Talk:List of Hart of Dixie episodes

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article split into seasonal articles edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

I notice a possible edit war brewing regarding the season article split for Season 1. The decision to revert the split and restore the content to the main list article was appropriate per WP:SIZERULE and because there was no original content not in the main article. Moreover, it was decidedly NOT vandalism. I would encourage the editor firing such accusations around to be careful, to review policy regarding article splits, and to discuss here rather than on another editor's talk page or via edit summary. --Drmargi (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Splitting the article up into seasons is the right way to go. The season 1 page gives the readers the cover art, and dvd details. Regarding the "Copy Past information" I have had this discussion with another user, as I myself removed it from the main page, but the previous editor suggested it stayed on the main page, talk to him if you need.

Season splitting is a norm. List of episodes presented in this way is the norm.

This presentation makes it much more easier for the reader to understand than having the entire episode recap in the list of episodes page. The recap of each episode is and should only be in the season page.

I trust you read this and understand that its normal practice on Wikipedia. B.Davis2003 (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Season splitting should be done when an article reaches the standard for splitting, usually once there are four or five seasons. Doing so this early is not "the norm", and all the articles cited above have reached the requisite size threshold for splitting. This one is nowhere close, and is subject to redirects; moreover a season is never split before it concludes, even in longer lived series. If the only reasons you have for splitting is DVD cover art and details, you've entirely missed the point of this project. This is an encyclopedia, and its purpose is not to provide a place for DVD cover art. Your articles contained nothing that wasn't already available in the main article, and that is not sufficient content to justify season articles, even when the WP:SIZERULE guideline is met. I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the policies for article splitting as noted above, and refrain from any further accusations, avoid telling other editors what is done when you are incorrect and avoid any further edit warring. --Drmargi (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I find that very hard to believe, I almost had to pinch myself. The articles above indicate that they were split into different seasons right after the end of their first seasons. So the "rule" of only splitting the articles up into seasons after 4 seasons is complete nonsense!

As I informed you before about the content (which you obviously didn't take into account) I have discussed this with another editor, who insisted on keeping the information contained in the season 1 page to the main page. Details of the DVD and its cover is just one aspect of my argument! I will be seeing to further assistance on this matter. B.Davis2003 (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You and one other editor don't get to make a unilateral decision about how an article is structured. You might want to see WP:OWN, because I'm sensing ownership issues here, and I am generally the last person to say that. Moreover, I responded specifically to the content you cited. You, on the other hand, have not addressed, nor apparently read, WP:SIZERULE and/or WP:SPLIT. If there are other aspects of your argument, present them, but don't expect me to simply acquiesce to your wishes because you claim to have discussed this matter with one other editor. Three editors have reverted you now, and that means you do not have consensus for the split. --Drmargi (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I disagree that splitting articles with only one aired season is anywhere near "the norm", except by new and inexperienced editors. WP:SIZERULE recommends that consideration be given to splitting articles once an article reaches 50kB of readable prose. Even using a very loose interpretation of the definition of readable prose, the amount of readable prose in this version of the article is only a tad over 12.3kB, which is a long, long way below WP:SIZERULE's upper limit of the "Length alone does not justify division" category. Splitting is typically reserved for shows with several seasons, making the "List of" article overly long, and that just isn't the case here. Based on article growth to date and current size I don't see a need for several years, unless substantial season specific content can be added to the season articles. Without that extra content, splitting forces the reader to look in multiple articles for the most basic episode content that is currently all available in a single article. It makes far more sense to include everything on one page if the only substantial content is the episode tables. Splitting the article results in three articles covering what one currently does and they all need to watched. Managing multiple articles is almost always more unwieldy than managing one. The other issue is the splitting process itself. It's not enough to simply create another article. Both this and the season articles require proper attribution as per Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure, and this has not been carried out. There's also the location of the season 1 article, which should be at Hart of Dixie (season 1), not Hart of Dixie (Season 1). There simply isn't justification enough for splitting the article at this time. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I do not claim ownership over this article, and only 2 users have reverted me, yourself and QuasyBoy.B.Davis2003 (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

That should be enough to stop you restoring the split, as per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. I would be remiss if I didn't mention the fact that the season articles also contained numerous MOS:HASH and MOS:BOLD violations, so they'd need work if they were restored, which they shouldn't be. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Splitting the article. edit

It is about time these season's be split into seasonal articles. Too much information is being pilled into the one article. B.Davis2003 (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Everything that was stated in the above discussion still applies. It is very much too early to split the article. Since the above discussion, only another 2kB of prose has been added. We're still 36kB shy of considering a split. Based on the rate at which content is being added, that's about season 5. -- AussieLegend (✉) 11:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

...and again edit

Despite the above consensus not to split yet, B.Davis2003 has split the article,[1] creating a season 2 article in the process. The changes have been reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why, the normal standard article practice on wikipedia is splitting the articles up into season pages. Making the list of episodes page shorter makes it easier to read the production dates/ ep names, ep ratings, however having the episode description in the ep list makes it harder to read. Hence we make a season page, in that season page you included DVD details, season synopsis, cast details, production details, yet you all insist on having this lot of information squashed into the main page article. I put a lot of time into creating the page for the readers on here to get a clearer understanding, and I think it's hight time to split the articles, and not have this nonsense of keeping it all in one section!!! B.Davis2003 (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

As has been explained to you, it's not standard practice to split short articles unless there is substantially more content in the season articles, and that still is not the case with the articles that you created. For the record, since the last discussion, another 5kB of prose as been added, but this is still 31kB shy of considering a split. --11:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

May I let you in on this. Nikita was split into season articles during season 2.

Explain this one then! B.Davis2003 (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Nikita season articles have considerably more content than the season articles that you created. Mind you. they're not in the correct format, and have multiple flaws, such as breaching MOS:HASH and not complying with MOS:ACCESS, and using the wrong fields in the template. Somewhat ironically, that's much like the season 1 article that you created, which is a very old and very out of date version that doesn't include a lot of changes made here since it was initially created. When you split an article there has to be a justifiable reason to do so, and there are no justifiable reasons at this point. When splitting articles it has to be done correctly, and you didn't. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

There's no difficulty reading the existing season article. Most of the article splits are done because someone things that's what you do, not because it's best for the content, or because they want a place to put a pretty picture of the DVD box. Meanwhile, readers have to hunt through multiple articles for content that was once in one, concise table, notably the episode summaries. For every production detail I've read, I've undoubtedly read forty or fifty episode summaries, and find myself very frustrated wading through season after season to find what I want (especially with Burn Notice, and that's the rare show that has well written season articles.) What ends up in most of these articles is a) unsourced production detail; b) over-long over-detailed ratings tables that no one cares about and/or c) a lot of fancruft, usually accompanied by at least one edit war over table colors and the like. Spare me. --Drmargi (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Adding individual season articles. edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As stated above, It is time to split up the articles into seasons, Hart of Dixie is approaching its 3rd season, and with all the new casting information, its making the main page too crowded. B.Davis2003 (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The page still isn't too crowded at all. It's still a relatively short article. --AussieLegend (✉)

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of Hart of Dixie 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:

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) 03:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Hart of Dixie 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/20121012234853/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/10/tuesday-final-ratings-ncis-the-voice-hart-of-dixie-ncisla-go-on-adjusted-down/152365/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/10/tuesday-final-ratings-ncis-the-voice-hart-of-dixie-ncisla-go-on-adjusted-down/152365

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) 12:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic