Talk:The 100 (TV series)

Cast

The cast section includes numerous spoilers - which is absurd. 31.51.139.153 (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not concern itself with perceived spoilers. Please see WP:SPOILER for more information. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Season 2?

Any word yet on whether the show has been renewed into a Season 2 or speculation about future plots? Thecorbaman (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well there was a season 2.... apparently it'll take a year and a half or so for a 3rd? The last episode of season 2 was in March 2015. Season 3 better be good for taking so long... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CDCF:EA90:2414:FA08:7950:F6E7 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Main Page needs extensive season 2 rewrites to reflect new status of the ark no longer existing as well as premise developments with Mt. Weather, Grounders, and the dead zone residents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.229.46 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Filming location

Info box says Earth, could you be a little more specific? The scenes appear to be in Pacific Northwest. 142.52.81.11 (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to be the Northeast US based on the Lincoln Memorial and where they found Jaha.Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 1 Tevet 5775 12:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Edit: You were talking about production location. My mistake. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 1 Tevet 5775 13:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomenclature

A lot needs to be done to fix names and places to be consistent. Ark and ark both appear, as do Clark and Clarke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.251.148 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism - getting better?

One of the statements in the criticism section says "It takes a little while for the series to warm up, but when The 100 begins to hit its stride, a unique and compelling drama begins to emerge". There's nothing wrong with the source, but i personally feel that, the longer you watch the series, the more you become aware of all the sterotypes, plotholes and contradictions. I felt this might be my personal opinion, but then i took a look at the reviews on imdb. There's a lot of 1-2 star reviews and most of them focus on the stereotypes, plotholes and contradictions. I have two questions:

• why don't we have any critical source about all the plotholes and contradictions, despite it being the biggest source of criticism over hundreds of user reviews?
• I can't find a good non self-published reference which says that the stereotypes, plotholes and contradictions become more of an issue the longer you watch. Would it be too much of personal interpretation to put such a mention back-to-back with the quote that it gets better over time?

PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I rely primarily on AV Club for my television reviews and it never gets less than a B and rarely is bashed in the user comments (which is a moot point since they're primarily fans). There's nothing wrong with what you're proposing if you have a legit source, BUT you may not be finding it because they don't exist especially since Season 2 is getting really good reviews. User:mpen320 (User talk:mpen320)

Premise a bit over-long?

I feel like the premise is getting a bit too long when it goes into detail about the second season. It's becoming a bit more like a description of the plot so-far. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 1 Tevet 5775 12:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Show locations

NeoBatfreak and AlexTheWhovian (love the name, so allons y!), I think this might be best discussed on the talk page rather than in edit summaries. I think it's fair to say that that the show mostly takes place around DC as both [Washing]ton D.C. (though obvious, this might count as interpretive) and Mount Weather are real places named/shown in the show. As for a reliable source outside of the episodes themselves, here's two: [1] [2]. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Shevat 5775 01:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Split

Proposing of creating a subpage for the list of characters of the series. The section is getting too long.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It can easily be shortened by cutting out half of the descriptive text of the main characters, which is obviously not needed to such a degree. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia policy favours putting information elsewhere when it gets overlong. The exception is when it's trivia like which standard issue jumpsuit is Jaha's favourite, or how the Mount Weather clothing is covered in strange white dust/that horrific son of their president INSISTS on wearing his jacket with the lapels popped. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Adar 5775 06:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the section should split, leaving brief description for the main cast members, similar to Arrow (TV series) and List of Arrow characters.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I second NeoBatfreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs)

Thirded. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Adar 5775 13:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Think about it, with the growing guest starring, it is likely that the section is going to grow, and it should be focus on the main cast members, while the split article can focus on everyone else.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Moved. The resulting whitespace needs an immediate fix, however. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done--NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Lexa

I'm just wondering if we're going to add something about what happened in 307 and the impact that it's had on the show and the community surrounding the show? There's no secret that what happened has garnered a lot of press for The 100 (both good and bad, most bad, criticizing them for the decision), but one can't even argue that what happened hasn't impacted the show and the community and also causing one of the largest controversies the show has ever seen, creating discussions, debates and arguments alike. --TheHiddenDemons (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That was a controversy over one episode, not the entire series, so it wouldn't belong on this page. Check the article history - certain editor's have already tried to add their views on this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Even though I reverted this material (followup edits here), I was clear that, per WP:Summary style, I think it would be appropriate to briefly cover this matter on the series page and leave most of the material to the Lexa (The 100) page. Yes, yes, even though enough readers would be upset by being spoiled on the death here at the main page. There has to be more (better reasoning) to including it than WP:Summary style, though, and TheHiddenDemons's above post is clear about the "more to it" aspect. This topic is extremely WP:Notable. It has received so much media attention that creator Rothenberg felt the need to address it more than once, and there is now a Lexa pledge, which has received mainstream media attention, making the rounds. But I am not hard-pressed on including this information in the series article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: I might eventually include a brief paragraph on the matter in the Reception section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Are there any objections to me adding a little bit on the Lexa death controversy to the end of the third paragraph of the Reception section? Per above, this is definitely information that belongs in this article. If there are objections to including mention of it in the article, I'll consider starting a WP:RfC on the matter and inviting related WikiProjects to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

An RfC should never be the first course of action in the event that somebody objects to a proposed edit. Discussion amongst involved editors should always occur first, as explained at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Before starting the process. Threatening an RfC at this point is less likely to gain support for a proposed edit. Maybe AlexTheWhovian would like to comment. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I stated, "If there are objections to including mention of it in the article, I'll consider starting a WP:RfC on the matter and inviting related WikiProjects to weigh in." I did not state that I'll immediately open an RfC. There was no threat. If objections are not valid, however, WP:Dispute resolution is the place to go. And my first choice of dispute resolution is an RfC, especially since I am good at setting up RfCs. You and others have had days to present a case for why no mention of the aforementioned topic should be included in the article. I see no valid reason to exclude the information. And, really, being silent on this matter and/or trying to exclude the information has only made me want to include it. I am no longer indifferent. Go ahead. Discuss. If there is no discussion, a well-advertised RfC will be my next course of action. And I highly doubt that most editors will agree to exclude any mention of the Lexa topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction: If there is no discussion, I will add material to the article on the Lexa death controversy (a controversy that has gotten The 100 most of its press for months). If I am reverted, I'll listen to the objections...if the objections are made on this talk page. If the objections are purely based on the opinion that the material does not belong in this aricle (even though it clearly does), a well-advertised RfC will be my next course of action. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I stated, "If there are objections to including mention of it in the article, I'll consider starting a WP:RfC - That reads as a threat. There is no need to threaten. Just talk.

And my first choice of dispute resolution is an RfC - As stated, even WP:RFC says discussion should ensue first.

especially since I am good at setting up RfCs - Being good at discussing is far more preferable.

If there is no discussion, I will add material to the article on the Lexa death controversy - There is no need for discussion. While you've been arguing about it, and making threats, another editor has added it to the article, with no fanfare, no posturing, no blustering, and no complaints. There's a lesson there for you. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Given our unpleasant interactions in an RfC, where you twisted my words and treated me and others with much disrespect, I am not about to sit here and debate you on what I meant. You don't like me; we get it. It certainly shows with every condescending, toxic comment you make toward me.

Given that mention of Lexa's death was consistently removed from this article, and AlexTheWhovian stated above, "That was a controversy over one episode, not the entire series, so it wouldn't belong on this page. Check the article history - certain editor's have already tried to add their views on this.", it's clear how a person could think that this needed discussion. TheHiddenDemons had already talked. Was rejected. I talked, noting that I was open to adding the material in an appropriate way, a way that is different than the reverted versions. Months passed. No response. I came back, noted that I am definitely interested in adding material on the matter and that I will seek wider input if necessary, and then you jumped in with your typical aggressiveness and disrespectful behavior instead of even attempting to discuss the merits of including the material. People tried to talk. There was no discussion. Things like WP:Third opinion and WP:RfC are very much welcomed after that point. And you know it.

Much thanks to Sandstein for adding material on Lexa's death, a day after my "05:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)" post. Sandstein, did you see my latest post and decide to add the material? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, no, I wasn't aware of this discussion.  Sandstein  15:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - It's somewhat hypocritical to threaten an RfC if people don't discuss or object to your edits, and then to continue to reinsert them without bothering to discuss them yourself, especially when you make such contentious edits summaries as this. What Sandstein added to the article was more than sufficient. There was consensus to redirect the Lexa Pledge article to the character article. There is a link to the relevant section here and it really only concerns what happened in a single episode to a single character. Any expansion should occur at the character article, not here. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Above, you essentially pointed out being WP:Bold. I was bold. You reverted. I reverted you. I then added different material. I do not have to discuss every single addition I make or want to make; you made that clear above. So who is being hypocritical? Hmm. Ether way, I am not interested in more of your mischaracterizations, drama, and WP:OWNING antics. Do look for a fight elsewhere. And do see below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest revert

With this edit, AussieLegend reverted all of my latest edits to the article, including those that are not related to the Lexa information, stating, "Again, this is far more than we need in this article. Please don't edit-war, take it to the talk page per WP:BRD and leave as is per WP:STATUSQUO."

Per WP:Summary style, he is incorrect. He is also incorrect with regard to apparently claiming that I added too much material. When it comes to that revert (regarding the Lexa material), the only thing that I added is "a national debate among writers and fans about the trope ensued, with Lexa emerging as an icon for perpetration of the trope." and two references to support a sentence. That sentence is the following: "As a result, fifteen television writers and producers signed the 'Lexa Pledge', promising not to perpetuate the trope." Except for a minor alteration from me, it was already in the article.

That the death inspired a national debate, not just a small, localized uproar, is important to relay. So is the fact that Lexa became the face of the "bury your gays" trope.

In my opinion, any discussion that I have with AussieLegend is fruitless, per our tempestuous history. So I will be seeking WP:Dispute resolution on this matter after he makes his case here in this section, or even if he does not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article mention the national and/or iconic aspect of Lexa's impact?

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.

---

As seen with this edit, what is essentially at dispute is the following sentence: "A national debate among writers and fans about the trope ensued, with Lexa emerging as an icon for perpetration of the trope." One editor feels that the current summary is enough and that the Lexa (The 100) article should cover the rest. The other editor feels that the fact that the character's death inspired a national debate, rather than simply a small, localized uproar, and that the character became the face of the "bury your gays" trope, should be relayed. The edit also shows that two references were removed, but the two references aren't really a deal-beaker in the dispute. More on the dispute is seen above this section on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. In addition to the fact that the current wording, which is also wording that I tweaked, falls a little short of noting the impact of Lexa's death and what that character became as a result, I feel that the version I crafted, which was reverted, summarizes the matter better. I also think the text flows smoother by having the creator's statement last, and that it's the better WP:Summary style inclusion. The two references for the television writers' sentence also doesn't hurt. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• No The issue of Lexa's death, which is hardly "national and/or iconic", relates to a single event in a single episode, and the reaction of fans and some critics to the death is properly addressed in detail at Lexa (The 100). There is mention of it in this article, added by Sandstein,[3] and this more than adequately addresses the matter, without giving it undue weight. It is, after all, a silly situation in which fans got upset because a lesbian character was killed off, while conveniently forgetting that the main character of the series, who is also a lesbian, is very much alive. This was simply a case of one more recurring character being killed off. Lexa was not the first to be killed, and will not be the last. The killing off of the character is being given undue weight solely because she was a lesbian. It should be noted that Flyer22 Reborn threatened to start an RfC if his proposed edits were opposed, rather than to discuss the matter as WP:RFC says should be the case. As explained in the section above this RfC, Sandstein's edits were made without fanfare or threats, and were not opposed. Everything else that Flyer22 Reborn has said in his most recent edits, do not deserve comment. Discussion should always occur before an RfC, and Flyer22 Reborn is well aware of that. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: I am female. And my responses to AussieLegend can be seen above, and below in the Discussion section. On a side note: The main character, Clarke Griffin, is identified by the show's creator as bisexual, but as also noted by the show's creator, there was doubt for sometime among viewers that Clarke is actually romantically/sexually attracted to women. See his comments on the matter with this and this link. Lexa was, and still is, viewed as the most prominent LGBT character from the show. And Sandstein's wording actually used the words "the most prominent LGBT character" before an IP changed it. AussieLegend's above comment makes the uproar over Lexa's death seem like some small, localized incident when it wasn't small or localized in the least. For the Discussion section below, I would have no issue at all providing a list of the reliable sources that commented on the impact this character's death had. And as I noted when tweaking the content in the article, the initial part of the Reception section is too big. Season 3 recently finished and that section is already that big. And yet I can't add a single sentence about Lexa's death having inspired a national debate and that she subsequently became the face of a trope? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Include with appropriate weight in The 100 (TV_series) and don't whitewash that we are discussing a trope or stereotype. I don't know if my comment is a "yes" or a "no," but it seems to me that while the detail can be in the character's article (with links from the main article) it is appropriate to discuss in the main article as well, because it was a newsworthy event for the series. Looks to me like the issue is a) changing "trope" to "trend" -- and that should not have happened (a trope is a stereotype, and that is the topic); and b) if it was "national and/or iconic" — my take is that it was far from "silly" to people who are concerned and that such dismissive language toward the content and also toward the other editor is not appropriate here. From assessment of the sources, the "Lexa pledge" issue addressed a statistically legitimate concern. Seems to me that the sentence could be included, but as a compromise, perhaps do it minus the word "national," which might be a touch of synth. Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, this The Hollywood Reporter source states, "It didn't take long for ATX Television Festival's 'Bury Your Tropes' panel centered on the 'Bury Your Gays' trope to come to the death that propelled the discussion to a national talking point: The 100's Lexa." That's the source I used for the addition of "national debate." But I would be fine using "widespread debate" or similar in place of "national debate." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• No - Sandstein's addition is enough. I get that some fans and a few critics jumped on this over the 'bury your gays trope'; its a worthy topic of discussion, just like the 'Women in Refrigerators' phenomena is for comics. The difference here is that some of the critical response wasn't very neutral and seemed to almost border on advocacy. How many reliably-sourced critical reactions to the series have actually been gathered? Have they actually talked about this? Are the sources actually neutral, or are they writing with an agenda?

If actual neutral critical response is more than 50%, then we should talk about it. As for fan reaction, it has absolutely no place within a Wikipedia article, and should be completely and utterly ignored as the crufty garbage it usually is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, it was not simply a matter of "some fans and a few critics." Google the matter. The death received widespread news coverage and greatly elevated the character. It received so much attention that the show's creator has responded more than once on the matter and a number of writers discussed the "bury your gays trope" as a result, with some even signing a pledge not to continue the trope. As for covering fan reaction, as is clear by MOS:TV and MOS:FILM, and other guidelines, it is common for us to cover fan reaction if the reaction is notable. We have a number of WP:Good articles and WP:Featured articles covering fan reaction, sometimes as part of an "Impact on popular culture" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

With respect, that doesn't negate any of the rest of my post. That I despise fancruft is exceedingly well-known, but isn't on point here. The take away from my post was that if enough reliably-sourced reviewers consider the matter notable, then it isn't really fancruft, is it? If the reviewers wrote that the death "elevated the character" then, all is fine. What fans think is little more than skewed, opinionated and - inevitably - mercurial rubbish. Your problem isn't whether to include it but whether you allow it to become the one-trick pony of the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Jack Sebastian. Thanks for clarifying. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I would say that advocacy is rather appropriate term, seeing as this was part of larger effort after the other shows events of that USA broadcast season, with lexa just being used as poster child for it. --84.229.78.129 (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes I'm not sure if a "national debate" is the right way to phrase it (since we certainly heard about it in Canada, so that's at least two countries and it was covered by both the entertainment press and the LGBT press) (maybe "widespread debate"?), but when the show creator writes an apology like he did, then it's certainly noteworthy and worth mentioning that the character has come to be seen as a clear example of the trope. It was kinda bizarre exactly how parallel it was to the Willow/Tara tragedy in Buffy, actually, which I assume is seen as THE iconic example of the trope (at least among people familiar with fantasy/sci-fi series). --Joeyconnick (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• No - The content at the Lexa article is enough. It doesn't need to be listed in two places. Such expansion of the content on this article is simply unnecessary, and already, it's gotten out of hand with so much fan-reaction content. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes/Include – if the worry is that this one line lends undue weight to the event, then I want to make clear that WP:Undue is about the amount of lines is dedicated to a specific aspect, not so much the content. If the "national debate" portion is accurate or considered point-of-view can be an excellent worry. I've never even heard of the show before today, and I have no idea how it is perceived in the US, but if the character's death did get a substantial amount of criticism among journalists and fans, then that is completely fine to add to this article. The article on the character herself has a dozen paragraphs related to this, so writing two or three lines about it on the series' page seems completely due to me. ~Mable (chat) 12:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - to the sentence proposed. When you have this many diverse sources discussing the death of a single TV character, then it becomes a significant and prominent point of view and it is not undue weight to summarize it here in this article, while giving a detailed description in the main article. Variety, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Daily Beast, Entertainment Weekly, Lawyer Herald, Fashion & Style, Parent Herald, Radio Times.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: Looks to me like we have a problem in that one editor invited discussion, mentioning that a RfC was a possible solution if discussion proved unproductive, and the other editor heard (or didnthearthat) as a "threat" and bypassed discussion altogether and went to personal attacks. That was trout-worthy. Seems to me that we have a debate over, essentially, one sentence. I'd say bury the hatchet and discuss the one-sentence issue, not the personalities involved. Focus on content. Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at the edit history: Flyer22 did not invite discussion. He said "If there are objections to including mention of it in the article, I'll consider starting a WP:RfC on the matter". That was his first statement. No invitation to discuss. I replied "An RfC should never be the first course of action in the event that somebody objects to a proposed edit. Discussion amongst involved editors should always occur first, as explained at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Before starting the process. Threatening an RfC at this point is less likely to gain support for a proposed edit." Flyer's response was "my first choice of dispute resolution is an RfC, especially since I am good at setting up RfCs", despite what WP:RFC says. Meanwhile, Sandstein had come along and edited the article with no blustering, no fanfare, no threats and no objections, but Flyer hadn't even bothered to check that. The personal attacks have all been from Flyer. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess I don't see the phrase, "I'll consider" as a threat. It clearly was not the first course of action. I read that statement as an invitation to a discussion but with the possibility that an RfC might be needed. The "first choice" comment came later. I wish that people would just ratchet it all down. Montanabw^(talk) 22:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

All Flyer had to write was "Are there any objections to me adding a little bit on the Lexa death controversy to the end of the third paragraph of the Reception section? Per above, this is definitely information that belongs in this article." Following that up with "If there are objections to including mention of it in the article, I'll consider starting a WP:RfC on the matter and inviting related WikiProjects to weigh in" was completely unnecessary. Objections should only have resulted in more discussion. If discussion stalled then an RfC might have been an option, although Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Before starting the process says "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." To state from the outset that if anyone objects you'll consider an RfC is a threat, pure and simple. Flyer then demonstrated no intention to discuss. I reverted the first attempt to add extra content 4 days ago and there was no attempt at discussion. Flyer restored it again prior to the RfC, taking the opportunity to attack me in an edit summary,[4] but didn't take the opportunity to discuss. When I reverted it again with a request to discuss, I left a comment on the talk page, but Flyer then went straight to RfC, taking another stab at me in a completely pointless edit summary,[5] and then made several more stabs,[6] without actually waiting for further discussion prior to jumping to RfC. Quite simply the process has not been followed, so if anyone deserves a trouting, it's Flyer. I'm more than happy to discuss. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Mischaracterizations, as usual. For example, after restoring the initial addition, I then changed it, and that still was not to your liking. You wholesale reverted me, including improvement to non-Lexa content. You always insist that I must do things your way. And you are never "more than happy to discuss" with me, or with anyone, really, when the discussion gets in the way of what you want. You often condescend to editors and belittle them. As seen in my case, you also like to hold a grudge and revert me on a single important sentence because of that grudge, or pursue an unnecessary image deletion discussion. Anyone is free to examine the #Lexa discussion to see why I was certain that discussion with you would have been pointless. You didn't even come to this talk to page to discuss after I responded to you above. You had time to do so; I looked at your edit history. Chances are, you were just going to ignore the post and were hoping that I would move on. Silence on this talk page is the typical response. Either way, it was clear to me that this case needed outside opinions. And that's what I sought. Since you've contacted WP:TV to weigh in, which is what I intended to do later, I'll go ahead and contact WP:SCIFI and WP:LGBT to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

In the immortal words of some wise admins that I respect, I think on this one it's best to just bury the hatchet, not personalize matters on either side and focus on content —and focus on content with some class and respect— without describing certain viewpoints as "silly" or with use of other types of inflammatory language. The issue, to my outside view, is the weight to put on the applicability of the bury your gays trope to the series. It is a trope, and if reliable sources (by Hollywood standards, at least) say it was a big deal within the gay community and that there were some changes made in approach and public statements about the issue, then it's probably relevant. Looks like the character's article has the bulk of the info, but to not include it here on the main article page could be viewed as "whitewashing," and I do think it is relevant. I proposed above to make a slight expansion, but not quite all of what was proposed. I suggest it be implemented and then everyone can just go on to work on more articles. Montanabw^(talk) 15:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"The issue, to my outside view, is the weight to put on the applicability of the bury your gays trope to the series".

The 'Bury Your Gays' trope is a product of deprecated USA censorship laws from the 50s, intended to limit depictions of homosexuality. While the manner of Lexa's death in that episode unintentionally played into harmful trope, the 100 series has been louded for its diversity and depiction of LGBT, including first BI lead on the network. Thus labeling the whole series with 'bury your gays' seems like an oxymoron.--84.229.78.129 (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2016 (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.

Close review

I do not think that Prcc27 interpreted WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNC, and WP:NPOV correctly. Nor do I think he interpreted the WP:Consensus correctly. Also, adding "iconic" was not the main argument. The main argument was noting that the uproar rose to a national level. As another editor (Joeyconnick) noted above, the uproar reached beyond the United States; so it's not even just a national matter. I do not see how consensus was against briefly summarizing the national/international aspect of the topic. As many sources are clear about, this trope didn't have as much discussion until Lexa's death. So this should be briefly made clear in the main article. Because of this, I am currently attempting to discuss the close with Prcc27 before escalating the matter to close review at WP:AN. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Flyer22 Reborn: Sorry if I overlooked the main argument. For some reason the wording is what got my attention which is why I perceived this as a WP:NPOV issue. Saying it was a national debate might be somewhat WP:POV, but saying there was widespread debate is definitely okay. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Prcc27, "national debate" is not a WP:NPOV issue; some sources use the word "national" when noting how far the debate spread, and many others are clear that the "bury your gays" trope previously didn't receive even close to the level of attention it received when Lexa died. That stated, it's best that we discuss this in one place. Per WP:TALKCENT, I'd rather keep the discussion on your talk page, and proceed to close review only if necessary. I noted the close review situation above because I disagree with your close, some others might too, and because the situation will likely go to close review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Subheadings

I created subheadings for the plot section, separating it by seasons, and did the same with the critical reception section. I did it because I think that these subheadings facilitate browsing and reading. However, these changes were reverted because "they were not necessary". I understand that they are not essential for the article, but they definitely make it easier to read. What do you guys think? -- Gonzalogallard (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)