Talk:White Collar (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tom or Tim

This article lists Mr. McKay as both Tom and Tim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.19.165 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed--Serveux (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Does anyone have a picture that can be used without copyright infringement? I know that commercials have been airing on USA Network, if that makes any difference in finding a picture. Kevinbrogers (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

List of White Collar episodes

I created an article for an episode list. It will get more detailed once more information comes out, but right now, I can't figure it out. The formatting looks all wrong (the chart is below the references). Can I get any help? Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Excessive plagiarism from USA website

I've deleted all the content that was plagiarized from the USA website. The editors putting this page together and any other interested editors should write original overview and character descriptions -- and that doesn't mean paraphrasing what USA has already written. Drmargi (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll get on that soon. I'm not condoning plagiarism, but I didn't realize that that wasn't allowed here. That's not really a good way of putting it (my previous sentence), so it probably doesn't make much sense. Anyway, I'll try to fix all the problems. Thanks. Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I get it. It's strictly a no-no. Thanks for improving the article! Drmargi (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WTF? Who cares? If USA website has problem then let them make a complaint but until then just use the text. It's promotion for their TV series so why would they care? Why is Wikipedia doing the job of copyright holders? Wait until you receive a complaint until you remove content. Is US law really this stupid? If so then why hasn't Wikipedia located to a country with sensible laws rather than ones that only favour big business?--217.203.148.112 (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's about as non-constructive as you can be. We have guidelines around here for a reason, and they're very explicit about plagiarism. Drmargi (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The oddly similar premise to the show It Takes a Thief

I know this is not a place for speculation, but ever since I saw the first commercial I couldn't help but think it was an updated version of the Robert Wagner show. Has there been any official comment on this? You would think that there would be someplace, as they are so alike. 68.55.6.178 (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's original research and pure speculation, regardless of where you put it, and will be reverted as such. Drmargi (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's no longer original research, as the parallel was drawn in this NYTimes article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/business/media/23adco.html

First paragraph: "A CABLE channel that has been aggressively expanding its lineup of original series is hoping its next show — kind of a cross between “Catch Me if You Can” and “To Catch a Thief” — will, well, catch on." Yalith (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. Don't try to cast it as proof-positive that the the show was inspired by one or both when it's nothing more than a comparison the reviewer is attempting to draw to help readers understand the basic premise of the show. It's still speculation, just by the NYT this time instead of an editor, and no more reliable. The point of the piece is the expansion of the line-up and the advertising campaign. Drmargi (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I wasn't implying it as proof that the show was inspired by the movies, just pointing out that others had noted the similarities in print. Yalith (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool - that wasn't quite clear from what you wrote above, but we're on the same page now. Drmargi (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to bring this up again, but considering the singular life history of Frank Abagnale, I think there is a case to be made that the show is based on or derivative of Mr. Abagnale's life and "career", as it were. Brainchasm (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Until the producers say he was the inspiration for the show, it's all conjecture and as such, original research. Drmargi (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Some details about ideas for the show are discussed with Jeff here ==> www.docstoc.com/docs/13525188/White-Collar-Jeff-Eastin-Transcript 24.60.190.107 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter and Kate

We DID NOT see that Peter is holding Kate. We saw someone who appears to be Peter, but dressed very differently than he ordinarily does, waiting for Kate in a hotel room and Kate walk in of her own free will. Interpreting that as Peter being the one holding Kate in entirely WP:POV and WP:OR, and will be reverted. Drmargi (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one that sees a similarity between Kate and Peter's wife? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.85.146 (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• I noticed as well. At first, I thought it actually was Elizabeth wearing a wig, but after looking closer, I noticed it wasn't. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, it is the actor who plays Peter, and she addresses him as Peter. So unless the FBI cloned him, or he has an identical twin also named Peter, then whoever wrote the objection to this is being overly picky. 68.99.30.245 (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. We know that it probably was Peter, but we don't know that he's a bad guy. We can't put that he kidnapped her until we see a little hostility. In the meantime, don't call people that. It's not very nice. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin. Since I'm the jackass he's referring to, I'd remind him of WP:CIVIL and that posting like this again may get him blocked. Interpreting what we saw is not encyclopedic. We can only note what we know, and we neither know that Peter is a kidnapper, nor that Kate has been kidnapped. Drmargi (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oooh block me big deal I have access to more than one computer, and this is the problem with Wikipedia. Because in a tv show or book or something, they don't come out and tell you what just happened you can't put it in the article. I still see no mention of the fact that Peter and Kate have had contact in the article. Which you CANNOT say they haven't she addressed him by name. And if you're going to use the fact that she didn't use his last name, then by that logic you could argue that Neal and Peter have never worked together past the first episode since he refers to him as 'Peter' as well. 68.99.30.245 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, there's no reason to get mad. To be honest, I don't like certain rules around here either, but I'll abide by them. If I understand the rules correctly, it will be okay to say something like "In the most recent episode, it appeared that Peter and Kate had contact," or something like that. We just can't say that he kidnapped her. Drmargi, please correct me if I'm wrong. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, the answer is simple - you can say what happened (Peter spoke to Kate, Kate spoke to Peter) but you cannot interpret it. To do so violates WP:OR. The scene gave us no information about the nature of Peter and Kate's relationship, therefore we cannot make any suppositions about it and present them as fact in the article. It's constraining, yes, but the alternative is a Pandora's box that will render all articles wide open to every form of speculation and fancruft that is currently reserved to fansites and fan message boards, where they belong. -- Drmargi (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're proving my point about Wikipedia, the fact that you can't even say they had contact definitively, while there is no other feasible explanation for what happened at the end of the last episode. It's just mind blowing that there are people who actually think like that. And look at my post at no point did I say he kidnapped her. Though all it takes to say that he did is an article from an outside source saying that he did. (I would know I had a similar argument on another page.) Which makes zero sense. I guess when you add all of what you know together and they point to only one direction, then on Wikipedia you have to ignore it. 68.99.30.245 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I never saw the original post. I'm just saying that it might be okay to write what I said above (which is probably what you had, or at least, close to it, in the first place). I'll have to check the guidelines, and if they say it's okay, then fine. But if not, then we can't do anything about it, no matter how stupid it may seem. I'm sure they had a reason for that rule at some point. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but there IS another feasible alternative explanation. The two have a common link: Neal. Each could easily know of the other, without ever having met, through Neal since we do know Neal had contact with Peter while he was with Kate. On the other hand, we DO NOT know Kate and Peter had previous contact, only that they know of each other to the degree they can address each other by name. I can think of oodles of people I could address by name with whom I've never had contact, and the reverse. It's not that unusual. Drmargi (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think this site was ruined by the admins. 68.99.30.245 (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be in your opinion, but the bottom line is that by choosing to edit here, you agree to the rules, and thems the breaks. Kwitcherbitchin or move on. Drmargi (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter said something to her about her actions, I don't know the exact quote but it's enough to infer that they knew each other. 68.99.30.245 (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but just to point out that the most recent episode shows that Peter was not the "Man with the Ring", and that the meeting we see at the end of the last episode was their first meeting in several years. So, whoever said we didn't know anything for sure was correct. 146.201.27.33 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be me. I hate to say I told you so, but since you've opened the door for me... This is why we have to be so careful about what we know versus what we can supposedly infer, and limit what goes in the article to what we know. Drmargi (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing in "Overview"

That section doesn't read so well. Perhaps someone would be so kind as to clean it up?

I tried to rewrite it a bit, but I'm having trouble find the adjective(s) to go with "con man", "forger", and "thief." I'm also having trouble with where to use "Caffery" and where to use pronouns. Feel free to share your ideas. ShihoMiyano (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Vs Mozz

As Neal stated in the last episode, Peter is the only person that could change his mind, not Alex, El, Mozz or June (and certainly not Fowler...) could prevent him from leaving with Kate (on the plane as you know if you watched the final episode from S01) so he avoided saying goodbye to him, and on another episode, when Neal was under drug influence, he said that Peter is the person he trusts the most. My point is, that clearly they're best friends, so the refference on Mozz's description of being his most trusted friend is unaccurate (he does trusts Peter but doesn't want him to change his mind, that's why he keeps the chase for kate from him).

A short question btw, i have acces to the episodes may i write the proper plots on the episode list? and if so, should i retale the whole episode or just the beggining? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.171.6.81 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Contradicts itself

The article states that the number of season two episodes is unknown. It goes on to say that there will be 16 season two episodes... 76.123.241.114 (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC) There are only 9 episodes to season 2. season 3 will have 16 episodes. number of episodes should be fixed accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.23.181 (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mozzie's Status

Why is there several reversions of updates to Mozzie's character outline to indicate he has been shot - the reason given for these reversions is that this detail belongs in an episode summary. I dispute this as there are several other facts of a similar nature in other character outlines:-

Kate: "and eventually prepares to reunite with Neal, when the private jet she is aboard explodes, apparently killing her."

Alex: "Alex helps Neal steal the music box in order to free Kate."

Fowler: "He resurfaced in the season 2 summer finale and it is revealed that he is not as nefarious as he was previously believed and agrees to help Peter by identifying Julian Larssen."

It can be argued that these are all plot details that belong in episode summaries and I see no difference beween those statements and adding something like "Mozzie was shot at the end of season 2's summaer finale and his fate is currently unknown"

(although Jeff Eastin does state that Mozzie will feature in the remainder of season 2 and also in season 3 in an interview with available here (an in which he also catagorically states that Kate is dead) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

An IP added it back into Mozzie's character description. I reworded it. An editor reverted saying it was a "plot point," and I reverted saying it isn't so straightforward. It's clear from the final episode before hiatus that the viewers are intended to believe that Mozzie has been murdered. Whether it's true is something we'll have to wait for when the season resumes. I don't see why such an important event can't be included in Mozzie's description (especially given that there is nowhere else in the article to put it. Other character descriptions have what could be called plot points. For example, Kate and Alex, just to name a couple. The editor also argued it was original research, but what appears on the screen in a TV episode is not considered original research when it's described. See Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Works_of_fiction. I don't see that any consensus was reached in the earlier part of this topic.

Comments?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor just changed the wording of the sentence. I'm okay with the change.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What's there now is accurate, not an interpretation of events. Drmargi (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I said I was okay with the change because I think it's an acceptable compromise, not because I agree with it 100%. I don't think it's an interpretation to say that Mozzie appears to have been murdered. He certainly looked dead to me, and it's not particularly reasonable to think it was suicide. However, if murder is the word that bothers you, one could say that he was shot and killed. Everything we see we interpret. Your statement that what it says now is "accurate" is an interpretation.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't know his status, therefore killed, like murdered, it interpretation. He was shot. We saw that, and that's all that we can accurately say. The whole point of a cliffhanger ending is that we don't know if he was murdered, killed, died or whatever. Therefore any descriptor such as killed or murdered IS interpretation. Drmargi (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

According to Manual of Style guidelines (WP:MOSFLAG), the miniature country flags should not be used in the table and should be removed. A GOCE editor or any other editor may do this soon. --Kudpung (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did June and Neal meet?

In the "Supporting Characters" section, the article states that June met Neal in a thrift store. They actually met in a run-down hotel where Peter had made arrangements for Neal to live. She was dropping off some of her husband's suits. (First episode) Lmonteros (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, watch it again. I believe those scenes were right next to each other, but they definitely met in the thrift store. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; they were in a thrift store in the neighborhood where Neal's hotel was. Drmargi (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Barrigan vs. Berrigan

Could you be persuaded to change Diana's last name to Berrigan? I know that IMDb lists her as Barrigan, but the USA Network website says Berrigan (e.g. in the drop-down menu for the photos), and I'd rather believe them (since any old person can request IMDb changes). There's also a lively discussion going on here, where others confirm it's spelled Berrigan. I wish we had official confirmation from Jeff Eastin on the topic. :-\ TJ TeeJay (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You have what's clearly a reliable source that the name is spelled incorrectly. If it is, fix it, and leave another message here. That should cover it. The IMDB is uber-unreliable (I recently did battle with them over the spelling of a character name from Leverage, which was spelled one way for the first of his two episodes, and another way for the second. It took multiple submissions to get it fixed) and does not quality/spell/accuracy check. USA isn't perfect, having two versions of the current WC episode posted (Dentist of Detroit in the schedule v. The Dentist of Detroit in the episode description), but the producer is bound to have checked spelling of his character names. If they show Berrigan, it's Berrigan. Drmargi (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Returning series

I noticed this phrase being used in the infobox for the status of the series. I removed it because it's not accurate. Another editor restored it. I think it's a crazy status for a continuing series that is off the air during certain times of the year, as all TV series are. My guess is it would be accurate for a series that is off the air for a year or more and then "returns". I've left it alone for the moment and will await comments here or on a discussion I opened at the television project.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree; the term is nonsense. I can see using continuing series, but not returning series. Drmargi (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Content

After watching the whole first season on Netflix, I think I just watched a crime drama with no chase scenes, no fight scenes and no sex scenes. Is my memory failing me?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

USA Exec?

I think the quote from the USA executive is inappropriate. It's blatant advertising from the network and doesn't really contribute to the understanding of the subject. Pretty good article otherwise!--Serveux (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ian? Is that you? I thought the same thing, I just put it in because it gives better evidence that the show is actually real. People around here tend to delete articles willy-nilly. So that's my take on it. I'll try to find a more critical one though to balance it out. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just having the references is enough. You don't need it in there to prove it's real. An ordered upcoming television show meets all requirements for inclusion as per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability as long you have references (which you do). So I'm gonna go ahead and take it out.--Serveux (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and it is Ian. :-)--Serveux (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, it just worried me a little. Kevinbrogers (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's Neal. . . Not Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.92.181 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Man With the Ring?

I've never updated or edited a page so I rather not do it myself since I'm not sure the proper format. But shouldn't someone update the page referring the fact that "the ring" the article refers to is actually an FBI ring? In Season Two, Episode One, Peter and his wife clearly say to Neil that their are hundreds of those rings because they are FBI rings. They are only given to FBI agents after they've had enough time in the force and most agents don't wear them as it's more of a sign of fraternity. That in fact, Peter does own one (and does show Neil it) and mentions that Fowler has one as well. Just my two cents, thanks.--Ashengrad (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.32.178 (talk)

its not season two, its a second part of season 1. check USAnetwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.195.64 (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's Neal. . . Not Neil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.92.181 (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Royal Pains?

I may be tired, but what does reference #18 (currently) : "Royal Pains: Season One: Mark Feuerstein, Paulo Costanzo, Jill". Amazon.com. Retrieved July 9, 2010.

(which relates to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Collar_%28TV_series%29#cite_ref-17)

... has got anything to do with this article in general, and the DVD release of White Collar in particular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimi (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Status of Jones and Cruz

There is a constant back-and-forth moving the characters Jones and Cruz from the main to recurring cast lists. It's always struck me as idiotic that Natalie Morales (Cruz), who appeared in a handful of episodes in a role decidedly smaller than that of either Sharif Atkins (Jones) or Marsha Thomason (Barrigan) but had "regular" cast billing, is listed as main cast while Jones, who has appeared in every episode of the series bar one or two and has a larger role than Morales is listed as recurring simply because of his billing. Clearly he's more than that: Sharif Atkins is described by the show's producer as a main cast member, he appears in the cast photos for season two, and was on equal footing with the rest of the major players in the most recent episode, "Burkes Seven." Therefore, I have decided to be WP:BOLD, change the heading for recurring to supporting cast, and better describe the relative contributions of the two groups of characters. Billing alone does not provide the only means by which we can describe an actor's role in the series, particularly given the oddities of union contracts and how they determine billing in the US. In this case, it serves to understate Jones's importance while overstating Cruz's. Thus the change that I believe will allow us to better describe their roles, and thus more accurately represent them in the article. Drmargi (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Jones is way more prominent than Cruz was, even though Cruz was regular and Jones was recurring. Should the infobox at the top of the page be changed, or left the way it is (includes Morales, but not Atkins)? Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the infobox needs to reflect the cast as we see them. Leaving Atkins out because of a quirk of billing is absurd. In he goes. The MOS says Cruz should stay, but if so, I'd drop her to the bottom of the list, with a note (I can't recall how she appears now) so it's clear she's gone. Drmargi (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Late to this party, but I had to respond. Billing isn't a "quirk", it's a process that is extensively negotiated before a series (or film) goes into production, and influences how much each actor is paid. Atkins was credited as a "Guest Star" in seasons one through three, and was promoted to the regular cast for season four (to replace Hilarie Burton, who is no longer a regular). It doesn't matter how "prominent" he appears to you, and making an assumption of "prominence" is in fact OR. He's now a regular, he was not then; if he hadn't been "upgraded" in season four, he would not belong in the infobox. I feel your argument, he's been in the cast longer than Marsha Thomason, he's important to every episode. This does not change the fact that he was not a regular until 2012. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Excessive Dates in the Season Table

You only need to say when the day and/or time came into effect and NOT repeat the already listed season premiere/finale dates. The current layout is not easily read at a glace and creates unneeded long wrapping cell lines. Also the times don't reflect the Central Time difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmboy (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Ill put my Penny in. Why is there a time slot section? Why is it important? As per Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE we shouldnt just include information for the sake of including it. Also, TV Season? Again, do we need this? If so why? and the orange column at the end, what viewers? Average per episode? Total all season? If this information is going to be included it does need to be properly referenced. MisterShiney ✉ 21:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The dates should really be moved to the listing page with season links on the main page. --Helmboy (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Added timeslot replacement info to List of White Collar episodes --Helmboy (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't make sense of this -- you two seem to be talking about two different tables: the DVD table and the international listings table. My comments are confined to the DVD table, along with corresponding changes to the infobox. Helmboy, many of the changes you are making are not standard in American English, which is why you were reverted. You may not like the look of the formatting, but it's in correct American English, and that's the standard that applies in an article about an American TV show. Date spans are used because this series is broadcast in a split season, therefore the date ranges are useful. There is no policy prohibiting them, and a good reason to include them. As for the listing of all the American time zones, that's just silly pointy editing; it's standard to use the Eastern time zone when listing broadcast times. --Drmargi (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Leave it as it was; there was no problem. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This whole thread is about the excessive dates that were in the season ratings table. As for the the date format, wikipedia is a international site so dates should be in a non-region specific format such as ISO 8601. Which is shorter and avoids confusion from the ambiguity of the Christian (used in most of the world) and Business/Newspaper (used in North America) formats. --Helmboy (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: also for uniformity the times should also be in 24-hour clock rather than AM/PM format as per ISO 8601.--Helmboy (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The prevailing practice is to use dates formats used in the country/time zone of an event's origin (see WP:DATE). There is no guideline or policy that governs use of, much less prioritization of ISO 8601 dates; they are typically used in applications where Coordinated Universal Time is used, and that certainly isn't broadcast television in the U.S. Actually, we don't use them in the U.S. as a matter of ordinary practice, and the article reflects that. Moreover, use of the 24-hour clock in the U.S. is largely confined to the military, and I doubt a sizable body of readers can read a 24-hour clock with fluency.

The link you provided describes use of ISO 8601 dates, but is part of an article, not a policy document. It provides no support for your argument, but rather makes clear this is a date format used in very specific, and limited, settings, not one which replaces the ordinary 12-hour American format times used in this article. Finally, the practice of limiting time zones to the Eastern zone is largely because that is the first time zone in which programs are broadcast. Its broadcast time may or may not be accompanied by the Central time zone broadcast time; USA Network, where White Collar originates, doesn't do so to my certain knowledge. (And you should read up on how to format your contributions to discussions using indents.) --Drmargi (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Taken from the policy page you provided "Year-initial numerical (YYYY-MM-DD) dates (e.g. 1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness." As for timezones, regardless where a show is shot it is common practice to at least list the main US continental market timeslots in advertising/listings (eg. 9PM ET/PT 8PM CT). The comment about 24-hour time was just for consistency with the date format. As for what the average person is use to, a encyclopedia should follow international conventions wherever it is appropriate. The US is not a good indicator of this as they mostly still do not even use a base 10 measurement system for everyday use. Even though the US long ago changed to a base 10 currency. --Helmboy (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A philosophical argument about whether the U.S. should move from its current system of measurement to metric (not base 10) can be left for another day; it's not germane here. Likewise a philosophical argument about whether Wikipedia should be "international" (and by that you mean follows the British/colonial system of numeration). This is an American TV show, and the standing practice is that WP:ENGVAR applies, including the formatting of dates. ISO8601 is an esoteric system of dating/time notation from an encyclopedic point of view; the scientific and military communities embrace it, but it's largely unknown to the average person. As such, it will hinder communication, which is our primary goal. I see no consensus here for its use. --Drmargi (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

First off, the metric system is a base 10 system. Second, we are referring to a tabled list of information and not a date used in sentence. Third, the scientific and military communities use ISO standards because they want to promote the use of international standards for everyone to use because in practice it just makes sense. Where would VCD, DVD, DVB, ATSC, etc be today if they had completely done their own non-standard thing and not used H.222 as the base? Further ISO 8601 does not hider communication, it makes it clearer, given it defines a date in the same way you read a number ie, from left to right--Helmboy (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not even sure as to why a timeslot needs to be included. Wikipedia is not a TV guide, So why should it here in the first place? MisterShiney ✉ 20:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

true based on that comment including any timezone reference is also rather redundant. eg, 9PM instead of 9PM ET Further including any timeslot detail makes a table a TV guide, so the listing should just be a listing of viewer metrics only as the ratings are for all US markets not just ET.--Helmboy (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The information is useful in that it can explain fluctuations in viewership (see the declining ratings of a show like The Mentalist). I could go on, but I see no point as this is a ridiculous argument in the first place. If you want to argue that this information makes the article a TV guide, I suggest you also remove the dates and titles of every episode on the episode listing. The information provides general history, not future information intended to promote viewership. Anyway, Drmargi is correct; the English system of dating is way more readable, especially for an article about a show intended for American viewers. Wikipedia should be accessible, not unnecessarily complicated. Kevinbrogers (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

To have any useful analysis you would need to include ratings from other timezone markets, not just the whole of the US. As for the point of titles being a EPG, is just being ridiculous as it's timeslot data that makes a EPG not the actually content. With the dating system, ISO standards are created to improve accessibility by having common practices between regions. As I stated long regional dates are fine in sentences, but ISO dates are more practical and easier to read in table listings of data. --Helmboy (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

International broadcast details should be prose

Per Wikipedia:Prose this should be done as details are more that just statistical data. Added this section only because User User:Drmargi is ignoring this basic rule and forcing a talk.Helmboy (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is not something that should have to be forced, although it's certainly been my experience that with you, it generally has to be. It was your obligation once you were reverted, an obligation you repeatedly sidestep in favor of serial reverting. I have no particular stance one way or the other regarding tables v. prose, but I do object to your failure to discuss as expected by the community. As usual, you prefer to make this all about someone else rather than simply doing what the community expects -- discussing -- from the beginning. BTW, as has been pointed out, we have no rules here; we have policies, and application of those policies is always subject to interpretation. I have yet to see a good reason for the change from tables to prose in this particular article, especially given the widespread use of tables for awards and international broadcasts in other TV articles. All I see is rather capricious removal, then yet again, tendentious editing when you're reverted. --Drmargi (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, were you to read the cited policy (not rule) carefully you would see it applies to the use of prose v. list articles, not prose. v. tables. --Drmargi (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This an encyclopedia and as such tables should only be used for the display of detailed statistical data only, not as a short cut for editing an article as appears to be the norm in a number of quickly edited TV show articles. I am unsure of how many encyclopedias you have used, but prose is always preferred before tables and lists as prose is self describing and it's free form nature is not restricted by static columns.Helmboy (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Check the detailed prose/tables in Suits_(TV_series), [1], [2]. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's my point. Suits_(TV_series) uses prose for the international broadcast information. Which looks a lot tidier and is easier to read than if it were a table or list. Episode and character guides are fine as they are conveying a lot of relational data.Helmboy (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

For an example of how much better prose is for this info refer to the section at Days of our Lives#Broadcast details.Helmboy (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Renewal / petition drive

I have included a couple of sentences in the intro paragraph about the current status of White Collar;

"It is not known if White Collar will be renewed for a sixth season.[7] There has been an online petiton drive started encouraging its renewal.[8]"

It is both accurate, relevant, and I provided citations. I specifically added this information because it was what I could not find when I came to the article. I have seen this very same thing countless other places on Wikipedia's TV show article pages. Nodekeeper (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As I noted, we report what we know and what is happening, not what hasn't happened or we don't know. The fact that there's no mention of a renewal makes clear the show has, as yet, not been renewed. As for the petition, that's fancruft, plain and simple. Similar mentions of petitions are routinely removed, as is reporting of what we don't know. --Drmargi (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Fancruft is not wikipedia policy. The fact that no decision has been made is notable, as they would have normally started shooting for season six. Really, people come to the article looking for information concerning the series, and it helps them to know what the current state of the series is. I will ad another citation. Wikipedia will not break with the inclusion of this information. Nodekeeper (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded my statement to something we do know, added citations for it, and removed the statement about the petition. I'm not going to bend on anything else. Nodekeeper (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop attempting to force the edit. You have been reverted, and must gain consensus to include the edit; you're sufficiently experienced to know that. Once the show is renewed or cancelled, we will report that. We do not report lack of action by the network; the absence of news makes that clear. --Drmargi (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

First, there is not a crowd here for "consensus." I think we need to clarify that when you say "we," you are specifically referring solely to "Dmargi." So, I think the term "I" is a more applicable personal pronoun here. I suggest that you can begin to be more truthful by starting with that. I'm sorry to see that my attempt at compromise here has not gained anything with you. In the end, it just wastes everyone's time. Nodekeeper (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I would like to remind you of WP:OWN which is wikipedia policy.Nodekeeper (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And applies equally to you, so playing that tired card will get you nowhere. Once you are reverted, you STOP trying to force the edit, leave the article at status quo (as it was before you added the edit) and discuss until you gain consensus for the change. Any compromise or alternative versions are proposed and discussed here, not constantly forced into the article. The burden to gain consensus is on you, and if you can't gain it, the edit stays out. Given we can surmise that the show hasn't been renewed absent news that it has, there's no burning need to say so, and we don't note as such in an article. --Drmargi (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Remember you are not writing only for Americans

This applies to this article but also most others concerning US television programmes. Why do the writers of these articles not seem to know of the existence of a world outside of the USA? When you write about things like TV networks, Syndication, ratings and Sweeps you really need to explain what these things mean or provide a link to the appropriate article. For most of the world a TV network is identical to a TV channel, syndication relates to trade unions, ratings are often simple viewing figures for each week and sweeps don't exist which is why most of the world produce TV shows anytime they want and of any length.--ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 21:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Contextually, an article about an American show will use wording indicative of American broadcasting. It isn't really necessary to go into all the minutia of how American broadcasting works or all the terms, but links to certain terms can be added. As long as you watch out for link creep. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Character Descriptions On the Primary Page

CXWong: I'd like to suggest that we delete the character descriptions/biographies on the front page with the exception of the four key characters (Burke, Caffrey, Mozzi, Elizabeth). Since there is a separate page for the "List of White Collar Characters", this seems redundant. Deleting the short descriptions on the front page will help clean it up and make it easier overall to read. Any thoughts on this? Cxwong (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No. That there are detailed descriptions elsewhere is no reason to remove descriptions of key players, notably several series regulars, from the main article. I can't see you being able to get consensus for listing some regulars but not others, the list seems arbitrary, and it's an edit war in the making. A certain amount of redundancy is appropriate in an encyclopedia. We might possibly look at the lesser characters that could be pruned, but not the main cast or major recurring cast. --Drmargi (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

What can we do to clean up this page generally? Cxwong (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If the major concern you have is an edit war, then let's give it a shot and see what happens. I understand having redundancy is good, but overall, the page is pretty messy to read through. It would be a good project to help streamline and organize it more, and this is one quick way to do it. Cxwong (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)