Talk:List of Eureka episodes

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

It is requested that an image or photograph of List of Eureka episodes be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Citations

I inserted a citation [1] to verify where the existing information for the lead section was obtained from, but I auto generated the citation, so the link under References might not be recorded correctly. If you are good with referencing, can you please help to ensure it is properly recorded. Thanks --FirdousTayob (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Episode IDs

Would someone please check http://www.scifi.com/eureka/episodes/, I think a mistake might have been made with the ids --pevarnj ^(t/c/@) 01:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webisodes

What about the webisodes? aren't they canon as well? --TorriTorri^{Talk to me!} 05:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have added them had I known they existed. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --TorriTorri^{Talk to me!} 00:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The List

Is there any reason that the list on this page only goes to S02E08, when the pages have already been written for:

samwaltz 00:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode notability

All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. That is unlikely to happen, and these only have certain bad aspects (though all may not apply) like containing overly long or one sentence plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list.

If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. Otherwise, discussion will take place here. Please remember that this is not a vote. If you like the information, that's fine and dandy, but your opinion doesn't really count towards anything. The only opinions that do count are ones that that lean towards the inclusion of real world information. TTN 21:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/WP:EPISODE#Dealing_with_problem_articles , I'm going to object to the merge. Looking at your talk page, it seems that rather than try and improve articles, your on a one man campaign to eliminate every television episode page you find. Please consider *improving* the articles, rather than eliminating them outright. Give the nearly one million results on google for Eureka Episodes, I find it highly unlikely that there are insufficient external sources to improve the existing articles.

Remember, mindless destruction for the sake of brevity is *not* a good thing.

--Carterhawk 03:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Carterhawk and the others. This stinks of you whining about not getting your way so you just try to impose your will on lesser-well-known shows. Kuralyov 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is....

Whilst I agree that the episodes of Eureka may fail the notability guidelines as mentioned, this failure also applies to many other television series. For instance, there are longer pages devoted to each episode of the original series of Battlestar Galactica, Friends, Futurama etc. If these guidelines are to be applied to Eureka episodes, then all these other programmes should also have the detailed pages removed as, as far as I can tell, they provide no more of the 'real-world analysis and sourced analysis' that the WP criteria require than the Eureka pages and, personally speaking, I can't see why episodes of, for example, Futurama have more social impact that Eureka.

So by all means enforce the guidelines if you have to, but enforce them equally across ALL television programmes - either that or review the WP criteria.

CultureDrone 10:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slowly doing that, but as I'm sure you know, there are many, many series to go over. Though, there are other series that can have some episodes pass, so don't be so quick to put all on the same level. Futurama, for example, can probably get ten to twenty up and running. TTN 12:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more prominent shows are clearly better to make your point, so go there and come back here with precedent, not the other way round. --87.189.71.128

Link to webisodes

Hello, where the heck arre those webisodes ? How do I watch them. Except for wikipedia I have no proof that they even exist.87.159.110.181 (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're still available on YouTube and other websites, so they're definitely real. They seem to have been plugged from SciFi.com, though; no idea why. Luiswulf (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone do a slight edit?

Can someone edit the season 3 part of the list? It should be like this:

Season 3 2008: (First 8 episodes)

Season 3 2009: (Last 13 episodes)

We know that Eureka will be airing early/mid 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.78.59 (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change to add this but GSK thinks he knows better. His message below. --Delos (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your post on my talk page. Please be aware that it is speculation, and until it is confirmed by Sci Fi, it should not be posted on the page. You mentioned it is listed on IMDB. Please note that IMDB is not a reliable source and should not be the basis for including information. Thank you. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 07:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

- And Wikipedia is more reliable than a professional company with paid employees who do the research as part of their jobs? 76.2.100.203 (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers?

Could someone please add the sign of warning spoilers ahead or something like that? It seems like synopses of the episodes, but actually they tell the whole story. Not very fun to watch if you want to read a synopsis.93.125.198.182 (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are summaries of the episode, they summarize the episode. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and doesn't use content disclaimers. See WP:SPOILER. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 21:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How come we have a spoiler on/know what will happen in the Eureka Crossover (Crossover) to the Warehouse 13 crossover (13.1) but not the other way around? DarkArcher25 (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My wife complained to me about this yesterday. While I appreciate the desire to have a complete rundown on the episode, I suggest we shouldn't have spoilers in the episode list. If it is important to include spoilers at all, then it should be on the article about the episode. Once we get to that level, though, I would think it is hard to find references other than the original. I notice no citations for plot summaries. -- ke4roh (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite, and we don't concern ourselves with what some may perceive to be spoilers. Episodes are self-referencing; once an episode has aired the content of the entry is easily verifiable, so it doesn't need citations as the episode itself becomes the reference. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read Wikipedia:Television episodes and Wikipedia:Spoiler. I appreciate the effort to have complete information. I question the utility of a list of episodes that gives a detailed plot summary for each episode, partly because it may not be notable (i.e. well-sourced from secondary sources) and partly because of the audience of readers of the list. While this is an encyclopedia as distinct from a fansite, it is certainly written primarily by fans for, presumably, fans. Some in that audience have seen all episodes. Others have seen only those up to a point (and they might be here to determine which episode comes next), and others still have seen a random sampling of shows. While spoilers are clearly within the realm of things to put in Wikipedia, this editor would resist exposing plot resolution details in a list of episodes -- ke4roh (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Television episodes is primarily about creating articles for individual episodes, not for season lists per se. Individual episodes are generally not notable enough for their own article, but season lists are quite acceptable and expected. There is wide consensus that episode lists should be structured much as this one and that plot information should be included. That plot information should be a summary of the whole episode, from beginning to end. In short, if you don't want to be spoiled, it's probably best to stay away from Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But your response addresses neither of my points: notability and providing information suitable to the article's audience. I looked for but did not find a guideline for episode lists where such consensus would be documented. Perhaps we'll hammer one out over the next few days. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant MOS entry: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television)#Episode listing. I will follow up on its talk page. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion that you started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Spoilers in episode lists seems to be answering your questions, although perhaps not in the way that you'd like. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While that may not be my personal opinion, I surely respect it, so I put the same into the MOS to help save others the trouble. Thanks for bearing with me! -- ke4roh (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Issue

I clicked on the Eureka link at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/From_Fear_to_Eternity, and it went to Season 1, Episode 8. I wanted to go to Season 3, Episode 8. 98.110.157.174 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC) (The User Also Known as DarkArcher25)[reply]

Fixed. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 18:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see this. The TOC and series overview both give clickable links towards the seasons but the TOC gives more. Having them under each other creates unnecessary amounts of white space, and creates a repeat effect when scanning the page, which most do vertically rather than horizontally. Having them next to each-other improves the layout. I would however not choose to remove the TOC as it still provides quick links to References and External links, and users that are not that familiar with the series overview setup might find it easier to skip to each season with the TOC instead of the series overview. In case of a very short article that does cross the section limit to trigger the TOC might it be appropriate to suppress the TOC. It might be confusing to users who look for it and can't find it, especially if the page is as long as it is now, I for one still skip to sections using the TOC despite the section overview just out of habit. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Season 4 will only be 20 episodes

Contrary to the Zap2It cite for the 22 episode count (which came out last summer at ComicCon), this TV By the Numbers article (the new reference) states there will only be 20 episodes, a number confirmed by The Futon Critic and this blog from the writers of the show (scroll down to the picture of James Callis, it's the sixth post below it). As such, I've taken the liberty of changing the count, and reciting the reference. KnownAlias contact 05:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

extra pages for seasons

Can we make extra pages for the seasons? -- 91.64.230.56 (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is substantially more content in the season pages than is present here, there's little point in creating additional pages. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pages are necessary. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --AussieLegend (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's Syfy's oldest scripted series, and it has a lot of information that may need to be split up. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being "Syfy's oldest scripted series" is not a justification for splitting. The only content in the article is the episode tables. We split articles when they become too bulky and this article isn't too bulky with only 78 episodes. With only a few episodes to air, there's nothing to be gained from splitting one article into at least six unless, as I earlier stated, the season pages contain substantially more content than is present here. Once the series has finished airing in a few weeks, the likelihood of any editor being interested enough to expand the content with production and other information is going to be extremely low. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the articles current form there is absolutely no reason for a page split. B-watchmework (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only justification for seasonal articles is to move the info contained in the summaries here into theirs and thus shrinking this page to its proper list form. Still yet, not a good enough reason and I would venture that the seasonal articles would just be copy/pastes of this and the main series article. If this was a 20+-episode-season network-broadcast series, then it might've been needed. — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Eureka episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Releases

It could be beneficial to include a section on Eureka's DVD releases. Rileyerine (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis Clean-Up

I'm going to try to improve the concision of the episodes currently marked as being excessively detailed, from seasons 1 and 2. I would appreciate some feedback as to whether the result is adequately concise. Rileyerine (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]