Talk:List of Jane and the Dragon episodes

Animation Low‑importance

	Animation portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This redirect 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.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Repeats

The descriptions repeat for episodes 115 & 117, and 118 & 119. 209.124.36.217 17:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original airdate where?

The "Original airdate" column -- which network or country does this refer to? --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes List

Why is this list of episodes not combined with the main Jane and the Dragon TV series page? And why are their seperate pages with detailed descriptions for some of the episodes. This all looks a bit over done with the details to me. 203.46.95.243 05:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that it is overly detailed. Further, the descriptions are all verbatim quotes from network descriptions, and so probably violate WP copyright policies. The main article is even worse. Ronstew 05:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree; I think this article is actually a lot less detailed than most. If anyone feels they are more knowledgable about this subject, do speak up... but as far as I can see, TV show articles generally have a separate page for episode lists. I looked at other lesser-known animations and this held true; I also looked at the science-fiction series Firefly, a featured article, which has a separate page for episodes, one or two line summaries of each episode, and a history of broadcasts. (a small table listing the episode names and numbers is included in the main article. And this show only has fourteen episodes, where as Jane has twenty six as well as a complex history of being broadcast and released on DVD in different countries!) Granted, Jane is less well-known... I'm not terribly fanatical about having a seperate episode page, I just think that if we manage to create a really good complete main page, the episode list might prove too long and cumbersome for that article anyway. I think it's very well done the way it is, except for the copyrighted text. I've watched almost all these episodes and would like to write up one or two line episode summaries to replace them, if we do decide to have a seperate episode page. Of course, whatever we do, the main page needs lots of work....Best wishes and safe travelling, --RainbowWerewolf (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tests and Jests

Someone changed the Tests and Jests title to "Testies and Jesties". Funny. I have changed it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Fischer (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect TV guide summaries

Should we mention when producers send wrong descriptions to distributors? Like Disney Channel is displaying on my PVR fir "A Pig of a Problem" this:

"Smithy's pig bites the prince, getting him dismissed from the castle staff."

In the episode though, it is not the bite that gets him dismissed. The bite only results in the pig being penned and planned for sale. The king only dismisses Smithy after pig goes missing from the pen when dragon steals him, so the summary is wrong. 64.228.90.87 (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]