Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)/Archive 1

Edit request from SonnyDelight, 1 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Extended content

Acknowledgements According to various reports, "The Walking Dead" premiere was viewed by 5.3 million people last night — the largest audience ever for an AMC original series. The pilot episode also managed to pull in 3.6 million adults in the 18-49 age demographic, and became the highest-rated cable series to premiere in 2010. It's worth noting that the episode was run again at 11:30 PM after its initial premiere, making the final tally 8.1 million viewers on the night.

SonnyDelight (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Already done There is already a paragraph relating to this in the Reception section. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Episode List

The hell? There is no episode list? At lest none linked to from the article. --Iankap99 (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As done everywhere, see infobox: No. of episodes 1 (List of episodes). _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK now I see it. To be honest. I spent 15-25 seconds looking for it and couldn't find it. That is longer than any onlooker might spend. Look at any other TV show though Pawn Stars Mythbusters Everybody Hates Chris Everybody Loves Raymond. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to do something like was done in some of those.==Episodes== {{Main|List of Everybody Loves Raymond episodes}}--Iankap99 (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Currently there is such a link under Plot, in general empty sections with only a {{See also}} link are depreciated. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot is really not the place for that. Perhaps when plot develops more, an empty episode section can be afforded without filling the article with more whitespace. Agreed?--Iankap99 (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with this, i've tried to reason with many people to add an episodes section to articles (like family guy i think) and its to no avail, sometimes it seems some articles are run by dictators! haha Arg2k (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Episode count

the numbers of episodes is wrong, its already been confirmed there's at least 3 episodes and maybe more by the MTV interview with the main actor--Ronnie42 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the number of episodes in the infobox is the number of releases episodes, only one episode has aired for now. Besides that the first season will have 6 episodes. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please check the template, Template:Infobox television. The num_episodes element is supposed to list the number of produced episodes. Not aired episodes. If it was aired episodes then you'd end up with a number that is pretty much meaningless, given the series doesn't air concurrently across the planet. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you have not reliable source that says production has finished, I'm going to revert this. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 00:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, per established convention. It is a common error, but the consensus is to use what has aired. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

For those of you who couldn't be bothered to read, quoting from Template:Infobox television... num_episodes is meant to list The number of episodes produced. And for those of you who haven't even read the article, The pilot began filming in Atlanta, Georgia on May 15, 2010 after AMC had officially ordered a six episode first season. which is backed up by a source that was already in the article and is now the first reference. Happy? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The established convention with the "num_episodes" field is to list the number of episodes that have aired. This has been upheld over and over again, the deviation being when a series is cancelled prior to all of the episodes airing. It is demonstrated on a day-by-day basis, as episode counts are updated on series articles as the new episodes go to air, while premature changes are reverted. If you wish to dispute this, you need to establish a consensus to change this practice prior to making the change. I have read the material, many times, and I have been a part of said discussions, again, many times. Please avoid needlessly insulting those who disagree with you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is the consensus being reached? If this really is established convention then why doesn't it say that on the template page? I can see discussion at the linked discussion page but it basically just fizzles out without any consensus being reached. Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 7#Number of episodes AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The doc actually states "The number of episodes produced (a reliable source is required if greater than the number aired).", you have brought up no sources stating that production of six episodes has been completed, no proof that they finished production. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well aside from the source that was already in the article stating that AMC ordered six episodes, how many sources would you like? Given that there are literally thousands of available sources that discuss six episodes, thousands that discuss the final episode airing at the weekend. Give me a number and I'll gladly add that exact number of reliable sources. Do you really believe for a second that they didn't complete production of six episodes? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ordering is absolutely not the same as finishing. It really doesn't matter what I believe, if you are going to say that they produced six episodes, you need a source. They have order six, they may still be busy finishing the final episode, which isn't that uncommon for shows to be finished a couple of days before they air. In any case, Take a look at pretty much any other TV article (including FA), it has the number of aired episodes, not the number of episodes ordered. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in asking for more clarity on the matter; it is one of many details that have an established practice that can be hard to discern from the guidelines. (Another is the idea that a series retains the "is" even after production ceases, rather than changing to "was".) However, I would suggest that you look at the way TV series articles are handled on a day-to-day basis. Note that the episode counts are updated as the new episodes actually go to air, not days (or even hours) before they do so. The reality is that TV (as with most creative enterprises) is not set in stone; new episodes may or may not air, series can be cancelled at the last moment, news events can delay broadcast and so on. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Plans change. But given that I'm sure we all know with absolute clarity that they shot six episodes, and given that there is a very very high likelihood that all six episodes will air, why are we discussing this like there is any uncertainty? And why do we then point to a "List of..." article that lists six episodes and includes the sentence "The first season will feature six episodes."? And that still doesn't point me to any consensus on the num_episodes attribute of that template actually meaning "The number of episodes aired..." instead of "The number of episodes produced..." as it clearly states. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

offically the wiki is still wrong about the number of episodes regardless of airing, if you want prove google it since its just got to its season finale also if the episode listing are there because there usually backed up with a source which is why i refered to the link in the 1st place--Ronnie42 (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The vimeo fan-made intro.

Should it be mentioned in the article? It had an article on The AV Club, at least. --occono (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Crash Underride 03:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Character profiles.

Anyone up for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.239.198 (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the (deceased) tags on the current page are unnecessary, and especial in Sofia's (and Amy's) case they spoil the show somewhat. I would recommend that these parentheticals be removed from this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.93.229 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Correlation with Comic

I was wondering how accurate the show is to the comic. Maybe this could be mentioned in the article, if the show deviates from the story in the comic, if episodes correlate to one issue, if the season correlates to a volume of the comic. If there is some correlation or deviation from the source material, wouldn't this be worth noting? Arg2k (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not very, it's really getting further and further from the comic every episode. Anyway, WP:MOSTV has the following to say about this; "…an article should not contain a mere list the differences. Differences can be addressed by including text detailing the reasons for a change, its effect upon the production, and the reaction to it. This material should be placed within a relevant section of the article (e.g., Production, Themes, or Reception)…". _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. But i didn't mean a simple list like "episode one retells the story of issue one of the comic book while episode two includes both issues 2 and 3. Season one follows volume one of the comic" and so on, (i guess i expressed myself incorrectly). I meant something less specific like for example "the episodes follow the main plots of the comic, deviating in some details, while most episodes tend to portray the events that took place in one issue of the comic." or something like "Season One will follow/follows the main plot elements of Volume One of the comic book." Arg2k (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Only the first episode really follows the comic, the rest has the extreme basic (the camp and most of the people) but the episodic stories itself never happened in the comic (in the comic only Glenn was in Atlanta, so guy on the roof didn't happen, kidnapped Glenn didn't, old people home never happened, …), but any such comparisons like saying season one follows the comic/part of etc. would need sources for it to be added to the article, otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 00:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

ahhh ok, cool. thanks for the info and heads up. I thought it followed the comic closer than that. Arg2k (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I would love to know why they are completely deviating from the comic, so if anyone finds some sources on that please add it to the article. I just saw the last episode, CDC? they never even went there in the comic. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Episode One

I was just looking over what Wikipedia has on the show. There is no mention as to what caused the zombie apocalypse to come about in the first place.--63.3.2.1 (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's because it is not known, even in the comics were there are 79 issues of the cause is unknown. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

One could always create a section for some of the more popular theories on the subject, if anyone is in the mood for probing the internet for various ways a fictional disease could spread to create the apocalypse seen in The walking Dead. Vance Mortelli (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but it would be incredibly well sourced and pertain to this show specifically. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Darabont fires writing staff for season 2

Not sure which section to put this in but here's two sources (I think we can only use the first as a ref but I'm not positive):

http://tv.ign.com/articles/113/1137550p1.html http://networkedblogs.com/bebju

I think it would be good to note (from the first source) the speculation that the Writer's Guild may stand in the way of him go forward with the plan and the Torchwood comparison (since it's sort of tied with the former). Millahnna (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The story originated here[1]. It is indeed noteworthy, and should be put in the Production section, but maybe we should wait until there is an official announcement from Darabont or AMC before adding it. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking it might be good to wait a week and see if there's any word on the WGA possibly fighting this. It seems like the situation is potentially going to be very fluid over the next few days or so. Of course we can always change the text as the situation develops. Millahnna (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Kirkman has commented on the situation to TV Guide which sheds some more light on it. This news should probably go in the article, no reason for it not to.

Not sure I did it right but I dropped it in with the deadline and tvguide refs. Happy fixing-my-efforts! :D Millahnna (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Season 1 Episode 5.

Are they reusing the score from the UK film Sunshine's climax scene when they set out in the vehicles 31minutes in? Sounded an awful lot like it to me. MRNasher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.161.30 (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A Page for Rick Grimes.

Can someone please make a Rick Grimes character page? The guy has been around now for years, and is now spanning two forms of media. The show AND the comic are both extremely popular, and I believe he has the notability to have his own Wikipedia article. Almost everyone at my job, and my friends jobs know him from the show or the comic, and his popularity on the internet has been growing steadily since first release.--68.39.80.126 (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section

The controversy section contains a parahraph that has no indication of any controversy.

The series features several actors that Walking Dead developer Frank Darabont has worked with previously, including Laurie Holden, Jeffrey DeMunn and Melissa McBride. All three appeared in his 2007 film The Mist, along with Thomas Jane, who originally was set to star in the series when it was pitched to HBO. He's also in talks with Darabont to possibly guest star on the series.[24] Laurie Holden also appeared in the 2001 film The Majestic (she played Adele Stanton, Jim Carrey's character's love interest), which Darabont directed. DeMunn has also appeared in several of Darabont's films, in addition to The Mist and The Majestic, he also appeared in The Shawshank Redemption (1994) and The Green Mile (1999)

Why is this paragraph here? Is it controversial that Darabont worked with these actors? I think not. I'll go ahead and move this paragraph to the cast section.Napkin65 (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved paragraph to cast section.Napkin65 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It was originally in the Cast section, but was put in the Controversy section with this edit, obviously by mistake. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Darabont Departure

Darabont has not yet spoken about his reasons for leaving the show, but he is gone. http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/07/26/walking-dead-frank-darabont/ http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/07/27/glenn-mazzara/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/27/idUS112639320820110727 Bustter (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I added this yesterday. ;) Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Character article

I just realized that we have two separate articles listing the characters (one each for the comic and the TV series) and that they have nearly identical names. I don't deal with dismabig stuff much so I'm not sure what the best course is (hatnote, rename, etc). I dropped a similar note on the talk page for the TV series characters since that's the one on my watchlist. The page doesn't have a lot of watchers though (below the 30 threshold, so I wasn't sure if anyone would see it. Should as ask the comic project peeps? Drop your thoughts here please. Millahnna (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

season 2 hiatus?

I consulted the article for an explanation.of the mid-season hiatus, but there's nothing here. Shouldn't there be some mention of this unusual scheduling? Bustter (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There really is no reason, besides how AMC wants to schedule their shows. All network TV shows have hiatuses around December-January, but it's just more uncommon for cable shows to when they have such a shorter run of episodes. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 14:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and fixed.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead does not even begin to summarise the article, please read and apply WP:LEAD. There should not be single sentence paragraphs in the lead or anywhere else for that matter.

   ''begins a perilous journey for Atlanta, Surely "to Atlanta"?

   the CDC needs more than a wikilink, spell the full name out.

   On December 1, 2010, Deadline.com reported that Darabont had fired his writing staff, including executive producer Charles "Chic" Eglee, and plans to use freelance writers for the second season Mixture of verb tenses, please be consistent.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   ref # 38[3] has nothing about the series. This has been fixed by User:Drovethrughosts. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

   Other spot checks OK, no evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Appears to cover major elements

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Licensed tagged and captioned OK

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, on hold for ten days for the issues above to be addressed. Please go through and consolidate single sentence or small paragraphs, check your use of verb tenses, fix ref #38 and sort out the lead. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

   Ok, thank you for fixing these issues, I am happy to list this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Horror or Drama

I think "drama" would be a better word than "horror" after post apocalypse. The fact that it's post apocalypse and it's a show about zombies denotes horror elements. The point of the show, however, is not to depict horror scenes, but to develop characters. Calling it a horror show is misleading because it conveys that it is about the zombies which it is not. 71.98.212.248 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not call it survival horror? I think it's more fitting for this time of setting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.205.53 (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Governor

People keep adding "The Governor" as a character since it was announced David Morrissey was signed for that role. It's premature to add Season 3 characters, who won't be seen for another year, when not a single episode has even been shot or written, especially to list him as a "main" character. Morrissey is mentioned in prose under "Season 3", which is appropriate. Barsoomian (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I've removed this a few times myself. It's getting a little tiresome; I wish we could just lock the cast section down until October–I've lost count of the number of times I've had to fix it. DigiFluid (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's been announced, and there are reliable public sources that state it's going to be so, it's perfectly reasonable to add it.

I understand if it were nonsense speculation, but the show is going to be back on in six months, and this is not an example of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. I think it can be added without any controversy. Besides, I'm of the opinion (and it's only mine) that there's a bit of WP:OWN going on here. Of all the billions of errors on Wikipedia, this doesn't actually qualify as one. One last point. I've noticed if you keep reverting one thing over and over and over again, then there's a reason. Put the information somewhere, then most people will see it, and don't think, "hey, I've got some news that obviously no one knows." That's your problem, everyone knows about this, but someone who comes to Wikipedia and reads the article thinks it's missing key information, and to honor the show and the editor's contributions to the encyclopedia, they're going to put in a great edit. Let's be at least a little bit compromising and add the information about Season 3 characters in a manner that is supported by evidence. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: the recurring section, for my part I keep putting it back because it's accurate information, which also has its organizational structure explicitly described in the code. It seems like every day I come on here and there's been a heap of backward leaps and non-productive edits so I have to restore it. Re: the Governor....it took me reading someone else saying it, but I think you make a valid point. It's been announced, there are sources to cite, so maybe it does make good sense to add Morrissey after all. DigiFluid (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I mostly avoid editing pop culture articles, even if it's about my most favorite (and sometimes utterly frustrating) series on TV. I think adding both Morrissey and Guirira makes sense, since both were publicly announced. Now, if they would only get rid of Lori Grimes, I'd go 3RR to put that information on here. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Put the information somewhere, then most people will see it": Morrissey is mentioned in The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)#Season 3 (2012–2013). I've put that in a footnoted it myself. And had IPs screw it up a dozen times and mess up the links. But Morrissey hasn't filmed a single scene yet. He can't be listed as main character, or even a recurring one. People are conflating what they know from the comics about the character to make him "major". He probably will be. But we haven't seen that yet. We can't document information about episodes that don't exist yet. Barsoomian (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I meant on the main article. And, if I might go right to the line on AGF, you're being a tad picky about this. There is nothing wrong with adding another bit entitled "Future characters announced" or something. You're right, we don't know if he'll be considered a main star or recurring character yet, but we can avoid that with just a new section. Again, I was once told that most edits are done by newbies (I was shocked about that), so like I said, these guys (and presumably a few women) will show up and think to themselves, "hey I've got some info no one has written." It'll be frustrating. I think you can give a little here without causing the article to blow up into a POS fan article. It's better than constantly reverting the edits. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I see what you did. I like it. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't want to keep fighting this either. I get reverted often enough that I know it's depressing and frustrating. But WP isn't about making editors feel happy by letting them express themselves. If IPs don't notice the note and keep inserting the Governor, et al. , maybe we will have to be more explicit and add a subhead right in the cast list for "Announced future cast" or something. Barsoomian (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, please note that I moved List of The Walking Dead characters to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters, as the original title was confusingly similar to List of characters in The Walking Dead which, is about the comic book characters. I fixed the links in the cast list, but someone reverted them. On consideration, I cut the links for characters that just go to a list page; that is just clutter. Now people can see which characters actually have their own articles. The list is linked as the "main article". Barsoomian (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That would actually be my fault, I didn't think to restore those links when I was restoring the section. Sorry about that. DigiFluid (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Critical Reception for 2nd half of Season 2

Shouldn't the critical reception section be updated for this? Critics were much more positive this time around. 184.41.101.157 (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. Barsoomian (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"The series is completely shot on 16 mm film"

Fascinating. Could this statement be expanded for context for people not intimately familiar with how TV shows are made?

The way the statement comes, I thought it seems to be saying something unusual, like we wouldn't expect it to be 16mm. Are most TV series shot in some other format? Am I supposed to intuitively understand the implications that this brings in terms of... I dunno, quality, cost, zombieness? Some help please? --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well 35mm is the standard; 16mm is the cheaper younger sibling. Although it is more common for TV outside of the US. How to get that into the article with a relevant cite... I don't know. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Shane's death edit war

Another silly edit war. The text was:

Shane reanimates as a walker and Carl shoots him. The shot attracts a large horde of walkers...

Someone keeps changing it to:

Shane reanimates as a walker and Carl shoots him. As Rick stabs Shane, he fires his gun missing Rick. The shot attracts a large horde of walkers;

So, we need a clip or some authoritative text on this we can reference to confirm which shot attracted the walkers (as if it really matters).

Found this summary of ep 2.12 at AMC:

Behind Rick, Shane rises from the ground as a walker. He lumbers toward Rick.

Rick stares at Carl in shock, pleading with his son to lower the gun as, unnoticed, Shane moves closer and closer. Carl squeezes the trigger and hits Shane in the head.

The gunshot echoes through the forest, attracting the attention of a massive herd of walkers. The dead move toward the farmhouse.

According to this, it was Carl's shot that first attracted the walkers. Though the second shot would have too. So, leave it at the first text please. Barsoomian (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If you watch the beginning of episode 13, you obviously see that the herd follows the chopper, then when they are in the forest you hear a shot. One shot. When Rick kills Shane, he tries to shoot Rick out of reflex. However the shot misses (and he drops the gun). It takes a few minutes until Carl shoots Shane. The herd is however very close when they leave. Shane shot first and when the herd hears the shot, they only hear one shot. The first shot has to be the one attracting the herd, otherwise it would not make sense. Carl's could have helped, but it was definitely Shane's gunshot that attracted the herd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.137.181 (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The above is from AMC's official summary. So that beats any WP:OR. Anyway, if the walkers heard one gunshot, they must have heard both, even if they only showed one "reaction shot". I'll try to rewrite it to say that. Barsoomian (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Also Starring

I added an also starring section to the cast list, as it makes a difference in actors contracts and gives a heightened importance to certain characters over others. J52y (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

But that billing has little or no relevance to the importance of the role in the show. Barsoomian (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sheriff's Deputy?

There is continual flux between describing Rick as a "sheriff's deputy" or a "sheriff". Is there a citation to clear this up and ref it in the text to stop this back and forth? Barsoomian (talk)

I haven't been involved in that particular edit war, but I do believe he was a deputy of the King County Sheriff's Department–therefore, a "sheriff's deputy." DigiFluid (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

He's called a sheriff's deputy in his bio on the AMC website. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw Barsoomian put in a reference to try to stop the nonsense. I tidied the ref up a little (after a few false starts) and put that same citation on other instances of "sheriff's deputy" in the article. Hopefully that'll stop people from changing it again. Of course, anons are rarely bright enough to check references, but now at least we have cited proof on our side to justify reverting it back. DigiFluid (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that some viewers may have been confused about this in "Days Gone Bye," as Rick was and still is a take-charge leader who had been a Deputy Sheriff for a while thus a senior amongst his fellow deputies when he was telling Leon to focus on the situation and to ready his pistol. When you do any kind of work for a period of time, you can be a go-to guy or gal. It is implied that Rick was a senior deputy and nothing more. Stryteler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.76 (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was unanimous not to merge. 0pen$0urce (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Why do we need a separate article for every season of the show? The individual season articles seem to be mostly fleshed out with duplicate and redundant information. A simple plot summary and recurring cast summary in the main article would seem to suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smnc (talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is not a good idea. If there is repetition, some of the unnecessary details can be edited out here on the main page, and that may need to be discussed separately. However, it is better to have separate articles for each season, as is the case with numerous other tv shows, rather than an overly-long main article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is not a good idea because almost every other TV show series has a different page for each season. By changing only The Walking Dead, it would be confusing for visitors of Wikipedia. Soulcedric (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

He's started the same disussion on 4 talk pages simultaneously. (And not bothered to sign any.) Copying my response:

• Oppose. The Walking Dead (TV series) is 52 kB, The Walking Dead (season 1) is 40kb, The Walking Dead (season 2) is 42 kB. Together they'd be 130 kB, well over the size for splitting, (according to WP:SPINOUT, 60 kB) unless you propose to edit the text down by 50%. Barsoomian (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Barsoomian makes a valid point. So does TheOldJacobite. We make a lot of POV forks for shows for separate seasons, even ones with shortened seasons like the Walking Dead. About the only redundant information are characters, not the plot lines. I see no real good reason for a merge. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• OpposeLook at any other running show and the majority of them have separate pages for each season with a summary on the main page.--0pen$0urce (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea of season articles, however I see very little original information in any of the season articles. The season plot summaries that are already included in the main article are as long and comprehensive as the ones in the season articles, with several paragraphs being copied outright. Other shows with season articles tend to have a short concise plot summary on the main page and a more detailed one in the season article. The "Episodes" sections in the season articles are likewise repeated information as there is already a separate "Episodes" article. For the season two article in particular, the "Episodes" section is roughly 1/3rd of the entire article. That is unnecessary. That leaves the "Characters", "Production" and "Release" sections to be merged in, which could be re-written to be significantly smaller once the many redundancies are removed. All this would lead to a very small increase in size of the main article once the merge were completed. However if the consensus is that separate season articles remain then I think extensive edits and re-writes are in order. As TheOldJacobite said, that is a separate discussion. I would also like to apologize for the redundant discussions, I have corrected my error. --smnc (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine, do cut down redundancy. The season articles need only the briefest general introduction, the rest should be specific to the season in question. However, the "Episodes" lists in List of The Walking Dead episodes are not merely duplicates of those in the separate season articles, they omit the plot summaries for each episode found in the full versions. The show is popular, which in itself doesn't entitle it to multiple articles, but there is a lot of critical attention paid to it and a lot of well sourced information about the show available. Barsoomian (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

My turn for a lengthy dissertation. I took a look at a few other television show articles, Smallville, The X-Files, Mad Men, typically what I am seeing is links to separate season articles from a ratings table. I think typically individual season articles are created to avoid a lengthy, clunky, main article. So probably the season summary information could actually be merged to the respective season page. So I could reasonable see a reverse merge, in which a link list of episodes on one pages and separate season pages.--0pen$0urce (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Main cast sorting for Season 3 and beyond

Okay, we probably have 6-7 months to come to an agreement on this but I thought I'd throw it out there now so as many people can weigh in as want to–how will we be approaching the Main Cast list come Season 3? (And presumably beyond).

Currently, it's sorted in the order that their names appear during the title sequence as of the Season 2 finale. But starting with Season 3, Jon Bernthal and Jeffrey DeMunn will no longer appear, while other cast members may have their names in the intro. Whether that involves certain recurring characters (Carol, for instance) being promoted to regular, or new characters (Governor, Michonne) we can't say yet, but for the sake of discussion let's say one or all of them do appear in next year's intro credits.

• Do we leave the current list as-is and simply add the new main cast stars to the bottom of the existing list?
• Do we leave the current list as-is and try to insert the new-main characters into their respective spots as they show in the intro?
• Do we start over and just....I don't know, alphabetize by actor surname?
• Do we maintain the practice of the list being the order in the intro credits and simply shift Bernthal/DeMunn down to the bottom?

Personally I think the fourth of those might be the best way to proceed, but even that isn't without its problems (namely, what to do if a character is demoted from regular to recurring). What does everyone think? Does anyone have better ideas? DigiFluid (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm personally against the idea of shifting actors who are no longer on the show down to bottom. They're not any less important because they're currently not on the show. Articles should maintain a "universal" perspective, not just what's current. The order on here follows the billing order on the series (only alphabetize if that's how the actual credits are done). I have seen both things done, where new actors are simply added after the original cast, or are sometimes inserted if it works well. More than likely, if any actors are upgraded to main cast, they'll just be added at the end, like how Norman Reedus was added in season 2. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe Reedus is actually billed last anyway, isn't he? I'm at work right now, so I can't check. DigiFluid (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what I said: that Reedus was added at the end. I'm guessing you misunderstood what I said. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I did. And it seems as a result of that, what I said was unclear enough that you misunderstood me too.... What I meant was that I thought Reedus appears at the end of the credits on the show's intro, not the article's list of credits. Hopefully that's clearer...heh DigiFluid (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you should just start over and alphabetize the names, making it much easier, and there would be no problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.168.22 (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'm just curious. Why is T-Dog listed as a "recurring character"? He's been in almost every single episode as long as Andrea, Daryl, and Glenn, but he's not a "main" character? If it has something to do with the actor's contract, I think he should still be listed as a main character because he's just as much a feature of the main group as anyone else. Quietmartialartist (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

They're sorted by the actors billing. Main cast lists actors who receive star billing (opening credits), while recurring characters are actors that receive guest star billing (or as of season 2, "also starring"). Anything else would just be viewer interpretation or opinion. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

As has been discussed on this page, now that it has been established that Scott Wilson and Melissa McBride have infact been series regulars for all of season 3 and are confirmed regulars for season 4, should they not be listed in the starring section list under the banner?

Nationality Introduction

Should we put that it is an american show in the beginning line of the article? Nationality is referenced in Dr. Who, EastEnders, Breaking Bad, Mad Men and Dexter. I think it will be more consistent if we add it in the introduction to this The Walking Dead article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickcity55 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really sure how to do this, but I thought I'd suggest a minor grammatic edit that should be made. Under Season 3 (2012-13), the following sentence can be found: "On August 10, 2012, Robert Kirkman confirmed that season 3 will be comprised of 16 episodes, split into two eight-episode halves, with the second half debuting in early spring 2013." That sentence should be changed to read: "On August 10, 2012, Robert Kirkman confirmed that season 3 will comprise 16 episodes, split into two eight-episode halves, with the second half debuting in early spring 2013." "Be comprised of" is simply incorrect English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.21.3.7 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Differences of tv show and comic

Do you think we should add a section detailing the growing differences between the comic storyline and the tv series? --Jamo58 (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Danai Gurira

In the "recurring cast" list there is now :

• Danai Gurira as Michonne (Season 2–)

However, Danai Gurira is not in episode 2.13's credits, her face is never seen. It seems very likely that this was actually a stand in. Barsoomian (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think I was the one who added that in, and just re-added it as part of restoring the section to where it was yesterday. Per your logic, I've removed her from the list until we have confirmation otherwise. DigiFluid (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

An article at ScreenRant.com confirms that the cloaked figure in the finale was Michonne, but was not Danai Gurira....

http://screenrant.com/walking-dead-season-3-spoilers-aco-159922/all/1/ (beware of spoilers) DigiFluid (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Along these same lines, I don't believe the voices of Emma Bell, Jeryl Prescott, or Andrew Rothenberg were actually used in phone call sequences in "Hounded" so they should not be listed as "Voices Only" in Season 3. Sarah Wayne Callies voice was used.Docmag (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, those are the voices of Bell, Prescott and Rothenberg; they are all credited in the end credits of that episode. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Daryl Dixon article name

Note: Talk:Daryl Dixon (The Walking Dead)#Suggested move where it is suggested Daryl Dixon (The Walking Dead) be moved to Daryl Dixon. Barsoomian (talk)

Also, the article Daryl Dixon (The Walking Dead) could use some external references, it's mostly just a recounting of plot now. Barsoomian (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"Casualty count" or "Deceased" section: as with The Sopranos, this section should follow each episode's plot summary for The Walking Dead

I added a casualty count noting humans killed in each episode and how they died, similar to the "Deceased" section in each of The Sopranos episodes, e.g.: 46_Long#Deceased and The_Blue_Comet#Deceased. This is a useful section for a series in which numerous deaths occur, to allow readers and fans to track who died, how, and when. However, the Wiki editor "Another Believer" removed that section from each episode, indicating I should take it to the talk page. Frankly, I think Another Believer should have taken it to the talk page before reverting my additions, but I don't want to start an edit war. So I bring it here. Froid 04:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"Precaps" in the intro paragraph(s) are unnecessary

Someone's been writing "precaps" in the episode articles. These are unnecessary; the plot summary is sufficient, plus people can follow links to such sites as IMDb that are listed in the "External links" section if they want to read those. For examples of well-written episode articles, I suggest referring to those associated with The Sopranos (such as those listed in my entry, above). Froid (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Hello, Froid. Like I stated to you in this edit summary in response to your edit summary, "[I]f this were a WP:GA The Walking Dead article, like TS-19, the lead would recap the episode a bit; that's in line with WP:LEAD."

Also, if you don't already know, to sign your user name, all you have to do is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your user name for you in this section above. Flyer22 (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 - Thanks for signing for me. - Froid 12:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Midseason division

Can we make a note in the season summaries of the times when seasons went on hiatus? Talking Dead made note of the "midseason finale" and the seasons having halves. Ranze (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not? It's informative, and doesn't take much space. Froid 12:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Idea: new paragraph for series and movies

Hi, I got the idea to add a category: "Online availability", where sources could be added like Netflix (app, web, season 1). Is that completely against the policies, or could it be evolved to something workable? It would be very useful, and also intesting to see the development towards online TV as more and more become available Federicodecara (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary Spoilers

Please remove the sections that specify the seasons in which characters appear, as these sections amount to spoilers and indicate the times of death of individual characters. If no one else does so and if there are no legitimate objections, I will attempt to figure out how to do so. These sections do not add legitimate informative value to the program, especially in light of episode articles. Further, they do not conform the the encyclopedic format Wikipedia attempts to achieve, and they interfere with the progression readers should experience when reading about the plot summary of the story. An individual should be able to pull up this article and review the general plot without having a visual spoiler of the entire program.

Spoilers are allowed by wikipedia, and similar character lists appear on the pages of many TV Shows. We added this one to better conform with what is done on the pages of other series. - Dracuns (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's spoilers policy and guidlines. Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be removed just because they are considered such. Given that they refer to the seasons that characters appear in the series they are in fact legitimate content to be included and are encyclopaedic in nature. Your comment about readers being able to read the plot without having spoilers of the programme does not make sense...by reading the general plot they are in fact giving themselves spoilers. At the end of the day, people know enough of Wikipedia now to know that if they don't want spoilers then they should go else where to find information about the series. MisterShiney ✉ 13:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hershel and Carol

Hershel and Carol have been an important part of this series. Gale Gunner's Twitter Page and Melissa McBride's Twitter Page say that Hershel and Carol have been series regulars since season 3, yet there is nothing else to support this. I personally want this to be true, but I think that we need more sources. - Dracuns (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It all depends on the definition of "series regular." Although neither appear in the "opening credits," notice that both of them were still credited in an episode that they didn't appear in. None of the other actors who are regularly in the "Also starring" section have their names credited unless they actually appear in the episode. This by itself could be the definition of "series regular." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcarter555 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so aside from their twitters, HERE is an official confirmation via TVLine (a major entertainment news site) that Melissa McBride and Scott Wilson are both series regulars - not recurring guest stars like they're currently listed as being : http://tvline.com/2013/04/04/walking-dead-melissa-mcbride-series-regular/ - Molcoo (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molcoo (talk • contribs)

Good, I was hoping that someone would find another source (which was the reason for this). If both of them are main Characters and have been, shouldn't we move them into the main cast section. - Dracuns (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

They definitely should be moved, but we should probably give the reference link next to each of their starring seasons on the list, otherwise people will randomly just undo these edits. We should also probably give the link somewhere within the casting section of the main page (or the season 3 section). - Molcoo (talk) 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, but when did Carol and Hershel become series regulars? It is possible that they were the entire time they were on the show. If they are listed in also starring then we could just watch some early episodes to check. - Dracuns (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the episode guide on AMC, and Carol is listed as a guest star for season 1, but not for season 2. Hershel is listed as a guest star for season 2, but isn't listed for season 3. I know that this doesn't prove when they become series regulars but it is a start. Another interested bit is T-dog is listed as a guest star for seasons 1 and 2, but isn't listed for season 3 (but he then dies 4 episodes in). - Dracuns (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the opening credits for "18 Miles Out" as it's an episode not featuring these two characters, and neither of the actors are credited for it. McBride and Wilson are however credited for every episode of season 3 under "also starring" regardless if they appear on not. Given that, it seems season 3 is when they were promoted to series regulars. But, while still looking for sources online while typing, I came across this, which states "Actually, McBride joined the series regular status in Season 2." Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That matches what I found on AMC's site, I am going to go ahead and make the change. The source you found will help with carol. - Dracuns (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Chad Coleman, Sonequa Martin-Green & Emily Kinney Promoted in season 4

So according to sources those three have been promoted to regulars. when is someone going to change it on here? http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/walking-dead-season-4-spoilers-tyreese-beth-sasha-432869 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.129.20 (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

They will be added as main cast as soon as season 4 premiers, until then the fact that they are promoted will be in the season 4 section of this page, and the season 4 section on the List of The Walking Dead episodes. - Dracuns (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Deceased cast should be moved to Recurring section?

Do you guys think that would be a good idea? Masterpeace3 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Why move them to the recurring section after they die? Being died doesn't change the fact that they were main cast, also Lori died early in season 3, and appeared as a hallucination for the rest of the season. They should remain in the main cast table, where who died in a season will become clear after the next season is added. - Dracuns (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Spoiler in first paragraph

It would probably be a good idea to not include the exact reason why the characters are the eponyms for the title in the first paragraph. Simply saying that the title refers to the characters rather than the walkers would be sufficient I think and more detail could be gone into in the episodes section. Ruined a major plot twist for me and I was only trying to look through the episodes and see which one I had left off on since I stopped watching awhile ago. Normally I'll read the intro paragraph of most pages I go to and don't expect the first paragraph to ruin things for me. I mean seriously that is very important plot information being revealed 4-5 lines into the article. I'm changing it to say that the title refers to the survivors rather than the walkers. Comment if you think otherwise but I can't see what your reasoning would be other than you're a jerk who likes ruining things for other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhammidarigaaz (talk • contribs) 09:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you mean and why you made this edit (note to others: don't click on that link I provided if you don't want to be spoiled), which has not been reverted. That is definitely a huge spoiler, which isn't revealed until the end of Season 2. I could see it validly being there if this were The Walking Dead (season 3) article, but it's not. All that stated, we do have a WP:SPOILER guideline...which states that we don't necessarily have to mind spoilers. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not understand. As someone who has only just recently begun watching the show, is almost through season 2, and has yet to encounter that information, I would imagine that I am exactly the kind of person for whom that should have been a spoiler. But I'm having a hard time seeing it as such. Maybe it'll make more sense once I wrap up the season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.133.242 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that this entire sentance be omitted. It is a plot discovery and, as such, does not truly belong in the Introduction session. I would also argue that the title refers to both the Survivors and the Walkers. BrianO (talk • contribs)16:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with BrianO, can the spoiler sentence please be removed? I also agree that the title has a double meaning, which is quite smart. Jhgenius01 (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"Also starring" actors in the infobox

There are too many actors who were always credited under "also starring" in the show. If that's the reason for including Kinney, Coleman, Martin-Green, and Gilliard, Jr., then all of the other "also starring" actors could be inserted into infobox- Juan Gabriel Pareja, Jose Pablo Cantillo, Noah Emmerich, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Dallas Roberts, Lew Temple, etc. The infobox would become bloated. Additionally, just because a performer recieves "also starring" credit in his or her first episode doesn't mean he or she will always recieve "also starring" credit; i.e. Emma Bell, Andrew Rothenberg, and Lennie James. What will happen if one of those four actors is credited as a "special guest star" instead? It's simply easier to just include the actors appearing in the opening titles. Bluerules (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to cutting those "also starring" cast members from the infobox. The reason those select few are included is because they're considered regulars by AMC and are credited regardless if they appear or not. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's arguable if AMC really does consider Gilliard, Jr. as a regular because he doesn't appear as a cast member on the official website. The other three are on the official site, but so are IronE Singleton, Madison Lintz, Lennie James, and Emma Bell. Also, we don't know if the four will continue to receive credit in subsequent episodes they don't appear in. At the very least, we should remove Gilliard, Jr. for the time being, given his minimal appearances and absence from the site. Bluerules (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Who is Daryl? "Daryl's brother, Merle" Introduce Daryl first in the article. I never watched the show — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.221.252.146 (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, at the end of the season 2 summary it reads: "The final scene shows the group questioning Rick's leadership later that night with a large prison looming in a pan out." It should actually say "tilt up". Tilt is up and down, pan is left and right. Also, you can do neither "out". Maybe they meant "fade out"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruadh 50 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Season 3 ratings error

According to the ratings table, the average number of viewers for season 3 was 11.42 million. Despite the fact that there is a source cited for this number, it's wrong. The average number of viewers for just the second half of season 3 was 11.42 million. The average number of viewers for the entirety of season three was actually around 10.76 million. It seems the source used was only looking at ratings for shows in the calendar year of 2013, so it left out all of the first half of season 3 in its calculations. 99.192.74.121 (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I found a new reference to cite the entire season average. Thank you for noticing that. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Characters

Could the characters listed on the main page be listed to only incumbent characters, with characters added/removed as they join/depart the show? Just a thought. Burbridge92 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't remove actors/characters from the page just because they're currently not on the show. By doing that, you're saying they were never on the show or have even existed. You treat real-world subjects like that, not fictional. I'm assuming that's what you meant by "incumbent". Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Each season has its own article, and in those only the cast of that season are featured. But this one covers the entire series, not just the latest episode. Barsoomian (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that it would be nice to reorganize characters into a chart like the one on Criminal Minds. This would make it more obvious who is on the show and who isn't. I think that handles what everyone here wants. - Dracuns (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A chart is a really good idea. Since this show has quite a large (and evolving cast), a chart would neatly organize the information. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've started the table Below is my progress:

Character	Played by	Seasons
		1	2	3
Rick Grimes	Andrew Lincoln	Main
Shane Walsh	Jon Bernthal	Main
Lori Grimes	Sarah Wayne Callies	Main
Andrea	Laurie Holden	Main

I'll work on it later. - Dracuns (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Finished the chart for the main cast, I'll also work on the chart for the recurring cast as well. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of the character Lori, and T-Dog for instance died about halfway through the season. Should we reflect that in the charts? - Dracuns (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want finer detail, you could do it like the character table in List of Primeval characters. More work updating it though. Barsoomian (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Can we make the table like this? --Cemallamec (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good job on the tables, I did the tables for Robot Combat League and I like what they do for articles. I have to say though, the colors don't do it for me. The cyan is fine for main characters, but the grey & pink don't fit. I especially find the grey off putting, and I would prefer the pink on the dead sections. 24.79.38.123 (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternate Table Colors

Top one is a visual reference only obviously.

Robo-Jockey	Robo-Tech	Seed	Robot	Speed	Strength	Endurance	Wins	Loses	Status	Notes
Amber Shinsel	Dave Shinsel	1	Crash	7	5	10	4	0	Champion
Amber Shinsel	Dave Shinsel	2	Crash	7	5	10	4	0	Champion
Amber Shinsel	Dave Shinsel	3	Crash	7	5	10	4	0	Champion
Amber Shinsel	Dave Shinsel	4	Crash	7	5	10	4	0	Champion
Amber Shinsel	Dave Shinsel	5	Crash	7	5	10	4	0	Champion
Amber Shinsel	Dave Shinsel	6	Crash	7	5	10	4	0	Champion
Amber Shinsel	Dave Shinsel	7	Crash	7	5	10	4	0	Champion
Amber Shinsel	Dave Shinsel	8	Crash	7	5	10	4	0	Champion

• I don't know how to change the season number sections yet, nothing I've tried works. 24.79.38.123 (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to explicitly state that the character has died/turned, but I think changing that part of the chart so it has the color pink is a good way to signal this. 24.79.38.123 (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that the new colors are butt ugly? I much preferred the previous set up. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The original table was introduced over 9 months ago and no other editor said there were any problems with it, and once the changes were made, an editor (just above) expressed his opinion that he preferred the previous one, so my reversion of your changes were not unwarranted or against any type of consensus. Your changes seem to be arbitrary and unnecessary. The current version (my opinion obviously) looks much cleaner and more visually pleasing. The added green to the actor, character and seasons headings are unnecessary and purely cosmetic; the pink to indicate no appearances after the actor departed the show is confusing and offers no explanation why it's a different color than the previous grey that signifies no appearance. I don't see how the alternate color chart improves in any way other than personal cosmetic changes, which have showed no support from anyone else. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Abusive use of rollback rights on chart colors?

I just noticed what I consider to be abusive use of rollback privileges by User:Drovethrughosts.
Even though a discussion was started here about the colors choices of the charts in the article, he went ahead and changed them back to his personal choice of colors using the rollback function, without bothering to consider the discussion, because he has an overly possessive attachment to the charts, having being someone who worked on them. I find this to be a heinous abuse of privilege, and I request other opinions on the colors of the charts. Anonipus (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I didn't even notice the discussion and figured the changing of the colours was arbitrary and unnecessary and reverted back to what was always there. Sorry for that. By the way, you probably shouldn't throw around completely random untrue accusations such as saying [I] "got the article semi-protected after reverting my edits, probably by using sock accounts to vandalize it." Seriously? The user Mark Arsten protected the article after it was vandalized several times on December 1. I undid your edit on November 27. Anyway, I'm up for discussion just as long you realize that accusation was unbelievably uncalled for (it actually made me laugh at how silly it was). Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Listen, I HATE the pink representing cameo & recurring. And I think the chart is missing the idea that some these characters are recurring and NOT dead, or it should be clearer that they are dead!! I don't care what you find funny because the timing of December 1st after November 27th "fits the shoe." You know damn well those were good faith edits from all the god damn discussion on here, and I find it offensive the arrogance you show ignoring it. Just because you cover your ass by dropping word "sorry," doesn't changing ANYTHING!! You "figured" wrong! You were part of the discussion that you "didn't even notice," that you had to ignore to make your rollback!! Your possessiveness makes me SICK!! and your contradictions make it obvious to me you were abusing your privileges.Anonipus (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You should probably tone it down, it's insane your getting worked up over very minor color choices on a table about fictional characters. Use a different color than pink if you don't like it (what about a light blue?). If a character is recurring it's noted that they are, if they don't appear in a season, it's labeled as grey. I don't get what's missing? Your accusations are beyond ridiculous, and I hope it's proven so by someone who has the ability to check that, so that you know what a mistake you made. There wasn't a discussion beyond your own comments, and then after your changes, a different editor commented "Am I the only one who thinks that the new colors are butt ugly? I much preferred the previous set up." I was part of the discussion that happened a year ago, I didn't see the new one that was started just recently; please look at the dates. I wasn't being possessive, I was changing it back to the way it had been for almost a year. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I was editing in good faith with my IP, I don't want this damn account, I only made it because all of the sudden (to me) my color edits were reverted and the article was semiprotected. I can't edit the colors with an IP, (I thought having an account is being a registered user!) and this account wouldn't work either.
If could have changed the pink I would have done it already! You can't imagine how @#$%&# frustrating it is to follow the rules and then have it thrown in your face this way.
(1) Color#2: Which characters are dead.
(2) Color#3 Which characters may return/recur.
(3) Please put a color for recurring and cameo that doesn't suggest they are dead.
Anonipus (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I jut now found out new accounts have to wait 96 hours, but I still want discussion on the color, their purpose/coverage.Anonipus (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The article was semi protected several days later due to vandalism, it had nothing to do with your or my edits. I've changed the recurring color to blue. Using another color for "characters may return/recur" is speculative and not what Wikipedia is about. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. To label them "dead" is in-universe and clashes with the table, which is based on the actor's role in the show (main cast, recurring, etc., not "dead"). The table should be as simple as possible: one color for main cast, one for recurring/guest/etc. and one for no appearances (grey). Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

To have that discussion you have to have your terms clear and know what is possible, for example, what distinction are you making between cameo and recurring? The chart isn't just about the actors, you have the characters listed also. So if you are going to be clear and accurate you have to be considerate of the distinctions, and I think you are incorrect that "not knowing" (ie. speculation) is not an option that deserves marking. Grey is the same color you have for the rest of the chart and that is known, so I don't agree that grey should also be the color of an unknown, as though they are the same. Remove the grey from the rest of the chart if you are going to use it as the color of an unknown. The heading of the section is Cast & Characters! AND CHARACTERS, so I think their death is relevant. Anonipus (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Actor/actress	Character	Appearances
		S1	S2	S3	S4	Total
Andrew Lincoln	Rick Grimes	6	13	15	7*	41
Chandler Riggs	Carl Grimes	6	12	14	6*	38
Steven Yeun	Glenn Rhee	6	12	13	5*	36
Norman Reedus	Daryl Dixon	4	12	13	6*	35
Melissa McBride	Carol Peletier	4	12	12	4*	32
Laurie Holden	Andrea	5	13	13	*	31
Lauren Cohan	Maggie Greene		12	13	5*	30
Scott Wilson	Hershel Greene		11	13	6*	30
Emily Kinney	Beth Greene		11	13	4*	28
Sarah Wayne Callies	Lori Grimes	6	13	8	*	27
Danai Gurira	Michonne		1	15	7*	23
Jon Bernthal	Shane Walsh	6	12	1	*	19
David Morrissey	The Governor/Phillip Blake			13	4*	17
Jeffrey DeMunn	Dale Horvath	6	10		*	16
Michael Rooker	Merle Dixon	2	1	11	*	14
Chad L. Coleman	Tyreese			5	6*	11
Sonequa Martin-Green	Sasha			5	5*	10
Lawrence Gilliard, Jr.	Bob Stookey				6*	6

• This chart is from the Characters main article. Anonipus (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  Main article: List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters

Key:   = Starring

Key:   = Recurring

Key:   = Starring (credited as "also starring")

Key:   = Guest/Cameo

Key:   = No Appearances

This rendition as not as "simple" as you would suggest is should be!
It has symbols embedded (*) for points. I think that works for dead characters.
Anonipus (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The color of grey is not for "unknown", it's for no appearances. Not knowing is actually not worth marking because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If we know a character is returning, such as Morgan in season 4, he's sourced and is labeled as "Guest". Every character that is labeled as grey after the fact is because their character is dead (with the sole exception of Morales). So what distinction is there to make? That table above is fine for the characters article, because that's what that article is about. But this is for the main article for the entire show, it should be simple and easy to understand. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You're flip flopping now, you didn't want the dead marked, you don't want the unknown marked, but dead is a known.
I definitely think dead a character should be marked in some way, either by color or a symbol; I'd even go as far as to say it's almost deceptive not to include this information.
Dale Horvath (played by Jeffrey DeMunn) died in season two, he was not in the completed (not unknown) season three, but your grey for everything method suggests otherwise for the completed season three by making it the same as the not completed (unknown) season four. Stop pretending there is no distinction here that needs to be made, I just gave you the first example I found. Anonipus (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what I'm "flip-flopping" over, but it's not about marking the "dead", it's simple as: they're labeled grey if that character does not appear. It's unnecessary spoilers to explicitly list characters that died on the main article of the show, it's serving no encyclopedic purpose other than to say "this character died in that season" which shouldn't be placed on the main article. That's what this article, List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters is for, to have more in depth information such as episode counts and status. Your suggestion fails WP:CRYSTAL, as we don't include information that may happen or is speculation. If a deceased character appears in season 4, then we update; otherwise it stays correctly labeled as "no appearances". Morgan (Lennie James) is an example of how this is done: he hasn't appeared yet, but it's been revealed that he will return, so he's labeled "Guest" with a reference. If we were to use a secondary color, then I'd really like to see how you would explain it in the article in a way that wouldn't be completely convoluted and confusing. "This color represents a character that is dead and hasn't appeared yet, but could come back". Come on, now... It's beyond silly. Anyway, it's obvious we're at an impasse about this, and should just see if any other editors have input on this. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit, I never said that, you're making shit up I supposedly wrote so you can fucking call me silly. Anonipus (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Actors of dead characters can come back in flashbacks, duh, if I wrote anything like the other it was typo. Anonipus (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Dale Horvath (played by Jeffrey DeMunn) died in season two, he was not in the completed (not unknown) season three, but your grey for everything method suggests otherwise for the completed season three by making it the same as the not completed (unknown) season four. Stop pretending there is no distinction here that needs to be made, I just gave you the first example I found. There is the known and there is the unknown, and there is no reason to blur the two as the same by using the same color. Anonipus (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Just to be clear, rollback is to be used only in cases of vandalism, self-reverts, or reversion of edits by banned users. When possible, an edit summary should be used. Epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Anonipus, I was going to restore the RFC template and give my opinion on the tables, but your tone here is completely hostile and so I won't.

If you have a conduct dispute with Drovethrughosts then the place to adress that would be to start here: Dispute resolution, resolving user conduct disputes. Holdek (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)