Talk:List of Firefly episodes

	Television portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
	This redirect is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This redirect is supported by the Firefly task force.

Lists

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles

Distinction

You may want to make a distinction between the order in which they were actually shown and the order in which they were supposed to be shown. If someone reads this in 10 years and tries to track down some tapes, they will probably want the planned order rather than the aired order. (You can get questions about this answered at rec.arts.sf.tv.) -- B.Bryant

Noted. I basically just copy/pasted those from another site, and haven't gotten around to refining them. I fondly hope that someone 10 years from now will be able to go out and buy the DVD box set with eight seasons or so - I love this show! The news that it might be cancelled before even finishing a season was quite a downer. Wapcaplet

Information from http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/news/cult/2003/06/18/5161.shtml. Could anyone regard the episode names as spoilers? Should this page not be combined with the main Firefly (television series) page? - Jeandré, 2003-06-22t16:45z

I don't think the episode names are really spoilers, so we probably don't need the spoiler warning unless we start discussing the plot of each episode.

Agreed.

I'm not sure I like the table format over the list format, though (see Wikipedia:How to use tables).

Why don't you like the table? Is it the specific rendering, or the idea of using a table? I think with four important items, it needs to be tabled. Should we put the premier date on the left tho? I used the intended episode numbers on the left because that is an important piece of info, showing the chaotic situation.

For most TV shows, the episode list is separate, but since it looks like this episode list is going to stay short forever, I wouldn't object to merging it with the main article. -- Wapcaplet 18:09 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I now think we should keep the table caption (1st season), and the seperate page — hopefully we'll get more seasons :).

I haven't seen 11/13 yet (don't spoilt it please), but should we yet mention that River's psychic abilities, and the faster than light travel (Mal's intro vs. Book's), makes this fantasy and soft sf? - Jeandré, 2003-06-22t21:28z

I haven't seen the last three episodes either (well, last three unaired, not last three in order... stupid Fox :) but am anxiously awaiting them on DVD... As for the table, I do not object to it that strongly. I suppose you're right; with the extra information of intended episode number, a table may be best. Episode numbers on the left is good. If we do mention River's abilities and other spoiler stuff, it probably should go on the main article (which already has the spoiler warning), unless you plan to tie it into the development of each episode. -- Wapcaplet 21:32 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sould we add the order the episodes were shown in different countries?

USA: 2/4; 5/9; 10, 14, 1 (different time slots?).
UK: 1/14?.
ZA: 2/10, 14, 1, 11/13.

-- Jeandré, 2003-06-25t23:04z

Sure! Wikipedia is often too U.S.-centric. It'd be good to have this info. -- Wapcaplet 23:17 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm now thinking we should combine the episode list with the main article because the order mess is worth writing about.

ZA slot is Tuesdays 19:30+02:00 on SABC3. Premier might have been 2003-04-15, last on 2003-07-22. 2/10, 14, 1a, 1b, 11/13.

[1] Anyone know if 2003-05-12t18:00z was the first time it was shown in the UK, with a Monday 19:00z slot? - Jeandré, 2003-06-26t22:58z

What's the source of the pilot not been shown in South America? I don't know about other countries, but it was shown in Brazil, after all the regular episodes. Source? Me, I saw it. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.51.41.4 (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The links at Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 1#Spanish tv. probably had it. Someone who can read Portuguese/Spanish could possibly find it using web.archive.org -- Jeandré, 2007-01-31t20:45z

naming

i think all the episodes should be called "Title (Firefly episode)"... -Xornok 20:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They actually shouldn't be, as that clashes with naming conventions. Yes, most other TV episodes are getting that treatment; however they're incorrect, but in a good portion of these cases, there's too much support for the unnecessary disambiguation methods and too many titles to correct so there's no room to get in and fix it. South Park and Doctor Who have it right, and the latter has TV related articles much more up to par.--Bacteria 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, we're currently discussing exactly this issue at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television). Wording on a new poll is being finalized now, and all interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode summaries

OK, the episode summaries aren't supposed to be full out summaries of the episode. They are just supposed to reveal the base info of the ep without revealing the ending, in one, maybe two sentences. See List of South Park episodes for examples of what the summaries should look like. JQF 15:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers are appropriate in an encyclopedia. The manual of style/guideline at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning says what is not acceptable is to "Deleting relevant, neutral and verifiable information about a narrative work from Wikipedia "because it's a spoiler" instead of properly applying spoiler templates." List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes is being rewritten right now because someone wanted to make it a featured list and its main problem is it doesn't have spoilers, see here. - Peregrinefisher 18:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue I have with the summaries was that they reveled the end of the episode, which I don't think readers want. Yes, some spoilers are needed in order to properly summarize, but revealing the end goes to far in my opinion. If you look at the article I pointed out, List of South Park episodes, which is a featured article, you'll see that they don't reveal the ending. JQF 18:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the featured lists reveal the ending, some don't, see List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. I think the purpose of an encyclopedia should be to pack the maximum information into each paragraph. I also think Wikipedia is moving in this direction. I guess I won't force it on this Firefly list if it's not ready. It just seems I should be able to look at the list and quickly see "River is smuggled on board" or "the lone survivor turns into a reaver" without having to read the whole episode page. - Peregrinefisher 20:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a spoiler policy is not supposed to be a Griefer policy. A short episode summary should not give away the ending or important plot details anymore than the intro the article for the Crying Game or The Usual Suspects should give away the twists in those stories. Since we are lucky enough to have articles for each individual episodes - they haven't been removed by deletionists. (I think at one point Stargate had two episode lists, one with only short summaries, one with longer spoiler summaries since most episodes didn't have their own article.) The details belong in the episode articles should more than satisfy any reasonable completionist(sp?) editor. -- Horkana (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC) --atrocious spelling and grammar corrected, 26 Jan 2010[reply]

Sorry, the "plot summaries" are silly. They are not plot summaries. They read like something from a TV magazine, not an encyclopedia. Tell us what goes on in the episode, briefly, without sounding like you're writing advertising copy, please.--24.85.90.31 (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)--24.85.90.31 (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast over Episodes

Should the Broadcast information be moved about the Episode list? It seems to me to be a better place for it, but I'm sure it would work. JQF 18:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes

There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. - Peregrine Fisher 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Ned Scott 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--apostrophitis corrected, 26 Jan 2010

Image copyright problem with Image:FireflyPoster.jpg

The image Image:FireflyPoster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This IS fair use.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.172.127.51 (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2010

Wow 2 years later… There is no fair use rational provided on the image page. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of Broadcast section

The main article includes a broadcast history section and a table does seem to be the best way to show the messed up broadcast order compared to the intended production order. Should this section be removed from here since it is redundant and not worth the work of cleanup? -- Horkana (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article

It's becoming more common practice to not have list of episodes pages for television shows with just one season, unless the article is quite expansive, containing more information than is already on the main article. All that would need be merged is the episode list, likely to the broadcast history section, replacing the smaller table already in place. Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and it sourced better. However Firefly is a featured article and we need sources for the director and writer. Edgepedia (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could use the DVD for reference. It's already being used in the main article to reference the air dates. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree about the merge. Not a lot of content in this article besides the episode table and the brief description about the broadcast history which can perfectly be moved to the main article. QuasyBoy (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been over a week, and no objections, think we can go ahead with the merge? We can use the already in place references for the air dates in the main article for the writers and directors as well. And lastly, I think I may have found a reliable source for the unaired episode air dates, although they're slightly different than what's here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/news/cult/2003/06/18/5161.shtml. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Add writer, director to "Broadcast history", very similar. TBran dl ey 04:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]