Talk:Go On (TV series)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

logo

where did you find that? It's not that correct one, used in promos and commercials. Did someone make that? because Im pretty sure that isn't allowed in Wikipedia.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit harsh, don't you think? Have you ever heard of "Assume good faith"? The image file states the source was the Facebook page for the show. And lookie here, there it is, just where the uploader stated: [1] For future reference, keep in mind that the logos of television shows often go through many iterations between the time that the show is picked up and it actually premieres. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well is there any way we can get the real one?Caringtype1 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure what you mean by "the real one". The one in the infobox is a "real one", as I linked to above, just maybe not the most current. You are always free to upload a new file. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On commercials and promotional images they use a red and white one, but I guess it doesn't really matter until the show begins.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with Logical Fuzz. The infobox has the "real" logo. TBran dl ey 00:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can leave it, but that i have to disagree with. If you watch NBC, and see a commercial for Go On, you will see.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes

After reviewing the Overview of MOS:DTT, I have come to the conclusion that in certain case scenarios the "|+ [caption text]" might be needed, but in this article it seems incredibly redundant to place "Go On Episodes" right below the section titled "Episodes". LiamNolan24 (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Caringtype1 (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just need one more person to agree with me on my stance and I can remove this eye sore. Thanks Caringtype1. LiamNolan24 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Against removal. Face it, MOS:DTT is part of the guidelines to accessibility, which make the internet more usable for those with disabilities. It's a big deal (see MOS:ACCESS and WP:WPACCESS) and it is not going away. While applying the guidelines to articles is still in its "infancy", I am sure you have seen other related changes, including more emphasis on ALT text for images, eliminating the use of rowspan in Filmographies, and the use of {{plainlist}} instead of <br /> line breaks in Infoboxes, etc. You will continue to see more of this going forward. You might as well get used to this "eye sore" [sic] now. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Fuzz. TBran dl ey 19:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point and have already read all of the articles you referenced, that being said, there are hundreds of other American TV series articles, with an Episodes section, that are certified GA or Featured (i.e. Lost (season 1), Glee (season 1), The Office (U.S. season 1)) that do not display "|+ [caption text]". Surely those articles could not have achieved that status if they are in error. I am not on a "grammatical witch-hunt", I am simply trying to make this article its possible best, as I am sure everyone else involved with this debate is as well. LiamNolan24 (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles were promoted to those statuses before the new updated guideline was made, with that. TBran dl ey 20:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, but are those articles now in error because of this missing component? I would think if this issue was of the importance both you and Logical Fuzz seem to think it is, the articles would've been corrected or have their Featured status dropped. LiamNolan24 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere/Official premiere

What's the difference? September 11th was the official premiere for the rest of the season. technically, the premiere was on August 8th, but that was only a preview. The rest of the episodes started airing a month later starting with the official premiere in the regular time lost. It just clarifies what the source says. Its confusing and misleading to call it the "premiere", when its the official premiere.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree with you more, Caringtype1. Let's make this the consensus. LiamNolan24 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your source calls it a premiere, period. Using a qualifying term such as official changes the meaning of the term, and that is POV. If you want to use the label "official premiere", which implies there was also another sort of premiere (versus a preview), find a reliable source that NBC calls the September 11 broadcast the official premiere. Otherwise, you're out of luck; the consensus process cannot be used to put factually inaccurate content into an article. Preview episodes of new series, followed by later premieres in the series regular time slot are becoming increasingly commonplace, and shouldn't require this much drama.

In general practice, the labels premiere and preview do not belong in the ratings box at all. The preview and premiere dates should be explained in narrative, and if anything, a note added explaining the significance of the August preview date. You might want to look at the article for the Fox series Touch to see how they handled the preview dates there. --Drmargi (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well its wrong to call it the premiere, so why is it even there at all?Caringtype1 (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. NBC obviously disagrees, and they're the final word. I don't think the labels need to be there. It's not usually done, I removed them once already, and they're addressed in narrative. So they're gone! --Drmargi (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're on the subject

I've now had the label "The group", the correct American English syntax to describe a collective unit and the term used on the show as a name for Ryan's support group, relabeled "Group" because of what I'd argue is a mis-interpretation of the guideline about naming articles as applied to headings. In this case, the absence of "the" is grammatically incorrect. We cannot follow guidelines, which are recommendations so slavishly that we violate basic rules of American English syntax. That's idiotic. I'm hoping this discussion will head off what I predict will be yet another pointless set of edits that are less about common sense and more about lock-step adherence to guidelines that don't work in this applications. --Drmargi (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't separate the cast like that. Its very confusing. Matthew perry is in the group, but he's not listed there, also Allison Miller, and Sarah Baker, and more are recurring but they are not listed there. Its weird and confusing, we should change it back.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's far less confusing that having them muddled in with Ryan's co-workers. The main/recurring list was based on the pilot, and hasn't been updated until now. Given the second episode centered around Sarah Baker's character and the cats, we can hardly call her recurring. We've done something similar in the Person of Interest article, where cast fall into groups by storyline. This keeps the group, which functions as a cast entity, separate from true recurring characters and Ryan's colleagues. --Drmargi (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Baker is credited as recurring whether you think she should be or not. I'm all for separating characters by storyline, but on the main page it seems unnecessary. That only works if it is on a character page, and still needs to be separated into starring and recurring. Its way more misleading to say that Matthew Perry is not in the group, or the Allison Miller is starring, when's she isn't.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The characters need to make sense to the reader; this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. The usual categories and labels don't work in this case; we need something that does. I'd be happier removing the main cast label. --Drmargi (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way it looks now makes it seems like a fan site. The usual categories are fine, and only seem to not work for you, definitely not the reader.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with you Caringtype1. LiamNolan24 (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The separation of the section into "Main", "Group", and "Recurring" makes no sense in terms of categorising the "group" members, some of whom are main, and others recurring. It also bizarrely implies that those actors are neither main nor recurring; isn't the whole point of the cast section to objectively categorise the cast? If the show credits seven actors as "main" and a bunch of others as "recurring", then that's how they should be listed, regardless of a character's screentime or role in the show. In the current categorisation, Alison Miller who is credited as a guest star somehow ends up being listed as one of only three main cast members, which is preposterous. The sidebar listing the seven series regulars should be reflected in the actual article's content, in my opinion. I'm going to change it back to the widely-accepted structure for now. -- Tvwatchdog (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to leave the article at status quo until we reach consensus. The labels can be changed to parallel labeling. I agree what's there is not perfect. but there needs to be some way to separate out and identify the group. A table or parenthetic statements can separate main from recurring cast; the more important point is who are these characters, not how they are billed. --Drmargi (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wouldn't status quo really be the way it has been for months, as well as the way used on countless other similar articles? And why does there "need" to be some way to identify the group when the small character summaries do that all on their own? A "group" heading would need to include Matthew Perry's character himself to even fulfil its definitional purpose, not to mention the fact that there is no justifiable way to include Allison Miller among the main cast when she is very clearly a guest star. -- Tvwatchdog (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Once discussion starts, reverts stop. The statement below the heading indicates that the group is Ryan's support group. Ryan himself belongs to two groups: the radio station "group" (applied loosely) and the support group. I think it's far more important to organize this particular set of characters in such a way that the reader understands how they are connected. Whether they are main or recurring is incidental; as I said a table or parenthetic notes regarding their billing status will cover that. We could start with a Characters heading, then present Ryan, the team a the radio station and the support group or something like that, then finish with other characters, such as the (as yet unseen) deceased wife. That way the characters are organized so that they reflect the structure of the story, not the type of contract they have. --Drmargi (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They way you are suggesting sounds like a fan site or a blog or something. That's not the way we do it on wikipedia(at least not on the show's main page).Caringtype1 (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. I suppose splitting the characters up by group/job/whatever could possibly work in an article for all the characters (once the show develops further), but right now, that isn't really necessary...and the section is primarily about the cast, not the characters, anyway. -- Tvwatchdog (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Woods recurring

Folks, we need to stop adding Christine Woods as a recurring character until she appears in at least three episodes. A recurring character makes appearances in multiple episodes, not in multiple scenes in one episode. Neither source provided does any more than document her being cast. It may be that she will be recurring, but until we can verify that she is recurring, she cannot be added to the list. --Drmargi (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She appeared in the pilot and episode 4, but she wasn't credited, though she did appear. Maybe "recurring" isn' the right section to include her, but she does need to be mentioned. How about in the Matthew perry section, where we say "while he is trying to move on from his late wife's death", we add "from his late wife's, Janie,(Christine Woods), death? That might work.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works! Once she appears again, we can revisit this discussion, but for now I think that's a good alternative. --Drmargi (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18-49 rating

I took the liberty of putting the 18-49 rating into the episode table for this show alongside the viewership (as well as for The Mindy Project and Ben and Kate), but there seem to be a few anonymous users who have reverted these. Wanted to put this up for discussion; if there's going to be a "ratings" table featuring the ep number, name, airdate, total viewers, and *then* the sole new material of the 18-49 rating, would it not make more sense to just include that one piece of information in the table that already provides the rest? -- Tvwatchdog (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel having the 18-49 rating in the episode table clutters it. Many readers do not even know what it means, and it makes more sense to keep the ratings in a separate table. The ratings table would also make it easier for readers to compare the ratings between episodes. I think it should be changed back.Caringtype1 (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but more importantly, it's too much information, giving WP:UNDUE attention to ratings. I doubt one viewer in 10,000 can accurately tell me what the rating and share actually are; most refer to the viewership numbers as ratings, which they're not. This is not a TV website, it's an encyclopedia, and the most accessible measure of the show's popularity is the weekly Live + Same Day viewership. Elaborate ratings tables are fancrufty fluff. Anyone interested in details can follow the source back to access more detailed information. --Drmargi (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But is it not less "cluttered" than entire table solely for that information? In my opinion, the rating should be there either way, it's just a matter of whether it's more efficient to include it in the episode table. Whoever reverted my edit adding the rating to the table certainly needs to bring back the "ratings table" until discussion ends, at the very least. -- Tvwatchdog (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, these ratings have not been included, and I have yet to see an argument why they should be in any form. My concerns above stand. --Drmargi (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from, but the new shows for this season (see Last Resort (2012 TV series)) generally include this information and I personally think it is a significant step for the future of articles like these; it's become relevant information in recent times. Until I moved the info to the episodes table, no-one seemed to have a problem with it. If no-one else wants it in the episode table, then it should return to its own table where it was before (like Guys with Kids or Emily Owens, M.D.. -- Tvwatchdog (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a significant step? I have yet to see a well-articulated argument that justifies to an encyclopedic standard, why this information advances the article and the project. "Someone else does it" isn't an argument, it simply identifies the latest trend everyone has latched onto. When someone found it problematic is not germane (I removed the separate table at one time, if I remember correctly.) There's no time limit on when content can be changed/removed. You've yet to address the central question: WHY should it be included? What does it add? All I see is "we know it, so let's put it in" or "we know it and it's cool" or "someone else did it, so I will, too" arguments, and I've seen plenty of editors remove these ratings as superfluous to needs. --Drmargi (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that there doesn't seem to be a very strong argument for why we shouldn't include this information. It's valuable information for many readers, and a separate ratings is cleaner and just makes the most sense.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. The burden is on the editor trying to make the addition, and I have yet to see an attempt at an argument for inclusion. Specific policy regarding undue attention to related content was cited; these detailed ratings tables fail WP:UNDUE, and few readers know what they mean. Can you explain what a rating and share are? --Drmargi (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so your argument is since you don't understand them, nobody does?Caringtype1 (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. Reread what I wrote. --Drmargi (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentences say " ...and few readers know what they mean. Can you explain what a rating and share are?" Many readers know what they mean, and some come here specifically for a clear, concise chart with the ratings, that they can't find in many other places.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I'm asking if you know, not saying that I don't. So, what are a rating and a share? If you're going to advocate for them being included, you should at least be able to explain what they are, not simply slavishly follow the latest article fashion. --Drmargi (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know what they are. I'm not going to explain them, but I could if I wanted to. Why would I explain them? You haven't said if you know what they are or not, but if you don't know what they are see Nielsen Ratings and come to this discussion informed. If you already know what they are, I have no idea what you are trying to say. I prefer the ratings table, Tvwatchdog seems to be fine with the table. You are the only one arguing against it.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're being evasive, and attempting to turn the argument around on me, which are hallmarks of someone who can't defend their position. That tells me you're not equipped to make a reasonable judgment on whether readers know what a rating and share are, and very likely don't know yourself. Moreover, neither you nor TVWatchdog has provided a concise, policy based reason for inclusion. You just want them because you saw them somewhere else. In an article this short, where slightly under half the content is ratings, you've failed WP:UNDUE. Further, because neither of you can rise to an argument above "they do it somewhere else", you've also failed WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Drmargi (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating the same thing. And you still don't have consensus.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to learn how consensus works. The burden is on TVwatchdog, not me, and consensus is not a vote. You're treating it as one. Moreever, you cannot use consensus to act against policy. Since none of you is even remotely willing to address the policy issues raised, much less make an argument that they don't apply, you haven't met the burden for consensus. --Drmargi (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Tvwatchdog and Caringtype1's points-of-view. This discussion/argument has been drug way out of proportion. That's consensus, move on. LiamNolan24 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above. --Drmargi (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, Drmargi, if you believe that the 18-49 rating is not notable enough by your standards, then why *is* it still on so many other similar television show articles? What makes this article, specifically, the one where you think it cannot be tolerated, when it continues to exist (and provide relevant, significant information) on so many others? -- Tvwatchdog (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Press Releases

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and don't yet trust myself with changing information inside of the episode table that uses some confusing code. Earlier today, NBC released a press release on NBCUniversal's MediaVillage about what episode of Go On will be aired on the 13th of November. Right now this page lists the ninth episode as airing on the 13th, but according to NBC's press release episode 8 will be airing on the 13th which will likely push all future scheduled episodes back a week. This information is also on the official Go On website as listed in this Wikipedia article. Here is a link to the press release. This website is where all of NBC's pres releases are posted and might be a good place to follow for any news about any NBC shows. JeremiahWooten (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)JeremiahWooten[reply]

This is what happens when editors revert willy-nilly without checking details. It's been fixed (again) for now. --Drmargi (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Character description contains spoilers

Does anyone else feel like Carries character description contains a pretty huge spoiler? Ailaewow (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Go On (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, 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Go On (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, 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 08:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]