Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:47, 7 April 2015

Archives

2009–10 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015

Talk page policyI prefer to keep conversations on one talk page. So, If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there. If you leave a message on my talk page, I will respond here. Thank you.

24 Solitary

I noticed you changed a lot of work I done on the 24: Live Another Day page removing about 80% of the information. As it stands there is no plot summary, character discription or info on Almeida's fate. So may I just ask why you removed all of this.JohnGormleyJG (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Like the others said, it was poorly written and contained an unacceptable source (a fansite). I cleaned up the entry and added a proper reference. I'll try and readd a summary from what you wrote soon. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Americans (season 3)

Hey, I don't know if youv'e seen, but Zap2it currently has an episode listed as 14 and airing Tuesday, April 21, 2015, called "March 8, 1983"; given that the date is a day before the season finale/13th episode is scheduled to air... What's your take on it? LLArrow (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that for awhile, but hesitated on adding it just in case. I'm going to assume it's an error on their part, as there is no episode 14, and for whatever reason (on my end) I can't see the air dates, it always just says the current time and date as the air dates (weird). I say, wait until it's corrected on there end, and then add it, as "March 8, 1983" is definitely the title (see Evil empire). Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I to have the same issue with seeing current time and date. I've found TV by the Numbers guide to be more reliable. Thanks and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Forget (The Walking Dead)

Why is this getting cut out? This seems pretty obvious to me and is quite sharp writing that makes it's point so deftly that it should get a gold star. Why an 'A' and not any other letter in the alphabet?

"This 'A' may allude to the Scarlet Letter (from the book of the same name and a writers room would have known this) and was the mark of infidelity. This is accompanied by the longing pop song Spicks and Specks by BeeGees which contains lyrics the likes of:

"Where is the sun...That shone on my head...Where is the light...And where are the friends..I could meet. Where are the girls I left far behind. All of my life I call yesterday..Of my life 've gone away"

As Rick presses his forhead against the wall and a zombie is on the other side the viewer is left with the impression that what Rick desires and loves is life outside the compound" and living within the walls is a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaddonpearson (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It reads as original research and viewer interpretation, which is not what a plot summary should be. Feel free to find a reliable source that confirms it and it could be added to a "Production and writing" section regarding the episode. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Better Call Saul

Why did you change the genres? Seemed pretty suitable and consistent with reviews. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 08:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

http://m.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watching/better-call-saul-creators-on-the-purposely-sh-ty-opening-title-sequence/3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikiFring (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Halt and Catch Fire

Why'd you undo the Season 2 info I made to "Halt and Catch Fire (TV Series)"? That took me a long time and it was sourced from imdb.com, which is as official as it gets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muldfeld (talk • contribs) 06:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, IMDB is far and away from "official as it gets". "Official" would be AMC, no on else. IMDB is user-generated content and is never used a source for upcoming information regarding TV episodes. WP:CITEIMDB. I appreciate the effort, but IMDB as a source is not verifiable, thus cannot be used. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought the writers themselves generate it. Thanks for explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muldfeld (talk • contribs) 06:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Silverpool

What do you recommend as a source? It's all over Google, as a given. You don't need a source to say the sky is blue. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Anything that is constitutes a reliable source. Without it, it's still uncited original research. You've been reverted by several different editors about this, so it's your job to verify the content (WP:PROVEIT). And, the fact that the sky is blue is actually cited within the article. If i09 counts as a reliable source, you could use this and I would also link to the Blackwater article for context. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I was reverted by TWO, unless you count two as "several". And I had asked the first reverted about it, but he ignored my question. My argument is based on Misplaced Pages:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Thank you for doing research. I merely asked what's a valid source. It's not like the New York Times is likely to comment on it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015 - Better Call Saul

You reverted an edit of mine that you state was in the past. It is obviously in the past as this is a prequel to Breaking Bad but it occurs after the current events of Better Call Saul (2002). I just rewatched that very scene on Netflix and he states his name as Saul. Currently in Better Call Saul he has not changed his name yet hence this is in the future. Also in your edit summary you said it's seems you're not paying attention enough. Which strikes to me as very rude and I wouldn't let anyone talk to me like that especially I fixed an edit summary which you complained about for episode 3. JohnGormleyJG (✉) 21:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it is a flashback. Look at the synopsis on the AMC website. Beside that fact, can't you tell that Jimmy looks clearly younger? The scene is meant to set-up Jimmy's billboard scheme later in the episode. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Then explain to me why he said his name was Saul. I am just going off what is in the episode not the website. Also explain why you were being very rude to me accross the edit summary see WP:BULLY JohnGormleyJG (✉) 22:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The nickname obviously came from somewhere, I'm going to assume that scene is the origin of the name. I'll provide you with this link, again confirming it's a flashback along with the use of "Saul Goodman". If you're going to outright change something from correct to incorrect (and then revert my correction) based on your lack of understanding of something you've seen, then you should be called out for it. Me stating "it's seems you're not paying attention enough" is merely me stating a fact, as clearly you were not as you couldn't grasp the scene was a flashback. Accept you made a mistake, and move on. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Third party comment: Drovethrughosts is right, Jimmy calls himself Saul as a joke/scam - it's not written on his driver's license or anything. This is clearly a flashback, and the AMC website is further proof to that. As for bullying, there was none as far as I can see - pointing out that you were not paying enough attention may be blunt, but not rude and certainly does not amount to bullying. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wings Ratings

In response to your comments on the Wings episodes page, I do agree that they need to cited. This is a very tedious process though, and could take a while to accomplish. All of these numbers came from http://tvaholics.blogspot.com. If you're not familiar with this website; it was used to cite ratings for shows such as Seinfeld, Frasier, and Beverly Hills, 90210 (the one I've been working on). All of the sources for the Wings episodes can be found in the references on these pages. If you want, you are more than welcome to copy them over yourself, or if you'd like, I could do it. If I do it, it could take a couple weeks, as there are 172 episodes, and I don't have unlimited time. Thank you! Rswallis10 (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It may be tedious, but needs to be done (WP:BURDEN). I would suggest, in the future, to only add ratings with a source, otherwise they appear to be made-up (how would anyone know without references?). I added references for the Six Feet Under article (because it's on my watchlist and I'm a fan), but have no interest in the Wings article, sorry. I actually am familiar with that website, I used it for List of Twin Peaks episodes. As for adding the references, maybe do a season a day, once you have the citation format, it's really all just copying and pasting different urls and titles for the refs. Happy editing. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll see if I can at least get season 1 done by the end of today, if not, then by tomorrow. The only viewership numbers I ever added to Wings was in season 8, and I didn't add the references because none of the other ones had references. I see now that this was a mistake, so I'll go back and add the refs for all the episodes. If you see any other pages like this, let me know, I like adding the viewer numbers. Thanks! Rswallis10 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Season 1 and 2 sourced. Finish more tomorrow. Rswallis10 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Your recent editing history at The Walking Dead (TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Liz 01:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

GoT production codes

Are you changing all of the episode articles based upon cited information that Game of Thrones does not have production codes? If so, it would be great if you could link that source her, so as to prevent a massive revert of your production code removals. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

GOT has no production codes, as none of the HBO series do. Production codes are featured in the end credits, and none appear for GOT. "101", "102", etc. are not production codes, merely episode number designations and are usually how cast and crew refer to episodes. That's all they are. 101 could be a production number, but not an actual code, and those are only helpful when episodes sometimes air out of production order (for example, List of Community episodes or List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes. Hopefully you understand. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

So, you are saying that you do not have a reference that says the series has no production codes? You know that we cannot use your reasoning as a reference. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Referencing goes both ways. Where's a cite that states it does? Production codes are in the end credits for TV series which have them (not all TV series have them), and GOT features no production codes at the end of their episodes. Pretty simple. "401" is not a production code, it's an episode number designation (401 = season 4, episode 1). Production codes, for example, are things like "9AKY01" (for Bones, season 9, episode 1, a Fox-produced style production code) or "3J5401" (for Person of Interest, season 4, episode 1, a WB-produced style production code). Production code number features other examples of code formats. It's also why "production code" is not a column in the actual episode tables because there is no production codes. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Walking Dead (season 6)

Why was it reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanguineTWD (talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for a season 6 article at the moment, because there's no content for it. We don't know anything about the season and it's more than six months away. It'll be created once there's information regarding the cast, production, filming, episodes, etc. What you did here was completely incorrect and malformed, you copy-and-pasted season 5 information; this is now how it's done. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Mad Men

Why did you revert my edits. Several characters who appeared in only one or two episodes, depending on what season they're in, counts as guest star.02:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)72.64.207.76 (talk)

It's an unnecessary formatting change, that's the way the articles have always been. Plus, it's just confusing; you have characters who are in two episodes, but listed under guest stars; then there's characters who are in one episode, yet listed under recurring. There seems to be no basis for distinction between the two. They all are recurring characters because they've appeared multiple times throughout the series. It's standard formatting across most season articles. Drovethrughosts (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to fix everything especially adding in missing guest stars for each season.72.64.207.76 (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You didn't fix "everything" nor did you add any cast members, all you did was create a "guest stars" section and moved certain actors to it. It's perfectly fine the way it is; don't change formatting for no reason. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate

Hi DTG, I appreciate your comments re: Better Call Saul. For the record, I opened a discussion at Talk:Better Call Saul about the overly-wordy synopses a few days ago and invited Peace to participate. As a minor point, the 200-500 word range is for standalone episode articles that contain plot summaries (Example: Confirmed Dead). For tabular "list of episodes" articles the range is 100-200 words and the example given is Smallville (season 1). Anyhow, thanks again, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I commented on his talk page about the word range. I personally do think up to 300 (or at least around 250) is fine. However, after seeing his uncivil comments on the talk pages (as well as completely removing/editing comments by other editors), I have no desire to try and converse with this user anymore, as he clearly does not get it regarding how to write summaries on here, and has continually readded his over-embellished and over-detailed summaries to the articles. If he continues to be disruptive or make anymore uncivil comments, he should be reported. Also, by looking at this user's talk page, he does not seem very cooperative or very pleasant to deal with. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Can't argue with the last part. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Empire Live+SD Ratings

You seem like a reasonable person (unlike many on Misplaced Pages), so I'm going to explain my reasoning behind the Live+SD Ratings table on the Empire episodes page. If you look at shows like Modern Family (season 6) and Scandal (season 4), they both have a Live+7 table as well as a Live+SD table, because they each serve different purposes. The Live+SD table holds the 18-49 demographic ratings, as well as the weekly 18-49 rank, and viewership rank, which cannot be found on the Live+7 table. The Live+SD table needs to be on the same page as the episode table, because the citations for the 18-49 demo rating are the same citations as the viewership numbers from the episode table. I do not like the fact that the 2 tables are on two different pages, but whenever a season 1 page is made, they can be moved together on the same page. Feel free to comment your thoughts on the matter. Thanks for your time. Rswallis10 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't even realize they were different tables. You can revert me on that, if you wish, as I have no stake in that article. But yes, if a season article is created, both tables would be moved to the season article and then be removed from the previous articles. I do, however, believe all these ratings statistics are pretty excessive and exhaustive (WP:NOTSTATS), but again, I have no stake in that article. Keep up the great work. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not "uncommon" Google it, there is a Misplaced Pages page for Ne...again, a child trying to teach the adult SIGH Peace is contagious (talk)