Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Columbo

Ground rules

 * Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I (Lord Roem) reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature.
 * Try to keep an open mind in the case, and realise that sometimes, you need to give a little to get a little. Mediation is not possible without compromise as well as keeping an open mind.
 * When there are multiple issues that need to be addressed in a dispute (such as this one) only one particular issue or dispute is to be discussed at a time. Discussion that veers off course of the current topic may be archived at my discretion.
 * MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that both involved agree to abide by the outcome of this case.
 * You will watchlist this page so as to keep track of all conversations and discussions.
 * You will not edit the page at issue (besides obvious vandalism) until this case closes.

Please sign just your username below, with four tildes (~) to indicate your agreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case.

Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules
After signing agreement, please post a <250 word statement below indicating (1) what are the key issues you feel are in this dispute and (2) how do you want these issues resolved?
 * -- Djathink imacowboy  19:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangoon11 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ged UK  12:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Djathinkimacowboy
The difficulties at Columbo are chiefly matters of content. There is heated disagreement about what ought to remain, what ought to be moved to List of Columbo episodes, and what should be deleted from the article. In my opinion, a fresh set of otherwise uninterested eyes will be of great assistance. Another main point is that Wikipedia rules and article standards be maintained, which is not always happening at the moment. Finally, I agree that the zeal and passion involved requires some level-headed mediation. As an editor, I will abide by any suggestions/recommendations that are thusly made.-- Djathink imacowboy  19:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate on what specific points are subject to "heated disagreement"? Even a bullet-point list of what the issues are would greatly help me structure the mediation. :) Lord Roem (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay. Yes, here's a list:
 * Whether or not to move DVD release section and award section to List of Columbo episodes
 * Whether to keep uncited OR tables showing American and international broadcasting schedules
 * Whether to streamline and shorten the character's biography
 * One more item: whether or not to allow editors to post comments on talk pages wherever they choose instead of placing them at the end of the thread. Yes, this is an issue....-- Djathink imacowboy  20:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rangoon11
I agree that this is chiefly an issue of content. I am happy to state that taken as a whole Djathinkimacowboy's edits to the article have been beneficial, and I have not reverted the great majority (and they are not in issue here so far as I am concerned). Since January, largely due to editing by Djathinkimacowboy and myself, the article has infact been quite comprehensively changed. I am firmly of the belief that the article is now on balance much better than it was at the start of January as a result of our combined efforts.

In terms of the specific issues, I will start with the easiest.

I am concerned that at present the direction of travel is solely in the direction of content being removed, with no clear end point in sight, and that no citations are being added at the same time. If all uncited content were removed a lot of good, relevant, factually correct, long standing content which many editors have spent time developing would be lost and the article would in no way be improved. I am not wholly averse to the idea of moving content from the main article elsewhere however, and in my view there is a certain logic to splitting the character content into a separate article, and focusing the Columbo article solely on the Peter Falk TV series. I want to emphasise that the current version of the article, which does not include the US broadcast history, is not the stable one, as a result of a trolling edit by a non-involved editor who is in the habit of following me around and reverting my edits on articles on which they have previously never edited. I ask that as a demonstration of good faith the table is readded until this mediation process has completed. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree that Talk page comments should generally be posted at the end of threads and this is something which I personally try to do.
 * Since January the character biography section has already been somewhat reduced, almost entirely as a result of Djathinkimacowboy's editing. On balance I think that these edits have improved the article (inevitably I don't agree with every single one, but am not seeking to undo any of them). I also see that there may be scope to further trim the section. However for me the priority for the section is the addition of citations (that is generally an issue for the article as a whole, but is particualrly the case here).
 * The List of Columbo episodes article is just as its name suggests, a list article with a specific focus. It is my firm view that neither the list of awards nor the home video release content belongs in it. So far as I can tell, the main reason for the proposed move is to reduce the length of the main Columbo article. However the article, particularly after the recent edits, is not in my view overly long. The awards are now in a collapsed table as well.
 * In terms of the broadcast history tables, the international one has already been deleted following discussion on the article Talk page and I am not seeking reinstatement. The U.S. broadcasting table is however in my view highly relevant and should remain. It should however be combined with the table immediately above it in order to save space, and the duplicative DVD information in that table, which is in its own table further down the article, should be removed from there. I agree that the table could do with some cites, although the info should not be contentious.

Statement by Ged UK
I haven't been involved in this disupte to any great degree, but I'm of the opinion that the article was too long and sections needed moving. I think the most sensible place for the DVD/video release and possibly a full broadcast table is in the List of Columbo episodes, provided that it can be adequately sourced, and we leave section hatnotes to guide readers to the relevant article. It may not be quite the right title, but that's fixable. Additionally, the trivia section needed to go, and I've made several attempts in teh past to remove the most spurious bits.

Splitting the character section away from the article makes some sense, if we can actually get some proper sourced views on the character rather than editors (not necessarily any of those involved in this dispute) just adding in their twopenneth on the psychology of Columbo's "Just one more question". Ged UK  12:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Next Steps
Thank you both for your focused and articulate statements. The first step in this sort of a dispute is to put your position down on paper without attacking the other party; both of you have done a fantastic job in describing the issues at hand in that same reasoned way.

Now, we move on to our next steps.

I will guide the mediation as it moves on, making suggestions or trying to point a discussion in a specific direction. However, I remember (as you should to), that for this process to be successful, you both need to work together to achieve a solution that everyone can live with. Don't be afraid to compromise but don't be afraid to state your position if you have one.

I will post our first issue of discussion in a new section within the next few hours. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged, and thank you.-- Djathink imacowboy  04:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue I. Award Section
Let's begin with the first content issue I see, that I think is probably on the easier side of the spectrum to resolve.

"Whether or not to move the award section to List of Columbo episodes."

Now, from a quick glance at other TV show pages, it appears that it is general practice to keep the Award section on the main show page.

Now, some of these article will also link the award section to another, separate list for "Awards of X show". So here is my suggested compromise: The award section on the main Columbo article stays on the article; however, if a page is created that makes a "List of awards for Columbo (TV show)" or something to that effect, the article will be linked to but the main content will not change.

Thoughts? Lord Roem (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If it is your judgment that the awards ought to stay, I will not object since I know Rangoon also wants that. However, at the risk of harping, I do feel the article must be trimmed of some of its other text - such as the character biography and items we know we cannot ever footnote. If we managed that cleanly, the article would look more as it should, and the awards would 'settle in' and look better. In that case, approaching what might be the next step, I do not agree that the Lt. Columbo character ought to have a separate page.-- Djathink imacowboy  04:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, having just noted something, I have a query: is it normal for television series to spawn all sorts of individual articles dealing with each aspect? You say we might in future have an awards page for Columbo. I've seen the insistence on an article about the character. There is already List of Columbo episodes. Aren't we sort of spreading the issue across Wikipedia as if it were jam? It could all go into the two articles we have now.-- Djathink imacowboy  04:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That is the practice for some articles, yes. I prefer to see it a localizing discussion of an issue for more in-depth or detailed discussion while the primary article is best for the kind of "overview" of the subject. Lord Roem (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This view as you expressed it is understandable - but I still have a problem with the idea that Columbo might end up as three or four different articles when it doesn't really need to be that way. What I mean is, there is so little reference data about Columbo, compared to the tv shows I have been referred to consider as examples. I think it is an issue of how we would all like to see that expansive quality for the Columbo article but it simply isn't there.-- Djathink imacowboy  20:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't fret. Dividing content into multiple articles is no biggie. I'm sure if we can lay the framework for how the articles will look, the collaborative environment here will be there to help find sources for everything. :) Lord Roem (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

LR, I do want to go along with that, and perhaps you have persuaded me to a degree. What I'd want to see on the main Columbo page, aside from a healthy content, is the top of the article, before the lead, clearly spelling out the related articles with links; I'm sure that is no problem. I just wonder ... isn't it likely someone will come along in future and say, Let's merge all this? No one seems to think about it, but more often than not such experiments end up being merged anyway. I'm not fanatic about it either way, but I do hate seeing info being scattered like seed. As I stated, I will not oppose it if it's thought to be the best thing to do, I only advise at this point that we not plan on it. Also, I wanted to apologise for being a little overly watchful of the article lately. I've removed it from my watchlist for now; I guess the only thing I dislike is 'losing track' of changes and developments. But I will not eyeball the article for the time being.-- Djathink imacowboy  01:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Right now awaiting Rangoon's response to the suggestion I gave above. Lord Roem (talk) 01:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the slight delay in replying. My view on this is that I am quite firmly against the idea of moving the Awards section to the List of Columbo episodes article, as I don't see that as an appropriate or logical place for the content (and expect that it isn't the place which readers would go looking for the content either).
 * I am rather more positive about the idea of moving the Awards to a new article titled something like 'List of awards for Columbo'. Personally I don't think that it is necessary now that the awards table has been collapsed on the main article - it would only reduce the article by one line - but I could live with such an approach.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Then we have agreement on the first issue!! I'll post the next issue for discussion in a little bit. Good work so far! Lord Roem (talk) 02:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about all this, but I'm not so convinced we have a well-thought-out agreement. We awaited Rangoon's response and now, because you basically agreed with him to start, and he says this is OK with him ... I'm not comfortable that we just left it at "Rangoon is fine with it, and I like the idea, let's move along." My position is still somewhat that lists of that nature belong in List of Columbo episodes. I'm afraid I'm going to require a little more convincing than has been offered so far.-- Djathink imacowboy  06:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me make myself more clear. A list of awards received by Columbo can be stated inline as text. I see it as a couple of lines at most. I have always been against WP:TRIVIA tables in general when they serve no purpose; this one serves a purpose but can no one see how it belongs in the other article since there is that other article? Otherwise it is questionable why the table is even there. Several editors have complained in the past, saying we shouldn't have a table like that. As to Rangoon's main point, Columbo fans generally do not go seeking what awards were won. I think an even more important point is that it is a list of series data. Meaning it already has an appropriate home in the other article. Rangoon for example brought from that other article to Columbo the table listing the original series. That was a brilliant move because that is what fans look for.... What is so hot about an awards list being in the main article? And please don't just argue that other articles are like this.-- Djathink imacowboy  06:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue II. US broadcasting table
The next issue we'll deal with is the inclusion or exclusion of the broadcasting table regarding the U.S. Firstly (for my sake) could either of you explain exactly what was at issue here? I'm a bit confused as to what the table includes. Lord Roem (talk) 02:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My original mention of this is the reason for confusion. Long ago and without trouble, I removed an international broadcasting table from the article. What the issue is now is whether to keep an uncited, bulky and rather WP:TRIVIAal table showing the original broadcasting schedule of the show in America. I'm totally against this kind of silly thing when it could be put inline, "The show broadcast originally on X night at X time." Instead, Rangoon insists on having this large, silly-looking table that doesn't even have correct info on it. So I restate I am 100% against the reinclusion of any such table, and I would only accept original broadcasting schedule if it could be obtained from a verifiable source.-- Djathink imacowboy  06:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangoon -- I think Djathinkimacowboy has a point here. If the same information can be incorporated in pure text, the table is probably not necessary. What do you think about doing that? Remember, DJ was open minded enough to agree to your position on the first issue. What do you say here? Lord Roem (talk) 13:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Before I address this issue, can it please be confirmed that issue I is now agreed, looking at the above I'm not clear whether that is indeed the case.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He says that he's ok with the inline text. That's the agreement on the article itself, with a separate award article to be made that would work for a more list-format.
 * Both sides need to show compromise here, and I think these two issues are the best to do that. Lord Roem (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Djathink has said quite a few things above, including 'If it is your judgment that the awards ought to stay, I will not object since I know Rangoon also wants that.' and 'My position is still somewhat that lists of that nature belong in List of Columbo episodes. I'm afraid I'm going to require a little more convincing than has been offered so far'. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he's saying "I don't like it, but I'll go with it anyway" - that's an ok feeling, and is a great note on his willingness to compromise. Lord Roem (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case the agreement is to keep the awards table as is in the main article i.e. fully included, but collapsed? That is the proposal to which the reply was 'If it is your judgment that the awards ought to stay, I will not object since I know Rangoon also wants that.'Rangoon11 (talk) 15:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To include that information in some text paragraph, but put that table in a separate article called something to the effect of "List of awards received by Columbo (TV show)". That is supported by other TV show articles, which is why I think its the best possible option for both sides. :-) Lord Roem (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, that isn't the initial proposal to which Djathink replied 'If it is your judgment that the awards ought to stay, I will not object since I know Rangoon also wants that.' However I can live with this approach. I think it is only fair that it is acknowledged that this is not actually what either Djathink or I originally wanted, and therefore is as much a compromise for me as for them.
 * For the sake of absolute clarity, perhaps we should write out each agreed solution to each issue at the bottom of each discussion section on this page, and then both sign to indicate unambiguous agreement.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One further point, it is important that it is also agreed that, if the new 'Awards' article is deleted for any reason, there is full agreement that the full table of awards should return to its previous place in the 'main' article.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I like the idea of signing a statement of agreement on each point. I'll put that at the very bottom of the page. As to your other point, I doubt the awards page would be deleted. Let's not create a dispute over something that is both unlikely to happen and isn't a concern right now. Lord Roem (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As to the general points so far, I am in full agreement. LR has indicated that awards Columbo has earned could be stated simply inline. I agree with that fully. I will not make any statement about an awards table at this time. As to the signing of an agreement statement ending each section we address, I will sign as long as we have a clear statement. My only query about this is, will any of this be binding?-- Djathink imacowboy  20:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a binding process. There is no binding content process on Wikipedia. Mediation works if both sides can feel comfortable with a final compromise. The process only works if you choose to adequately implement it. Lord Roem (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And so I am ready to adequately implement what is decided here, as time allows me. And I thank you for your frank remark. Additionally, I was asking because I wondered whether the other editor(s) interested in this would also have liked the answer to that question. You graciously gave the answer. Let's move along then....-- Djathink imacowboy  22:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok then. So, could I Ragoon's view on Issue II? DJ has already offered his perspective above. :) Lord Roem (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, truly sorry, just a note: we still need to address the DVD release data (table or list), discuss the streamlining of the character's biography which (again) some editors wanted to delete entirely, and may I just add that I am getting sort of tired of this mediation dragging for roughly 24 hours at a time without any input other than mine and yours, LR. Sorry, it's just this is taking too long.-- Djathink imacowboy  22:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It may take some time, that is true. But I want to get this right. Remember, there is no deadline. Lord Roem (talk) 23:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Ged UK has indicated that they will be getting involved, it might in fact be an idea to have temporary pause in the proceedings until they have joined?
 * For the sake of convenience here are the two tables in question:


 * There are a number of issues here. Firstly, the DVD release information in the top table is duplicated in the table in the Home video release section. This content should therefore be removed from the top table above. Secondly, the US broadcast information is partially duplicated across the two tables above. Thirdly, the information in the second table above is sufficiently complex that it is far more suitable to table format than prose. To describe the content of the second table in prose would be lengthy, turgid and less convenient for readers. Fourthly, the content in the second table is currently uncited.


 * I am firmly of the opinion that the content in the second table is highly relevant, is encyclopedic, and best belongs in the main Columbo article. However I see the acknowledge the duplication and messy nature of the current tables. My personal clear preference is to combine the two tables above into a single table, minus the DVD release info.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We're now ahead of ourselves! The reference material on DVD releases was a separate issue and the bland-looking table we've already agreed will appear inline. Furthermore, I do not agree to suspend this ongoing process to wait and see if someone else joins. Let tham play catch-me-up if they want to weigh in.** Djathink imacowboy  00:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that we have the DVD release table there, may I point out it needs no in-table references, only a main one at its foot (and those 'citations' are ridiculous); it is weirdly complicated and wants some tidying-up, and personally I find it unwieldy and not quite appropriate for the main article, as we have initially discussed. Request: that we either collapse this discussion once LR approves it or we agree to at least collapse the tables.** Djathink imacowboy  00:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not agreed that the second table should be converted to inline text. How on earth would that improve the article? The DVD content is relevant because it appears in the top table above, and the two tables above are closely connected because of their overlap. Merging the two tables and removing the duplicative DVD content from the top table would save space and be far more logical.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I oppose collapsing the tables above whilst the discussion in this section is ongoing, I posted them there for convenience and collapsing them would negate that.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Not agreed to text the plain table?? You signed off in agreement to that already! What good is this, Rangoon, if you're going to pay no attention!~&#124; Djathink imacowboy &#124;~ 00:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. Where exactly do you believe that I did so?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I rescind my post. I was in error, Rangoon. But I move this discussion stop until LR appears to comment. You should not have jumped into it so fast.~&#124; Djathink imacowboy &#124;~ 00:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh boy. Let's work at this one issue at a time. First, taking the broadcast table, which I take is the second table. I agree with Ragoon, that it is probably difficult to include it into inline text. However, look at this section of the Good-Article of another TV show which could be a guide on these issues.
 * But let's get to the meat of the issue. Ragoon, it seems that both sides are ready to give up some things and I feel DJ probably gave up some position in the first issue. Would you be willing to agree to include some general information from that table, in in-line form? Obviously, the whole thing can't be written out in a way that works, but a few sentences ("From 1972 to 1977, the show aired on Sundays on NBC while it switched to Mondays in its next season") would still include the pertinent information, but in a more readable form. I see this as a compromise on both sides - the sort of 'trivia' aspect of it with all that info is gutted, with the most important pieces remaining and discussed. DJ gives up his absolute position as do you. Thoughts? Lord Roem (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing this solely as an inline list, which is almost exactly like the example you gave from The Office. That was good, because the show was British, got remade here as a series also, and that was done after they televised the British original series in America. Quite complex. With Columbo, I see it as very easy to write that out, without a confusing and badly laid-out table. It only addresses the original series. If there is to be an insistence on laying out the entire original schedule of every single episode up until 2003, then I suggest that be a separate article. Imagine the horrible table the entire televised history/schedule would generate!~&#124; Djathink imacowboy &#124;~ 03:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * May I add, that still looks somewhat foolish to me. The original broadcasting date, time and network...to what end? In the vast scheme of encyclopedic information, who cares? It's more like someone is showing off, telling us exactly when the thing aired and what changes occurred and when. I have to insist this be simplified into a text format and put inline somewhere. See, it's this kind of obsessive detail I noticed other editors in the past had complained about seeing. May I also place that particular table here below, so we may examine it here?~&#124; Djathink imacowboy &#124;~ 04:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

TABLE:

...and finally, I reject inclusion of any of this info if it isn't properly cited. We don't need it floating forever in there with a citation needed tag with no one to ever cite it. I've seen stuff on there for a year or more without citations of any kind.~&#124; Djathink imacowboy &#124;~ 04:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me address the points you rose above. As to a great deal of detail, while that may seem unnecessary, that alone doesn't preclude that information's inclusion. However, I think I have a wording of a compromise which would resolve your concerns. It would ensure the information is (1) focused on major changes in broadcasting (not every single change); (2) it would be in text form; (3) there would be an agreement that its inclusion would have to be supported by proper citations. Thoughts on this revised suggestion? And please try to post in one text block so its easier to follow. :) Lord Roem (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. Apologies, I had no idea I was posting in separate text blocks. A quotation is separated for just such purposes, so again, sorry. 2. What you have suggested as far as I can interpret it is all I ever asked in the event this information were to be included. I'm a fan and an experienced one, know the value of deep detail. All I want is to see it done correctly. I'd have done it myself, I can word things quite well. It was more important that you handle each step, so I will more than likely sign on gladly to anything you suggest. Incidentally, kind of proves my point, doesn't it? I in fact did not post "interrupted" text and in fact posted quite acceptably. It was that big dopey table that confused you, right?- Djathink imacowboy  08:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll wait for Ragoon to comment on the new suggestion (which is listed in my paragraph above DJ). Lord Roem (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All I can add is, I hope this process isn't running out of steam. It strikes me that no one is really interested, and that is just sad.- Djathink imacowboy  21:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. This is a VERY fast paced mediation compared to some I've dealt with. You two should be proud of yourselves for the good faith efforts you've shown here. Lord Roem (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not my intention to just assume bad faith. However, I see we'll be waiting for Rangoon for a long time to comment on simple issues here. It isn't my intention to be a pain, but I'm tired. He's dragging his feet and since I am acquainted with his manner, I believe it's deliberate. Basically, he's just ignoring this whole thing or responding at his leisure. I warned you about this....Pardon me, somehow I got bumped out of my login. Something's wrong here, too, the site is just dragging. I'm retiring from WP for a few days, to rest and wait for this thing to run right again.— Djathink imacowboy  01:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Editors are free to be off for periods of the day without being accused of ignoring the process. So far Ragoon has shown interest in working towards a solution, and I believe him to be sincere. We are not in a hurry, so there is no need to feel rushed. Only if there are several days in between would I even begin to be concerned. We have made great progress, now let's be patient. Lord Roem (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear, I don't have any specific expectations of others in terms of their speed of replying to points here, and don't expect any overly prescriptive expectations on my speed of response either. Reading the above I see that further personal comments have been made about me, rather than about the actual issues at hand. I will ignore these and not respond in kind (not for the first time). Going forward please let's try and keep things professional, focused and civil. Let's also understand that this is not running to any specific deadline, although obviously we want to keep it moving forward at a reasonable pace.
 * On the specific points, I think it is important to actually break down the various information in the table, and look at each element in turn:


 * 1) - Network of original broadcast: In my view of extreme relevance and should absolutely be retained
 * 2) - Year of original broadcast: Ditto
 * 3) - Month of original broadcast: Relevant, very far from trivia
 * 4) - Evening of the week: Relevant and demonstrates how the show fitted within the schedule
 * 5) - Time of broadcast: Relevant and demonstates things like primetime
 * These pieces of information cannot be treated as a monolithic whole, each one has a different purpose, a different justification for inclusion. I ask myself, what is actually gained from their removal, and what is lost? So far as I can gather, nothing is gained apart from satisfying an apparent desire to remove content from the article and reduce its size. What is lost is content which could be useful to readers, and in some cases is absolutely fundamental to the topic of the article.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about this: A text-paragraph in lieu of the table which shows the (1) changes in network with the year in which each network carried the show, and (2) the time of the broadcast. I think you should give up the other elements. As a reasonable outsider, the network and time are probably the most important and most likely to be useful. Ragoon, could you live with that arrangement? Lord Roem (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It seemed fair to check this when I saw there had been posts. Apologies for attempting to rush everyone. It got out of hand, and I am in no way seeking a deadline. LR, you said this: "A text-paragraph in lieu of the table which shows the (1) changes in network with the year in which each network carried the show, and (2) the time of the broadcast. I think you [Rangoon] should give up the other elements." I will agree with that and only that, since it is a basic statement. The reason I halt my agreement at that point is you can see Rangoon will not give up even the most minor detail, and I wonder who he thinks will be reading this article! We may as well start a new article, Broadcast history of Columbo episodes. What I want to know is whether we will include the entire history of Columbo in that text par., which actually takes us to January (I think) of 2003. Some of the info stresses the original series but I am impartial either way, only concerned that the original series of films not be commingled with the later films. Finally: may I request a section break here? This is getting hard to post/edit due to its length. Thanks.— Djathink imacowboy  06:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, this has got a bit TLDR for me, which I realise is because I haven't been on much, but I'll just pick up from the most recent points. I don't like broadcast history tables, mainly because they only really show the original run, and don't cover the re-runs which to my mind are half the reason for the popularity of any show. DJ's summary prose of key dates and network changes seems to sum it all up nicely, and is almost certainly far more sourcable (from reliable sources). I don't personally think air times and months are that important, but I think that US TV places more importance on that the UK TV tradionally has done.
 * If it stays (in either article), it's got to be sourced. If we can get the sourcing now, then there's hope for moving this article to GA and FA in-time, if not, no chance.
 * I like the DVD as laid out here, but I'm just concerned that it makes the article rather long, but I'm not too fussed either way. If it goes, it should go in the episode list article, with a hatnote on the main page. Ged  UK  12:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
DJ, lets await Ragoon to comment before we say "Rangoon will not give up even the most minor detail". Lord Roem (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. I meant no offense, it's just he's passionate about this and I fully understand his positin that he won't let anything go very willingly. He's demonstrated that again and again, so it isn't an unfair observation. I would have been that way too, not so long ago. Those passions of the connoisseur I understand totally. Let me offer my thanks for the section break. Now...in view of this, might I ask where my post has gone? It isn't visible here. I apologise for its length but I resent it being moved from the place it was posted, which was a perfectly appropriate post. I demand to know why that was simply deleted from this discussion.— Djathink imacowboy  21:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)— Djathink  imacowboy  21:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the slight delay in responding, I am seeking suitable citations at present which I believe is significant to the outcome of this part of the discussion. Whether or not I am able to find any I will post here tomorrow with my findings, and my thoughts on the latest posts above.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the post I made, which was removed in an improper manner, I put two good citations, more than enough and you have no need to find more, Rangoon.— Djathink imacowboy  22:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Missed that post, will look in the history. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The diff is here. I am still waiting for LR's explanation, because that was not a very nice thing to do to remove the original post. That post was for you to read too, Rangoon.— Djathink imacowboy  23:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In protest, I am replacing my original post which was improperly deleted: "Here's what I mean: we can have a Columbo broadcasting schedule history that states Columbo originally aired on NBC from its start date to the end of the original seven-season series, from 1968 to 1978. Columbo then resumed in 1989 on ABC, with season 8 which ran 4 films throughout 1989; season 9 which ran 6 films from 1989 to 1990; season 10 which ran 3 films from 1990 to 1991 and season 11 which ran 3 films from 1993 to 1994. Specials, not part of either of the series, totaled 8: Death Hits the Jackpot, 1991; No Time To Die, 1992; A Bird In the Hand ... ,1992;Strange Bedfellows, 1995; A Trace of Murder - 25th Anniversary, 1997; Ashes to Ashes, 1998; Murder With Too Many Notes, 1999; and Columbo Likes the Nightlife, January, 30, 2003. This is a good ref. and lists all original series episodes, dates aired, and so forth. This actually details every Columbo ever made. I guess my main point is to show you exactly what all this text would entail, and all the more reason why no table should be executed- unless we can do a bare-bones table with the above information. I would be willing to see an example of a table with the seasons, network and basic info I provided here, but no more than that. And I draw to your attention that some editors in the past have asked for one massive table integrating all this with DVD release info, etc. So we'll never make everyone totally happy no matter what." That's the the entire text. Please do not delete it again, or I will withdraw from this mediation.— Djathink imacowboy  23:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangoon, you are very welcome. Let's see what we can come up with together that will make us both feel pleased about the work and will be the best info we can present. Let's do it for Peter Falk!— Djathink imacowboy  23:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As a compromise I am willing to lose the day and time of original broadcast. We will still need to think about how to handle the table, and my preference remains to combine the episodes and broadcast history information into a single table, and remove the DVD info which has its own table elsewhere in the article. I have found these sources which I think could be useful both for this part of the article and a few others:, and  such as the section on Mrs. Columbo. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your references are pretty good. However, I think if they point to specific information, you should have a reference link that takes the reader to the reference text, not just the Google book. Also, I think we need to finally address how we'll present that broadcasting information. I prefer it in text form, as my example above shows how neat and well-organised that would be. However, I said I'd agree to consider an example of a clean, symmetrical table. I did not automatically agree to a table with additional information in it- I made myself clear about what I'm OK with, and what is not in my opinion OK.— Djathink imacowboy  01:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Columbo originally aired on NBC from its start date to the end of the original seven-season series, from 1968 to 1978. Columbo then resumed in 1989 on ABC, with season 8 which ran 4 films throughout 1989; season 9 which ran 6 films from 1989 to 1990; season 10 which ran 3 films from 1990 to 1991 and season 11 which ran 3 films from 1993 to 1994. Specials, not part of either of the series, totaled 8: Death Hits the Jackpot, 1991; No Time To Die, 1992; A Bird In the Hand ... ,1992;Strange Bedfellows, 1995; A Trace of Murder - 25th Anniversary, 1997; Ashes to Ashes, 1998; Murder With Too Many Notes, 1999; and Columbo Likes the Nightlife, January, 30, 2003. This is a good ref. and lists all original series episodes, dates aired, and so forth. This actually details every Columbo ever made.--This, so far, is the only content I am agreeing to; it would be nice as a slightly expanded table but not the kind of muck that was in the article before. The international broadcast table I removed is a good example of what not to do. Personally, I want to see it in text form, inline, more or less as written in my post. It doesn't have to be exactly my way, but that data cannot really be written too many different ways.— Djathink imacowboy  03:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, I am asking with modesty that an explanation be posted as to why my earlier post was deleted and it appears LR deleted it. If I don't see an explanation, as I stated, I will withdraw from this mediation. LR, you should have noted this problem and answered immediately. This post is the last time I will ask. I'm not forcing a time limit but I feel I am being ignored after you, LR, deleted one of my legitimate posts to this mediation. I cannot tolerate that kind of treatment.— Djathink imacowboy  03:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Rangoon and I are reaching an agreement about having a table and how it will look. For ref.:. This must be one hell of a mediator, with all this and no mediator in sight!— Djathink imacowboy  01:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on my talk page, I was out for two days over the weekend. As I mentioned on the same page, I saw at least part of the response you gave was not appropriate. I shouldn't have removed the whole response, so for that, I erred. I am glad to see both parties have been working well on this so far. How close do you both feel to a stable agreement on this issue? Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of preparing a draft table, sans certain agreed removals, for discussion. I was hoping to post this up today but unfortunately it looks like it will be tomorrow now, for which apologies. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * LR: Wait one moment. Sorry, I don't want to seem confrontational. But something is wrong here. What part of my post which you removed was not appropriate? Because you could have made a remark, or asked me to strike anything like that- instead you deleted the whole thing. I didn't come here for that.— Djathink imacowboy  02:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

LR, look at the quotation below. I did not write that and it is the only thing that you might be able to get away with calling "inappropriate". I do not agree it was inappropriate but I noticed it got deleted too, so I think it must be what you meant by not appropriate. And you certainly did not post any statement about it at all before deleting it. Ged UK posted it: If it is a case of confusion, it happens to all of us. But I expect more care to be taken about stuff like this.— Djathink imacowboy  02:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Case of confusion. Let's not let it distract us. Lord Roem (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It won't distract, if it does not become a habit on any of the sides. A bigger distraction is the mediator removing posts "just because". In the spirit of fostering progress, I will not pursue the point further than this. You will note, Rangoon and I have made terrific progress in spite of all this.— Djathink imacowboy  03:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a *very* draft table. Tables are far from my forte and the column widths need work. Please note also the dates are not necessarily correct, these need to be cross checked.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Seasons: 1=from Sept 1971 to Feb. 1972|2=from Sept. 1972 to March, 1973|3=from Sept. 1973 to May 1974|4=from Sept. 1974 to April 1975|5=from Sept. 1975 to May 1976|6=from October 1976 to May 1977 (this had only 3 episodes and no one knows why.)|7=from Nov. 1977 to May 1978 (this concludes original series.)|8= started Feb. 1989 concluded 1989 (month?)|9=from Nov. 1989 to May 1990|10=from Dec. 1990 to April 1991|11=from Oct 1993 to May 1994.


 * So far I think it is very fine. That looks excellent, no need for colours and frills. It will be no problem, with our reference, to fill in the precise dates. One thing: you should change 'Episodes' to 'Number of episodes', don't you think? (I changed it- tentative since this is our 'working' model.) Also, we should perhaps think about adding specials. Mainly because the specials are included on all the DVD sets. But I am not too keen on adding specials until your table is completely accurate as to dates and numbers of episodes. Though I wonder whether we even need the number of episodes. I don't know that we need that. We must recall, we do have List of Columbo episodes.— Djathink imacowboy  04:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Seasons: 1=from Sept 1971 to Feb. 1972|2=from Sept. 1972 to March, 1973|3=from Sept. 1973 to May 1974|4=from Sept. 1974 to April 1975|5=from Sept. 1975 to May 1976|6=from October 1976 to May 1977 (this had only 3 episodes and no one knows why.)|7=from Nov. 1977 to May 1978 (this concludes original series.)|8= started Feb. 1989 concluded 1989 (month?)|9=from Nov. 1989 to May 1990|10=from Dec. 1990 to April 1991|11=from Oct 1993 to May 1994. This is our citation for all of this and more. And the specials I have listed above already.— Djathink imacowboy  04:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this table; it's succinct and shows the core information clearly. Good work. Ged  UK  13:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, one last thing: you cannot end with an entry that says season 10 and specials. You will have to add in a column for specials or note them in the season column in their appropriate year, which I think makes a better table. Food for thought anyway.— Djathink imacowboy  04:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to separate season 10 and the specials, also happy with the new heading. I will try to populate, correct and update the table later today. Then we can try to work out the best way to present the info on the specials e.g. whether to give specific dates.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, I think it is possible to slip the specials between the seasons, as they were originally televised. I think we have the month as well as the year each special was shown. BY the way, do you feel as silly as I do working in mediation here with no mediator? Why did she volunteer and do then do this? She's not even an admin.— Djathink imacowboy  04:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please note, there is a season 11, too.— Djathink imacowboy  04:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've updated the table. Thoughts? It should be noted that the List of Columbo episodes article doesn't include season 11 and will need to be corrected. Rangoon11 (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'm less of a fan with specials separated within the season list, though I understand why. Not a deal-breaker by any means for me, I can live with it. It just feels rather broken up like that. Ged  UK  13:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur. It is excellent and I will even propose that it be placed in the article now.— Djathink imacowboy  13:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please note, there isn't season 11 according to the official release. only season 10A, and 10B.B3430715 (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment to B3430715: Yes there IS a season 11 (sold with season 10 in PAL) acknowledged on both sides of the pond: and  (go to bottom of list and see what constitutes season 11). Also, though I have refused to sign anything further in this, would you mind either signing up as a participant or approaching the mediator? It isn't that you're unwelcome, but there are rules!— Djathink imacowboy  17:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * well, i'm only dropping in.
 * Orz...you made me speechless, did you know that the amazon page you'd showed me is a Fr version? And do you know there is also a season 12 in fr release?  Do take a look at the big photos.
 * what makes you thinks that a columbo fan site to be very official? (it is a good site, but things up there haven't been updated for years.)
 * Since we are speaking english, and the Columbo Complete box set is the first total release, we shall use what it says here.
 * oh, just one more thing, you know, some countries even had columbo in season 13 (+ specials), season 14, season 15 (i believe in german, some tv guide even had season 18)...?

B3430715 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. B, I do not know why you are addressing me as 'Orz'. 2. Do not 'drop in' - sign up to participate or do not post at all. Those are the rules, not my rules. 3. The above post is nothing but disruption. In light of this, I don't believe B3430715 belongs in the mediation process. Of course any editor is free to edit any article.— Djathink imacowboy  16:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm not a member of this mediation, even you withdrawned! Besides,what statement you what me to put? "to supervise your errors" ?
 * 2. don't change the topic, what is your conclusion? IS there a season 11?
 * 3. when cross something you don't know, it's better to first check it! see: Orz
 * 4. And please, this time you don't need to leave a message on my talk page to tell me there is no season 11B3430715 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4. And please, this time you don't need to leave a message on my talk page to tell me there is no season 11B3430715 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

B3430715: If you think you're being funny, you are not. You are disruptive and I cannot understand you half of the time. Also, do not ever change other editor's posts as you just did with my post above. Next time you do that, it's going to ANI. You are clearly and deliberately disruptive.— Djathink imacowboy  21:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2. don't change the topic, what is your conclusion? IS there a season 11? B3430715 (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

'''Since you seem a little off your rocker, B., I'll give you the link to the ANI:. See you there.— Djathink imacowboy'''  22:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreements/Compromises
Issue I - The Awards section of the Columbo page will be changed to be more text-paragraph form. The table of awards will be moved to a new article, entitled something to the effect of "List of awards for Columbo (TV show)" as has been done for other television show articles.


 * Rangoon11 (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Djathink imacowboy  20:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue II - The parties agree to collaborate on the best ways to include the information at issue in a reasonable way that reflects both the purpose of the information and the best way for a reader to understand it.
 * The above statement represents what I wished to do from the beginning of my work at Columbo. In light of the mediator skipping off to do something that is much more important than this MedCab, I refuse to sign in concurrence. I wish to work here with Rangoon and keep up my end of everything we need to do, keep this away from the article's talk page and finish the main work. But I consider myself unbound from this mediation as of now. I wish it understood that I am not cooperating with a mediator like LR nor do I agree that LR has held up her end of the ongoing process here.— Djathink imacowboy

Final steps
It looks like some of the contentious nature of the dispute has evaporated and editors are more willing to work together on their own. Do the parties think this is accurate? Lord Roem (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur.— Djathink imacowboy  06:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that some of the most difficult issues have been dealt with. I do think that this mediation process has been helpful though. For convenience it may be easier to at least finish the live discussions above on this page rather than trying to move them back to the article talk page though.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Rangoon about keeping the work here. It started here and is underway here - we may as well finish it here and I never felt anything should be moved to the article talk page. Keeping it here is a good idea until we decide to implement the changes at the article. When we do, we will have no need to put anything on the talk page without agreeing to it anyway.— Djathink imacowboy  06:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * May I also recommend our mediator continue filling in the Agreements/Compromises step-by-step, having us sign as we decide each step. In that section we'll have the full 'battle plan' for the article work by the time we're done. If we just abandon that now, we'll have no finished overview of what we decided. Rangoon and I both agreed to work based on what is accomplished here.— Djathink imacowboy  06:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, good idea.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In light of the mediator skipping off to do something that is much more important than this MedCab, I refuse to sign anything more here. I wish to work here with Rangoon and keep up my end of everything we need to do, and during this time keep this away from the article's talk page. I wish to finish the main work here. But I consider myself unbound from this mediation as of now. I wish it understood that I am not cooperating with a mediator like LR nor do I agree that LR has held up her end of the ongoing process here.— Djathink imacowboy
 * I think the three of us (though clearly mainly you two!) have worked this all out pretty well, and that the mediator isn't really needed if things are progressing along on their own. Ged  UK  12:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ged, point well taken. However, my point is a little different. My point is I resent being brought into this in the first place, by someone who planned to just drop it and leave, which LR has clearly already done. LR is just an editor, with absolutely no authority in the first place but we agreed to do this MedCab. And some weeks ago LR simply abandoned it to go do something else. I protest that and I want to make sure it is on record here. Also, I see Rangoon isn't even showing up to do anything. That is just one of the results of a mediator abandoning the job. All I can add is I'm through with this nonsense: I'll go back to work when Rangoon feels ready to go back.— Djathink imacowboy  23:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies I haven't been present for a few days, nothing to do to with the issues regarding the moderator. I will populate the draft table above today and then hopefully we can wrap that issue up and move on to the next one.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's OK. Glad to see you are still attentive, Rangoon. I'll work with you whenever you ask. As you may have noted, however, I am withdrawn from actively agreeing to anything in this mediation. I've had it with the mediator, who is known for abandoning mediations anyway.— Djathink imacowboy  16:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I want it understood that in spite of this mediation break-down, which I blame on Lord Roem, who has abandoned this totally, I am still cooperating/working on here with Rangoon as his schedule allows. It is for the betterment of a WP article, and we are focusing on that as much as we can.— Djathink imacowboy  19:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)