Talk:List of Merlin episodes

Season 2
It was revealed at a BFI preview screening that season 2 will air soon and that episode 1 is called The Curse of Cornelius Sigan, as well as the director, writer, episode summary and etc. Should this be added or not? It seems as if it was removed. Regarding sources, the only thing I have is lots of people attending the screening and then scans of the pamphlet that was handed out. Anotherdance (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Until bbc annocue it in ther elisting no it can not be added as it can not b sourced.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Specials
The Children in Need special should be listed between series 1 and 2 since this is (more or less) when it was broadcast. Andrewcrawford is diputing this, suggesting that all specials (although there is only one, with no guarantee of more) should be listed separately, providing two non-drama episode lists as support for his argument. The following articles suggest that specials should listed in chronological order alongside regular episodes: List of The League of Gentlemen episodes, List of Doctor Who serials (see List of Torchwood episodes and List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials as well), List of Jonathan Creek episodes, List of The Royle Family episodes, List of Gavin & Stacey episodes, List of Outnumbered episodes, List of My Family episodes, List of Only Fools and Horses episodes, List of Blackadder episodes and List of Not Going Out episodes.

Listing the episodes in this way is far easier for the reader to understand, otherwise they are required to place the episodes themselves by checking the airdates. Thoughts? (Pdb781 (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC))


 * There is another special at he end of this month but that is another matter, i will provide more details why they should be serperate later on today hopefully, i have no obecjtion to it being intbetween series 1 and 2 but it as more gets added then it doe snot flwo right and people will find it hard to follow. the best example will be list of time team episodes, it has been fixed now but i will dig out the history one and you will see how bad it was.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 09:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Time Team had about 50 specials. It's a factual programme. This is a drama series which, to date, has had 1 special. And it's not easier for readers to understand. How is non-chronological order easier? -- Pdb781 (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the majopr problem peopel think the chrongical order is mroe important but time team epsiode proves chrongial order can be obtained without need to make loads of links to evrything not part of series-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that made no sense. Are you suggesting that every episode guide with specials should be put in non-chronological order because it means there's fewer headings? And Time Team is irrelevant. It's a factual programme which is predominantly broadcast as specials. This isn't. -- Pdb781 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Time team is not broadcast as specials, in fact until series 4 or 5 there was no special and even then there was maybe only a few for 3-4 years then ever since there is special either int he middle of the series and after. The reason time team was done the way it is because laods of peopel complained about havign loads of heading makign the page unreadable. Ok i agree it wont make htis oen unreable as there maybe be about 5 heading for now but lets say the show goes for 20 series and has about 30 specials then it would be in the same boat, i think it better makign the layout better for readers to follow but keep the chrongical date order which has been achived on time team. all you do is make sur ehte epsiode number follow the chrongical order but the headings follow a more flowing order for readers to make it easier ot follow, and heading it put in the lead to say the epsiode numbers follow the chrongical date order. The problem is people are to use to following one policy but negelect others, each policy has it own merit but the artilce att the end of the day are to be accurate and deliver the material in way that readers find easy to follow. i being dsylexic find it really harder to follow when there multi heading just so you follow chrongical order for specials. There is other list that do the same and most people prefer them that way. One question which is most important... The user experaince ability to not stop reading a article or to make only one wikipedia policy is obeyed?. By the way i agree with you total on chrongical order i just disagree hugely on how to do it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I will post the before and after of time team so you can see wha ti am meaning tomorrow i have a 1 week old baby to look after jsut now.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is time team back in april after the table of cotents was tweaked to make it a little better here is this is time team before the table of content was tweak  and this is it now  and this is how peopel like it it is easier ot follow and nvaigate which is what MOS states a aritcle should do. and the way it is now it still follow chrongical order ir date order jsut the tables are nto in order but the episode numebrs are-- Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, lets clear things up here, the word "chronological" means "arranged in the order of time". Listing series 1 (2008), then series 2 (2009), and then a special broadcast in 2008 is not chronological order.


 * And please stop using Time Team as support for your argument. It's completely irrelevant and not helping you at all. There is only one way to present this page in chronological order, and you are preventing that. You seem to think that non-chronological order is easier to understand, but it's precisely the opposite as it requires the reader to scroll up and down the page to compare airdates. You also claim that "most people" prefer specials to be listed separately. Not only have you got no evidence to support this, you have also provided no drama series episode guides as examples to support your argument.


 * You are altering this page based on personal preference and making it inconsistant with the format of other drama series episode guides. If and when Merlin produces dozens of specials, then we can consider listing them separately. But not before. -- Pdb781 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tiem team is valid argument and the people dnt look oh lets look for airdates people looka t the episodes and read them and scrolling up down for airdates is the same arguement for scrolling up down jsut read the series information, why should i provide shows that have done it people prefer the easier readomg and have a serperate for each special is totally dumb and against MOS so provide mea reason otehr than MOS than is more improtant tahn viewe reading-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The specials shoul be placed at the bottom of the episode list. Just like Heroes, all the webisodes (etc) are at the bottom of the list. The mini special, like the children in need, is something irrelivant and has no plot to the Merlin storyline, so should be no where near between series one and two. Does this really need to start an argument? Just leave it as it is. It's not a broad as Doctor Who (which yes... add's it's specials in the list, because it's relivant to the storyline). And to be honest, the children in need special isn't really a special at all. It's more of a spoof. Goku1st (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Splitting Summary & DVD table
Because of Andrewcrawford double splitting: Is it really necessary to have two tables; one with the premier and finale and one with the DVD releases? Most shows put this info together. I would choose to put them back together like they where.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 20:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I acutalyl thought the same as you until i was doign work on list of hosue episode and foudnt hat a lot of feature list have them split which is acutally far easier to read and udnerstand, the summary shoudl also cover season ratings as well which i plan to add later-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lancelot and Guinevere (Merlin)
FYI. Ikip (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul
I plan to spend maybe 3-6 hours outside work tiem to bring the article up to feature list status. I will also add in new informaiton and covert some of the way it is just now i will also solit out the season to there own article and transclude the informaiton back here. and add referene for everything i vcan an di will updat ethe lead. if someone can come along behind me and fix speel and rammer error si will be grateful-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't see your post before I pressed submit. Do you have that much production info for both seasons to split them off into their own articles? I have no problem with helping you but it'll have to wait 12h then, you can of course go ahead and if someone else helps out in the mean time than thats of course fine with me.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 00:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yip there enoguh produciton information esicpally season 1, splitting is more for neatness-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then by all means go ahead, I've basically nothing to do for the next week so I'll watch the page and improve where I see fit.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 11:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry not done any work yet work has took it toll on me but now i am starting to get itno the swing of things hopefuly i can start in the next few weeks

Ratings
i purpose as pasrt of the overhauk to merge the rating here as oper mos and other featured lists-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Merlin: Secrets and Magic
I don't find it necessary to have a page supported with no references stand alone on Wikipedia. If anything at all, I feel we should merge it with this article or get deleted completely. Coments, supporters, opposers? Chaos Master Chat 00:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the only thing that should be kept from there is the website which we can put in the external links here and on the main article. Chaos Master Chat 02:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Started discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merlin: Secrets and Magic. Chaos Master Chat 17:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes to this section and related articles are horrible.
There used to be good information about the show and the episodes here, but now everything has been deleted by some idiot for whatever lame ass reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.175.179 (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that I don't understand the reasoning behind the mass removal and you would think if someone were going to make such sweeping changes, they'd document it better or start a discussion about it. Joeyconnick (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a bold move, you can just object it and undo the redirects, but you should improve the articles with some real world information otherwise they'll probably be nominated for deletion and deleted after all.  X  eworlebi (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I made the changes because there were 26 pages that had a maximum of 5 sources (most between 2 and 4). Why should we have an article for EVERY 26 episodes? Theres absolutely no reason for it at all. There was nothing original in any article, just a 6 paragraph plot that I incorperated into this episode list. Chaos Master Chat 15:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I just see it as part of the ongoing bias against modern-day pop culture articles. TV episode articles and TV character articles are particularly vulnerable, while every little bit of minutae about Shakespeare or Holmes is covered in great detail. If Wikipedia was contemporary to those "franchises" we'd be seeing mass deletions of character and story/play articles too. Wikipedia needs an update of what it considers a reputable source. It's unlikely many print sources will ever exist for Merlin articles because it has the bad luck of existing in an era where all this information is instead being compiled for fan websites and things like the Merlin Wikia site. But except in very rare cases, these sources are frowned upon, if not outright disqualified, by Wikipedia. Unfair bias, and an example of WP:NPOV violation any time someone expresses a personal opinion as to the value of an article. If policy forbids, then that's one thing. 68.146.62.94 (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It happens with all tv epsiode articles th are not notable, ie for example the pilot of a show is notable, the pokemon epsiode that caused siezuires and was abnned worldwide, the shows 500th episode might eb consider notable, if the episode receive some sort of news coverage for some reoasn it might be notable but everything els eis jsut fans want a page for the each epsiode which isnt goign ot happen they are going oe by pne-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 09:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the point I was trying to make is that there's still an element of "picking and choosing" going on. I've run into this on occasion where I've been researching a book series, or a series of films, and I encounter gaps where an entry in a series is omitted as not being notable enough. So the who argument of "all or none" arises. The preponderance of fan websites and fan wikis (including the Wikia site devoted to Merlin) is really irrelevant. The World Book never skipped over topics simply because Britannica covered them. And Wikia sites tend to be more fannish and less NPOV too (I use this argument when someone suggests deleting all Wikipedia articles related to Star Trek because of the existence of the Memory Alpha wiki). A compromise has been reached wherein you get episode list charts appearing (as in this article). But then you run into the anti-list cabal. Probably the most frustrating thing is, NPOV be damned, opinion on Wikipedia seems to change regularly depending on the whim of the vocal minority of the day. I used to be an administrator here but I got so fed up I now only do edits as an anonymous IP, and far less frequently than I used to. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * i believ ethe notable guideance is flawwed myself but i also see the point of other why havea page on every episode not even the top shows are that good to command that but they get it but projects are now closing them

i beiev notableit so be based on wether it warrants a article or wether it not big enough-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoever deleted ALL OF THE EPISODE SUMMARIES does NOT know what an online encyclopedia is about. This is NOT about what YOU think is relevant or interesting. It's a DOCUMENTATION of information some feel is important. How many BOOKS of doubtful value have summaries? If Chaosmaster did that, is there a way to report it and have it sanctioned? PVarjak (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we get that information back? Each ep. doesn't need it's own PAGE, but those summaries could have been incorporated into a Season Summary page. PVarjak (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * it is a short sumamry ntoa plot episode pages are not notable-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't be serious. How many other TV series have individual pages for each episode?  Many of them!  Do you know where those detailed synopses are?  If you oppose putting them back here (with which it seems most people disagree), can you give me the links where those synopses were pulled from?  PVarjak (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Episode summaries could use some work, but keep then 100–200 (305 max) words. "Pulling" synopses will be most likely a copyright violation.  X  eworlebi (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with PVarjak; the current descriptions of the episodes are unhelpful when looking for information on the plot. They would not need to be longer, really, just better. For example, the current summary for episode 3.6 reads: "Princess Elena arrives in Camelot to visit Uther. Uther arranges a marriage between Arthur and Elena, but her nanny Grunhilda is working with the Sidhe Elder, who plans to use this marriage to take over Camelot. Will Merlin be able to stop their wicked plan or will Arthur make the biggest mistake of his life?" - this reads like an advert, rather than a report of the contents. Perhaps something like: "Uther arranges for Arthur to marry Princess Elena, not knowing that she is under the influence of the Sidhe via her Nanny, Grunhilda. Merlin and Gaius expel the Sidhe inside Elena and convince Arthur to call off the wedding." It's not an entirely accurate summary (I can't remember the episode fantastically well) but that style would perhaps be more helpful? Anyone who can think of a more effective way to present the information, go ahead, this was just my best shot at it. 79.67.87.166 (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Series 4 information outdated
The article still has Series 4 airing in the fall of 2011. A few months back it was announced it's being held till 2012 due to the decision to split Doctor Who into spring and fall seasons. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

With regards to this "information" about series 4 being held back: was this not entirely the invention of Digital Spy? They have no source for saying it's being held over until 2012, and looking at their articles it looks suspiciously like that's their assumption and not fact. Given that we now have Colin Morgan saying it's airing in the Autumn as usual, I think we should remove the information about series 4 possibly airing in 2012. Cwmxii (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

the link on the last sentace of this (link 10) says that CM confirmed the air time, but the article linked has no mention of this. (I am not an experd. can anyone fix) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.96.114 (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

home media release
i think ti time teh seires overview has the dvd releases and now blu-ray split out to serperate section wont take much work

In addition to these box set there has been Series 1 volume 1 on and series 1 volume 1 on 9 February 2009 released in the uk. Season 1, 2, 3 where not produced in hd so have not hada blu-ray release.

this was format i think suit it best-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the format you used here, but the table looks pretty crowded, is there anyway to simplify the information here at all? To make it easier for the reader to comprehendBeefcake6412 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * it will takea bit of tweeking feel free to anybody to edit the above table i made to try get better one, the way i think would be best is to split out the volumes and just talk about them ina serperate paragraph below the table similar how you talk about maybe series 1-3 boxset etc-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * tweeked it a bit also added a paragraph under the tbale-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a comment, I think that the number of discs is unnecessary. DonQuixote (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * just copied it from another tv list that is a feature list but no reason why it has to be there jsut additonal information, im happy to remove it if that was the consesus of how to maek the table was without the discs coloum-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Series 5
Why is there a section on the 5th series when there are no episodes in that series yet? This page is an episode list. Shouldn't we just have a referral to another article at most? Thanks, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 01:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * there isno reaso not to havea section that gives information on series 5 as long as it sourced, we could add series 6 now it been confirmed. if anyone look for a realible souce with information on it, go to digital spy they have information on it, im to busy to add the information myself, but if anyone adds epsiode titles revert it, nopthing will be confirmed until airing Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 07:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I can think of is that there are no sources for the episode lists for series 5 or 6, and since this is the episode list page and not a text article I think we should wait. There are other articles where information on the future series would be more appropriate, such as the Merlin main article page, to pick an example at random. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 01:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems that for some reason (FireFox 16) the 5th series episodes are pushed to the following section. I looked at the page source and whatever is causing that is non-obvious to me.--24.207.30.66 (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Merlin (mini series)
There is an article on wiki called Merlin (miniseries). Is the end stage of that the same as that in this Merlin series? I'm searching for the words to what is detailed there as: Mab mocks him and tells him that he and his human followers can't destroy her, but Merlin knows that there are only a few people that believe in the Old Ways. He turns his back on her, telling her that everyone will forget her, and in forgetting, she will no longer exist. Everyone leaves, ignoring Mab's furious calls, and she fades away. Is this part also in the series this article details? LookingGlass (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Merlin Series 3 Ep. 7
I love the tv show Merlin. I have watched it over and over again. Now, with me knowing the story I am finding mistakes in it. I will add as I find them but this huge one is in the above episode Guias say's that Morganna is the kings Daughter. They are not supposed to know that till towards the end. I find it funny that I have watched it so much and have just started finding bloopers in it. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.71.185 (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)