Talk:Harper's Island/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 2 |
List of actors in infobox
The list of actors in the infobox is way too long. Thus, I collapsed that info using Template:Collapse top/Collapse bottom. The effort was made in order to present the same information more compactly, more efficiently. There may be a better method such as Template:Collapsible list.
In any event, my attempt to clean up and make the list less cumbersome has twice been reverted, once by Jwept (talk) and anonymously by someone at 24.144.241.23 (talk), both of which I assume to have been made in good faith. Neither editor provided an edit summary explaining why they were reverting it, despite guidelines to the contrary. They merely made the reversion.
I am going to undo the last reversion of my edit since neither editor has yet to explain why they reverted my edits. Additionally, I am opening up this discussion here to come to a consensus on how to present the actor’s list in the infobox more compactly, more efficiently. Please, do not revert again until a consensus is reached and editors with more experience on television infoboxes have weighed in. Any ideas? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say it's probably being reverted because the current approach looks horrible. That's my opinion anyway. I myself was looking into a way to better display it, because as I stated, I think it currently looks horrible with the way the Starring table is in the collapsed table which... just... yeah. Anyway, three approaches I suggest:
Option A: Collapsible List
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Option B: Main Cast & See also
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Option C: See Below
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Option A comes from you, and is really just a better looking approach to the current method of listing everyone (which I think is overkill for the Infobox). Option C I took from the Smallville page, while Option B is a compromise between listing some of the more important actors (to the show, and not necessarily based on their star power, see Hamlin & Burgi not being included) Those are my thoughts on how it could be approached at least.
- On a side note, why do these Infoboxes look differently on the Talk Page than they do on the Main Page? The "section headers" are colored on both, but the field names have colored boxes behind them here, while they're white on the Main Page. *Scratches Head* I think these look better, with the coloring, myself. *Shrugs* Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 18:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I think your Option A is a brilliant compromise! Why not edit it into the article and see how it is accepted? Or, would you rather wait for consensus to be built up here? Great suggestions! It’s obvious you have a lot of experience working with these infoboxes. I have very little, but knew that there had to be a better way to present the information than merely having a list that makes the infobox so long that it scrolls down several screens. Thanks! Love Option A … — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure if it is acceptable to put a "hide" feature in the infobox. The infobox is supposed to be for quick references about info essential to understanding the article topic. If you have to hide something, then it is either overly detailed or it's unnecessary. WP:MOSTV suggests just linking to a section below if the cast list is too long. You cannot pick and choose which cast member to include, because someone will just come along and choose their own and next thing you know the list is back to the original length. My suggestion is to just do a "See below" option in the infobox. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, taking Bignole’s suggestion and looking at the guidlines provided at WP:MOSTV, Option C is the one that we are supposed to use. If there are no objections, I will cut and past Option C into the article in place of the Option A that is currently there. However, even if there are objections, I think that we are constrained by WP:MOSTV and must use Option C. — SpikeToronto (talk)
- I just went ahead and made the change myself (since it should be done a little differently than how I actually did it in the example.) It was honestly the option I myself was leaning towards, but provided A & B as a compromise. However since you, Spike, seem to agree with Option C now, I think the debate is done since you were the driving force behind it. I do feel like pointing out though that WP:MOSTV states: "If the cast list gets too large you might consider linking to a section of the article instead." It doesn't specifically state that you "have to," though I think it is best that we do actually "consider" (see: go with) that approach. Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I’m cool with any option so long as we don’t have an infobox that spreads down through several screens like we had. The only reason I initiated this discussion was that my earlier attempts at compromise — i.e., keeping all the info entered, but without it spilling down through screen after screen — had been twice reverted. So, I wanted to build a consensus around a workable solution. I know Mizery had preferred C, but I was still hoping to craft a compromise that kept the earlier editor’s work intact, which was why I went with A. But, I think I too prefer C now. Thanks again Mizery for your great work! It certainly impressed techno-peasant me! — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need a collapsible box, or a "see below" message because there are only seven main cast members, which is an appropriate number for the infobox. The other 18 people that are listed there are not main cast members and they are not billed as "starring", so they do not belong. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Ari Schlossberg
Does this man even exist? There are no links to him ANYWHERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I’m sure you were just joking since surely a network wouldn’t credit a non-existent person with creating, writing, and producing a prime-time television show. :) In any event, an online search seems to suggest that Schlossberg is real enough. His entry at the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) indicates that prior to Harper’s he hadn’t worked on much. But, you do have a point: There ain’t much on him out there. A mention of him in a press release at Business Wire from January 27, 2004, stated that he is a native New Yorker who moved to California to write a script for the movie Hide and Seek starring Robert De Niro and Dakota Fanning. The Philadelphia Enquirer, in an article entitled, “H-e-e-r-e's a grim copy of 'The Shining'!” (referring to the movie, Hide and Seek), called Schlossberg a newcomer in 2007: “newcomer” might explain the dearth of information on him. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. It's just, sometimes credit is given to a fictional people. The Rolling Stones wrote many of their own songs under the name "Nanker Phlange", for example. What lead to believe he didn't exist was the fact that he didn't have a Wikipedia article, and therefore I didn't know what else he'd worked on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I can see a songwriter crediting his own work to a fictional person, because it would be set up so that the royalties still flowed to him. But, because a creator credit in a television show generates big residuals for the person named, as well as money from any derivative projects, I cannot imagine that ever happening regarding television credits and especially the creator credit. Thanks for explaining the initial query. — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Harper's Globe
The appearance of John Wakefield in the final episode of Harper's Globe should be added to the list of Harper's Island characters who appeared on Harper's Globe. Knight556 (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Done. --68.80.252.155 (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Death chart again
So we are having this conflict over the death chart. My opinion is that we do not need to specify (on the chart; we can do elsewhere) who survives as it can clearly be understood since they dont die. --Pgecaj (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I'm not even sure about the red— I mean, isnt it the DEATH chart?? so it's supposed to show who dies, rite?? --Pgecaj (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Somebody took out the chart altogether! --Pgecaj (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Pgecaj wholeheartedly. This is the death chart, indicating the killers doesn't belong. And again serves no purpose other that to spoil the ending for people who haven't seen the series. Everyone who has seen it already knows and is extremely unlikely to forget. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just to be clear I wouldn't object to having the killers mentioned in a plot summary. I just object to having them in a chart like this where they are so blatant, that it is impossible to not work out the killers after only glancing at the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the death chart should be a list of character names and beside them a column for the episode number where they die and then an additional column for other notes such as who the killer was.
This would make for a much tidier more compact chart and since it uses actual text (although it could still use colour as a secondary indicator) it would actually be properly a properly accessible design and not horribly broken. It might also be possible to present the same information in a way that is not so difficult for readers to avoid noticing at glance, sometimes i think the table must have been created intentionally by a griefer or a troll. -- Horkana (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Future Episodes
- I noticed the Death Chart has been updated for Episode 4, since it has apparently been seen in Canada but not in the US. Since this is a US show, should this information wait until the episode has been seen in the US? Mr. College (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The show was created for a global audience. The wikipedia page is available to edit by users globally, not just americans. Show some respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrunchyCredits (talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am showing some respect, and I understand Wikipedia is global. However if this show was a British TV show, then it should be appear when it appears in Britain and would use British terminology (colour instead of color, etc.) Since this is an American TV show, it would make sense to wait until America has seen it. Not to mention in the "Death Chart Spoilers" section, it is mentioned "yepp we should avoid people putting information that spoils episodes that have not aired yet even if they are correct" Mr. College (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- It has been discussed several times in the past, and general consensus is to keep spoilers, please see the guideline on spoilers. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Would it really kill people to hold off updating the page for a few hours so as to save folks from spoilers, though? 69.136.13.211 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- It seems like it would kill some people to hold off on the updates. It's impossible to know if people are sincere or just 'griefers' using NO SPOILERS and other aspects of Wikipedia like proposing articles for deletion (easy to delete or block, hard to fix repair improve) just to troll and mess with people. Please see above where I strongly recommending a reformatting of the Death chart table to minimize the spoiler effect by keeping it chronological. Doing so would be more in keeping with the formatting used for charts in elimination reality gameshows like Survivor: Borneo and more pleasant for all readers I think. -- Horkana (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that if you're in the US and you don't want to see spoilers, you need to stay away from Wikipedia between Thursday and Saturday nights. It's unfortunate that CBS decided to move the show to Saturdays but, being as Wikipedia is not an American resource, it needs to have the most up-to-date information on it at all times. 20:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.225.63.10 (talk)
Harper's Island is not an American Show. It's filmed in Canada, with a cast that's much more than 50% Canadian, aired first in Canada (and, I've recently found out, advertised a full week earlier in Canada). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
International broadcast
Since many TV stations are revealing their release dates of the series only now, I think this section needs an update.
For example, in Germany the TV Network "ProSieben" will start airing the series on August 26, 2009 without any further regional titles.
Source: [1]
Allnewgreys (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not news, and Wikipedia is not TV Guide. This whole section would not be found in any encyclopedia. Wikipedia project television neglects to mention this section at all but some articles (Battlestar galactica, the simpsons) do include a short prose section about international television broadcast deals. It is also unusual to go have listing for non-English speaking countries.
- The whole section is largely unreferenced and even those with references are hard to WP:VERIFY if they are still accurate. If the information was of any great WP:NOTABILITY a short bit of prose could be written instead.
- I've deleted the section, something I should have done sooner. -- Horkana (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
See also list (renamed to Similar fiction section)
Should this list really be in the article? Isn't it enough to discuss similarities to specific works of fiction, instead of listed popular, major or significant titles? I think it shows undue preference and prominence to other works which is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. It's enough to discuss the subject matter in terms of its genre, and let the user/reader navigate WP. Right? I am not going to be the deleter (although I did rename the section, which should be repositioned at the very least).--SidP (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
removed section
I've removed the following section:
- Similar fiction
- Literature
- Television
- Film
The reason for doing so is that there is not a single shred of reference for the evaluation of these other programs/films/books as similar to HI. Without connection, the entire section is Origial Research, speculative and unusable. In the hopes that some citation connecting the series to any other program might be eventually found, I've removed the section fromt he article and put it here. It should not return to the article without solid, reliable referencing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harper's Island. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306022454/http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/blogs/guest/notes-of-an-assassin/preview-to-a-kill.php to http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/blogs/guest/notes-of-an-assassin/preview-to-a-kill.php
- Added archive https://www.heavytrend.com
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 12:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)