Talk:List of Black Sails episodes

DVD release information

When every other cable scripted series has this information in the series overview chart, why is this the only article being targeted with the take down of the information. Not to mention the editor that removed the information was the editor that added it in the first place. I say we keep the information as it WAS properly sourced. Encmetalhead (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall adding it in the first place. Care you link me to the edit where I did? Also, just because other articles have it, doesn't mean this should - read WP:OTHER, this article should explain that point sufficiently. I'm removing the unnecessary information from only the pages that I follow, not pages of shows that I do not watch - this doesn't mean that every other page has it (I could provide you with links to thirty other pages where it's been removed). Once more, as I did in my reverting summaries, I direct you to WP:TVOVERVIEW: "Home media releases do not belong in the series overview tables. Such data can quickly overload a simple table and are not germane to our understanding of the series. Home media release information is best suited within their own section on the List of episodes article or main article". It doesn't matter if it was sourced or not - it's not to be added to the table. It can have it's own section elsewhere. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the link to where you added it: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Black_Sails_episodes&diff=629224428&oldid=628668527 Encmetalhead (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's me adding Season 3. Not the entirety of the DVD/Blu-Ray release section. And even if I did, why does that ban me from removing it later on? Especially if I was unaware of the rules concerning it at the former time, but learnt about it in the latter time? As you have now? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cause there was no issue with it being included whatsoever. Not to mention when you removed it you didn't add the suitable information anywhere else on the article. Encmetalhead (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there was an issue. Which I have explained again and again. For the fifth time, WP:TVOVERVIEW is the reason for its removal. Having it in the table does not comply with Wikipedia rules. And it doesn't have to be up to me to relocate the information, only remove it from where it's not meant to be. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Then remove it from all articles on Wikipedia or none. Encmetalhead (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no rule stating that I have to do that, none about 'all or none'. I've done it for the pages of the TV Series that I follow, however I don't know every TV show that exists. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

3 Digits

@AlexTheWhovian: You really have a lot of nerve coming to me and telling ME that I need to "edit more television pages." I've been editing TV pages (SPECIFICALLY Adding Nielsen Ratings) since before you even joined Wikipedia. I keep track of every show that I've ever found ratings for here just for occasions like this. I know A LOT more about TV ratings than you could ever hope to understand.

Now to my issues on this page. First of all, just because other TV pages do something, doesn't make it a standard, as Drovethrughosts explained to me here. You really showed how little you know about ratings when you asked "why not 4? Why not 5" (digits after the decimal). If you actually took your time to learn something about ratings, you would know that Nielsen doesn't release anything past the third decimal point, and in all of the Black Sails citations, only 3 digits are provided. That's why I'm only doing 3.

Also, you reverted my edit without even reading my edit summaries, nor looking at what the edits did. Adding the third digit to the numbers was not all that I did, I also replaced 4 of the URLs that actually link to the ratings. 4 of the ratings were sourced from the comment sections of their TVBTN articles, which are now deleted. Although they are deleted from the TVBTN page, the conversations are still archived on the DISQUS webpage, so I used that the new URL. That is a perfectly valid edit, and I am going to re-revert you again because those links need to be included.

I know that you have a problem with me, you've made it abundantly clear, but please don't misplace your pissiness and take it out on my perfect valid edits. Instead of edit-warring, how about you try to come here to the talk page (like I am doing) and actually have a discussion. In the future, don't ever lecture me about TV ratings, and don't revert my edit without at least backing it up with some sort of Wikipedia Policy. Rswallis10 (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Viewers

Rswallis10, please include the link to the discussion where consensus was reached to display viewers in millions only. Especially when the primary source doesn't even display it in that format. (Why, just above, you said that "just because other TV pages do something, doesn't make it a standard".) Greatly appreciated. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: As far as I know, listing viewership in millions is an unwritten rule, meaning that people just follow it. It's a general rule that even inexperienced editors (and IP's) seem to know. The two examples I can give you are from the Episode list template, and from the Manual of Style for Televsion WP:OVERVIEW. Both pages list viewers in millions in their examples. Finally, I actually cannot find any other TV show page that lists American viewership in thousands. Rswallis10 (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I thought I'd weigh in. AlexTheWhovian recently added the viewer-type parameter to the episode table template, which is useful. For shows that consistently have viewership under a million, it seems unnecessary to refer to it in that measure. Clearly, in prose text, you wouldn't refer to 500,000 as 0.5 million right? It's more logical to display the number in thousands and not millions when the number is never over a million. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: I feel like if we're going to do that though, then wouldn't we write 500,000?? In prose text it is more likely to see something referred to 0.5 million than as 500 thousand. I just don't see why adding a 0. in front of the number is so difficult to do. It's the way we've ran things since the beginning. Rswallis10 (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

But things change, there's zero logic in referring to a number of thousands in millions. It's not that it's difficult, it's that the 0.xxx is pointless, because it's serving no purpose. It's just an easy to do it the other way and it makes more logical sense. We wouldn't put 500,000, because we also don't use 5,000,000. If a shows viewership is always in the thousands, then that's how it should be displayed. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: This all comes down to consistency. We need to be consistent here so things don't get confusing for readers. Having one page listing viewers in millions, and another listing it in thousands is simply confusing. Having all pages list viewers in millions makes it easier for people to compare viewership between shows. If Outlander for example has an episode with 721,000 viewers, it would be listed as 0.721 (because the show sometimes gets over 1M viewers), but if Black Sails gets 721,000 viewers, it will show up at 721. I'm sorry, but doing that doesn't make any sense to me. We simply can't implement every change that Alex makes to his template, especially if those changes aren't particularly helpful or useful. Rswallis10 (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

So, now we're discussing this in two places. Firstly, it is not my template; I merely created it for usage through the television project on Wikipedia. Secondly, it appears as if you've given no link to any guideline or policy that backs up your statement, given that inexperienced editors and IP editors will almost always follow what has been given in the article, and if that article's layout is changed, then they follow the new layout - Exhibit A is this page, when an IP editor added viewer figures. What is also an "unwritten rule" is listing the viewers to two decimal places, but you feel the need to force your way on that matter as well. The episode list template and TVOVERVIEW give figures in the millions because the figures listed there are over a million. It is your opinion on whether or not changes are helpful or useful, but in my opinion, viewers should be display in the highest base of 10 (in multiples of three, 10^3, 10^6, etc) as their highest rating is. That is, if the viewers were to go over 1 million for a single episode, then they get displayed in millions, but until then, thousands. We should not be basing content on this page based only upon what other pages do, and what other pages list just so that if we "want to compare them". It will show up as 721, yes, but the (thousands) in the header row of all the tables is also extremely clear. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: First of all, I actually did link to a policy (WP:OVERVIEW) where it shows viewership listed in Millions. Second, I must've missed the memo that says "AlexTheWhovian's opinion is now the general rule on every page". I'm sure you're very proud of this new addition to your template; however, please think about this logically. It simply doesn't make sense to have some viewership listed as 1.045 (for example), and others listed just as 721. Readers will be left wondering why some ratings are written in whole numbers, while others are in decimal form. It's confusing, inconsistent, irrelevant, and frankly, not needed. What if a show does get over 1M viewers for an episode? Will we have to go back and add a 0. in front of all of the previous ratings and change the heading to (in millions)?? There really is no rational reason to change the format, so why exactly are we doing it? Because you want to? I don't think so. Rswallis10 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, firstly, you're linking to WP:OVERVIEW, which is a redirect to Wikipedia:About - about Wikipedia. If you mean WP:TVOVERVIEW, then that is a guideline, not a policy, and you completely ignored my point of them being listed in millions because they actually are over a million. I also missed the memo about "Rswallis10's opinion is now the general rule on every page", given that it's you trying to force the three-decimal places and the format in which they are listed, both without any policy or even guideline to support why. If they are left wondering, given that you seem to think that everyone besides yourself is blank-minded and ignorant, perhaps they should check the header of the table, which explains how the viewers are listed. "What if a show does get over 1M viewers for an episode?", you ask? I'm actually getting a serious vibe that you're not reading anything I add to this discussion. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: First of all, I'm not the only one adding 3 digits to viewership on pages. I actually got the idea from Drovethrughosts from this edit. Oh and I have read everything you've wrote; however when you said if the viewers were to go over 1 million for a single episode, then they get displayed in millions, but until then, thousands, I just needed to make sure you knew what you were saying as this process would be a major waste of time. Rswallis10 (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No need to ping me, by the way, I'm watching the page. And again, just because it is one way on another page, doesn't automatically mean it's applicable to every page. I knew exactly what I was saying, and given the record of the show and the highly unlikely event of the viewers actually going over a million viewers, then nothing here would be a waste of time. If displaying viewers in thousands is such a bad idea, then why does the primary source for the viewers list them in thousands themselves? Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that listing viewers in thousands in itself doesn't make sense, I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to have different metrics on different pages. I'm of the opinion that ever single page should be (in millions) or (in thousands), there shouldn't be 2 different standards. Rswallis10 (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Episode synopsis for the missing episode of Season II

I seem to have episodes which are cut differently, but anyway I found out enough to get a synopsis of Season-II episode XV from a wikia-webserver. Should I paste an abbreviation of this into the Wikipedia synopsis for that episode?

The episode opens deep within the fortress in Abigail Ashe's cell. She is telling Eleanor Guthrie about how she remembers Hamilton's wife, Miranda Barlow. Eleanor explains the situation of Vane and Flint to Abigail but she is afraid of Captain Flint, having heard many horrible tales about him from her father. Eleanor finally gets Abigail to agree to flee with her by asking her to trust "Lady Hamilton's" judgement about Captain Flint.

Elsewhere in Nassau, the men are beginning to gather for the vote between Flint and Hornigold. Billy Bones approaches Flint and tells Flint that he is up in the vote count, but Flint is still nervous, knowing that men can switch their votes on a whim. When the meeting starts, Hornigold begins his speech, using the tactic that the men should never trust someone like Flint who has backstabbed men multiple times just in recent weeks. While Hornigold continues his speech, John Silver approaches and tells Flint that Vincent and Nicholas have returned from their mission in which they were to keep an eye on the Urca gold. They inform Flint that the gold is all gone, that two Spanish ships arrived and took every piece of gold off the beach. The men overhear this and begin to spread the word.

Ep15-8 At Rackham's brothel, Max has a servant burn all of Anne Bonny's clothes, except for her hat. Max informs Bonny that all evidence of Bonny's crime has been cleaned up. She gives Bonny a fresh dress and shoes to wear for when she feels like getting out of bed. Bonny then opens up and tells Max about her marriage to a man when she was only thirteen. The man abused her and burned her and passed her around among his crew. She states that one day she was in a tavern and her husband was abusing her. During the abuse, a man walked over and cut her husband's throat; this man was Jack Rackham. She expresses sorrow for the fact that she is not the person she was supposed to be when she was born in that she has been warped and manipulated by multiple barbarous men that she has become one herself. Outside, Idelle tells Max that she and the girls have been talking and that they want to get some men to the brothel to protect Max. Max begs Idelle to not bring any more attention to Bonny and demands that the brothel be a safe place for Bonny. Idelle agrees to this request. Back outside, Dufresne is explaining to Flint and Silver that Hornigold's faction has completely faded away and that the men are now concerned about what their next move is going to be since the gold has disappeared. Flint declares to Silver that they must now find a way to convince the men to continue to go along with the plan to return Abigail to her father. Silver stops Flint in his tracks and states that they quit being a team once the gold disappeared. Flint then convinces Silver to go speak to the men on his behalf by appealing to Silver's vanity. He tells Silver that there is no other place in the world where Silver matters other than with the crew of his ship. Silver then gives a speech to the men in which he tells them the value of Flint's plan. He tells them that by following Flint, they have the chance to one day live their lives not as wanted men, but as free men.

Ep15-9 Close by, Dufresne and Bones are watching Silver give his speech. They begin to discuss Flint's plan. Dufresne thinks it is madness because he feels there is no way that Peter Ashe, the most dogged pirate hunter in the New World, would ever give pardons to pirates. Dufresne tells Bones that they both know what needs to be done: capturing Flint and giving him to the Navy in exchange for pardons for them and eight other men. Bones then tells him to go find eight men who would be willing to betray Flint and to meet up in an hour. Later, when Dufresne has gathered the men together, he meets up with Bones. However, Bones is not alone. He arrives with the rest of the crew who have all remained loyal to Flint. Bones tells Dufresne that there will be no more dissent and no more interference with Flint's plans and demands that Dufresne and the others leave. Back at the brothel, Bonny has put on the dress Max gave her. She heads downstairs where she is given some soup by Max. As she is eating, a sailor named Jacob Garrett approaches and begins to flirt with Bonny. For some reason, Bonny takes him upstairs as if she were a prostitute. Before anything can happen, Idelle intervenes and distracts the man, giving Bonny an avenue to leave the room. Standing outside the room she begins to cry. Max soon appears and comforts her with an embrace.

// and there is much more, so it is quite a job to abbreviate! which is why I ask.//--d-axel (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Disputed - Accuracy of the plot summaries

I have discovered that there are grave inaccuracies in these summaries regarding the plot that completely mischaracterize one of the major plot point of the series (see diff). This has raised my concerns about the accuracy of the other plot summaries. I neither have the time right now nor the knowledge (have yet to finish the series) to verify. Additionally, they need to be revised for tone, style, and also proper filling out because it's too press release logline at the moment. 71.190.199.12 (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)