Talk:Sliders (Sliders episode)

Separate articles for both parts
Should both parts 1 and parts 2 of the pilot have separate articles? It seems more common for articles on wikipedia to have only one article for two-part episodes, instead of two articles (one for each part). I have found all the following two-part Star Trek episodes with one article for both parts: Gambit (TNG episode), All Good Things... (TNG episode), Encounter at Farpoint (TNG episode), Endgame (Voyager episode), Equinox (Voyager episode), but none that have separate articles for both parts, like the way the sliders pilot does. Perhaps Sliders, Part One (episode) and Sliders, Part Two (episode) should be merged? Q0 04:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just combined them. There really wasn't enough content for separate articles anyway. Propound 08:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

 * Quinn's cat is named Schrödinger, after Erwin Schrödinger, the Nobel prize winning physicist.
 * The pilot episode was rerun in two parts on Fox, on Sundays, June 25, and July 2, 1995. It was then broadcast Mar. 2, 1998, as part of a re-introduction of the show on the Sci-Fi Channel. The show aired regularly in daily reruns after that, starting on Mar. 29, 1999. It also aired on Feb. 4, 2000, just before "The Seer," the series' final episode.

Please look to integrate this information into the article. If unable look at WP policy, for example WP:TRIV, WP:AVTRIV, WP:VERIFIABILITY relevant information unable to be presented in the context of the text of an article can be presented in a seperate section. Such sections are to be minimized, organized, contain verifible information, be sourced, and otherwise kept clean Mwhope 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
the re-airing of the show over the summer and upon the network switch is informtion pertinent to the show, to the episode, is sourced, and cannot be conveyed in the plot summary. The information is also not present on the Sliders page. Perhaps it should be moved there if it does not belong here. But it SHOULD belong on wikipedia.
 * Re-airing information is indiscriminate information, see WP:NOT, it's only related to America as well, Wikipedia is a world wide encyclopaedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

First, simply because a piece of information relates only to one country is not a reason to remove it, else I suggest you take a long major edit to overhaul the American history page, and sequentially every page on wikipedia. Second, the information on re-airing is of historical significance and is present, and listed for the same reasons as the original airing. Notice not every airing of the spisode is listed, only the original, the re-airing during the summer after season 1 and the reairing when the show switched networks. In both cases the intent was to drum up ratings and interest. if you can present a valid arguement, let me hear it, I have given sound reasoning and presented an argument, please do the same and stop censoring information. And yes indiscriminate information collecting is not the purpose of wikipedia, however encyclopedic information does seem to fall under its umbrella
 * It's called indiscriminate information that is unmanageable and is also non-notable, première dates are by default notable and relevant, repeats are not (over here we can repeat something a million times a week) - Wikipedia has international distribution sections in main articles to list air dates in other countries/USA. Please read WP:AVTRIV, WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOT. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You have thrown WP policy pages at me and i have used those same pages to validate my arguments, but yet you do not seem to listen to a word anyone says to you. I find your arrogance or ignorance, i won't speculate which, to blind your ability to edit. As I stated, WP:NOT WP is not an indiscriminate information collection thus only original airing dates in any country are listed. As stated and sourced, sliders switched networks and the pilot episode re-aired on the new network for the first time, this is an original airing akin to the show airing in a new country which as you have alrady admitted qualifies as not indiscriminate information. why you listed WP verification policy is beyond me. the information in question has 4 sources... as for the trivia policy page, that same page also states cleary that relevant information unable to be presented within the context of the text of an article is allowed to be listed in a separate section i suggest you read the very policies you list next time you wish to edit, please take the time to sit down and reason your argument. anyone can delete content, even you. explain your reasons, do not throw a WP policy page around like a fool.
 * I must be a fool, really? - I don't feel the need to right 1,000 characters of convulsed text, sorry. Wikipedia guidelines and policies stand and speak for them self, trivia is non-encyclopaedic, it may be OK in some articles if it can't be avoided (it can here - FOX aired it first, it was just a repeat of Sci-Fi, not a premiere) and it also requires a citation (Your word, what you believe, what you say are not citations - either way the fact it move to Sci-Fi is pertinent to the main article, Sliders, and is already written there last I checked. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

once again, the re-airing information was sourced. that is not what i say, nor what i believe, nor my word. a simple look at the history page to see the section in questioni reveals superscript links (4 of them). as for trivia sections, WP:AVTRIV clearly states at the top of the page that they are to be avoided. Anyone can see that. If you bother to read WP:AVTRIV and WP:TRIVIA, then you will see just as clearly "Sections which contain facts to be merged into the main body of the article are a list of "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Seek to minimize it, but meanwhile leave it in place as a raw store of facts for both readers and editors to work with . However, it is possible to move a trivia section to the talk page to allow other editors to participate with discussing and integrating the information worthy of inclusion in the article." IF you were unable to understand, the stated policy is NOT TO DELETE ALL TRIVIA SECTIONS, but to INTEGRATE them. Clearly you are unable to perform this ability and thereby fail as an editor
 * Obviously you need to re-re-read, pending, this information would only be pending if it could be merged elsewhere in the article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

and if it could not be merged elsewhere, than WP policy clearly states that it can exist in a separate section22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)