Talk:ER season 2

Television: Episode coverage / ER Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the ER task force (assessed as High-importance).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ER season 2 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Mass Addition of Cast

An editor persists in adding massive lists of cast, taken from IMDB (which is not a reliable source), most not notable and the vast majority without character names, to the article. I have attempted to remove them and limit the list to Notable Guest Stars, only to have them immediately restore to the article. This is not a fan page for the season, and to add all that cast, particularly with no reliable sources for most of it, is ridiculous, is and violates {{WP:NOTABLE]] and WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- this article is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Moreover, collected as it is, we lose the notable performances from each season in a sea of "who was that?" junk. Drmargi (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list has been restored, despite a lack of consensus, yet again. Granted, it's complete now, but it's simply a long list of actors who appeared in various episodes, with no notability established or reason for including so many names. Moreover, it does not address two major issues noted above: WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the loss of significant performances that are notable and noteworthy. Please put some energy into discussion, rather than trying to find a way to push the list into the article without consensus. Drmargi (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Supposed "Title References"

I've just reverted a group of so-called "title references" that an editor has attempted to add, without benefit of any sources, to the episode summaries. While some of them certainly make sense, many more are arguable at best, and all are WP:OR absent any source that supports the thinking of the writer(s) who gave any given episode its title. In a couple cases, I can posit alternative references, a couple seem to have been overlooked, and all in all, we're back to WP:INDISCRIMINATE information, made more problematic by the lack of sources. Drmargi (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are showing up right now. What are you talking about?

Believe it or not, not everyone using English Wikipedia is a native English-speaking adult. Many are kids; many are Latvians looking for information that does not exist in Latvian Wikipedia. Therefore they do not automatically get jokes and references that adults get without trouble. There is precedent for clarifying what titles mean.

Perhaps you ought to be a little more circumspect in your perusal of Wikipedia.

Varlaam (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a matter of being circumspect. It's a simple matter of sourcing. And these supposed title references aren't sourced. Certainly you can make a case that a handful are seemingly obvious. Not so with others. And unless you can provide a source that indicates the title reference you've added is what the writer was referring to, you're in the land of WP:OR, and that's a no-go. Drmargi (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]