Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Early criticism content

Latest comment: 8 years ago39 comments5 people in discussion

With this edit, PhiladelphiaInjustice removed the early criticism content, which concerns season 2, stating, "Way too much info compared to the other seasons." I reverted, stating, "The section is nothing but positive reviews without it. And it makes sense to include so much early season criticism since critics agree that the show improved afterward." PhiladelphiaInjustice reverted, replying, "86% of critics gave the show a POSITIVE review. And the other seasons' sections are much shorter." I revered again, noting that this needs discussion and that edit warring should cease.

I support the early criticism content not only because the section should have criticism in it, but because season 2 was the most criticized season of the show. It was also different in pacing and style, and the show moved away from that style afterward. It therefore makes sense that all of this about season 2, and how the show progressed, would be noted in that section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A staggering 86% of season two's Rotten Tomatoes reviews were positive, so including the few negative criticisms is counterintuitive, non-encyclopedic, and illogical. The rogue opinions of three critics does not adequately represent the entire group of 22. And many of the review quotes that I deleted were POSITIVE, but there is simply too much detailed and misrepresentative information in the current season two form. The other seasons' info is short and declarative, as it should be for a section like this, so let's keep it consistent for the second season. If you want to start a separate Wiki article about TWD's reviews, include away. And season 2 is NOT the most criticized season, as empirically evidenced by its average 8/10 critic score on Rotten Tomatoes (versus 7.3/10 and 7.9/10 for seasons one and four, respectively.)--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your viewpoint. And I noted why above. Let's wait and see what other editors think. As for your statement that season 2 is not the most criticized season, you'll be hard-pressed to find a more criticized season of the show. And I'm stating that as someone who was fine with season 2. Like this Metacritic source states, "While many critics originally reviewed the second season (quite positively) a few months ago after previewing the first two episodes, now that they have seen the entire half-season arc in its entirety, many television writers have taken the opportunity to reassess Season 2, in most cases downgrading their original opinions." Take note of all the critical reviews it cites. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Merely because you and others disagree with logic does not make you right. Again, each season's critical summary should be short and declarative in a main article like this. Even if it should be excessively long, it should reflect reviews as a whole. Again, a staggering 86% of critics at Rotten Tomatoes (the main critic site) gave the show a POSITIVE review, so the Wiki section should reflect this fact and not list the few negative comments. Even less important Metaritic critics gave the show an average rating of 8/10. And I am unsure about where you are getting your Metacritic quotes from, but of their 22 reviewers, 18 gave a positive review, four were mixed, and ZERO were negative: http://www.metacritic.com/tv/the-walking-dead/season-2--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I've made my case above, with a WP:Reliable source. That season 2 was criticized the way it was, and that the show's style significantly changed afterward, should be included. Like I stated, I await other opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, this section needs a lot of work. At the moment, it looks way too formulaic in its layout, with the last few paragraphs all reading the same way. Some serious revamp is needed, and criticism should not be left out even in the face of overwhelming praise, as it shows the minority viewpoint. Per WP:DUE, we need to strike the right balance between the two. Obviously, the amount of positive reviews mentioned should significantly outnumber the negative, but since the negative is reliably sourced, some mention of that should exist in the article. Until the section is redone, I recommend retaining the "early criticism" info that was removed. If there is an issue with its length or amount of detail, then we can address that here and find a compromise, but arguing for its complete removal is unjustified per Wikipedia policy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Reasons why the section should be reverted to my version:

1. Only a brief summary of each's season's reviews should be included on the main page of a television show show. A spinoff article could get more detailed. There is currently far too much detail about season two's reviews, regardless of its merits. 2. The Metacritic source that Flyer is using is merely ONE critic's interpretation the other 21 critics' reviews on their site. But the following empirical evidence contradicts the critic's obviously biased opinion: Of Metacritic's 22 season two reviewers, 18 gave a positive review, four were mixed, and ZERO were negative: http://www.metacritic.com/tv/the-walking-dead/season-2 -- and a staggering 86% of the more important Rotten Tomatoes' 22 critics gave the season a positive review. 3. The opinions of three negative rogue critics does not adequately represent the entire Metacritic group of 22. 4. Many of the review quotes that I deleted were POSITIVE, but there is simply too much detailed and misrepresentative information in the current season two form. The other seasons' info is short and declarative, as it should be for a section like this, so let's keep it consistent for the second season. If you want to start a separate Wiki article about TWD's reviews, include away. And season 2 is NOT the most criticized season, as empirically evidenced by its average 8/10 critic score on Rotten Tomatoes (versus 7.3/10 and 7.9/10 for seasons one and four, respectively.)--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

GoneIn60 clearly agreed with me; and like GoneIn60, I agree that "If there is an issue with its length or amount of detail, then we can address that here and find a compromise, but arguing for its complete removal is unjustified per Wikipedia policy." Yet you decided to remove the content yet again, as if there is consensus to remove it, which is why I reverted you yet again. GoneIn60 and I have made valid points about why what you are removing should stay. I don't see how your edits are helping. Since you insist on edit warring over this, it is perhaps time to ask WP:TV to weigh in on it and/or start a WP:RfC on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And once again, no other The walking Dead season has received as much criticism as season 2, which is exactly why what you are removing adheres to the WP:Due weight policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I alerted WP:TV to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Gonein stated: "...the amount of positive reviews mentioned should significantly outnumber the negative". That is not the case with your version. And stop stalking my edits elsewhere just to harass me out of petty vindictiveness.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

GoneIn60 stated, "and criticism should not be left out even in the face of overwhelming praise, as it shows the minority viewpoint. Per WP:DUE, we need to strike the right balance between the two. Obviously, the amount of positive reviews mentioned should significantly outnumber the negative, but since the negative is reliably sourced, some mention of that should exist in the article. Until the section is redone, I recommend retaining the 'early criticism' info that was removed." What he stated aligns with what I stated, not with your arguments. There is nothing but positivity in the section, and the section does not show how the show progressed with regard to criticism, which is something the "early criticism" information shows. Your edits have repeatedly been a detriment to this WP:Good article, including the #Apocalyptic vs. post-apocalyptic aspect noted above. Your removal is invalid. And I've been quite clear that I did not stalk you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and this bit is certainly not what GoneIn60 had in mind when he stated "Until the section is redone." That bit helps nothing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I find your replies to be unnecessarily nasty and accusatory. All of my edits have been made in good faith. Most of the deleted info about the second season is negative; it is illogical to include it in the main article, given that 86% of the season's reviews are positive and the other seasons' info in the section is much more limited. I am unsure about why you are being so combative, hostile, and impolite towards me, but I will defer to what other editors say about TWD's article.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And I find your editing to often be WP:Disruptive. I only have patience for WP:Disruptive editors for so long. You were given opinions from two very experienced Wikipedians on this matter, and you chose to continue on in a way you knew was disputed...instead of trying to work the matter out. And your talk page shows that you have invalidly removed negative reviews from this article before. All of that is why I have taken a hard tone with you. I do not wish to speak with you any longer. I await what GoneIn60 and/or other editors in good standing have to state. It seems this matter will be going to a WP:RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of disruptive editing, you have disruptively edited my perfectly valid edits on the Bieber article (the least valuable at Wikipedia, in my opinion. If I can be neutral there, I can do it anywhere.) Your only possibly legitimate grip was with restoring the "n" word, which I had removed due to its inflammatory nature. The other edits were highly encyclopedic. And the only info about negative reviews about TWD that I remember having deleted were from the referenced section about the second season, and I have also removed positive info therefrom because it was incongruent compared to the other seasons' overviews.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, thanks for locating that older conversation. I remembered having the exchange, but forgot which article it was about. I may be partially to blame here, as following that discussion, I didn't put the time in to carry out the suggestions I made (or at least get them to the next step). What I think should happen at this point is to make sure the critical content in this section exists in each respective season article, and if not, carry it over using the same references. Then we should be able to wittle this one down to a brief series overview, though I admit that part is going to be the biggest challenge. I'll try to make time soon to throw a suggestion together in my sandbox if you, PhiladelphiaInjustice, and perhaps Drovethrughosts want to work on the other part of verifying/copying over to the season articles. I'm open to other suggestions as well.

PhiladelphiaInjustice, I understand that you may have had good intentions, but when a conflict occurs, it is almost always best to sort it out on the talk page obtaining a clear consensus before moving forward. I think it's clear we all want the same thing: a better article. Let's finally take those steps to make that happen while we have the attention of several interested editors. You'd be surprised how hard it is sometimes to find good help, and we'd be able to accomplish a lot more if we could just find some middle ground and work together. Here, the best way forward appears to be to take the bloat out of this article. Some critical commentary may remain in the end, but hopefully it will be a well-balanced product that we all agree on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I usually do discuss issues first on talk pages before doing controversial edits. And if you are going to add info about TWD's negative reviews, it should be outnumbered by positive info four to one, given the 80%-plus critic approval rating of each season. Note that my edits deleted both negative and positive review info about the second season because they were too detailed compared to the other seasons' overviews.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GoneIn60. I already replied to PhiladelphiaInjustice at my talk page regarding his accusations toward me. I do not think that PhiladelphiaInjustice understands what well-balanced means when it comes to a critical reception section. He keeps focusing on Rotten Tomatoes, for example, as if that is the only or main critical reception data that matters. At WP:Film, editors (like Erik, for example) have been repeatedly clear that this is not the case. Take this section of the Titanic (1997 film) article, for example. It clearly reports that the film holds an overall 88% approval rating on review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, but that doesn't stop us from reporting on the criticism and the backlash that Titantic received. We do not try to downplay all of that because of the high 88% Rotten Tomatoes score. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Flyer has again made an irrelevant comparison to another article and accused me of not understanding (aka disagreeing with his warped logic.) I reiterate:

1. Only a brief summary of each's season's reviews should be included on the main page of a television show. A spinoff article could get more detailed. There is currently far too much detail about season two's reviews, regardless of its merits. 2. The Metacritic source that Flyer is using is merely ONE critic's interpretation the other 21 critics' reviews on their site. But the following empirical evidence contradicts that critic's obviously biased opinion: Of Metacritic's 22 season two reviewers, 18 gave a positive review, four were mixed, and ZERO were negative: http://www.metacritic.com/tv/the-walking-dead/season-2 -- and a staggering 86% of the more important Rotten Tomatoes' 22 critics gave the season a positive review. 3. The opinions of three negative rogue critics does not adequately represent the entire Metacritic group of 22, 18 of whom gave a POSITIVE review with four mixed and NONE negative. How are the three NEGATIVE parts of the neutral reviews representative samples? 4. Many of the review quotes that I deleted were POSITIVE, but there is simply too much detailed and misrepresentative information in the current season two form. The other seasons' info is short and declarative, as it should be for a section like this, so let's keep it consistent for the second season. If you want to start a separate Wiki article about TWD's reviews, include away. And season 2 is NOT the most criticized season, as empirically evidenced by its average 8/10 critic score on Rotten Tomatoes (versus 7.3/10 and 7.9/10 for seasons one and four, respectively.)--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I am female, and, without even reading the rest of your latest post, you are wrong, per everything GoneIn60 and I have stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Repeating yourself does not make you any more right, and helps nothing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I am forced to repeat myself to offset your repeated incorrect claims. You are not right merely because you so profess. And the other editor has agreed with me that negative reviews should not be overemphasized for season two, given its over-80% positive review rate on Metacritic and RT.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes reviews for TV shows are just for the first few episodes of the season, they are not for an entire season, so you cannot use those scores as they end-all-be-all of what is the considered the best or worst reviewed season, etc. Just because there's some negative reception, does not mean it erases what's positive, as the high Metacritic and RT scores are still listed there. Those reviews were written after first half of the season concluded and are not from the beginning of the season, thus, they are not included in the reviews listed at Metacritic/RT. The section is balanced because it then lists two positive reviews talking about the improvement of the season. A separate article would not be created for addition reception of TWD, that it what the season articles are for. I should note that The Walking Dead (season 2) does contain the same information, so it could be trimmed from here. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Drovethrughosts. PhiladelphiaInjustice, I already stated that you do not understand what well-balanced means when it comes to a critical reception section. I stated that you keep focusing on Rotten Tomatoes, for example, as if that is the only or main critical reception data that matters. I pointed to the Titanic (1997 film) article for an example of media that has an almost 90% score on Rotten Tomatoes, but includes criticism and the backlash information in its Critical reception section. That is not an irrelevant comparison. As was told to you on your talk page, and now again by Drovethrughosts above, you act like the criticism we've included is too much or is out of balance, but it's not. You act like we should include nothing but positive removes because of the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores. We should not. It's just the right amount of balance, given the circumstances (circumstances I already explained above, and circumstances that Drovethrughosts has now explained). I indicated to you above that the positive reviews are mostly for the early season material, the same season that was mostly criticized for its beginning, and now Drovethrughosts has stated the same thing or similarly. I was very clear that the season was reassessed. You can call that Metacritc source I listed an opinion of the author all you want, but it counts as a WP:Reliable source, and clearly shows that the season 2 was reassessed. The criticism that's there for season 2 in this article should be there in this article. I disagreed with cutting the season 2 material, and I still do. GoneIn60 disagreed with cutting the season 2 material. Nothing GoneIn60 stated above agrees with you to cut that material. Drovethrughosts suggested that a little bit of it could be cut; I disagree per what I stated above, and per you not knowing how to cut properly in this respect; your bias is very clear. GoneIn60 stated that he will be working on the material for the section, so I suggest you let him.

To others, here is another source showing what I mean about season 2: This 2012 Entertainment Weekly source states, "By the time season 2 of The Walking Dead wrapped up — after the deaths of Dale and Shane, and the appearance of comic book favorite Michonne and the prison — fans were whipped into a frenzy and acting like zombies themselves with the insatiable hunger for more, more, MORE! But during the season’s first batch of episodes in the fall of 2011, it was a bit of a different story, with some viewers grumbling about the slow pacing as the survivors hung around on the farm and searched for lost Sophia. (The payoff, of course, was that a zombified Sophia would eventually be found locked in the barn.)" The source goes on to include commentary from the cast and creators about the season 2 criticism. Again, I don't see any other season of this show that received this level of criticism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me what I do and do not understand, but it is actually you who cannot grasp my prior points. Merely because you have an opinion does not make it the most valid. My prior points were based on pure logic, yours on the fact that you had posted the disputed text and did not want it to be removed for that reason alone. My previous arguments have already debunked your counterintuitive reasoning.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no valid point in you coming back here trying to start up the arguments again two months later. You were wrong. Move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Section break

OK, after giving this a lot of thought and carefully looking over Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, it is clear that both of their ratings are flawed. Both heavily weigh early reviews conducted after only 1 or 2 episodes for each season. In RT's case, practically every review for season 1 has this flaw. RT then takes each season's flawed rating and averages them together to get the series rating – completely unacceptable in my opinion. MC, of course, doesn't even provide a series rating. So in light of this, I suggest we completely eliminate the critical reception section in the series article. Trying to include excerpts from each article is just going to be redundant. Instead, our focus should be tidying up each season's critical review section, which after looking at season 1 is probably going to entail a lot of work. I spent the past hour writing a rough draft of what I think would be a good replacement for season 1's. Take a look here and feel free to make changes or post suggestions/comments back on this page. It's a rough draft, so I expect some work will be needed. The current state of season 1 cites reviews released shortly after the pilot episode and are not accurate representations of the entire season's reception. So I think this would be an improvement. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

So you're stating that you want us to delete all of this material after we finish with the rewrite? And that we then replace the material with the rewrite? You're also stating that we devote one paragraph to each season, but without subheadings, right? I don't see why we'd need subheadings. I'm fine with your proposed layout, but I still think we should keep the early criticism material that's there. I also think we should find sources commenting on how each season was viewed overall by critics; the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores served that purpose. But, as you stated, its rating systems are flawed in this case. I'm also thinking about bringing up the problem with these rating systems in this regard at WP:TV, since Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are used this way for all modern television shows, which is why it's going to look odd if we don't note Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic at all in that section. Maybe we can note in that section how these sites judged the seasons, and that, based on this, the sites gave each season a positive review? Maybe Betty Logan has a suggestion on this? She's commented on how these sites can be flawed, including recently (that's a WP:Permalink). If we don't find sources commenting on how each season was viewed overall by critics, we could end up with a section that makes it seem like each season was generally reviewed as mixed; I get a mixed vibe from your draft for the season 1 critical review summary. Also, I understand what you mean by "Trying to include excerpts from each article is just going to be redundant.", but that's how WP:Summary style works; that doesn't mean we have to be too redundant, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

All really good questions and fair points. For the series article, it doesn't look like we have any reliable statistics from aggregators that accurately gauges feedback on the entire series as a whole. RT makes a poor attempt at this that doesn't seem fundamentally sound (by the way, if you want to ping me at WP:TV when you decide to start a thread on this, I'll be happy to contribute). So unless we come across sources that review the entire series to date, this critical reception section may not be necessary. If consensus decides to keep it, then we should avoid RT's flawed analysis at the very least and also take great care not to inject our own analysis. Doing so in such a way that benefits the article is going to be difficult, not to mention the amount of maintenance involved to keep it up to date. As each new season concludes, we'll likely have to completely replace the previous sources with new ones that re-evaluate the series as it currently stands. Sounds like a lot of work for very small gain, since it seems easier to just cover each season's reception in their respective articles as opposed to the entire series as a whole within the series article. But maybe that's just me!

As for each season's article, I'm not suggesting we keep it to one paragraph necessarily. It can certainly be longer when there is a large sample to pull from. Unfortunately for season 1, the number of sources I was able to find up to this point that review the entire season was rather limiting. If we'd like to keep the initial reactions in there, that might help paint a more complete picture, but we should definitely clarify these were initial. Actually now that I think about it, I like the idea of retaining the initial reactions, especially since there were so many (easily over 20 reliable sources to pull from). --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I see now that you were suggesting we not have a critical reception section in this article at all; that's not a good solution. The article should have a critical reception section. And the section should not simply be made up of links to the season articles. The season articles should be expanded since they should contain more detail about the seasons than the series article. And, per WP:Summary style, we should then should summarize what it's in those articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Side note: For this discussion, I replaced your "outdent 4" with a section break heading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Let's keep the critical reception section in this article. Just to be clear, I also agree that this section should not simply be made up of links to the season articles. So do you suggest we hammer out the kinks in each season article first, then revisit the series article last to write a good summary? --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

For the first season, here's how a revamped critical reception section might look: rough draft vs. current. The draft now retains RT and MC scores by placing them in the appropriate context. Look good? --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks okay. I gather that you are understandably still concerned about relaying the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, but at least you put them in better context. Thanks for taking the time to do this and help resolve this dispute. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll go ahead and make the changes, since very little is being removed and sourced content is being added. If anyone wants to modify it further, feel free. I'll take a stab at the rest of the seasons if someone doesn't beat me to it. Then we can revisit the series article when we're ready. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Since I was pinged here I will leave some comments anyway: in my experience there isn't necessarily a direct correlation between poor reviews and criticism. Positive reviews can contain criticism and negative reviews can contain praise. Just because something scores 100% on an aggregator does not mean we should exclude all criticism from the article. WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT should be applied in conjunction: NPOV compels us to cover all significant points of view, while WEIGHT compels us to make it proportional. So for example, if the acting is praised but there are some dissenting opinions then the balance in the article should reflect that. Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of which verifiable source is referenced, the critic section disproportionally represents the critics' negative reviews.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Apocalyptic vs. post-apocalyptic

Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

With this edit, PhiladelphiaInjustice changed "post-apocalyptic" to "apocalyptic", stating "the apocalypse is CURRENT, not post, as per Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction." I don't buy the change. Various sources describe The Walking Dead as post-apocalyptic. And the article that PhiladelphiaInjustice pointed to currently states, "Post-apocalyptic stories often take place in a non-technological future world, or a world where only scattered elements of society and technology remain." The characters being in an apocalypse doesn't mean that their world isn't post-apocalyptic. The apocalypse happened, and now they are dealing with the aftermath. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Good catch. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well, it should be changed back. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So the apocalypse is no longer in progress?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand what "post-apocalyptic" can refer to, and are taking the "post" aspect of it too literally. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It is you who misunderstands. "Post apocalyptic" using any definition obviously means a period following an apocalypse. TWD apocalypse is ongoing, as humans are still morphing into zombies. AMC's own website refers only to the "zombie apocalypse"; they mention nothing about "post" anywhere thereon. Example: http://www.amc.com/shows/the-walking-dead/talk/2015/10/the-walking-dead-zombie-apocalypse-week-marathon-begins-monday-october-5--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't misunderstand. And neither do WP:Reliable sources that refer to the show as being in a post-apocalyptic world. This edit by you where you added the aforementioned source noting that the characters are in a zombie apocalypse doesn't make you any more right. I already stated above, "The characters being in an apocalypse doesn't mean that their world isn't post-apocalyptic. The apocalypse happened, and now they are dealing with the aftermath." Two editors thus far have agreed. That's three editors disagreeing with you thus far. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What reliable sources support your contention? AMC should trump all other sources because they actually make and broadcast the show. The other editors did not have all of the information when they posted their opinions. Even if they had had it, it would not make them right. There is no logic behind using "post" if the apocalypse is still occurring. Using any definition that I could find at the three leading dictionaries, "post" cannot apply to the current apocalypse. Merely because you disagree with facts does not make you right.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I provided a Google link above to such sources, so your contention that "The other editors did not have all of the information when they posted their opinions." is a dubious assumption. The way you are distinguishing matters makes no sense to me, just as my rationale clearly makes no sense to you. But using the aforementioned source to argue that the characters' world is not post-apocalyptic because the source uses the words "zombie apocalypse" is not a valid argument. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are not in the right just because you claim to be. I have already stated my logical case, but you want to get your way by improperly rationalizing the definitions of post and apocalypse. Any source that uses "post apocalypse" is mistaken. Google "The Walking Dead apocalypse" for a huge number of reliable sources that so characterize it. And again, you cannot argue with a black-and-white interpretation of any dictionary's definitions.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state at this site. I will list them here in this section with no problem if you or someone else wants. AMC's site has also referred to the world as post-apocalyptic. You are acting like the world is not apocalyptic because the characters are commonly stated to be in a zombie apocalypse by fans and the media; you are mistaken. Furthermore, the world has been called apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic by sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I will also list book sources noting what post-apocalyptic means, if that will help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

PhiladelphiaInjustice, here's the deal. The apocalypse is the collapse of society and technology, or civilization as we know it today. You seem to be arguing that this is still an ongoing process. However, the collapse itself has occurred. While some elements remain, the series has clearly entered a post-apocalyptic phase (starting with Season 2). Very little of what existed before is still intact. I find it ironic that an article you pointed to in an edit summary even states that post-apocalyptic applies to situations where "scattered elements of society and technology remain". The complete elimination of these elements is not required to enter this phase, as you seem to be suggesting.

Furthermore, you've harped on this before in a past discussion, but to refresh your memory, primary sources are less significant than secondary sources (see WP:PSTS). Descriptions and opinions from an author, producer, director, etc., are less relevant than what secondary sources say about the subject. This makes sense, because the way a particular work is received or classified can change over time and differ greatly from the intentions the creator had in mind. So how the TV series is described at AMC's website does not override more reliable, third-party analysis. This is a moot point anyway, because the absence of "post-apocalyptic" in that description at AMC does not mean that label is being refuted; it just means it isn't being used. Flyer22 also stated that AMC has used the term to describe the series elsewhere, so if true, that clearly removes AMC from the conversation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This has morphed into a ridiculously overblown argument about an incredibly minor subject. Go for it; revert back to "post-apocalyptic", even though you are making vague statements without much evidence to back them up. It is curious that you have downplayed my point that a Google search reveals more verifiable sources that imply that the apocalypse is current by default of not using the adjectival modifier "post". Also, nowhere in any of the three leading dictionaries could I find a combination of definitions of the two words which would support describing TWD as "post apocalyptic". Then again, I am not going to research the term and other info for hours to prove my argument about such an insignificant matter. Further, the cause of the apocalypse -- the zombie pathogen -- is the key factor here, but there are still a large number of humans not affected by it, hence my reluctance to say "post". But again, this is an incredibly trivial matter to be arguing about, so feel free to revert away.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's look at the Oxford Dictionary entry which states: "Denoting or relating to the time following a nuclear war or other catastrophic event". Another definition is given here from an author which states:

Post-apocalyptic fiction focuses on what happens after the apocalyptic event. It is concerned with how people survive in the new world when most people have been killed off, and all familiar infrastructure has been destroyed. It may be set immediately after, or many years after the apocalypse.

The key point is that the destruction of society is the apocalyptic event. Once it has been severely altered for its survivors, the event is over, and what follows is considered post-apocalyptic, even if the survivors are still experiencing harsh conditions.

As for your point about doing a Google search, you should realize that in general, the term "apocalypse" will generate more hits than the term "post-apocalyptic"; it's more prevalent in the English language. Because of this fact, comparing searches with these two terms will be misleading. Take the search "walking dead" apocalypse for example. It turns up 4 million hits. What is interesting, however, is that if you flip through to the last search page, Google stops you at page 37, citing the rest as duplicates or irrelevant. If you search for "walking dead" "post apocalyptic", you can actually get to page 38. Both searches of course include web hits that would not be considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. So if I repeat both searches on Google News, strangely I get similar results: "apocalypse" gets me to page 38, and "post apocalyptic" gets me to page 39. There is no clear-cut winner here. This article may help explain why search results can be so messed up and unpredictable on Google, so much so that we should be careful when using them to make a point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You guys better be glad Randall didn't see this thread or you'd find yourselves in an XKCD comic like that other talk page :-)

I'd go for ZA and drop the "post", but the hell with it. Okay, there "is no clear winner." But that don't fed the bulldog. What should I call it if I edit the article? Is ZA okay, does it not matter, or what's the bottom line? Why do I care? Because I don't like getting my edits reverted and this place keeps count.

Verdana♥Bold 16:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The consensus so far is to retain "post-apocalyptic", and the detailed explanation backing this term is above. If you believe there is a new argument as to why it should be changed or if you feel something was missed in the previous discussion, state your reasons here. We need more than "I prefer X over Y". --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This section certainly convinced me of the validity of "post-apocalyptic" and I found it wonderfully illustrative of the spirited discussion process at Wikipedia.Reidgreg (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Viewer Numbers Graph

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The graph being used on The Walking Dead page is getting a tad hard to read. The Game of Thrones page has a much better viewer number graph. Perhaps we could use it on The Walking Dead page going forward. --68.147.12.89 (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I can change that when I have the time, if no one objects that is. Hzh (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No objections. Make it so. --68.147.12.89 (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Article needs serious trimming

Latest comment: 7 years ago36 comments5 people in discussion

This article is far too bloated with excessive details that should not be in there. Where there is a sub-topic that has its own separate article, the practice is to use a summary style per WP:SUMMARY. It is getting ridiculous that the synopsis of each season in the main article is as long, and some even longer than the synopsis of the articles for individual seasons. There is also no need for such extended lists of the cast and characters when there is a separate article for characters in the show. Please note that one of the criteria for Good Article per WP:GACR is that it should focus on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, and I don't think the article as it is it qualifies as a Good Article. The article has ballooned out of shape since it was awarded the Good Article status, and it may be necessary to reassess its status if this is not fixed. Hzh (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The season synopsis' need to be trimmed to the most bare essentials as there are season and episode articles that have more expanded summaries. The cast table needs to be converted to a prose list where information about the character can actually be listed. I know certain people love their cast tables where they can fixate on minutiae regarding type of billing (main, recurring, guest, etc.) and what colors to be used, but the section should actually provide information on the characters. A cast table is more appropriate for the list of characters article. The list of recurring characters also needs to be trimmed to the most notable – the ones that appear in multiple seasons or have significant impact on storylines (not just a few episodes in a single season). I'm gonna try to get the ball rolling on these changes over the next few days when I have time. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll third that opinion. I noticed some of the season summaries here were copy & pastes from the individual season articles (which isn't a bad place to start, but they definitely need to be made more concise). I also tend to agree regarding the cast section, that it should provide some bare amount of information on the characters (and possibly their plot arcs) which might help make the plot summaries (and other sections) more understandable. (Those tables are nice, but maybe they'd better belong in the article on TWD characters?) Reidgreg (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I just trimmed the season 6 summary by about 250 words (it's 753 words right now). I'm just now sure how long is appropriate for a season summary in the main article, as there's not really a guideline for that, as MOS:TV just states 100–200 words for summaries in episode lists and 200–500 words for summaries in episode articles. I'm thinking maybe around 700 is okay for season summaries in the main article? Thoughts? And yes, the cast tables are also used on List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters, so it's not as if they're being completed deleted. I just converted to main cast table to a prose list (with character info to be added later). I left in character duration by season, but left out minutiae regarding actor billing (main cast, also starring, recurring, guest, etc.) as it would just cause too much clutter. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the edit. I would say it needs to be much more concise than that, it should be more of a broad outline, the details can be given in the individual season article. I think trimming each season down to around a third or less would be preferred. For the cast section, I think the article on Game of Thrones (which has an enormous cast) has it about right, doing it entirely prose-style. Most of recurring character (I'd also say a few of the ones currently in the "main cast") do not need to be mentioned except those who are important plot wise. Hzh (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I've trimmed the season 6 summary even further. It's now 519 words, which I find to be quite reasonable, unless you still have some objections. Yes, the way the Game of Thrones article does it is great, but list-prose is also acceptable per WP:TVCAST. I say we start there, because it's a bit easier. I'm gonna ping Masem, who did a trim of the episode summaries in the season articles a few months back, maybe he's willing to help in the trimming of the summaries here. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I can help once S6 hits Netflix. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

In the spirit of being more concise, I trimmed the S01 and S02 summaries as well. I'm sure more is needed per the comments above, but the only way I see that happening is to leave the summaries as open-ended introductions to how each season begins. We would have to throw out the middle and end in order to cut it down further. If that's how we want to proceed, it can certainly be done. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

After putting more thought into this, perhaps there are other ways to make each summary a lot shorter. Here's one suggestion:

User:GoneIn60/sandbox

If the proposed section looks acceptable, I can roll this into the article and make similar changes to the other 5 summaries. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Having trimmed these before, I think I agree that GoneIn60's proposed changes may be better. Outside of S2, TWD tends to be memorialable for specific episodes rather than season-running plots, so a brief intro to the season with ~200-300 words per episode on the season pages would help the reader looking for a specific episode most. Ideally, if the short episode summaries are consistent, the reader will learn of season-long plots through those summaries, avoiding the wordiness of a larger season summary section. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I also like the idea of the more condensed summaries as well. My only suggestion would be to mention more character names in the summaries. Also, what are your thoughts on this? I intentionally left that type of information when converting the table to a list, and instead used simplified "seasons 2–5" for example to reduce clutter. I feel the section should be about the characters (character info to be added soon), and not focus on minutiae such as what type of credit an actor receives for a specific season (that information is still present and is more suitable in the list of characters article). Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that edit has good intentions, but when I look at the charts in List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters, it seems this information is much more clear and easier to look at. Perhaps instead of duplicating the list on this page with similar info, we remove it altogether and try to write a brief summary of the main cast members (or if it's too POV to narrow down who we talk about, then just leave the {{Main article}} link there with a few details about casting in general). Just a thought.

Back to the season summaries for a moment, are we in agreement then that a short paragraph is all that's needed on this page? I understand the "~200-300 words per episode on the season pages" comment, but before I made any changes on the series article, I wanted to make sure we were fine with this proposal. Obviously, feel free to piggyback on the changes I make to further improve them, should we decide to venture down that road. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough to understand the flavor of a season so that a reader with a broad idea of the series' plot can figure out where an episode of a season likely is, and for the most part focusing the narrative as being around Rick Grimes, avoiding a list of main characters that have died unless they affect the main plot (eg: Lori), all which I think can be done in 200 words on this page for each season. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

In the season articles, as much as I'd like to avoid redundancy, I feel they're better with both the season plot summary and short episode plot summaries (ep summaries recommended 100-200 words though I aim for < 100 words). The multi-episode plot arcs get a much better treatment in a single piece of prose that can tackle one subject at a time without episode breaks, whereas the episode summaries almost become point-form as they cram in details and memorable B and C plots. Besides, the season article is the one place there should be a good season plot summary, and every episode already gets a 200-500 word (recommended) plot summary on its own article. I know some of the season article season summaries needed to be trimmed, but I don't feel 700 words is excessive considering the complexity of the season plot arcs. For this article, Gonein60's < 100 word S1 summary is a little short for my taste (but I'll support it if there's a consensus). Both it and the current S1 summary give a lot of weight to the first and last episodes, and don't mention the camp at the quarry (and the attack on it which was arguably S1's climax). I feel that could be shifted to better represent the season, if the intention is to summarize the season rather than bookending it. Here is my attempt at a rewrite < 200 words. (BTW, if you haven't already, please comment on Walker vs Zombie, above. Thanks.) Reidgreg (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

For myself, here's how I see it:

Show page (this one) : Season summaries at a very high level, aiming for no more than 200 words to identify the broad arcing plot.
Season page: 700-900 word summary of the season, specifically aimed to keep episode-spanning plots in their entirety. Individual episode summaries at 100-200 words at most to emphasis key points of an episode (similar to what you'd see in a TV guide)
Episode page (recognizing that practically all eps of TWD are notable for a WP article): 500-700 word episode summary, recognizing that repeating elements from previous episodes is unnecessary unless they are core plot points (like S2's finale with Rick telling everyone what he learned from Dr. Jenner from S1 finale).

This approach provides a good map for a reader, trying to locate a specific episode but unable to by title or season, should be able to quickly come to it. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

General layout comment – I'm on board with that. I agree that the series article should use season summary descriptions of less than 200 words. For the other points, I would suggest maybe only slight changes:

Season page: 400–900 words for the plot summary (lower the starting range from 700 to 400 for situations where content is limited), and less than 200 words for episode summaries
Episode page: 300–600 words (I suggest lowering the range a bit, as most TV episodes are only an hour or less. In comparison, film plot summaries can be 400–700 words)

These are really minor changes to Masem's suggestion, which I think overall hits the nail on the head. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I was thinking about TV shows in general that span more than one season, and not necessarily just TWD when I modified those numbers above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The TV project does need to have a good manner to deal with a highly covered show (like TWD, Game of Thrones, etc.), in dealing with plot between series, season, episode, and character articles to avoid excessive duplication, which unfortunately happens a lot. It might be good to start here with TWD to present the approach to the project at large. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Feedback for Reidgreg – I like your take better than mine, actually! I made a few slight changes to it, which you can view here. The word count went from 186 to 176. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

As an update, I inserted that proposal into the season 1 summary and went ahead with modifying season 2's, which was a lot more difficult than I anticipated. Please don't hesitate to further modify them as needed, especially if you notice an important detail that was left out (assuming we can still keep it under 200 words). I'll begin working on season 3, but I'm not sure when I'll have time to do the rest. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well apparently there's just too much content to trim in the remaining summaries. We need to consider a new approach that only introduces the primary plot elements and doesn't attempt to explain how they are resolved (much like a book cover that entices readers with a short synopsis without spoilers). Also, trying to name the characters crucial to the plot isn't going to work either; there are too many of them. I propose we leave them out as much as possible. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I tried again in my sandbox. I've got S1-2 at < 200 words but S3-6 were more complex and I only managed to get them down to 250-300 words. GoneIn60, sorry I don't remember your changes but I remember I liked them. Hopefully I incorporated them. I tried adding a little to suggest the group conflict of the many B and C plots which can't be mentioned. Reidgreg (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Masem gave it a go on S03, S04 and S05. It is no doubt an improvement over the bloat that was there before, so thank you for that. While the goal of staying under 200 words worked fine for the shorter seasons (1 and 2), I think the difficulty in doing so is really manifesting itself on the remaining, full-length seasons. In season 3, for example, I think the reunification of Daryl and Merle, as well as Merle's switching of sides during the meeting between Rick and The Governor are essential to any summary covering this season. Same goes for Carol's banishment in season 4 and triumphant return in season 5.

I realize we can't have it all, but cutting some of these seems somewhat counterproductive in order to meet the <200 word goal. There are two possible compromises here:

We relax the restriction to 300 words and incorporate something similar to Reidgreg's proposals which address most of these concerns.
We consider the "book cover" analogy I made above and only tease the crucial elements of the plot without saying how they're resolved.

I'm fine with either, though I think avoiding the impossible task of describing how all the loose ends are tied up seems like an interesting approach worth pursuing. Not trying to create additional waves here, as the worst case scenario is we leave these changes alone and we're better off than we were before. I can live with that too. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

See, that's part of the problem with S3 and onward. The show starts having lots of sequential plot lines, and while I would fully agree that the Daryl/Meryl reunion is important, it's also the fact that S1 can be covered without mentioning Meryl that suggests we can avoid it - a lot of similar threads have to be kept out of this to keep them concise (like for example Carol's exile in S4) I tried to write 3-5 from the standpoint of if someone is trying to locate an episode only by the plot they remember, the summaries would reasonably guide them. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, no worries. I truly appreciate your efforts and didn't mean to sound like I was nit-picking. We can certainly leave out those plot lines for now and see how it holds up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I just trimmed the season 6 summary. After looking at Reidgreg's summaries in his sandbox, I think that's the best way to go. 300 words per season summary is perfectly reasonable, especially when they're a better attempt at summarizing the events, rather then just the "book cover" idea. However, not mentioning Morgan's return in the season 5 and 6 summaries is a bit of an oversight. Great job all around guys, it's looking great now! Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with extending it to 300 words and blending Reidgreg's proposals with Masem's for seasons 3 through 5. For seasons 1 and 2, they are probably fine for the most part already, with the exception that a reference to Merle may need to be added to season 1 per Masem's suggestion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather cover all the major plot points than the bookjacket sneak-peek (or what I called the "bookend" focusing on first and last episodes). I feel 300 words is OK if that's what it takes to do the job, though S1-2 seem sufficient at 200 words. My S5-6 were close to 250 words so there's some leeway if it's felt they need to be longer. (I would have liked to keep the S6 Morgan/Carol arc.) Frankly, I'd rather use what's in my sandbox2 as a base, incorporating some of the changes from the current article. I don't want to be presumptuous but that sounds like the way things are leaning. I don't mind if others want to work in my sandbox. I feel sandboxing is probably a good idea to (a) avoid edit warring and (b) have someplace else to discuss specific changes (as this discussion is getting long). BTW, I feel it's fine in this sort of summary to not mention characters until they become important to the plot (like Carol who is very minor in S1). BTW2, in my S1, Merle was mentioned peripherally as "a man left behind". (I didn't feel it was right to name him then without also naming Daryl, and if you do that it snowballs.) Reidgreg (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Good points to consider. I won't be on much over the next few days (currently in the process of trying to get my house ready for sale!), but messing around in the sandbox may be a good option if we suspect there may be some disagreements. Explaining the edits here, however, would still be helpful to add context to some of the proposed changes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and made changes to User:Reidgreg/sandbox2. Many of those involved merging details from the article – contributions from Masem and Drovethrughosts. Hopefully these are acceptable. If there are no objections (aside from minor changes to the sandbox), then I look forward to incorporating these proposals into the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your work as a third (fourth?) party to merge two versions together. But I found I had more than a few issues, including 15 things I found to be misleading or factually wrong, and when I finished making notes it came to over 1200 words. I'm loathe to post that much here. I was trying to put my notes on User:Reidgreg/sandbox2 with additional revisions for S3-6 (keeping GoneIn60's merged versions) but ran into some edit conflicts. Will re-read and try again. - Reidgreg (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC). OK, done. Reidgreg (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I addressed your notes with a response in each section. You've identified quite a few incorrect statements, so thanks for that. I haven't yet attempted to rewrite anything at this point. Looking at your notes, we are not that far off in some areas, but in others, we seem to be worlds apart. I don't think some of the minor details are worth fussing over, but if you continue to insist on your version, then I will likely concede out of disinterest in arguing moot points. Please keep in mind that some of the content is not mine. I simply did the best I could to blend previous versions with the content I wanted to add or change. I realize from your most recent reversions, you've done the same. I'll have a hard look at your updated proposals and provide some feedback in the next day or so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, I know that was a lot. I was trying to explain the reasons for some of my choices. I think we're fairly close on content, the remaining issues seem to be whether to mention the prisoners in S2 and how much emphasis The Governor should have for S4. Otherwise it's mostly phrasing and how to begin and conclude each season's summary. Reidgreg (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Reidgreg and GoneIn60, have we made progress regarding the summaries? I'd love to see these expanded summaries in the article. Mentioning the prisoners in season 3 seems unnecessary as it's basically just one episode, and the only surviving prisoners are Axel and Oscar, who are both minor characters. As for the Governor in season 4, I would use the more condensed version. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for leaving it so long. I took another run at the few unresolved issues and updated the article. Could probably use a fresh set of eyes for copyedit. - Reidgreg (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Same here. Life away from Wikipedia became extremely busy. Thanks Reidgreg for your diligence and contributions. I'm sure it's complete enough to make a huge improvement on what was previously in the article. We should be able to put the finishing touches on it over the next few days/weeks, and now that we have several editors watching the article, hopefully the time spent will be protected from vandalism. Drovethrughosts and Masem, your efforts are appreciated as well. Nice work everyone! --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Walking Dead (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)