Talk:House of Cards (U.S. TV series)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article fully protected[edit]

I've locked this page to end the edit warring over the death of Peter Russo, and whether it should be included in the article or not. A multitude of users has participated in this, so blocking individual Wiki-users is not really an option. Please discuss here what needs to be done. After consensus is reached, I will unlock the page. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 06:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER is very clear about this. "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." I see no reason to delete very relevant plot material because some people are afraid of spoiling it for those who have not yet seen it. Shall we remove the fact that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back? Where do you draw the line?--Asher196 (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a poor example given the pop culture status of Star wars and the age of the film (33 years). I'd say it's almost impossible to "spoil" this film Slymonk oz (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Asher. Season 1 is released and there is no reason to hide information about Peter was murdered. We don't talk about unaired episodes but about season who has been released. Andrzej19 (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
There aren't rguments against putting information about Peter's dead. So maybe we can assume, that we have discussed it already and unlock article? Andrzej19 (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to give it a couple of more days. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 20:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
While you are at it Amber, why don't you take a moment to read WP:SPOILER and do your job as admin and uphold the guidelines set forth.--Asher196 (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't thump the policies, even though I could have, for a simple reason: it's because I feel the power of creating consensus is a great value which is essential to Wikipedia. I was confident a policy-proof consensus could be reached here. Furthermore, my job description also includes trying to stop edit wars from taking place. Because of the multitude of users involved, the only real way to do that was locking the article down for a short period of time. One last remark: when it comes to doing my job as an admin, as well as a fellow Wikipedian, I would like you to look at {{Uw-harass1}}. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 12:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. My apologies.--Asher196 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to put my 2 cents in here. I originally saw the protection when I came to the article to find out about Season 2. When I saw the reason was because of spoilers, I was 100% for keeping the information out. That was until I saw that the "spoiler" referenced information about Season 1. There is absolutely no reason to keep already-released information from any wikipedia article. I despise spoilers, but I still feel that it's the viewer's responsibility to avoid the places you might encounter them. I didn't watch this entire season with one rush-through, I spaced it out over a few weeks and I have friends who still haven't finished it. But while I was watching, I avoided places that might talk about the specific plots of the episodes--such as a Wikipedia plot overview. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 07:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I do the same, when I'm in the middle of the show. I want to notice, that in other articles about tv series, information about plot are given - Minor_characters_in_CSI:_NY everything is quite fresh, with references to 9th season, which weren't propably seen by everybody yet. Andrzej19 (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Quote: "places that might talk about the specific plots of the episodes--such as a Wikipedia plot overview". Exactly: plot overview and not main cast. Cosmopolitan25
I agree with the above. I believe that information such as spoilers should be left to sections that a typical Wikipedia user would expect to encounter spoilers - namely a plot overview section. I believe this article would be greatly improved with either adding a plot overview section or simply adding more information on the plot details to the list of episodes page associated with this show. Rgrasmus (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice: since I don't see any opposite views, I will reopen the article on a short notice.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 12:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am strongly against. The section title is Main Cast not: Plot, Season 1, Summary, Episodes etc. It's a huge difference.
Besides look at the article in its current form: info is balanced, you give equal amount of info (save Frank but he is a protagonist) and on equally detailed level about each character, nothing is missing, it reads well. The controversial sentence actually seems forced when it's there. Those are the core arguments, not whether season 1 is out or not.
Wiki on spoilers: "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information—articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance." The sentence on Russo does not fulfil those requirements.
Somebody has accurately observed: "Removed a major spoiler that isn't needed to explain his role in the show or his connection to the main character Frank." This is exactly the point.
I myself entered the page when on episode 6 because I wanted to find more info on the show and it was spoiled for me. I carefully avoided plot descriptions. Character description is a totally different thing, it does not suggest spoilers. Especially that in this particular case, the level of detail on Francis is rather general. It does not go beyond 1st episode (I think) and it sets the tone of the entire section for the reader. Description of other characters follows in this vein. And then the poor reader goes on to Russo and boom.
Quote: I despise spoilers, but I still feel that it's the viewer's responsibility to avoid the places you might encounter them. Exactly. Is main cast section to be avoided? Or maybe an entire Wiki entry? I wouldn't think either. [-Cosmopolitan25] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmopolitan25 (talkcontribs) 13:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
We need to answer the question if hiding informations has an added value. We are talking about released TV-Serie, all episodes from season 1 are available to watch - so there is no reason to skip important information only because someone couldn't have seen the whole season yet. From WP:SPOILER - > "This page in a nutshell: Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." - so let's back to describe this tv series in the way we should do. I don't care about people - who haven't seen - they should stay away from this article if don't wanna to learn about plot and characters. Andrzej19 (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
1. I don’t think there would be any fuss whatsoever if the info was included in section titled plot, season 1 etc. Why have different people deleted the info over and over again? If every spoiler on every Wiki entry on TV series was a bone of contention like this one, edit warring would be all the editors and admins would be busy with. This one is so controversial because it was on the main page, in the main cast section (and not under plot headline), and is very unexpected (as well as unnecessary).
2. How about deleting it cause it’s not needed and doesn’t add value to the article? I ask the question again: what’s the purpose of including this info, especially in the view of how the whole section is written other than to spoil?
3. You raise the issue that one can’t delete stuff from entries just because it is a spoiler. The thing is it shouldn’t have been included there in the first place. The article is perfectly fine and reads very well without it. From WP:SPOILER "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, the lead section)". In this case it is the spoiler that interferes with the above.
4. So, in a nutshell you think a person who does not want to read spoilers on movies/ TV series they haven’t seen/finished should avoid Wiki entries on the topic altogether? Is that what you want to achieve? Cosmopolitan25 —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
"how about deleting it cause it’s not needed and doesn’t add value to the article?" Are you serious? This one act alone shows the true character of Frank. He will literally kill to protect his political interests. How is that not relevant?--Asher196 (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Good point, it is very important information. How come where Frank's character is described it is not mentioned? It is also not mentioned that Zoe from chief partner-in-crime becomes his chief antagonist at the end of the season. It is also not mentioned that Zoe sleeps with Frank in exchange for info, that Claire accepts it etc. etc. It is all relevant, it is just not the place for it. Do you understand what does it mean to keep the same level of detail when writing about something? Are you able to look at the article as a whole and determine whether it fits there?--Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Spoilers are present in other articles and descriptions of characters as well. We cannot hide important information only because someone could have not finished whole season. There is always a risk of that - because there we can't check if the reader has finished show. Information about Peter's death is the most important in first season, so should be in article. He won't be present in season two - so we need to explain why. Andrzej19 (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
To whom? To the people that haven't seen the show?;) You can explain everything to every tiny gory detail just leave it out from the main cast section. Where it is it qualifies for deletion not because it is a spoiler but because it is an unnecessary and misplaced spoiler. --Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Funnily enough the sentence would probably have disappeared long ago if it wasn’t a spoiler, because it doesn’t fit there and the article reads better without it. It has been added later, to an otherwise well-written and well-rounded character description, interfering with the style and level of detail of other characters’ description. But because it is a spoiler it is being brought back with argumentation that a) you can’t delete a spoiler, b) it is very important info (spoiler’s usually are).
In a nutshell, the following logic has been applied in here: if someone adds an information that is a spoiler to an article, other people can’t delete it whatever justification they might have, cause it is a spoiler and spoilers can’t be deleted:) Sounds like funny logic to me.. And yes, spoilers are usually very important pieces of information…
[WARNING GoT SPOILER HINT] You might as well go into every page on GoT (for those familiar) and add the info about a very major character dying at the end of season one, wherever said character’s description appears, regardless whether the info fits or not. You just put it there, “cause it is important info & the season is released”. When concerned people start deleting the info from places where it doesn’t fit, you revert those edits using the argument: you can’t delete an info that is a spoiler… Cosmopolitan25 —Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The information was in completely the wrong place and that's why I removed it. All the character descriptions are pretty basic with minimal plot and then suddenly you get a big spoiler. There is no issue with putting the spoiler in, but it should be in a section discussing the season 1 plot/story, not the main cast descriptions. As has already been noted, it was never in the original cast descriptions and it's addition ruins the flow and otherwise neutral information on the cast. Regardless of whether the season has been shown completely (and keeping in mind that it has not been fully screened across much of the world), it's not unreasonable to expect that someone who hasn't watched it at all might come to the wiki looking for a basic show description and a list of cast members that doesn't include a large plot spoiler. If people are that desperate to have the info in they need to take the time to write a season 1 overview where spoilers would be expected. Slymonk oz (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
You both base upon rules that don't exist in real Wikipedia World. Check this out: Csi_new_york#Main_characters - "Detective Third Grade Aiden Burn " - [...] " She is later murdered and burned by Pratt, though she leaves the CSIs with enough implicating evidence she knew would result in a conviction.", second example: List_of_Lost_characters - everything is given to the public - without any alerts. Now we need to hide information because someone hasn't seen yet. It's ridiculous. You reffer to imagined examples. Peter has been murdered and he is not longer present in this show, why why have to hide it? It is BASIC fact about this character. Andrzej19 (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
No, we actually base it on common sense:) …and finer things like, here I quote Slymonk Oz: “it's addition ruins the flow and otherwise neutral information on the cast”.
The issue with comparisons is that it is useful to choose right things to compare, apples with apples, oranges with oranges, otherwise you might end up with not that very valuable results.
CSI’s (and Lost's) main characters section is much more developed and elaborate section and in its form it could not exist without spoilers. If you wanted to avoid spoilers you would have to delete pretty much the whole section.
The HoC’s main cast section, on the other hand, stays fairy general and is complete and consistent as a whole without the spoiler. With the controversial info removed you are still left with a good quality and informative entry – in fact a much better quality entry.
What is ridiculous is that you fail to understand and appreciate the difference.
I was not pointing to any examples (I used hypothesis/parallel earlier) and I am not a big fan of them as there frequently appears the orange/apple problem. But if you want it based on example then here it comes.
Game_of_thrones#Cast and characters Here you get a description of characters that unlike your CSI list is fairly (though still not directly) comparable to HoC’s list. No spoilers. Imaginary? Looks very real to me. I am not saying it is an exemplary character description (the HoC's is actually better in terms of style, quality and informative value), I am just saying it is comparable, or at least more comparable to HoC entry than your CSI or Lost list.
What is more, you can also go here: List_of_Game_of_Thrones_characters and what you get is a list directly comparable to your CSI and Lost lists. Plenty of spoilers.
Now, if you wanted to include your Russo spoiler in the list that looks like the latter (and your CSI and Lost lists), I don’t think people would have a problem with that. The problem is that you are trying to force the spoiler into an entry that is more similar to the former, an entry that is completely fine, and in fact better without the controversial info. --Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Cosmopolitan25, in line with WP:CIV, please don't call fellow contributors "ridiculous" or anything like that.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 21:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I was not calling a fellow contributor ridiculous, but I will be more careful with the language in the future. My apologies. --Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus proposal[edit]

It's been almost a week; I think it's time for a decision. Summarizing above discussion, I'm hoping we could agree to a number of things. If so, I can be confident the edit war is over and thus the article can be reopened.

  1. First off: nobody has contradicted the application of WP:SPOILER. There's no ideological argument against inserting spoilers into articles, as this Wikipedia policy is practically law. We all know this.
  2. There is, however, a practical concern towards stating Russo is murdered by Underwood directly in the Cast section. This section is supposed to be a short and sweet summary of who's who, and should not be a bullet pointed repetition of the Overview section.
  3. The Overview section will be expanded, to include a mention of Russo's death at the hands of Frank Underwood. It is standard practice for Wikipedia articles on TV series to have one section dedicated to explaining quite thoroughly how the storyline pans out. For reference, check Game of Thrones, Once Upon a Time (TV series), Fringe (TV series) or even House of Cards (UK TV series). These sections are called "Plot", "Premise" or "Overview" and in all of the abovementioned examples they are considerably longer than the Overview section in our own House of Cards article.

Can we all agree to these three points? —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 10:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. My tiny suggestion is that once “our” section gets developed to include detailed storyline it should be renamed to “Plot” or “Plot overview”, so that nobody can have any doubts whatsoever on what they are about to read and everybody is happy. --Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
In character section should be inserted: Russo was eventually murdered, without explaining by who. Information about his death is a basic fact. There is no need to worry about people who don't watch yet. Andrzej19 (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree. Frank is a murderer and it should be highlighted in his character profile.--Asher196 (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the same, but we are about finding consensus, right? Andrzej19 (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus proposal 2[edit]

A new proposal:

  1. First off: nobody has contradicted the application of WP:SPOILER. There's no ideological argument against inserting spoilers into articles, as this Wikipedia policy is practically law. We all know this.
  2. There is, however, a practical concern towards stating too many details in the Cast section. This section is supposed to be a short and sweet summary of who's who, and should not be a bullet pointed repetition of the Overview section. Russo's line will read as follows: "Corey Stoll as U.S. Representative Peter Russo, a Democrat from Pennsylvania's 1st congressional district. Russo struggles with substance abuse and dies at the end of the season."
  3. Underwood's line will read: "Kevin Spacey as U.S. Representative Francis "Frank" J. Underwood, a Democrat from South Carolina's 5th congressional district and the House Majority Whip. His ruthless ambition turns him into a murderer."
  4. The Overview section will be expanded and renamed to Plot. It is standard practice for Wikipedia articles on TV series to have one section dedicated to explaining quite thoroughly how the storyline pans out. For reference, check Game of Thrones, Once Upon a Time (TV series), Fringe (TV series) or even House of Cards (UK TV series). These sections are called "Plot", "Premise" or "Overview" and in all of the abovementioned examples they are considerably longer than the Overview section in our own House of Cards article. In our article, the Plot section will include a more thorough description of both the characters of Underwood and Russo. It will also explore Russo's death at the hands of Frank Underwood in greater detail.

How does this second proposal sound? —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 13:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This sounds great to me. I also believe that in addition to the revised plot section that we should begin working on the pages for each of the episodes. As far as I can see there is only one for the first episode Chapter 1 (House of Cards). Rgrasmus (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure the individual episodes have achieved notability. Remember: notability must be achieved individually by every article out there in the 'Pedia, and may not be derived from a "main subject" or something. Take in mind that House of Cards is not your typical tv series which releases one episode a week: the whole season was dumped online entirely and immediately. Consequently, there will be a bunch of sources that establish notability for the whole season, or the whole series. But individual episodes? Doubtful. Take in mind that half the content on the Chapter 1 page is stuff that applies to the whole season and should be removed. There will be little more than a plot overview left once that is cut out. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 15:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Good enough for me. Let's put in this version about characters and expand plot section. Andrzej19 (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. The whole point is to for this section to be “short and sweet summary of who is who”. The proposed version does not serve this purpose.
"Corey Stoll as U.S. Representative Peter Russo, a Democrat from Pennsylvania's 1st congressional district. Russo struggles with substance abuse and dies at the end of the season." VS.
„Corey Stoll as U.S. Representative Peter Russo, a Democrat from Pennsylvania's 1st congressional district. Russo becomes loyal to Underwood after Underwood threatens to expose his alcohol and drug addiction.”
IMHO the second (current) version much more accurately describes Russo and his role in show as well as Russo/ Frank relationship. This is the sort of info that should be in “Main Cast” not whether he or dies or not..
"Kevin Spacey as U.S. Representative Francis "Frank" J. Underwood, a Democrat from South Carolina's 5th congressional district and the House Majority Whip. His ruthless ambition turns him into a murderer."
As for Frank and who he is.. such description makes me think that he is Dexter in political world, eliminating his enemies by murdering them one by one:) If you want to write something other than currently then maybe: “Ambitious, manipulative and devoid of morality, he won’t stop before anything to achieve his goals” or “there is no line he wouldn’t cross to achieve his goals”. This would summarize him better IMHO.
I don’t understand the issue of the necessity to put such info (murderer!, murderer! and dead!, dead!) into the Main Cast description. This info should definitely be in the entry and easily accessible, just not in there.--Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
You don't have contribution at Wikipedia at all and You've proven that You don't know rules. We are not here to write telecast, we have to give basic information about these 2 characters. Peter is dead, because he was murdered - that is the most important thing for this character, Frank is a murderer, because he killed him. That must be written in section of characters. We can't playing with words to prevent somebody to know the facts. I totally disagree with this point of view. Andrzej19 (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
If you have a problem with my opinion please look at the consensus #1 (I didn't invent that) and read below - Slymonk oz has summarized the whole issue and I couldn't put it better myself. A death of a character is definitely NOT the most important thing about a character nor does it define who they are as characters. As for my humble person I am a Wiki user for years and also keen reader of all kinds of literary works - and I happen to know what should be in character description section. You on the other hand seem to have a problem with people disagreeing with you (the whole edit war is due to mainly you repeatedly reverting edits done independently by different people in good faith) and you don't seem to care too much about quality of your input, as your edits on polish version of the article clearly show (example below).
[on Claire in the main cast section:] "When she gives a banknote to a beggar and he gives it back after some time – in the form of a swan made with origami technique, the woman is interested only in learning how to create similar origami herself. When an old woman tells her off for jogging at the cemetery, Claire returns to the cemetery and seeing a couple in love near the graves, she decides that her past behavior was not inappropriate."
Not only is this unfit for "short and sweet summary of who is who" and presentation of key information about characters. It also contains - wrong, simplified and subjective - interpretation of what is shown on screen. (This wouldn't be so relevant if you didn't add this just to expand the section with the purpose of countering the argument that the spoiler doesn't fit to otherwise brief character description.)
Do you really want this dispute to be about the people involved and not about content?--Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
We are talking here about english version of article, not polish. Polish version has been already edited, there is some work to do more I know that. Now we talk about hiding the most important information of character. We should get back to facts. Peter in chapter 11 was murdered - he is no longer in tv-serie, he won't be present in season 2. So there is no rational argument to skip this information in character section. This character is deceased, when we were writing articles about Lost or Prison Break, the information about character's death was inserted into article as soon as possible, so why now there is a reason to hide it? Like I said before, we don't care about people who haven't watched yet, we care about truth. Andrzej19 (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it fair to assume that since you mention those series as examples, you actually agree with the way they are written? IMHO it's good that you mention those, we could use them in search for "best practice". Let's take Prison Break, the quotes are fairly representative for whole section – Prison_Break#Cast_and_characters.
„Peter Stormare as John Abruzzi (Season 1–2): Due to his role as the leader of a Chicago mafia, Abruzzi became a prominent figure at Fox River State Penitentiary. He agrees to provide an escape plane for Michael in exchange for the location of the eyewitness to his crimes, Otto Fibonacci. He appears regularly in the first half of the first season and makes selected appearances towards the end of the first season and the beginning of the second season.”
“Robin Tunney as Veronica Donovan (Season 1–2): Veronica is Michael and Lincoln's childhood friend who decides to review Lincoln's case at Michael's insistence. She becomes Lincoln's lawyer and appears as a major character in the first season.”
Do you see died/ murdered/ murdered by anywhere?
What do you think is the main purpose of Wiki entries on shows/ movies/ books etc.? Do you think it is informing – and ASAP – about who just died/ what has happened in the last episode? What my common sense tells me is that the purpose is different: to provide with all kinds of info on what it is about, conception, reception, background, people involved in creation, the fictional world etc.
Some entries do serve as guide through the series (eg. Game of Thrones) and thank contributors for them. Those are written with - sometimes enormous - consideration for the reader, confining spoilers to places where they can be expected. Consideration for which millions of people probably love Wiki and you seem to hold in contempt and so blatantly disregard.
And as for informing who just died, who do you really want to inform? Maybe I am not getting something, but it seems to me that those who already watched the episode know, those who didn’t but are reading the entry DON’T want to know. Unless they specifically want to inform themselves on what happened – in which case they visit sections: plot, season overview, episode no. 298 etc.
Finally, it is not about hiding, it is about not putting it where it doesn’t belong in the first place.--Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
"Rather choosing death over returning to prison, Abruzzi raises his weapon and is gunned down, with a cross in hand. He is the first member of the Fox River Eight to be taken down by the authorities." about Abruzzi from List of Prison Break characters. But ok, we can make another article with description of characters, but we have to write anyway that Peter appeared to the 11 chapter of first season. Andrzej19 (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Apples and oranges again. I am talking about the main page. It is obvious to me that in the developed character description that will be a separate article "List of HoC characters" all the info and details should be included. --Cosmopolitan25 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
No surprise I disagree too, I just don't think that Russo dying is a character defining concept. Saying he dies at the end of the season still seems something that should belong in a season overview section, not his character description. If this show follows the books and BBC series there are 3 more characters due to die, and while it is important for the plot none of their deaths define who they are as a character. Slymonk oz (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Is the issue Russo being murdered, or Frank killing him? I think Frank being a killer is worthy of being in the character profile.--Asher196 (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my two consensus proposals on whether the death of Russo by the hands of Underwood should be included in the cast section haven't led to conclusion of the debate. I'm now trying to bring in the community through WP:RFC, so we can try to shape a broader consensus on how to effectively end the edit war once the article lock has been lifted. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 09:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)