Talk:List of Person of Interest episodes

Summary

Is this what we call a Short Summary ("Ghosts")? It's probably the longest episode "summary" on Wikipedia. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet on it being the longest, bit it is too long. Summaries should be kept between 100-250 words with a maximum of 350 for especially complicated plots. The current "Ghosts" summary is up around 450, so it definitely needs to be trimmed down. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Split to season article

As seems to be the trend these days, an eager editor split the Season 1 episode list off into a separate article without discussion and with no original content to justify the article. The current episode list article falls well within WP:SIZERULE, and the content of the season article is already in the main article about the show, so why the split? These seem to be done increasingly just because they can be or someone thinks they should be, without any consideration of whether they're actually needed. In this case, given the new article isn't needed, I've reverted the split and redirected the season article. As it stands, it's simply one more step a reader needs to take to get to the episode summaries. Moreover, given the season has just ended and a good bit of editing of summaries is taking place at present, it's too soon to move them, making them harder to access by new and novice editors. --Drmargi (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the "eager" compliment as I was the one who created the Season 1 article. I did such so as to shorten this "list" page as no one has followed the episode summary guidelines given above. I was also not aware that I should "discuss" creating the season article with anyone. I created one for Revenge and Once Upon a Time with no complaints. As for "new and novice editors"' accessibility, that's what wikilinks are for. I've been a Wikipedian for only six months but this is another example of why I hate this site: others' "eagerness" to revert/delete things. I guess we'll just let someone undo the redirect for Season One when there's more than one season and over 10,000 words in the episodes descriptions? — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Eager wasn't intended to be derogatory, just descriptive. The need to discuss varies depending on the thinking of the editors on any given article, but the the list articles are rarely long or complex enough to split before the end of the third season, if then (see for example, Castle, where the consensus is still not to split.) But equally importantly, there needs to be enough substance to create a separate article, not just a duplication of the original article. That's often a problem with these seasonal articles, although few get the oversight they need. On the other hand, the summaries are long and need cutting down; why not dive in and work on them? --Drmargi (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I stay away from the episode summaries as whatever I remove gets added again by those "new and novice" editors that you mentioned. Again, the amazing part is that the Revenge and Once Upon a Time seasonal articles are doing just fine, and POI viewership numbers put them to shame. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We now have a Season 1 DVD image. (http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Person-Season-1/17069) Can we please start a Season 1 article NOW? — WylieCoyote 22:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE says a an article of 50KB can be divided, this one's like 49KB so close enough. As long as there's sufficient content, i.e. you have information about production and reception that is specific to the first season and can't be used either here or on the main article page. I always point to the Fringe articles (here, here, here and here) as good examples of that, but you've done a good job on other season pages so I think you've got the gist of it. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The first attempt had no new content. I don't see the need to forced editors to travel to another page to read what's already in existing articles simply to follow the fashion and create a seasonal article. Likewise, viewership numbers, cited above, are not a reason to split an article. An article is split when there is content that merits a split as well as when WP:SIZERULE applies, not one or the other. --Drmargi (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• There seems to be a misconception regarding WP:SIZERULE here. The content that WP:SIZERULE refers to is readable prose, not file size. The page is currently about 46kB but this is file size. According to the definition of readable prose, there is actually only about 718bytes of readable prose, as the definition does not include table content. Even using a very loose definition of readable prose there is still only 27.1kB of prose, well below WP:SIZERULE's "Length alone does not justify division" 40kB boundary. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it needs to be split because of strong critical acclaim. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As before, acclaim is a dandy thing, but the criteria for splitting an article have to do with article size and article content. Acclaim simply doesn't enter in. --Drmargi (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I am in support for each season to be split in to their own articles. Look at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes, even List of Once Upon a Time episodes, done by WylieCoyote, as well as their subsequent individual season pages. The main page has a series overview, with episodes names, writers, directors, etc. The individual season pages have more detailed info for each episode, the main cast for the season, as well as any other relevant info needed, (such as ratings). If this page and split articles (if done) are done like this, it would be fine. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

All of which are already in the main article and/or episode list article. This is still splitting for splitting's sake. --Drmargi (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The page is now above 60 kB, which can warrant a split. Also pages have been made at Person of Interest (Season 1) and Person of Interest (Season 2), which can be moved to Person of Interest (season 1) and Person of Interest (season 2) -Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see AussieLegend's comments above about file size v. readable prose; we've barely cracked 1kB of readable prose at this point. Moreover, size alone is not sufficient to split the article; there needs to be substantive content, and at present, neither season article includes anything not already in the list article. --Drmargi (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of size I would agree that the separate season articles should be created if only so that the episode summaries can be more detailed and the guest stars more easily listed. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I've yet to see a substantive reason for a split that is in line with policy. The episode summaries are plenty long now, and guest stars are a fancrufty reason for expanding from one article to season articles. The last split left us with harder access for the average reader and season articles with no substance save a picture of the cover of the season 1 DVD. It boils down to need v. want. Folks seem to want to split, but no one can make a case why we really need to split, and there's good policy why we don't. --Drmargi (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

How about this; a list of episodes article should be that as with Homeland, it is simply a list of the titles and the rest of the information on each episode. The at the top of each season the link to the relevant season, 1 and 2. On those articles there is details of the plots for each episode and information about the season, information that cannot be on a list article, such as a detailed guest cast and notes about production and reception. If it warrants there are then invididual episode articles (where even more information can be placed). With just this article we are limiting the amount of detail that can be placed on Wiki about the individual seasons, and that information cannot be on the main article because of size issues. I do not believe that individual seasons are harder to access, and at this point the descriptions are making this page large so why not split it and tidy this page to the essentials. If you want an idea of where the season articles can end up then look at Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1), South Park (season 13) or Smallville (season 1), all of which became FAs but couldn't have done that as a chunk of a List of... article. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what everyone else is suggesting; they're all split that way. The last split had no meaningful content; it simply forced readers to go to two articles to access what used to be in one. --Drmargi (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How can any meaningful content be added if the article isn't split into three? And is clicking one extra link from the episodes page a real hardship? Darrenhusted (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a season page can give more meaningful information, it can show the rank a certain episode had in that week. it can show the DVR Ratings for the show, and can show things on the DVD Release. There can be much more information on a season page. Tvlover96 (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In other words, it's a catch place for an oversized, pointless ratings table everyone seems so mad for these days, but that utterly fails WP:UNDUE, given few readers have a clue what the ratings mean, much less care about them. The Lemming Effect! --Drmargi (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We should split the article now - I already added a bunch of information on the season 1 page, I'll add more in a while. I'll also add coverage tot the season 2 article after that. Chihciboy (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is too small to split, by at least two seasons. Splitting while there is an ongoing discussion and no consensus is edit warring. Splitting under GNG is a stretch, to say the least, and not what the policy was intended to address. Regardless, itdoesn't trump SIZERULE. You are too new an editor to be making edit decisions, much less edits this complex. Drmargi (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this article should be split into season articles, too. With all the long summaries gone, it will provide the users a neater looking page. Just look what List of Homeland episodes has done. Even though it has only two seasons and the no. of episodes is far lesser than that of POI, it has created two seasonal articles. This not only helps to make the page more appealing, it also helps the user to get the basic episode details such as name, director, writer, ep no. , viewers, production code etc. Also, the seasonal articles don't necessarily need to be bombarded with new information at the time of inception. The amount of information can naturally grow over time. One main reason that seasonal articles are being removed is that when they created and new(little but relevant and helpful) information is added, the page is removed immediately by moderators or other users. Remember, little information can grow over time to create large to medium amounts of information. It's not that information for POI is not available, you can check out: http://personofinterest.wikia.com/wiki/Person_of_Interest_Wiki . This site can be used for information but the usage of this information might be highly conflicted as clear sources are not mentioned. That site is what Wikipedia's group of POI-related pages should be. I regard that site of great importance. As it seems, only a few users are against this idea. The majority is FOR the splitting of this article. --Varunn 18:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunn pandya (talk • contribs)

• Comment Before any consideration should be given to splitting this article, there is some cleanup that needs to be done, particularly when it comes to the length of episode summaries. Per the instructions for {{Episode list}}, episode summaries should be 100-300 words. Many of the summaries, starting with episode 1 (349 words) are longer than this. Episode 22 is a massive 574 words. That alone would "provide the users a neater looking page". --AussieLegend (✉) 20:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's time to split into 2 seasons, but there definitely should be a little clean up done first, or very soon after. -- Ice (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Reopen discussion

As the show has been renewed for a third season, can we please look into this again? This just seems crazy that a show going into it's third season, still does not have individual season pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I Know I tried splitting the article today but someone stopped me and reset it back. - DanDud88

I reverted it because you'd done it incorrectly and left a real mess (see your talk page for the totality of the situation.) That revert had nothing to do with the merits of the split. HOWEVER, I'm still opposed given a) the lack of content I've seen in the split articles and b) the unnecessary division of content that is more easily accessed as it is. The article is far too small to split, per WP:SIZERULE. In addition, see other issues AussieLegend addresses above. Everyone wants the fun of doing the split, but no one wants the responsibility of making sure it's done properly. --Drmargi (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Define properly, look what I did might not have been right but it was a start, you could have edited, it to make it correct. If we all work together than fighting alone we could accomplish a lot. DanDud88

I'll fix minor mistakes if they're worth fixing. This wasn't. I didn't need editing, it needed to be completely redone. Why should I do that when I don't agree with the split, and the correct procedure for splitting wasn't followed, AND I've got an editor who's already walked away from one mess in another article? Your comment suggests you expect other editors to clean up after you in the name of working together. That's not mature, responsible editing. Everyone makes mistakes, and others will help with small ones, but that's not the case here. Learn to do a split using the correct procedure before you attempt one again. You weren't even close. --Drmargi (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Reopen discussion again

Ok so if we shorten the episode descriptions can we then to a season split? DanDud88

Length of summaries is not a governing factor in splits. Do you have content not plagiarized from another source around which you can build season articles? I don't see a reason to split other than WP:LEMMING presented. --Drmargi (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I read somewhere, when we were having the previous discussion above (and I'm kicking myself now, because I don't remember where it was), that when a series hits its 70th episode, season pages are acceptable to be made. Drmargi, do you know what I am talking about, or where it is located? I'll try to see if can find it again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this, Favre. I have no recollection of 70 episodes being anything but the minimum needed for syndication. WP:SIZERULE is the primary governing standard for splits, along with the split articles having sufficient content to merit individual articles. --Drmargi (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I really could have sworn I saw this info somewhere in regards to size, as I made a mental note that POI would hit the 70 this season, so then this could be revisited. I'll keep searching for it to confirm or deny my belief. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

How come I changed the length of summaries and yet again Drmargi changed it back, im not particularly happy with you. I edited the summary lengths so we can split the pages by seasons and your still not happy. What will it take to get you to tell me what to do to split? DanDud88

Again, length of summary has no bearing on whether an article should be split or not. Please read the discussions above, with particular attention to WP:SIZERULE. I won't tell you what to do to split because a. I don't think you have any reason to split other than you see other shows doing it, and; b. I don't think it needs splitting. You shortened those summaries not because they were in the best interest of the article but so you could have your own way. That's not why we make edits. Moreover, you show little if any understanding of the purpose and reasons for article splits. I suggest you do some reading and come back here when you can mount and argument in favor of splitting rather than demanding others tell you what to do so you can have your own way. --Drmargi (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Reopen again

Come on the shows been renewed for a 4th season the length of the page is getting ridiculous, how bad does it have to be before someone does a split that everyone is happy with. I edit the Law & Order: UK page and that has separate episodes guides for seasons. --DanDud88

Size matters. Content matters. Number of seasons doesn't. What will four articles achieve that this one doesn't, aside from a silly desire to display the DVD cover and an over-long cast list? WP:LEMMING. --Drmargi (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I finally found what I was talking about above, in regards to splitting once we get to a certain number. MOS:TV#Multiple pages states: "generally [around] 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists." So this issue shouldn't be entertained again until at least halfway into season 4. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The operative word there is may. Not "we must do it because we are lemmings and everyone else has done it." The individual season articles would have to have enough content to merit their own articles (and precious few actually do). I can think of two series of 6+ seasons off the top of my head, both still intact and just fine that way. --Drmargi (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you have decided already that this article will never be split. You have shot down any attempts to split the already oversized page, as well as any discussion about it. If I understand you correctly, the article before the episode listing is too short for a split? Why don't you suggest they (proponents of splitting) write a short (or preferably long) descriptions of each season that would grant the split, instead of just deleting their work? I agree that the article before the listing is way too short (and too general), as well as many episode summaries are too long. You keep referring to lemmings (btw the WP:LEMMING-page is missing), but what are the requirements for a split you can accept? After all, judging from the talk here, splitting this article depends on your will to accept, as you will stomp any attempt by deleting rather than suggesting fixes. Riqnevala (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This from someone who, before today, never edited this article and had half a dozen edits in 2008? Whose meatpuppet are you? --Drmargi (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting link, you should read carefully that chapter, especially about it being derogatory.. I have registered my username 2005, but I never got to use it much, so I guess I am not that experienced. I don't know who these other people in this discussion are, I just happened to wonder why this article is not split to seasons, and I got here. I have not suggested a vote, but I did share my thoughts on what could be done to improve (and to eventually grant the split) instead of (having you) just canceling every edit. You are obviously a keeper of good editing policy and possibly a guardian of this article, but with references to lemmings, meatpuppets or other wikipedia-based name-calling, you have forgotten something about being civil. I admit that I was a bit provocative, but you proved me right on shooting down any discussion. Maybe this is the reason I never really edited much. Riqnevala (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I must apogize for one thing, though: You actually did suggest having enough content to merit their own articles. Somehow I missed that one, even though my eyes caught the lemmings remark and the vague "two series of 6+ seasons still intact". Even still, you seem really protective over this article (and it's 26-screens-long listing on my laptop). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riqnevala (talk • contribs) 20:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Riqnevala, everytime I make even a small edit to the POI wikipedia page DrMargi changes it back again and now it seems im not the only person he/she has done this to. Theres no give or take I think DrMargi wants this page all to themselves. user:DanDud88

Boo-hoo. If you'd take responsibility for your edits, read your talk page, stop leaving all sorts of errors behind for other editors to clean up, stop plagiarizing content from other sites and used an edit summary -- in other words demonstrate the maturity and competency to edit -- you wouldn't have a problem. You made a whole series of pointless, unnecessary, hard to follow, arbitary and UNEXPLAINED changes to the character groupings, which have been in place and agreed upon since season one, without so much as an edit summary. When I reverted them, I suggested you discuss them, as I and other editors have done on your talk page over and over again, you ignored the suggestion. Now you're here boo-hooing about being reverted and trying to make someone else responsible? Sorry, no sale. --Drmargi (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Should we talk about splitting yet again?

Now were well over 80 episodes I think we should discuss splitting again? D.Dudley (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the length of most of the episode summaries, if they were all around 200-250 words, it'd probably be fine. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The MOS and the instructions for {{episode list}} say 100-200 words. Many of the episode summaries need to be pruned considerably before a split is considered. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The list doesn't need splitting until there is an editor proposing good seasonal articles, not splitting for the sake of splitting. --Drmargi (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Even the wikipage itself says:

This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise. (May 2015)

This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding or removing subheadings. (May 2015)

D.Dudley (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The reason for that is that the episode summaries need to be reduced significantly. Many of them are far longer than they should be, as has been explained several times. In seasons 1 and 2, 24 of the 45 episodes exceed the 200 word limit by a total of 3,153 words and most of the episodes in season 4 are far too long. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The shortest ones in the most recent season are 9 to 10 lines. Would that be a good rule of thumb for paring down the longer ones? ←Baseball Bugs ^{[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]--Drmargi (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)]} carrots→ 16:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

9 to 10 lines at what resolution? We work on word count. All summaries should be 200 words or less. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

How long do you define a word to be? 5 characters? Hence 1000 characters or less? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There are tools for counting the number of words. As an example, the summary for "Ghosts" is 205 words. Remove the final words ("is shown in his offices.") and the summary is exactly 200 words. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that that's the normal way to figure it out. However, that item turns out to be about 9 lines on my screen, so that's a good target for each one I work on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

If we split the list to seasons the summaries can remain and it would be still pretty readable. Hypd09 (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And yet again, this is splitting for the sake of splitting. The new articles were a table and a picture, no more. Pointless. --Drmargi (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't actually fix the problem though. Most of the summaries are just too long, if they were all under 200 words, this article would be fine. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The critical problem at the moment is those over-long summaries. Worse, every time someone makes the split, they add nothing to the new articles (the latest being worst of all.) An editor with 131 edits should concentrate on learning the basics, not be taking on major tasks such as a split. --Drmargi (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The latest split also did not include the attribution required for licensing purposes, which is explained at WP:CWW. It's not simply a matter of copying & pasting. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree and apologise to you all.. I presumed it to be as simple as a copy paste. I will be very careful and refrain from making such major edits from now on. Hypd09 (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a good idea to split without new information, and I also agree that the article is getting too long. Given the various behind-the-scenes stores that have come out, there should be more than enough for a "production" section for each season, and I've seen enough reviews to have a go at a "critical response" section. This weekend I'll put something together on my sandbox. ACB Smith (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The article is not long at all, and would be even shorter if the episode summaries were pruned to the 100-200 word limits. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If this article is not to be split it does need to be pared down with a page size of 218,000 bytes compared to List of Arrow episodes for being of similar episode list summary though being a single season shy of Person of Interest and yet having a total byte count of 144,000 Arrow is averaging 48,000 bytes a season while POI is averaging 54,500, it doesn't seem like much but adds up season after season.TacfuJecan (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted episode

Drmargi why you delete the title of 6th episode of 3rd serie (Mors Praematura)??? --Ancucchi 19:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Questions directed to a single editor belong on their personal talk page. I deleted it because the episode title was unsourced. You're relying on either SpoilerTV or a wiki, most likely, since that title has not been announced by CBS and they are not reliable sources. --Drmargi (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks --Ancucchi 20:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Vigilant?

I see no mention of Vigilant, yet another secret society on this show. Including Reese-Finch and the CIA, this makes four now. It's getting overly complicated now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Two points in response: a. We just got their name tonight and; b. Your hands aren't set in concrete. --Drmargi (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

a) Okay, b) I don't get it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

RE b) If you didn't see any mention, why not add it yourself? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

But do it wrong, and you will wish they were.128.170.224.11 (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding 2014-2015 before season dates, duration announced

We suddenly have a little spat developing over whether we should identify season 4 of POI as 2014-2015. Standing policy (WP:CRYSTAL) plus consensus at Project Television is that we a. do not add season dates (in this case 2014) until we have an official start date via a network announcement and season duration dates (in this case 2014-15) until we have episodes scheduled over the winter hiatus and into the new year. This practice is routinely observed on television articles all over wikipedia.

Although CBS has just announced its projected fall schedule at the recent "up fonts" (a promotional event which introduces its annual slate of programming to the media etc.) it did not announce premiere dates, projected runs or anything similar for individual shows, making this announcement an inappropriate source for the dates and duration of individual shows. A lot can change in the intervening four months between now and the traditional start of the fall season in mid-September, including numerous decisions by the networks regarding episode premiere dates, duration and placement of shows. At present, although CBS as introduced a collective body of programming as their 2014-2015 schedule, we do not have any specific information about Person of Interest, and very likely will not until the Television Critics' Association (TCA) event in late summer, when premiere dates and other schedule details are generally announced. Therefore, adding the duration dates 2014-2015 is both premature and unsourced.

Unfortunately, at present, the editor pushing this edit has decided to pursue this edit via individual editors' talk pages and a notice board rather than to follow the expected practice (per WP:BRD and a litany of others) and discuss here, on the relevant talk page. Now, suddenly we have an IP who has decided to wade into the controversy, making this discussion essential. --Drmargi (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this, though you shouldn't have been the one to Drmargi. Not much else for me to add to what you said, beside the fact that just because CBS (or any network for that matter) schedules a show in 2014-15 schedule, does not ultimately mean it will premiere there. So as Drmargi said, it is premature. A litany of things can occur between now and September, the main one being that the show has not even started production yet on an additional season. Additional detractors that would prevent the show from airing (all of which have occurred to prevent shows from airing) include: writers strikes, cast disagreements, produciton disagreements, or (God forbid) a cast member's death. Additionally, waiting until the episode actually airs, especially when a show comes back from it's midseason break, is equally important, because, for example, we could have a presidential speech occur the night the show is supposed to premiere, or ratings are so horrendous, that the network pulls the show even if it has a season order. Finally, by adding the years to the heading, as done on television project pages, implies that the episodes have already aired in that year (if going with just 2014 in this case) which is not true. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 19:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, look at Once Upon a Time (season 4) for the 2014-2015 season. I realize this is an ABC show, not CBS, but it has some information about the show's schedule and changes in the cast, production issues. Person of Interest could have this as more information is released by the network.

And why the resistance to breaking this up into seasons, despite several editors suggesting this? I think if we started another conversation, the consensus would be for it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Show me where it says POI will debut in 2014 and has episodes scheduled in 2015, and I'll support your position. CBS released a group of programs it describes collectively as their 2014-2015 season. We cannot verify when any of them will premiere or how long any of them will remain on the air. And besides, what's the rush? The fangirls at OUAT are always jumping the gun on these things, and ABC may have made more specific announcement than CBS (does't OUAT run on a split schedule?) We have policies regarding making assumptions that clearly cover this situation. --Drmargi (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In response to the OUAT example, WP:OTHERSTUFF. That season page should not have been created, but even on that, they are having this issue with someone trying to add the end date of 2015. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 22:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It is rude to dismiss other editors by calling them "fangirls" as if they don't know and abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Editors of that TV show seem to have more information on that series than is available with Person of Interest. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I recently posted the following on the talk page of a troublesome editor who isn't getting the point on this issue. Some of it re-states what has already been said but it covers all related issues:

The article lead is supposed to summarise significant aspects of the article. Season renewals are regarded to be significant so they should be mentioned in the lead. Typically, renewal mentions consist of a single, cited sentence. Because of their brevity, they are not normally duplicated elsewhere in the article as this is pointless duplication and serves no encyclopaedic purpose. That means that we don't need to create a section for the next season unless it substantially expands on what is already in the lead. This applies equally to the series overview table. A table row with only a link to a section that shouldn't exist and maybe an episode count doesn't serve any encyclopaedic purpose as it doesn't significantly expand on what is already in the lead. Where a separate season section can be justified, years are not included until there are actually episodes scheduled to air. A renewal notice does not guarantee that episodes will air in a particular year. An examples of this is Hotel Hell, which was renewed in 2012 but did not air any episodes in 2012 or 2013. Episodes have only just been scheduled to air in 2014, 2 years after the renewal. There are many things that can happen between when a series is renewed and when episodes do air. Two and a Half Men was expected to air for a full season in 2010-11 but production was halted twice and the season ended nearly three months before it was expected to end. The Playboy Club, Last Resort and Alcatraz were all expected to air for full seasons but were cancelled during their first season, The Playboy Club after only 3 episodes had aired and while several more were scheduled to air. Because of the uncertainty regarding TV series, including years in the section heading when episodes have not been scheduled to air is widely considered to be WP:CRYSTAL and we do not add years because of this. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

We have three users who are systematically reverting anyone who tries to put (2014-2015) into the article (here and elsewhere). CBS has announced the fall schedules, yet they you three are preventing me from posting the obvious. Your hidden comments ordering other editors what to do has gone too far. Buggs left you messages on your talk pages and you still have not provided me a valid answer as to why you are doing this. You have been reported to AN3 and I'm not going to stop there. 2A01:1B0:705:0:0:121:1:194 (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In the event that years are eventually added to the heading, it should be (2014–15), not (2014-2015) for consistency within the article and per WP:YEAR and MOS:DASH. For now though, inclusion of years is WP:CRYSTAL as I have explained above and at the AN3 discussion, as well as on the page of a now blocked editor who insisted on adding years amongst other things. However, the section should not even exist at this time, for reasons that I have also explained. While you may not accept this as a valid reason, it does have wide acceptance. "I'm not going to stop there" reads like a threat, which is not a good idea. Please note, your last change to the article was reverted because of the vandalism, specifically adding "f" to the end of words, joining words with random letters and just joining words for no apparent reason.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 13:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

So, CBS Fall 2014 Schedule is not official enough? It includes dates for shows airing at different dates and times. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Where in that source (or any regarding CBS' upfront event) does it say it is premiering in 2014? All I see is a proposed day of the week and a time slot. No date. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 14:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC

@Liz:The CBS fall schedule is official but it's not a guarantee that a future event will happen. It's not even certain that the series will air this year. Plenty of season permieres have been delayed due to unforseen events. Per WP:CRYSTAL, "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place". I'm generally happy to include years when episodes are actually scheduled as I believe that the episode is "almost certain to take place" but I'm the first to admit that's not always the case and there have been plenty of cases where episodes have not aired when they should have. The Playboy Club was a reasonably recent case of when scheduled episodes were cancelled and using "Season 1: (2011–12)" would most definitely have been inappropriate. There's just too much uncertainty when it comes to TV scheduling, which is why we don't include years until we're pretty sure. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I have put the obvious season dates in for consistency and clarity. Baseball Bugs had it correct. He is a senior editor with much experience. Until it is overturned at AN3, it should remain at the clearly better version. Besides, at this point, what difference does it make? 2A01:1B0:705:0:0:121:1:194 (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

AN3 has no decision-making power, and an editor's seniority is irrelevant (Farvefan1, Auusie and I are equally experienced) and adds no weight to an editor's opinion. We cannot verify when POI begins or the duration of its season yet, and local consensus cannot overturn policy, therefore we have no basis for debut or duration dates yet. And as I asked before, what's the rush? --Drmargi (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

We really cannot tolerate edit-warring. I left the IP a 3RR warning yesterday and his edit today has resulted in another 3RR report being opened at AN3. Do I need to request page protection? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think so. This has the aroma of meat puppetry if not sock puppetry, Bugs has made at least one edit under his IP as the edit summary makes clear, and the IP editor has made unambiguously aggressive threats to continue to edit war. --Drmargi (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't even start with the Sock nonsense. There are more users here that want the Season years in here than those that don't. It's obvious that there are a couple of editors that want to own this page. 190.198.28.9 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to open an investigation at WP:SPI if it's found necessary. There are some questionable edits being made from dubious locations and they all seem inter-related. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No one has provided a valid reason not to have the dates as part of the 4th season. I have restored it to its proper version. 221.181.104.12 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

We need a semi and SPI. Bugs is clearly IP hopping to edit war -- why else three non-American IP's who never edited on this page before all wanting a "valid" reason to exclude them? It's too convenient and flocks of ducks are quacking. Go for it. New IP, there is no consensus to include, and policy against. You don't get to unilaterally make a judgment on the validity of policy-based decisions. --Drmargi (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone that can count, can see what consensus is here. I have added the date back in as it should be, and dats dat. Desk Ref (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Many different accounts using same phrasing looks like one person, not many. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

People are being persistent because adding that a officially renewed series, that is on the fall schedule and is going to be on the air during the 2014-2015 season is not a big deal on any other article about a current television show that I've ever come across. And don't quote me WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm talking about what is standard practice on the majority of American television programs articles. Are you seriously saying that it is likely that there will be a sudden Writer's Strike? Or that a castmember will be killed in a plane accident and they will cancel the show? Anything could happen, but they are unlikely to occur and being this rigid about something as clear cut as the official renewal of the show demonstrates ownership issues. This is not speculation, do we really have to wait for a show to be aired before announcing it is going to be broadcast? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Desk Ref: - Consensus is not determined by counting. Consensus is determined on the strength of arguments. There is clearly some sock-puppetry going on here, so the strength of the argumemts has to be carefully measured. So no, dats not dat and continually restoring content that has been objected to is disruptive editing at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: - "I'm talking about what is standard practice on the majority of American television programs articles" Standard practice is to not include dates. Unfortunately, we have a lot of inexperienced editors who don't understand standard practice and has been discussed on numerous occasions at WT:TV, most recently in August 2013. As I've indicated before, with examples, there is too much uncertainty when it comes to TV scheduling, which is why WP:CRYSTAL applies. Perhaps we need some input here from Bignole, who was one of the authors of the MOS and has had a great deal of experience in the TV project.

Regardless of the above, the reality is that the section shouldn't even exist, for reasons that I have explained above at length,[2] and which nobody has chosen to address. The renewal announcement is signficant enough to warrant mention in the lead, making a separate section redundant. With the section redundant, arguing about whether years should be included is moot. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that we have no basis for the season duration dates and don't think the season should be added to the overview table until we have a confirmed premiere date, I've never thought that much about the addition of the section heading because it does it becomes a place to catch pre-season news and casting information fairly quickly. However, this incident has me re-thinking that position, and I have come around to removing it. Where, when we write, do we ever use a heading without content under it? These things are generally added by eager IPs who treat Wikipedia like a fan site, which, let's face it is the POV of at least some of the contributors here. I'd support removing the Season 4 heading altogether until such time as we're ready to either add sourced content under it or start the episode table with sourced episode information. The writers don't go back to work until June. Why do we need it now? --Drmargi (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Because this has been discussed at length, I'll keep this pretty much to the point. We do not add dates to the section headers until the episode has actually aired. That includes the next calendar year episode (thus, the transition would be --> Season X --> Season X (2014) ---> Season X (2014 - 2015)). The reason being, we cannot predict if an episode(s) will air even though that is the intention. We do not operate on intentions. Anyone remember the Writer's Strike? People thought they'd figure it out, then they thought they would get it fixed soon. In the end, many shows that were set for 20+ episodes that season, ended up with only 10 episodes because they never filmed anymore. You can note that a season is meant to run during a particular year set, but I wouldn't put it in the section header as if it actually happened. There are certain sections that are meant to discuss things from a "potential", and there are others that are clearly meant for historical events, and you cannot have a future historical event.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"You can note that a season is meant to run during a particular year set, but I wouldn't put it in the section header as if it actually happened." - Indeed, that is why I made these edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't do sockpuppetry. I have reported Desk Ref (talk · contribs) to WP:ANI, and if you notice, when he last edited a couple of years ago he was trying to get me banned from the ref desk, in fact that's why he created the account in the first place. Probably one of my "fans". I'm hopeful that they can run an SPI from the ANI page, or at the very least put user Desk Ref out of his misery. I think you can safely assume that any brand-new IP's popping up here are likewise trolls, and can be disregarded. As to the issue, I think your arguments against the year are all wet, but it's not important enough for me to care any more. Although I will reserve the "told ya so" card for this fall. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You persist in putting words in others' mouths and assuming we think that POI won't start the fourth week of September, as it very likely will do. That's not at issue here, and it never was. The issue is one of verifiability. I find it troubling you don't seem to realize that, given the importance of that policy. Moreover, your "told you so" will fall on deaf ears, so save your breath to cool your soup. --Drmargi (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Given the show's scheduling track record, it is you that should be looking for a citation that they're going to do something abnormal this year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The classic argument of someone who can't support their own point: you ask the opposing side to prove a negative, which can't be done. You know how WP:RS and WP:VERIFY work, or at least you should. Although given your recent demonstrated lack of understanding of policy, perhaps you should review them. Track records mean nothing. --Drmargi (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I still insist your argument is hogwash. But I apologize for the "ignorant" stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

My two cents as someone who edits TV articles regularly but not this one. I understand where the editors citing CRYSTAL are coming from, and in cases where there aren't official published announcements they are right, but I think many are taking it to an extreme that isn't intended by the policy. To quote the most relevant section– "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." CBS has released a fall schedule that is almost certain to take place. Person of Interest was on that official schedule. Is there a small chance that it can be changed? Yes. But in the meantime, it is more than fair to list fall 2014 as POI's premiere (as well as every television show listed on a network announcement) because CBS is a reliable source. CRYSTAL is neither meant to paralyze Wikipedia into never listing future events nor intended as grounds for disbelieving any and all official announcements that have to do with the future. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The part you quoted also says, "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes places". This is a date we're talking about here, thus it should not be presented in a header as if it has taken place, when it hasn't. Noting it in prose that a show is expected to air over a certain period is fine, but headers are not prose. This debate is not about whether to include a date at all, only on whether to include it in the section header (at least, that was what I was lead to believe).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You are correct in your thinking Big. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 15:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware that the debate's about. But the prose cites a reliable source, and section header summarizes the prose. "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place" asks editors to be cautious in their assumption that future events will happen, which is true, but not to challenge official announcements. It's unreasonable to have to assume "TBA" when a reliable source specifies a year/month/date. It's an extreme interpretation of CRYSTAL to believe section headers cannot list future dates, and it's certainly not practical nor possible to enforce that across the entire project. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The section headers don't "summarize", they merely identify what you're talking about. The only reason we have ever put dates in the headers is to allow readers faster access to a specific point in a series on the page. If a season has not started yet, then you wouldn't claim that it ran from 2014 to 2015 (especially when the latter hasn't even happened yet). Wikipedia is a historical encyclopedia, not a current events news house.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I just disagree with that narrow reading of CRYSTAL. Glee's sixth season will air in 2015 according to Fox, a reliable source. The season hasn't started yet. Putting "(2015)" in the section header on the list of episodes page provides faster access to those searching for the upcoming season associated with 2015 and does not fail policy. When presented with that section, there's absolutely no implied claim the episodes have aired yet, as the section is written in the future tense and cites the 2015 timeframe. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand what Wikipedical means when he says "section header summarizes the prose". If we take that approach then the heading should be "Season four renewal". The section only contains an announcement that the series has been renewed for section four. It doesn't state anything about the season itself, unlike the other sections, so a reader might be mislead without specifying that it's only the renewal. Regarding "It's unreasonable to have to assume "TBA" when a reliable source specifies a year/month/date", the announcement only specifies "fall 2014" and reading that from here in Australia where we don't even have a fall season, you really can't be much more ambiguous. Per WP:SEASON, season names are ambiguous so the source is ambiguous and, as I understand it, the American "fall" starts sometime in September and ends sometime in December, which is a pretty big time period. Technically, the season doesn't have to start until late December and it could still be fall. Years should not be included until, at the very least, the premiere is given an actual date. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said earlier, you have to think about what the announcement does, and doesn't, say. It announces a group of programs that, in toto, make up its fall schedule. It doesn't announce specific premiere dates or broadcast duration/configuration with the exception of the shows affected by the Thursday football. That's a big omission, and leaves us with a significant informational gap. We can't leap from a collective announcement to details for shows other than the couple explicitly discussed in the announcements (i.e. Elementary). CBS hasn't said when they will premiere as yet, or if they plan to split seasons, etc. That leaves us making assumptions we can't make. --Drmargi (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If CBS announces its fall 2014 schedule, that's going to mean September through December (sorry Australians). The year 2014 is common to those months, so the section header should list 2014 (as is most common on pages now) which corresponds with the announcement. It would be an assumption to list a month (so yes, I'm opposed to writing "September" without a source). If anything, having "2014" in the header should be LESS confusing to international readers because it qualifies that "fall" means the end of the calendar year. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not how WP:SEASON operates. I have adjusted accordingly, to comply with WP:SEASON, yet still indicate that it will premiere in the United State's fall, without saying that. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 18:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"having "2014" in the header should be LESS confusing to international readers because it qualifies that "fall" means the end of the calendar year." No, that's not correct. The source was from May 2014. All that 2014 "qualifies" to international readers is that "fall 2014" is sometime between May and December 31, 2014.

@Favre1fan93: - The 2014-15 season is generally from September-May, a period of 10 months. The source simply says "fall 2014". Since fall covers September-December, the series could air 3 months into the season, which is certainly not the beginning, and still be in the fall. (Fall is rapidly becoming my second most hated Amerikanism - Eeemoo will always top the list) --AussieLegend (✉) 18:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the "fall/spring" terminology isn't the most perspicuous, but unfortunately American television is commonly split up into broadcast "seasons' and thus is an exception to the "usually preferable to avoid" part of WP:SEASON. Totally agree it'd be preferable to write "fourth quarter 2014," but since the sources use "fall," that's what we should write. Getting back to the other point raised, I don't follow how having a May 2014 source suddenly indicates that "fall 2014" can mean May to December. There's context to what fall means in an article about an American television show. Would defining fall/spring in every television article be helpful for international readers? That's a different conversation than removing years from section headers because they automatically imply the past tense, which is what other editors have argued. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Being common terminology in the TV world doesn't excuse the need to replace "fall" with a more specific date as soon as possible. Season names are used because the networks find it difficult to specify exactly when a series will air four months or more before it's going to air. Specifying just the season gives them a wide leeway. A heading that says "Season 4 (2014) only says that season 4 will air in 2014. Because the announcement is dated May 2014, we know that it's not going to air in January-April so it must be going to air sometime between May and the end of December. "Fall" is a north American term; it's generally unfamiliar to people not in north America so it's not immediately obvious that "fall 2014" means "late 2014". Without looking, tell me when Darwin's wet season begins and ends. It's not immediately obvious because it's an unfamiliar term. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

How about something like this: announced the show would return in 2014 as part of the 2014–15 television season, that begins in September 2014.? Doesn't say 'fall', doesn't say the show will be back in September. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 02:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with a combination of what you added to the article and the above: "announced the series would return in 2014 as part of the 2014–15 television season". The link is informative and negates the need for "September 2014". --AussieLegend (✉) 08:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Great. So, once again, if we chose to use this sentence, it satisfies all the known info for shows (except in a case where actual air dates are known) negating the need to include the starting year in heading until that time, which indicates a 100% definite that the show is airing in that given year. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 14:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Options

So I'd really like to not have this discussion go stale here (or the one started on the project page), lest we find ourselves in this situation again next year. Personally, I see two options really:

• Option 1: Section heading for upcoming seasons is used, with no years included, and then we add some form of this sentence depending on when the info is revealed: "In [month year], [network] renewed [show] for a [#] season. In [month year], it was announced the series would return in 2014 as part of the 2014–15 television season." So for this page it would be: "On March 13, 2014, CBS renewed the show for a fourth season,[ref] later announcing in May 2014 that the series would return in 2014 as part of the 2014–15 television season.[ref]" Year (2014, not 2014–15) can be added to the heading once a concrete air date has been confirmed, with the second year added once episodes are given concrete air dates for that year. (Personally still feel it shouldn't be until the eps actually air, but I'll get past that).

• Option 2: No section heading is used for the upcoming season. The prose (stated above) is only used in the lead, and a section heading (with single year, 2014, not 2014-15 etc) gets added once an ep table can be created for the season.

Comments please. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@Wikipedical, Liz, Drmargi, Cyphoidbomb, and Bignole:@Baseball Bugs and Darkwarriorblake: All users who have commented here or at the Project discussion have been notified to provide an opinion on these options. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Option 2 is the most logical. A separate section that doesn't expand on what is in the lead is redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Option 2 is what I prefer, although I'm not opposed to #1, just so there's a standard set at WP:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Episode listing. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I've waited a week for this, and with the little response, we do have a consensus for Option 2. I'm going to take this to the MOS talk and see if it will get any more responses there, maybe as an RFC. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Logo

Is File:Person of Interest logo.svg really the logo? It just looks to me like someone wrote Person of Interest and saved it as a file. I don't know how this can actually be considered a logo. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's similar to what is at http://www.cbs.com/shows/person_of_interest but clearly it's not exactly the same. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so it is not actually the logo, it is just a logo that someone made up. If the logo is PD because of unoriginality, than it should be uploaded, not just manually reproduced. While that is a commons issue, here, the image in question is being misrepresented as the show's logo. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There are a group of editors who advocate use of SVG instead of uploaded images, which is probably why that image was created. I do agree with you though. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well I could hand draw the Coke Logo, but it still wouldn't be used as the Logo in the article. I am sure it looks similar, but fact of the matter is, it is a facsimile that someone drew. I see I have been reverted, I am not going to fight about it, but I notice that the log is not used in the main show's article. Just letting my opinion be known. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That was me -- I got pulled away for a minute en route here. I'm just not confident it's as inauthentic as posited. But if a case can be made that it is, that's another matter. --Drmargi (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed it as it is not really close to the original. An image search on Google will show this.

Special Counsel v. The Special Counsel

I've recently reverted edits changing Special Counsel's name to a title, describing him as the Special Counsel. This is problematic for two reasons. First, the character is not the Special Counsel (as in the actual governmental figure), he is a lesser figure in the Office of the Special Counsel, so the title in inappropriate. Second, he uses Special Counsel as a code-name rather than using his actual name, which we never hear. Thus the addition of the to his name is incorrect in this context, despite what we might see done in reality. Special Counsel is one of several Northern Lights entities who are referred to in this way (i.e. Control, Research, etc.) --Drmargi (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

First, when is he ever referred to as "Special Counsel" in the series? Second, how do we know he's not the Special Counsel? You seem to be making unsupported assumptions here. There's no evidence whatsoever that this is a codename and not his actual job title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As are you the other way. I believe he is referred to as Special Counsel in the episode that introduces Shaw; it's also clear in the first episode where he is introduced (No Good Deed) that he works in the Office of the Special Counsel, but is not the actual Special Counsel. Regardless, if he's not referred to one way or the other in the program, we have to go with the CBS cast list, which calls him Special Counsel, consistent with code-naming of other characters such as Control. --Drmargi (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not; I'm simply proposing we use proper English. By that measure, presumably you would also refer to someone listed on a cast list as "Policeman" without the definite article because they're not on the cast list as "The Policeman"? Sorry, but that's just plain ridiculous. You can't compare this with "Control", a common way of referring to a control room in real life (e.g. "come in, control") or "Research", which is a common way of referring to a department (e.g. "I went down to Research"). These are not codenames either. These are the way people genuinely speak. Who on earth would use "Special Counsel" in this way? Nobody would say "Special Counsel did x" except in a legal sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

2015

The owners of this page never cease to amaze. What on God's green earth leads you to believe this season's episodes will conclude prior to January 1, 2015? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree with your assertion, but since we don't know the episode count and no episodes have officially been scheduled for 2015, it would be against WP:CRYSTAL. The new guideline (which I'm not all that fond of) if we can't add "(2014–15)" until episodes actually air, not even if it's confirmed episodes will air. As you can see on this page, there was already a huge discussion on this awhile back. My idea would be for it to say "(2014–)" for the time being to show the season is ongoing as simply "(2014)" gives the impression it will only air in 2014. Feel free to voice your opinion on the talk page over at MOS:TV. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've dealt with those bean-brains before, and don't intend to do so again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A) No one owns this page. We are all contributors. And it doesn't help your cause in anyway or encourage others to work with you when you use terminology like "bean-brains" B) As Drove noted, we had a lengthy discussion regarding this already, because of disagreements we had before. You, however, failed to continue to be a part of that discussion after a point, even after multiple notices to inform you that a guideline was being created. Hence the WP:TVUPCOMING guideline was created as it is, based on the editors of the TV project who participated. And to answer your first question, what leads me to believe this season will not go into 2015, is that no source has stated it will. We do not have any reliable source stating a produced episode is going to air in 2015 yet. Once again, the reason in the guideline to forbid including the second year of the TV season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I stopped participating in the earlier discussion because I became disgusted with the likes of you, who do own the page whether you admit it or not. When I saw that utterly silly deletion of the -2015 part, I felt like commenting on it. Oh, and I recall last spring when you were arguing against saying fall of 2014, by the same logic void that you're now using to argue against the -2015 part. I said then that when the show started in the fall I would say I told you so. So: "Told you so!" And I'll say it again in 2015, when you again make yourself look like a bean-brain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Clear back in March, CBS referred to renewing this and other shows for the 2014-2015 season.[3] Not the 2014 season. Not the 2015 season. But the 2014-2015 season. Oh, but what do they know? They only produce the show. They don't have the divine powers of the Wikipedia editors who own this page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We have already talked and discussed this months back and you are just rehashing your argument as before, so I'm not going to just keep talking in circles here. As you clearly have a dislike for the consensus achieved, if you feel you can bring anything new to this discussion without restating everything you previously said (and was considered in making the guideline), feel free to start a new discussion at WT:TV. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we did talk about this months ago. You were proven wrong then, and you'll be proven wrong again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said. So, are you going to go through this charade every year, or is your common-sense meter going to kick in at some point? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

13 episodes?

Although the owners of this page are taking the approach that this season will end on or before December 31, that's still potentially 14 or 15 episodes, not necessarily 13. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Bugs, time to get over it. And try not to put words in everyone's mouths, particularly when they're highly inaccurate. --Drmargi (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean the show IS going to continue into 2015? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it IS going into 2015! Surprise, surprise! (Don't worry Dr, you'll get over it.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Silverpool

I did not remove that reference, but I agree with it. It's entirely possible that the name "Silverpool" was inspired by "Blackwater", but as controversial as the Blackwater subject is, it's probably best avoided. Unless you can find a valid source in which the writer specifically says it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Juror severely ill?

On the episode "Guilty", Harold was not replacing a juror that became ill, but rather one that had his phone ringing, thus rejected by the judge. Allergic reaction then eliminated one juror, if I recall correctly?

I did not edit the article for some reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.136.83.204 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It's been fixed now. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Next season

I read someplace, not long ago, that the producer didn't want to do more than about 100 episodes. If this is going to be a short season for the show, he would be living up to that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This article need more info

Is it possible to include even more info in the article? The "problem" with a show like this is the numerous story arcs and characters that pop up from time to time. In my mind I can imagine a giant 10 foot poster crammed with stuff, but that of course is not the Wikipedia Way. Still, I think it would be good for the reader to include some more info, if for no other reason to help people find out what characters were in which episodes. (E.g., when did Shaw make her first appearance? Let me see... oh yes, it was in Sn. 2, Ep. 16, "Relevance"). Also some explanatory info might be helpful, e.g., I doubt many people understood why Sn. 2, Ep. 16,"YHWH" was given that title, or even what it means. Would it not be appropriate to include bits of info like this at the bottom of each episode's summary? __209.179.0.121 (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No, as that is just trivial info, better suited for IMDb, fan forums or dedicated show wikias. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What I was talking about is not trivia. Did you know what the meaning of "YHWH" was the first time you saw it? If that is trivia, then why have any of the other items listed there: airdates, production codes, viewers, or synopses? Shouldn't that be considered trivia? __209.179.0.121 (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Season 5 episode titles

An editor has added all the season 5 episodes titles with writers and directors using this as the source, are we considering this reliable or no? The source conflicts with the title of 504, "Shotspotter" vs. "ShotSeeker", with the latter being confirmed from the writer of the episode and script page (more reliable), of course, the title could have changed. The table needs a clean-up (various duplicate and broken references), but I didn't want to bother if it'll be reverted. Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Source is an unreliable/possible fan account. Removed the content. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This section now seems to lagging other information sources like imdb. CBS are "burning" through all their Season 5 episodes two a week as everyone knows, which might be causing confusion. Is it worth updating? Or at least correcting the episode order/dates? I.e. redact the section to what is certainly known to a high standard, rather than have missing episode entries (we know there is an episode 6 but we may not know its name). Seanbert (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

2016

Here's a story from just a day ago.[4] I have no clue whether it's accurate. But it says they are still filming and that the new season might not be aired until summer. Editorial comment: They're running a big risk, in that by summer, it might be Person of DIS-interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

CBS has already announced their midseason lineup/schedule changes, and POI isn't on it. So airing in the summer seems very likely at this point. So while all the signs seem to point to this, this article is just speculating on such at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I posted on the talk page instead of the article. :) The new season is getting to the point of "believe it when you see it." Like with the show Unforgettable, which announced a switch to a cable channel, back in March, and it was about 8 months before the first new-season episode aired. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That was the best thing to do, Bugs. There's a spreading belief among the internet fan set that CBS, in its ongoing effort to torture the show, won't show it until summer. CBS hasn't announced any spring plans yet, and never said POI would run in the winter, just later in the season, despite what they're saying on the fan sites. This site clearly picked all that baloney up, so the credibility is pretty iffy, especially given it makes no external attributions for its rather broad speculation. That S13 isn't finished wouldn't have affected when POI is scheduled; full-season shows generally have from seven to nine episodes in the can when they begin broadcasting. POI has more than that, and a shorter run, so that's a non-issue. That alone draws the source's veracity into question for me. --Drmargi (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It might be best to have nothing about the new season beyond the official announcement from last spring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just adjusted the wording to the lead, to take out "midseason", because CBS has released their midseason (ie until April) schedule. And POI, as we know, is not on it. So just on that fact, at the earliest, the season will premiere in the summer session of the 2015-16 season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

With the apparently increasing use of computer buzzwords, maybe the final show on CBS should be called ABEND. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Season 5 episode info from Twitter

Bef3481(2) has been attempting to add info for episodes that are in violation of WP:V. Not only is the info coming from an "unverified" Twitter account (needs the blue check), which goes against WP:Twitter-EL and WP:TWITTER, it appears that Bef3481(2) is the one asking these questions on Twitter to get the answers. (I don't know if there is a policy and/or guideline against this, but it does seem a bit suspect and fishy). See here. From the same link, which they try to use to source 5x06, they (Bef3481(2), who I'm assuming is the Twitter user asking Chris Fisher) ask if the title is "QSO", the writer is "Hillary" (who is this?) and the director is "K. Woods" (also, who is this?). One could look to previous episodes to "deduce" who these are with Fisher's confirmation, but that would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Additionally, this Tweet response for a potential additional writer for 5x11 says "I think they both were writers". Again, that's not a definite answer, with possible indecision. Despite how much we may want to see as much info placed here as possible, given the season was just announced and it has been completed, we are in no rush and should wait for the info to come from reliable third party sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

From Bef's post on my talk page in the interest of a single discussion: "We both want to help best inform the fans." That's not really our goal. Our goal is to present factual accuracy based on the best available info we have from reliable source. We are not a fan wikia or forum who has that goal. "We could break down Chris's language all day, but its a matter of opinion and I'm accepting where there was doubt, but the rest is fact." No it isn't. Beyond the fact that his twitter isn't verified (as I mentioned above), some of these answer are not 100% definitive. He's responding to your questions (again assuming its you) with some reservation and inconclusiveness. This version of the article is the most up-to-date with known info at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

So no compromise? I don't want to turn this into some type of feud or edit warring, but the simple fact is that if Chris saying the title is correct is valid enough for you (and WP:V) the confirmation of the writer and director of 506 is valid enough as well. He showed the same amount of confidence in both sets of information. I'll concede that since he wasn't entirely demonstrative on Melissa, but he confirmed it before repeating their names by saying "yeah it was Andy and Melissa". But to quote Mr. Fisher regarding episode 506 "correct on writer and director" and he said he wasn't sure about the title but it "sounded right". I'll happily leave the title blank but the other pieces of information are just as valid and deserve to be added. The second writer of episode 10 is from the exact same source as the title! If I weren't correct, he wouldn't have said yeah. I've read the WP:V page and the other page to which you referred me and this information is properly sourced and correct; the fans have a right to know it. I feel like if it were a different editor, you wouldn't be reverting it at all... whatever the case may be can we please compromise? The way you seem to be trashing me here is not appropriate and to be throwing around the Wikipedia rules while slamming another user (me) for something they are doing on Twitter, which is not Wikipedia, is completely petty and inconsequential. It's clear to the fans who the people are whom I've referred to. They've only done one episode each and in season 4. I am not a bad person as you're making me out to be; I'm trying to contribute using information I was able to confirm. I think the fans deserve to be informed with the most current information and I endeavor to make sure the fans are as informed as possible. I'm a biochemistry student who enjoys POI, not whatever cyber-stalker you're making me out to be. Can you put your frustration with me as a person aside and focus on the facts enough to compromise with me? That would be greatly appreciated. If not, please someone else weigh in, here... if not, we can take it to the admins and see what they think. I'm trying to be as civilised as I can. Insulting and undermining people doesn't help at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bef3481(2) (talk • contribs) 04:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

And yes, above all else, I realize this is not a fan site, or wikia; you don't have to condescendingly tell me that. My main goal is to provide the most accurate information ...in the interest of best informing the fans. By the way, I agree that I should've confirmed more with the names but the only K. Woods on the POI staff is Kate Woods and she directed episode 4x14, "Guilty", and the only Hillary is Hillary Benefiel, who co-wrote episode 4x17, "Karma". (thought I signed before; My apologies.) Bef3481(2) (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about the sourcing for the titles and credits, too. I've reverted to the stable version a couple times, and Bef persists in adding solicited information from Twitter that is not as definitive as he insists it is. His "chummy" approach to names (as though these are people he knows) does not meet the minimum standard for verifiability; we're still left making too many assumptions for that. Bef, no one is "trashing" you. We're questioning the reliability and verifiability of information you're adding, period. As Farvefan pointed out: what's the rush. The POI wiki will serve the fans. This is an entirely different enterprise, and needs to rise to a higher standard of sourcing. Too much of what you're adding doesn't meet that standard. Vague tweets and tweets from unverified accounts are not reliable sources. Period. Please refrain from any further additions until you have a reliable secondary source (such as Futon Critic) to support your edits. You say you don't want to edit war, but your persistent re-addition of content using solicited, vague tweets is exactly that. You need to stop editing and start discussing. And please, follow the standards for indentation. --Drmargi (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I am currently trying to add a reference which I fully believe meets the higher standard of sourcing which is the goal here at Wikipedia. The only argument against my last reference was that there were "no last names". Now I have a reference, https://twitter.com/boglesthemind/status/712686375133384704 which comes from the same person whose account was used as the reference for the title of 512; she posted a picture of the script. Now the argument against the validity of my reference (and unlike before, it is by NO means a vague tweet, or a solicitation, it is a question posed, no info fed, and answered with complete information) is that the account is unverified. There are many other references here, I'll use the following two as an example: the title for 512; https://twitter.com/Emount88/status/698290835507404800 and the title for 510; https://twitter.com/widgetfactoryco/status/709943656652738560

... these references stand, and they are of the same exact form as the reference I'm currently trying to add, once again here is the link: https://twitter.com/boglesthemind/status/712686375133384704 My point is simply that if the other two references stand, unreverted, than so should this one. Trying to stay accurate and objective. I've learned quite a lot about Wikipedia thanks to the editors on this page, and I still have a lot to learn, but I am not wrong about the validity of this reference. If it does not hold up in validity, neither do the other two. (those to which I provided the links) Thank you, and please weigh in if you'd like. Bef3481(2) (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, User:WilliamThweatt I previously stated, I am currently trying to add a reference which I fully believe meets the higher standard of sourcing which is the goal here at Wikipedia. The only argument against my last reference was that there were "no last names". Now I have a reference, https://twitter.com/boglesthemind/status/712686375133384704 which comes from the same person whose account was used as the reference for the title of 512; she posted a picture of the script. All account validity aside, since that was never an issue with Chris Fisher and my obtaining the 100th episode title, there is no "chummy" approach with the names ("as though these are people I know") this time, no vagueness, no initials, and the person whose account serves as the reference, told me the information. I did not solicit its verifiability, therefore meeting the minimum requirements of WP:V; this time it is valid, and as to WilliamThweatt's argument, taken from his previous edit summary, that "just because somebody screwed up somewhere else and it hasn't been fixed yet, doesn't mean it's ok to repeat the screw up". These previous edits are not "screw ups", or else they wouldn't be on the page. The other editors who contribute to this page do not deserve to have their contributions called screw-ups, as they are valid references (just like this one) and they are highly efficient editors. I believe that makes my argument. This version of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Person_of_Interest_episodes&oldid=712006638 including the revelation of the details of episode 506 and the additional writer for the 100th, is the version of the page which is indeed the most accurate and up-to-date. My argument that this reference is just as valid as others obtained from other Twitter accounts of the same nature, and on one occasion the same account from which this info came, is an example that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply here. They were efficient edits, added by efficient editors, (including myself but I'm not nearly as experienced as them) and are not screw-ups. This is valid information, according to all articles that have been sourced in the arguments against my other, sloppier edits which are not on the page. If these references stand, and again ill use these two as examples: The title for 512 https://twitter.com/boglesthemind/status/667084417068892160 and the title for 510 (from myself) https://twitter.com/widgetfactoryco/status/709943656652738560. Can we settle on a consensus that this reference: https://twitter.com/boglesthemind/status/712686375133384704 which identifies the title for episode 506, its writer and director, as well as the 2nd writer for 510, is valid enough to stay? (to be re-added) Thanks, Bef3481(2) (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You may believe you are providing an acceptable source, but literally nobody else in this conversation does. That the person "told me the information" is the very definition of original research. Your comments betray a fundamental misunderstanding of our purpose here. WP is an encyclopedia, plain and simple. We aren't here to "provide the most current information to the deserving fans", nor are we here to "scoop" everybody else by getting information first (which would be reporting/journalism, not compiling an encyclopedia). The "validity" (which is subjective) of the info is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is verifiability. An encyclopedia simply compiles information already published in WP:SECONDARY sources (not primary, allegedly self-published sources). We are "repeaters" not "originators". We are not here to get the most "accurate and up-to-date" information, but only the most accurate and up-to-date information that has already been reported or published in verifiable, reliable sources. We are not WP:!TRUTHFINDERS; we are parrots repeating what other reliable sources have already "found". So until this information is published by a reliable independent third party (such as a trade publication, etc.) it is unusable for our purposes and will continue to be removed until/unless you manage to find consensus include it or change policy (WP:TWITTER is a very, very narrowly construed policy point and can not be used in the manner you wish).

As an aside, your statement "(previous) edits are not "screw ups", or else they wouldn't be on the page" also demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. WP is full of mistakes -- almost every page has mistakes, most have many mistakes that remain uncorrected for years, either because nobody notices them or because nobody cares enough to fix them. That's one reason why every edit is evaluated according to policy and guidelines instead of precedence.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Well you've taken a very hard line here, haven't you... The very reference for an episode title was obtained by me in the exact same way! If you were willing to revert one edit I made, you would definitely have a field day with some of the other edits here... even though you don't seem to have much faith in WP, and much of its content. However, I have absolutely no desire to take this personally. Just so you know, by definition, validity (as a word in the English language, not however it may or may not be defined on WP) is not subjective; its an extremely objective concept. I know a lot more than you seem to think, from the way you're talking to me. I'm learning a lot about Wikipedia and it's do's and don'ts and I must say I'm quite enjoying it; what an intensely competitive and vigilant universe this is. I don't remember reading anywhere in the policies and guidelines that you so happily churn out to me that "we are parrots" at Wikipedia. But hey, you obviously know your way around WP's policies; I commend you for that! I wish I had enough time on my hands to learn those policies, something I strive to do. Maybe you can work on adding to pages instead of putting enormous effort into preventing material from being published. I don't care, though; this is only one reference, and it can definitely wait; I look forward to the confirmation of this information. Can't wait to see "QSO" and "The Day the World Went Away!" It's been confirmed by 506's writer, one (of two) of 510's writers, and one of the members of the production staff (from whom another reference is currently on the page) I've contributed very well to this page, including the 100th episode title and the writers and director for 512, as well as the title for the series finale! I'll happily wait until the rest of the information is completely verifiable; When the show releases more info and comes back on I'll be back to help. :) I find it amusing that you say we're not here to get the most "accurate and up-to-date" information, because the editors you're defending, (you know, the ones from the conversation where LITERALLY no one believes I'm providing an acceptable source) one of whom said those exact words to me in an argument against an earlier edit attempt. You have a different opinion (much different) then them about the subject, yet you were so quick to jump in and remind me that I'm outmatched in my attempt to reach consensus... (that is what we try to do here, right???) Maybe you're not defending everyone else by whom I'm out-numbered, but are just enjoying a chance to stir the pot and attempt to undermine me, or that may be completely false and you're just extremely passionate about how bogus my reference is! I'm trying to contribute, and I will continue to do so when more verifiable info presents itself and is published elsewhere. Until then, I surrender. I'm done with this ridiculous argument, so you guys can all put away your swords. I'm happy with the fact that I'm the reason we have the 510 title and the writers/director of 512. :) Happy to help!

By the way, feel free to ping me/tell me on my talk page when Melissa Scrivner Love is officially confirmed as the 2nd writer of 510 and when it gets out that 506 exists exactly as staff member Kate Bogle and the episode's writer, Hillary Benefiel have said. Can't wait to see. Happy editing/reverting. Bef3481(2) (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Description sizes

I think the core problem is that the plots get really complicated and require a lot of verbiage in order to (maybe) make sense. At some point it was suggested breaking it into seasons, as is done with other shows. That seems like a good idea, in that it would make the main article small enough to be manageable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

In this case, it would be better to create episode articles, not season articles. Because season articles will just take what is already here and move it there, not really solving the problem. But I think if someone took the time, they can get the summaries within 200 words. The episode plots aren't that complicated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you recall what the guideline is for maximum length of an article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, creating season articles would be a much better option than episode articles. You'd end up creating 100 episode articles where you'd have to establish their notability for every single one of them – that's a massive undertaking and potentially a huge mess of just plot-only articles. With season articles, you're just creating five of them, and I'm sure we can collection some production and reception information for them. The main article has a pretty good critical reception section that we could potentially take from for the season articles (and then would be trimmed in the main article so it's not redundant). The underlying problem is still that a high majority of the summaries are just way too long. Not just over by say 50 words or so, most are like 300–400, while some are insanely long like "God Mode" at 600 words. No matter what we do, the summaries have to be shortened. It's a still a problem no matter where the summaries are put. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Good point. The Star Trek entries, at least for the original series, have articles of their own. But that makes sense, as there has been massive commentary on the series over the years. I doubt the commentaries on POI will ever even begin to approach those of ST:TOS. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I started watching this show in the middle, and watched episodes out of order, so I for one am very grateful for the overlong episode synopses. Yes, they are very long and detailed, but thank you for providing them.Printphi (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Synecdoche

What would the title "Synecdoche" refer to? "The President"? "POTUS"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Apparently taken fron Synecdoches page "Synecdoche also appears in the use of government buildings to refer to their occupant or agency, as "No. 10" for the British Prime Minister or "The Pentagon" for the United States Department of Defense."TacfuJecan (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

So the title probably refers to The White House. Thank you.

P.S. This is a reasonable question to ask, to try to find out why the episode was given that title. Unfortunately, I cannot find a sufficiently valid source to post within the article. But it seems that "White House" is the answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Ice-9

Any viewer with a clue knows what Ice-9 refers to. And anyone who doesn't understand the reference can look it up in Google and figure out the analogy. Either way, no link for the name is necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

And as a followup, the final episode's title, "return 0", could correspond to code which means "everything is OK". That could imply a happy ending. Or, according to some internet commentators, it could be that the entire series was a "simulation". (Hello, Newhart.) We shall find out on Tuesday the 21st. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's over. And as the show's creators have indicated, the possibility of continuing the series exists, if someone wants to pick it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Season pages?

I think it's time. Almost every other CBS show has separate pages for each season. (The Good Wife, The Mentalist, Madam Secretary etc) "Castle" recently just got them, I think POI should to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.166.159 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not about "getting them", it's about their being enough content for them and editors willing to do the work. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Schizoid

I added the qualificative "schizoid" to Shaw after some web research. The script reads:

“ I have what's called an Axis II Personality Disorder. […] It means when I kill you and your friends, I'm not really gonna feel anything. ” — Sarmeen Shaw, S02x16 "Relevance", 20:50

Axis II personality disorder references schizoid personality disorder

Schizoid personality disorder is primarily characterized by a very limited range of emotion, both in expression of and experiencing. Persons with this disorder are indifferent to social relationships and display flattened affect.

Schizoid Personality Disorder, Psyweb.com

Her schizoid condition is further explored in S03x05 Razgovor --
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 13:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That's all character info, not plot. The episode summaries are long enough, we don't need to be adding them. This is included in Shaw's bio in the main article. That's suffice. Edit: Using a Wikipedia talk page is unacceptable as a reference. Unless there's a source that explicitly states Shaw is a "schizoid", it's all WP:OR. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Diagnostically, the editor has put the cart before the horse; the citation is a "what you can expect if you have a diagnosis" description, not diagnostic criteria. A flat affect can indicate all manner of things, ranging from shyness to autism and moreas can indifferent social relationships. Moreover, the use of this term is entirely original research. The old Axis II (which is now a dated term) covered a complex of disorders - why this one? The point wasn't Shaw's disorder. It was that Shaw self-diagnosed. Absent explicit dialogue, all we know is Shaw believes she has an Axis II disorder; there is nothing clinically diagnosed. --Drmargi (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of Person of Interest 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/20120205134135/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/03/thursday-final-ratings-american-idol-big-bang-theory-greys-anatomy-office-mentalist-adjusted-up-rob-adjusted-down/118569/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/03/thursday-final-ratings-american-idol-big-bang-theory-greys-anatomy-office-mentalist-adjusted-up-rob-adjusted-down/118569/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213025338/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/10/thursday-final-ratings-the-big-bang-theory-american-idol-greys-anatomy-the-mentalist-vampire-diaries-adjusted-up-rob-private-practice-the-finder-up-all-nig/119426/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/10/thursday-final-ratings-the-big-bang-theory-american-idol-greys-anatomy-the-mentalist-vampire-diaries-adjusted-up-rob-private-practice-the-finder-up-all-nig/119426/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120410223136/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/17/thursday-final-ratings-american-idol-vampire-diaries-greys-anatomy-big-bang-theory-30-rock-office-adjusted-up-person-of-interest-mentalist-adjusted-down/120429/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/17/thursday-final-ratings-american-idol-vampire-diaries-greys-anatomy-big-bang-theory-30-rock-office-adjusted-up-person-of-interest-mentalist-adjusted-down/120429/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227055432/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/24/thursday-final-ratings-big-bang-theory-american-idol-the-mentalist-adjusted-up-rob-private-practice-up-all-night-adjusted-down/121760/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/24/thursday-final-ratings-big-bang-theory-american-idol-the-mentalist-adjusted-up-rob-private-practice-up-all-night-adjusted-down/121760/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007175716/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/05/thursday-final-ratingsthe-x-factor-last-resort-30-rock-greys-anatomy-the-office-adjusted-up-two-and-a-half-men-person-of-interest-scandal-elementary/151704/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/05/thursday-final-ratingsthe-x-factor-last-resort-30-rock-greys-anatomy-the-office-adjusted-up-two-and-a-half-men-person-of-interest-scandal-elementary/151704/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021204036/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/19/thursday-final-ratings-the-vampire-diaries-the-big-bang-theory-greys-anatomy-30-rock-up-all-night-scandal-adjusted-down-plus-final-baseba/153888/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/19/thursday-final-ratings-the-vampire-diaries-the-big-bang-theory-greys-anatomy-30-rock-up-all-night-scandal-adjusted-down-plus-final-baseba/153888/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029034725/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/26/thursday-final-ratings-big-bang-theory-greys-anatomy-vampire-diaries-adjusted-up-parks-rec-up-all-night-rock-center-30-rock-person-of-interest-beauty-th/154823/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/26/thursday-final-ratings-big-bang-theory-greys-anatomy-vampire-diaries-adjusted-up-parks-rec-up-all-night-rock-center-30-rock-person-of-interest-beauty-th/154823/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6SrF81P6B?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/09/24/tuesday-final-ratings-marvels-agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-forever-the-voice-and-dancing-with-the-stars-adjusted-up-chicago-fire-person-of-interest-adjusted-down/306586/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/09/24/tuesday-final-ratings-marvels-agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-forever-the-voice-and-dancing-with-the-stars-adjusted-up-chicago-fire-person-of-interest-adjusted-down/306586/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6T0jCQ37s?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/01/tuesday-final-ratings-selfie-manhattan-love-story-the-voice-marvels-agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-new-girl-chicago-fire-adjusted-down/309339/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/01/tuesday-final-ratings-selfie-manhattan-love-story-the-voice-marvels-agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-new-girl-chicago-fire-adjusted-down/309339/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6TNkaForQ?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/16/tuesday-final-ratings-selfie-marvels-agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-forever-adjusted-down/315994/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/16/tuesday-final-ratings-selfie-marvels-agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-forever-adjusted-down/315994/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6TMI1HFqN?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/15/tuesday-final-ratings-the-flash-marvels-agents-of-s-h-i-e-ld-the-voice-about-a-boy-chicago-fire-adjusted-down/315328/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/15/tuesday-final-ratings-the-flash-marvels-agents-of-s-h-i-e-ld-the-voice-about-a-boy-chicago-fire-adjusted-down/315328/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6TWpFshFn?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/22/tuesday-final-ratings-the-voice-the-flash-marry-me-adjusted-down-final-world-series-numbers/317988/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/22/tuesday-final-ratings-the-voice-the-flash-marry-me-adjusted-down-final-world-series-numbers/317988/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141031180435/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/29/tuesday-final-ratings-the-flash-the-voice-ncis-marry-me-adjusted-down-final-world-series-numbers/320740/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/29/tuesday-final-ratings-the-flash-the-voice-ncis-marry-me-adjusted-down-final-world-series-numbers/320740/

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) 02:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Blogs as reviews

I've come across these episode pages and I'm going to leave a comment here that I can link to as I remove some of the less reliable sources.

• TVOvermind -- a blog with a checkered past. WP:RSN is not in favor.
• TV Equals -- another blog with no notable writers, editorial standards, or indication of industry notability
• TV Fanatic -- was a one-person blog for a long time it seems? Back in 2011 that came up on RSN. Apparently in recent years its become a Rotten Tomatoes-approved site. While I think that's marginal to begin, it also looks like that only applies to certain reviewers, years after it was a one-man stunt by McKenna. I'm going to remove the uses from the early 2010s when it was just a blog by him.
• TV.com -- According to RSN, "TV.com is largely user-generated and generally unreliable. Some editors believe material published by its own staff may be cited." I am not pulling up some of these even on Web Archive, so not great.

Alyo (chat·edits) 18:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)