User talk:Xeworlebi/Archive 7

Olivia FA
Hi Xeworlebi, I just wanted to let you know I nominated Olivia (Fringe) for FA status. Since you've briefly edited that particular article, would you mind leaving some comments at Featured article candidates/Olivia (Fringe)/archive1? Thanks, Ruby2010   talk  21:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

violating 3RR rule on Game of Thrones
Hey, are you aware that you are currently violating the 3 revert rule on Game of Thrones and can thus be blocked? I suggest you hold off reverting on that page for a bit. Yoenit (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No I'm not aware the 3 revert rule was changed from more than three reverts to just three reverts. I've made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours:, , .  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first edit removed content added 14 minutes earlier, so that one counts as a revert as well. Note I agree with your removal of the material, I am just warning you before some triggerhappy admin blocks you over this. Yoenit (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't actually a revert, I blanked a section in accordance with the MoS, as I do at other places as well, I wasn't even aware that it was just added, I saw a user make an edit to such section (Serienfan2010's ) and removed it. If I had known the section was just added I would used the "restore this version" button. But I see your point.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Really
No need for the sarcasm really. But nah, I don't feel all warm and fuzzy inside or really anything too special. I am glad I was right though, but that's about it. And actually, the reason I'm glad I'm right is not to be smug or to prove Imbd is a good source or anything, but because I was almost positive the last two episode titles sounded like titles for the show (which was why I used Imbd regardless; couldn't find another source at the time) and I'm glad I know the show as well as I thought. (I just knew at first read that those titles were the real deal since they sounded like all the others) I am sorry though if it came across as that way though, never meant to be smug, rude or arrogant or anything. I can understand why you'd think I was with being happy I was right though, but I really wasn't trying to be any of those other things. And okay, I'm done now. That's everything. Feel free to go and revert my edit after this like you always do, lol. 1Dbad (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

?
I got a message that you have a message for me, but the link did not take me to any secondary message. The best place to leave me an actual message is on my talk page. Thank you Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 14:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a talkback message from November 24, 2010, to which you already have responded and the section was archived several months ago, feeling nostalgic?  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * more like confused... but thanks for your response.  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 07:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There's More Than One of Everything reassessment
Thank you for commenting on the reassessment page of There's More Than One of Everything. The reviewer is really driving me crazy. I asked her to respond to your comment about sourcing, so could you help keep an eye on her eventual reply, and make sure she does not demote the article for the silly "suggestions" she keeps spouting off? I've defended everything in the article already, and also asked User talk:Wizardman to take a look at her review. Thanks! Ruby2010  talk  16:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. You might want to notify Matthew R Dunn who passed the article in the first place.  X  eworlebi (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good advice. I just notified him of the reassessment (she actually made a few comments during his initial review, but both him and I felt her "suggestions" were unhelpful). Thanks for your help again, Ruby2010   talk  17:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Any ideas about Flashpoint...
So if you haven't noticed, CBS is releasing a "Season 3" in the USA on 17 May. The problem is that it so bloody does not at all match up with what in the rest of the world and the series overview table is known as Season 3 - for one the DVDs have 16 eps and season 3 is 13 eps. In the US the DVDs are 13 + 9 + 16 = 38 when the seasons are actually 13 + 18 + 13 = 44. There is no way to properly include the USA DVD releases in the series overview that i can see at this time because after season 1 things diverge and never come back together. I'm going to think about how to reconfigure all of it and maybe in a few hours have found a practical and satisfactory way to present the data. If you have any ideas... delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 16:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How about not adding them to the series overview table and just explain the entire DVD inconsistency thing at #DVD releases? As well as creating a broadcast section at the main article and explain the broadcast inconsistencies there, pulling part out of production section which covers the broadcast.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Source Code
Give a man a chance, I just moved it! (and edit conflicted with you twice:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I originally removed the hat-notes per WP:NAMB, later discovering the move request at the talk page, so when I saw the move happened I re-added them (undoing my edit from a week earlier), then edit conflicted with you when I tried to add "the". To be fair, it was ±17 minutes after the move.  X  eworlebi (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

White Collar Nielsen Rating
I removed the unneeded decimals because even Nielsen provide round-off data. For example 4,610,000 accurately won't watch an episode of White Collar. Therefore, if Nielsen itself rounds-off the data, I just removed an unneccessary 0 at the end of 4.60. If we had to maintain consistancy, we should have provided data exact to the unit. DailyEditor (talk) 17:29, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * No dice, the zero is not "unnecessary" it provides a level of precision to the number. Nielsen proved the information, rounded or not is irrelevant, if the source provides a number to only 1 decimal we can't make up another one, because that would be making the number more precise and in the process more inaccurate. If they provide additional decimals we can round them to 2 decimals, if that last decimal happens to be a zero then it is a zero, a zero is no different then a 1–9 and should not be removed just because of that. Saying 4 million is entirely different then 4.00 million; 4 million could be rounded 3.5–4.4 million while 4.00 million could only be rounded 3.995–4.004, that's about a huge difference in accuracy. We say what the source says, but round of to two decimals for consistency.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What if there were 3.5000 and 4.50 million viewers? What would be your average then? In math class we are told to stike out every additional zero after a decimal (eg. in case of 4. 000000 but not in case of 4.0000001). I had removed the excess zeros because they were already inconsistent.
 * And yes by the way, its impossible for Nielsen to average the number of viewers because the number of viewers during the original air date is a definite number, like 4,015,753 or 5,857,963. Nielsen does not release data saying that 'our system crashed and we couldn't calculate the number of viewers, therefore there may have been either 3.995 million viewers or 4.005 million viewers'.
 * Also, next time give reasonable calculations because in Math, the final answer matters, and according to me
 * 3,500,000 + 4,500,000 = 8,000,000
 * 3,995,000 + 4,005,000 = 8,000,000
 * Since 8,000,000 = 8,000,000
 * (3,500,000 + 4,500,000) = (3,995,000 + 4,005,000)
 * [(3,500,000 + 4,500,000)/2] = [(3,995,000 + 4,005,000)/2]
 * 4,000,000 = 4,000,000
 * 4 million = 4.00 mil. = 4. 00 million
 * So there isn't a huge difference in accuracy (refer points 2 and 3) while actually, there is no difference at all!
 * As I have earlier said, if we had to maintain consistancy, we should have provided data exact to the unit.
 * Therefore, what you wanted to prove from your calculations is completely disproved by me, using logic and basic math calculations.
 * And also it is not irrelevant whether Nielsen provides round-off data or not because it is obvious that they provide round-off information. If you fail to understand allow me to explain that 4,015,753 ~ 4.01 million and 5,857,963 ~ 5.85 million
 * Last but not the least, if you fail to provide a reasonable argument, I will remove the unneccesary zeros.
 * DailyEditor (talk) 20:05, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * We're talking statistics, more specifically significant figures, but going point by point:
 * In that case take a look at the references, most of them don't end with a zero, they are rounded for use here, which happened to end in a zero in some cases. They were inconsistent because the sources are inconsistent, you can't add zero's, in the process making the number preciser then it actually is, and in the process introducing significant errors.
 * Nielsen doesn't average, nor are the numbers definite, they take a sample and multiply it to represent for the entire population. They provide a rounded number though. But we do round that number, and removing significant numbers makes the number less exact. Why are we talking average anyway?
 * We're not adding numbers here, nor should we. While the final answer matters, in statistics the accuracy of the numbers carries over to that result.
 * We are trying to provide the most accurate number, but at a certain point you have to cut it of, it's generally accepted to do that at two decimals, the numbers in the references are rounded to two decimals. If the number were for example 4.459 million we would round it to 4.60 million, if you remove the 0, that would make it 4.6 million, while if it were rounded to 1 decimal, as you make it appear to be it should be 4.5 million.
 * You did not disprove me at all, you only showed your lack of understanding of rounding, significant numbers and accuracy.
 * Actually, 4,015,753 ~ 4.02 million and 5,857,963 ~ 5.86 million. If you want to add here, 4,015,753 + 5,857,963 = 9,873,716; 4.01 + 5.85 = 9,86 (-13,716); 402 + 586 = 988 (+6,284). Twice the error.
 * That is the fun world of statistics.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you even know how to round-off numbers, Xeworlebi? I seriously have a doubt. In which universe do we round-off 4.459 million to 4.6 million? Assuming you are good in Maths (which you clarified to me, you are not) 4.459 million should be rounded-off to 4.46 because if we are to keep consistent, we have have to provide numbers up to a maximum of two decimal places. And yes, I suppose there is a huge difference between 4.6 mil. and 4.46 mil. (precisely 140,000 or 0.14 mil). I have never stated that I'm against the notion of two decimal places or want just one decimal place, I just say that we remove the unneeded zeros. Also if you belong to the Earth, you would've known that Nielsen never, never, never, averages ratings. If you still want to strike a deadlock, I would advise you to read WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY.
 * DailyEditor (talk) 04:25, March 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously, as I showed you I know how to round of numbers. (That did indeed make no sense, I've striked it) So I'll explain it to you. You take the number for example 4.3673. if you round of to 2 decimals, you take a look at the third decimal, in this case 7, that number is ≥5, so the number is rounded up to 4.37. If the digit after the number you which to round of is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 then you round down; if it is 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 then you round up. This is the most accepted way to round numbers because it creates the smallest statistical errors. While there are some (like you did) that always round down, this creates large errors and should just not be done.
 * I belong to Earth, and I'll ask again, why are you taking about averages? I never said Nielsen averages ratings. You're making no sense whatsoever. I highly suggest you read the article about significant figures and even rounding. You can not remove (or add) trailing zero's, they are not unneeded, they provide a level of accuracy to the number. We try to stay consistent and give 2 decimals, if the source doesn't provide so many decimals then we can't make up more. If the source provides more decimals then we round to two. If the source say 4.0001 we round to 4.00, changing that to 4 makes the number significantly less precise, and you lose a level of information.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are a stubborn and arrogant person. Have you even read WP:AGF? DailyEditor (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs
Just FYI, I replaced the plot summary of The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs with what it had been when the article passed GA. That plot summary was tighter and better aligned with WP standards, plus it was peer-reviewed as part of the GAN process, so I figured that would be acceptable and I removed the plot tag you added to the article. Just wanted to be sure you knew this and why I did it. I also made a post about this on the talk page of that article, so for the sake of keeping the convos in one place, I'd ask that you post there if you had any concerns about it. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Plot Tags
Please tell me, when isn't a plot summary too long or excessively detailed? --Boycool (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When it isn't, see WP:MOSTV, a plot should be maximum 500 words, the plot section of the Chuck episode articles are on average twice that long.  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some details are trivial, but there is not much that can be removed that would still allow the articles to accurately summarize the plots. Chuck episodes almost always bleed over into the next, or are called back in later episodes, so seemingly unimportant details are sometimes necessary to understand the show's continuity. --Boycool (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Chuck has hardly complicated episodes that require so much detailing.  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA
I was watching you for a while and just wanted run the adminship topic by you. You seem like a clueful user and a good candidate for adminship. Just asking. If you do think your ready for an RfA I would be happy to nominate you. Jessy  T/C 21:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at List of House episodes
There is a discussion underway at List of House episodes about the DVD/Blu-ray table in the article. As a recent contributor to this page your input would be welcomed in the discussion, which you may find at Talk:List of House episodes. Thank you. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Aware, was typing a message and got an edit conflict, got through now. Thanks for the notification anyway.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You might like to review what you wrote. A 3RR breach requires 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. I've only made 3, the last to restore the article to the way it has been since September, and don't intent reverting again today. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ,, , . The last edit being the same as the other three, reverting the IP and in the process restoring it to how it was in September. There's no difference between the the four reverts. Never mind, that was 4 days earlier.  X  eworlebi (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Star wars - The Clone Wars
We should also add the Uk release date fo the ep. 15-21 for season 2. Those ep. were realeased in UK before airing in US.89.123.104.237 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

:(
Dear Xeworlebi, Apologies! Some teen Roman whack-job accessed my accout and started a fight with you and Cyberia. Apologies for any problems he/she might have caused but he/she atleast gave me my DailyEditor sign. Sorry again! DailyEditor (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are fully responsible for your account's security.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice
You seem to have made someone cranky. Thought I'd point it out in case it's helpful for you too know. Doesn't seem like it would be but there it is anyway. Millahnna (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, some people really crack.  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Camelot (TV series)
Thank you for assuming good faith in my edits. Could you please however further explain your rationale as these are adaptations of the characters and I am unsure how linking to them would be inappropiate?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You link the characters yet they link to the "real" person not the character in the show. Unless this show is a documentary (which it isn't) these should link to character pages or a section on the list of character page, not the people they are based on. It is kinda a WP:EGG link, you expect a page about the character in the show, yet end up with the legendary person.  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, but I tried to come up with a compromise in the article. Let me know what you think.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good for me. You might want to consult WT:TV or WT:MOSTV if you disagree strongly and rather have it as you did it. This is just my opinion.  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Over There FA
Thank you for your helpful edits on Over There (Fringe). I will eventually be nominating it for FA, so if there are any others issues you see with the article, please either let me know or edit it accordingly. Thanks! :) Ruby2010   talk  19:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

the period
The Borgias is a Canadian-Irish-Hungarian show about a Spanish-Italian family. The period is called for in most non-American English variants because the ! in Bravo! does not convey the sense of exclamation to end the sentence but is part of the proper name of the tv channel. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 22:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An exclamation point is a proper ending punctuation for nearly every language, multiple punctuations are uncalled for and unneeded.  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

An/I discussion; Bob's Burgers trivia sock
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See ANI. KnownAlias   contact   07:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm assuming it's you who's been removing all the Hawai'ian translations of Hawai'i Five 0 titles
Well if you were to read the talk page... you'd find that actually they are alternate titles because CBS even provides official translations of them in their press releases. Also, as most of the users of English Wikipedia do not speak Hawai'ian perhaps it would be helpful to let them stay... Also if you do a simple search for "What does (insert title here) mean?" on Google, you'll find tons of people asking questions like that. As Wikipedia is designed to be informative, I would suggest that they stay. If you would like to have a separate box thing, i.e. not put them under the "Alternate title" thing be my guest, but since I don't know how to do that I'm just gonna put them back under "Alternate titles". Sorry for being all Passive aggressive here but since you did not read the talk page post (from about September indicating that readers were interested in knowing the English translations) before you deleted it, I'm a little annoyed as I worked hard to collect all those translations...Lilly (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I've removed them once again, as I've said in my edit summary, they are not alternative titles, take a look at episode 10, that is an alternative title, translations are not.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and now I've added a new column to the table listing them not as Alternate titles but as translations... And some IP promptly removed it hmmm.... Lilly (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there is an issue here I've set up an RFC under Style and naming and under Arts, Entertainment and media. Lilly (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems rather impatient. But fine.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Give me a chance
Give me a chance to source the edit to Sarah Michelle Gellar - I was just re-editing the page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.28.251 (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now worries, just re-add it with a source. I find that removing it inspires people more to add a source then tagging it with Citation needed, which can stay on a page indefinite.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Series logos
Hi, I was curious as to how you create or find the logos you've been adding for the episode list pages. I think they're interesting and give the pages a really diverse look. I was hoping you would be able to add one for the List of True Blood episodes and List of Entourage episodes if possible, as I said it would give the pages a dynamic look. Thanks. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I usually search for the logo, either the shows intertitle, the website, DVD box, promotional material, etc. do a cross check to find the font used and then do some (minor) adjustments in Illustrator to make it match as best as possible. Some cases it's no work at all (like File:Breaking In 2011 logo.svg which is just the text in that font), others take some time (like File:Cougar Town 2009 logo.svg, which is entirely made by hand). I'll take a look at both shows in a short while, just got up. Actually kinda wondering why I wasn't watching List of True Blood episodes since I watch that show.  X  eworlebi (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okey, both done and added on the respective episode lists. The files are located at File:True Blood 2008 logo.svg and File:Entourage 2004 logo.svg. Hope you like them.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for that. They're awesome. Cheers. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I had no idea you were actually making some of those that you've been adding. Love the True Blood one.  Nice job.  Millahnna (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sexism
Sorry, but that the Hot 100 list is sexist can hardly be denied. That there's one for men and for women doesn't lessen that at all--it's singling out people based on perceived sexual characteristics. That it's not uncommon (in Wikipedia articles, I assume you mean) is beside the point. We can discuss the encyclopedic value of being listed on such a list and therefore its worth in a biography; that's a different matter, and clearly we disagree there. I'm not about to get into an edit war or a pissing contest, but I would like you to consider that sexism should probably be seen as a bit broader than some simple notion of inequality between the genders. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sexism is some kind of discrimination or abuse based on the gender of the person, being listed for being beautiful is not sexist at all, the opposite actually. So I (easily) deny that the "Hot 100" list is sexist (maybe if you mean sexist against men), and would say the same for a Top 100 Hot Men list. Even if you think that praising someone for there beauty is somehow objectionable, there is no indication of discrimination whatsoever. But then I never really understood why anyone would find it objectionable that they are considered hot.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Smallville finale
I disagree with that assessment. "Absolute Justice" has two directors, two production codes, but a single plot. It's packaged as a single episode. The same with the finale. The official description says "this final episode" and not "these final episodes". We cannot arbritrarily decide where to divide the events of the plot, because we have no indication as to how they edited the episode together. Kevin and Greg may have filmed separate hours, but in the editing process they could have interchanged any of the events and we cannot accurately say that events Y took place in production code C's filming. That's why, in this case, it's better to have a single plot box because the story is going to be a single event. It isn't like they are going to give a second set of title credits at the second hour mark.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Except everything about this episodes is separated, the press release specifically states Part 1 and Part 2. "Absolute Justice" was not, it was announced and aired as a single episode as well as being a single episode on the DVD. Lumping them together goes against all the reference material and is based on the assumption (I don't believe you already saw the episode) that the episodes won't be distinguishable when they air, since it hasn't you can't know that. On a side note there's something wrong with the production codes, 3X6021 is the production code given for "Dominion" and again for "Finale (Part 2)", and that corresponds with the press releases, which can't really be the case.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The press release says "Finale Part 1 directed by....", but indicates that it is a single episode when describing it. That's all it says. "Absolute Justice" said "first hour directed by...." becuase they were no longer using the "Legends" and "Society" episode titles. You're right in that I haven't seen it, but a part from identifying two separate productions, there has been no indicate that the episode is going to air as anything other than a single entity. Even the promos leading up to it counted down to a single episode, and not to the last 2 episodes.


 * As for the production codes, I didn't add them I just moved them. In an interview with Tom Welling, he stated that they actually filmed 2 episodes after the finale. Chances are, they filmed "Dominion" and "Prophecy" afterward and they are the real "21/22" codes.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)


 * It doesn't, it clearly states that these are two episodes presented as a two hour event. It doesn't say the first hour/second hour like they did with "Absolute Justice" it says "Finale (Part 1)" and "Finale (Part 2)", again indicating two separate episodes. By naming them so, and by giving them two episode numbers they have indeed indicated that these are two separate episodes. "Absolute Justice" was a single episode because they never indicated it to be two separate episodes (excluding the production process) there was no talk about "Absolute Justice (Part 1)" and "Absolute Justice (Part 2)", the CW website has only a single page for "Absolute Justice" while it has two for these. These are by every definition we have two separate episodes aired consecutively. By leaving in the 21/22 episode number you acknowledge that these are two episodes, if it were a single episode then it would have only one episode number.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I know the website has two slots there, but if you look it has the same description for both and in the description itself it says "this final episode". If it was truely two separate episodes it would say "these final episodes". It also says "two-hour series finale", not "two part series finale". We haven't figured out for sure how they are going to actually identify the episode itself numerically, because the DVD isn't out. The very same CW website doesn't actually identify them by number, just title. If possible, go to your television and skip ahead to Friday and look at the description. It says "Finale", and not "Finale Part 1 and Part 2". It's a single 2 hour broadcast. However it's numbered, it's being broadcast as a single entity and, like I said, we won't be able to determine where to accurately split the plot because we don't know how it is edited. It'll also look weird when writing the plot to break mid event and jump to the next cell of the table and start without any type of context. The reason I left the numbers together is because we don't know how it will actually be numbered broadcasting wise, and we won't for many months. It's just easier to capture the entire plot of the finale in a single box since it's being made into a single event. But, I'll tell you what. If they actually do split the episode during broadcast, and have two separate entities just aired back-to-back, I'll support the separation 100%.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "and we won't for many months" ? Either these are two episodes or they're keeping a 22nd episode hidden from everybody… So your entire rational is based on what you believe will happen Friday and that they say episode in singular, against all the different cases were they say, separate and indicate them as two episodes, pretty thin. It won't look weird at all, it doesn't have to, or at least it isn't on all the different shows were every episode directly follows the last, or were there are double episodes etc. You say that we don't know how they're numbered so you put two episode numbers in yet claim it to be a single one, that's not very consistent. Either it's a single episode and it has one episode number or it's two and they have two, and if you don't know then you either take a certain point based on the limited facts at hand, or you leave it blank until you do.  X  eworlebi (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I mean, we won't know how they are actually counting it until the DVD. This is the same situation we had with "Absolute Justice". The writers said they consider it two episodes. It had 2 production codes, 2 directors. It even had 2 episode titles at one point. Then, it aired and there was only one episode airing for 2 hours. Then the DVD came out and it was listed as a single episode and the final count for that season was 21 episodes (as stated on the box) and not 22. What all other cases are you talking about? When I read interviews and news reports, I read "depending on how you count it" over and over again. It will look weird if there isn't a clean break at 9pm. If it's anything like "Absolute Justice", it'll play through 9pm until a more natural stopping point occurs. If that is the way it goes down, at what point do we stop it? Before or after 9pm to try and arbritrarily separate the plot into 2 hours? Again, this plays into we don't know how they edited this and if they are presenting it as a single broadcast, are they also swapping scenes from one production and placing them in the other?


 * I'm not claiming it to be a single episode. I'm claiming it to be a single broadcasted plot. I'm saying that come 9pm, we will not be seeing a second title sequence for Smallville. I believe this because my television currnetly says "Finale" and not "Finale 1 and 2". It also says "120 minutes" and not 2 separate "60 minute" slots. This is why it's just like "AJ". We have just as many facts saying "episode" and we do "episodes". Even the CW contradicts itself on its own website. You have to see how it's listing 2 separate episode titles, yet it's own description lists a single episode and uses singular identifiers intead of pluralizing it all.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okey, you just entirely lost me, now you say it is not a single episode, yet you say it is. You're making no sense at all. Either it's one episode or it's two, it can not be both, right now you're saying both at the same time which is impossible. And your main argument is that you believe it will air a certain way based on an entirely different situation with "Absolute Justice". You do not know how it will air, and "Absolute Justice" was announced in several different ways indicating a single episode, while this one is announced clearly indicating two episodes, yet you insist we put them together because it might not be clear, while every parameter separates them as two distinct episodes. Which is something you simply can not know, and basing everything one something you admittedly do not know makes little sense.  X  eworlebi (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never said it definitely was a "literal, single episode, and putting all the information in one slot of the table doesn't mean it is a single episode. What I've said was that it is/will be a single broadcasted episode for 2 hours and putting it in one location makes better sense for that. Whether it is counted as 2 episodes or 1 long episodes doesn't change the fact that it will be broadcasted as a single event and I would wager just about anything that it'll be packaged as a single event. Now, whether that will be labled "episode 21" or "episodes 21 & 22" remains to be seen - as we have to wait for the DVD to learn that. Again, this has been announced as a single episode just as much as it's been announced as 2 episodes. The promos for it announced it as a single episode. The description itself indicates it is the "final episode". The television guide (not the be confused with TV Guide) lists it as a single episode title just simply "Finale" and stretches for 2 solid hours. There is no reason to assume that it will actually be broadcasted as two separate events back-to-back. If you Google News any interview with the production team or cast, it's referred to as simply "Finale" or "the finale". It's not referred to as "the final two episodes". With exception to the CW website, I cannot find any recent source still referring to the episode as "Finale Part 1" and "Finale Part 2" in the sense that it's 2 separate events. In one of Welling's last interviews, he talks about it fromt he sense that it is a single event. How they count it production wise is one thing. "Absolute Justice" is considered 2 episodes production wise, but only a single broadcasted episode that ran for 2 hours. I cannot find any recent source that talks about the finale in the idea that it's going to be 2 separate episodes aired back-to-back. So, where are you looking that it's regularly cited as 2 separate episodes? I'd be willing to bet that your own television guide says 1 episode that is running for 2 hours.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm basing this one the most basic sources, the press release and somewhat the shows website. There are many shows that have two parters, were they are often referred to as "X" instead of "X (Part 1)" and "X (Part 2)", but they are still two separate episodes. I guess it's pointless to keep arguing, you have clearly taken your stance, we'll see when it airs, and then again when the DVD's are announced/released.  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm just curious, but what are you expecting when it airs that is going to indicate to you that it is 2 separate episodes?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)