Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Also Starring

The character table has the 5 characters promoted to series regulars as "also starring", but the sources only say they are series regulars and not how they will be credited (opening credits or not like the others "also starring", or a combination). I think its speculation to say also starring and maybe the box should be blank with just the source to indicate they have been promoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.21.133.106 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

POV article about a series that has clearly jumped the shark

This article is all for adding very positive things about a show which in reality is pushing its post-apocalyptic premise to its limit. Irrespective of the fictional attributes i.e. the dead walking, in an attempt to keep the series positively brimming with emotions the producers have opted out of a sensible plot. Instead the characters have almost become like the old one-hour TV shows (where what ever happened a week ago is never referenced again) where they have dilemma moments every week but nothing is learned from them. Only the audience seems to gain any real knowledge of the fictional universe.

I agree the first series was good. But the second series just went leftfield with intelligent story telling. Why on earth are there just so many positive reception quotes? Are all reviewers just plain stupid or easily pleased? Or do the people who write this page only interested in telling it how they like it? For instance, the series writers clearly do not know how continuity works or how characters are supposed to grow. The series is just a random selection of heartbreaking vignettes with no real purpose other than to make the characters suffer. In doing so the things that occur in the "show universe" are adapted to what the series producers demand rather than being logical interactions/outcomes drawn from the parameters of the fictional world. Like my point earlier, the show's characters just behave like they have goldfish memories, however when it comes to emotion there is bags of that. I would think that in a world such as this people would become harder mentally and less hysterical!

Series 2 has clearly jumped the shark for dramatic effect, so why all the good reviews? Many of the characters have a "electric heater by the bath" mentality. By that I mean, they exist in a zombie-filled world, where hundreds could arrive at any moment, but the writers think the audience won't go hang on, it's clearly foolish to repeatedly have heart-to-hearts scenes on illuminated veranda at night, or leave windows and doors unboarded. Or worse still go into woods for a nighttime wander (with torches) when at any time hundreds of flesh-eating creatures could potentially swarm out of nowhere. The audience has learned/knows that hordes of them are out there, but the characters haven't! Come on this isn't Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

The creators of this show, in their attempt to wring out every last bit of angst out of each episodes, have failed to grasp the basic skill of any screen production: the best story is a naturally developed one. Regardless of whether it's fantasy or not, the need for "dramatic effect" has superseded having respect for viewers' intelligence. I am sure they'll have a scene when Grimes and his wife have time to have a romantic home-cooked dinner together, lights on, followed by an evening cuddle on the porch!!! Forget the walking dead, what zombies?

Tragically I see there is going to be a third series. No doubt in keeping with this article only more rave reviews will be allowed. But not everyone, people like me, want to follow a series where characters are always in a permanently highly-charged need for emotional outpourings. We want proper, real people, and real situations. Check out the production on The Road for a heads up on a logical, unpleasant apocalyptic reality, compared to this series which has descended into the The Waltons with the living dead. I am sure there are other who share these misgivings so why are they not reflected in this article? Does Wikipedia actually do what an encyclopedia should do and critically analyse material? 109.158.250.0 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

First: this is not your blog, so take any of your rants regarding the show itself to somewhere like the IMDb boards. Second: if you want negative reviews to be presented in the article, then go ahead and find those reviews from reliable sources and add them yourself. No one is stopping you or has removed any negative criticisms about the show from the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

1) WP:NOTOPINION 2) as for lack of nasty reviews,actually the longest quotes in the Reception section are from negative reviews. So I don't see your point. And no, Wikipedia explicitly DOES NOT critically analyse material, that would be WP:SYN. It would lead to even more edit wars than there are now, as everyone vied to get their "misgivings" or otherwise into an article. It's hard enough -- often impossible -- to get agreement on facts, let alone opinions. Every show has fans and every show has people who think it's a steaming pile. Barsoomian (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I always try to balance the good reviews with the bad in series articles, even if one side or the other is heavy-handed. But I agree with Drovethrughosts. If you want something added, do it yourself. Keep in mind it must be reliable material and not Joe Nobody's "blog". — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit confused sorry I am new, how is joe somebody's blog any more reliable than joe nobodies blog, they are both opinion. Taien101 (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Judith

Shouldn't Judith be included in the table of recurring characters? She has appeared in a fair number of episodes and I believe she should be considered a recurring character. She may not make any substantial contribution to the plot, but she is a recurring character nevertheless. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 22:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say personally say no, given she isn't notable or important character–just a infant character with no dialog or storylines who isn't portrayed by actual actresses, but simply several different sets of young twins. Only notable characters who are important to the plot should be listed. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there is ambiguity in what exactly constitutes a "notable" or "important" character or an "actual" actress. Technically, any person who portrays a character in a film, TV show, etc. is a actor/actress. The main and recurring subsections of the cast and characters section are supposed to list all the main and recurring characters, and I think these lists should be comprehensive. This means including Judith as a recurring character. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 22:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think an infant with no dialog or storyline and who is portrayed by infant children who receive no acting credit is "ambiguous" in establishing if they're a notable character. The recurring character list in the main article isn't suppose list every single recurring character, or it'd become bloated way too fast; it includes the main and notable ones. That's what this article, List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters, is for, where Judith is listed. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Judith's episode count greatly exceeds that of a handful of the recurring characters currently in the table. In a few instances, she appears in more episodes than characters credited as "main" (i.e. Dale and Merle). There are some currently listed recurring characters who don't have much more (and arguably even less) of a role than Judith does. If those characters are included, I don't see why Judith shouldn't be. As for the story, she may not have any dialogue, but I think that enough of the story revolves around her for her to be worthy of inclusion in the list. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 00:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Parodies

SQGibbon asked for documentation regarding the parodies section. I was in the process of doing that when he deleted the section. There was nothing that I see in violation of wiki rules, so it would have been nice to discuss this on this talk page before doing that. I have already provided documentation from the Walking Dead Press Conference Breakfast (2013) in which the "La-Bibbida-Bibba-Dum" parody/bad lip reading was presented. That will, at least, provide independent documentation/verification about this particular parody. I hope that answers SQGibbon's concerns. I'll see if I can find more support for any of the others. If others want to add more documentation of the parodies and bad lip reading, that's great. But I don't think it's crucial. We're not talking about a BLP issue here. PAGauden (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Drovethrughosts now deleted the section based on his/her opinion that it's not notable. This is obviously very subjective - according to whom? If the material is accurate and not in violation of wiki-policies as in something like a BLP, then I don't follow the need to be this discriminating. Wikipedia itself has as a rule, "ignore all the rules". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means While there are guidelines that should certainly be respected, this objection from drovethrughosts seems overly subjective and purist to me. No offense. The question asked at "ignore all the rules" is, will the information provided improve the entry? I suspect many people will find this section interesting and worth noting and I see no guidelines that it violates. So why not include it? PAGauden (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

SQGibbon's rational in his first revert, "Do you have any independent and reliable sources that discuss these parodies in order to establish notability?" is exactly why it has been removed. They are not notable in any way because the references being used are from the parody makers themselves (YouTube or other videos sites). How are these notable, are they somehow being discussed by reliable third-party sources in any way? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for random YouTube videos. I, myself, could upload a parody, that doesn't make it notable for Wikipedia. It's being removed per WP:N. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Drovethrughosts, you write, "I, myself, could upload a parody, that doesn't make it notable for Wikipedia. It's being removed per WP:N" I think you missed this in the section you cited: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article PAGauden (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a kind of shortcut method of talking about these issues that gets us to the same point. Every claim in Wikipedia needs to be defensible by a reliable source (preferably secondary). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts (like lists of trivia). Right now your parody section does not meet either of these criteria. Saying that the information is not "Wikipedia notable" is just shorthand method of stating all that (especially in the limited space allowed in edit summaries). Notice we are not asking for two reliable secondary sources to discuss the parodies, just one. SQGibbon (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You cited a specific policy page, SQGibbon: WP:N. As the page you cited contradicts what you stated, it would be helpful if you could at least acknowledge that. What support do you have for your use of WP:N as a "shortcut method"? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if you're going to support completely deleting all of my material, it would be helpful if you could give me something more than your personal say-so. I'm sure you can understand that. Also, as you note, sources are not absolutely required to be secondary. As such, it's fine to request a secondary source, but not having one does not disqualify the material in an of itself, as per wiki rules. Primary sources are allowed in some instances. And what I posted was not an "indiscriminate collection of facts". It was relevant to the article and not data dumping.PAGauden (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I did acknowledge that and explained what I meant and why I wrote it the way I did. SQGibbon (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PAGauden, It appears you have good intentions here, but there are a few points to consider. First, you should review WP:NOT, specifically the section WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not "an indiscriminate collection of information". Even when information on a topic is verifiable, it doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be included on Wikipedia. The information needs to be "significant" to the topic, and usually having a lot of coverage in independent sources will help that justification. Here, you are providing the primary sources of the information. However, to justify significant coverage, there should be many secondary sources that have reported on this information (See WP:PSTS for help understanding the difference). There are other issues that would need addressed, but this is the primary concern at this point. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Goneln60. But I just looked at WP:INDISCRIMINATE and I don't agree that it applies to what I included. WP:INDISCRIMINATE deals with just dumping information like statistics, data bases and the like. What I added is not like that at all. In regard to primary sources, I'm certainly aware of the general practice, but after refreshing my memory here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources), I don't see that there's a problem. As it states, "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care...A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I think what I wrote complies with that. If not, it can certainly be made to do so without the need to completely deleting it, imo. PAGauden (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Statistics, logs, and databases are just examples, and these do not make up an exhaustive list. I think the term "indiscriminate" does apply, because the proposed information lacks significance; it's trivial. In order to be considered something more, it needs to have been reported in a secondary source. It is true that primary sources are generally acceptable, but you are being challenged on the information's significance to the topic, and only secondary sources will help you in that regard. Also if you look at the Verifiability policy, it states that "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". That section elaborates further:

"While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."

We are in the process of debating its inclusion, but the proposal needs consensus at this point. The editors that have joined this discussion so far do not believe it improves the article, though secondary sources that show significant coverage may sway that opinion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The term "trivial" keeps appearing in criticism of what I posted. Can you show me something in wiki rules defining what "trivial" means in this context and that anything deemed "trivial" by that standard should be promptly and completely deleted? We're talking about tv show here about zombies. Much as I enjoy it, can we get much more trivial than that? To completely disallow material about parodies of a tv show about zombies on grounds of triviality seems unreasonable to me. That said, I'll see if I can find any secondary sourcing. PAGauden (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that one editor can determine what is trivial and what is not. However, consensus on the article's talk page can, which is consistent with the policies and guidelines I've mentioned above. We are adhering to that by having this discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

But can you show me where wiki rules even say that something like what I posted should be summarily and immediately deleted if it is deemed trivial? Where is that? And again, it seems to me that the presumption of acceptability should hold. The onus should be on others to prove that something is unacceptable, not for me to prove that what I added is somehow "non-trivial" enough. This approach that is being taken here is basically guilty until proven innocent. It doesn't seem reasonable to me, and certainly not in the spirit of Wikipedia enunciated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means PAGauden (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand the frustration and how it may seem unreasonable. It all boils down to consensus. An editor has just as much of a right to edit an article as another does to undo that edit. When this happens and the editor who was reverted doesn't agree, the best course of action is to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page (like we're doing now). All parties involved state their case, and then a consensus can form based on the arguments presented. At this point, nothing has been determined yet. The consensus is still forming. You could rest your case based on what you've presented so far, and it could be enough to sway consensus in your favor. This process does not assume guilt or innocence, right or wrong; it's just the way disputes are handled in the most effective manner. Even when consensus is formed against you, there are other avenues of escalation. Also, consensus can change, so the subject can always be revisited at another time (read more at WP:CON and WP:DR).

Bottom line is don't let this discourage you from participating at this site. It's a process we've all gone through at some point. Most helpful edits won't be challenged. Besides, with all the articles on Wikipedia that need attention, there are far more productive things we could all be spending our time on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll try to address your points here.

On Wikipedia we really don't like lists of trivia. Oftentimes a listing of parodies (like the "In popular culture" sections you'll see in many articles) is just that. Since this is an encyclopedia what we really want is a discussion from a reliable source about the significance of the subject being used by others (like your parodies). That these things happen is trivia. That it says something about the subject can be interesting but we need a reliable source to discuss it.

Wikipedia has a definition for notability which you can read here and is what Drovethrughosts was referring to. Just because something is true does not mean we need to include it in Wikipedia. We want to include information that independent reliable sources think is worth noting.

It's common for an edit to be reverted even when an editor claims afterward that they were still working on it. As you can imagine we cannot just wait around forever for an editor to finish adding citations and commentary and so on. Instead you can create a sandbox in your user account and get everything ready and then copy it over into the article. The onus is on you to provide proper citations when you make an edit, it's not on us to wait just in case you add those citations later.

Also, check out WP:BRD which basically says after making an edit and then being reverted the next step is to discuss the issue. Reverting me like you did puts you into edit warring territory which is not where any of us wants to be. SQGibbon (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I just want to point out that WP:N is a guideline concerning article creation not article content, so technically it doesn't apply here. But the other points made certainly do. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

According to what I'm reading at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, that's not quite true, SQGIbbon. We don't "need" a secondary source, as though it is absolutely required. From my experience and from what I am reading, it should be sought, certainly, but primary sources are allowable. As I wrote noted above, the policy states, "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care...A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I think what I wrote complies with that. If not, it can certainly be made to do so without the need to completely delete it, imo. PAGauden (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

And as I noted to Drovethrughosts, SQGibbon, "I think you missed this in the section you cited: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article" PAGauden (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

SQGibbon writes, "we cannot just wait around forever for an editor to finish adding citations and commentary and so on" Forever? We're talking about minutes here, guys. Is what I posted so detrimental and serious that it simply had to be immediately deleted? Really? Again, we're not talking about a BLP issue here. That doesn't seem reasonable. PAGauden (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

[Responding to SQGibbon on reverting] But you first reverted my edit, completely deleting it. How is it not incumbent upon you to use the talk page to discuss something that drastic with me (completely deleting what I've added), but it is incumbent upon me to discuss it on the talk page with you if I just want to restore what I wrote and you deleted? That doesn't make much sense to me - seems a double standard. PAGauden (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You made unsourced edits that were trivial and made the article worse. Deleting was appropriate. There does not need to be a discussion when an edit has made the article worse. Also, see WP:BRD, you made a bold edit, I reverted, the next step is to discuss. This happens every day everywhere on Wikipedia is normal procedure. I understand that new editors do not understand all the subtleties and ins'n'outs of editing but please reserve your judgements against others' actions until you actually understand what is going on. SQGibbon (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Goneln60, here are some secondary sources on spoofs/parodies. 1) Here's the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/walking-dead-parody/, 2) More from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shira-lazar/the-best-walking-dead-par_b_2696666.html 3) Here's viralviralvideos.com and it mentions the "bad lip reading" group and The Walking Dead, giving a video of theirs to watch: http://www.viralviralvideos.com/2013/05/03/the-walking-dead-bad-lip-reading-spoof/ 3) Here's Dailypicksandflicks.com - dealing with an SNL parody of The Walking Dead: http://dailypicksandflicks.com/2013/03/03/snl-the-walking-dead-video/ 4) Here's laughingsquid.com - again the "bad lip reading" group and The Walking Dead.: http://laughingsquid.com/a-bad-lip-reading-parody-of-the-walking-dead/, 5) dailymail.com: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2125996/Mad-Men-meets-Walking-Dead-Hilarious-spoof-sees-Don-Draper-ad-agency-invaded-zombies.html, 6) Today.com: http://www.today.com/entertainment/saturday-night-live-spoofs-walking-dead-1C8659983

Do you still think that the parodies/spoofs are trivial and not documented by secondary sources, or is this sufficient in your opinion? PAGauden (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to put the section back up with the new sourcing. Thank you for your input. PAGauden (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please don't. Give us a chance to go through your sources and respond to your other comments. Consensus-building takes time. On something like this it might be at least a week. I have other things I have to attend to now but the first source of yours I looked at did not provide any useful context for the act of creating parodies of the Walking Dead, it only mentioned one that now exists. We're looking for a discussion from a secondary reliable source (in this case a primary source will not work) talking about why these parodies exist, what they say about culture at large (TV, society, humor, etc, whatever), how people respond to them and so on. Proving that they exist with secondary sources is not at all what we're talking about. SQGibbon (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I stated above, let's wait to see what the consensus is. We already know this is a topic of debate, so we should wait for a resolution at this point instead of rushing things. The sources you posted appear to be examples of parodies, but this isn't what's being sought. Where is the editorial oversight? Are these just links posted on blogs at secondary sources? The request from the other editors and myself is that we have secondary reliable sources that have written about the parodies, acknowledging their significance to the subject. "Existing" at this point is not enough to justify its inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SQGibbon above. We need time to look at the sources. At first glance, some do not provide any commentary, but the 2nd, 5th and 6th may have some potential as valid sources. The next steps would be to determine if these are enough to show significance and whether or not the information improves the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"The sources you posted appear to be examples of parodies" - No, what I posted were not actual parodies, but rather, articles that discuss and refer to those parodies and spoofs of The Walking Dead. Are you saying now that it's not enough that I've provided multiple secondary sources - including the Huffington Post, Daily Mail, and Today.com that have noted and commented about the parodies and spoofs of The Walking Dead? I still need more information and substance to justify noting the existence of the parodies and spoofs in this article? These parodies and spoofs have appeared on shows that are more important and influential than the show itself (for example, Saturday Night Live). Are you saying that I have to provide documentation and proof of the societal importance of spoofs and parodies? That's what it sounds like SQGibbon is claiming and it seems unreasonable. Can someone provide proof of that claim from wiki rules? At one point, I was asked if I could bring forward a single secondary source that could be cited about any of the parodies. I've brought forth many. And that's still not enough? With all due respect, we're not talking about an article on nuclear fusion or a briefing on terrorism for the Joint Chiefs here. We're writing about a tv show about zombies. Again, no offense intended, but this concern about meeting the standard of non-triviliality and "showing significance" seems excessive to me. I ask this genuinely, and not to antagonize anyone, but is it that you (speaking in the plural here, not just one individual editor) really like the show and find the parodies and spoofs insulting? If so, it's just the opposite. SNL, Mad and Bad Lip Reading etc. only do parodies and spoofs of things that are popular and/or notable. Spoofs, like dinner "roasts" of celebrities, are actually a form of sincere flattery. Here's an article at Salon about that: http://open.salon.com/blog/kikstad/2012/06/30/parodies_are_the_sincerest_form_of_flattery PAGauden (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The section is looking pretty okay right now, I'm not sure how the others will feel about it. But, I just cleaned it up, mainly fixing the references and removing the bad ones (the ones to random videos sites like viralvidoes.com and the others), but maintained the notable and acceptable refs such The Huffington Post. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll take a look at your edits. Thanks. PAGauden (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I like your edits, Drovethrughosts. Nicely done. Thank you. PAGauden (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

PAGauden, You are overthinking the criticism here. It's not that complex. Most of the links you posted go into very little detail, if any, about the parodies themselves, why they exist, what importance they have to the fans of the show, etc., all of which would help show its significance to the subject. The fact that they exist is not enough on its own to warrant inclusion. Remember, this is about whether or not it improves the article. A good litmus test is to ask yourself whether or not a visitor reading the article would be missing out or have a harder time learning about the topic if the proposed addition was left out? If it has very little value as an encyclopedic entry, then it probably doesn't belong. I think it's trivial and a neat "Did you know?" kinda thing, but I don't think it's crucial to the article and if another editor still feels that way, I wouldn't get in the way of its removal. I've spoken my peace. I'll let others weigh in. In the meantime, I've made a few more touch-ups to the section you rushed back into the article, which really should have waited until this conversation was finished. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Goneln60, apparently it is that complex. Reasonable people are disagreeing about what will improve the article and what is worthy of note. It's not a black and white issue, but rather, a matter of interpretation. Drovethrughosts (above), one of the harshest initial critics of this addition, seems to be on board with it now. IMO, a few here are being overly restrictive and rigid, especially in relation to an entry dealing with something like a fictional tv show. I think Drovethrughosts (above) made some reasonable suggestions without going so far as to completely remove the section; his changes improved the section, imo. In regard to the triviality, you and I disagree somewhat because I apparently view parodies and spoofs as more significant than you do. Parodies, spoofs and satires are significant societal reflection on matters ranging from politics to entertainment. They have a long and storied history in our country. I provided one source from Salon.com about that (above), but I can provide more if it might help you to see the significance of such social commentary. Literally dozens of such spoofs have been made of The Walking Dead. That alone conveys something about the popularity and social impact of the show. Were it not so popular, so many people would not bother with the effort to parody, satirize, and spoof it. Actually, one of the sources I initially cited alluded to that dynamic.

In regard to your criticism about "rushing" material back into the article, I would note that you had no criticism for the editor who took the drastic and rash step of completely deleting my addition rather than talking about it or attempting at all to improve it. I would also note that several of us were engaged in a rather rapid-fire back and forth. When no one objected to what I brought forth, it seemed to me that was a sign that no one had a serious objection. As such, I thought I would give it a best effort so everyone could see what I had in mind, not as some kind of disrespect. I still don't see the problem, it can be easily edited (which you and Drovethrughosts have both done). Also, a previous editor (SQGibbon) in this section complained about "waiting around forever" for me when I was trying to improve what I initially added to the article and that was literally a matter of a minute or so. So, it seems that what is a "rush" to one, is "forever" to another. Regardless, it seems that this section is being improved in a constructive way rather than rushing to find reasons to completely delete it as happened in the beginning. This extreme worry and rush to delete material doesn't seem in the true spirit of Wikipedia to me. Thank you for your help in that regard. PAGauden (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Goneln60, I think the edits you and Droverthrughosts have made look very good. I think this section is shaping up as a nice addition to the article. Thank you for your help and guidance. PAGauden (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to attack other editors at least get it right "Also, a previous editor (SQGibbon) in this section complained about 'waiting around forever for me when I was trying to improve what I initially added to the article and that was literally a matter of a minute or so." In no way at all did I complain about waiting around forever, what I said is that we cannot wait around forever just in case someone adds the citations that they should have added in the first place. That's a huge difference. No one can possibly predict what you are thinking and are intending to do with respect to your future edits. The onus is on you to provide those citations when you make your edits in the first place.

Anyway, I do not see how any of the initial reservations to these additions have been addressed. There is nothing in the "parodies" section that tell us why it matters that these parodies were made or what they say about the show or the show's relation to culture at large other than the parodies exist. If the sources have this kind of information then it needs to be included in the prose, otherwise what we still have is a meaningless list of trivia that has no place in an encyclopedia (but is more appropriate for fan-sites and Wikia). SQGibbon (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

SQGibbon writes, "In no way at all did I complain about waiting around forever, what I said is that we cannot wait around forever just in case someone adds the citations that they should have added in the first place. That's a huge difference." The point I was trying to make is that what you described as "waiting around forever" was, in fact, in this specific case, a matter of a few minutes. The point I made related to Gneln60's criticism that I was in a rush to put some of what I originally wrote back up in the article. I pointed out that you are apparently in such a rush to make sure this article contains nothing you do not completely approve of that a mere seven minutes after I made my first edit, you took the drastic action of completely deleting it rather than making any effort at all to work constructively with it or writing to me in the Talk section here first.

While it would no doubt have been ideal had I added all the best citations right off the bat and come in with a perfectly edited entire section, I think your initial and subsequent responses to my less than perfect initial edit were disproportionate and not in the spirit of wikipedia as enunciated here:

You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry...If we disagree with your changes, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do. So don't worry. Be bold, and enjoy helping to build this free encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means

Not everyone has the time to spend constantly monitoring tv articles on wikipedia and becoming a fully formed expert (whatever that means, because on numerous occasions I've seen highly seasoned wikipedia "experts" completely disagree on the application and interpretation of rules, which are really more like guidelines). While I'm no doubt less than perfect, I've seen far worse offerings treated with far greater open-ness, fair-mindedness, balance, charity and good will by other seasoned editors. I don't think that's asking too much.

In regard to the significance of the parodies/spoofs/satires, we don't agree with each other. I think I've already spent enough time and space explaining my views to Goneln60 above on this point. If you are unconvinced, then you are unconvinced. That's okay. But I don't want to repeat the whole thing. No offense. PAGauden (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The word "zombie"

Since in the show the word "zombie" is never spoken, they should be referred to primarily as "walkers". But it has to be mentioned, so I put this in the lede:

The series stars Andrew Lincoln as Sheriff's Deputy Rick Grimes who wakes up after being in a coma to find the world dominated by "walkers", resembling the zombies of George A. Romero's horror movies. He sets out to find his family and other survivors along the way.

It may seem a bit longwinded, but if you do use the word "zombie", then you have to clarify that it refers to Romero zombies, not the original Voodoo zombies, as the latter are still the primary meaning of the word, as indicated by the article at the link. Barsoomian (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I just changed this, as explained in the edit summary. Your worry about the need to explain has been solved already since the link does not go to Zombie, it goes to Zombie (fictional). 99.192.92.204 (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No, there is still at least one zombie link in the article that leads to the Vodou zombie article. Somebody with access needs to fix that because the article is locked. Don't sit there acting smug and explaining, double-check your work. 65.60.219.51 (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

i think i got it. ≈Sensorsweep (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Character billing

I'm a little confused about this. Wasn't T-Dog promoted to "Also Starring" after Season 1? He also had an official character portrait in Season 3, so wasn't he considered to be a main character? I know Amy and Sophia also had character portraits, but I don't think they were billed as "Also Starring". --SnowyNight1234 (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Syndication

I've undone this edit and re-added the syndication information added here . The information seems relevant enough and is properly supported by two sources, so I am not sure why it was removed in the first place— the edit sum that was left was simply "eh?" which does not really help explain anything at all. It's true that the sources were bare urls, which potentially can lead to link rot, but that does not mean they are not reliable per WP:RS and it is something that can easily be fixed. I am sure the original adding of the information and its subsequent removal were both done in good faith, but unless there are sound policy/guideline reasons for it being deleted, I think this information should remain. Please discuss. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Stars vs. Regulars

Does being listed as a regular mean an actor or actress should appear in the starring section on this page? If they truly had starring roles, they'd be listed as such, not as regulars. Besides, we don't want the starring parameter of the infobox to get too long. Bluerules (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Although the following two hidden notes can be seen when editing the "Starring" section of the infobox, it seems like they are either too hard to understand or simply ignored by some.

1. <!--- Actors below this line are not included in the opening titles, but are considered series regulars and ALWAYS credited under "Also starring", regardless of their appearance. Consult the talk page before removing. --->; and
2. <!--- Actors above this line are not included in the opening titles, but are considered series regulars and ALWAYS credited under "Also starring", regardless of their appearance. Consult the talk page before removing. --->.

This page (and other TWD pages) seems to attract lots of activity, especially by IP editors, whenever something happens in the series. Some of the edits are improvements, but mostly they seem to be good faith attempts to "update" the page which almost always ended up being reverted. Maybe it's it's time to reconsider what the words "regular", "main", "starring", etc. all mean and re-establish some kind of consensus on specific criteria to eliminate any possible confusion. The aforementioned notes are helpful, but they do leave open some room for interpretation and people by saying "not included in the opening titles". Maybe the wording "before removing" should be replaced by "before adding and removing" to at least encourage some kind of discussion on Talk. It probably won't make much of a difference, but it might help a little. This possibly could also be done for the background colors of the tables, etc. which also get changed and reverted quite frequently.

There seems to be a "race" among some to be the first to add "new" information on not only on this page, but on other similar pages, etc. as well. People watch an episode, go to Wikipedia, see something that they feel "should be there" or something "wrong", and start editing. This can't be helped for the most part, but maybe if the there were specific criteria determined by local consensus for infobox items, etc. posted somewhere on this talk page, then at least we can refer to that section whenever such edits are reverted. Maybe some kind of RfC? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The actors listed between the note are actors that are considered series regulars by AMC, but do not appear in the opening credits. These actors are credited as "also starring" (like the rest of the guest cast), but, are credited regardless if they appear or not. That's where the line is drawn. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Receiving an "also starring" credit every episode is not the same as being billed in the opening titles. Not only is it less prominent, the "regular" performers would simply appear during the title credits if they were on equal footing with the stars. But they don't. Furthermore, let's not forget that the starring parameter will get too long if we put too many performers there. By limiting it to just those in the opening titles, that scenario will become less likely. Bluerules (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There are currently 23 listed under "Starring" in the infobox. I am not sure if that is a lot or not, but the infobox already extends down into the "Season 1" section. If the series continues for more seasons, then it's fair to assume that more and more names will keep being added and the infobox will keep getting bigger and bigger. Is there any way to collapse certain sections/parameters of an infobox that complies with MOS:COLLAPSE? FWIW, the last episode of Season 4 was aired on March 30, 2014 and on April 1, 2014 there were 18 actors listed as starring. The last episode of Season 3 was aired on March 31, 2013 and on April 1 there were only 12 actors listed as starring. Adding people as needed is unavoidable, but I think we should be concerned about how many people is too much as we move forward. This cast list on the series' AMC official website gives profiles for 28 actors. Even though that's more than the 23 currently listed in the infobox, maybe we should try and use that as guide as to how many people should be added. In other words, if they are listed on that page, then they should be given consideration as being listed as "Starring". If, however, they are not even listed on the AMC page, they should not be added to the infobox at all. Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The size isn't the main issue. The issue is those who receive the "also starring" credit aren't on equal billing with those who appear in opening titles, contrary to what this article says. Bluerules (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Bluerules. The AMC link for cast members I gave above doesn't seem to make a distinction between those whose names appear in the opening titles and those whose names don't. As you say, there are most definitely differences between say "Rick" and "Amy", even though AMC seems to treat them equally at first glance, at least on that page. How do we distinguish the two groups then? Is this simply done by watching each episode to see whose name is given in the opening credits, or is there another way? Is is it possible that what we see when originally watching the show can be changed later on after the fact for say a DVD-release? Not trying to sound sarcastic. Just asking because I don't know. In my opinion, it would be best if we could cite something that supports the names in the infobox so that whenever there is any doubt we can simply refer to that source for verification. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The source is the opening credits. They don't change for a DVD release. As for the AMC guide, I remember back during season 1, it had characters like Amy and Morgan listed (because they did have big roles in season 1), they simply haven't removed them. As long as I've edited this page (basically since the beginning), I personally have seen any major disputes regarding the starring cast in the infobox. The opening credits are the source, just like for any other TV series. The question is, do we trim the "also starring" credited cast members (but, are series regulars) from the infobox. I feel that we would need consensuses given there is reason (references that cite the actors are series regulars) to include them. I wouldn't be opposed to removing them, since the list is a bit long. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: Thanks for answering my questions and the additional clarification. Is there any way to verify whose name appeared in the opening credits other than by watching the show?

Regarding the infobox, maybe some kind of threshold criteria should be established. This could be achieved by a simple local consensus or more formally by RfC (which might be more time consuming, but less subject to being challenged). The proposal could list two options: (1) the "status quo" listed in the two notes I've referred to above and (2) "listed in the opening credits". The "notes" could then be edited accordingly to reflect whatever consensus is achieved, and reference could be made to the relevant RfC or talk page post. Does something like that seem workable? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Achieving a consensus on the infobox is probably the way to go. In the meantime, I think it's acceptable to remove Andrew J. West from the starring parameter. He only appears in four episodes and he no longer receives "also starring" credit. Bluerules (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If we remove West, we should remove all other "also starring" (but considered series regulars) cast members from the infobox, as we can't just pick and choose. West is no longer credited because his character is no longer on the show, same can now be said for Lawrence Gilliard, Jr. Hopefully some others comment so we can reach a consensus. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the criteria should be whether the actor is listed in the opening credits, not number of episodes. If possible I think this should be verified in some way other than by simply watching the show, but I don't know how that can be done. If an actor is no longer with the show, but was listed (at least once) in the opening titles while they were on the show, then their named should still remain in the infobox. The order of names should probably be discussed. Currently they seem to be listed chronologically. That's fine for somebody who has been with the show from start to finish, but for someone is no longer with the show adjustments may need to be made. Rightly or wrongly, the order of the names could be assumed by readers as an indication of importance or still being with the show. Maybe the thing to do would be to list the regulars, those whose names come before the titles, in chronological order first. Then, list the currently also starring in chronological order, and follow that up with those who are no longer with the show, but were once either of the above two groups in a similar fashion. The infobox only says "Starring"; It does not say "Regulars", so if someone is listed as also starring then they should be included. However, I do think those listed before the titles, in my opinion "regulars", should be listed before the "also starring" and those no longer with the show in acknowledgement of this status. Jeffrey DeMunn, Jon Bernthal, Laurie Holden and Sarah Wayne Callies should be acknowledged for being "stars" or "regulars", but they are no longer with the show so they should not be listed ahead of Norman Reedus, Steven Yeun, Chandler Riggs or Lauren Cohan, or any other current regular or "also starring". Likewise, Andrew West should stay with on the list, but he should be moved to an appropriate spot below the former "regulars". Maybe this is too complicated to make work, but it might be one way of establishing some criteria for not only who gets listed in the infobox, but where they get listed. Part of the problem is that the show is still on going, so every time an episode airs the information may change and somebody is going to come and edit either this or another TWD page. Same thing happens on other TV show pages as well. There's no way to prevent that kind of thing, so the best we can do is try to mitigate it a bit by leaving some guidance in the form "hidden notes" in the infobox edit window and here on this talk page and hope for the best. Most "regular" editors will probably follow this guidance if it is logically laid out, properly explained and policy consistent. The criteria can be reassessed, perhaps between seasons, and tweaked as needed. Just my two cents worth. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're fine with keeping the "also starring" cast members, then the current order is exactly what it should be. The original billed cast, then the additions of cast members who joined the main cast in subsequent seasons in billing order. Because we don't move actors down just because they're currently not on the show–the article is meant to look at the series as whole, not "in the moment". Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I do think that the order names is seen by many readers as their degree of relevance to the show "in the moment". Those listed first might be assumed to be more "important" (i.e., current) than those listed last, but perhaps I am the only one who sees it this way. Anyway, another suggestion might be to replace all of the names with a link to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters as is done on Game of Thrones, another series with lots of characters coming and going. Or something similar to what is done on The Sopranos could be done, by listing only the main "regulars" (i.e., those whose names come before the title) and then everyone else (i.e., the "also starring") as "others" wikilinked to the character list page. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with West is he doesn't meet the criteria for "series regular." He was never credited for an episode he didn't appear in. Bluerules (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: We shouldn't assume what other people might think. The order is correct per Template:Infobox television. We don't change order based on our opinion of "importance", it's simply based on billing order and then chronological order of introduction. I'm not a fan of simply removing the names, and then just providing a link, the list of actors is obviously one of the most important parts of the infobox. But, trimming the "also starring" actors and then adding a link would be acceptable. @Bluerules regarding West, it was revealed that he was promoted to series regular for season 5. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: Trimming the also starring and providing a link sounds sounds fine. If a consensus can be reached on that, then we just need to figure where "others" should begin. I think it would be best to have some kind of clear cut criteria as a starting point. What about just including names above the title in the infobox (everyone mentioned after "AMC Presents" and before "Executive Producer") and then linking everyone else? That would seem to be a simple way to make the distinction between "infobox" and "no infobox". If an actor's name has ever appeared before the title, they are mentioned in the infobox; If not, they become an "other". Is that too much trimming or would that be a workable solution?

Using S5 E2 as an example, the following actors were listed in this order before the title: Andrew Lincoln, Norman Reedus, Steven Yeun, Lauren Cohan, Chandler Riggs, Danai Gurira, Melissa McBride, Michael Cudlitz, Emily Kinney and Chad L. Coleman. For the same episode, the following were listed in this order as "Also starring": Sonequa Martin Green, Lawrence Gilliard Jr., Josh McDermitt, Christian Serratos, Alanna Masterson, Seth Gilliam, Andrew J. West, and Chris Coy. There does seem to be a real distinction made by those who do the show regarding the two groups although I am not sure what that distinction exactly is. It could be something like the tiered system used for contracts by "Game of Thrones". Regardless of the how or why, some kind of distinction is being made for TWD, so it seems OK to reflect that in the infobox. We don't have to interpret the how or why; Just use it as a basis for our criteria. I realize I wrote The infobox only says "Starring"; It does not say "Regulars", so if someone is listed as also starring then they should be included. above, but, after thinking some more about it, Bluerules makes a good point when they say we can't just pick and choose. I really think it's best to establish some firm criteria. Just my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The firm criteria would be to only include actors credited in the opening title sequence, meaning the cut-off point would be after Coleman, and we remove Martin-Green and everyone below and replace that with and others. Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if my last post was confusing, but that was what I was getting at. Currently, the cut-off would be at Coleman; Everyone credited as "Also starring" would be listed as an "other". Names could then be added to the infobox as needed if they appear in the opening title sequence at a later date. The order the names are listed in the infobox would be the order in which the actor was listed in the opening credits for the first time, regardless of whether they are no longer with the show. We can rephrase the two notes currently in the article as follows: Actors whose names are listed below (or above) are those who are either currently or were at one time included in the opening title sequence. Names are listed in the order of appearance in accordance with Template:Infobox television#Attributes. Consult the talk page before removing or adding names.

Would be acceptable to all? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor of cutting off the names after Coleman and keeping the order intact. Bluerules (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change, since there appears to be no one against this change. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Structure of "Main"

There seems to be a difference of opinion on how The Walking Dead (TV series)#Main should be structured. Instead of going back and forth reverting each other, it might be a good idea if we discussed things and try to find a compromise solution that is acceptable to all. Personally, I do not see the need to divide the section up into "Main (Alive)" and "Main (Deceased)" and think simply the original "Main" is the preferred style according to WP:TENSE and WP:OUTUNIVERSE, at least when referring to the characters in this particular table. I think it's perfectly OK to say a character was killed or is dead in episode recaps or character summaries. However, it seems to me that the primary purpose of this table is just to list the actors who have appeared as main characters in the show and it is not intended to be a scorecard to keep running track of who is "living" and who is "dead". It also seems inconsistent to divide up "Main" and leave "Recurringcharacters" as is. How can you change one table and not the other? Anyway, this is just my opinion, please feel free to disagree or agree. As I said above, hopefully we can agree on something that is acceptable to all. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC); Edited 05:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Cast and characters information guides us on how the section should be. And I am definitely against stating "alive" or "deceased." WP:Spoilers should only be included for good reasons. We should not be unnecessarily spoiling readers. That stated, if they read the Series overview section, they should expect spoilers. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Flyer22. I agree with you. In my opinion, Wikipedia articles are not intended to be go-to sites for the latest TV show character or plot updates. The role of the "Cast and Characters" section is just to list who has appeared as whom in the show from when to when. I don't think that table needs to go any deeper than that and detailed information about specific characters should be left to episode summaries or character pages. If a reader wants to find out more about the "Shane Walsh" character from the TV series, then that information is in Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead)#Television series. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Character page infoboxes - "Centric episode(s)"

(Note: I initially posed this question at WT:TV#Infobox character - "Centric episodes", and was advised to re-post here for further discussion.)

I have a question about the listing of "centric episodes" in the {{infobox character}} templates of The Walking Dead character pages. I checked MOS:TV#Character article structure, the WT:TV archives and this talk page's archives, but wasn't able to find anything specific regarding this so I thought I'd ask.

The parameter "lbl#" is being used to add "Centric episode(s)" info to (pretty much) all the infoboxes of the character pages. I'm not exactly sure what criteria are being used to determine whether a particular episode is "centric" to a particular character. This kind of information seems, at least to me, to be pretty subjective at best, especially since some episodes are being listed as "centric" for multiple characters. Isn't this kind of information just original research?

Another concern I have is that for a main character like Rick Grimes, practically every episode could be considered to be "centric", couldn't it? Currently, there are 17 episodes listed as "centric" in that article's infobox and I expect there's going to be more added as the series goes on. I've looked at some other character pages from popular TV series such as Tony Soprano, Rachel Green, Hawkeye Pierce, Archie Bunker, Walter White (Breaking Bad), Jerry Seinfeld (character), Jack Bauer, etc. and none of the infoboxes on those pages have "Centric episode(s)" listed. So, I am wondering if "Centric episode(s)" is something unique to The Walking Dead articles and if it is information that is really needed.

I am interested in hearing what others may think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. This has been troubling me, and I was contemplating doing so myself. As far as I know, these lists were being added to the infoboxes just this month. The problem is that they strike me very heavily as being WP:OR. Who determines if an episode is centric to which character(s)? I think they should be removed. BOZ (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure of them all, but many of "the lists" appear to have been added by 125.239.50.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since no edit sums were provided, it's kinda hard to see this as anything other than the original research of a single editor. I'll leave a message on the IP's talk page inviting them to participate in this discussion. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Just adding this for reference. All of the "Main" characters in The Walking Dead (TV series)#Cast and characters, except Rosita Espinosa and Gabriel Stokes (The Walking Dead), have centric episodes listed in their infoboxes. Among "Recurring" characters, only Morgan Jones (The Walking Dead) has centric episodes listed. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is excessive information for an infobox. Infoboxes are supposed to summarise important points about a character. Episodes are included, but only so far as the episodes in which they first and last appeared, because they are important and we have specific fields for those. As others have indicated, listing "centric episodes" is original research, and they should be removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like all of the centric episode information has been deleted by thelonggoneblues. However, no edit sums were provided so it's possible that the info may get re-added again by someone. If it is, then I suggest that whomever removes it the second time around add a link to this discussion (e.g.,"For details refer to discussion at [[Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)#Character page infoboxes - "Centric episode(s)"]]. Please discuss before re-adding.") in the edit sum just for reference so that editors know why the info was removed and where they can go to discuss it. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Crediting order of characters

I have a question about the credited order of characters. I edited the crediting order to fit characters in terms of appearance and series regularity, but this was reverted based on the declaration that it should be on "original crediting order". However, the user who reverted this has still made many errors. For example, if it was based on original crediting order, why is Michael Rooker not placed before McBride and Reedus? The user then explained that it was based on who is a main cast member, but if this is so, shouldn't David Morrissey and Danai Gurira be placed before Emily Kinney? This order does not make sense. I believe it should go in order of appearance first, then series regularity. --thelonggoneblues (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The order of characters in the info box has been discussed in some detail above in Stars vs. Regulars and the consensus reached was "Actors whose names are listed below (or above) are those who are either currently or were at one time included in the opening title sequence. Names are listed in the order of appearance in accordance with Template:Infobox television#Attributes." I always assumed that the order used for the infobox should be the same as the order used in the article tables, so I'm not sure why the order in the "Main" tables is different because it shouldn't be. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Information on unaired/upcoming episodes

From my editing on Wikipedia, it seems common practice to not include plot information, including casting, until an episode has aired unless a reliable source is provided. RS excludes rumors on blogs and fan forums, even ones run on a TV network website. Articles on some TV series are extremely strict about this issue. But I'm seeing a lot unsourced information about guest appearances that without any basis in the TV series so far. I only occasionally edit on this topic so I wanted to post here before removing the content to see what the practice is here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME

Minor observation perhaps, but I noticed many of the people appearing multiple times in the article are sometimes being referred to using both their first and last names. My understanding of MOS:SURNAME is that the first and last name only needs to be used for the initial mention and that only the last name should be used for subsequent mentions. So, for example, when Andrew Lincoln is mentioned in the lead as portraying "Rick", then I think it should be fine to simply use "Lincoln" to refer to him throughout the rest of the article, excluding any tables, direct quotes and image captions. Same goes for the other actors and production staff. Similarly, it seems to me that the first mention of a character should include their first and last names (if known), and then they should be referred to by the name commonly used throughout the show, which typically seems to be their first name. So, it seems unnecessary to use "Rick Grimes" more than once throughout the article other than the lede and perhaps the mention in "Season one". I've already been bold and removed a bunch of repetitive wikilinks per WP:REPEATLINK, but that was primarily cosmetic and no major changes were made to content. Removing names seems more involved since it might require more substantial editing so I thought I'd ask for opinions here first before taking the plunge. Any feedback or comments would be most appreciated. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)