Talk:List of Royal Pains 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.

Misc[edit]

I created the page and put up a brief description of the first episode. I'm not exactly sure how to use the table format, so I decided not to risk it. Barnakey (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Barnakey[reply]

I added the tables into the page, I couldn't find much info on future episodes apart from the next three titles and air dates so I've added them. Feel free to expand/alter any of this though. Richardm9 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you didn't get the second and third episode titles switched around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.163.104 (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please make a separate page for each of the episodes? BRIEF summaries are supposed to be on the main episodes page, not a detailed summary of each episode.Barnakey (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that should be done...at the end of the season Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 4[edit]

TB or Not TB? Thats the name of a House episode... Fact check anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.28.167 (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No but I'm 99% sure. It's not like its trademarked, just funny coincidence. -Winter123 (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright/trademarks for episode names. Because otherwise episodes would NEVER have names. Ie) how many times do shows mock movie titles as episode titles many times. 67.68.8.252 (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to ischemic stroke because TIS is not an etiology. A transient ischemic attack is and is not an indication for the therapy the patient received.Yosh76063 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 6 Title[edit]

- It appears as "Sick as a Dog" in someplaces, but as "If I Were A Sick Man" appears on the website, I view it as an equally acceptable title, and am reverting the edit Purplebackpack89 (talk) 7:31 pm, 19 July 2009 (UTC−7)

I think sick as a dog was probably its working title, i know that for a fact USA uses alot of working title for the name (burn notice for instance). So I don't even thing Sick as a dog should be included. Tj21 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly fine with that. Just did the two titles as a stopgap compromise measure Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pilot article[edit]

I feel that article should be removed, Other at least each episode should get its own article page also. 64.228.95.172 (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge individual season articles back into main article[edit]

I am proposing to merge the individual season articles for this show back into the main episode list article. There is little or no content in them, and the main article did not meet the guidelines for splitting when it was done. The articles List of In Plain Sight episodes and List of White Collar episodes where both merged back from their split form recently, and this one needs the same treatment, for the same reasons. There is no perceptible justification for three articles when one is more reader friendly, and will contain the same information. Drmargi (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I left this for nearly a month, and there's been no comment, so I've merged the two season articles back into this one. See discussions linked above for rationale; there's simply no need for the split Drmargi (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of No and #[edit]

There is an increasingly problematic push by a few editors to use No and # to differentiate season numbering from series numbering. There are two problems with this. First: No. and # mean the same thing: number. Second: they do not differentiate, much less clearly label what the numbers in each column mean. I'm not sure whose bright idea they are, but they add nothing, tell the reader nothing, and are generally useless. Drmargi (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to know the episode number within the series? Personally, all I care about is the episode number within a season. Ryan8374 (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard practice. --Drmargi (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season 4 premiere[edit]

Found this photo of the first page of the season 4 premiere script, courtesy of executive producer Michael Rauch. It gives the name of episode 401 as "After the Fireworks" and names Andrew Lenchewski as the writer (credit is in the caption, not the actual photo). I personally think it's enough to add the title and writer to the season 4 section, but wanted to get some input before doing so. Thanks. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writer, yes. Title no. They change. I'd wait until USA releases it. --Drmargi (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of broadcast is subject to just as much change as title of episode. If yes to writer then it should be yes to all. Or no to all. But if no to all then that mean no source is ever acceptable. A broadcaster announcing something is no certainty it will happen. At one time there were to be new episodes of Private Practice and Grey's Anatomy on ABC last night but then ABC went in a different direction. Use the whole of the information provided. If it changes update it then according to the change. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production code source????[edit]

based on the dubious format used of RP#100 I am wondering as to the source of those numbers which appears to have no citation. And NBCUniversal don't display then in the end credits the way WB and FOX do.Helmboy (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where they came from and believe they may be made up, simply based on the episode order. I can't find any information on production codes for the series. I found a couple scripts, but no codes are on it. I did, however, find the copyright registrations and think that the numbers found with them may be production codes, but they're all over the place, not always following a specific format. Search for Royal Pains at http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First and you'll see what I mean. My opinion is that in the event that production numbers are not available, the column should be eliminated. Ryan8374 (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of Royal Pains 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 07:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Royal Pains 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 04:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]