Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 03:32, 23 December 2015 (→Early criticism content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:32, 23 December 2015 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) (→Early criticism content)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The Walking Dead (TV series) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 23, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Comics: United States Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by United States comics work group.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Horror Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Article titles for The Walking Dead characters

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

Infobox "Starring"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Glenn Asian in the comics?

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add Kennedy Brice to Recurring as Molly

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

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

Apocalyptic vs. post-apocalyptic

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Early criticism content

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 Misplaced Pages 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 followinf 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Categories: