Talk:Twin Peaks/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

False Information Removal

I've removed a claim that Twin Peaks was originally set in North Dakota, as I was curious and checked the "source" it was mentioned in. The source mentions nothing about ND so I went back and discovered that an unsourced overview of the production was added by User:Count Ringworm all the way back in 2006. ([[1]]) (almost 8 years ago). It was left up and someone must have added a source later, potentially him, without looking over the details of the source or the information on the article. This potentially calls into question all of the edits that he has made on this article, If someone wants to investigate further they may. -- Hroþberht - picture yourself in a boat on a river... (gespraec) 23:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

ABC or CBS?

Wikipedia article states that Twin Peaks aired on ABC, but i am currently watching the show, and it has CBS logo on closing credits. ? Olga205 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

ABC was the original broadcaster, CBS productions (now CBS Television Studios, sister company to the channel CBS, both of which are owned by CBS Corporation) was the distributor. It did not air on CBS, even though it's within their rights to do so now. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Does Twin Peaks 2016 need a new article?

User:TonyTheTiger has removed the Showtime template from Twin Peaks article, explaining that the new series needs its own article. I personally don't think so, mainly because the new episodes will constitute a continuation, not a reboot of the series. Maybe it's still too early to discuss this, but if this is the case, then we need to return the Showtime template and all other recent information regarding the continuation of the series. --Λeternus ^(talk) 08:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think a lot can happen between now and 2016. Isn't it practice here to not develop new articles for films or shows that are in production? As exciting as the news of a new Twin Peaks show is, to me it is premature to not only create a new article for it, but to add the Showtime template. Just wait until the show actually airs.AstroCog (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Standard procedure for TV shows is to allow creation once they are getting press in WP:RSs. I the show is a continuation, then a new article is not necessary. I am a bit surprised that 25 years later a show would have a continuation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but standard procedure is not to allow creation of article for film-related projects that haven't started principle photography (See WP:NFF). In this case, press isn't enough for a new article about this show. Production could fall apart in two years and the show never materializes. For example, David Lynch originally produced Mulholland Drive for television, and it was never aired - only to be later reproduced as a full-length movie. This is why I think it's both inappropriate to createa separate article AND have a Showtime template (as this article is still primarily about the show which was actually produced). However, there's sufficient press for mention of the plans for a new series in this article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup needed:

Article is a bit bloated and overly detailed. Needs trimming, and some things could be spun off into their own articles. The plot and seasons section is really huge and needs a trim. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Go after anything that is poorly cited, has no citations, or seems trivial. Try to refocus the article on the most important aspects. Remember, WP is not about including ALL information, just the most notable information as provided by reliable sources. Try to condense other parts if possible. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it does need some work. I have begun some clean-up already, including adding new references for the citation needed tags. I've tagged the Home media releases section for clean-up, as the detail in there is pretty excessive and all unsourced. I plan on significantly trimming that section soon. Other than that, the plot section just needs a trim. I did, however, readd the information regarding Psych; that episode was completely inspired by and serves as a homage to Twin Peaks and features several TP cast members in that episode and it received much press; it's clearly notable and worthy of inclusion. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Home Media section should be drastically cut down. It gives excessive detail and only the biggest most obsessive fans would care about a blow by blow detail of the vhs/dvd releases. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a Showtime Show

I really don't agree with this being categorized in links, template, and production section in the infobox as a "Showtime" show. It is not accurate to say this. This article is about the original ABC production of "Twin Peaks". If this planned continuation occurs (IF!) then it will be a completely separate show and will have its own article once it is in actual production or it airs. THAT show will be a Showtime production, but this one is not. There is nothing wrong with including information about the planned continuation in this article, but it is not accurate to say that this show "Twin Peaks", produced in 1990-1991, is a Showtime production, or to include it in links and templates. Unless someone can offer a compelling reason not to do so, I will remove the inaccurate links, templates, and infobox wording. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It is not a Showtime show. It's that simple. Marteau (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

recent additions

The following conversation concerns (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twin_Peaks&diff=636456394&oldid=636406373) which was reverted with no reason given, and was last reverted because there is no "consensus" for addition, or for no reason. This section exists to caution others from adding to the section, and to highlight what I feel is abuse, or effective vandalism, hooliganism, squatting, edit warring for no apparent reason, all of the stuff that makes Wikipedia headache inducing pretty much--184.63.132.236 (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like the IP (who BTW is using terms like 'vandalism' inappropriately) to justify the inclusion of the material recently added and reverted by two editors. This includes twitter posts and a block quote. The addition looks horrible first off, and I am not sure what the twitter posts add. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

My intent in including the quote was to contradict the heading. It's being called a Limited Release, but it is also open ended as the quote demonstrates. If it's popular it will not be limited. I'm a huge Showtime watcher. It's never had an original series run 9 episodes since Queer as Folk, odds are it will run for multiple seasons--184.63.132.236 (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I removed the additions. It's excessive quoting that doesn't add anything of value to the section. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news reporting website, and that's what it looked like. The idea that there could be more per the Frost quote is fine, everything else if fluff. But it doesn't need to be portrayed in fancy blockquotes. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't think Twitter is an acceptable source anyways. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a primary source. In this case its a press release.--184.63.132.236 (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Those tweets hardly look like 'press releases' to me. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The first is what the press led with, the second is an official video announcement. The world changes. What looks like a press release may not not tomorrow--184.63.132.236 (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Even so, their relevance in the article is still highly questionable. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned for two reasons. First two people (Drovethrughosts & Dbrodbeck) deleted perfectly fine content without any reason given. This is vandalism, both apparent and in fact. Second, what is to keep someone else from adding the same information. If there is no reason for excluding it documented on this page, then you are responsible for wasting that person's time. Finally, I will continue to put the information back until an rational reason is given for its exclusion is published here on this talk page under a better subject line than "recent additions". It's pertinent information, if you object to how it is presented then edit it to your liking. Lastly, Twitter is a primary source. The persons generating the tweets are David Lynch and Mark Frost.

Twin Peaks coming back after 25yrs is a big event too. It deserves as much space in the article as there is content to fill it with. It could use some more information, like the series itself includes dialog suggesting that the story would continue in 25yrs. So many people rightly assumed that was always when it would come back if ever. And those people were often scoffed at. Anon editing is more respectable than editing under a handle, unless you maintain a page, edit it "anonymously."--184.63.132.236 (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND and WP:PRIMARY. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So go delete a page without a state reason then. It's vandalism. Also look up Primary Source on Wikipedia, not WP:PRIMARY. If you you don't think publishing a document is a source, then the Tweets are also in the reference provided for the section. It's a primary source. WP:MOUTAINOUTOFAMOLEHILL--184.63.132.236 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND and WP:PRIMARY. If you are not willing to assume good faith with other users, you do not belong here. If you are not willing to hear others out, you do not belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Good faith isn't making edits without even commenting. If you delete something you really should make a section in the Talk page. Not even commenting on the deletion edit, you have no business contributing to a collaborative project, and there is nothing you can say that will justify that. Good faith is for first time editors, not people who (must think themselves authorities) are watching edits. All of you are no better than hooligans--184.63.132.236 (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say that this is OR anyways. There was no possible way that a random piece of dialog was a solid predictor for the show returning in 25 years. It was speculation on the part of a few fans, and totally unverifiable. A lucky guess doesn't belong here. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a guess. I'm pretty sure it's been stated that that is the basis for the timing, and it will be part of the final product because it has to be. Laura Palmer says here and Cooper will meet again in 25yrs. Cooper is in the new show, it's set 25yrs later in the present, so they will have to meet again. You don't have to be so damn cynical, you'll just give yourself a heart attack--184.63.132.236 (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

So, in other words: A line happens to coincide with the new release. This is hardly material for Wiki... And knock off the unproductive stuff, okay? TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW: Per blockquotes, it's an acceptable way to quickly add information to an article. It's used often and it's an easy way to cleanup sections that were written by people that don't realize from what perspective the articles are written in. Refactor it. Don't delete it. Use your head--184.63.132.236 (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is clearly against you, move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

When 100 reputable accounts say so, that looks like consensus. State a rationale for exclusion. Also, you delete content without comments, so your judgement holds no water.--184.63.132.236 (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Saying it is an inappropriate use of block quoting is a perfectly fine rationale for exclusion. There is a time and place for such emphasis, but not in this case. Such visual overemphasis is inappropriate in this instance and goes against the existant style standars for the encyclopedia. It is, in a word, garish and I add to the concensus for the non-use of such emphasis in this way in this case. I am not, however, addressing content here, simply how the IP user is proposing it be presented. Marteau (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I am against it, currently, as well. The way the info was added was not exactly the best way to go about it. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The formatting doesn't matter. If it did then "Be BOLD" would just mean "waste your time if you don't know exactly how the locals with nothing better to do than sit on _this_ page do things". The onus is on YOU to reformat if you have issues with formatting, or leave it be. I'm sorry but people like you are the main problem with Wikipedia's whole model. I want to underline _this_ because I know of pages with blockquotes of that kind have existed for years. Sure someone could rewrite them, but its really not that big of a deal. It's the information content that matters. You clearly have no rationale for deleting it.--184.63.132.236 (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no WP:consensus for the addition. It will now be reverted, please don't re add it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll kind of state this again: The content you are adding, which is mostly just some cryptic tweets, really adds nothing to the article itself. I mean, it's already a given that the show will be coming back. We don't really need the odd tweets in the article itself, etc. I just don't see what this adds to the article, formatting or otherwise. And, no: It is indeed up to you to get the new content added properly the first time around - it is improper to just sloppily add something and expect somebody to clean up the mess later on. That is certainly not an issue with Wikipedia. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That simply cannot be so. If that were the case then people shouldn't bother editing Wikipedia at all unless they can find information on how things are supposed to be done (which isn't readily available and is a rats nest at best, and furthermore always changing, and frankly up to the "consensus" on each and every article) which is asking too much of anyone with a life outside Wikipedia, which is probably not a good idea, and probably not in line with what the people with the purse strings would like. It works like this: Be BOLD. People who care about formatting and referencing clean up the BOLD addition because they care (most people don't care believe it or not)--184.63.132.236 (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

See, the thing is, it simply is so. A really nice summary of how things work around here is WP:BRD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It simply is so. And, again, please do not dump crap content into an article and expect others to clean it up. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither of you are reading that article carefully enough, and what happened here didn't follow the guidelines there at all. The problem with Wikipedia is it doesn't have any mechanism for dealing with bad actors like yourselves. That's why I raised a fuss, to draw attention to abuse and discourage participation that will result in time wasted. There's no reason to revert something that anyone might add. That simply wastes everyone's time and turns people away from editing Wikipedia and away from donating to Wikipedia. There's simply no mechanism for dealing with rogues. Consensus isn't anyone deleting something because they feel like it, because the other person will never agree. If there are no grounds for deletion as BRD clearly states, correct the addition and revert only as necessary.--184.63.132.236 (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

See, this [2] is the appropriate response. If you are not willing to do that it doesn't give you an excuse to delete, it means no one is willing to do the work and it should remain as is, because no one really gives a shit. The Tweets are interesting too but I don't know how to incorporate a Tweet, I don't even use Twitter. People who are interested in Twin Peaks like to know the history of that kind of thing. A revival is kind of a big deal--184.63.132.236 (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your initial edit was incorrectly formatted. The encyclopedia is under no obligation to retain badly formatted and improperly emphasized material while it is hashed out and worked on. Removing it, and taking the issue to the talk page to address the issues is a proper action. That is what happened here. You make a big deal out of your grief in being subjected to this process, but removal of information, leading to discussion on the talk page of the issues pertaining to inclusion of the material, is a common way of dealing with edits that are not up to the style standards of the encylopedia. This often leads to reinstatement of the material in the article, which has happened in this case. It is also not the encyclopedia's responsibility to adhere to your standards... no, it is yours to adhere to the encyclopedia's. Evidently you disagree... I have seen this before and you may want to reconsider participating in a project for whose processes and participants you have such evident contempt. Marteau (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

One more thing. It's going to happen again, if you stay here. Another editor, down the line, is going to revert an edit you make. Even with little or no reason. Here's what I recommend you do: Take it to the talk page. Simply ask "why". Don't lead off with an accusatory diatribe. Create a dialog. Going off about "abuse, or effective vandalism, hooliganism, squatting, edit warring" is not the way to begin the discussion. You will find people will be much more helpful if you don't lead off by calling them "hooligans". A simple conversation starter of "Why did you revert my edit?" would be appropriate. Marteau (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)