Talk:House of Cards (American TV series)

Requesting comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Cast section state that Frank Underwood is a murderer and that Peter Russo has been killed by Underwood? Please comment below. Please either Support or Oppose (under Survey) the proposal to include information on murders and deaths in the Cast section.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 09:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

1. Support About Russo: "Peter Russo was eventually murdered when he was ready to tell the public about everything which he had known." about Frank: "He doesn't have limits and was capable to commit homicide" Andrzej19 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: As per my previous arguments.--Asher196 (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose: As per my previous arguments.--Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose: These information are plot points and do not belong in the short character profiles. Rgrasmus (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Support: After reading through the list of characters on the Revolution (TV series) page where it reveals Danny's death, I agree that it makes sense to include the information in the character summary. Rgrasmus (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Suddenly, all those opposing have gone away. If none oppose this consensus any time soon, we will have a consensus and we will actively enforce it. This is the time to speak out if you want. It will be too late sometime soon.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 13:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It has now been a week since your request for comment. Can we close this and move on?--Asher196 (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not all that long for a RFC.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EP Fincher

The first reference to David Fincher should specify his title and responsibility for the series. According to the current Infobox, he is the show's Executive Producer and is also listed as Director of the first two episodes. This is confirmed in his own article. --Thomprod (talk) 11:15 am, 12 April 2013, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC−4)

I am reinstating this section that was removed on April 16 by [User: Amberrock]. It was originally added by myself and the question raised is not the subject of the previous edit lock and current request for consensus. I don't feel that it should have been archived. --Thomprod (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Arcelus

Sebastian Arcelus should be moved to the "Main Cast" section from his current spot on the "Recurring Cast" as he is a contracted as a series regular for season 1 and for season 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkaplan89 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Cast trim

This section is a bit of a mess. I'm not concerned about spoilers, but more so the information presented; it's very uneven and, in some cases, dubious (I can't find anyone that confirms that The Sentinel has anything to do with the Citadel, for example). Would anyone be opposed to trimming any extraneous information and leaving all entries with the actor's name, character's name and their basic role? The article is still rather small; having the majority of the article revolving around the cast section is a bit silly, especially when we don't even have individual episode articles yet. Damage, Inc. 23:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 09:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers in Cast

I wasn't around for this first discussion and vote, and so I'd like to bring the issue up again (especially now that the season is long over and maybe people are venturing to this page).

I think the comment on Frank Underwood about murdering people gives too much away. It's not hiding information to not include it, it's just too specific by applying one action as a trait, thus I feel it should be removed.

As for Russo's death: this should be removed as well. He was in most episodes and again, including this in here is too specific and an unnecessary detail on the character.

Overall, I think a little leeway is warranted in guarding spoilers. I've read WP:Spoiler through and through and nothing in there specifically states we can always include spoilers. It's a general guideline with room for flexibility stating that hiding spoilers for its own sake isn't a sufficient reason for removal; not that they can't be removed in specific situations.

Now, as an encyclopedia, I think that Underwood's actions and Russo's death absolutely deserve included here in Wikipedia, but the cast list is the inappropriate place to do it. It should of course be mentioned in any plot summary; as such a spoiler warning is implied. Also, reception as to different plot events is also warranted.

Character traits such as occupation, age, affiliations with organizations, personal beliefs, relationships with other people, etc, are all good qualities of cast descriptions. Specific events, unless having a direct impact on the character's personality (as in an effect, not a cause of), shouldn't generally be included in cast descriptions.

I think people should be able to come into the page, check out the cast list and get some minor information on the role of the character, and who plays it withing being immediately subjected to a spoiler. Naapple (Talk) 04:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a little soon to bring this up again, since we basically just closed the issue a few weeks ago. Also, you don't have anything new to add to the discussion.--Asher196 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, could you bring up the policy where it says I can't bring up the issue? Also, I don't see how I don't have anything to add. There basically was a vote, and now I'm voting. There was 1 against, 2 for (and 1 for redacted?). Now it's 2 and 2. It's never the wrong time to bring up an issue with an article, and that vote is hardly something set in stone. Oh, and WP:Poll and all that. Naapple (Talk) 15:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say you "couldn't" bring up the issue. But since you want me to cite policy.....From WP:CONSENSUS, "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive.

Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed)." So yes, you can bring this up, but it may be disruptive at this point. Also, your argument has nothing new to add to the subject that wasn't already brought up.--Asher196 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In case you missed the full discussion, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:House_of_Cards_(U.S._TV_series)/Archive_2 Asher196 (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well 2 for and 1 against isn't a consensus, so now it's being discussed. Also, that page warning is void, as we don't vote here in wikipedia. It's faux officialism. Naapple (Talk) 19:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It was 3 for and 1 against. I redacted my against "vote" and switched it to for. Please look at the character section for the wikipedia page I cited in my changed vote. The detail was certainly a spoiler. However, with the way the section was written, it fits. Currently, with the way the character section in this page is written, the spoilers do not fit. Still, that does not mean that they do not belong there. I hope you can agree with me on this. I propose that the character section be expanded and rewritten. This should allow the details to stay in the section as simple facts and no longer be "in your face" spoilers. I would like to welcome your help in rewriting the character section with me, if you agree? Best, Rgrasmus (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Naapple, I am 100% with you on this, I fought fiercely on the issue, citing numerous arguments, but it simply was not enough.

Rgrasmus, in the discussion prior to consensus I gave countless examples (and tried my best to compare apples with apples) of Wiki pages on TV series written in a totally different way, avoiding spoilers. Don't you think the base for your opinion was maybe a bit too narrow?

To me, numerous people independently deleting the spoiler are an argument enough. If people reacted like that to every spoiler it would be impossible to write Wiki articles as there would be constant edit wars. If people independently come on a website and delete the same parts over and over again, it seems to be a rather valid conclusion that there is something wrong with those parts.--Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan, I agree that my 1 page analysis was much too narrow. And looking at the discussion archive, it seems there are more examples for either case. Thus I agree with the comment below by SubSeven, and have raised the issue in the WikiProject talk page (link included below). Please add your thoughts there and hopefully we can develop a final MoS for this scenario to apply to all the TV articles we have cited. Rgrasmus (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So, what are the next steps now? I myself am reluctant to speak out as "experienced editor" cause I hardly am, but it seems there are two against putting spoilers into character descriptions. Would be nice to get more views but the issue does not seem to draw much attention.. Is there a way to create a new "consensus", with more people participating in vote/discussion or is this one going to be held indefinitely? Btw, even the tense of Russo spoiler shows how misplaced it is:) --Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The consensus that I am willing to agree with was stated by Bignole in the MoS discussion "Is it mentioned somewhere else on the article, like in an Episode table? If so, then I would say don't include it in the other section." Basically, I think we should build up the episode/plot discussions first and then remove the spoilers in the character sections. Rgrasmus (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Has this been discussed on a WikiProject level? Nothing being talked about here is specific to House of Cards; it applies to any show. --SubSeven (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Great suggestion! I have brought up the topic on the talk page there [1] Rgrasmus (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been incredibly busy and haven't looked at this in a while. Rgrasmus, would you be ok with a new plot section; baring no details, and then removing the spoilers from the character sections? Naapple (Talk) 23:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that I want the so called "spoilers" in the character sections. Frank is a murderer and that is definitely an important character trait. As for Russo, just look to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_characters and you will find precedent in a large character list which shows the details of the deaths of characters.--Asher196 (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Naapple, that sounds reasonable to me. However, I can kind of see Asher196's point that Frank being a murderer is an important character trait. Additionally, Corey Stoll being written out of the show is valid cast information to include per Bignole's latest post on the MoS talkpage. Maybe add more detail to all of the character profiles in addition to rewording the Frank and Peter profiles will help make those details less "in-your-face". Rgrasmus (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Star Wars doesn't apply. That's an entire universe covering several generations of people in several mediums (books, film, etc). Frank being a murderer isn't a character trait; it's a one time action at the end of the season. This behavior wasn't apparent until the 2nd to last episode, and thus it isn't prudent to include in a general character description. If this was Dexter, then yes, being a murderer would be an apt character trait, instead we're listing a specific, one-time action that's part of the plot, and that is simply unnecessary and ill placed.

Also, Underwood murdering Russo doesn't really do justice to what he really is capable of. About halfway in the season he propped up Russo, to get him sober, to run for governor, to see to his downfall, and replace him with the VP. This was all part of a premeditated plan. Saying that he's a murderer is a cheap and shallow assessment. His manipulation of the characters around him is truly what the show is about, and his character bio should be able to reflect that without going into plot details.

As Bignole said, you probably wouldn't include Russo getting murdered in the 2nd to last episode as a character description. However, in the second season, his death will surely have an impact on the characters and how they behave. It wouldn't make sense to not include this in an expanded description of Christina Gallagher, or in the description of the new congressman replacing him. That's a bridge we'll cross in season 2. Additionally, we obviously wouldn't list Corey Stoll as part of the cast in season 2; but there's a big difference between stating that he isn't in season 2 vs stating that Underwood murdered his character, and I think that's the point that Bignole was trying to make.

So in terms of what we can do, I'd like to start writing a plot summary so we can move the plot details to it. It'd be a lot easier if I knew there wasn't an edit war in the future. Naapple (Talk) 21:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

So when there is a different opinion with actual precedent, then it doesn't apply. I see.--Asher196 (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't take it personal. The precedent doesn't apply for the exact reasons I gave; it's not a precedent at all to this particular case. I hope you didn't just read the first sentence of my reply. I do make an effort to understand everyone's opinion. Naapple (Talk) 01:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

How does one random article = precedent. It hasn't even been vetted as a good article. You don't think one could find an article that would be a 'precedent' for the opposite? --SubSeven (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I found at least a dozen articles with character lists describing the deaths of characters. I just used the Star Wars article as an example. If you would like, I can list every one I found.--Asher196 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes no difference, for the same reasons I stated. If you want precedent, find us a policy discussion. --SubSeven (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy regarding this. This is why I'm finding other articles to point to that back up my arguement.--Asher196 (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have material arguments to present, but I was just about to remove the spoiler from the page before finding this discussion when researching when the spoiler was added. Given such a new show, whose characters' fates are unknown and not part of popular culture, this seems like a no-brainer. There is a plot section at [2] where this info makes sense. These articles aren't static, and there may be a time when this is material information to put into the character bio, but as one who personally had this spoiled for me, it feels a bit premature. +1 to the remove supporters. — Pyrenil (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I think everyone here (-1) pretty much agrees it shouldn't be in the cast section, but that it does belong somewhere. It is available in episodes as you said, and the plot section is soon to come (college students are busy right about now). I'm sorry you got spoilered, and I've now re-removed it. Naapple (Talk) 21:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Asher196, is consensus agreed by 3 people valid indefinitely and is Wiki set in stone? If you want it to be about numbers, i think it's safe to say you now have Naapple, SubSeven, Bignole, Pyrenil, Rgrasmus, Slymonkoz, my humble persona plus numerous other people for not including the contested information. If you want it about content: you have pages long and to-the-point argumentation written by different people, which it looks like you didn’t even put effort in reading/contemplating. But.. your right is still righter, right? Please, don’t terrorize Wikipedia.--Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You are removing pertinent content in violation of WP:Spoiler. It's really that simple. If you don't want the information in the cast section, then move it somewhere else, but don't delete it entirely.--Asher196 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone here agrees that the spoilers simply don't belong in the cast section. They do belong somewhere else, and just because said section doesn't exist yet, doesn't mean we should put them where everyone agrees they don't belong. You could help write the plot. In about 5 days I'm gonna write/contribute to it anyway. No one is trying to violate WP:Spoiler for the sake of removing spoilers.

In regards to your edit comment: If we're counting people then we'd need to count everyone from all the votes that the admin mysteriously held in violation of WP:Vote. I think the majority favors that the information belongs, but in a different section anyway. Naapple (Talk) 19:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Decision has been made. Season 1 is finished, Peter were killed in first season - so where is a problem? I don't want to repeat the same arguments, I just want to notice that we have consensus in this matter - and I guess that "Cosmopolitan25" is here only to warm up this discussion. We call it "trolling" - please to skip it and do not talk about the same over and over. Andrzej19 (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

4 people total doesn't establish consensus, and by no means is definite and everlasting. Perhaps you missed this conversation. The votes against clearly have consensus, and thus the information stay out of the cast section, and will instead be put in a plot section where it is expected to be found. Your buddy has requested RFC, and you're also welcome to bring it to the admin. That doesn't change, however, that consensus is against the information being put into the cast section. Naapple (Talk) 23:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

For me this is pointless. There is no section with plot where information about important things are mentioned. You don't have consensus to hide this information, You just want to force it by reverts. Now information are deleted completely. I don't know why have to follow arguments such a "some people could not watch whole season - save them from reading how it ends" - it's unreasonable . This argument was repeat by user "Cosmopolitan25" who has no experience in projects - neither english Wiki nor polish (She is from Poland). Why we need to follow such a nonsense? Andrzej19 (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Andrzej19, I understand you might not like me, but do not make it personal and me a troll. Do read what users like Naapple, SubSeven, Bignole, Pyrenil, Rgrasmus, Slymonk oz have to say on the matter and contemplate whether we don't have a new consensus shaped by wider opinion spectrum. And I did cite numerous arguments, the core one being "this info does not fit with an otherwise very general character description". Not any character description, but this particular one, in its current form.

Naapple, can you please hurry up with the plot section:), so that we have the matter resolved once and for all? How can I contribute? --Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Andzej, your comments are completely out of line. There is no rank system on wikipedia, and quite frankly, since we're making this personal, your English is much worse. I couldn't even tell cosmo wasn't a native English speaker. But then you don't see me telling you to go back to Polish Wikipedia. You need to stop creating a wp:battleground atmosphere and learn to accept that there are opinions other than your own, and to debate those opinions and not the individual. Again, there's no ranking system on wikipedia. Please keep your comments to the the argument at hand. I'd like to start a plot section soon; this is finals week for some college students. Naapple (Talk) 17:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed skilled level of Cosmos english - near native I guess but this doesnt change her lack of experience in projects. She tried before to force me on polish Wikipedia to delete information about Peter's dead - but there nobody supports her. She repeated there the same arguments. Ok - try to write plot, but till You won't finish it - do not delete information from cast section. Andrzej19 (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

From the history of the polish page, it looks like you were the only one opposing the change while cosmo and Piotr967 opposed. You simply won out by perseverance, not consensus, and it wasn't discussed on the talk page. In any case, that has no bearing on this article. Russo's death does not belong in the cast section. It does belong somewhere else, so if you want it included, you're welcome to help write the plot. Finally, please review (or view for the first time) Don't Bite The Newcomers. Thanks, Naapple (Talk) 07:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually article on polish version was written mostly by me but one other person has improved it after me. I am familiar with rule You mention (pl:Wikipedia:Prosimy nie gryźć nowicjuszy). I would like to improve plot but sb with nice english should start it writing. Andrzej19 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how the wiki formatting works, because I am not a regular editor, but I feel this issue strongly enough to try to figure out how to have a say in the editing of this article. The cast section has massive spoilers that are unnecessary descriptors. Only age and INITIAL occupation are relevant. Talking about Frank's rise to power is also an immense spoiler. I tried editing this section and it was reverted. Someone else also tried to remove the spoilers and that got reverted too. Go take a look at how the other TV show wikis are written. This is shambolic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.40.156 (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I just made an account to say that there are no valid reasons to have so many and so important spoilers in the cast section. I have no idea on how wikipedia works, but this page could potentially ruin the watching experience of HoC by basically telling almost all the big plot twists in a section that should be used to give just some basic info on the characters and listing the actors playing them. I hope that someone with powers read this because as a basic user it seems that I'm unable to edit the page. Please do something because this is a major issue, people coming just to get a glimpse of the cast get the whole serie spoiled and this should not happen. Sunitsa (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a famed opponent of spoilers (I take some pride in my work to kill the spoiler tag off), I do see Sunitsa's point to some degree. Can this be done without damaging the necessary encyclopedic Cliff's Notes-style function of a Wikipedia article? - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The amount of spoilers in the cast list here is crazy. Get rid of them. 145.97.241.3 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"International" broadcast

I think we need a different title for this section. Netflix "broadcast" the series in all regions its available, at the same time, so its original run was already international. Something like "Other broadcasts" maybe? - Estoy Aquí (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

According to MOS:TV guidelines it must be titled "Broadcast". I'm currently in the process of a rewrite to include details of Netflix's broadcast of the series. Forbesy 777 (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be "spoilers" in the Cast section?

"Spoilers" being removed from the article in violation of WP:Spoiler--Asher196 (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: There's already an RfC on this topic that established consensus, a month ago. I suggest canceling this RfC and taking it to Dispute Resolution, instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of that. Within a month of that RfC, User Naapple opened the argument again and got the consensus to change. So I am trying to get more opinion.--Asher196 (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but one month is bordering on disruptive. Have you tried contacting the admin who closed the previous RfC? I think his input would be helpful. Having two RfCs on the same exact topic within weeks of each other strikes me as irregular, at best. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Hello, I was invited by RfC Bot. Per WP:SPOILERS I oppose this change. This article is no different from any other and so as such should not be treated any differently. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Despite the language of the RFC, no information is being suppressed here. It was just put in the appropriate place. --SubSeven (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Since everyone seems mostly satisfied with the compromise, is it ok if i close this? ∴ Naapple TALK|CON 09:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been almost a month since start, and over 2 weeks since comment. Closed. ∴ Naapple TALK|CON 21:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi I dont know how etiquette on these pages goes but I wanted to weigh in on this and say please remove the spoilers, there are huge plot twists ruined for me when i just wanted to see more about the cast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.202.53 (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs a plot section

In general, I am content that there are no major spoilers in cast lists (even though saying Underwood was involved in Russo's death does not say when or how) but why isn't there a plot section yet? The 'list of episodes' article is just as bad, currently being a - shock - list of episodes with no indication as to content. At the moment without any decent plot info, the whole page reads more like a teaser trailer rather than an article about the series. Lovingboth (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the episode list that I have been working on: House of Cards (season 1)#Episodes. Most TV pages I have seen have the episode details in the Season X page rather than the List of Episodes page. Still this page needs a more thorough plot synopsis for the show thus far . Rgrasmus (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. It needs a lot of work though. It almost entirely revolves around Underwood and needs expanded to include the other characters. Naapple (Talk) 08:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's also incorrect. The thing with the shipyard has nothing to do with the plot about the teachers' strike. The closing of the shipyard was to buy off votes to get someone to step down from a role (majority leader was it?) so he could be replaced with someone Frank controls. I don't have the time to rewrite it, but it's definitely incorrect as is. Ryanov (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Lo and behold there actually existed a plot section a few months ago. Some user with less than a month's experience decided to blank the section as being "not appropriate for the main page". [[3]]. This could replace/amend the section I just wrote up. A copy of it is here. Naapple (Talk) 09:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The new Plot section basically satisfies me. Thank you Rgrasmus Naaple for your work on this. I think that it needs to be defined at the project level just what information should be included in the character section of these articles.--Asher196 (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks are in order, but it is Naapple who deserves them this time:) --Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

:P Rgrasmus (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The_following#Main_cast the best example for mistake You made here. Andrzej19 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope. It's wrong too, and in fact this article is now a good reference for what that one should look like. ∴ Naapple TALK|CON 18:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Black Comedy

I've reverted the edit removing my addition of the term 'Black Comedy'. Beau Willimon, the show's producer, said in an interview with the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/house-of-cards-netflix_n_2527376.html) " the tone of our show while at times is very dark -- it also veers into black comedy ... it can even be quite light." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbrettcooper (talk • contribs) 13:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It was probably removed because it was, and still is, unsourced. Consider citing the source you provide here in the article. —Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The source is in the infobox.--Asher196 (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"Almost" isn't "is". Stating that it veers into it isn't an outright declaration of it being a black comedy. All shows have dark moments, but this isn't a dark comedy per se. ∴ Naapple TALK|CON 20:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no almost. The source specifically says "And, you know, the tone of our show while at times is very dark -- it also veers into black comedy"--Asher196 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Right. Saying that it veers isn't the same thing as stating that it is a black comedy. I guess you could also say it veers into slapstick humor when the union leader punches Frank, or sitcom humor when Frank makes a comment about his wife's hot flashes. If you really take a moment and stand back, you can see that this show clearly isn't dark humor, especially if you've seen an actual dark humor film. This does not meet the criteria and you cannot find a single source of information actually labeling and categorizing this show as dark humor, other than some offhand, non-descript comment about the showing veering into black comedy. ∴ Naapple TALK|CON 22:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

So the creator of the show calls it black comedy, and that isn't good enough? Actually, I probably wouldn't consider it black comedy either, but the source seems pretty good.--Asher196 (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: section on difference between UK and US series

Just a thought! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.86.39 (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That would have to be some section, given the two have very little in common beyond the first name of the main character, his occupation, and his favorite phrase (just a thought). —Prhartcom (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

They have much more in common then that. Many of the key elements of the US series have been adapted from the UK series/novels:

• Francis is passed over for a prominent position by a newly elected head of government. He vows revenge, which he pursues ruthlessly and illegally.
• Francis often breaks the fourth wall to speak directly to the audience.
• Francis begins an affair with a young reporter, whom he feeds stories advantageous to his schemes.
• Francis blackmails someone with a substance abuse problem (O'Neill/Russo) into helping him, and later kills him.
• Francis' wife is an equally ruthless co-conspirator in his schemes.
• Francis is aided by his amoral subordinate, Stamper.
• When eventually confronted by the reporter regarding the murder of O'Neill/Russo, Francis throws her to her death.

Any of this would of course require secondary sources to be added to the article, but the potential for discussing elements that have been adapted is definitely there.--Trystan (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

renewed?

Am I missing something, or is there zero mention of the series being renewed?

• house-cards-season-2-netflix-kevin-spacey-premiere, christian post

Igottheconch (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Two Seasons

Why is this change being reverted? At the present time there are two completed seasons of House of Cards, the fact that Season 2 is to be released on the 14th does not change the fact that there are two completed seasons (and pages for this.)

Is there a wiki policy I am missing here? Dylanbud (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Only episodes that have actually aired count toward the number. If this was a network series that airs its shows once a week, we'd only add the number as they air, not as they are completed. JOJ ^Hutton 21:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this Wiki policy? Can you cite where I can find this? (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you are unfamiliar with the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, yet you still felt emboldened enough to undo and revert edits, even when you were knowingly unfamiliar with the process of editing or the guidelines pertaining to those edits. Now you have decided to waste everyone's time with an RFC. For you information, the template instructions for Template:Infobox Television has your answer. I'm not even going to tell you what it says. You need to learn to become more familiar with the guidelines and look it up yourself before you continue to revert editors who clearly have more experience with the guidelines than you seem to do. JOJ ^Hutton 22:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for link. No need to be a jerk!

You should note that the guidelines state that seasons should list "The number of seasons (US) or series (UK) produced," which is two - not one as you are so adamantly and anally claiming.

Dylanbud (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith for users who are reverting No. Of Seasons to 1; however, in all there are TWO fully produced seasons, bringing the total to 26 episodes and 2 Seasons.

For those who disagree, can you please elaborate on why? And I refute that the number should reflect *released,* as Template:Infobox_television clearly states that No. of Seasons should reflect the seasons **produced**.

Also, in this particular instance, why does it matter so much to those who are reverting? My edit would be true in 9 days anyway, and AFAIK there is nobody refuting that. Why bother keeping it as "1" season, when you know full well (or should know from the article) that there are two?

Looking forward to other views on this matter.

Dylanbud (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

After reading Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 2#Number of episodes, I have changed my mind and think that listing un-aired seasons and episodes is appropriate.--Asher196 (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am going to make the change, User:Jojhutton has reverted my changes three times now and I am hoping if he does again he will explain himself here. -- Dylanbud (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If you insist on following the template documentation to the letter, then why are you setting the number of episodes to 26? In the documentation, it says number of episodes released. --SubSeven (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, don't even answer that. I'm beating around the bush. The point is, it would make no sense for these two items, number of seasons, and number of episodes, to be out of sync. Yet the documentation says to do exactly this. Therefore, the documentation is obviously sloppy. So WHY are you acting like this silly documentation justifies what you are doing? I understand you were pointed to this documentation by another user, but it only backs you up halfway, yet you are acting like it backs you up 100%. This argument is ridiculous.

There is a well-established consensus, project-wide, to update these season/episode numbers AS THEY ARE RELEASED. But, you're a new editor, so how would you know the consensus, right? Couple ways:

• First, you could listen to people who actually are the ones working hard on maintaining these articles. (this step may not be your strong suit)
• Second, you could look at other active television articles, and see how it is being done site-wide. You may or may not be familiar with how to explore article histories, so I will get you started with a few example links to relevant edits; note the dates on these edits and compare to episode air dates:
  • Season count changes: [4] [5] [6]
  • Episode count changes: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Note the variety of editors making these updates, and the lack of disputes (and these are very heavily trafficked articles). That is consensus.

If you feel the consensus is misguided, that's fine, but that's something that would change through discussion, not edit warring. --SubSeven (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Since the episodes has yet to air it's wrong to list them. Nobody can watch the episodes before Netflix releases them on February 14 (as far as we know), and therefore it is still just one season and 13 episodes. This is the usual way to present it, just take a look at other TV series listed on Wikipedia (Glee, How I Met Your Mother, Elementary, Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead etc.). It's no difference just because Netflix releases all episodes in a season at once, we still have to wait to include them. --Jonny2BeGood (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all for input - I disagree with the consensus (there **are** two seasons and the article should reflect that IMHO) but will not revert till the 14th. Dylanbud (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow - I really don't know if I should laugh or if I should cry. Perhaps both. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.139.102 (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC Comments

• Not Stated Properly. The RFC is not stated. When you add the RFC tag it needs to be followed by a description of the issues under discussion which editors require some third party resolution, and possibly the RFC needs to describe alternative proposals to resolve the issues. After being directed by the 'bot to come here I find nothing, zero, no text offered under the RFC tag. Unless the RFC is done according to traditional expectations, you might not get third party feedback. Damotclese (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Cast list

Seems to be a "free for all" when it comes to deciding which characters are "main" and which are "recurring". I have no solution myself, but does anyone else have a solution to this problem? Or is this even a problem at all? Maybe it's something that will work itself out on its own. JOJ ^Hutton 22:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Good question. It usually has something to so with how the official sources see the cast list (sometimes they have them seperately into seperate sections on websites etc) and what other reliable sources such as news articles say. MisterShiney ✉ 23:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you find me that official cast list that separates them into a main cast and a recurring cast?? Personally, I would call Remy a main character in both seasons, and Rachel and Janine recurring characters. Zoe and Russo obviously aren't main in season 2, nor are Walker, Tusk, and Sharp in season 1. Unless there are consistent or official sources for what constitutes main and recurring there is absolutely no reason for us to be making that distinction. These are also inconsistent with the divisions previously in the season articles. Perhaps they could simply be sorted by number of episode appearances. The character descriptions should also be broad summaries, not references to specific events. Reywas92^Talk 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Main/Reoccuring is standard MOS procedure for all TV articles (See MOS:TV). And for what defines it, I believe that it is to do with their headings in the opening and closing credits. As for the character descriptions, they nearly always include references to specific events. Hence why when they get big enough they get seperate articles. MisterShiney ✉ 22:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I have watched the show, you know. The cast members listed in the opening credits change every episode. I just pulled up Ch 26, which includes Mahershala Ali, Jayne Atkinson, and Derek Cecil, Mozhan Marnò, Elizabeth Norment, Libby Woodbridge, Terry Chen, Kevin Kilner, Benito Martinez, and Jeremy Holm, who are listed as recurring, and Jimmi Simpson, Reed Birney, and Michael Park, not even on the list. Obviously, those listed, and the order in which they appear, are not consistent, and their presence does not confirm or deny their status as a 'main' character. I'm not sure if you actually read MOS:TV, as that page says "Please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time." I am under no impression that the producers have defined who is a main character, and if they have it's probably not how the articles are sorted now. As many characters could be called main over different episodes and between the season, we should just sort them by number of appearances. Reywas92^Talk 23:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That also suggests sorting them in chronological order of appearance in the series, but it would get a little odd having them all mixed up - and Lance E. Nichols was only in one episode so I'm going to remove him. Reywas92^Talk 23:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

User:MisterShiney, You're not supposed to template the regulars, otherwise I would give you a 3RR. I have made myself clear, and you're reverting me with nonsense like "you need to be discussing the reverts of your bold changes on the talk page", when I already have here. Source the defintions, or they're not gonna stay. Reywas92^Talk 23:28, February 23, 2014‎ (UTC)

First off, I didn't template you. It was a friendly reminder, but if you continue to edit war you will be reported.

Secondly, posting a comment on a talk page is not discussing anything.

Thirdly, regardless of the amount of screen time, if the actor was credited in an episode as guest, they go in the appropriate section. It is not your place to decide that just because you don't agree with it to start removing established content. Including section headers. EVERY TV series has divided the cast section according to how the editors see fit based on the information they have, wether it is the show credits, articles or mutual discussion. MisterShiney ✉ 23:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I meant that as a generic you, you've been reverting me too. If he's in one episode, by definition he's not a recurring character, so that would not be the appropriate section unless there's another for guest actors, which is a different concept. I found a few other single-episode actors also listed in the opening, including Phyllis Somerville, William Hill, J.C. McKenzie, Brian Weddy, and Wass Stevens just in Ch 8. I would not consider section headers "established content", immune from change, especially when they do not follow the MOS. I'm not sure if "speedster" is a typo, but HoC isn't quite like every other TV series, most of which actually do have a consistent, specific main cast. I've been giving the discussion here for my side, you're not giving any reasons why it should stay other than it's the status quo. Why is Kate Mara part of the main cast in the season 2 article, but not Parker, Gill, or McRainey? Reywas92^Talk 23:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping that this would work itself out naturally, but it seems we have a difference of opinion on the matter. I think that the cast list is too long. Perhaps an article spin off would be better and keep the cast list to a few "major" characters and not every single character with a speaking role. Theres also the "spoilers" problem. Although I truly believe that we shouldn't remove spoilers simply because they are spoilers, I do sympathize with some of those people who have been trying to remove information. Also, the cast section cannot possibly support every detail that a characters does in the show.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether having such subheadings is the right thing or not, I'm surprised that an experienced editor like Reywas92 would edit war like this. Per BRD they should stick to the discussion here until they get a consensus for such a change, especially since it has been challenged. Those subheadings are standard practice and not worth fighting over. I believe we should keep the status quo version, but that's not my main point here. Reywas92 should not attempt to use force. They should follow BRD until a consensus is reached. If that doesn't work, follow the DR process. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but the status quo - the reason I removed them - is wrong. The importance of some may be a matter of opinion, but it is incorrect to say Kate Mara is a main character in season 2, and it should not stay that way, nor should we so arbitarily separate the characters. As I said, this is not a standard show so standard practice does not really apply. I would have appreciated a better "D" than incorrect statements about the credits and talk page admonishings (I am following this page...no need to double post). Reywas92^Talk 03:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't think that I don't share some of your concerns, or that some type(s) of change may be warranted. Just propose the types of change(s) you'd like to see and work out some type of compromise. We work by consensus and collaboration, and that usually improves things. Good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

So EVERY TV series with an article is wrong then? I would expect an experienced editor to know when they are wrong and stop = trying to flog a dead horse. This isn't going to be something where you get your way on. It is quite clear that on the TV Series articles that Main and Recurring cast are separate. That it is backed either by reliable sources if a new character is announced and added to the cast list, or through a general consensus reached through editors watching the credits and seeing clearly who are in leading roles and who are guest stars/recurring characters. Its not rocket science. MisterShiney ✉ 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

NO, because, as I said, most TV shows DO define who are the main characters - there is usually a set of characters who appear in most episodes making a clear distinction, but here this is NOT the case. Where are your reliable sources about the cast list, because they are not sourced. Clearly a general consensus has not been reached when this was made, rather actors were just put in without an order or definition - the credits in this case, as I said, do not identify the leading roles and guest characters, but rather everyone who has a role in that particular episode. I would agree that Frank and Claire are the two main lead characters in both seasons, but there is no clarity for the rest, and I would appreciate your suggestions to how to sort it, other than the three very different lists currently in place. Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Reywas92, you write: "I would appreciate your suggestions to how to sort it,..." Well, you are the one who wants a change, so it is you who needs to do that, and not by edit warring (again). You have no consensus for deletion, so you shouldn't have tried again. Above I wrote: "Don't think that I don't share some of your concerns, or that some type(s) of change may be warranted. Just propose the types of change(s) you'd like to see and work out some type of compromise." Give it a try. Propose a solution here and we can discuss it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have made suggestions! Simply sort them by number of episode appearances without a split! Maybe Frank and Claire are the only main characters, since I think they're the only ones in every episode of either season! Reywas92^Talk 05:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Reywas92 is right. If there is no WP:RS differentiating main cast and recurring characters, then to do it in the article would be original research.--Asher196 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have absolutely no horse in this race, so weigh my comments accordingly. Something like this occurred over at the Arrow tv series article, wherein a recurring character kept getting added to the main cast list. The deciding factor there was a reference calling him a recurring character. Main cast lists are pretty exclusive - and clearly referenced - animals, so finding a source (or two, for the discussion page alone) for the main cast list should clarify who's who. Anyone not in the main cast who shows up ever so often is recurring. A one-off appearance doesn't warrant mention at all, unless cited or notable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a change is warranted, but we just need to agree on it before changing the status quo. An option is to do what's been done at The West Wing#Cast (see also List of The West Wing characters). We could also look at other TV series. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank goodness there aren't that many characters (yet). Table form could work, but we have to figure out who would be included. Again, since there are no sources defining a main cast, what do you think about sorting by appearances? User:MisterShiney, are you going to suggest anything? Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Only that it stays the same. There is no real justified reason to change it, only that you don't like it. The only change I would perhaps suggest is get rid of those who make single appearances. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think sorting by appearance count makes the most sense. As the series itself doesn't distinguish between main and recurring cast, it is OR for us to do so, and we appear to have done so in a very arbitrary way. A single table including actor, character, description, episode count, and seasons appearing would all be verifiable content.--Trystan (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

While not an avid watcher of the show, I wish to add my input. As of now, the show, with 26 episodes, is probably in its infancy. As far as I can tell, many of these characters aren't actually featured on the show for even half of the episodes. [15] At this point, I suggest everyone take a look at MOS:TV, the "Cast information" section. From my (brief) research, I can't find any good references for the cast, so I would suggest you guys turn to the show itself. In it, in the credits, the characters should be given some sort of weight as "main" or "re-occurring." Since the credits, in this case, are representing facts as lain out by the producer/director, I would definitely call them an appropriate source for this section of the article. I recommend using those to sort out your list. Kude90 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither the opening nor the closing credits distinguish main cast from recurring cast. The opening credits include everyone with a significant role in that particular episode (~20 people). They change from episode to episode, both in terms of who is included and what order they are listed in.

While it is true that some of the actors are in less than half the episodes, that is a bit misleading in terms of their prominence. Stoll, for example, is in 11 episodes, but is essentially one of the four series leads for those 11 episodes. Similarly, Mara is in only 14/26 episodes, but is always credited third, and her character is in prominence just behind Spacey and Wright's during her run. I think sorting by episode count makes sense, because it is objective, but it is a significantly different order than it we sorted by prominence.--Trystan (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the main and recurring headers and sort the cast by appearances in the next couple days unless someone has a better idea. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Spoilers Still in the Cast List

I thought that User Naaple got the consensus changed awhile ago and it was decided that it would make more sense for plot information in the cast list to be put in the more appropriate plot summary, which I also notice isn't anywhere close to the more detailed summary that Naaple had before. Then why are there still spoilers in the cast list? It seems like every couple days someone tries to edit there because they got it spoiled for them, and frankly, there's no point in the spoilers being in that section in the first place. It should be in the plot section. I suggest placing the most needless spoiler information there. You can keep big details like "he becomes President" but details about how should be reserved for the plot summary. Listen to the people trying to change this because these are actually good edits and it is how something like Wikipedia works in the first place. Someone should be able to use this as a basic reference quick reference on a cast member, like Frank Underwood's Machiavellian tendencies or overall arc direction and goals. Breaking Bad's cast list is an excellent example, or Smallville, Buffy the Vampire slayer, Batman, the chart for the Wire, etc. etc. really almost any other basic cast list for TV I can look up on Wikipedia except for this article and Revolution. And many other articles don't have nearly the controversy this article does on the spoilers, including Mad Men and other just as popular shows. There's a reason for this. These ones come too far out of nowhere and aren't relevant to basic character descriptions, they are instead plot points. Or instead of "after Frank murders [blank] this character does this" do "during season 2" or "later in season 1" etc. So why are the spoilers still there and why are the changes to them being reverted? I understand Wip: Spoiler but these are needless and come out of nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.208.135 (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPOILERS. If people don't like it they don't have to read it. MisterShiney ✉ 06:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. Its called self-control for a very obvious reason. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Self control assumes that the average reader would know there is going to be plot information in a cast list. --SubSeven (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's an overview. That means it isn't going to tease us about a character, it is going to give us an encapsulated story to date of the character. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I know this is old, and I didn't dare visit this page until I finished season 3, but I've gone through and added several changes to the cast. I think a quick 1 or 2 sentence summary followed by "in season 2/3" works out well, and gives a fair opportunity for the reader to get some quick info and stop when they're about to read onward to a season they haven't seen yet. I (fortunately) don't see any spoilers for season 3 in the cast section. Sound off if I missed something.∴ Naapple TALK|CON 07:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Meechum's bio

Ok I'll be the person to have this debate. I don't believe that Meechum having a threesome with Frank and Claire is relevant to his character overall. Yes its easily his most significant scene but to include it in his bio makes it sound like a recurring piece. Bios are typically name, occupation and primary relationships/story arcs. If we include that then we might as well include things like Xander Feng's bisexual introduction or Donald Blythe's wife having Alzheimers. MasonBanks (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. That was what I was getting at before except my changes were continually reverted along with re-adding the illogial separation of a main and recurring cast. These sections should be for generalizations about what characters are/do overall, not specific events. This event was only implied and not even shown, and this detail and others, especially with the inconsistency among descriptions, should be removed. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This is now changed. Sorry for the 11 month delay. ∴ Naapple TALK|CON 05:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Images

I think there should be an image of Spacey and Wright from their pages, on the cast section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.114.160 (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think having separate pictures of Frank and Claire in the cast section would certainly be beneficial to the page, but then where do we draw the line of who's picture to include and who's picture not to include? Obviously these two are the main characters of the show but others might argue that the other "notable" cast members should have their picture included as well. Might be worth opening it up for an RfC. I support adding a picture of Frank and a separate picture of Claire. Meatsgains (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Tobacco product placement

Smoking scenes are very prevalent in the series, as are the more recently prevalent "vaping" scenes with Frank and then Claire. This makes me wonder, is this just part of the plot or is it actually product placement by tobacco companies? WikiWinters (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it. Probably has to do with Frank being from South Carolina. -- Calidum 17:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Golden Globe Awards

Kevin Spacey did not win the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a TV Series in 2014. Even Reference #75 confirms this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.74.14 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Change Russo character description

The description of Russo is wrong: - "Russo becomes loyal to Underwood after Underwood threatens to expose his alcohol and drug addiction." Underwood does not threatens to expose, on the contrary he convinces Russo that he has to tell the world about his addictions as part of the campaign for Governor, in order to pre-empt journalists from discovering them later; Russo becomes loyal to Underwood because the latter sponsors him as candidate for Governor. - "After going sober and running for Governor of Pennsylvania, he is killed by Frank Underwood when he tries to come clean about the events that Underwood was blackmailing him with. (Season 1)" He is killed because he refuses to let Underwood dictates his last statement before retiring his candidature, threatening to ruin the political gain Underwood seeks; again the addictions of Russo were already public - Moreover the description misses a crucial point: the whole relation Russo-Underwood is a manipulation set by Underwood to make the Democrats support a candidate, Russo , that Underwood intends to destroy politically at the last moment, in order to "force" the Democrats to propose the candidature of the Vicepresident as a last moment response to Russo's death; to do so the Vicepresident has to resign and Underwood takes his chair, making a crucial step towards his goal: the Presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.194.4 (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)