Talk:List of The Cleveland Show episodes

Writer and Director sections

I will be adding the writer and director sections to the main episode list unless there are objections that have an accurate rationale. They are two main categories and take up little space and can be quite informative if you are looking through the list. There is nothing that says the info can't be on the episode list page, and it only adds to the page. If someone would want to scan through the seasons and see what certain episodes a director/writer did this would allow for that. So without further objections i will add it. Grande13 (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Going through the featured lists (24, 30 rock, dexter, carnivale, the office and many more...) it seems clear the majority of them have director/writer so i will go include them in this list as wellGrande13 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

proposition to merge pages

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The results of this discussion was to Not Merge

I suggest merge The Cleveland Show (season 1) with List of The Cleveland Show episodes. There is only 1 season, don't need to have both pages with same informations. - Rollof1 (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This page has expanded information compared to the condensed main episode list and the show has already been picked up for a second seasonGrande13 (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The season page has more details, such as the plot summary. CTJF83 chat 17:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. A core policy is that Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. 121.45.220.84 (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand that most (if not all) of the pages are a mess right now. But all it takes is a dedicated user to fix them up enough, that they can have a sourced cultural references and reception section to give them real world impact. CTJF83 chat 08:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Would you agree to a scenario where the articles are merged, and individual articles are spun-off if and when they actually do achieve the status of a stand-alone article? Let's decrease the number of construction sites which are still missing the groundwork. My two cents, that would be the most plausible handling of the situation. --78.34.219.216 (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Wait, we're kinda talking about two things here. You want to merge all the article pages, and then spin them back out when we have sufficient reception and such sections? I'm hesitant to do that, I could spend time trying to improve all the articles. I think I've been swayed to merge season one back with the list of episodes page. CTJF83 chat 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
          • God no, that's not what I'm suggesting since that would indeed create a lot of unnecessary work. No, what I'm proposing is to look at each individual article and determine (via the usual means) whether to redirect or expand. Either of these two things should happen for every article that cannot yet support its own weight as a stand-alone article. However, unless and until a page is brought up to minimum standards it should be redirected (e.g. notability needs to be established through the implementing of according RS; there must be some sourced real-world content beyond a mere plot summary). --78.34.217.88 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
            • Are you willing to help me try and expand all the episode pages? CTJF83 chat 19:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
              • First things first. We may start by assessing each of the episode pages for their individual availability of sources, the respective episode's notability, and the all-around expansion potential of the page to a stand-alone article. --78.34.217.88 (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
                • Ok, even before that, first let's agree to keep this discussion at #Merge individual episode articles, cause there is too much jumping around. :) CTJF83 chat 20:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
                  • lol, true. --78.34.217.88 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I also oppose per reasons mentioned above. I do have one problem with the two pages though; the production codes for the episodes are not the same on both pages. I'm not sure of the correct ones. Someone with the knowledge please fix it? --HELLØ ŦHERE 17:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated above, and i updated the production codes.Grande13 (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as for everything ubove. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Season pages were created for larger television shows because the original List of ... episodes lists were getting too long. We don't have that problem with this list, at least not right now. Theleftorium 17:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support, it's redundant for a show that has just started to have 2 lists of episodes. Even 2 full seasons would not be enough to warrant separate lists. See the television style guidelines for clarity on this issue. Sarilox (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support by what Sarilox says. There are not enough episodes (yet) to warrant articles for each season. Even if individual episode articles are merged (see below) there is still not enough content to justify season articles. Worry about it if/when we get to 80 episodes. 121.45.220.84 (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per above. Each episode receives significant review, they can all be expanded easilly with such information. Gage (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per most of the above. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge individual episode articles

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. The individual episode articles consist almost entirely of plot summary and trivia. A core policy is that Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. A general principle is that it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own. Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance. 121.45.220.84 (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point. Just understand that it takes a little time to work on articles to get them up to quality. There are several good articles and featured articles that are episode pages. Of course, when the page is new, it is gonna be a mess of trivia and original research but in time, a lot of the pages work themselves out to be good articles. Also, I don't think tagging all episode pages for merge, and putting a notability tag on them is the best approach. Why not try and improve the pages so they are notable to stand on their own? CTJF83 chat 08:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Of course, when the page is new, it is gonna be a mess of trivia and original research" -- No. All articles should fulfill the minimum requirements right on creation, otherwise they are simply not articles.

Mainspace pages cannot serve as placeholders or unorganized information containers of some sort until someone comes along and makes it into an article. Whoever creates the page should do so only after they have already collected and assessed a minimum in real-world content and accompanying secondary sources.

Consider that there is a categorical difference between saying --however accurate it may be in a given situation-- that "sources can be found" on the one hand and actually finding and implementing those sources on the other.

Each of the episode pages in question should be assessed for their individual status and either be expanded into a suitable article where possible, or alternatively redirected at least for the time being. If and when someone decides to create an article for an individual episode, the page history will still be there to incorporate, and no work or content is lost.

Regarding your question "Why not try and improve the pages so they are notable to stand on their own?" -- You are conflating two distinct issues here. One is that of notability, which is an inherent quality of the article's subject. The other is that of proper encyclopedic article versus non-article page, where "proper" is really not asking a lot -- just the bare minimum in real-world content and reliable secondary sources. Not as conjecture or speculation, but right there, in the article.

One final aside: The appropriate response to a "mess of trivia and original research" is not to indulge that mess until maybe, hopefully eventually someone comes along and turns it into a proper article. Where notability is not given or where there are other serious stepping stones (particularly an lack of implemented sources to establish notability and provide some actual content), the appropriate response is to redirect and to educate people about what is and what is not acceptable as a stand-alone article so that they may learn from example and make an effort to write actual articles. Nobody is asking for featured or even good standards. Just the bare minimum. --78.34.219.216 (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

articles need time to grow, you can't assume that every article right on its creation is notable, but with multiple users giving input and adding info and sources it becomes notable. Without having the article there to contribute it would never become notable by itself as one user might not have the info to make it notable, but with the collection of everyones info it becomes notable Grande13 (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing the article with the subject of the article. The subject of the article must meet minimum notability requirements before the article is created. If notability of the subject cannot be established immediately on creation, the article should not have been created in the first place. Having a Wikipedia article does not make the subject become notable. A subject is notable if it has received significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Individual television series episodes are generally not notable unless they have received significant independent media coverage (in some cases a pilot may qualify) or wins a major award. In any case an individual episode article must be encyclopedic and cover the subject from a real world perspective. Plot summaries and trivia are not encyclopedic. 121.45.220.227 (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

you can't assume that every article right on its creation is notable [...] Without having the article there to contribute it would never become notable -- I think 121.45.220.227 may be right, you seem to conflate article and article subject. Any subject's level of notability is entirely independent from Wikipedia's coverage, and each subject needs to meet the General notability guideline before an article on that subject is created. Conversely, in article rescue, including sources to establish notability is one of the first things, besides the obvious like removal of OR etc.

It is of course true that articles grow and develop over time, but mainspace pages cannot be used as indiscriminate info dumps until an article is made or some such. Right on page creation, the minimum requirements of having established notability via specific, reliable secondary sources and (particularly for television episodes) sourced real-world content beyond the plot summary should definitely be fulfilled. Without that, there is simply no article, and the page should be redirected.

About article creation in general: Only registered editors can create mainspace pages and all registered editors should be familiar with at least Wikipedia's most basic content requirements as succinctly summarized for example in WP:FIRST. --78.34.217.88 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

An article should never be a mess of trivia and original research. One of the three core content policies of Wikipedia is no original research. 121.45.220.227 (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right as far as policy goes, but I still oppose merging any episode pages. Grande makes a point saying if the pages is already created, it is easier to add 3rd party coverage of the episode. In my opinion, the episodes should all be created, and then after a given amount of time (3,6,12 months) if notability isn't established, then merge it. I know it probably won't work like that, but I think that is better than just merging and unmerging. CTJF83 chat 19:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I look at it this way: Since the plot summary is usually the first thing present in a page, and since nobody is proposing to delete those prospective article pages but merely redirect them for now, no amount of work is lost. The process of adding reliably sourced real-world information to establish notability and support at least some real-world content is precisely what needs to happen in order for the page to qualify as an article in the first place.

Note that I am not generally opposed to some "grace period", especially where an episode of a popular series just aired and is looked up precisely for plot details by many people. But such situations tend to get out of hand and we run the danger of ending up with lots and lots of unready articles which contain nothing but a plot summary. That is what I'd like to minimize by going through the episode articles one by one, assessing them for their individual notability and immediate expansion potential. --78.34.217.88 (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say probably every episode page can be expanded, being that The Cleveland Show is new and pretty popular, there are probably lots of 3rd party reviews. It's just going to take some dedicated users to research and expand the pages. CTJF83 chat 20:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're not in a hurry, so.. fair enough, I'll defer to your judgment. But just for the record, most of the time I am not a big fan of individual episode articles unless a specific episode's notability requires detailed coverage best served by its own article. Even if sources can be found, that doesn't automatically answer the question of whether all of that information contributes to an optimal depth of coverage of the series, the season and each episode. Summary style is an important encyclopedic device and even that guideline cautions "to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic". Instead, Summary style recommends (very plausibly, imho) to first focus on the "main article [i.e. the series or season article] first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the main topic and the subtopic". The error that many people make is to create half-baked pages in the first place. We should have a situation where the main article is being developed and watched by many, with the occasional spin-off article when an episode's coverage is reaching a point where it is better served via its own article, as above. --78.34.217.88 (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

yes multiple sites review every episode such as ign and a few more. Also, there are many articles and stories on various cleveland show happenings, making each page notable if a little time is spent on itGrande13 (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you 2 commit to help (or at least one of you) I'll work on getting them all up to meet WP:N CTJF83 chat 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right that any episode page could be brought to a point where the likely long-term result is that most or all of them stay as seperate articles. But please see my comment in reponse to Ctjf83 above. I recommend WP:Summary style. It doesn't need to followed, but imho it makes a lot of sense most of the time. --78.34.217.88 (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A word on article creation

As I noted above, everyone editing Wikipedia and certainly all registered users who can create pages should be familiar with at least the most basic requirements as summarized e.g. in WP:FIRST.

If people followed the basic standards laid out there, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

So here, for everyone to judge for themselves, is what I consider a cabinet of horror of mindless page creation without consideration of our very basic, core requirements as to what constitutes an article at all. And please don't give me that old "it grows from there", you all know full well you could have written up a proper article in your userspace and moved it to mainspace only when it's ready to hatch.

1. Pilot (The Cleveland Show)
2. Da Doggone Daddy-Daughter Dinner Dance
3. The One About Friends
4. Birth of a Salesman (The Cleveland Show)
5. Cleveland Jr.'s Cherry Bomb
6. Ladies' Night (The Cleveland Show)
7. A Brown Thanksgiving
8. From Bed to Worse
9. A Cleveland Brown Christmas
10. Fields of Streams

Sorry if I come across as telling anyone off, but seriously, guys, read up on WP:FIRST. --87.79.48.239 (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't like the show summary at the top, don't like the new #anchor scheme

I don't like the summary because I'm here for the list of episodes, and with the summary, I have to scroll down to get the contents listing the various seasons. I don't care about the summary, isn't that what the main show page is for?

The new scheming link is a pain, because where I used to could move between various shows just by typing [show]_episodes#Season_X, now I have to go all the way there, scroll through the gay summary, click the season link, and then I'm there.

It's clear that engineers who (rightfully) value documenting code, and not UI designers, are in charge of these pages and while I applaud maintainers' efforts generally, this one is causing Wikipedia usability to suffer.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.94.131.198 (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm, are you talking about the WP:LEAD which is important for every page to have, or what? By the way, gay = homosexual or happy, not stupid CTJF83 chat 23:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In South Park, where I live, gay is an appropriate adjective for the absurd application of rules/style/effort/etc. In some instances, gayness can be so absurd as to engender adoration, e.g., boystown, Chicago, on Halloween.

I thank you for directing me to WP:Lead which is probably a better place to vent my usability frustrations.

Individual ratings?

Can anyone add individual episode ratings? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foreverinsane (talk • contribs) 14:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

They are usually on the episode page. CTJF83 chat 19:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Season 4

sould we not create a list of episodes table for season 4 now we know that the first episode will be menace II, as confirmed at comic con 2012 (Frogkermit (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

Sure, if not done already. CTF83! 10:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Episode articles?

The show only has a few episodes that have their own articles and descriptions. Is the show just plain not popular enough to warrant more writing? --RThompson82 (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably because no one on here is motivated enough to write articles on this show. As logn as an episode meets WP:GNG, it should have a page. Feel free to help out! CTF83! 10:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Season 4 episode 20 aired may 6th, instead of may 12th, I think.

Exactly what the headline says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbertkruitbosch (talk • contribs) 22:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of The Cleveland Show episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090222182949/http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/11/the-family-guy.html to http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/11/the-family-guy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110913123008/http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z2z252z2z8&ID=7731 to http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z2z252z2z8&ID=7731
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zZX7grKg?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/06/16/final-2009-10-broadcast-primetime-show-average-viewership/54336/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/06/16/final-2009-10-broadcast-primetime-show-average-viewership/54336/
• Added archive https://archive.is/2014.08.12-083815/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/06/01/2010-11-season-broadcast-primetime-show-viewership-averages/94407/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/06/01/2010-11-season-broadcast-primetime-show-viewership-averages/94407/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of The Cleveland Show episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090930172542/http://www.fox.com/cleveland/ to http://fox.com/cleveland/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)