Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Walker" vs "Zombie"

Is there a consensus amongst editors whether the the term "walker" or "zombie" should be preferred in TWD (series) articles? I feel as though this must have been discussed already but the closest I found in the archive was this: The word "zombie". As I started editing on TWD, I shared the opinion stated in Barsoomian's leading sentence:

Since in the show the word "zombie" is never spoken, they should be referred to primarily as "walkers".

But I've come to see that while the in-universe term "walker" may be appealing to fans such as myself, that the articles should be written for a general audience and "zombie (fictional)" seems more generic and accessible. I applaud how the issue has been handled in this article by defining "walker" in prose

an apocalyptic world overrun by zombies, colloquially called "walkers" and "biters".

but I feel like this could get a bit tiresome to have to explain in every TWD (series) article. Thoughts? Reidgreg (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. The encyclopedia is for the general public. Next we'll be writing the article on Klingons in the Klingon language.

BTW, Nicotero said that the concept of "zombies" never existed in that world before the ZA. No movies, no Romero, no walking dead bodies in any context. Verdana♥Bold 16:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

While the season summaries are being rewritten, would some of those editors care to weigh-in on this to possibly be added to the rewrites? Reidgreg (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a very good question. Generally, each article on Wikipedia should be written on the basis that it may be the only article a reader comes across, so if it's necessary to define the term "walker" in one, then typically it should be defined in all related articles. But yes, this would become very tedious and repetitive for the vast majority of readers that visit more than one TWD article. I'm leaning in the direction of only defining it in the series and season 1 articles, and then use the term walker loosely in the remaining TWD articles. Let's see what other editors think. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I would stick with "Walker", assuming we give a brief intro that walkers are like zombies. Given that nearly all RSes that talk about the show talk about them as "walkers", that's a good reason for us to use that. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Reliable Sources (RS), I ran a quick search on some TWD-series articles I had saved for reference (mostly The Atlantic, The Harvard Crimson, The Guardian and Hollywood Reporter). Of 66 articles, 33 contained both "walker" and "zombie", 18 had "zombie" only, 5 had "walker" only, and 11 used neither term. Removing the neithers from this sample, walker-only is a 9% minority. Reidgreg (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick summary:

• Accessibility - favours zombie - articles should be written for the general public, especially the main series article
• Reliable sources - mixed, but seem to favour zombie - no definitive statistics but if you look at the article, 7 of the cited references (from 5 different publications) have "zombie" in the title and none have "walker". (also findings above)
• Use in series - "walker" is not a universal term in the show, as characters have referred to the zombies as biters, roamers, coldbloods, the dead, and various other terms since they lack the word "zombie" in their vocabularies.

Is there something else to support "walker"? Because it seems like policy and brief scans of reliable sources favour "zombie". So far as I can tell, "zombie" is an improvement in all respects. - Reidgreg (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Just as a random thought, though this might be taken as original research, there's a seemingly throwaway line in the show that alludes to the survivors being the "walking dead", which might suggest to avoid using "walkers" in the text of plots in favor of zombies , and only making sure that in the popular media about the show, that we note "zombies" and "walkers" are often used interchangibly. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's break down the usage in this article. In the lead, the term walker is defined in relation to the term zombie, and then once again in the body. The plot summaries use "walker" every time after the first occurrence. The rest of the article uses a mixture of both, but "zombie" appears more often.

In my opinion, "walker" should remain dominant in the plot summaries, because typically that's how it is in episode critic reviews and AMC's episode recaps. I'm in the camp that believes the plot summary is in a different realm in which plot elements and characters may be described in the same fashion as they are within the show (same goes for film). This would explain the discrepancy between an article that covers generalizations about concepts like the "zombie apocalypse", and another article that focuses on specific episodic details, in which "walker" is more likely to appear. I have no doubt that there are more articles that cover generalizations than there are those that cover specific episode reviews, at least among those that are cited in the main TV series article. Therefore, any statistical analysis should take this into account. Failing to do so will always produce an outcome that favors "zombie" over "walker" – more weight should be given to reviews and recaps.

I'm not entirely against the proposal of using "zombie" over "walker" in most instances, as the arguments presented are well-intended and make sense. However, I caution that it's unnecessary for plot summaries. Let's not lose sight of the fact that other sections within the article already favor "zombie". My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I checked on that "we are the walking dead" line. It was from Them (The Walking Dead) where the group are demoralized and Rick essentially says they have to earn the right to live again, until which they are the walking dead.

The plot summaries use walker exclusively because they were all changed from zombie and they were all zombie before because I wrote it that way when I updated them. I can see these are good faith edits. BTW, since you brought it up, could you please tell me where to find the "past discussions [which] have generally agreed that [walker] is the accepted terminology most commonly found in sources"? Thanks.

I acknowledge that I had a small sample of reliable sources (what I had on hand), and it could be non-representative as the articles were not randomly selected but were those I thought interesting enough to keep for citations. About 80% were episode or season reviews, with the rest being interviews, and examination of Glenn's death, Negan's appearance, and who Negan might kill. (There were no "general zombie apocalypse" articles in the sample.) I acknowledge that the analysis from the sample is not statistically conclusive though I feel it is enough to give a general indication of use, and have tried to express it as such. Narrowing my sample to episode reviews, of 49 articles: 26 used both terms, 12 used zombie only, 4 used walker only, and 7 used neither. That leaves walker only occurring 3 times less frequently than zombie only in the sample (and using neither term is roughly twice as popular as using walker only). - Reidgreg (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

As for past discussions, I overstepped there a bit, as I believe the discussion I was recalling was this one when I made that comment. I thought there were others I came across, but now I realize that was a mistake on my part. Though my recollection was off, I went ahead and searched for additional discussions. This seems to be the only other:

• Talk:What Lies Ahead/GA1 – The GA reviewer suggested that the term "walker" needed to be defined, but agreed with its use throughout the article. The discussion raised the same concerns you did but reached a different conclusion.

So no, a strong consensus from past discussions doesn't appear to exist. We should attempt to form one here.

Your efforts of combing through sources you had saved is appreciated, but since we don't have a list of the sources you looked at, it would be difficult to say with confidence whether or not they are a good representation. A better approach (probably) would be to search through sources already cited in each season article. This would allow us to base our decision off of sources that are already present on Wikipedia. Sure, there are other related articles (dealing with episodes, characters, etc.), but I think only looking at the season articles would give us a good enough sample. Also, we should keep in mind that "walker" is more likely to appear in articles written during and after the second season, as the term became more prevalent over time, so we should probably apply less weight to sources cited in the first season article as well as the main TV series article. If we had a breakdown by season, that would help. Sounds like a lot of work, but I'd be willing to pitch in.

Also when it comes to statistics, there is often more than one way to evaluate the results. In your most recent example, you are comparing the likelihood of one term to appear exclusively in a source. I'm not advocating that we exclusively use one term or the other; a mixture of both is fine. So revisiting your findings, 30 out of 49 articles used the term "walker", or 61%, whereas 38 used the term "zombie", or 77%. Looking at things from a different perspective shows that interchanging the two terms should be acceptable. Presently in the article, there are 13 instances of "walker" and 20 instances of "zombie" (not including the plot summaries, which I feel should be handled separately). Their usage is 40% and 60%, respectively. I believe this is a fair representation based on the data you've presented, but it remains to be seen if these numbers agree with a larger sample. Do we want to take the next step? I admit, I'm a bit curious to see what we'd find. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you're killing me. It seems as if every time I provide some data you put forward new criteria in order to reject findings contrary to your viewpoint. (I did note the four major sources.) I was focusing on walker only because I don't especially agree with that policy for the plot summaries, and I was trying to counter your arguments with actual data fitting your stated parameters rather than opinions or beliefs. BTW, I took a look at What Lies Ahead and it seems someone had edited-out the definition of walker, threatening the article's GA status (I have corrected this), and we should be clear that's always a danger. You earlier suggested that episode articles could be "looser" than this one with terminology, so does it not then follow that we should be especially clear here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidgreg (talk • contribs) 16:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"It seems as if every time I provide some data you put forward new criteria in order to reject findings contrary to your viewpoint."

Well, we are coming from two different perspectives, so it's quite natural for some bias to leak into any evaluation of the facts. For the record, I'm not doing this intentionally! Also, I wasn't rejecting your findings per se. Your point that "walker" is three times less likely to appear on its own is still a valid one.

"I was focusing on walker only because I don't especially agree with that policy for the plot summaries"

Plot summaries, in general, are a separate beast in my opinion. In some film summaries I've collaborated on with other editors, a fictional term that isn't prominently used in the real world is typically fine to use throughout the plot summary, the catch being that it is properly defined in real-world terms on first use. Of course, this is usually dependent on it being used in the source material. I haven't read the comics, so if this isn't the case, then we should definitely take that into consideration.

"You earlier suggested that episode articles could be "looser" than this one with terminology, so does it not then follow that we should be especially clear here?"

What I was suggesting was that the first season article and the main TV series article should define the term "walker", and that afterwards, we could be a bit "looser" with the term in remaining seasons. That discussion was about trying to avoid the need to redefine it in every single article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

One question: does the comic use either word, give that it is the definitive source material?

If that doesn't answer the question, I would think going with "zombie" is the right step (making a note in the appropriate articles they are called "walkers" in some sources), since "zombie" should be considered a well-understood word. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

After checking a fan site and verifying in the issues, the comic does use zombie a few times in issues 13-14 when they find the prison (and explain things to the prisoners), but they have a difficult time using the term seriously. I'm not sure it's relevant what the primary source, the AMC website, or reliable sources say (I only bring them up to refute earlier claims that walker is more prevalent). My primary concerns are readability and having a Good Article. - Reidgreg (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

For plot summaries, I think its use in the source material is very relevant to this discussion. While its presence wouldn't necessarily "seal the deal", it's absence probably would in favor of "zombie". As for readability and getting to Good Article status, I share those concerns. We've already seen one good article review decide that using the term was acceptable. I'm not going to strongly champion its use. I've made my case, and if both of you are still leaning in favor of "zombie" (and no one else chimes in here), then I'll concede. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel there's something awfully funny about this discussion reaching the point of WP:DEADHORSE. Well, the walkers and/or zombies seem indifferent to what they're called so I guess we should be as well. Let us celebrate the richness of language in using both terms, and get ready for the new season(s) to start. Cheers! - Reidgreg (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how we ever reached the point of "beating a dead horse", considering there are very few replies in this discussion and no one is trying to carry on their argument when others have moved on. If you've decided to move on, great, fantastic. I will do the same. I honestly didn't expect to see another reply in this thread. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016

Post a spoiler warning at the top. Cleverbutter884 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2016

This is an addition to the death of Glenn and Abraham in season 7: In the first episode of The Walking Dead, Negan chooses Abraham to be the victim of Lucille's wrath. After brutally killing Abraham, Daryl abruptly gets up in a surge of anger and punches Negan in the face. After telling the group to "Not do that shit", Negan swings Lucille at Glenn. After being bludgeoned twice in the head, Glenn gets up and spouts his final words, "I will find you", to Maggie. Gav240 (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It's unclear if this is too much detail to feature in a season summary. Consult WT:TV if you need more feedback. Marking not done for now — Andy W. (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The Name of the Wolf Leader

I was just browsing the characters and cast section and noticed Benedict Samuel is credited as the unnamed leader of the wolves, but his name has been revealed and it is Owen. It will not let me edit this page, but even his personal Wikipedia page has him credited as Owen. I was hoping someone could change this or at least tell me how I can. Theryanfinney (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017

"Maggie continues to the Hilltop with Sasha's aide." "aide" is spelled incorrectly. Change to "aid". Locks 00 (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Kosack (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

Add that Olivia, from Alexandria, was killed by Arat. Arat had the chance to kill anyone she wanted, but she chose Olivia due to their first meeting. Tracking back to their first meeting, Olivia was almost killed because she did not fully keep track of two weapons that had gone "missing", only to be found in Spencer's home.

(This is just a backstory on her death, but you only need to add that Arat killed her. Also, her name in the comics is Tara, but they didn't want two Taras so they gave her the name Arat, Tara backwards. Gav240 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

restructuring due to MOS:TVPLOT changes

This section of the Manual of Style (WP:TVPLOT) was recently updated, based on this discussion by a select cadre of editors. (The discussion and the changes resulting from it are themselves being discussed here.)

The update to MOS:TVPLOT includes:

• "Just having a plot summary is not allowed". There cannot be a plot summary unless it establishes context for later content on production, reception, themes, etc.
  •  Verified - Brojam (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• "An article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary."
  •  Resolved but C discussion ongoing to possibly revert decision. - Brojam (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• If there is a separate article for the episode list, then the series article's plot summary (overview or premise) should be "around 100 words per season".
  •  Resolved - Brojam (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Articles on individual episodes should have a plot summary of "no more than 400 words."
  •  Not fixed Almost all episode articles are over the limit. - Brojam (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• In addition to plot sections, the lead "should contain a sentence or two to summarize the overall storyline."
  •  Verified - Brojam (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how set in stone this is, whether a new consensus might be formed in protest. But as it stands, there would have to be some restructuring of TWD articles to bring them in line with the new guideline. I'd appreciate opinions and discussion from other editors. (And, of course, you can join the discussion at MOS if you are so inclined.) – Reidgreg (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Episode intro wording for season premieres.

There is an editor that believes the wording for season premiere episodes should read in this way: "First Time Again" is the first episode of the sixth season and 68th episode overall of the post-apocalyptic horror television series The Walking Dead, which aired on AMC on October 11, 2015. Prior to this editors changes (they claim it was this way before but the diffs beg to differ), it read: "First Time Again" is the sixth season premiere and 68th episode overall of the post-apocalyptic horror television series The Walking Dead, which aired on AMC on October 11, 2015. To me it makes more sense to write it as the "sixth season premiere and 68th episode overall", not "first episode of the sixth season", even though both technically make sense. The editor seems to be taking ownership of the articles that he/she changes and reverted my good faith edits in what I consider NOT good faith. It makes sense to me anyway to list it the way I had it written, sixth season premiere, or fifth season. What say other editors who know this project better? I am not attempting to start anything with any editor, it just seems like there wasn't good faith in the reversion and I feel like there is ownership going on. Thanks ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 21:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217070222/http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2010/12/2011-golden-globes-nominations-glee-30-rock-lead-tv-nominations.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2010/12/2011-golden-globes-nominations-glee-30-rock-lead-tv-nominations.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Improper use of the term "zombie"

The show has never used the term "zombie", the term has been deliberately avoided, because George Romero's conceptualization does not exist in The Walking Dead alternate universe. So, should an article on the show not reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:70F4:2A00:199:703D:AA69:9B8C (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2017

I wanted to change: "Benedict Samuel as the unnamed leader of the Wolves. (season 6, guest season 5)"

to: "Benedict Samuel as Owen: The leader of the Wolves. (season 6, guest season 5)"

I am a huge fan of the show and I can confirm his name is Owen. ChiefWamsutta (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "I know it to be true" is original research and therefore not a reliable source; and the source you provided is a wiki, which is also not a reliable source. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Something to watch for sources on....

In terms of the season summaries, it would be helpful if we can find sources that validly link the seasons to the volumes of the comic book; eg there are enough sources to cite Season 8 follows the "All Out War" volumes. We could do some of this ourselves but I think that might tread into OR. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Character list

I would recommend for this page to limit the character list to those who are credited in the show's title sequence. No recurring, no guests, etc. as these can be deferred to the season pages. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree. The main cast section is fairly long as it is and covers all the major, notable characters. Looking at ones listed in the recurring list, we won't be missing much. Plus, like you said, they're all listed in the season pages anyway. It's also fairly subjective as to who's "notable" when it comes to recurring characters. Most of the characters that were recently added by Sock, I feel are all fairly insignificant or simply didn't appear enough. Anyway, I'm all for cutting the recurring list. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There are Gay characters in The Walking Dead

Whether an editor likes it or not, the addition of categories identifying inclusion of gay (or lesbian, bisexual, transgender) characters in a television series is appropriate when a TV series includes it. For those who are unaware (or, worse, don't want it recognized): “The Walking Dead”: Jesus Is Gay! The show now boasts three openly gay characters. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

As already explained elsewhere, categories are supposed to be defining, per WP:CAT, not simply inclusionist. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2017

Change 'writes' to 'writers' in the final sentence of the paragraph found under the Writing header.

The final sentence of the paragraph currently reads "In addition, the #writes# have included characters wholly novel to the series..." JohnWilliamDoherty (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing that out! Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2018

Soundtracks Five soundtracks for The Walking Dead have been released to date. The Walking Dead: AMC Original Soundtrack, Vol. 1 was released on March 17, 2013.[60] The second volume was released on March 25, 2014.[61] Songs of Survival is a soundtrack for the third season and it was released on August 27, 2013, by Republic Records as a Walmart exclusive for the special edition release of the third season.[62] Songs of Survival, Vol. 2 is a soundtrack for the fourth season and it was released on August 26, 2014, by Republic Records as a Walmart exclusive of the fourth season release.[63] The Walking Dead (Original Television Soundtrack) was released October 20, 2017 . It is the first time that Bear McCreary's score has been released since the show was first broadcast in 2010 . SyphenOZ (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Amazon product listing is neither independent nor indicates that this release is notable. The record label's Bandcamp page is definitely not independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

References

IP adding a Cast section to The Walking Dead episode articles

It's unnecessary, as seen here, since the Plot section already covers this. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary as well, considering your point about the plot section and the fact that we already have this documented at List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. At most, there would only need to be a "See also" link or a hatnote in that section that links to the list. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree as well, should be removed. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately they have now hit every episode. It will take a lot of work for this or some admin tools. We should make sure there's concensus to remove before doing an admin step. --Masem (t) 19:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2018

Tyler James Williams should be added to the cast list. 73.55.174.177 (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Williams was never listed in the show's opening credits, and thus not appropriate for the show's main cast list. He is listed on the appropriate season pages. --Masem (t) 16:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The list of actors

Hi it would be wise for me to add the link of the television characters instead of listing all the actors as it should not exceed up to 20+ and above. If you would agree, i'll be pleased. Thank you. TristanQuinn (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is where I think a collapsed section could be used, collapsed under "ensemble cast". (Though I would argue that without engaging in OR, we can name 3-5 key actors through the series, such as Andrew Lincoln, Norman Reedus, Melissa McBride, and Lauren Cohan. But if we can't agree to that, then just leave it as "Ensemble cast". --Masem (t) 23:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I personally disagree with any scenario where the full cast list is removed. The list of actors is arguably one of the most important pieces of information in the infobox. It's illogical to delete actor names, when the infobox features long lists of various producers, editors, and production companies, etc. which are obviously less essential. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Comic-Con 2010 - Walking Dead booth.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Analyses of why the show's ratings have significantly fallen

Considering numerous reliable sources have covered the topic of the show's ratings having significantly fallen and possible reasons why, I think there should be something about this in the Ratings section, like a paragraph or two. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It's quite simple. What used to be entertaining now generally sucks. The change began when Nagan was added to the storyline. I haven't watched the show in a few years. Yesterday, History was showing a marathon of recent episodes, and it wasn't entertaining at all, in fact it was downright gross and detestable. The storyline now focuses on violence, not survival in a world of walkers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atwngirl (talk • contribs)

Atwngirl, yes, a number of WP:Reliable sources tie the quality and ratings decline (especially the ratings decline) to the Negan arc (meaning things following the season 7 premiere, although the season 7 premiere was also a lot to stomach for many viewers). We can't go by our own personal opinions. Only what WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. Also, remember to sign your username with four tildes when commenting on Wikipedia talk pages. I tagged your above comment as unsigned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot the Tilde :( :( Atwngirl (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll add something eventually. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Need to change a reference link

Reference #31 sends you to a page that is incorrect.

The correct link should be https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2018/09/13/amc-promises-at-least-another-decade-of-the-walking-dead-universe-to-come/

I don't know how else to do this. I usually just edit the pages as I would come across the errors, but this is the first time I saw an error on a protected page.

JohnnydangerJT (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it to correct Bloomberg link. I was the one who originally added that content; what happeneed was, I accidentally copy-and-pasted the wrong link as that site automatically changes URLs when you scroll down to a different article. Thanks for the heads-up! Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Renewal of the show

Can you add about the season 10 renewal or do you have to wait till amc official announcement !! B.Maidment (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

We need to wait for an official announcement. --Masem (t) 03:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thought it was confirmed B.Maidment (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Awards Update

The show was also awarded the Most in-demand TV show in the World at the Global TV Demand Awards at NATPE by Parrot Analytics - a TV demand measurement company, Miami on 22 Jan 2019. This was the first ever data driven awards from the data collected worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suprithtumkur (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Ratings Bar Graph Removal. Why?

Why the fuck was the awesome ratings bar graph removed? Not just from this page, but many televisions shows? Why must Wiki mods remove features that are so useful? --184.64.102.148 (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It still exists, it just appears here now. This article already has a ratings table, which is more appropriate for the main series article, because it serves as more of a basic overview of the ratings. Having the ratings graph too on the same page is duplication of the same information. That's why the graph is included on the list of episodes page instead, where it's better suited. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the bar graph is much better than the rating tables - it gives a clear view and a better summary at a glance how the ratings have changed over the seasons. Hzh (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Eastman character from the Walking Dead

I've prodded an article, Eastman character from the Walking Dead. Editors of this page might want to take a look at it, lest a) it should remain b) there's anything of use to this page c) to concur in its talk page that it should go. @PoliticalJunkie2006: fyi. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

IronE Singleton

The character of T-Dog played by IronE Singleton for three seasons isn't referenced anywhere in this series wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.250.114.18 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

Reference no. 5 http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2010/12/2011-golden-globes-nominations-glee-30-rock-lead-tv-nominations.html is a deadlink Sagarsoni9984 (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: the archive link, also given, still works. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 16:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Parody

The actor Tyrell van Boog performed a German parody in 2018 on the occasion of the German launch of the 9th season for FOX Channel. The satirical campaign "Zombiegate", which moved the event to the construction site of Berlin's major airport, was one of the winners at the "Art Directors Club" festival the following year.(Nocheinhaus (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)) Wouldn´t it be worth to publish this information within the article among "Parodies and spoofs" like it was done in the German version?(Nocheinhaus (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC))

Parody

A German parody was performed in 2018 on the occasion of the German start of the 9th season for FOX Channel by the actor Tyrell van Boog. The satirical "Zombiegate" campaign, which moved the events to the construction site of the major Berlin airport, was one of the winners at the "Art Directors Club" festival the following year. (Nocheinhaus (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC))

_____

References

no mention of oceanside in wiki article

rick & co got the guns to wage the war against negan from oceanside, which was discovered by tara earlier, with cross stories before and after in many episodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.228.0.134 (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes reports 305 reviews for season 10. What?

With this edit, SharkyIzrod stated, "The 300 (now 304) figure on Rotten Tomatoes is bugged, as is the percentage. When clicking on all critic reviews, it only shows 4, 1 of which is from a top critic, and of the four that top critic's review is negative, leaving it at a 75% (3/4) on RT from 4 reviews, not 90% from 300."

With this edit, Drovethrughosts reverted, stating, "it says 90% with 304 reviews for me."

Well, it says 305 reviews for me, but it's obviously incorrect. When one clicks on all of the reviews, only four show up. And beyond that, it makes absolutely no sense that season 10 would have that many reviews when no The Walking Dead season has even come close to that many reviews and when the ratings for this show are significantly lower than they were at the height of this show's popularity.

I'll alert WP:TV and WP:Film to this section for their thoughts. Yes, WP:Film is for films, but they have a lot of experience with Rotten Tomatoes issues. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

When I clicked on "All Critics", it only showed 4 reviews as well. I recommend contacting Rotten Tomatoes. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It says 305 for me, but just lists 4 reviews when you click "All Critics". What happens is that RT sometimes just collects all the individual episode reviews and uses that as a score. That's where the 305 comes from, because there's usually 20 reviews for each episode. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I recommend contacting Rotten Tomatoes too. It is reminiscent of the ongoing problem we have with Box Office Mojo. We now have an ongoing dialog with them which has resolved many of the issues. If we suspect there is an error in the data then we need to get to the bottom of it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Tried to see if I could math my way through this:

• Ep. 1: 27 reviews, 93%
• Ep. 2: 19 reviews, 89%
• Ep. 3: 19 reviews, 84%
• Ep. 4: 18 reviews, 94%
• Ep. 5: 19 reviews, 89%
• Ep. 6: 19 reviews, 95%
• Ep. 7: 19 reviews, 95%
• Ep. 8: 20 reviews, 90%
• Ep. 9: 19 reviews, 95%
• Ep. 10: 19 reviews: 100%
• Ep. 11: 18 reviews, 94%
• Ep. 12: 18 reviews, 94%
• Ep. 13: 18 reviews, 83%
• Ep. 14: 17 reviews, 88%
• Ep. 15: 18 reviews, 83%
• Ep. 16: 18 reviews, 89%

All told, this gives us 305 reviews in total, with an average score between episodes of 90.94%. To me, this indicates that RT has adjusted their season overview percentages and review count, as nearly all television reviews are on an episode-to-episode basis rather than a review of an entire season. I don't think anything needs to be adjusted here, personally, as it's simply a new (and frankly more accurate) method of counting reviews and positive ratings. Sock (tock talk) 22:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a new kind of messaggregation method, and an extreme example but in another way it isn't that big a difference from that they've already been doing. Rotten Tomatoes scores for TV shows have been misleading for a long time. Rotten Tomatoes has long taken early reviews for a show and present them as if they represent the whole season of that show. (Take a show such as The Mandalorian, which had no previews, and only one episode has been shown, as of November 5 already has a Season 2 score of 94% based on 52 reviews, but all those reviews are for the first episode only.[1]) It is often the case that many of the reviews counted will only have reviewed the first episode. In some cases reviewers will have received a few episodes as advance previews and their review might be based on 3 episodes, but still not the whole season. (I think Netflix might have given reviewers four or five of the Daredevil episodes to preview in advance, but you get the idea.) It is the exception rather than the rule when Rotten Tomatoes is actually able to count reviews that are based on the whole season, such as when a series is released on home media as a box set (or the occasional retrospective reviews of a whole season).

The way they gather single episode reviews and aggregate them to give a season score seems to have changed (or maybe I just didn't notice them aggregating single episode reviews into a whole season score until recent years). It is a little strange and whole lot of hassle to WP:VERIFY, so it's impressive that Sock went to all that effort. I wonder if there was anything special about those 4 reviews out of the 305 reviews.

I wouldn't even mind so much if they could find a less misleading way to present it all. -- 109.76.137.180 (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

"The Walking Dead Holiday Special" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Walking Dead Holiday Special. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 18#The Walking Dead Holiday Special until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Colorsdontrun.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2022

Danai Gurira as Michonne: A fierce, katana-wielding woman who joins Rick's group. Michonne eventually becomes Rick's romantic partner and a mother-figure to his son, Carl. (seasons 3–10)

Danai Gurira as Michonne: A fierce, katana-wielding woman who joins Rick's group. Michonne eventually becomes Rick's romantic partner and a mother-figure to his son, Carl. She is also the mother-figure to Judith, daughter of Lori and Shane. (seasons 3–10) OneMoreBiscuit (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request Oct/07/22

AMC has also expanded the series into related media, including the spin-off series Fear the Walking Dead (2015–present), and The Walking Dead: World Beyond (2020–2021), as well as several webisodes and video games. Four further spinoffs have been announced: two untitled series: one featuring Daryl and the other featuring Rick and Michonne, The Walking Dead: Dead City featuring Maggie and Negan, and an anthology series, Tales of the Walking Dead, to feature individual character backstories.

Reason for Edit- Tales of the Walking Dead has aired, and the title for Daryl Dixon has been announced

AMC has also expanded the series into related media, including the spin-off series Fear the Walking Dead (2015–present), The Walking Dead: World Beyond (2020–2021), and Tales of the Walking Dead (2022-present), as well as several webisodes and video games. Three further spinoffs have been announced: The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon featuring Daryl, The Walking Dead: Dead City featuring Maggie and Negan, and one untitled series featuring Rick and Michonne.

—————————-

Danai Gurira as Michonne: A fierce, katana-wielding woman who joins Rick's group. Michonne eventually becomes Rick's romantic partner and a mother-figure to his son, Carl. She is also the mother-figure to Judith, daughter of Lori and Shane. (seasons 3–10)

Reasons for Edit- Shane being the biological father of Judith is only Rick’s speculation and impossible to confirm. Rick is the actual father of Judith, mention of Shane and Lori unnecessary. Also additional parentage of RJ.

Danai Gurira as Michonne: A fierce, katana-wielding woman who joins Rick's group. Michonne eventually becomes Rick's romantic partner and a mother-figure to his children, Carl and Judith. As well as the biological mother of his son, RJ. (seasons 3–10) 2607:FEA8:5CA1:5600:A0E8:70BD:A471:B2CE (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)