Talk:Imposters (TV series)

Production codes

When series such as Imposters air episodes in exactly the same order as they were produced (i.e. episodes air in the same order as as the production codes), there is no need to list the production codes in the episodes table (i.e. it's "redundant" info). I'm in no hurry to remove the prod. codes column from the episodes table right now, but myself or any other editor would be justified in removing the prod. codes column on this basis. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Title is clearly censored

The title varies on official and unofficial sources, so it is clearly censored and not for creative reasons. helmboy 05:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Old Unresolved Sh--

http://www.bravotv.com/imposters/episode-guide

Old Unresolved S...

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/imposters/listings/ and zap2it and imdb

Old Unresolved Sh*t

http://www.bravotv.com/imposters/season-2/ep-3 per HTML/JSON source code

{"entitlement":"auth","title":"Old Unresolved Sh*t","release_pid":"zM6V4Fj6hycq","rating":"TV-14","brand":"Bravo","itunes_app_url":"https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/us\/app\/bravo-now\/id383925190","google_play_url":"#","deep_linking_href":"bravotve:\/\/video\/BRV_ANV_3700661","is_live":false,"auto_play":false},"bravo_ads":{"BRAVO_ADS_DOC_WRITE":0,"BRAVO_ADS_DOM_INJECTION":1}}

https://www.nbcumv.com/programming/bravo/imposters/episodes-schedule?network=33132

itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/imposters-season-2/id1354089233

www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07C8KQ3RW

We use Futon and Zap2It as our column sources – there it's "Old Unresolved S...". That's how it should be listed here. We follow the sourcing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If people are interested in the "full" title (and, FTR, I find this kind of thing to be a pointless exercise...), then the RTitle parameter will have to be used for that episode, and a source that actually spells it all the way out will have to be used as the inline source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Bravo and NBC are official sources. Futon and Zap2It just edit press releases. And given two official sources are inconstant on the title, it's obviously been censored. helmboy 09:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think. If you can't provide a source with the full spelling, the full spelling is WP:OR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Can't you read the three sources above have three alternate titles of the censored title and of the three you are reverting to the unofficial censored version. helmboy 13:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Uh, no – as you say, the scheduling sites are from press releases: press releases are "official" – they're from the network, and thus are WP:PRIMARY sources. Regardless, none of the sources you provided actually spell out the whole word. The best you can do is use the NBCUMV one in the RTitle parameter, and spell it "Sh*t". Anything more than that is actually WP:OR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I've left to the admin who uncensored the title to sort out as clearly you don't understand the difference between censorship for publication and pseudo censorship for creative effect. helmboy 13:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem not to understand WP:Verifiability, not truth – on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter what you "know" to be true, it only matters what you can source. And as you haven't produced a source that spells the whole word out, it can't be spelled out, or it's WP:OR. This actually has nothing to do with WP:NOTCENSORED, because you haven't produced a "not censored" source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Awaiting admin. And the only word Sh*t can be is Shit when censorship is clearly invoked. No WP:OR is needed. And don't reply to me when the admin who uncensored it has yet to comment. helmboy 13:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Doing that is either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Either way, you can't do it – it needs to be sourced. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Oshwah's own edit summary said "WP:NOTCENSORED (unless this is what the episode is actually titled as? With the asterisks?) In other words, he was basically asking for sourcing showing it fully spelled out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: You don't understand that a clear source was requested to show that the title is censored for creative effect. As has been noted above all three sources are different, so there is NO clear source. The only source that can now be use to justify the censored title is an image of the script for the episode. helmboy 13:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I've said all I'm going to say. Let's wait for Oshwah to chime in now. P.S. And, yes – a picture of the script title page (uncensored) from a verified social media account would work as an acceptable source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: You are the one that needs to prove it's censored for creative effect with the script as it's already proven that it as been censored by the varying titles used. And you should be given a warning for your reverting multiple times without stated proof. helmboy 13:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Viewers shouldn't be fractional below zero

Why? Because "0." is repetitive and unnecessary. Also when all figures will be below a million, what is the point of units being in millions. Millions is only practical on more available free-to-air broadcasts. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose change to "thousands" format, if in the form of: "U.S. viewers (thousands)"/"655". I'm maybe neutral on changing to a "U.S. viewers"/"655,000" format for viewership. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Does that mean you would rather use thousands instead of 1000s??? And no unit with repetitive ",000" is even more bloated than the stupid "0." and would give the reader the impression that values are exactly that when they are rounded to the nearest thousand. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It means I'd maybe go for "655,000", but I oppose "655 (in thousands)" – IOW, "0.655 (in millions)" is preferable to the latter. That's it – I've given you an alternative: it's up to you if you go for it or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: What happened to your so-called consensus??? You seem to be owning the page and dictating how it should be??? You have yet to give a valid reason why millions is preferable when "0." is redundant for this show. And I've stated why ",000" would be worse. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't – you have to establish consensus if you want to make a change. Otherwise, the status quo remains. And there is nothing wrong with "0.655" as per MOS:DECIMAL. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: You are asserting ownership by reverting just because you don't like something. And consensus and status quo are only during content disputes, not editing. MOS:DECIMAL just says how fractionals should to be used, not that they must be used. And the only rules this site has are WP:5P. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Are your edits being disputed? Yes? Therefore, content dispute. -- Alex^TW 01:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The troll as officially taken over. and it's a formatting dispute with no consensus as two editors plus a bias, talk page trolling editor hardly counts. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Your personal attacks aren't going to make this any quicker. Hey! WP:PA! There's another rule you can read. Maybe WP:CONSENSUS too. -- Alex^TW 02:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not you do WP:trolling talking pages and editors. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Also the source for the figures is in thousands. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

What's the point of consensus when only two parties are voting? Requesting third party wouldn't help as consensus only works on mass voting. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with IJB. This is because the consensus is to use millions, regardless of is they're below or above a million. This results in a consistent layout across all television articles, instead of some displaying as "0.456", others as "1.24", others as "654" and others as "567,000"; making them all in millions makes it uniform. It seems that you're trying to discuss this with multiple editors, and getting the same result: the standing consensus of the Television WikiProject. -- Alex^TW 01:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't know about WP:5P. Those are the only rules here. The rest are guidelines. And stop enforcing template usage of templates you have created. You enforce project guidelines as though they are rules. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there are many policies that do not fall under 5P; those are the "fundamental principles", not the "only principles", so I recommend you make yourself aware of them. Are you the only editor that gets to decide when guidelines are used or not? That sounds like OWN, so I recommend you practice what you preach. Guidelines exist for a reason, having all been introduced through discussion and consensus, and you need a valid reason to ignore them. Is Wikipedia not allowed to use the templates it creates? What if someone else had added it, would that be alright? Why just me? Anyways. Back on track: present your arguments as to why you get to be the only editor that ignores multiple discussions and the resultant consensus that created these guidelines. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 01:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Guidelines are there to give editors guidance on how to layout or format a page, not to state that a page has to be laid out in a certain way. You are treating them as rules and threaten editors that don't follow them to the letter. And 5P are the only real rules and are also it's founding principles. Also you haven't heard of WP:IAR, I take it. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what guidelines are; through the use of discussion, templates are written up as to how to create and layout articles. I'm not threatening anyone. I'm stating you need a consensus. I have heard of IAR, but that's for use to make Wikipedia better for the good of the site, not just for random editors who don't like that a consensus stands against them and their edits. -- Alex^TW 02:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the TV project ones have become WP:BLOAT. An you seem to ignore and must hate WP:5P5 and WP:IAR. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion. You seem to have forgotten no OR being a rule too, but you were fine violating that at Blindspot. You haven't stated how 5P supports your changes, and surely you can't use Ignore All Rules when "guidelines aren't rules", right? Your own words? You haven't stayed how that supports your changes either. As far as I can tell, you're just trying to feed this discussion in a trolling way, as you have nothing and nobody to actually back up your opinions anymore. -- Alex^TW 02:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, any one who goes to WP:TV can just see it's just WP:BLOAT. And that Blindspot OR crap wasn't OR it's finishing an obvious sentence with one letter, which I only reverted because your whole reasoning was flaw as usual. and you are the one that trolls editors and talk pages of pages you have never edited with any content. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I for one disagree. That makes yours an opinion, as it does mine. You cannot add even the most obvious statements to Wikipedia without a source, so yes, it was original research, no matter how clear it was to anyone. Anyways, we digress. Want to get back on topic with some actual discussion and reading to support your changes? -- Alex^TW 04:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I've never personally seen a television page do what is being suggested by the topic creator. But I am slightly concerned that a repeat of what happened on the Rise (U.S. TV series) and Deception (2018 TV series) pages may occur here. The topic creator had quite an extensive edit war with multiple people trying to force through their changes and was fortunate not to have been blocked because the report was deemed stale. Esuka323 (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, to clarify, it looks like what you're referring to happened on or about March 20. Thanks for letting us know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I've gone back into the history of Deception, which I followed a few episodes after its premiere, and what a mess! It seems that the IP editor has no concept of what WP:EW means; I can list a multitude of other articles they've warred on. To me, it appears as if no civil discussion can be made with the editor, as if they don't get their way, we're all "owning" "trolls". Unless they have a better argument for their changes, which should be taken to a wider talk page and not here, then our time would best be spent elsewhere. -- Alex^TW 15:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

why is the title misspelled, what executive made this horrible choice

can we add a section about the title of an official, real tv show being misspelled please

i am boggled that this exists

(it should be "impostors," unless i'm missing some pun {{unsigned I{P|139.78.227.52| 03:09, September 30, 2021}}

"Imposters" in an alternate spelling [1], so there's no need for pearl-clutching in this case ;).— TAnthony^Talk 15:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

😭 iRDM 09:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)