Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Critical reception" opening sentence

I don't think the sentence "All seasons of The Walking Dead have been well reviewed by leading television critics." is really needed to open "Critical reception", at least not as it is currently written. It is, in my opinion, nothing more than a retread of "The series has been well received..." sentence appearing in the lede. Why not simply add the two Metacritic sources for Seasons 3 and 4 to the sentence in the lede? The lede is where key information in the article should be summarized per MOS:INTRO, isn't it? The sentence in the lede provides enough information for those just interested in learning the basics about the series, so there's no need to say basically the same thing again (and repeat the same citations again) later in the article. This is just my opinion, but I am interested in hearing what other's think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As you likely saw, PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk · contribs) recently added that line. I thought that edit was going to be reverted; instead, it was tweaked. For film articles, we commonly summarize the reception in the lead and include a lead-in summary for the critical reception section. From what I've seen of television film articles (meaning articles about the shows), it's not as common to include a lead-in sentence for the reception section. I don't feel strongly one way or the other on the matter regarding television show articles. If we are going to keep PhiladelphiaInjustice's line, however, it should not be there as a single-sentence paragraph (see MOS:Paragraphs); it should be combined with the second paragraph by leading it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, "leading television critics" should simply be "television critics." After all, who do we decide is a leading television critic? Flyer22 (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to have two summaries of the same thing on one page - the sentence in the lead should be enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Adamstom.97 and Flyer22 for the input. I agree that a single sentence paragraph is not an improvement. If that sentence can be expanded into something more, then I can see keeping it. However, as currently written it does nothing more than repeat what is said in the lede. Also, I agree with removing "leading" from the sentence since it is just a peacock term that serves no useful purpose. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I originally reverted it the first time it was added as I also felt it was unnecessary. When he added it the second time, I simply tweaked like (removed the IMDb ref, and added the remaining Metacritics ref), because I didn't want an edit war. But, I completely support its removal if that's how others feel. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, if someone does an Internet search for critical receptions of The Walking Dead, the first link will take them directly to that section, not the top of the article. As such, I feel that the summary sentence should remain at the top of the section so that readers will not have to spend several minutes reading every paragraph. I had noticed that the show had received an unusually large number of good reviews, so I feel that this fact must be emphasized. As for "leading television critics", those who rave-reviewed the program are described in similar words on each of the linked websites. Add to the mix that the program is by far the highest rated in the history of cable television, so its article deserves special consideration due to its presumed heavy traffic.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with having a more complete summary in the first paragraph of the reception section, however, it needs to bring more to the table than the lead already does. Otherwise, it would be redundant as the others have stated. One sentence is certainly not enough to satisfy that concern. As for "leading television critics", leading is unnecessary unless you can show a better source that clearly states this in prose. Anything else would be considered original research. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday, I inserted the citations that verify the "leading television critics" claim, but another contributor deleted them. According to IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic, all of their critics are leaders in their field. The Walking Dead is the hottest (most watched) show on television, so it would be nice if a website visitor who only wanted critics' opinions - but did not bother to read the first paragraph of the main article - could click the table of contents for instant gratification.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're looking at this the wrong way, it's not about providing "instant gratification" or making it easy for people who are too lazy to read more than a simple sentence. This is an encyclopedia. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Drovethrughosts makes a good point. This is not about easy navigation or providing a collection of links. We are abiding by the Manual of Style to form an encyclopedic article that is consistent with Wikipedia's layout and formatting. Useful is not a sole criteria we use to include something here. There are a lot of things that might be considered useful but are prohibited on Wikipedia (see the policy "What Wikipedia is not" for specifics). It is great, however, that you are participating in this discussion and showing your interest in improving the article. Please don't let any of this discourage you. Newer editors can benefit from the insight these discussions tend to provide. If you are a newer editor, you may want to check out the Teahouse welcome forum. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I googled "The Walking Dead Critical Reception" and the first Wikipedia link that came up for me was for the article itself. I have no problem with adding small paragraphs at the beginning of long sections to summarize the more detailed information that follows if and only if it improves the article; However, I also think we have to be willing to let the lede do its job per WP:DETAIL. So like Drovethrughosts, I do not think we need to provide "crib notes" throughout the article for readers just looking for "instant gratification". FWIW, I think this version of "Critical reception" flows much better and is a huge improvement over this older version, and suggest we use the former as the basis for making further improvements. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, encyclopedias should contain extensive details; they ain't dictionaries. My point was that not everyone wants to read an entire book or even the "lede" (a word that some might suggest you are technically using out of context), hence my use of a short, declarative sentence or two to sum up what follows about this presumably highly-searched info. And if this encyclopedia is so spacious (as you have noted), why do you object to such a convenient addition? Please remember that The Walking Dead is the most watched television show in the 18- to 49-year-old demographic, so we should make such sought-after facts easily accessible.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No one has to read an "entire book", the third paragraph in the lead contains the sentence "The series has been well received by critics", and the opening sentence of the critical response section states, "All seasons of The Walking Dead have been well reviewed by television critics". What else do you want, for it be flashing in neon lights in huge lettering at the top of the article? Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

After I posted the above comment, I melded this sentence to the reception sections' first paragraph: "All seasons of The Walking Dead have been well reviewed by television critics". Thank you for your input, though.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen the changes that have been made as a result of this discussion? It is not clear what you are currently proposing at this point. Also, in regards to recent edits, please avoid ramming your proposed changes through. When another editor disagrees with your proposal (or as in this case, more than one editor), the previous version of the article should stand until a consensus is reached here on the talk page. Otherwise, it can be construed as edit warring. If you would like to discuss these new changes, let's start a new section below. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the referenced section has gone into ridiculously extensive and inappropriate details about the second season's reviews. Half of its quotes are from negative reviews and (thus) represent a mere 17% or so of the season's reviews. Each of the other seasons' paragraphs has but one or two quotes from a positive review(s), which thus represents the vast majority. Certain contributors seem to be more interested in flexing their perceived muscles of authority than in logically editing the referenced paragraph.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Judith's mother

I understand that who is Judith's real father is still unclear, but my understanding is that Judith's mother is Lori and that has never been questioned, at least when it comes to the TV series. Anyway, somebody reverted information added to the Lori Grimes infobox listing Judith as Lori's daughter citing WP:OR. I've started a discussion at Talk:Lori Grimes#Judith Grimes for those interested. I'm posting here because if it is really original research to claim that Judith is Lori's daughter, then that would mean lots of other TWD-related articles probably need to be corrected accordingly. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC at Talk: Remember (The Walking Dead)

It has been suggest that this RFC should be mentioned here. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Introduction: Renewals

I think the paragraph that relates to when each season premiered and was renewed by the network is too wordy and a lot of uninteresting information is placed in the introduction. I think it should be heavily reduced two two lines or so. The first specifying when it premiered. The second stating if it has been renewed for an additional season. All the other information would be better suited to the List of Eps page. Thoughts? Sween64 (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think minor characters like Haley and maybe Shumpert and Patrick don't belong in the recurring characters section, relevant characters should be listed there.--Luisrafael7 (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sween64, I agree that the lead delves into too much detail (for a lead: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). I suggest that you make edits as you see fit and wait for feedback (if any).--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2015

Ratings table viewership should obviously be in thousands, since in no way can an episode have 17 000 millions viewers. 147.251.50.202 (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: But it is 17.00 millions. See also other TV series articles. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2015

In the Season 1 Synopsis, it states that Edwin Jenner believes the plague is the human 'Extermination Event'. This should read 'Extinction Event'. Also, Shane's name is missing from the list of those who escape the CDC. Source - Multiple watching of The Walking Dead! Wiki kris 84 (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Drovethrughosts (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Box listing of stars

I realize that there are more pressing problems in the world, but the box listing of stars is not in order of screen time, as it should be. For instance, common sense dictates that two-season costar Jeffrey DeMunn should not be listed fourth, above five-season stars Steven Yeun and Chandler Riggs: Wikipedia:COMMON. Although there is no precise way to establish the screen time of each character, I suspect that using the opening credits as a reference will accomplish the task with reasonable accuracy. Based on such, I propose changing the order back to my May 11 reverted version. Thoughts?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see MOS:TVCAST for why this isn't the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, considering that MOS:TVCAST states, "The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list.", what do you mean by pointing PhiladelphiaInjustice to that guideline? Flyer22 (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

PhiladelphiaInjustice is proposing the order should be based on screen time, which is not how it's done; Adamstom.97 pointed to the guideline regarding about cast members are listed, which is against what PhiladelphiaInjustice posted. Maybe you misread something? Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't misread anything. I was going by the fact that PhiladelphiaInjustice stated, "I suspect that using the opening credits as a reference will accomplish the task with reasonable accuracy." And, as we know, the MOS:TVCAST portion I cited above states "series original broadcast credits." I don't agree with going by screen time, or what we estimate to be the screen time, for the billing. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The order being used in the infobox is already based upon the opening credits. It follows the description given for the "Starring" paramter laid out in Template:Infobox television#Attributes, which seems to be the standard order followed by articles using this infobox, and MOS:TVCAST.

Personally, I don't we need to tweak or change this at all. The article is supposed to be about the entire series from start to finish (the present) so there's no need to try and emphasize the latter seasons at the expense of the earlier ones. Moreover, I'm not sure how wise it is to introduce somewhat subjective criteria for deciding who should be listed before whom. Such an approach is just asking for trouble because it further increases the chance of disagreements occurring among editors regarding why this actor isn't being listed before that actor and so on. What may seem like common sense to one editor may not be necessarily seem so clear cut to others. The current order chronologically lists the actors in the order their names first appeared in the opening credits. This is straightforward and quite stable. The only editing that needs to be done is when somebody's name is added to the opening credits. More season-specific orders should be reserved for the individual season articles if so desired.

Having said all that, if there is a consenus to change, then a criterion more specific than "screen time" needs to be established through consensus so that there is something to work off of and reference when there are disagreements. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The order does not nor should not be changed, it's based on guidelines per MOS:TV, which all TV series' article abide by. We don't arrange actors based on our perception of importance, or screen time, or episode counts, etc. It's based on how the actors are billed in the opening credits. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I stated: "...I suspect that using the opening credits as a reference will accomplish the task with reasonable accuracy. Based on such, I propose changing the order back to my May 11 reverted version." Screen time notwithstanding, I used the opening credits of all five seasons as the basis for the order. Again, common sense should be applied. Reading the current list, a reader is going to think that Dale is a more important character than Daryl, who is listed in the credits as a star over twice as often, and Carl, who is listed about three times as frequently. Unless I am missing something, there is no Wiki guideline that requires the use of only a show's first season credits as the basis for the character listing order.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have not read MOS:TVCAST yet, which states (which is already quoted just above) "The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list." The current order reflects this. We don't rearrange based on screen time or who we think is more important. To use an example, Reedus (who isn't added until season 2) is billed after DeMunn, that's why he's listed after. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I had missed it. This is yet another Wiki guideline that does not account for expected changes.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "expected changes"? It's pretty simple: you list the initial cast by the order of how they're billed, then you add subsequent cast members by the order of when they join the main cast. Any other order is just interpretation or opinion which does not conform to a neutral POV or guidelines that have been established for years. This isn't IMDb. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about Norman Reedus' name and date of birth

There's a discussion regarding Norman Reedus' name and date of birth currently ongoing at Talk:Norman Reedus#Correct first and middle name?. All interested editors are welcome to participate. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Citations and details in lede

The recent editing of the lede has led to essentially the same information being cited by the same sources multiple times. This seems, at least to me, to be counterproductive. WP:CITELEAD says "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." and that "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus."

The more details we add to lede, the more we move it away from being a brief summary of the most important points covered in the article. More detail also typically leads to more citations. I think we'd be better off trying to trim and summarize and the extraneous stuff for the body of the article.

For example, "AMC has renewed the series each year because of its consistently increasing Nielsen ratings which have been unprecedentedly high for a cable series." seems like a perfectly fine overview for the lede and there is really no need to expound on that with "including averaging the most 18- to 49-year-old adult viewers of any cable or broadcast television series during its fourth and fifth seasons. The latter's season finale aired on March 29, 2015". Such information is relevant for sure, but it belongs in the "Ratings" section in my opinion.

The same goes for the mention of Lincoln and the sentence "The first season takes place in the Atlanta metropolitan area, and the second through fourth seasons are set in the surrounding countryside of northern Georgia." This stuff seems more suited for "Cast and characters" and "Production". Why not simply say something such as "The show follows sheriff's deputy Rick Grimes and the other members of his group as they search for a safe haven in an apocalyptic world overrun by flesh-eating zombies (aka walkers), where they must also sometimes deal with human survivors who are more dangerous than the zombies themselves."? Anyway, this is just me thinking out loud. I am really interested in the hearing the comments of others. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The extremely significant fact that TWD (in its two most recent seasons) has averaged more viewers in the 18- to 49-year-old demo than has ANY other cable OR broadcast series is definitely lead-worthy because no other series has ever come close to doing that, especially in today's atmosphere of media dilution and erosion. By comparison, in an era when there was MUCH less competition, I remember "experts" being awed by The Sopranos' then-"unprecedentedly high" ratings, which were merely half of the TWD's in their respective two most recent seasons. Another comparison is "19 Kids and Counting", considered one of cable's most successful shows, which had a 2015 finale viewership of about 3 million versus TWD's fifth season AVERAGE of 14.4 million! In fact, over 98% of cable series average less than a million viewers!

Nonetheless, I agree that the following info is trivial and does NOT belong in the lead:

• "The Walking Dead premiered in the U.S. on October 31, 2010, on the cable television channel AMC[5] and internationally in November 2010 on ::Fox International Channels." (why not just say "AMC" and [2010-present] at the lead's intro?)
• "The latter's season finale aired on March 29, 2015"
• "including the Writers Guild of America Award for Television: New Series and the Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Drama."--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

When a series premiered (the exact date, not just year) is not trivial, it's pretty much how every lead for a TV series is written (though the international premiere could probably go). The finale date for season 5 is mentioned because that was last broadcast, that part is continually updated with the series' latest information. Example, when season 6 premieres, it will be changed to read when season 6 premiered. The WGA nom could probably be removed from the lead (or moved if needed), though the GG nom for Best Drama is quite notable and establishes the series has been recognized by mainstream award ceremonies. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's matter of personal preference, but to me the exact premiere dates are not lead-worthy, although the premiere year is. If the awards were Emmy's, they would probably be lead-mentionable, but the awards actually noted are too obscure in my book.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that when the series premiered is quite relevant so I agree with Drovethrughosts that it should not be removed. Also after reading DTG's remarks, I can see how the date the last season's episode aired is also relevant enough for inclusion in the lede. Maybe it would be better to mention both dates in the same sentence sort of as book ends so that the second date doesn't get "lost" behind all of the details about ratings. I also think the mentions of the major awards should stay. I'm not sure if we need to mention every award, but the major ones should stay.

Finally, I still think the rating stuff is more suited for later in the article. I realize the show is quite popular; I've seen all the episodes (on a Fox international channel by the way ), so I am a fan of the show as well. Even so, I think it's too much detail for the lede per WP:TVRECEPTION and we've got to be careful to make sure that the lede is not turned in a mini fan page. Just for reference, since they were given as examples above, both The Sopranos (all of which I have seen) and 19 Kids and Counting (none of which I have seen) make no mention of ratings at all in their respective ledes. I'm not saying we have to do it exactly the same way as these or any other articles, but I do think it might be helpful to use some of the WP:FA#Media and WP:GA/T#Television TV series articles as a baseline for possible improvements. Anyway, regardless of my personal preferences, if the consensus is that the ratings info should stay, then that's fine with me. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I am the world's biggest The Sopranos fan, but neither that show nor 19 Kids (which I dislike) trounced the competition, as in six times the ratings of the second highest-rated (unrelated) show. The notably important fact that TWD has garnered such staggeringly high ratings in recent years is definitely lead-worthy, in my opinion. By the way, I have watched every episode of The Sopranos and TWD for free online in HD, using my gorgeous Panasonic plasma as a monitor, without commercials no less.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft cast list for season 6

Hello all, I went ahead and made a mock-up cast list for season 6. Feel free to add to/expand/change it as you wish so we can have it ready to place in when October rolls around. Sock (tock talk) 12:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2015

Changing 'Dale Horvath, who's RV is at the heart of the camp' in the second paragraph under the subheading 'Season 1' to 'Dale Horvath, whose RV is at the heart of the camp', because use of the appropriate possessive 'whose' is needed. Redblueyelllowrainbow (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- and thank you -- Chamith (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2015

Under § Critical reception, change

[[Ken Tucker]] of ''Entertainment Weekly'', described the series as "a nighttime [[Soap opera|soap]]" comparing it …

to

[[Ken Tucker]] of ''Entertainment Weekly'' described the series as "a nighttime [[Soap opera|soap]]", comparing it …

67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Was Melissa McBride a series regular in season 2?

I know she was in season 3. She was credited in every episode, despite not appearing in 4 of them and the TVLine article confirms it. But Melissa is absent in season 2's "18 Miles Out" and she isn't credited. I'm not sure there's a source saying she's a regular in season 2 either, so maybe she simply wasn't? The TVLine article that clears up her contract doesn't state when officially she became a regular but we know at least it's season 3. So I assume now she wasn't a regular at all in the second season, despite the Wikipedia article's main cast section telling us she was. However, what leads me to believe she was a regular in season 2 is despite not appearing in "18 Miles Out", she is credited before IronE Singleton who was credited before her in season 1 in the co-starring section (after the episode ends). She is immediately credited after the title sequence too, but perhaps simply there wasn't any series regulars in season 2 outside the ones already listed in the opening credits? This makes sense. Also Starring doesn't have to mean series regular as you know, and Lauren Cohan was the first to receive "Also Starring" crediting in the episode "18 Miles Out" in Melissa's absence. If someone finds me a source, that'd clear everything up. Also, to avoid the confusion, I think that it would be helpful to include Co-Starring for Melissa in season 1, and IronE too. Because it makes sense to explain why they're uncredited for the entirety of all season 1 episodes until the end. Edit: Cleared up: found a better source stating she was a regular in season 2: http://tvline.com/2012/04/10/how-i-met-your-mother-private-practice-walking-dead-spoilers/--thelonggoneblues (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Recurring cast members section

Why has this area become so complicated? We only distinguish between "Main" and "Also starring" in the main cast section because it could cause confusion of who is considered a regular, and I would argue that we could really just use "main" for all of them as well, but that's a different argument. However, now "co-starring" and "also starring" have been added to the recurring cast members section, which feels like unnecessary overcomplication to me. Thoughts? Sock (tock talk) 15:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with you. The only use for "Also starring" is in the Main Character's table, but in the Recurring table, it just needs to state whether a character is recurring or guest in that season, not if they were "Co-starring", etc. I have put both tables back to the original (plus a few tweaks and edits) version I made last month. But I agree with you that it looked complicated and messy when I saw this morning. MSMRHurricane (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

At least it was consistent with the main one, but okay. MSMRHurricane's edits have completely disregarded the original crediting order. By doing that, it makes it okay to put Yeun, Reedus, McBride, etc. before Bernthal, Callies, etc. based on how long they've been on the show. thelonggoneblues (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The main one only includes "also starring" because, for some actors, they are still "regulars" even though they're listed with people who aren't. I still stick to the belief that simply putting "Main" for everyone should be fine, but whatever. That said, your point about the crediting order was a very good one, and I've reinstated your initial order. Excellent work. Sock (tock talk) 21:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

My recent edits were mainly to restore tables to how they were before, simple. I only changed the order of the characters (in the recurring table) as I was restoring the order back to the original table before these edit wars. I am all for ordering them by appearances on the show, so I agree with you both there. But I was just putting in my two cents about the recent changes of going past the point of changing the Recurring table to "Co-starring", "Also starring", etc. Other than that, the tables look completely fine and easy to read. MSMRHurricane (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

lgbt category

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There consensus is not to add the category. The majority argument either mentions or is in alignment with WP:NONDEF and WP:WEIGHT. That LGBT is not a defining characteristic of the show and that it is a small part of one season of the show. AlbinoFerret 00:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

---

there's plenty of queer couples in walking dead, should we classify as lgbt related? http://www.metroweekly.com/2014/08/the-walking-dead-will-introduce-gay-character/ 172.56.7.18 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No, because there are presently only two such characters on the show.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

there is no requirement saying how many people are needed to be lgbt related, look at modern family and glee and you'll see what o mean 172.56.7.202 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

THeres already plenty of Reliable sources stating lgbt characters as part of the plot and they are mentioned in the articles plot section, i feel too we should add this category 66.25.246.226 (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There are several pro editors who watch this page like a hawk. They will never approve a special section just for LGBT's. Otherwise, we would need a special section for each of many other groups, such as blacks, Latinos, Muslims, political cliques, cults, religious factions, horse lovers, foot worshippers, splinter groups, and who knows what others.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No one asked for a specific section, it would just be a category - very different. Anyways, if you want to pursue it, do the usual - write up a neutral "Request for Comment", alert the relevant WikiProjects, and see what the consensus dictates. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It is absurd to have a special category for LGBT, as then every group will want one and end up clogging up the page with frivolous entries. As such, I am against it.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems your confused of what the original poster is asking for; he wants the addition of the category Category:American LGBT-related television programs. My thoughts is that while the series features gay/lesbian characters, it doesn't focus on that subject for plot, etc. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Philadelphia, you're free to feel as you please, but just know that, if they started up an RFC, if that was your stance, the closing Admin would very likely disregard your input, as its completely irrelevant to any sort of policy. Your reason doesn't make any sense; it's not like there's some sort of upwards limit on categories, not to mention that they're only these little tags placed at the very bottom of articles. I have no interest either way, so it's not like I'll be pushing for or against it, I'm just letting you know that you're going to want to come up with something better than that if they do push for an RFC. There's probably legitimate rationales that back your stance... but that's not one of them. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Sergecross73. The original poster asked whether this article should be categorized as a LGBT related show. He/she didn't ask for a separate section. Adding a category (which is related to the show) won't harm the integrity of the article. I don't know what you meant by saying "It is absurd to have a special category for LGBT", as such categories already exist. For example, see Category:American LGBT-related television programs -- Chamith (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with Wiki's semantics, but if what the original poster is asking for is but "little tags" at the bottom, why doesn't he just post them to see if they get deleted? There are plenty of editors who watch this page like a hawk, so if there is an objection over this minor addition, you can then discuss it on the talk page instead of making a big deal about it before it even happens.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume he was being cautious. Of course there is nothing wrong with being bold. He was acting on his own accord and has done nothing wrong. You can't blame him for that. And as a further note, editors who have watchlisted the article space automatically get notifications when the talk page is modified. So if they have an objection regarding this matter they could/would participate in this discussion. -- Chamith (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP probably asked because he's part of a group of IP/new editors who have been being lectured for their use of the LGBT categories elsewhere. They requested my input here, which is why I've been commenting. They probably asked first here to avoid further heat. I think the better question is, why are you so strongly objecting if you're neither familiar with policy or what a category even is? Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

After doing a whopping minute of research, I now understand what a Wiki category is. It seems that the TWD categories already listed possibly belong, save for "discrimination", as they are directly and generally pertinent. However, it would seem incongruous to allow a category for every possible agenda. As I have mentioned, if you allow the LGBT category, you may open the floodgates for many other groups with an axe to grind. To me, the "Categories" section is already overcrowded and a touch confusing. On other articles, this issue would matter little. But because TWD is so much more popular than any cable TV show in history, as in it garnered something like six times the ratings of the number two scripted cable series in its 2014-15 season, we should take extra care when editing it due to the resulting presumably heavy traffic to the page. (In fact, in 2014 and 2015, TWD actually beat all cable and BROADCAST shows in the 18- to 49-year-old demo, even the incredibly popular NBC Sunday Night Football.)--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Its ratings have nothing to do with anything in regards to how we edit the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The ratings are irrelevant to category use, as is the "it's impossible to include all possible categories that people would want" argument you keep bringing up. None of that is a valid reason. I'll help you along, since you don't seem to be going in the right direction here. What it boils down to is whether or not it is commonly described as a prominent feature of the subject. Since everything on Wikipedia is decided on what sources say, you'd basically want to argue whether or not third party reliable sources identify it as being an important aspect of the show. In your case, you'd make note that sources don't mention is as an important aspect, in which it would be the burden of the people arguing for inclusion to provide sources that would prove your claim was wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha! I have never claimed to be an expert about Wiki's rules/guidelines. But even using those that you have mentioned, I still do not see what the LGTB agenda has to do with TWD. I have watched every episode and scanned through the entire series' AMC synopses, yet I do not remember seeing more than two LGTB characters, and they have only appeared in one season and their sexuality did not seem to have significance in the plots and subplots. Thus, I shall use your prove-it-because-it-is-not-in-the-sources argument.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And that stance is completely fine then, that would hold up in a discussion/debate/RFC. It could be challenged, if someone dug up a bunch of reliable sources that said otherwise, though I'm not sure how likely that is, as I haven't personally noticed this be discussed as a prominent element of the show. I could be wrong though, I'm pretty casually familiar with TWD... Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

And I am completely aware of the fact that a show's ratings are unrelated to how its article is edited. I was merely giving my opinion that a heavily visited article about an extremely popular subject should be edited more carefully than low-traffic articles about obscure subjects. I have also long been informed that notification is made when articles on an editor's watch list receive new edits.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• I was summoned by LegoBot. I don't really have a problem with adding the category, but I would personally reserve it for shows that were more LGBT-themed. If we add every show that has a gay character, then the category becomes nearly useless. Browsing through Google News, it seems there was a bit of a fuss over a gay kiss on the show, but that's about the extent of my quick searches revealed. Maybe someone else can do better? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree; someone is clearly trying to push their LGBT agenda. I am sure that if the characters and apocalypse were real, the last thing that anyone would care about is anyone's sexuality. I don't see that issue getting heavy airtime in coming seasons.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

[| robert kirkman said himself that Aaron is a prominent character], if they are mentioned in the plot section then they are an important character in the narrative. Im all for this. 66.25.246.226 (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• No The best way to be accepting to lgbt rights is not by putting anything with gay people under that banner. Lgbt people exist all around us, only things that actually refer to lgbt stuff should be classified as related. MQoS (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose if not significant If the LGBT themes are not central to the show, the categories are not appropriate (I am not part of the show's audience so I don't know, hence the if there). If there's nothing on the show about the gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender lifestyle(s), only including some semblance of them via characters that demonstrate them, it wouldn't be fair to lump this show in with all the others that discuss the LGBT lifestyle at length. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I fully concur with Zeke, the Mad Horrorist unless there is clear evidence that the show is LGBT themed (which it isn't for now) I don't think the category should be implemented.--Chamith (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• What do the sources say - The relevant policy here is WP:WEIGHT, not our views on the LGBT community or what would we best for them. How prominent is the idea that The Walking Dead is "lgbt related"? Do any say anything like that? Simply mentioning that there are queer couples on the show doesn't necessarily make it "LGBT related". My guess is that the show's connection with LGBT is only tangentially mentioned in most sources, and this should be reflected in the article. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

After a simple Google search I came up with these,

• 'Walking Dead' Fans Upset Over Gay Kiss, Tweet Homophobic Comments
• 'So you're OK with child murder, but not a gay kiss?' Twitter users react with fury after fans of The Walking Dead object to kiss between two homosexual characters

Apparently this has been a source of controversy on social media as well.--Chamith (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Huffington Post and Dailymail are both trashy magazines. I'm not sure if they've been outright banned as sources on Wikipedia, but in my opinion, if some lazy article about trolling twitter users is the most "controversy" this generates, it doesn't justify LGBT categorization. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:NONDEF. I've taken a quick skim through a half dozen reliable sources about this show and searched for "gay," "lesbian" or "LGBT." Each time I got 0 results. Doesn't seem to be a defining trait of the show. Brustopher (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Season 6 update

Alexandra Breckinridge, Torvah Feldshuh and Austin Nichols have been promoted to series regular this season. S hannon434 (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's the source for those wondering. However, since "series regular" has multiple means for TWD, we shouldn't change their status from "also starring" to "main" until season 6 actually premiers to verify who gets opening credits billing, and who gets credited as "also starring", which also means series regular. These sources aren't always correct, because it was reported that Marquand would be series regular for season 5, but he wasn't; and that Cudlitz was a series regular for season 4, but wasn't actually until season 5. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The Walking Dead heading at the Emily Kinney article and other actor articles

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emily Kinney#The Walking Dead heading. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent Lead Edits Should Be Reverted; Here's Why

A lead is supposed to encapsulate an article in four paragraphs or less. One of the most significant aspects of TWD and its Wiki article itself is that the show has made the existence of zombies seem plausible. That is, all prior fiction has depicted zombies as mysterious nonhuman creatures reanimated from human ones via supernatural forces. TWD's zombies are simply humans who die and within minutes are reborn as real humans without any mental ability except the instinct to bite living creatures in order to spread the unknown pathogen. There is already an actual disease that does something similar in lower mammals: rabies. (Interestingly, in both diseases, metabolisms slow down and infection resistance goes up!) As such, I believe that the following deleted sentence should be restored to TWD article's lead: "Within minutes after death, regardless of its cause, all people now reanimate into these zombified mindless shells of their former selves, driven solely by instinct to spread the unknown pathogen by biting and eating any available living animal, especially other humans." Failure to include this important info in the lead may cause some casual readers to believe that TWD is just another silly zombie show. And by the way, humans can reanimate. For instance, after some babies are born in Russia, they are placed in ice, die for about 45 minutes, and are then brought back to life (this seemingly barbaric and primitive process actually SAVES their lives!)--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The idea of "We're all infected" (revealed in the season 2 finale) is a major plot point, and I don't think it's the best idea to put that right in the opening paragraphs of the article, which serve as a basic overview. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that EVERYBODY turns into a zombie after death clearly belongs in the article-encapsulating lead, because it IS a "major plot point", IS part of the "basic overview", and IS one of the fun aspects of the show that separates it from other frivolous, boring, implausible zombie fiction. Again, the lead is supposed to summarize the article in four short, declarative paragraphs or less. What is more lead-worthy than such an important phenomenon, which the entire show revolves around? If you are worried about this revelation being a "spoiler", it also appears in other parts of the article.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You readded it back to the article with "as per talk page", yet there's no consensus. This content has been removed by two separate editors (including myself). Please respect that. I said, if you wanted it back in the lead, trim it significantly, so it's not repetitive of the exact same statement used later in the article. You also then went ahead and removed content from the lead based on your perception of it being "trivial". What's to say the series' location is not of the same importance as the matter you think is important? You can't just decide that on your own. You moved it to the Filming section, but that part doesn't have to do with the filming of the show, but its fictional setting. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There were no objections to my reasoning, so I assumed that I was free to edit. Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. When I made the edits, the specific info about the show being filmed in Atalanta did not even appear in the article, so it did not belong on the lead.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The info about the filming locations does not even appear in the article at all, so it does not belong in the lead, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

There's a Filming subsection, so yes, it is in the article and has been for a long time. The passage you're deleting is the setting, not filming location; and where the series takes place is notable and is mentioned throughout the plot synopsis in the article, so again, also in the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. I didn't read the entire entry about the location. The story's location probably does belong in the lead. Nonetheless, I still think that TWD's unique (until recently) zombie behavior should be explained.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Drovethrughosts on this matter: Keep major spoilers out of the lead unless necessary. It doesn't help a thing, and only upsets our readers. For a recent example of such spoilers, see this discussion from Talk:Kingsman: The Secret Service. That is, if you've already seen the film and/or don't mind being spoiled. My feelings on spoiling our readers in the lead are also noted there. Flyer22 (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment – One thing to also keep in mind is that when people search topics using "OK Google" or Apple's Siri, often excerpts from Wikipedia's lead is read back to them. This would be another reason to keep spoilers out of the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding a "deceased" or "alive" field to Template:Infobox character

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Adding a "deceased" or "alive" field to Template:Infobox character. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Article titles for The Walking Dead characters

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox "Starring"

Do you need to list the characters that no longer appear on the show, as they have either been killed or died? Some for a good few seasons already. Was looking at page, and thought info box could be shortened down, if we just deleted the ones who are 'dead', and kept the ones who are still alive. I was going to post this last week, but thought would be better until Season 6 starts so we have a fresh update from the opening credits to who is classed as 'starring'. As it has now premiered, posted this.

What do you think? What relevance is there to show who used to be on the show? Charlr6 (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Not how it works. You always list all the actors that have been "starring" during the entire series run, regardless if they're not currently on the show. Articles look at the subject historically, not just what's present. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Link? Charlr6 (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You could just look at any other TV series article. But, from Template:Infobox television, "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show." Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, but saying to look at any other TV series article is stupid. Game of Thrones doesn't even list the cast in the infobox, just a link to set of characters. Charlr6 (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Most other TV series articles, then. GOT doesn't list the cast in the infobox because its starring cast is huge, I believe there's been over 40 actors credited in the opening titles. Hope you understand the reason though now. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Glenn Asian in the comics?

Insight is needed on the following matter: Talk:Glenn Rhee#Is Glenn Asian in the comics?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015

Please add Kennedy Brice to Recurring as Molly

Filmbuff311 (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Done --Cerebellum (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sentence regarding affair between Shane and Lori

I went in and fixed this sentence, "Shane unintentionally misleads Lori into believing that Rick is dead, as he himself believes. Thinking herself a widow, Lori begins an affair with Shane.". It doesn't make sense to say that they were having an affair, when they both thought that Rick was dead. Boomer Vial^Holla 09:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Technically, an affair is a "secret sexual relationship" which is what Lori and Shane had, but to remove any confusion with its interpreted meaning, I agree we should steer clear of the terminology. I made a slight modification to your edit. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)