This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kevinbrogers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It looks like TV.com is a user-supported site, much like Wikipedia, so I'm not entirely sure if it would reliable or not. I remember a few years ago I used it as a source and it was quickly reverted... I'm currently searching for other sources right now on this. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the episodes section cannot be edited on IGN, and I know that we've used them in the past. I can't find anything in Wikipedia policy against them, so everything looks good to me. I'll get the info added as soon as I can. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Community list of episodes table headers
You say it gives no distinction, for lack of a better way to express this I apologise but I feel it is incorrect to label them the way you have. For example, the 2nd episode "Spanish 101" is labeled Series #2, Season #2 the way you have it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattysaiyan (talk • contribs) 04:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The № and # essentially mean the same thing. I'm not really sure how the use of them got started, but they don't really explain what is below. From what I can tell on other pages (such as this discussion), Series # and Season # is what is most commonly used on Wikipedia. The "Series #" refers to the overall episode number, while the "Season #" refers to the number of the episode within the season. This may be confusing to certain readers, however, who refer to different seasons as "series" (such as readers in the U.K.). In my opinion, the best way to refer to the episodes is "No. in Series" and "No. in Season", as is currently used on the page that I liked to above. Whatever the case, № and # shouldn't be used, as there is no distinction between the two. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion you linked has got it spot on, fair enough. I agree that they meant the same thing but I didn't really think of a way to put it and just copied the system in place for a few other TV Series on here. Now you have explained it, it does make sense. I do think we should follow the "No. in season" method for more clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattysaiyan (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly how I was pointed to the discussion. Most people I've spoken to agrees with the "No. in season" method, so I think there should be a push toward that. Kevinbrogers (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
hello
I have been working the test page for Jeff winger and have added more content. I was hoping to get your opinion on it. Whenever you would like, you can find it at User:Caringtype1/Test page. Thank you.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look at it as soon as I get a chance. From what I can tell scanning it right now though, it looks pretty good. Thanks! Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Chuck (season 5)
Hello, The dates of broadcasting come a dependable site, Why ? The futon critic is a dependable Website, no ? (Excuse me, I am French and I do not speak English very well) --Skarock (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The dates from Futon Critic are generally accepted to be 100% reliable; however, in this case, the dates are followed by the designation "Projected Date". These dates are usually pretty accurate, but they've been found to be wrong every once in awhile. I'll be watching the site and will re-add all the dates as soon as they remove the "projected" designation. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, the reliable source is from Régis Loisel's graphic novel Pyrenee, he created the character, and just like in every other Disney film, they used other people's work and changed plots ect. thank you.(updated source and links) 174.5.178.56 (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
You have correctly reverted 98.215.133.136 twice for adding information sourced from a blog. You did not, however, leave an edit summary on the revert indicating that a bad source was the reason and left no message for the IP on his talk page explaining the reason. This leaves a new editor with no feedback on what he did wrong and may drive off from future participation a potentially useful editor. He is at least providing references for the information so is trying to do the right thing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
That's true, I thought about that. I used the "rollback" button on the edit summary (where I usually leave that info), so I wasn't able to leave a summary, but I'm getting ready to leave a note at the editor's talk page. Thanks for reminding me. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I already left a note. Should avoid using rollback except for obvious blatant deliberate vandalism, everything else should have a reason. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I usually don't use rollback for these things, but in this case it would have been tedious not to do so due to conflicting intermediate edits. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
I THINk i now what episode 1 is. It is called name the baby i think and it is where amy tries to choose the babys name i think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.90.102 (talk) 14:51, January 3, 2012 (CST)
We can't add information like this without a valid reputable source. If you could point me to where you obtained this information, I'd be happy to add it to the page for you. Thanks. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
