at Project television. 93.185.104.30 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And you need to read up on the use of WP:VANDALISM. You arguments have crumbled, you're hiding behind one IP after another rather than use your account, you persist in avoiding the issue, and you remain the pot calling the kettle black.  The fact remains the weight of reliable sources and Project Television is in my favor, and you are editing tendentiously rather than acknowledge the placement of the part designations in the title box is, by any measure, WRONG. Drmargi (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ?, I don't have an account, and never had one, and you don't need an account to edit on wikipedia, and it is completely acceptable by wikipedia standards to not have an account, and there is no benefit to having an account. You are under the false impression that the rest of wikipedia weighs in your favor when it clearly, if you go look at some other more respected episode lists, isn't. All my arguments stand, identifying a multi-part episode is accepted as well as in frequent use, and is only by your view wrong, the rest of us will go on contributing to wikipedia instead of trying to use the no-account choice of editors as an argument to why you think you are right and everybody else on wikipedia, over numerous, well respected and large television show projects, is wrong. 93.185.104.30 (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's not on the DVD version, why put it here? I say putting it in the summary is a great compromise. Bt109 (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Link to Jonathan Frakes as director
The references to Jonathan Frakes as director should link to his page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Frakes Martinatime (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The first occurrence of his name is linked. See WP:REPEATLINK for why it isn't linked more often. tedder (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Nate's imprisonment, etc.
I've just reverted a series of edits that change the term Leverage "team" to "crew" without any explanation, nor edit summaries. While I can see crew is a more clever term, we're not writing press summaries here, and the show doesn't call them a crew; it refers to them as a team. Absent any discussion or edit summaries justifying the changes, I've reverted them. I've also reverted, twice, an edit that indicates Nate will be returned to prison if he fails to find Damien Moreau. This is inaccurate -- the Italian was quite clear he would be imprisoned in Italy, going so far as to describe the medieval nature of his incarceration, and the rest of the team would be killed. Drmargi (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Quit removing my edits
Drmargi, Please stop removing my edits. Many if episode lists include the guest star's names. I and many readers appreciate this information whe we review episodes lists to know which guest stars are appearaing in which episodes. --Gregory Wonderwheel (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * it's any editor's prerogative to revert an edit. Once you've been reverted, the practice is to discuus, not revert again. To your credit, you did start this discussion.
 * I don't think cast add anything, and this is not TV Guide. I find the "hitter", etc. additions particularly fancrufty, particularly when included in as grammatically incorrect a sentence as it was. If you feel differently, please make you case, and work toward consensus.  Drmargi (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Broadcast dates
I recently updated the episode details to reflect the TNT press release containing episode titles and broadcast dates. The press release includes ten titles, including two out of production order, and broadcast dates through July. I removed the Futon Critic as source, and any broadcast dates sourced to them, limiting dates to those provided by TNT. It would seem abundantly clear that if the network's press release (which was published the date I downloaded it, and which the network keeps up-to-date) only includes dates through July, that this is as far as the episodes have been scheduled. Moreover, I question where Futon Critic has gotten its broadcast dates; they are unsourced, their list includes numerous corrections to earlier broadcast dates, and that calls the accuracy of the dates into question -- it seems far more reasonable they are projecting what they believe to be likely broadcast dates.

Now another editor has restored the remaining FC dates, suggesting they were "withheld" from the press release. It's an interesting assumption, for which he/she provides no evidence, but that's all it is. Unquestionably, when FC comes into conflict with the network that broadcasts the show, it's the network that would be the final source. That's established practice here (see discussions on episodes articles for shows such as Doctor Who or Burn Notice, where titles are eagerly sought, for example.) Consequently, I have reverted the restoration of the FC dates by another editor and restored the list to reflect the contents of the TNT press release, which I believe is the most reliable source we have available to us. I would argue that, although the FC is an accepted source, it is not as reliable source as many believe it to be, given it provides no sourcing for its projected broadcast dates, which were published long before TNT announced dates beyond premiere dates for any of its shows, and may simply be estimating them. Rather, the TNT press release is definitive, and makes clear we do not yet have broadcast dates past the final episode in July. Drmargi (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Winter opening episode
Futon Critic is erroneously reporting the Winter, 2011 season opener for Leverage is "The Experimental Job." This is the result of an error made on the Summer, 2011 press release, naming the season finale as "The Experimental Job" rather than the "The Queen's Gambit Job". Moreover, the writing and direction credits are incorrect, having also come from "The Queen's Gambit Job." Unless TNT makes a change, the season opener is titled "The Girls' Night Out Job" and is linked to a second episode titled "The Boys' (or Guys') Night Out Job". At present "The Experimental Job" should run fourth in the winter schedule, based on production order.

This raises a constant concern I have about Futon Critic. I find as a rule that editors are far to accepting of what is published in Futon Critic. It's common practice that they project dates based not on what can be verified by the networks or by press released, but based on what they believe will happen. Thus, the frequent corrections. This error is a case in point -- TNT has not released the winter episode dates or titles as yet, and they're assuming the opener's title. Drmargi (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Links to John Rogers' blog Q&As
I would find it useful to have an well organized list of links to the Q&A posts the writer, John Rogers, made on his blog, Kung Fu Monkey. Therefore, I shall make such a list below. If other editors feel it would be useful/approrpriate to add it to the article, please do so! -- JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The actual list was removed (for the 4th time) by Drmargi in this edit)


 * That's not what this talk page is for, and this is bound to be reverted in short order. I'd suggest that, instead, you take it to the Leverage Wikia (http://leverage.wikia.com/wiki/Leverage_wiki), set up a page there, and post your list.  They'd probably be glad to have it.  --Drmargi (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be ... un-amused by someone having the temerity to revert a talk page discussion. But hey, I'm an old-fogy. Regarding adding it to the Leverage Wikia -- that certainly would be a good place to put it, but I, personally, don't wish to edit there (the ads make my browser cry). JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the approriateness of compiling a list of relevant sources on the talk page of an article on the topic -- well, I think that should be pretty clear... JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverted attempt to remove this entire discussion, based on a citation to an inapplicable policy (WP:NOTFORUM). If you really want to argue that the posts by the showrunner answering questions about the show are not appropriate to discuss as possible sources -- feel free to try, but removing the discussion is plainly unacceptable. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * An actually relevant section of the guidelines is WP:TALK, specifically the sections titled "Deal with facts" and "Share material". The links above are possible sources, fully appropriate to be discussed in the talk page of the article in which they may be used. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted 2nd attempt by the same user to delete this entire discussion -- without even the courtesy of a rationale (other than a edit summary still referring to the same link I already pointed out was not applicable). Drmargi, did you even read the comments I left above, pointing out the relevant guidelines, and why providing possible sources for an article is exactly what a talk page is intended for? JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted 3rd attempt by the same user to enforce her desire to remove this entire discussion (including her own comments). Even though she's still unwilling to actually discuss this on the talk page (apparently) she at least gestured toward a new shortcut this time: WP:LINKSPAM (while still claiming, without explaining why, that WP:NOTFORUM applies). Unfortunately, she neglected to actually explain why she thinks WP:LINKSPAM applies -- and, as best as I can see, it doesn't. The closest relevant text appears to be this, under the Source Solicitation section:
 * Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article. The current consensus on Wikipedia is that templates, categories and other forms of anonymous solicitation are inappropriate.

But, while my original comment above does seem to be an instance of a "source solicitation", it is neither anonymous, nor done via a template or category. Instead, it is specific to this page, and relevant to the topic. If Drmargi would stop erasing the discussion, we could hopefully move on to an actual substantive conversation of what uses Roger's Q&A posts might have, whether they satisfy Reliable sources, and so forth. I look forward to such a discussion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for finally consenting to leave the discussion, if not the actual list, visible. Also, thank you for gesturing to yet another shortcut: WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- maybe this one will actually apply... Hm. Not so much. Beyond the fact that it is aimed at article content, not talk page discussions, it actually supports the selective inclusion in the article of material drawn from Roger's Q&As, as they often do touch on "the reception and significance" of Leverage, and particular episodes thereof. Even so, while I still think the list is appropriate to be on this talk page, I'm content with having it be findable via the links above, until and unless someone has particular items they want to discuss. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on List of Leverage 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/07/14/the-closer-tops-cable-shows-cnns-jackson-memorial-scores-big/22800/comment-page-3/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/07/28/burn-notice-the-closer-nascar-top-weeks-cable-shows/23699

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of Leverage 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/20121020061836/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/12/09/nfl-drake-josh-the-librarian-wwe-raw-and-leverage-lead-weekly-cable-viewing/9385/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/12/09/nfl-drake-josh-the-librarian-wwe-raw-and-leverage-lead-weekly-cable-viewing/9385
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090807220112/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/08/04/the-closer-burn-notice-royal-pains-top-weeks-cable-shows/24119 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/08/04/the-closer-burn-notice-royal-pains-top-weeks-cable-shows/24119
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709173557/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/09/09/cable-ratings-football-nascar-wwe-raw-lead-weekly-cable-viewing/26551 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/09/09/cable-ratings-football-nascar-wwe-raw-lead-weekly-cable-viewing/26551
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625013520/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/22/sunday-cable-ratings-leverage-true-blood-army-wives-drop-dead-diva-much-more/54986 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/22/sunday-cable-ratings-leverage-true-blood-army-wives-drop-dead-diva-much-more/54986
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701161130/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/29/sunday-cable-ratings-leverage-true-blood-army-wives-drop-dead-diva-much-more-2/55723 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/29/sunday-cable-ratings-leverage-true-blood-army-wives-drop-dead-diva-much-more-2/55723
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715074543/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/07/13/sunday-cable-ratings-true-blood-leverage-kate-plus-8-much-more/57007 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/07/13/sunday-cable-ratings-true-blood-leverage-kate-plus-8-much-more/57007
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100729143034/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/07/27/sunday-cable-ratings-true-blood-entourage-the-glades-kourtney-khloe-more/58344 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/07/27/sunday-cable-ratings-true-blood-entourage-the-glades-kourtney-khloe-more/58344
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100805013622/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/03/sunday-cable-ratings-the-glades-rises-true-blood-hits-a-3-0-adult-18-49-rating-much-more/58982 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/03/sunday-cable-ratings-the-glades-rises-true-blood-hits-a-3-0-adult-18-49-rating-much-more/58982
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819040314/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/17/sunday-cable-ratings-true-blood-kourtney-the-glades-slips-more/60212 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/17/sunday-cable-ratings-true-blood-kourtney-the-glades-slips-more/60212
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100903181956/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/31/sunday-cable-ratings-more-records-for-true-blood-the-glades-rubicon-mad-men-kardashians-more/61706 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/31/sunday-cable-ratings-more-records-for-true-blood-the-glades-rubicon-mad-men-kardashians-more/61706
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60InnwDHB?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/07/19/sunday-cable-ratings-true-blood-slips-falling-skies-steady-breaking-bad-leverage-in-plain-sight-the-glades-more/98316/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/07/19/sunday-cable-ratings-true-blood-slips-falling-skies-steady-breaking-bad-leverage-in-plain-sight-the-glades-more/98316/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120908072110/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/09/05/sunday-cable-ratings-nascar-wins-night-breaking-bad-keeping-up-with-the-kardashians-leverage-hell-on-wheels-married-to-jonas-more/147079/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/09/05/sunday-cable-ratings-nascar-wins-night-breaking-bad-keeping-up-with-the-kardashians-leverage-hell-on-wheels-married-to-jonas-more/147079/

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) 13:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Leverage 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/20120508043113/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/12/16/monday-night-football-wwe-raw-and-spongebob-lead-weekly-cable-viewing/9696 to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/12/16/monday-night-football-wwe-raw-and-spongebob-lead-weekly-cable-viewing/9696
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013233507/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/12/23/nfl-wwe-raw-and-undercover-christmas-lead-weekly-cable-viewing/9945/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/12/23/nfl-wwe-raw-and-undercover-christmas-lead-weekly-cable-viewing/9945

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) 03:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)