This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Twin Peaks episodes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
List of Twin Peaks episodes is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5th September 2006 - I'm unable to get the boxes showing the episodes right, but I proose removing the pointless 'image' box just to make the synopsis' easier to read. - Gerry Shannon.
Episode 1x07 "The Last Evening" did not air on Thursday, May 24, but on Wednesday, May 23 at 10 PM, cf. [1] and [2]
Besides the content I already removed, a lot of the remainder seems to have come from here: http://www.twinpeaks.org/archives/references/episode_guide This should be looked into, and the proper actions taken. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
When Twin Peaks Season 1 was released on DVD in the US, the pilot epsisode was not included. It remains unreleased on DVD in the US to this day. I assume there is a simple explanation involving who owns the rights to the pilot, but I have no info on it, and I think that info should be included in the listing by someone who knows. Druff 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The lack of pictures, information and links for actual episodes for one of the most influential American cult television series of all time astounds me! I’ve added a few image captions, and began the page for the first episode – but does anyone want to improve the page further, perhaps by adding / searching for images that fit the episode? Angel2001 10:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Twinpeaks2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have adjusted the numbers of the episodes. The episode numbers given were incorrect, according to both of the DVD editions of the series. The DVDs do not give a number to the Pilot, so it should be episode 0, not '1' as it was given here. Hence, the episode that was described here as 'episode 2' is called 'episode 1' on the DVDs. I have reworked the list to correct this error and make it more user-friendly for readers watching the DVDs.Cop 663 (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
It’s not unusual for pilot episodes to be explicitly uncounted in the episode numbering of a given series. Is there a compelling reason this should not be the case here? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Since the official episode titles are just designated "Episode 1," "Episode 9" etc., shouldn't the "Beyond Life and Death" article be retitled as "Episode 30 (Twin Peaks)", especially since someone created an "Episode 2" article without giving it the title "Zen, or the Skill to Catch a Killer"? Just figure we may as well be consistent with the title style. Any thoughts? SchrutedIt08 (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't sure where to put this, since I didn't want to put this on the talk page of every single episode page, but here seems as good as anywhere else.
Every individual episode page mentions an "original" rating (TV-14, etc) and a current rating, sourced from tvguide and iTunes, respectively. I disagree with the commonly-used wording for these. Quoting Episode 16's page, "The episode was rated TV-14 during its original broadcast in the United States,[10] though it was later rated TV-PG.[2]" None of these episodes had original ratings, as they aired years before the ratings system existed. 146.79.231.130 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Should we be listing the Showtime revival as a third season? None of the sources provided explicitly state that it is considered a third season, just that it's a continuation. After all, Live Another Day isn't considered a ninth season of 24, but a separate entity that fits into the continuity of the original series. I'm not really that fussed either way, just wondering what others thought. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The hidden edit note on the series overview stated "do not add the limited series until a table can be created for it" A table was created, therefore the limited series was added.
"WP:TVOVERVIEW"; 'Series overview' states when a television programme has produced more than 2 seasons, a series overview table should be created.
Only yesterday the third season of the Twin Peaks series had its announcement of the premiere air date and episode number. Therefore, this is included on the 'series overview'.
@Drovethrughosts: reverted my edit saying note was ignored. It was not ignored (see text written right above).
If you believe it should not be included, please discuss why and when it should be. As far as I can see, an additional table was created for the Limited Series, now including it on the series overview. 82.37.3.182 (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Twin Peaks 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
NOTE: I think someone should add episode summaries from the main article here. I've tried, but I can't figure out how to do it. It doesn't show me a table to edit. Can someone else do this please?
Any specific reason why the episodes are only titled "Part 1", "Part 2", etc. in this article and not by their titles according to the Showtime Website? Toben (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I understand the reasons that the ratings section and the graphs are being removed, but I strongly disagree with them. Graphs are powerful visual tools that make data more accessible; graphing the ratings for Twin Peaks is especially useful because the decline in ratings (and the resulting cancellation) are such a crucial aspect of understanding the overall history of Twin Peaks.
For the benefit of other editors watching this page, here's the edit history (from my perspective):
"these ratings are already presented in the episode list")
"It's true that the episode list already includes a column for the ratings, but that doesn't seem to be a good reason to exclude a separate ratings section—especially since the graphs are a far better presentation of that info than the numbers in the columns by themselves."
Reverted good faith edits by Brandt Luke Zorn: Having two graphs for the same show is confusing. Especially when one of the is measuring viewers in millions and the other in thousands. Also, the second graph is about a single season. The use of the template in this page seems inappropriate and it would be better to avoid this mess altogether."
I don't think the graphs are inappropriate in the context of this show's development and I don't see what's confusing about having two graphs (or two scales).
The Return/the third season is generally well-understood to distinct from the first two seasons. The Return was a revival far removed in time from the airing of the original series. Even without any background knowledge of the show's history, this aspect of Twin Peaks becomes immediately apparent to almost anyone who tries to learn about it or watch it. From a practical standpoint, the way most people encounter this show would be as two distinct units, with the first two seasons as one chunk and the third season as a distinct chunk. Consider, for instance, that a person coming across the show on Netflix (or any other streaming platforms that may happen to license ABC's Twin Peaks) wouldn't be able to stream the third season, since the third season is a Showtime exclusive. To the extent that someone might be bewildered by the separation of the two graphs, the reason for doing so is easily explained by the large gap of time and the completely different production companies—as well as the practical utility of displaying the very different number ranges, since the third reason's ratings were much, much lower than the debut episode's peak in the dozens of millions. So rather than being confusing, it makes sense to draw a Twin Peaks novice's attention to the separation between the two portions of the show. As to the fact that "one of the [graphs] is measuring viewers in millions and the other in thousands
": the units are clearly labeled on each graph. If a person wants to read the info contained in the graphs and is graph-literate at a middle-school level, they will quickly see and understand the labeling.
I can't say I'd necessarily endorse using graphs on every list of TV episodes—some may be prohibitively long and would be better suited to articles about individual seasons. But here, a mere three seasons is digestible. Other episode lists of comparable length use ratings templates: List_of_Hannibal_episodes#Ratings, List_of_Mr._Robot_episodes#Ratings, List of Orphan Black episodes#Ratings. Here's the full list of articles using Template:Television season ratings. Visualizing this info with a graph seems, to me, to be self-evidently useful and informative. At worst it's merely redundant, but I can't see any actual harm or downside in presenting the info this way. It's no more redundant than the fact that Bob_Dylan#Discography lists his studio albums, even tho the list and sequence of albums could be extrapolated from the preceding biological text in the same article.
I've tagged involved editors throughout; in the interest of a fuller discussion, I'm also going to tag the editors Frietjes indicated had created the original graphs (minus those who appear inactive): HugoVert, AlexTheWhovian, Brojam, Universe1609, Drovethrughosts, User:JayCoop. —BLZ · talk 04:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
My recent restoration of the section has been reverted again by Radiphus. This time Radiphus's edit summary was: "yes it is stop edit-warring".
I take the accusation of edit-warring seriously. I've only reverted twice now, and only once to one of Radiphus's edits. If I were to revert Radiphus now, it would be my third revert total on the page. (3RR is generally about three reverts within a 24-hour period, not a total number of reverts.) I brought this topic to the discussion page before my second revert. I presented my reasoning to revert and I tagged Radiphus, so there's no way he missed my post. I only made my second revert after some time had passed and he still hadn't responded to this discussion—plus, no one else spoke up for his position. Radiphus: if you want to express your reasons for removing the ratings section, just do so here. I wanted to open a discussion. Please respond and make your case, or stop making arbitrary removals without discussion. —BLZ · talk 21:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
graph-literate at a middle-school level. The inclusion of these graphs in the article is absolutely confusing, redundant and inappropriate. I have nothing to add here. Let other editors express there opinions if they wish, instead of trying to change my mind. Radiphus (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The rating sources for the original series have been deleted because they come from a self-published source using magazine scans which is a copyright violation. I have done my best to replace the references but there is still six episodes from season 2 that I cannot find citations for. Is there anyone that can help with me this? Plus, this article is an FA, I doubt it'll be able to stay as that if there's citation needed tags. I'm going to ping @Grapple X: and @Gen. Quon: because I believe they they have access to newspaper archives. Thanks if anyone can help. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)