Talk:Kings (American TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge[edit]

I support merging the Kingdom of Gilboa article into this one. The fact that the show has not even begun is indicative of two things:

  • Gilboa is anything but notable
  • the Gilboa article exists primarily as a marketing tool

MatthewBurton (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. /Ninly (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also... The article is obviously copy pasted from a website.[1] If this were to not get merged, it should be nominated for speedy deletion because of the copyright infringement.

L337*P4wn 07:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and redirected the Kingdom of Gilboa article to this one. Presumably this article should (be rewritten and) have a small section on the fictional kingdom so people (like myself) prompted by the ad campaign to look it up will understand why this is what they're looking for. /Ninly (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://royalkingdomofgilboa.com/

Reference for fiction[edit]

Just so you all know information on the fiction is easily referenceable http://www.unnreports.com/travel/index.shtml here /rankun149.150.237.59 (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section too positive?[edit]

All the reviews in this article are glowing, yet overall the metacritic tally stands at a fairly mediocre 58. http://www.metacritic.com/tv/shows/kings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.20.76 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--the salon.com quote seems a bit lengthy; we get the point. I didn't include negative pre-premiere commentary since that seems equally frivolous, but did include the hard audience numbers and some strategic consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaman2 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the Salon.com quote and added negative and mixed reviews. I disagree with the suggestion that a survey of critical responses is "frivolous"; critical opinion is at least as important as Nielsen ratings (especially in the age of the DVD and DVR). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say a survey of critical responses would be frivolous, and in fact, the metacritic score would have been quite useful. Instead, there was a salon.com quote from a single reviewer, one that did not seem representative of the greater critical response (which was lukewarm, neither strongly positive or strongly negative). I think these outliers (on the upside or the downside) are frivolous, and some of the middle-of-the-road critiques would have been both more reflective of the critic audience (and, as it turned out, of the audience numbers). Also, Neilsen ratings take DVR into account; and the DVD response won't be known for a year (if ever). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaman2 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I think positive + negative reviews together are more useful than just one side. Saw your paragraph with the other side under 'reception', think it was done very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaman2 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Wiki[edit]

I see the user Matthew keeps deleting the entry for Kings Wiki without any explanation. Well, he said in the first edit that it's spam, but to me it looks like a good quality, informative and useful link for this article. I'll revert back and wait for explanations, hoping it won't go to 3RR. Cinagua (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't say that I agree that "it looks like a good quality, informative and useful link for [the] article", please provide some evidence that Kings Wiki has a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" (see also #1 and #11). *shrug* Matthew (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You hastened again without waiting my opinion. I see in the Recent Changes page that it is edited daily. As for its usefulness, tell me where do you find at this moment more organized and detailed info about Kingdom of Gilboa than in its article there? Cinagua (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fansite. It says so in the title. Not that this is a reason to exclude linking outright, but can a third party find reason to link to a resource that is so young? - JeffJonez (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Things that have been around for years don't usually have that much information on them. I say link to it. Its fine. Remember, the guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law. Anyone else want to chime in their opinions for a consensus? Dream Focus 16:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Dream Focus on this one. This link provides useful information and I would have missed it wouldn't I had looked at the discussion page. It has quite complete informations about the show, more than any other "non-official" page I saw. 213.3.27.47 (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical counterparts[edit]

I've removed them. Without citable references making these connections, we cannot include them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always find it amazing how the latest trend towards sacrificing useful information on the alter of bureaucracy has already greatly ruined — and is a perpetually ruining force, each and every day — on a great idea. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the Biblical counterpart references in the first place. I'm not going to get into a big war over this, but the obvious source for this info is the Bible, specifically the books of 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel. Persons with a knowledge of those books immediately recognized that "King Silas" was Saul, "Michelle" was Saul's daughter Michal, "Rev. Samuels" was the prophet Samuel, etc. Even people who don't know the Bible that well picked up on the fact that David blew up a "Goliath" tank. Since the Bible is perhaps the most widely-read book ever, it is simply ridiculous to delete this info as unsourced material. I don't know what criteria was used to come to this determination, Arcayne, but your reasoning seems short-signed and less than logical.
ABCxyz (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While on the whole I agree that most of the parallels are obvious and unarguable to anyone with a passing familiarity with the Biblical source material (and sources could easily be found for Saul↔Silas and Jonathan↔Jack — heck, some of the reviews made the comparisons, and could be used as sources), at least one of the parallels seems questionable to me. How is William Cross Joab? (He doesn't appear to be related to David, for one thing; Joab was David's nephew.) Where does that one come from? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added sources for about half the characters. I also found two blogs from Christian pastors who identified the other character equivalents (except for Joab, who I think I'll remove for now pending an explanation from whoever added him). However, blogs aren't generally reliable sources — they might be able to squeak by as self-published sources if these particular ministers have been published on a relevant subject (say, the Old Testament, or Hollywood adaptations of Biblical stories). I'm leaving them off for now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we cannot utilize our own personal interpretations and comparisons in the article. Pointing to the article and saying 'see? They're in there' is the very definition of synthesis, and as anyone should know, we do not do that. Ever.
What we have citations for are Silas as Saul and David as ...well, David. We do not have citations for any of the others, and attributing them to a citation that doesn't make those claims (like the citing of Michelle Benjamin, etc when the citation does not say that) sets the wrong precedent. We do not write Wikipedia with a nod to people with a knowledge of the Bible. any more than we service the knowledge of those with a superior knowledge of Star Trek or the Force. We are not citable, which is why citation is used to compose and support our articles.
Towards that end, I would like to suggest in changing the format of the Cast section, to whit, doing away with an infobox altogether, and using a cast list as those present in other FA quality articles (as seen in my further edit). Additionally, if there is citation noting the biblical comparisons, we can add those - when we have specific and explicit citations stating such. Not a moment before then. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you missed this sentence in the JTA article:

We meet King Silas Benjamin (King Saul of the tribe of Benjamin, first king of Israel), David Shepherd (David, the shepherd), the king’s son Jack (Jonathan), the king's daughter Michelle (Michal), and the Rev. Ephraim Samuels (the Prophet Samuel).

I was very careful not to footnote the equivalents for Queen Rose, General Abner or Helen, because I didn't find those comparisons in the most reliable sources. We can debate whether those equivalents should be listed or not, and whether the information is best presented as a list or a table, but please don't claim that I misattributed sourcing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; it was not my intention to suggest that you were doing so, Josiah. As well, I did miss the very short sentence in the middle of the article identifying the biblical equivalents for Saul, David, Samuel, Michal and Jonathan - my bad. Does that mean we are to extrapolate from there and provide the remaining Biblical counterparts because some editors know their Bible? Clearly, the answer is a resounding no. Does that mean we can hypothesize that the remaining characters will be counterparted at some future point, and are simply 'getting ahead of the curve?' Again, the answer is no. We are an encyclopedia, not a book of prophecy, and we are not fortune-tellers.
The resulting problem with the textbox method is that, while we have citations that allow for the cited connections of a few characters, we do not have it for others. This leaves gaps in the textbox that would encourage (as we have seen in the past) to add their own pov, and creates more problems than it resolves. The format I substituted follows that of at least six other FA media articles, and should be considered as a conforming template/guideline to follow here (rather the point of an encyclopedia). That format allows for developmental information about the character to be added - information that ill-fits the confines of a textbox. Such information would be the creator's cited interview that notes how he chose Silas instead of retaining Saul because it sounded "too Jewish".
I can see that the format change was reverted out again. As it was possibly a vandalism revert by an anon IP SPA, I've added it back in with the cited info offered above. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much care about the format. (And if you're suggesting that the IP was me, it wasn't — I saw the IP's edit and decided to leave it pending an outcome to this discussion.)
That said, is it really such crystal-ballery to say that General Abner is the equivalent of Saul's general Abner? The USA Today review refers to Rev. Samuels and Gen. Abner as "biblically influenced characters" — since both have essentially the same name as their biblical counterparts, I don't see how it's an original synthesis to say that Abner=Abner. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I in no way suggested that the IP was you (and maybe offer a wee bit more good faith, please - that;'s the second time you've accused me of something I didn't do).
And yes - absolutely, 100%, uh-huh, and yeppers - it is "crystal-ballery" to connect a character named Abner with the biblical feller of the same name in the absence of citation, not to mention synthesis. It is you making that connection, and not a citable source. You, as an editor, do not get to do that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the suggestion that in a drama explicitly modeled on the Biblical story of Saul and David, a military character named Abner could be anything but a reference to the Biblical Abner, who features prominently in that story. This is not synthesis, it's simple logic. Furthermore, the USA Today citation is saying in as many words that Reverend Samuels is a reference to the prophet Samuel and that Abner is a reference to the Biblical Abner. How can you read the phrase "biblically influenced characters" otherwise? I'm honestly puzzled as to what other interpretation you could draw from that cited sentence.
However, I'm willing to recognize that it is possible that what seems transparent, logical and obvious to me may seem like complex synthesis to other editors. To get a better sense of whether I'm being unreasonable, I'll ask for further opinions at the no original research noticeboard. OK?
Incidentally, I do recognize the danger of original synthesis in this article. I've just reverted someone's attempt to add a column of "corresponding Biblical passages" to the episode table. Now that is original synthesis. Saying that Abner is a reference to Abner is, in my opinion, not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped a line at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Minor issue at Kings (U.S. TV series), inviting people to chime in here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, Josiah, and am glad that you decided to ask over at the OR noticeboard; I had been prepared to ask for something along those lines myself. I've responded there, as many of the points you utilize here are also presented there. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Incidentally, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your tone earlier — I got needlessly annoyed by the comment you made based on the missed sentence in the JTA article. I'll try to be less tetchy. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Biblical Counterparts are interesting. I had no idea this series was about the story of King David until I read it somewhere on a blog. Having this sort of information is useful -- especially since it is so obvious (using near-exact names). Cheers! Noah (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Li'l Abner[edit]

I am not sure this edit works, either. The same problem exists, since it isn't explicitly named in the article. I mean, Li'l Abner and - more on target (since he was a general as well) - Abner Doubleday share the same names. Connecting either one of those fellows because they share a name wouldn't be true to the cited material. Let's just wait for better citation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But neither Li'l Abner nor Abner Doubleday were commander-in-chief of an army belonging to a king modeled after Saul, in a drama based on the lives of Saul and David. :) My revised wording doesn't actually draw any conclusions: it just points out fact A (character named Abner in Kings) and fact B (character named Abner in Bible) and allows readers to draw their own conclusions. We're not making the connection; we're inviting the reader to do so.
I'm not trying to be obstinate here, really. (If I were, I'd still be fighting for Queen Rose as Ahinoam, on the grounds that she's the wife of Silas/Saul and mother of Jack/Jonathan — who else would she be? — but I've let that go.) I think we've both made our points; let's see if we can get any other opinions from the noticeboard. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are being obstinate, Josiah. At most, you are more strongly advocating a point of view that needs better citation. I don't mind waiting longer. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that the factual statement "Abner shares a name and military position with the Biblical Abner" constitutes original research. That characters in Kings correspond to Biblical figures in the story of Saul and David is cited. That the commander of Saul's army is Abner is citable to the Bible, a relevant primary source. That the commander of Silas' armed forces is General Abner is citable to the primary source of Kings. (See WP:NOTOR#Works of fiction.) If the statement were making a connection to a text, character or historical figure that we didn't have reliable sources connecting the television series to, that would be OR. But all the parts of this statement are verified, albeit not directly.

I was hoping that some third party would express an opinion, here or at WP:NORN#Minor issue at Kings (U.S. TV series). But so far we're left with two editors at loggerheads. Do you think that we might have better luck at Wikipedia:Third opinion? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, or mediation. Have you been able to find a citation that explicitly connects any of the cast not already cited with biblical counterparts? If we had that, it would resolve my issues with the inclusion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they're not reliable sources. As I mentioned earlier, there are blogs belonging to random Christian ministers that list the characters and Biblical counterparts, but I don't think they quite meet a strict interpretation of WP:RS. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we haven't had any response at WP:NORN, I've added a request at WP:3. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since then, there has been some developments at NORN. Whilst most felt that it shouldn't be included without citation, user: Akhilleus went and found a citation that not only takes care of Abner, but the others as well. Pending verification of the author's name and how they came to arrive at that info (I am praying that the author didn't take it from the earlier versions of this article, as that would create a synthesis nightmare that only a noticeboard could fix). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3O[edit]

As a third party I honestly feel that the statement "Abner shares a name and military position with the Biblical Abner" is not SYNTH but it almost forces the reader to commit SYNTH so it amounts to the same thing. Is there a citation that can speak to the general trait of naming characters after people in the Bible? That would cover all the bases and should be enough to allow us to draw the inference. Padillah (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Padillah. I think I can find a citation for the general trait (later, got to run some errands now); do you think that once such a citation is provided, we can give the reader a link to Abner, even if that example is not explicitly noted in the source? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without a specific citation, I'd have some problems with that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the editors at NORN suggested that "The biblical Abner was commander of Saul's army" might be OK, given the sourced context. What do you think of that? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is synthesis, Josiah. It is akin to the argument:
  • 'My friend's name is Josiah.'
  • 'There have been pedophiles throughout history have been named Josiah.'
The synthesis is not as direct as before, but it is synthesis by proximal connection. Why not just allow the reader to make up their own mind? We don't have citation to specifically, explicitly say that he is a counterpart to the biblical character, so we cannot take any step which says something that we cannot support with solid citation. If the show is cancelled, then we may never have that. If the show continues, or we get some Abner stories (which I hope we do, as I think Wes Studi frakkin' rules!), such citation might be forthcoming. Until then, we cannot predigest the article for the reader. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update, see the last post inthe preceding subsection that notes a citation that resolves the issue. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that we have a source that makes the matter explicit. I still think you're missing the point about the established Biblical context, but I'm glad that the argument is moot — at least until someone tries to add "Helen = Rizpah". Since she's the only major character with an arguable Biblical equivalent for whom we don't yet have a source, I think I'll add a hidden-text note for the benefit of well-intentioned editors. (On that subject, I found another blog discussing the Biblical connections in the narrative, but again I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen that (and a few similar in tone and content) as well, Josiah, and I agree that they aren't citable. I am glad that something came up to solve the problem. I will note that I have appreciated having a reasoned disagreement with you. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The feeling is mutual — I'm glad that (after a slightly rocky start, for which I take full responsibility) we were able to disagree in a civil and mutually respectful manner. I look forward to disagreeing with you in the future! :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even after all of this time, obsequeous bureaucratic subservience to the rules has gutted the article to the point that it doesn't say anywhere that Silas' spiritual advisor, Rev. Samuels, is obviously analgous to the prophet Samuel, or that General Abner is analgous to the biblical Abner. Instead, Samuels is only mentioned posthusmously, without any indication of his prior position or importance, which hurts the article farm more than it helps it. In other words, you don't get much of a sense of the series by reading the article. I am sure that most people who were interested in this article have lost such interest by now, but as the series is still out there, surely somewhere there are reliable third-parties that can state the overwhelmingly obvious to the satisfaction of even the most vehement of nit-pickers. 72.104.151.106 (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisal: "Plot"[edit]

Seeing the Plot section is written as a comprehensive summary of the pilot, with the rest of the series as an afterthought, I have rewritten the section and placed it in my user page. I invite other editors to examine the proposed edit, compare it to the current version, and reply to this discussion with their opinion. DerekMBarnes (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a definite improvement over the current text. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sure is. Most excellent distillation, Derek. Can we swap it in right away? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. DerekMBarnes (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research[edit]

Someone undid the addition that contradicted the quote from the creator of the series about the story of David never having been retold, citing it as original research. However, that addition linked to another Wikipedia page which listed various retellings of the story. That addition was not original research and should remain, rather than having the creator's quote (or marketing lie) perpetuate false information. 24.245.42.233 (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was original research, both in this article and the other wiki article it was linked to. What would be an ideal reference for that statement is if it were cited externally. If you have a reference from, say, an interview or a review, that should be perfectly acceptable. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If William Cross does not symbolize any character..[edit]

..can we safely assume he is symbolizing Christianity? Can we include it in the article? --AaThinker (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite it, yes. Sometimes a character is just a character. :) - JeffJonez (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More clearly — if you can't cite a reliable source making that connection, we can't include it in the article. It would be original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how did you include all those characters symbolizations - per a discussion above - just because they give to wikipedians only a sense that they are related to Bible. Well, I'm a wikipedian and I think a cross reminds me of the Bible too. --AaThinker (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times article -- currently the third reference -- spells out the biblical analogs of some of the main characters. That citation, in part, is "how". - JeffJonez (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don' take that as discouragement, AaThinker; consider it a boot to the pants to go out and find some citations (from reliable sources) that say what Cross represents.
Its important to remember that we cannot cite ourselves - it is the single largest hurdle for most new (and sometimes quite experienced) Wikipedians. They come to an article and start adding their personal viewpoint to an article, which is one of the primary things we cannot do.
The only time our personal opinions really come into play is when we individually decide that something should be an article on Wikipedia, and of course, when we talk here. If you are able to live with that restriction, everything else will eventually fall into place. Those that cannot are always at odds with the rest of the community, and find their time here almost always adversarial. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought...Christianity holds that the cross was foreshadowed in the events that shaped the Kingdom of Israel, and the character of William Cross appears to represent the "power behind the throne", as it were, shaping events toward the attainment of a future goal. It would be nice to have a reference, however, preferably from the producer or his writers.75.44.37.87 (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to advertise during Super Bowl[edit]

I really have to disagree with the editor that removed this info. For one thing, failing to advertise during the single most-watched annual event on your own network is not in the least bit trivial. Second, I don't see how saying so is "skewed" or hurts the article in any way. KhalfaniKhaldun 18:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who added the sentence, I have to agree with Khalfani on both counts — I don't see how this is either trivial or skewed. It is standard practice for the network hosting the Super Bowl to advertise its upcoming season during the game. NBC chose to advertise all their upcoming programs except Kings. As for the "skewed" remark, the sentence about the "innovative three-phase marketing push" provides balance to the implicit suggestion that Kings was under-promoted. (One could even argue that that phrase is "skewed" in the opposite direction.)
Furthermore, this article treats James Hibberd's blog as a reliable source elsewhere, so why would it be "skewed" to cite that he regarded the absence of Kings from NBC's Super Bowl ads as notable? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection, I think that the word "innovative" is a bit POV, and not entirely supported by the citation, which describes the marketing campaign but doesn't explicitly say that it's innovative. I've removed it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As the editor who removed it, I was rather concerned over the form that the text took:
"Unusually, NBC did not advertise Kings during its broadcast of the 2009 Super Bowl"
Note that I never called the source unreliable, My sole problems were that the matter seemed trivial and that that the implicit referencing of the source ("unusually", "innovtive") skewed how the statements would be perceived. A better form of the statement, if indeed we must have it, could be created without the "unusually" descriptor, as that is us promoting it as such. Explicit statements would be much better here. Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll restore the line, sans "unusually". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air dates for summer episodes[edit]

Of course it's disastrous that 1x09 will be aired July 4th, but aceshowbiz.com says it's true. Can that site be trusted? Maybe we should have air dates back? Zverik (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether aceshowbiz.com is a reliable source or not. Can you link to where they mention air dates? At the moment, the article has a reliable source reporting that episode 6 will air on June 13; without a specific source naming dates for subsequent episodes, anything more than that would be speculation. I'd need to see the aceshowbiz page to tell whether it qualifies. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition Of Information on Episodes Lists[edit]

It seems like the episode list and the Nielsen Ratings list contain a lot of the same information. This is especially jarring because the two lists are formatted differently, which disrupts the overall cohesion of the page. Is it possible to combine these two lists? --Imagist (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the ratings form the episode list. But keep both lists because there is too much information for it to be all in 1 table. Xeworlebi (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Cancelation Info[edit]

Citation for statement of cancelation is for Fall lineup and never actually mentions Kings. This lack of mention doesn't guarantee it was cancled nor does it mean it wont be starting a new season in the spring. Until something can be presented stating that Kings has been infact cancled I will remove the cancelation statement.--173.71.19.116 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er... when a network chooses not to renew a program, that means it's canceled, unless it's picked up by another network. But if you want to quibble with the word "canceled", we can simply say that it was not renewed. The absence of Kings on the 2009–2010 schedule means that it was not renewed, so the source is sufficient. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind — I found a citation from Newsweek that explicitly says "canceled". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class Rating[edit]

This article is clearly developing and does present sufficient citations to be considered start class. As it develops, I would recommend a review of this rating. Your thoughts? IlliniGradResearch (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Articles[edit]

Since this series seems to be over, I don't think we need to have separate articles for the characters. One was created, but there is pretty much nothing in it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DVD[edit]

The DVD should have been released by now. Anybody want to post the details? Ronstew (cannot type tildes for some reason)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kings (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Kings (U.S. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kings_(American_TV_series)&oldid=1199420423"