Talk:List of Lie to Me 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 articles
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.

Viewer data/ratings

Viewer data and rating numbers need to be sourced. If you are adding data, please also add the source. I randomly spot-checked the US data for season 2 and found differences between what is listed here and what a source reports. For example, US viewer numbers (millions):

Ep#5(18) airing 10/26/09: stated:6.28 actual:6.33. [1]
Ep#7(20) airing 11/16/09: stated:7.80, actual:7.23. [2]

I am not sure where these numbers are coming from. Please provide a source! Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The day after the show airs, tvbythenumbers publishes an overnight article. This article shows the viewers at the top of the hour and the bottom of the hour. Some editors simply average the two, which is wrong. We don't know what sort of viewing pattern there was during the entire hour. So people need to be patient because at the end of the week, tvbythenumbers always publishes a weekly review with the final total viewers for the entire hour. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people are quick to jump the gun. But if editors would source that (the fast ratings), then at least we would know for sure that the data is wrong and we could change it when the "finals" come in. It's very frustrating, and a lot of work, to find refs to all the data later. But I guess by telling you this, I am "preaching to the choir". :) IMO, the table is meaningless as is. (Let me add that putting fast ratings in the table is far from ideal, people should wait for proper data from proper references, but at least we would know where data came from.)--Logical Fuzz (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Lists

When the header says Series, that is to indicate the season the episode was in, NOT the episode within the season. Also, episodes are counted within their seasons 1-13 in season 1, 1-22 in season 2), NOT consecutively throughout the entire series. That is not personal preference, but the actual way that episodes and seasons are logged by the television industry, and the way episodes and seasons are located by fans. The episodes CAN be logged consecutively spanning the entire series, but it is not a common thing outside the industry, and certainly not the way fans keep track. Hence the reason you only really hear about a show's 100th or 200th episode when it's very close to approaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayl37 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. In the case of this article, "series number" means the number of the episode in the series, while "season number" is the episode's number in the season. There is no reason for a season column that lists the season because the page is already broken down by season. This is not the television industry, it is an encyclopedia. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The numbering system in place allows for both the numbering you propose (1-22 within a season) and a series-long episode count as well, providing more information than your version provides. The industry counts episodes by production number, which is entirely different than you suggest, what's more, I doubt you've surveyed every fan who watches a given show, and therefore have no definitive knowledge of how the aggregate group (even if you could find a satisfactory set of parameters to define fan) count episodes. Although the column labels aren't as informative as they could be, the information in them is useful and encyclopedic; repeating the season number over and over is simply redundant; that's in the table heading, and the average reader is more than capable of remembering the season number long enough to read the table. Drmargi (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No article that lists 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 as the data in the rows of a column of an episode list will remain. They are reverted pretty much on sighting. While many fans do read the articles on Wikipedia the content is not written specifically for fans. Here the episode count is kept episodically instead of with every hundred. Sure, shows only really announce the 100th, 150th, and 200th episodes. Look at the mess that The CW created for themselves by combining 2 episodes in the 9th season of Smallville. 200th produced was 199th broadcast but it was still promoted as the 200th. They essentially skip-numbered 199 in broadcast numbering. The annotations to the relevant Smallville articles are really "fun". On my own site i list Lie to me* based on the production rather than the air dates. Likewise with other shows. It means the air dates are non-sequential but the shows make sense if you watch them in that order. Using 4-01 or 5x03 or 2.13 would effectively require a column heading season number <symbol> episode number and columns are just not that large to fit such a heading. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes episodes are always shot in order. That's not the case. Show often shoot out of order to accommodate talent, locations or a variety of other factors. You can't assume production order is the intended broadcast order or meaningful in terms of story sequence. Drmargi (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is just us now fighting about a site i personally own and how i present the data there. Do you really want to argue about a non-Wikipedia site? No matter what you say here you don't have access to change it. You ought to see my episode listing for Wonderfalls. Then tell me i am assuming things and misrepresenting via shortcuts. I do admit the air dates for Argentina are not there but if i can find them again then they will be added too since they pre-date everything but the FOX/Global airing and they were in English with subtitles. I was trying to keep it simple here unless it developed into something which called for more picky details. Your jumping in and complaining about me here and on the user's talk page helped for nothing. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 04:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really are reading way, way, way too much into what I'm saying. I made a simple observation. The rest is in your imagination. Drmargi (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagined i observed that there are no continuity issues with watching Lie to me* in the order it is being broadcast in. You should look at their site for syndication sales. There the show has episodes listed in chronological production code order. Wonderfalls is a show that had episodes made later with the intent of being bridges that filled perceived gaps in the progression of the story in the early episodes; the last episode made is 2nd or 3rd in the continuity depending on where you view/get the show from. Many FOX shows are shown out of production order for absolutely no apparent reason. Sons of Tucson was grossly broadcast out of order. Bones has an occasional out of order, like tonight's episode chronologically comes before last week's episode. Currently Chase and the recently re-cancelled The Whole Truth are likewise so out of order the continuity issues are sometimes focal points of the plot that are further highlighted by network's choice of broadcast order. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 16:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of which has anything whatsoever to do with my point. You assume production order = intended broadcast order. That's not true. Episodes are shot out of order all the time, as I indicated earlier, to accommodate a variety of production and talent issues. Production numbers and codes reflect the order they are shot, and are not indicative of their serial order. How much the networks might opt to mess with broadcast order after production is in no way germane to my point. Drmargi (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to fix Season 3 episodes 9 and 10, Fox puts them a a single episode, are we going to leave a 2 episodes because it make looking for other episodes. They call the episode Funhouse/Rebound. I was just wanting to know what other people thought about this, funhouse-rebound —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.181.124 (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed this very closely, but I think that Fox, though airing them together, officially has them as two separate episodes. They did this with "Broken", an episode of House. Similarly, NBC does this all the time with The Office and hour-long episodes. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on the House wikipedia page and it is part 1 and part 2 should that at lest be added to the 2 episodes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.181.124 (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were promoted as a full night but they are two independent episodes with their own storylines and no greater connexion than any two random episodes of the show have. They are not a part 1 & 2. They have their own opening and closing credits in Canada. If you look at the summary on fox.com/lietome the split in the episodes begins with the paragraph, "A boy named Noah opens a briefcase, finding cash and a notebook written in code. When his mother, Lily, enters, Noah shows her the money - just before her boyfriend, George, arrives." Not to mention they have their own production #s. FOX's press site does acknowledge the plurality of them, speaking of the "Funhouse/Rebound episodes". Every time FOX has a full night of new episodes of a single show this happens. In the case of the season 6 premiere of House it is a 2-part story. Not this time though. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for clearing that up, people just need to relies this so i can understand why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.181.124 (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Song credits

I've removed all the song credits from the article. None of them are sourced, which means we're left to believe the editor adding them got them right. The standard of evidence requires a reliable source, not an editor's judgment. Moreover, these song credits were discussed one that talk page for the list of Castle episodes, and consensus was they were fancruft, and not notable. The were subject to removal for the sourcing issue alone; the notability issue simply reinforces that need. So they're gone. Drmargi (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of Lie to Me 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) 14:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Lie to Me 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120210458/http://www.fox.com/lietome to http://www.fox.com/lietome/

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) 03:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]