Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article The Walking Dead (TV series) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
December 23, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Television (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Comics / United States (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the United States comics work group.
 
WikiProject Horror (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Death (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Structure of "Main"[edit]

There seems to be a difference of opinion on how The Walking Dead (TV series)#Main should be structured. Instead of going back and forth reverting each other, it might be a good idea if we discussed things and try to find a compromise solution that is acceptable to all. Personally, I do not see the need to divide the section up into "Main (Alive)" and "Main (Deceased)" and think simply the original "Main" is the preferred style according to WP:TENSE and WP:OUTUNIVERSE, at least when referring to the characters in this particular table. I think it's perfectly OK to say a character was killed or is dead in episode recaps or character summaries. However, it seems to me that the primary purpose of this table is just to list the actors who have appeared as main characters in the show and it is not intended to be a scorecard to keep running track of who is "living" and who is "dead". It also seems inconsistent to divide up "Main" and leave "Recurringcharacters" as is. How can you change one table and not the other? Anyway, this is just my opinion, please feel free to disagree or agree. As I said above, hopefully we can agree on something that is acceptable to all. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC); Edited 05:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Cast and characters information guides us on how the section should be. And I am definitely against stating "alive" or "deceased." WP:Spoilers should only be included for good reasons. We should not be unnecessarily spoiling readers. That stated, if they read the Series overview section, they should expect spoilers. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Flyer22. I agree with you. In my opinion, Wikipedia articles are not intended to be go-to sites for the latest TV show character or plot updates. The role of the "Cast and Characters" section is just to list who has appeared as whom in the show from when to when. I don't think that table needs to go any deeper than that and detailed information about specific characters should be left to episode summaries or character pages. If a reader wants to find out more about the "Shane Walsh" character from the TV series, then that information is in Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead)#Television series. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"Critical reception" opening sentence[edit]

I don't think the sentence "All seasons of The Walking Dead have been well reviewed by leading television critics." is really needed to open "Critical reception", at least not as it is currently written. It is, in my opinion, nothing more than a retread of "The series has been well received..." sentence appearing in the lede. Why not simply add the two Metacritic sources for Seasons 3 and 4 to the sentence in the lede? The lede is where key information in the article should be summarized per MOS:INTRO, isn't it? The sentence in the lede provides enough information for those just interested in learning the basics about the series, so there's no need to say basically the same thing again (and repeat the same citations again) later in the article. This is just my opinion, but I am interested in hearing what other's think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As you likely saw, PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk · contribs) recently added that line. I thought that edit was going to be reverted; instead, it was tweaked. For film articles, we commonly summarize the reception in the lead and include a lead-in summary for the critical reception section. From what I've seen of television film articles (meaning articles about the shows), it's not as common to include a lead-in sentence for the reception section. I don't feel strongly one way or the other on the matter regarding television show articles. If we are going to keep PhiladelphiaInjustice's line, however, it should not be there as a single-sentence paragraph (see MOS:Paragraphs); it should be combined with the second paragraph by leading it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, "leading television critics" should simply be "television critics." After all, who do we decide is a leading television critic? Flyer22 (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to have two summaries of the same thing on one page - the sentence in the lead should be enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Adamstom.97 and Flyer22 for the input. I agree that a single sentence paragraph is not an improvement. If that sentence can be expanded into something more, then I can see keeping it. However, as currently written it does nothing more than repeat what is said in the lede. Also, I agree with removing "leading" from the sentence since it is just a peacock term that serves no useful purpose. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I originally reverted it the first time it was added as I also felt it was unnecessary. When he added it the second time, I simply tweaked like (removed the IMDb ref, and added the remaining Metacritics ref), because I didn't want an edit war. But, I completely support its removal if that's how others feel. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, if someone does an Internet search for critical receptions of The Walking Dead, the first link will take them directly to that section, not the top of the article. As such, I feel that the summary sentence should remain at the top of the section so that readers will not have to spend several minutes reading every paragraph. I had noticed that the show had received an unusually large number of good reviews, so I feel that this fact must be emphasized. As for "leading television critics", those who rave-reviewed the program are described in similar words on each of the linked websites. Add to the mix that the program is by far the highest rated in the history of cable television, so its article deserves special consideration due to its presumed heavy traffic.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with having a more complete summary in the first paragraph of the reception section, however, it needs to bring more to the table than the lead already does. Otherwise, it would be redundant as the others have stated. One sentence is certainly not enough to satisfy that concern. As for "leading television critics", leading is unnecessary unless you can show a better source that clearly states this in prose. Anything else would be considered original research. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday, I inserted the citations that verify the "leading television critics" claim, but another contributor deleted them. According to IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic, all of their critics are leaders in their field. The Walking Dead is the hottest (most watched) show on television, so it would be nice if a website visitor who only wanted critics' opinions - but did not bother to read the first paragraph of the main article - could click the table of contents for instant gratification.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you're looking at this the wrong way, it's not about providing "instant gratification" or making it easy for people who are too lazy to read more than a simple sentence. This is an encyclopedia. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Drovethrughosts makes a good point. This is not about easy navigation or providing a collection of links. We are abiding by the Manual of Style to form an encyclopedic article that is consistent with Wikipedia's layout and formatting. Useful is not a sole criteria we use to include something here. There are a lot of things that might be considered useful but are prohibited on Wikipedia (see the policy "What Wikipedia is not" for specifics). It is great, however, that you are participating in this discussion and showing your interest in improving the article. Please don't let any of this discourage you. Newer editors can benefit from the insight these discussions tend to provide. If you are a newer editor, you may want to check out the Teahouse welcome forum. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, I googled "The Walking Dead Critical Reception" and the first Wikipedia link that came up for me was for the article itself. I have no problem with adding small paragraphs at the beginning of long sections to summarize the more detailed information that follows if and only if it improves the article; However, I also think we have to be willing to let the lede do its job per WP:DETAIL. So like Drovethrughosts, I do not think we need to provide "crib notes" throughout the article for readers just looking for "instant gratification". FWIW, I think this version of "Critical reception" flows much better and is a huge improvement over this older version, and suggest we use the former as the basis for making further improvements. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, encyclopedias should contain extensive details; they ain't dictionaries. My point was that not everyone wants to read an entire book or even the "lede" (a word that some might suggest you are technically using out of context), hence my use of a short, declarative sentence or two to sum up what follows about this presumably highly-searched info. And if this encyclopedia is so spacious (as you have noted), why do you object to such a convenient addition? Please remember that The Walking Dead is the most watched television show in the 18- to 49-year-old demographic, so we should make such sought-after facts easily accessible.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
No one has to read an "entire book", the third paragraph in the lead contains the sentence "The series has been well received by critics", and the opening sentence of the critical response section states, "All seasons of The Walking Dead have been well reviewed by television critics". What else do you want, for it be flashing in neon lights in huge lettering at the top of the article? Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
After I posted the above comment, I melded this sentence to the reception sections' first paragraph: "All seasons of The Walking Dead have been well reviewed by television critics". Thank you for your input, though.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Have you seen the changes that have been made as a result of this discussion? It is not clear what you are currently proposing at this point. Also, in regards to recent edits, please avoid ramming your proposed changes through. When another editor disagrees with your proposal (or as in this case, more than one editor), the previous version of the article should stand until a consensus is reached here on the talk page. Otherwise, it can be construed as edit warring. If you would like to discuss these new changes, let's start a new section below. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the referenced section has gone into ridiculously extensive and inappropriate details about the second season's reviews. Half of its quotes are from negative reviews and (thus) represent a mere 17% or so of the season's reviews. Each of the other seasons' paragraphs has but one or two quotes from a positive review(s), which thus represents the vast majority. Certain contributors seem to be more interested in flexing their perceived muscles of authority than in logically editing the referenced paragraph.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Character page infoboxes - "Centric episode(s)"[edit]

(Note: I initially posed this question at WT:TV#Infobox character - "Centric episodes", and was advised to re-post here for further discussion.)

I have a question about the listing of "centric episodes" in the {{infobox character}} templates of The Walking Dead character pages. I checked MOS:TV#Character article structure, the WT:TV archives and this talk page's archives, but wasn't able to find anything specific regarding this so I thought I'd ask.

The parameter "lbl#" is being used to add "Centric episode(s)" info to (pretty much) all the infoboxes of the character pages. I'm not exactly sure what criteria are being used to determine whether a particular episode is "centric" to a particular character. This kind of information seems, at least to me, to be pretty subjective at best, especially since some episodes are being listed as "centric" for multiple characters. Isn't this kind of information just original research?

Another concern I have is that for a main character like Rick Grimes, practically every episode could be considered to be "centric", couldn't it? Currently, there are 17 episodes listed as "centric" in that article's infobox and I expect there's going to be more added as the series goes on. I've looked at some other character pages from popular TV series such as Tony Soprano, Rachel Green, Hawkeye Pierce, Archie Bunker, Walter White (Breaking Bad), Jerry Seinfeld (character), Jack Bauer, etc. and none of the infoboxes on those pages have "Centric episode(s)" listed. So, I am wondering if "Centric episode(s)" is something unique to The Walking Dead articles and if it is information that is really needed.

I am interested in hearing what others may think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. This has been troubling me, and I was contemplating doing so myself. As far as I know, these lists were being added to the infoboxes just this month. The problem is that they strike me very heavily as being WP:OR. Who determines if an episode is centric to which character(s)? I think they should be removed. BOZ (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure of them all, but many of "the lists" appear to have been added by 125.239.50.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since no edit sums were provided, it's kinda hard to see this as anything other than the original research of a single editor. I'll leave a message on the IP's talk page inviting them to participate in this discussion. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Just adding this for reference. All of the "Main" characters in The Walking Dead (TV series)#Cast and characters, except Rosita Espinosa and Gabriel Stokes (The Walking Dead), have centric episodes listed in their infoboxes. Among "Recurring" characters, only Morgan Jones (The Walking Dead) has centric episodes listed. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This is excessive information for an infobox. Infoboxes are supposed to summarise important points about a character. Episodes are included, but only so far as the episodes in which they first and last appeared, because they are important and we have specific fields for those. As others have indicated, listing "centric episodes" is original research, and they should be removed. --AussieLegend () 08:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It looks like all of the centric episode information has been deleted by thelonggoneblues. However, no edit sums were provided so it's possible that the info may get re-added again by someone. If it is, then I suggest that whomever removes it the second time around add a link to this discussion (e.g.,"For details refer to discussion at [[Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)#Character page infoboxes - "Centric episode(s)"]]. Please discuss before re-adding.") in the edit sum just for reference so that editors know why the info was removed and where they can go to discuss it. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Crediting order of characters[edit]

I have a question about the credited order of characters. I edited the crediting order to fit characters in terms of appearance and series regularity, but this was reverted based on the declaration that it should be on "original crediting order". However, the user who reverted this has still made many errors. For example, if it was based on original crediting order, why is Michael Rooker not placed before McBride and Reedus? The user then explained that it was based on who is a main cast member, but if this is so, shouldn't David Morrissey and Danai Gurira be placed before Emily Kinney? This order does not make sense. I believe it should go in order of appearance first, then series regularity. --thelonggoneblues (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The order of characters in the info box has been discussed in some detail above in Stars vs. Regulars and the consensus reached was "Actors whose names are listed below (or above) are those who are either currently or were at one time included in the opening title sequence. Names are listed in the order of appearance in accordance with Template:Infobox television#Attributes." I always assumed that the order used for the infobox should be the same as the order used in the article tables, so I'm not sure why the order in the "Main" tables is different because it shouldn't be. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Information on unaired/upcoming episodes[edit]

From my editing on Wikipedia, it seems common practice to not include plot information, including casting, until an episode has aired unless a reliable source is provided. RS excludes rumors on blogs and fan forums, even ones run on a TV network website. Articles on some TV series are extremely strict about this issue. But I'm seeing a lot unsourced information about guest appearances that without any basis in the TV series so far. I only occasionally edit on this topic so I wanted to post here before removing the content to see what the practice is here. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME[edit]

Minor observation perhaps, but I noticed many of the people appearing multiple times in the article are sometimes being referred to using both their first and last names. My understanding of MOS:SURNAME is that the first and last name only needs to be used for the initial mention and that only the last name should be used for subsequent mentions. So, for example, when Andrew Lincoln is mentioned in the lead as portraying "Rick", then I think it should be fine to simply use "Lincoln" to refer to him throughout the rest of the article, excluding any tables, direct quotes and image captions. Same goes for the other actors and production staff. Similarly, it seems to me that the first mention of a character should include their first and last names (if known), and then they should be referred to by the name commonly used throughout the show, which typically seems to be their first name. So, it seems unnecessary to use "Rick Grimes" more than once throughout the article other than the lede and perhaps the mention in "Season one". I've already been bold and removed a bunch of repetitive wikilinks per WP:REPEATLINK, but that was primarily cosmetic and no major changes were made to content. Removing names seems more involved since it might require more substantial editing so I thought I'd ask for opinions here first before taking the plunge. Any feedback or comments would be most appreciated. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Judith's mother[edit]

I understand that who is Judith's real father is still unclear, but my understanding is that Judith's mother is Lori and that has never been questioned, at least when it comes to the TV series. Anyway, somebody reverted information added to the Lori Grimes infobox listing Judith as Lori's daughter citing WP:OR. I've started a discussion at Talk:Lori Grimes#Judith Grimes for those interested. I'm posting here because if it is really original research to claim that Judith is Lori's daughter, then that would mean lots of other TWD-related articles probably need to be corrected accordingly. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)