Talk:Designated Survivor (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Succession

The article says he is a lower cabinet member. But after the vice President, the speaker of the house is in line for the presidency, and then the president pro-tem of the Senate. Only then does it go to the cabinet. The article does not make it clear that the speaker and Senate leader are also killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.114.177 (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, at this point we the viewers can only speculate. Assuming that the line of succession in-universe is as in the real world (not guaranteed), Kirkman seems to be the first one they found who is alive. Perhaps the speaker of the house will be dug up in a later episode (or was absent from the S of the U for some other reason), and cause interesting complications then (I wonder something similar about Game of Thrones...). But again, right now we can only speculate, and edit the article when more of the plot is revealed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Speaker of the house and the President Pro Tem are always at the State of the Union as are all or almost all heads of Cabinets, that's why a designated survivor is picked for each SOTU address. That may be the only part that they get right, but the premise on which the series is based is accurate. The normal Constitutional chain of succession only kicks in if the President and maybe Vice President are assassinated or incapable of acting. Ileanadu (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Acting president

Anon 165.120.209.193 has edit warred to change the term "acting president" to "president", despite the fact that the Presidential Succession Act states that upon the deaths of the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and President pro tempore of the Senate, the successor from the Cabinet "shall act as President" (emphasis added). The show is fiction, but it is based on the real Presidential Succession Act. Sundayclose (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but out of curiosity, could it be that the show follows the designated survivor term without going as technical about the name of the presidential position? After all, when Kirkman is in the car, the Secret Service agent tells him "Sir, you are now the President of the United States" and I don't remember anyone using the term "Acting". While I understand that you are correct and the show, if it drops "Acting", is factually incorrect, I'm just not sure the show "cares" about the "Acting" part of the title and just sticks to President for convenience and understanding for audiences. In which case, I do think we would need to follow the show's naming. If it's just a first-ep error in the writing and the next episodes do reveal he is Acting President, then I think we can change it. I'd love to hear others' opinion on this. LocalNet (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with LocalNet. "President" is fine for now, if they mention "acting" in coming episodes we can note that too, in some way (putting an "(acting)" somewhere perhaps). Per the spirit of WP:FILMHIST, we as editors shouldn´t put any show/real life comparisons in the article, unless they come from RS that discuss these "errors" in connection to the show. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if I understand Acting President of the United States correctly, Kirkman should not be considered an acting president. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Yes, in real life any cabinet member who is in line for the presidency becomes acting president. The Presidential Succession Act states unequivocally: "shall act as President" (emphasis added). The debate about the term "acting president" discussed in Acting President of the United States was in regard to the title to be used when the Vice-President becomes President upon the death of the President; in such a case, the title is President rather than acting President. Such is not the case for those who come after the vice-president in the line of succession. I respect your and LocalNet's opinions, but I will also point out that this particular fiction is based on an event that could actually occur in real life. My interpretation of the reason the character is addressed as "president" is that it would be impractical to say "Mr. Acting President", and everyone is used to saying simply "Mr. President". For all practical purposes the person has all of the authority of the president, but the title is acting president. Sundayclose (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sundayclose Reading more closely, you seem to be right, acting president it would be, in the real world at least. We´ll see if the series (or some RS) bother to mention it. According to the article: "However, they [DS] are not given a briefing on what to do in the event that the other successors to the presidency are killed." I remember that President Bartlet kindly gave his DS one, that was thoughtful of him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Much more important than whether "Acting President" is Kirkman's proper title is that, according to Succession Act 3 USC § 19(d)(2), he acts as president only until a Vice President, a Speaker of the House, or a President Pro Tempore of the Senate is Constitutionally qualified (at least 35 years old, etc.) to be President. (A VP, Speaker, or Pres Pro Tem who succeeds to the presidency or acting presidency would serve the remainder of the President's term, but Kirkman was only a Cabinet officer.) This completely undermines the plot. In particular, Congresswoman Hookstraten could have named a new Speaker of the House all by herself, because the House quorum is a majority of the living members (see item 10 at http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/legfaq.aspx) and furthermore, quorum is assumed to exist if no member objects (see again item 10). (The House also has a rule that says the quorum after a catastrophe is the members who show up, but it hasn't been tested and it has some technicalities--references to Sergeant-at-Arms, Majority and Minority Leaders, and Speaker--that could create difficulties since they may be dead too.) Even if Hookstraten (or Hookstraten and MacLeish) doesn't (don't) name a new Speaker, after special elections the House will eventually name a Speaker, and 51+ Senators (most of them appointed by Governors) would eventually name a Pres Pro Tem, so Kirkman's stint as Acting President seems doomed to be short. One way to have salvaged the plot would have been for Kirkman to have been named Speaker of the House by Hookstraten, since this would have given him the Acting Presidency for the remainder of the term... and it would also serve to educate the viewers about the actual succession law. (Another possibility might be for the Governor of the state where Kirkman resides to appoint Kirkman to the Senate so that he may become Pres Pro Tem, but I don't remember which state Kirkman is from, so I don't know if that state is one of the states that allows its Governor to appoint to fill a Senate vacancy.) Question: Should a section about the show's inaccuracies be added to the article? SEppley (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious. Is anyone an American? I can tell two of you are Scandinavian, but what about the others? Because you've all got it wrong. Kirkman has been sworn in and as such, IS the President. That's the function of the Designated Survivor; moreover the Presidential Succession Act is designed to smoothly and immediately seat a new president, not keep someone in place as a seat warmer until Congress can select a new Speaker to jump into the job (which is in effect a coup d'etat.) The language "... shall act as President..." is nothing close to equivalent to use of the title Acting President; it is synonymous with serve. The title Acting President is only used when the sitting president is incapacitated and invokes the 25th amendment, such as when George Bush had surgery and temporarily invoked, making Cheny Acting President. The show is dead on balls accurate on this point, as was The West Wing when Bartlet invoked, making the Speaker acting President. --Drmargi (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

As an American, per the fictional story being told, Kirkman is not the acting president. For example: If Obama, the 44th president was president during the capital bombing in this show, Kirkman would have then become the 45th president. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Related?

I'm not sure where to put this as a section (if at all) but I feel like there could be some mention of the related plot at the end of the book Debt of Honor by Tom Clancy. Does this deserve a mention in the book's page (perhaps under the Legacy section), or a "related media" section on this page, or nothing at all? I'm not super familiar with what to do, and didn't find any other pages that had similar links (at least, not in the few minutes of research I did so far) Thanks, a fellow Wikipedian

Lefte (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Coincidental plot similarities should not be discussed unless you can come up with some good evidence that Designated Survivor was directly influenced by the novel, and likely it was not. Furthermore, the novel ending is about a vice-president succeeding the president, and Clancy was hardly the first person to come up with that plot element. Sundayclose (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

What Sundayclose said. I´ve seen "Tom Clancy-esque" used in DS reviews, but nothing that I think deserves mentioning here (yet). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

See: United States presidential line of succession in fiction for lots of books, movies, and television series. Designated Survivor may be the first TV series to begin with this story arc, but is far from the first fiction to explore the subject; overlap is inevitable. GeeBee60 (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Plot section

I added an expansion tag to the plot section as I feel like the summary of that section really is only a summary of the first episode and does not adequately represent the series. Perhaps we should expand the plot to include more about the aftermath and how the series is progressing? -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's too early to expand it now; the plot is still going back and forth and any details we add would almost certainly require spoilers, which is unecessary for a show this new and fresh. I think expansion is something we can take a look at once we have at least reached the half milestone for the first season, or maybe even the final few episodes. So while you have a good thought, I just think we should wait. :) LocalNet (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Episode plots most certainly can be expanded within the limit of WP:TVPLOT at this time. Spoilers are not an issue per WP:SPOILER. The tag can be added back, and there isn't a reason to wait. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a happy medium. The tag isn't needed, but we can expand as we have content to add. Too many articles write the whole plot section based on the first couple of episodes. We're still meeting characters in this show. Far better to go slowly, as the plot unravels; we're only four or five episodes into a 22 episode season. --Drmargi (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

How exactly would you expand the show plot section with only five episodes aired and several storylines having been pursued, backed off and then pursued again? Episode plots describe the details, the show plot, in my opinion, doesn't have enough information yet on the overall story. The MacLeish story alone was seemingly ended only to be resurrected again. With this few episodes aired, I personally believe adding an expansion tag serves no purpose... yet. LocalNet (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Apologies on my comment. I thought this discussion was about the episode plot summaries, and didn't realize it was for the Plot section. The plot section is fine, and is generally more the "premise" of the series and should at least start as the log line released by the network for the series, with elements added as the season goes on IMO. The episode summaries can still be expanded some if one chooses. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, well then we are suddenly on the same terms haha! Agreed with your comment here. LocalNet (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi! Let's talk about the disambiguation link here. I understand the guideline you linked in the edit summary, but that concerns readers already inside Wikipedia. There's a high chance people find this article from search engines while attempting to find the other designated survivor article. How do we proceed with that in mind? Just wondering. LocalNet (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Robsinden for an answer. Please discuss with me. LocalNet (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If they're here then they won't have come here by accident. WP:NAMB explains all this and there's no case for an exception here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

A user Google's Designated Survivor. The TV show is in the news and Google links to this, but the user was trying to find the article about the term. I just proved you wrong. Please try to discuss more without just ending with "no case", because I find that very arrogant. LocalNet (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding into this: You repeatedly link to WP:NAMB, but it seems you haven't read it properly yourself. Quote: "A reader who is following links within Wikipedia is unlikely to end up at" (emphasis added). Furthermore, "The presence or absence of hatnotes in articles with disambiguated titles has been a contentious issue, and this guideline doesn't prescribe one way or the other. There are cases where some editors strongly believe that such hatnotes should be included" <-- that's me. And another user who reverted you. You need to bring more discussion to this table. LocalNet (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried Googling "Designated survivor"? The first result is this Wikipedia page, which clearly has the disambiguator "(TV series)" present. Anyone not looking for the TV series will not be interested in that link. The third link from the Google search is our Designated survivor link, so it's hardly hidden. It might be appropriate to move the internal link to the lede, but a hatnote is unnecessary. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring the people who just press the first link they see with the words? Fine. Seems ridiculous and user-hostile to me as I believe most people don't pay close attention to the "(TV series)" words, but fine. LocalNet (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

International Distribution

This is just what I wrote to the user callign herself DrMargi:

"Nope, you are wrong, as EntertainmentOne is the producing company of Conviction, not as you tell. EOne is the company backing the Mark Gordon Conpany since last year. You seem to have no idea from television distribution, while I'm working for it. You have no idea of L.A. scrrenngs and other important sales conventions. Please let it in. By the way: You know why Designated Survivor and Conviction are produced in Canada? Right. Because EOne produces them for America And: Other articles like Crininal Minds and Code Black, both boarded by CBS/Paramount in the US, but by ABC Studios in the rest of the world, have that section in their articles to, as distribution has clearly nothing to do with broadcasting, which is done by channels who bought the series by the distribution company. All in all: You and Mr. Faverefan just have no idea.--Robberey1705 (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)"

And that is the truth, why the interntional distribution has to stay in, as EOne is also the distributor for other english speaking contries, what both of these users don't get. And yes, only because Netflix bought the international rights for the whole world outside the US and Canada anyway, this has nothing to do with that, as it is still backed international by EONe, where NEtflix bouthg the rights at L.A. Screenings 2016.--Robberey1705 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you work for EOne? --Drmargi (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a third-party person to this argument, as I have not participated in the edit warring. Wikipedia relies on a verifiability principle, also called "verifiability, not truth". It may be incredibly frustrating sometimes, but WP bases info on published sources rather than the experience of the editors. The source for eOne in the Broadcast section is an article that states that ABC Studios, The Mark Gordon Company, and eOne produce the show, while eOne handles distribution. It doesn't specify what regions eOne handles distribution for. The source for another sentence in the section states that "Entertainment One, via its relationship with the Mark Gordon Company, handles the conspiracy thriller/family drama." Based on this information, the conclusion I draw is that eOne and The Mark Gordon Company are the production companies, while ABC Studios and Netflix have purchased broadcasting rights. Unless I am missing something (and please do point it out to me if I am), ABC does not handle any distribution - it buys it. Furthermore, both sources confirm that the series' distributor is eOne. That's what I would add to the infobox. LocalNet (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you link the article you referred to? Here's what ABC's media site has:

"Designated Survivor” is from The Mark Gordon Company and ABC Studios. David Guggenheim is the creator and executive producer. Executive Producers are Simon Kinberg, Mark Gordon, Jon Harmon Feldman, Nick Pepper, Suzan Bymel, Aditya Sood and Kiefer Sutherland.

No mention of EOne. It's becoming increasingly common that the networks own and produce their own shows. --Drmargi (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure! This one refers to Netflix buying international rights, and this one refers to LA Screener information. First link says eOne handles show for Mark Gordon, second states eOne as distributor. LocalNet (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@LocalNet: thanks for that write-up, I wrote essentially the same thing on the user's talk page before seeing your post. Maybe seeing the policy interpreted the same way by two different people will be helpful to Robberey. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @LocalNet:. It seems readily apparent that EOne is responsible for international marketing. The latter publication is British (thus EOne as distributor) and in the former, "relationship" is pretty vague. Clearly, ABC Studios is owned by ABC, and thus ABC owns Designated Survivor. I really think the best move is to discuss the EOne role in the international section of the article. The primary broadcast outlet is ABC, not the international market. --Drmargi (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I just compy in our discussion on my disucussion page, which actually should have been held here.

See your coments cited by myself:

"Hi Robberey, re: your recent edits and comments left at Talk:Designated Survivor (TV series), I have a few thoughts as an administrator on the English Wikipedia, and I thought I'd leave them on your talk page rather than at the Designated Survivor talk page. Firstly, thank you for finally starting a discussion on the matter of international distribution. You really need to get into the habit of opening a discussion when you are reverted, rather than re-reverting and leaving annoyed edit summaries. Per WP:BRD, you're supposed to discuss once reverted. And any time you make an edit that's bound to confuse people or be controversial, a good habit is to open a discussion after you make it. Here's an example of me doing this very thing. I made an edit that may irritate some editors, so I opened the discussion to explain my rationale and to invite discussion.

You stated in the discussion that you work in the field of TV distribution. That raises some interesting issues.

1. Though you may be knowledgeable in this field, the only sort of information we can include at Wikipedia, is information that is verifiable. That's why we require references for most everything. Personal knowledge is considered "original research" by the community, which basically means information for which there are no reliable sources. Original research is not allowed as a matter of policy. So though you may have personal knowledge of a subject, you can't add that to an article without a reliable source, because another user, Drmargi for instance, can't go to the library and check out your brain. Content has to be verifiable. It's a strange concept for people familiar with a subject to grasp, because at Wikipedia verifiability is more important than "truth".
2. If you are involved in TV distribution you may have a conflict of interest. People with conflicts of interest are strongly discouraged from editing articles they are intimately familiar with, because it's difficult for people with COIs to write objectively and to remain emotionally unattached.
3. If you are a paid editor, per WP:PAID you must disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship, using the disclosure methods indicated at WP:PAID.

I also want to mention that Drmargi is a very good editor and a nice one at that. She's certainly not interested in being your enemy. She's very familiar with WikiProject Television guidelines and it might be a better approach to use her as a resource, rather than to consider her an antagonist. You might also consider participating in discussions at WikiProject Television and incorporating yourself into the community as it may ultimately be more rewarding than feeling isolated. This is, after all, a community project. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I am no paid editor. As you can see, I am working on many articles from the entertainment industry. Only because I am working in the entertainment industry and international distribution, it doesn't mean I am related to any of them. I am not related to ABC Studios, nor to EntertainmentOne, but verifiable information has to be in Wikipedia and she can't change it just because it's here own opinion. I am on Wikipedia for over 8 years now, which is nearly as much as she is on here. So I think we both, or we three, know better, that it can't be the interest of Wikipedia to leave out verifiable information, as she is clearly wrong. Other articles have the international distribution in them too and that, in case of articles like Criminal Minds, for a couple of years. She just needs to find out: She is wrong, as broadcasting and distribution have nothing directly to do with each other, what she doesn't understand. I am not interested in an edit war and being blocked, but she can't war me, if she is doing the same thing. So I warned her too. Truth will come out (and in the article) anyway in the end. Robberey1705 (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)User:Robberey1705

Btw: I am a user from Germany, and working for German television has really nothing to do with the united states, as we just buy what the states produced. I am just really interested in what I'm doing and so I like to share my knowledge on Wikipedia. Robberey1705 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, and I hope you'll please consider the other aspects of my note that are relevant, including the need for improved and quicker discussion, especially when you are reverted, the importance of verifiability over "truth". Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

As You might haven't read, I have given verifiable information to my changes directly from EntertainmentOne's Pages, as well as official online sites from L.A. Screenings.

In case of Conviction, EOne has sold the series on MIPCOM, international tv sales convention in France, this year, with even Hayley Atwell being there, which I have seen with my own eyes. But this is the point which Drmargi doesn't get.Robberey1705 (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

There is one source that says EOne produces the show, and it's a tertiary British source. None of the others discussed do, including the network press site and press releases. It is produced by ABC Studios, which is part of ABC, which is owned by Disney. You can't separate the three, and try to treat ABC as an external buyer. It owns the show.

There are two major issues making this discussion problematic. 1) Have more respect for others' knowledge. You may see yourself as an expert on international distribution, but you seem to lack fundamental understanding of the studios, show ownership and domestic distribution. Your strident, "I know it all and you know nothing" attitude is both misplaced and insulting. I am literally 20 miles from ABC/Disney, and have lived with the entertainment industry my entire life. 2) No one is questioning that EOne distributes the show internationally, a point you seem to miss. The critical issue is does that information belong in the infobox, or in an international section? Given the show is American, produced by an American studio and an American production company, that's the focus of the article. You'll see that with countless other shows. International distribution is secondary. EOne's role can be discussed, briefly, in an international distribution section. --Drmargi (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Then insert this section on both series. But you still don't get the thing I say: You would have to do that on the articles of Code Black and Criminal Minds (and both of it's spin-offs), as well as many other series, too. But I guess you won't do that. It is much mar easie just to put the information in the box than starting a new section for it. btw: something for the Cyphoidbomb-Guy: I can't always respond to what you write quickly, due to different time zones. As you might know, Germany is quite 8 hours in front of west coast time. So I don't stay up till 4 a.m. only that the L.A. guys have theri response at their 8 p.m.. Nobody would do that.--Robberey1705 (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)"--Robberey1705 (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have completely lost the thread here. What are we even discussing anymore? :P My thoughts on this issue is as easy as: Please give more sources that eOne distributes the series in the United States. Is that OK to ask? LocalNet (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Reception

I'm not sure who wrote the reception section, but after watching the first episode I didn't think much of the show and it didn't take long to find a review that agreed with me. So I've added a quote from a review at the Guardian to the reception section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.128.130 (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finding a review that isn't just positive; it's good to have a balance of positive and negative. There are more reviews out there, easily found on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes review aggregators. I'll add more later myself if nobody else does it before me. LocalNet (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Although I have no problem with adding negative reviews, please keep in mind we have no obligation to balance positive and negative. The goal is a fair representation of the consensus of critical reception. If the reviews are mostly positive, it's fine (and in fact necessary) to have more summaries of positive reviews. Conversely, more negative reviews are needed if the consensus is negative. There's an unfortunate tendency on Wikipedia to assume that all opinions in reliable sources are equal. They're not. Sundayclose (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Ahh OK, I understand :) LocalNet (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Reed Diamond

No Reed Diamond as John Forstell in the recurring characters list ? 115.178.213.112 (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Separate page

With the increasing number of recurring characters, I propose a separate page for main and recurring characters. Anyone in favor?--Njorent (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Once the second season gets going, and we can winnow out the recurring characters from an arc (like Michael Gaston) from the long-term recurring characters (someone like Forestal or Hookstratten). The former can head for the new article, the latter remain in the main article as well. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 03:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

21 Episodes, not 22

Though ABC initially indicated there would be 22 episodes, there will in fact only be 21. The season finale is airing on May 17th, and it is ONLY a 1 hour season finale, meaning it is only a single episode, specifically #21. There are no double episodes scheduled for May 3rd or May 10th, either, which are the dates for episodes #19 and #20, respectively.

Ergo, 21 episodes, not 22 episodes as previously planned.

You still need a reliable source that explicitly states that the order was cut or the producers reduced it. You never know what ABC might be planning until the fat lady sings. --Drmargi (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

ABC announced the season finale as May 17th. If there is a one hour episode on May 3rd (#19), a one hour episode on May 10th (#20), and a one hour episode on May 17th (#21), when exactly do you believe this mysterious missing 22nd episode will air?

Here's the ABC press release indicating May 17th is the season finale date (note that there is only 1 hour allotted for the finale that night): http://abc.go.com/news/insider/abc-season-finale-dates-2017-schedule-announced

ALso, Futon Critic has updated the show's page on their site to indicate that the first season will only be 21 episodes: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/designated-survivor/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DTG.stl.314 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

None of which alters the fact that the order is 22 and you don't have a reliable source that says it's now 21. Arithmetic notwithstanding, we don't go by what we think is happening. We go by what we can verify. --Drmargi (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Your standards for "reliable" are ridiculous. You already got shown TWO sources by the previous user. But here's more: http://abc.go.com/shows/designated-survivor/episode-guide by the channel broadcasting it stating "Finale today 10/9c" with the episode to be aired numbered 21 at the bottom! and here is the New York Times confirming "Season finale this wednesday": https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/arts/television/designated-survivor-finale.html?_r=0 Nobody may have made a press statement that the order was reduced to 21, but there will definitely be only 21 aired episodes this season! --5.146.47.75 (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you miss the point. There's no reason you can't add a note indicating that the season ended with 21 episodes. But you cannot say the order was cut, which you persist in doing, sourced by an article that clearly states the season order is 22 episodes. There are a variety of reasons while they came in at 21 episodes. It might be that a) ABC cut it; b) The producers wanted 21 rather than 22; c) they're holding #22 and produced the season opener with S1 (it happens; ER did it for years) or d) something else. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 03:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

http://www.disneyabcpress.com/abc/pressrelease/designated-survivor-season-finale-brace-for-impact-517/ says it is the finale. Can we just change anywhere in the article where it says "22 episodes" to a "full season"? We can change it back if the 22nd episode shows up. Right now it looks like Wikipedia gets it wrong. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

No one is questioning that the episode was the finale, just that the original order was 21 episodes when it was 22 per the source. Anything that can be done to stop the idiot IPs from altering what the source says is fine with me. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Tanner Buchanan

Tanner Buchanan was credited as main cast for the first 13 episodes of season 1, at which time his role was reduced to recurring. We customarily move recurring cast to main when their billing changes; therefore, Buchanan should be moved to recurring given he is now a recurring cast member, and will remain so in season 2. One SPA IP insists on his being listed as main cast although he no longer has that status. If we're going to be consistent with how we list cast and characters (i.e. by their current status within the cast), he should be listed as recurring both here and in the season 1 article.) ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Well actually, when all this disagreement was happening regarding the placement of him, I thought we were only dealing with a situation where he was only credited for 3-4 episodes as a main cast. 13 is more than half a season. We should be listing actors in the section of the highest status they reached. Given this, I think we should list him in the "Main" section, with the note that is currently on the article noting how halfway through he was demoted to a recurring character. Additionally, this should happen as well on the season 1 article. The season 2 article, should he appear, should list him as recurring. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem with what you propose is that as of episode 5 of season 2, those numbers will shift and he will have been credited as recurring longer; it's also important to consider his role is now considerably reduced in size. Moreover, listing him as main when he is now recurring is inconsistent with how we handle actors who go from recurring to main or guest to recurring. We list based on their current standing, not based on when they had highest billing. To treat Buchanan differently because he had prestige billing for a short time doesn't line up with that practice, and misleads the reader into thinking he is still main cast. The note covers those few episodes adequately. I left him in the infobox because he was main cast at one time, and it seemed reasonable he should remain there, although I don't particularly care if he's removed. But in the body of the article, he should be listed based on his current standing: and thus as recurring cast. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we list based on "current" standing. If we had the situation, where Maggie Q, starring all of season 1, became recurring moving forward, she wouldn't be removed from the main cast section. This is per WP:TVCAST: The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series. (bolding mine). But I do understand your point for Buchanan's situation, because ultimately since he was not a regular for a full season, his credits as recurring will soon outnumber those that he was starring. For the article here, you said you had left him in the infobox, but if we aren't listing him in the "Main" section, I don't think the infobox listing should stay (hence why I removed it while we are discussing). At the season 1 article, however, he should be listed as main in both the infobox and section, because we are looking only at a subset of the series, in which he was starring more than recurring. I'm also going to drop a post at the TV project to see if other editors can add some additional comments on the best way to handle his crediting situation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

As above, parent and episode list articles cover the series' entire history, or if there are individual season articles, as is also the case here, the entire season's history. I haven't watched this show myself, but it's no different than anywhere else. He should remain listed as a main character in both the parent article and the season one article, though a note can be added under the "Cast and characters" section. Something along the lines of Tanner Buchanan as Leo Kirkman, Tom's self-absorbed teenaged son and Penny's older brother. He is credited as a main character for the first 13 episodes of the first season, but is downgraded to a recurring character from the 14th episode and onward. See the part in bold. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

He should still be listed in the Main characters given that he has had starring credit for half of season 1 as with Happy_Days#Main and Richie Cunningham. A (13 episodes of season 1) note can be added as well as the footnote or note saying he becomes a recurring character afterwards. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

He should clearly be in the Main cast section, which is not based on number of episodes so credited (hence why Kelly Hu is listed as Main in The 100 even though she was only main cast credited in the pilot). A note can be added (which should not refer to being "downgraded" as that's hardly neutral) about his change in status if people feel that's necessary (although since we don't usually include such notes when people's status changes between seasons, I fail to see why one would be needed here). But yes, clearly should remain in the Main section. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with others here. We don't remove cast members from the main cast listing if they are "no longer" main cast members, because the article is about the series as a whole, not its current status. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Look. We can talk about this until we turn blue in the face, but in all honesty, I think the cast page is fine way it is. --Njorent (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that "it looks fine the way it is," what matters is that it's properly done. Just because someone is changed from main to recurring midway through a season, it doesn't just erase all their existence from the episodes where they were starring. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's a bizarre way to do it if you ask me, governed more by fan thinking than an encyclopedic standard, but the SPA IP will keep edit warring it (they've done it again during this discussion), and no one will do a damned thing, so let's just go ahead and mislead the reader into thinking this character is anything more than a minor recurring player now. I've restored the note someone removed during all the editing going on while this discussion took place. Have fun with the IP the next time they turn up, because they've been taught they can slow edit war in an edit they want. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually it's pretty much the reverse of "fan thinking" because it's based on production credits, not some arbitrary WP:OR "balance of number of episodes they were credited as X, Y, Z type of role"/"how important really is this actor's character" judgment. It's one of the most clearcut, easy to explain TV guidelines there are: was the person credited, even once, as main cast? —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The fan thinking is in the question. But never mind, the cabal will have their way, however odd it is. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 08:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I know this comment comes late, but what you referred to as the cabal is (not merely) consensus, but also Wikipedia policy for TV articles, which in turn is based on policy for writing aout fiction. The character was officially main (per production info sources) for a time and then was not, and that's what we report. Doing anything else for any other reason, just based on your opinion of which character "should" be main, would be fannish OR, like saying that a character "was" in the show but "isn't" anymore because they died. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Mention of series being on Netflix internationally

Drmargi apparently disagrees that this can be mentioned in the introduction. I wish to remind you that Wikipedia is not, never has been, and never should be a US-centred project. It's wikipedia.org, not wikipedia.us. EN-wiki is also used by Britons, Australians, Kiwis, residents of other English-speaking countries, and hundreds of millions of non-native speakers around the world. Outside of the US, at least, Designated Survivor is portrayed by Netflix as a Netflix original production, meaning it has the Netflix-logo on the image for the series, so apparently Netflix are actively involved in its production alongside ABC. I urge you to please not try to make Wikipedia reflect the US only. The world is bigger than only the USA. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, could you assume any less good faith? Before making wild accusations and heavy handed speeches about my motivations for my edit and the purpose of WP, why not check MOS:TV? We only include the network for the country of origin in the lede, then add broadcasting in other English-language countries in a broadcast or international section. Designated Survivor may or may not be a Netflix original outside the U.S., but it's not branded as such in the U.S., where it originates, and carries no such logo for its U.S. broadcast. Moreover, current episodes are carried for streaming the day after broadcast on Hulu in the U.S. rather than on Netflix, which only has Season 1. That brings your supposition that Netflix is involved in its production into question. Netflix actively produces some programs (for example, The Crown), and licenses others (apparently, Designated Survivor), so you can't be sure which is the case without some sort of reliable source. I've reverted your edit again, and suggest you relocate it to the appropriate section. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

http://www.adnews.com.au/netflix-slammed-for-product-placement "In Australia, is it labelled a "Netflix Original"."

https://www.curtisbrown.co.uk/client/paul-mcguigan " Designated Survivor: both for ABC/Netflix,"

And many more. It's ignorant to ignore the fact that in the entire world except for the US, it's considered a Netflix series. In fact, I assumed it was indeed a Netflix original production until I read this page and saw it actually airs on ABC in the USA. It's considered a Netflix Original over here (which is the entire world except for the US). But I don't really care any more. Have it your way. I quit editing Wikipedia precisely because of this type of idiocy. Not going to raise my blood pressure over this. Goodbye Wikipedia, once again. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You might want to review the criteria for reliable sources, since neither of these comes close. On is a director's CV on his British agent's website and the other is an Australian article about product placement? Puh-leeze. Neither establishes anything regarding Netflix's involvement in the production of Designated Survivor, and no one is questioning that it is shown on Netflix elsewhere. Bottom line: it's an American show, and it's network of origin is ABC. You can pick up your toys and go elsewhere, or simply put the international relationship with Netflix in the broadcast section. Up to you. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Margi is 100% correct. This is an American series so we should only be mentioning its American broadcast information in the infobox and lead. Any additional, notable international broadcast information can be mentioned in the body of the article per WP:TVINTL. If the MOS did not suggest this, then leads and infoboxes would become rampant laundry lists of every single broadcaster for series. Yes, it is relatively simple for this series, given Netflix handles the majority of the international broadcasting, but other series do not have this luxury. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

discussion of recent edits

Hi y'all. I recently reverted some edits because they (1) removed references, and (2) broke the references list. After reverting, I asked at the Teahouse and got this response. Do you think both tables should be included in this article, as Timtempleton suggests @ Teahouse?

Courtesy pinging Robberey1705 (article creator), Elainasla (recent contributor), and 2600:1014:B107:6956:8914:C5B0:CDA1:4624. = paul2520 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

No. There is nothing that infuriates me like seeing narrative descriptions of cast/characters replaced by a multi-colored table that reminds me of a classroom roll sheet. Those infernal tables remove all the information about the characters. Policy is clear: preference goes to presenting information in narrative form. I’m not persuaded by the “it took a lot of time” argument. You makes your edits, you takes your chances, especially when they run against policy. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 14:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Paul2520: Thanks for the ping. I know the policy is to favor prose over charts and lists, but in this case I said it's useful to have both. Check out every single multi-member major rock band article, including The Rolling Stones#Timeline, List of Grateful Dead members#Timeline, Eagles (band)#Band members, List of Jefferson Airplane members#Timeline, etc. Want an example from TV? How about Cheers#Original main characters? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)