Talk:List of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episodes/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about List of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episodes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Comment

Oliver frequently highlights some hashtag or URL in a episode, e.g. #JeffWeCan in his Feb 15 episode highlighting tobacco companies. I'd guess he does that at least as often as he has a guest. Perhaps that could be another field for the table? Crust (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I see what you mean; he uses them even more recently than in the earlier episodes. Seeing as they actually have an impact on popular culture and news, usually as soon as the following day, (e.g. President Rafael Correa couple weeks ago) they should be noted. Similar shows' articles do a similar thing; The Colbert Report's The Word and introductory line come to mind. Feel free to expand the tables and add them. --ProKro (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop removing unaired episodes from the list

i cited tv guide for upcoming episodes so that they would be listed. the purpose for this is so that it can be known when the episodes will occur. data driven sites like http://www.airdates.tv require this information in order to function properly. please do not remove upcoming episodes. GravisZro (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The episodes are added as they air, specifically because there may be off-weeks, rescheduling and unexpected skips (since the show is filmed the same day it airs to keep it up-to-date) due to technicial difficulties, complications and other, on the part of both the production team and the network, in this case HBO. It has happened before and will most likely in the future. The confirmed airing listing is only needed for shows that have been fully produced and scheduled well in advance, such as scripted drama and comedy shows or animated programs. Shows like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report etc. follow the same pattern. EDIT: Even South Park, an animated show which is entirely produced the week before its air date is added as it airs. ProKro (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If the schedule changes then the article will be changed to reflect that. It's a wiki, not stone tablets. There is no need to remove it and by removing it you are causing damage to other sites. Stop reverting the edits. GravisZro (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, not the stone tablets; added as they air. If the listing is to be mentioned it needs to be neutral and at the very least formatted properly. You mentioned http://www.airdates.tv and used a TV guide; both of which should be avoided. Will replace it with The Futon Critic. ProKro (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me reiterate: "The episodes are added as they air" - so why do you revert me all the time?-91.10.40.113 (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. I couldn't care less. But, as you can see above, I don't want to go through the same unnecessary discussion again. Removing "voice", though. Guest is a guest, no matter how they appear. ProKro (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You couldn't care less, but you start an edit war about it?

GravisZro argument is bullshit, Wikipedia does not change it's basic editing guidelines because an external website needs them to. That is a position you should defend instead if making almost comment-less edits like you have.-91.10.40.113 (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

bug in date format? unwanted space character

the page html is full of this: <span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -10-05</span> note the space char in the middle of the date. pls someone fix thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.239.20 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what you want to be done; there is no such string on the page. ProKro (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: Template problem; it will be addressed. ProKro (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Now it's addressed? How about you are a bit more careful in "doing" requests from now on? You obviously haven't even looked into the problem.-91.10.40.113 (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a template problem; not specific to any one article, something I do not deal with. Changes requested in the talk page should only concern the article's content. ProKro (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

but it's full of it:

$ curl --silent 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Last_Week_Tonight_with_John_Oliver_episodes' | grep bday

<td style="padding:0 8px;">April 27, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014-04-27</span>)</span></td>
<td style="padding:0 8px">February 8, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015-02-08</span>)</span></td>
<td>April 27, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -04-27</span>)</span></td>
<td>May 4, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -05-04</span>)</span></td>
<td>May 11, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -05-11</span>)</span></td>
<td>May 18, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -05-18</span>)</span></td>
<td>June 1, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -06-01</span>)</span></td>
<td>June 8, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -06-08</span>)</span></td>
<td>June 15, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -06-15</span>)</span></td>
<td>June 22, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -06-22</span>)</span></td>
<td>June 29, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -06-29</span>)</span></td>
<td>July 13, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -07-13</span>)</span></td>
<td>July 20, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -07-20</span>)</span></td>
<td>July 27, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -07-27</span>)</span></td>
<td>August 3, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -08-03</span>)</span></td>
<td>August 10, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -08-10</span>)</span></td>
<td>August 17, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -08-17</span>)</span></td>
<td>September 7, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -09-07</span>)</span></td>
<td>September 14, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -09-14</span>)</span></td>
<td>September 21, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -09-21</span>)</span></td>
<td>September 28, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -09-28</span>)</span></td>
<td>October 5, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -10-05</span>)</span></td>
<td>October 19, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -10-19</span>)</span></td>
<td>October 26, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -10-26</span>)</span></td>
<td>November 2, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -11-02</span>)</span></td>
<td>November 9, 2014<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2014 -11-09</span>)</span></td>
<td>February 8, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -02-08</span>)</span></td>
<td>February 15, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -02-15</span>)</span></td>
<td>February 22, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -02-22</span>)</span></td>
<td>March 1, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -03-01</span>)</span></td>
<td>March 8, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -03-08</span>)</span></td>
<td>March 15, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -03-15</span>)</span></td>
<td>March 22, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -03-22</span>)</span></td>
<td>April 5, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -04-05</span>)</span></td>
<td>April 12, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -04-12</span>)</span></td>
<td>April 19, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -04-19</span>)</span></td>
<td>April 26, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -04-26</span>)</span></td>
<td>May 3, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -05-03</span>)</span></td>
<td>May 10, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -05-10</span>)</span></td>
<td>May 17, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -05-17</span>)</span></td>
<td>May 31, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -05-31</span>)</span></td>
<td>June 7, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -06-07</span>)</span></td>
<td>June 14, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -06-14</span>)</span></td>
<td>June 21, 2015<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2015 -06-21</span>)</span><sup id="cite_ref-listing_49-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-listing-49"><span>[</span>49<span>]</span></a></sup></td>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.239.20 (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I addressed this at the proper place-91.10.40.113 (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Helen Mirren does not appear on the show

User:ProKro apparently think that he owns this article. His edit history, and his behavious on this page, makes that clear. I will therefore no longer mess around with it, an "established" editor will always win against an IP, no matter how wrong she is.

Have a nice day!-91.10.40.113 (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have never, nor will I ever claim any article as "mine", or be the sole editor of one. I was simply trying to match the article's style; used for over a year now. The addition of "voice" is unnecessary. I suppose we could we could note that if it's crucial. All the guests are listed as they (or rather, their names) appear in the show's credits and HBO's official website (with the exception of Mohammed Usafi). I see no need to overreact in such a way. Suit yourself, I guess and have a nice day too. ProKro (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Content restriction

Conserning content like [[1]]. So when creating a full episode-article is not reasonable option, no data other than this arbitrary predifined set can be added? Why? Because form goes over content? IMO it never should and its one of key features of wiki; form is adabted to content and amount of it. PS: I did put it in same form even though it seemed off as note. Something like List of The Colbert Report episodes (2014) would work better. --Usp (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It never should, by all means. I agree that the The Colbert Report / The Daily Show's summary style would have worked better here, but for the the simple fact that the show itself is split into named, distinguishable segments, that can all, more or less, be linked to other Wikipedia articles that cover the topic, it seemed like a reasonable choice to just leave it at that. This has been the case since the get-go. As for the notes, there's been edit-warring over what should and shouldn't be noted from episode to episode. One user wanted to point out the longer length of the Snowden episode, while the other wanted to point out that Helen Mirren did not appear in person in one of them, so the notes were added. They are more of technical nature rather than the segments themselves. Every segment could be expanded in depth, absolutely, but that'd have to be done for every single episode. Example that comes to mind; the creators of the show made mascots, shirts, billboards, running gags, Twitter hashtags and campaigns – none of which are noted. The bit you added was covered in the main segment and as such seemed unnecessary. What I'd suggest doing is noting the whole "Robert Tilton and Oliver "starting" his own Church" story in the International reaction section of the main article, as there is already buzz about it in the media. ProKro (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump

I redirected Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) (following the naming convention of Tobacco (Last Week Tonight)) to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, but posted plenty of sources about the segment at Talk:Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). Feel free to add additional sources or expand the redirect, if interested. I think the segment is obviously notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Change the Segments Format

Considering that each episode is broken down into two main "acts" of smaller segments (week-in-review) and one, large segment (main topic) the "segments" portion of each episode should be listed as thus. 107.77.218.129 (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

How should the main segment be distinguished?

Well since the entire page has been changed again. It seems necessary to start a talk page discussion on this matter. How should the main segment by distinguished? Should it be distinguished at all? Should it be on its own line? Should it be bolded? Should it be italicized? And before anyone says it can't be italicized because of the MOS please note that the MOS can be overridden by local consensus (it happens all the time). Personally, I am for keeping it the way it was before. Main segement italicized. The bold, Main segement(s):, disrupts the flow of the tables in my opinion and looks horrible. --Majora (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I preferred the main topic italicized. With a note, I think it is perfectly clear to what it represents. I agree that the current bolding does not look good and doesn't work. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Looks absolutely horrible and out of place. I'd suggest changing the "Main segment(s)" into italics only or removing the distinction altogether and just name all the segments as they appear. ProKro (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@ProKro: Are you suggesting keeping the "Main segment(s)" words in each line and making them italics? Since nobody has objected to removing the bolding I am going to go ahead and do that. I just want to know what the other people that edit this page think. --Majora (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: To be perfectly honest with you, I'm fine with anything but the bold typeface; really hurts the eyes. The "Main segment(s)" in italics as you said. Feel free to change it as you see fit. Something like this also comes to mind: ProKro (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No. overall	No. in season	Guest(s)	Original air date	U.S. viewers (millions)
1	1	Guest	January 1, 2000 (2000-01-01)	no.
Main segment: Main Segment name Segments: Side Segment name 1, Side Segment name 2, Side Segment name etc.

Oh I like that a lot. I'll go ahead and start working on the changes. --Majora (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Let me know what you think. --Majora (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! I think it looks great now. Neat and legible. ProKro (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Format

So, in July, I changed the format of this page to put the main segment of each episode in its own cell rather than giving this position to the guest stars. I strongly feel that this is a better format to the current one. This is because:

Main segments are obviously the most identifiable aspect of each episode.
Guest stars often play an extremely minor role in an episode e.g. Yo-Yo Ma's appearance which was played about the most miniscule role possible
Guest stars are often difficult to define. Where is the border between guest star and cast member? Should all the models in the images beside him count? They arguably play as big a role as some of the guest stars (again, Yo-Yo Ma).
Episodes frequently include no guest stars. This is a waste of a cell and looks quite tacky in my humble opinion. Having "no guest" appear over and over is pointless.

I believe that the format I suggested or one similar to it would function much better. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

We can have two parameters, one as Main segment and one as Guest(s), leaving the ShortSummary to list the other segments. A little of both. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I do prefer having the main segment in the cell, rather than guest for the reasons you describe. The guests could just be listed in prose form in short summary. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Responses by Israeli journalists to John Oliver

Is there any reason to exclude a footnote mentioning responses to the show that have been reported in WP:RS? Banana Republic (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You could probably find rebuttals from reliable sources for virtually every episode of the show. I don't see what makes this case particularly noteworthy.

Barry Wom (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Any negative response that is covered by WP:RS should probably get noted, as it shows controversy. Banana Republic (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Then it should be noted in the Reaction and influence section in the main article, not in a list of episodes.

Barry Wom (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It can be covered in both articles. In this article as a footnote, and in more details in the main article. Banana Republic (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't need mentioning in both places and it's not appropriate in what should be a simple list of episodes.

Barry Wom (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

When shown, as footnotes, in the list, it can be more easily gathered which episodes were more controversial. Banana Republic (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)