Television: Episode coverage / Glee Start‑class Low‑importance

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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. This article is supported by the Glee task force (assessed as High-importance).

Is the death of Cory Monteith relevant to this article? Squidoh (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not as much as people think. A piece about it in the production section would be fine (I can't imagine not mentioning it at all considering how big a part of the show he is, or was) but it should be kept in the context of the show and how his death will affect the writing and filming. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an objection to the season 5 background color, a green, which resulted in a change to a purple/lilac: "Change the season color, because that green color was used in season 4 before they changed to currentky pink." I'd like to propose that we keep it green for now (and have reverted the change accordingly); it contrasts well with the pink.

The reason is that the season colors are eventually changed to match the season's DVD packaging color, and we don't yet know what that will be. We'll want to have something for season 5 that contrasts well with the DVD color for season 4, but they haven't yet released the cover art for that DVD. (Amazon is using one of the "posters" that Glee used in the days leading up to the fourth season premiere for their artwork until the official cover art is released. The DVD has been delayed from mid-September to October 1 in the U.S.)

Last season, when we realized that the green was not an official color, there was a discussion on Talk: Glee (season 4)#Colour, and a consensus for the current fourth season color was arrived at. This is the color used now; it was always intended to be temporary until the DVD artwork was released. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that we have a season 4 cover, assuming we stick with the new idea of DVD logo colors for seasons (red, blue, yellow, light teal), the green we've been using for season 5 is now too close to the light teal that was used for season 4. I'd like to suggest we pick something with good contrast to all the other seasons as our color for the next year until that DVD is released, something like a good orange (which we had used for season 2) or that interesting magenta-like color we were using for season 4 until a little while ago. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, no reason not to adjust this season's colour to fit with the others. Go for it. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no further comments, I think I'll go with the orange. Among other things, it might prevent users from trying to use an orangey color for season 4 based on its background. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we change the season color, i mean the orange was used on season 2 before, can we put another color like purple or a violet-blue? ZairaTangled —Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter what was used before; what matters is what's being used across all the seasons right now, since we made the switchover. Really dark colors like purple or violet-blue are harder on the eyes. I think orange is quite readable, and it seems to have worked fine for a month now. Don't you think orange is readable? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a great number of edits adding episode titles: most without any sources at all, and some with sources that are clearly not reliable, and some that may seem to be reliable but really aren't. Please remember that fan-based sources like wikias, tumblrs, and larger, fancier sites that look more professional but do not have the fact checking and editorial standards required of reliable sources should never be used. These problematic sources include:

• The various Glee wikias, tumblrs, and fan sites, including GleekOut Brasil and MJsbigblog
• IMDb, TV.com, SpoilerTV.com
• Hypable and similar "by fans for fans" sites
• Wetpaint
• BroadwayWorld.com (which has relied uncritically on the above for information, and not obtained independent confirmation)

Absent a reliable source, information on episode titles, writers, directors, production codes, short plot summaries, and so on should not be added to the article. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or gossip magazine: information should wait to be added until it can be verified using reliable sources. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just added Wetpaint to the above list per Wikipedia's reliable sources noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 162#Press websites/videos. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to propose adding the 100th episode to the article. It marks several important plot turns, as well as the return of many guest characters. Also, an independent article can be started for it. Granite999 (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2014 (PST)

Since we reliably have dates for the episode, even if there isn't a title, there's no reason I can see not to include it in the table, along with a summary based on published details (and source citations for the date and the summary). However, until there is a reliably sourced title for the 100th episode, an article should not be started for it. (Which means that the title can't be rumored, or come from wikias or tumblrs or sites that get their info from same: places like Wetpaint and mjsbigblog and Hypable and even broadway.com tend to pass such information along from such unreliable sources, which renders their own reporting problematic from Wikipedia's point of view. Actually, Hypable as a fan site is by definition unreliable.) Details about the episode itself can be added to the Production and Cast sections; there's already material on it in both places. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Edit Names Of 2 NEW Episodes 24.74.115.93 (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. This doesn't contain a specific request—which two forthcoming episodes and what their names are—and what the reliable source is that contains those names. Please revise your request if you wish it to be considered. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A large Reception section table was added that pushes down other, more important information on the page, and effectively repeats the Episode section information with the sole addition of rating/share data (a single field). This is duplicative without adding an adequate amount of useful new information, and I don't believe should be added to the season article. For an incomplete season, it's made more obtrusive by having large blank areas for not yet aired (or produced) episodes. I don't think it belongs in this article, so I have removed it. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if it takes up too much space, why can't you just have it under the sections of production and cast? That way, the reception section would be at the end of the article and it would´t take up too much unnecessary space. And I think the section would make the article seem more professional and more developed, if you see my point. Many wikipedia pages have this section, and I think those pages seems like they have control over the useful information about the season. Twotimer17 (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]