Talk:The Vampire Diaries

Differences between the book series and the TV series

Q. Is the name of the high school different? Before air time, I've seen it called Mystic Falls H.S. and Robert E. Lee H.S. Any authoritative info? A. A lot of things are different. The longer the show goes on the more differences there will be. This is typical of a show based on any kind of source material. Its not going to be possible to keep up with all the differences, and its really not important that there are differences. Its "based on". Not "carboncopied". Im going to remove the differences segment because I have never seen one in any other of the many shows that are based on books, movies or real life events. Why should there be one here? Its obvious that as the show is written by a different person then the books that any amount of differences are to be expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the importance of a section that focuses on the differences between the novels and the TV show, either. And I hardly consider removing something like that section to be vandalism, especially when it was mentioned on the article's talk page. Like the IP said, this section could go on and on with listing on the differences. Just look at how many changes are already in the series that aren't even mentioned in that section yet. I think the section should be removed again, especially since there aren't any reputable sources discussing the changes. Rocksey (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

IP, when it comes to film (movie) articles, there are plenty of articles here that have sections about the differences from the novel or novels...such as Twilight (2008 film). Like you, though, I have not seen that type of thing here with a television show article...other than this one. But I am willing to bet there are a few of those here. In any regard, however, Rocksey has recently removed this section from this article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if this article could have a differences section that was like the one in the Twilight movie's article. That one is sourced and has quotes about why the changes were made. Something like that would be encyclopedic and helpful here. Listing a whole bunch of differences, without very many sources that proved the notability of the changes, wasn't very helpful in my opinion. If somebody wants to put the section back up, I won't revert it and if I find sources that discuss the changes, I'll probably end up recreating it.

Also, Flyer's right. I've been looking through and some of them have a differences section and some don't. Rocksey (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I completely understand your reasons for removing it, Rocksey. The reason that stands out to me most is that the differences here are due to a television show and may be far more (or, at least, will be) than typically found in a film (movie). Flyer22 (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely my concern with a section like that. This show is completely different from the books. If every change that has happened so far was mentioned, then we would probably have to make a whole separate article just about the changes. At least if we required a secondary source that discusses the change, a section like that would be more manageable. Rocksey (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing

I have been having a problem in editing the "Plot" section. I feel as if it is way too long and is merely a summary of the whole show. The plot is just supposed to explain what the overall show is about, not explain detail for detail about everything that's happening. Nobody wants to read all of that and if they wanted to know everything that was happening, they would go to the summaries of each episode. I have changed it so that it is short and to the point, but apparently I have "violated the page" and will "get a last warning", blah blah blah. What I did was perfectly fine, it was all fact, trust me, and yet these people won't except it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.32.53 (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC) --71.230.32.53 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

a Plot section for The Vampire Diaries article

without having looked very-carefully over this article's history, i suggest that a plot summary is an absolute necessity here ( i assume that whatever was written was subacceptable as suggested by the anon-above ) ...

this television series' popularity itself owes surely to the psychology of the main characters in relationship to one another as-well-as in relationship to typical auxiliary characters - that is, an appropriate plot section would simply describe the *social dynamic(s) & motion of rapport development* inherent to the work as a whole.

since i am not an accredited psychologist, but rather simply an amateur, i write this as a suggestion for action to be taken by the most appropriate wikipedian.

if nothing is done on this within a week or two, i will do it.

Harlequence (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ratings sources

I changed the sources for the ratings back to the Entertainment Weekly ones because that is a more reputable source. I realize that other articles use TV By the Numbers for this, but I looked around that site and it doesn't look like the most reliable source. If it was the only means of getting a reference for ratings, maybe that would be fine, but when we have weekly ratings from Entertainment Weekly, which is already known for reliability, I don't see why we should settle for TV By the Numbers. Rocksey (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Even though you say TVbythenumbers doesn't look like a reliable source, looks don't mean a thing. EW is a good source, so is TV, but for the ratings sake, more than one decimal place should be used. Now, if EW has more than one decimal place, and has an updated info, please change it, but I try to update the info when it is updated from TV. Tvbythenumbers also gets their information from any other news/entertainment website out there.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Can you explain why more than one decimal place should be used? I don't really see the importance of that when most reputable sources only use one. Maybe you should take tvbythenumbers to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if it is a reliable source that can be used here. Just saying that it is reputable doesn't necessarily make is so. It might be, but it looks like it's just self published. It might not go through the same checks and balances needed for Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm changing it back to Entertainment Weekly sources just because we know for sure that that's a reliable source on this subject. If the noticeboard says I'm wrong and tvbythenumbers is a good source, then lets bring it back.

Also, I noticed that you added copy/pasted recaps to the List of The Vampire Diaries episodes article. The text we add to articles has to be in our own words, not taken from somewhere else. Read WP: COPYVIO. That's a big problem with these articles and it needs to stop. Rocksey (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I ended up listing it myself at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#TV by the Numbers. Rocksey (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The 4.2 million viewers that you used for the average viewers isn't the average viewers. The 4.2 is only the viewers for the episode shown on October 29, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrteen13 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If that section is for average viewers then why doesn't it say average viewers? We should probably be more clear in specifying that. Rocksey (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I specified it. The link you posted about tvbtn being a reliable source states enough proof for it to be reliable source. BUT, so is EW, IMO. The thing is, in order to be more acurate, we should have 2 decimal places. For example: 3.8 is a big difference between 3.89 and 3.9/3.90 would be misleading, because as soon as I see 3.9, I think "Oh, it could be 3.91 or 3.99". Like I said, if you find any information that we could use on EW with 2 decimal places, or not even that, info that is other than what we have, please feel free to add it, but for the sake of accuracy and confusion, I strongly recomend (and I am sure many other people see as I do too) that we stay with 2 decimal places.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

What link did I post that said that was a reliable source? I listed it at the Reliable sources noticeboard as a way to find out whether it is or isn't. Nothing on it's reliability has been decided yet. I still don't see why two decimals is important. If one is good enough for a reputable source like Entertainment Weekly then it should be good enough for Wikipedia. I'm not going to revert your change unless it's decided that the site isn't reputable, but in the meantime would you mind properly formatting the sources you added? We need author, publisher, etc on each one. Rocksey (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be glad to fix them. I just have to get the time, probably tomorrow or Thursday. I highly doubt I can do it anytime sooner.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

You continue adding improperly formatted sources from this questionable source. Are you unfamiliar with how to do it? If so you should probably look at this: Wikipedia:Citation templates. 19:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The reliable sources/noticeboard archived the discussion (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 49#TV by the Numbers) about TV by the Numbers without it being resolved whether or not it's reliable, but at least the discussion brought in other views. I agree with Jayjg that the site is a blog put together by two guys. Peregrine Fisher's probably right that the question of TV by the Numbers' reliability, isn't cut and dry, but I'll take his suggestion and use the better sources we have instead. Rocksey (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why are they taking an eight week break? I think that the reason why should be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.75.138 (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

When will the new shows come on tv? Rednerrebecca (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Vampire Diaries (novel series) -> The Vampire Diaries

its because Damon the actor, was filming as "Boone" in "lost" and so he needed some time to work on that and the next episodes of "Vampire Diaries".

SPOILERS

there are character links that link up to the book characters which is not a reliable source for the tv shopw since its is different from the books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.227.40 (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

TWILIGHT WANNABE?

...no coments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.192.10.50 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

i've just come back from an editing hiatus & i don't remember how to direct justice to anonymous editors who leave inappropriate talk-entries such as this one entitled "twilight wannabe?" which insanely suggests in the comment body that the comment does not exist - so i will refrain from removing the entry for a few days in case a more adept wikipedian comes along & knows how to both remove it and apply justice to the anonymous ip address.

Harlequence (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

vickie.....

now that its been 7 episodes since vickies death,shoulnt we just put her on the reccuring section??and even though Nina Dobrev plays 2 characters in the series i dont see it appropriate to put katherine in the main cast section......