Talk:List of Castle episodes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Season 6

As of yet, there are no episodes scheduled for season 6. All we have at this time is a premiere date so we don't need a disproportionate amount of content by having a poorly worded statement in the lead (use the active voice and not everything is a revelation!) a row in the table that merely states the premiere date and a "season 6" section that says something different to what is in the lead. (The lead is supposed to summarise key points in the article). The "revelation" that the series has been renewed is redundant to the premiere date, so that isn't necessary at all. All we need is the premiere date, but we don't need it in the lead, the series overview table and in a separate section at the bottom of the article, all supported by the same citation in triplicate. Some of the IPs changing this are clearly not reading what they're changing. This one has some silly statements in the edit summary. "Season 6 is showing" - No it isn't. It doesn't start for 2 months. "A single table row for a season that WILL show isn't an "entire section" - The table isn't what is referred to. What is referred to is the season 6 section, which contains only a single statement that should be in the lead, as should the citation that is being used, which the article has in triplicate. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, both on wording and excessive placement of one tidbit of information. The Season 6 section can be started in a couple weeks when ABC begins to release (not reveal, for heaven's sake) its fall episode titles. --Drmargi (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Another editor has tried to improve the article,[1] but the citation is still there three times with the redundant table and section. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Episode 3 plot summary refers to a character called McCord with no explanation of who he or she may be - is this Beckett's new partner in DC, in which case there ought to be a mention of him/her in the episode of first appearance. RGCorris (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

McCord has now been added to the episode 2 plot summary, but still no explanation of who he/she is ? RGCorris (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't been following this discussion. I happened to add McCord to ep 2 when I was shaping up some of the plot summaries, but it hadn't occurred to me that she hadn't been mentioned before. I added a mention of her and her role in the first ep summary. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Time to separate?

Most multi-season, hour-long dramas have a separate page for each season where they can list guest actors, provide a summary for any season-long story arcs. go into more detail. Now that this series is into its 6th season, might it be time to do this for Castle? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Splitting the article has previously been addressed. What we don't want to see is a split where season articles have not been split properly. That means they must be properly attributed, transcluded properly and so on (see WP:SPLIT), and contain more content than just an episode list. What we don't want to see under any circumstances is this, this or this sort of thing. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to see an editor provide a compelling or even reasonable reason to split the article. "Because everyone does it" doesn't work for me, particularly given the lack of content failed splits have had. Consensus for some time has been to leave this one intact. --Drmargi (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The main article does seem to be conspicuously lacking any general discussion of the story arc over the course of the show. Considering the show is serialized to a degree, it would seem to be worth adding (not that this would necessarily warrant a split). --Fru1tbat (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

References should be mentioned regarding the title of the episodes

Many of the titles refer to popular music, film... titles (Murder, he wrote/Dial M for.../The good, the bad and the baby...) This should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxilicioustomcat (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

We can't do that without sources that confirm the links. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I am new, so please excuse the dumb question but for example it could be added that "Murder, he wrote" refers to the TV-servies "Murder, she wrote" (Link to the TV-series) like it has been done at the "Gossip girl" article here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_Girl_%28season_1%29

where you can read "the title refers to "The wild bunch" etc."

I would like to add these kind of information as this kind of "joke" is often used in series but I did not know if it is allowed and requested.

I must admit that I do not really understand what you meant with "sources that confirm the links" - a link to "Murder, she wrote" would not be enough in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxilicioustomcat (talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. If you want to say "the title refers to..." you need to include a citation from a reliable source that confirms that is what the title refers to. A link to an article is not appropriate for a couple of reasons. One is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source (Wikipedia is only a tertiary source) and the other is that the article doesn't confirm the claim. You can't simply assume that what you think is the case. That is the very essence of what we call original research, and is not permitted. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, just because others do it, it doesn't make it right, nor repeatable. — Wyliepedia 06:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In this case, it's unlikely anyone associated with producing the show (i.e. a truly authoritative source) will ever state explicitly that a given episode title refers to a film title, because the connection is so obvious (and so trivial) it's not worth mentioning. It seems a shame to me that links that readers might find interesting (even if they're a bit trivial) can't be made because the allusion is never discussed directly and therefore is not strictly verifiable. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So although it is for many people more than obvious that "Murder, he wrote" refers to "Murder, she wrote" it can not be mentioned because it must be said somewhere, that the episode "Murder, he wrote" refers to "Murder, she wrote" and though this an information which shows the popcultural references used it has to be left out? I rest my case. Can someone please delete the references in the Gossip Girl article then? Otherwise this would be some kind of double standard, I think because there is no source for "We used "The wild brunch" as a reference to "The wild bunch"" because it is something nobody being keen on popular culture would deny. And it shows the creativity of the producer to use such references, like it has been done on various occasions (Gossip Girl just being one example.) But ok - if you have to follow the rules then this information shall be left unspread. Thanks for the info which in my humble opinion shows one of the problems of the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxilicioustomcat (talk • contribs) 10:21, March 17, 2014 (UTC)‎

One of the "other problems" at Wikipedia: Users not signing their posts. Also, feel free to register and fix Gossip Girl yourself. — Wyliepedia 14:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As a new user I did forget to sign my posts, I am very sorry and appologize for this. I did not know whether to delete something or write something without asking was alright (yes, I did read the wp-introduction) and wanted to avoid wrongdoings. I will delete the references at the Gossip Girl etc. articles myself now that I know that those kind of references are not alright and that I can do that without having to ask furthermore. Thanks.Maxilicioustomcat (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two fundamental and probably insuperable problems here: a) even if we see what we believe are plays on other titles in the episode titles, we don't know that's the writers' intent, thus the need for a reliable source. Covert Affairs clearly uses song titles by a given artist for its episode titles (Bowie, etc.) but we had to leave it out for some time because we didn't have a reliable source to establish that was the writers' intent. Without a reliable source, we think, but we don't know; and b) even if we do know, is it encyclopedic? Frankly, this kind of play on words is commonplace in TV episode titles. Castle does more than most in all likelihood, but it barely rises to the level of trivia. This is far better content for the Castle wiki on wikia or someplace similar.Drmargi (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

One other thing to be taken into consideration is page size. No one has tasked themselves with creating notable season pages, which would reduce this article's size. Because of that, adding extraneous borderline trivia, such as title origins, would extend this page further and cause even longer load times for visitors. I would also like to think that Castle viewers/visitors would be culturally hip enough to catch the title inference, since Rick usually alludes to it in an episode. Thanks. — Wyliepedia 06:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

The IP 106.51.44.224 has recently been removing summary information without giving a reason. I suspect it is to prevent spoilers, rather than to decrease the length of the page. As of 20 March 2014, I will no longer revert this individual's removal(s), as I have informed them on their talkpage to come here and discuss it. I leave it to others to take up the mantle. — Wyliepedia 14:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(UPDATE: I have changed the offending summary, since I added it, and informed the IP. However, I asked them to air their issues here, rather than edit warring. I also made no promises to keep out future episode spoilers.) — Wyliepedia 06:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your change. WP:SPOILER is quite clear that we don't edit for spoilers; moreover, the outcome of a broadcast episode is no longer a spoiler. The original description was appropriate, and did not need to be edited. Doing so opens the door for continued reverts for spoilers and potential edit warring. --Drmargi (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could think about what people want from this page. I think most people who visit it are trying to see which episodes they missed, and they don't want to be spoiled. Who would want to read a 2 sentence summary of the entire episode? That content belongs on the episode page. I would vote for removing spoilers. Scottygang (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And how many episode articles does Castle have? One. Episode articles are like season articles, you have to have enough content outside of a plot section to warrant them. If you don't, you have episode summaries here. I can list a half dozen Episode Lists whose summaries are far worse than Castle's. — Wyliepedia 03:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doesn't matter. Local consensus (and we don't vote) can't override policy. Please see WP:SPOILER, which very clearly says we don't remove spoilers. Regardless, the episode has been broadcast, and its content is no longer a spoiler. It's up to readers to exercise personal responsibility if they don't want to see something. --Drmargi (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, (personal attack removed), and it was funny for little while...maybe it's time to go spoil another show? I'm sure you'll be able to stop anyone trying to fix this page, but really that just says more about how little people actually care about this dumb show. Scottygang (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Last I checked, almost 10 million people care about this show, which is only around a million less than its timeslot competitor. And since you can't be adult and civil about this, because you aren't getting your way, my part in this conversation is over. — Wyliepedia 05:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Either be civil or find somewhere else to play, Scottygang. Calling names will accomplish nothing but getting you blocked. WP:SPOILER governs the summary content, period. --Drmargi (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attack and warned the editor, so no more needs to be said on that for now. WP:SPOILER is very clear on the issue of spoilers: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site, and we treat content encyclopaedically, which means we don't concern ourselves with spoilers. It's that simple. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@CAWylie, soooo your argument is that the show is so insanely popular it only has one episode article? @Drmargi, your argument: "X is not a spoiler, therefore X should not be removed because spoilers are not removed" absolutely cannot be a serious argument, which is why I thought you weren't being genuine. @AussieLegend. You are certainly wrong. Only fans read this. If you think people who aren't fans idly read episode summaries of castle episode you're deluded. Also, if we're supposed to be encyclopaedic, why don't you remove all of the original research done on this page? All of the episode descriptors should come from the official website, not from a random kid who watched the show then tried to type up a description. This is inherently NOT an encyclopaedic undertaking, therefore your "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia" argument doesn't apply here. You can't uphold one policy by violating another. It's not that simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottygang (talk • contribs) 21:25, March 27, 2014‎ (UTC)

Actually, it is. Consensus is against you, policy is against you and you've lost. End of discussion. --Drmargi (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Abitrary break

Ok, not to open up this whole can of worms again, but it looks to me like there was a lot of personal anger (personal anger I really don't understand) tied up in this discussion and not a lot of logical treatment. I'm posting on the talk page because I noticed the same thing, that a number of the episode descriptions straight-up tell you who the killer is. Having read WP:SPOILER, I don't think the issue is quite as cut-and-dried as editors here are making it out to be. The point of WP:SPOILER is primarily about not posting spoiler warnings, and while it does say information should not be removed because it is a spoiler, that doesn't mean spoilers can't be removed for other reasons. The point Scottygang makes about encyclopedic treatment involving sourcing the episode descriptions from the ABC website seems legitimate to me.

All that aside, I think the main point is being missed here. Why does this page have descriptions of episodes? Many other "list of X episodes" pages do not include these episode descriptions.

See List of Archer episodes, List of House episodes, List of Scandal episodes, List of Dexter episodes, etc.

Some do - the only one I've been able to find so far is List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, and these descriptions are short, pithy, and do not contain extensive plot detail. I think the case could be made that these descriptions do not merit inclusion even on that page.

Which brings me to the final issue: the episode descriptions on this page vary substantially in quality and length (many are quite poorly written), and are very much inconsistent in whether they provide spoilers (i.e. fully detail the plot of the episode) or not. They frequently editorialize the events, places, and characters. So rather than starting an edit war and everyone getting all pissed off, could someone please lay out a calm, rational defense for episode descriptions? Thank you. Gruds (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gruds That's because the lists you are giving have separate articles for each season. If you click on the Season's articles you will see the descriptions for each episode. Shows that doesn't have separated pages for each season, such as "Castle" and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode" that you also mentioned, have the descriptions in the "main" list. The short summary has to be a specific amount of words as it was said above. The reason some of the summaries here are shorter and not detailed is probably because no one seemed to bother to write them. That doesn't mean we have to remove them all or cut the ones that have a full summary. Personally, if I had the time and could go through all the episodes I would edit more detailed summaries for all of them but it's impossible. If someone else has the time to do it, they are welcome :) TeamGale 01:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

TeamGale is spot on, in this instance. I personally didn't start global editing until two years ago, which is Season 3 in Castlespeak. Since then, I've added more detailed summaries than the re-written press releases for the episodes. — Wyliepedia 02:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to add...is normal for press releases not to spoil the story since they are released BEFORE the airing of the episode. From the moment the episode was released this is not an issue. It happened to me in the past to be spoiled, because I didn't know that WP is not spoiler free, but after that I never read a description if I hadn't seen the episode or the movie. If someone were spoiled but instead keep reading descriptions knowing that they might contain spoilers then it's their choice and they don't have the right to complain or remove the info from the article because they don't agree. Rules are rules. Just how I see it. TeamGale 05:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to defend my position on this matter beyond what's already been said. Policy supports the edit, and the burden is on the editor removing it to gain consensus, which he hasn't done. All I can say from here is that I agree with Wylie and Team Gale. This is a non-issue that continues to rear its head because non-American fangirls refuse to exercise a little bit of personal responsibility and want to apply message board standards for spoilers here. --Drmargi (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing episode summaries

I'm watching Season 6 for the first time now and am using this page to provide a succinct, spoiler-free summary for each episode. As I've done with many other shows that I binge-watch, if I come across an episode summary that is either too long, sloppily written or provides spoilers (such as, in the case of this show, who the murderer is), I will edit the given summary to make it more in line with the rest on the page. Please don't revert my edits unless there's a legitimately good reason to do so. I'm happy to discuss what constitutes such, but I'm only editing in order to improve this page and Wikipedia as a whole. If you have an issue with my edits, please talk to me on my talk page before reverting. Thanks! Ilva (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ilva: Per WP:SPOILER, we don't remove spoilers. If you're after a spoiler free experience, Wikipedia is not the place to be. Regarding "succinctness", the instructions for {{Episode list}} say that |ShortSummary= should contain "a short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode". Reducing plot summaries from 81 and 75 words to 32 and 48 words,[2] really isn't necessary, as the summaries are succinct enough. If anything, they should probably be expanded. Please note that since we're discussing article content, this is the place to discuss the matter. Such discussions should not generally be on user talk pages. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, AussieLegend. Ilva, it's time to exercise some personal responsibility. Once these episodes are broadcast in the U.S., the content is no longer a spoiler, and we don't remove what some fangirls persist in calling spoilers after the broadcast. If you want to avoid spoilers, find a spoiler-free source of summaries. Don't attempt to reinvent Wikipedia to suit you. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. We did revert for a "legitimately good" and policy-based reason. --Drmargi (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

How about editing for style, substance and content? Spoiler issue aside, you cannot possibly argue that the two summaries that I edited were written in a way that matched the rest of the summaries on the page. They were convoluted and sloppily written and am rather appalled that edits for better style, substance and grammar were reverted. That's not what Wikipedia is about. I don't edit often, but when I do, it's always in the spirit of WP:WikiLove and with the intent to improve the Wikipedia experience for all visitors. As such, Drmargi, I don't appreciate the ad hominem about 'personal responsibility' - what happened to WP:Assume good faith? Is there a particular reason both of you are so adamant about those summaries staying as-is? Ilva (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem what? And AGF doesn't enter in. You were very clear, blatant almost. You want summaries short and without spoilers, specifically mentioning removing who dunnit. And two editors reverted accordingly. You didn't present yourself as editing to improve style, substance, quality or anything like that, just for length and one specific point of content: spoilers. You can sugar coat that any way you care to, but you made your agenda clear: rewrite the summaries to meet your personal, not Wikipedia's standards, for all your claims you're improving the encyclopedia. And I reiterate; a. once the episode aired in the U.S. the content is not longer a spoiler and; b. if you don't want what you choose to call spoilers, don't go somewhere to where there are no spoilers rather than reinventing Wikipedia to suit your wish to avoid them. If that's not exercising personal responsibility, I don't know what it is. --Drmargi (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As one who wrote some of Season 6's summaries, I third the leave-it-alone discussion. Drmargi is a teacher, I was a journalist, and to call the summaries "sloppily written" is what is most appalling. Who cares if they don't match episode to episode or, hell, season to season? This article has had 3,506 total edits from 1,075 distinct authors. Ilva, you cannot police that to your liking, based on what you think is best for all visitors. — Wyliepedia 20:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Possessive s

For a long time now we have used the second option listed at MOS:POSS for use of the possessive s, i.e. simply add an apostrophe at the end of a word ending in s. Today, JesseRafe chose to arbitrarily change this,[3] so I reverted. JesseRafe reverted this, arguing "The plural of Alexis is Alexis's", not that we're talking about plurals at all,[4] so I reverted, pointing to MOS:POSS in the summary. I also left a request at JesseRafe's talk page, asking him to discuss on this talk page.[5] However, rather than discuss, JesseRafe has chosen to edit-war,[6] so I've decided to start the discussion. Do we wish to continue the way we've been going for years, or are we going to change the way we use the possessive s? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In American English, -s' is the plural possessive form. Alexis's is singular possessive, and thereby, does not use -s'. In this case, and this goes back to The Elements of Style, the seminal book on American English grammar, a singular possessive noun ending in s uses -s's. The writers of the MOS may have to entertain the fact that the MOS has a very common grammatical error in it, and that JesseRafe has it right. Sorry, Aussie. --Drmargi (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If "Alexis's is singular possessive" then "the plural of Alexis is Alexis's" cannot be right which makes JesseRafe's claim contradictory. The MOS applies to all English variants, not just American and allows any of the three options in any articles. There are plenty of US articles using option 2 and there was a large discussion about this a few years ago (I think it was 2008-09) but I can't find it right now. (that's over 90,000 edits ago!) --AussieLegend (✉) 08:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on your end, AussieLegend, and there is no contradiction between my, Drmagi, the MOS, or Strunk and White's interpretation of the rule. ALL singular nouns take "'s" with very few exceptions (Moses, goodness, etc.) (I see now in my haste I said "plural" instead of "possessive" in one of my edit summaries, but that doesn't make any sense so I assume the reading was understood to be "possessive" as plurality had nothing to do with anything). I think the confusion on AL's end is the wording in the MOS that says there are three practices, however AL perhaps interpreted that to mean one could choose which of those options listed as bullets at a whim, but they were specific to the situation and explicit as which should be used. I copied and pasted in my last edit summary from the pertinent part of the second of these three bullets listed under #3 for Singular Nouns in the Possessives section of the MOS, it couldn't be any more clear. Alexis /a-lex-is/ is possessively pronounced /a-lex-is-iz/ and as such needs to be spelled "Alexis's" to reflect the pronunciation, unlike say, "Gates" which is up to the speaker how it is pronounced as /gayts/ or /gaytsez/ and to which it should be spelled "Gates'" or "Gates's" accordingly. JesseRafe (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As also stated at MOS:POSS "Singular nouns #3", both "Alexis' " and "Alexis's" are possible and, in my opinion, acceptable, as long as there is consistency in the article, as mentioned there. — Wyliepedia 20:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It does not say that at MOS:POSS "Singular nouns #3" - it gives as an example, "James", not "Alexis". The relevant bit is as said above and the only correct English option is Alexis's, it's four syllables, not three, which also what the MOS says. You're reading things that aren't there. JesseRafe (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it is you who is reading things that aren't there. The MOS doesn't pick one of the 3 practices over any other. All 3 are acceptable and may be applied equally, but only one should be used consistently throughout an article. Each uses similar examples, James's house and James' house are both supported options and are examples used in all 3 options demonstrating the equality of all three practices. It seems that your supported option is based on your particular variant of American English, based on the arguments that I've seen about "whilst", but that's not how MOS:POSS is applied. Several discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style have failed to reach consensus on which practice to use, which is why all 3 are equally acceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

1) You don't know anything about my English or my vocabulary or my familiarity with the term "whilst", 2) it's plain as day that ONE of those three is applied to A situation depending on WHICH it is, i.e. if it's a situation like "James" then you choose, but if it's something like "Alexis" there is no choice. You're just wrong, that's the end of it, whoever taught that rule as a "hard and fast" rule of English was also wrong, the world is full of wrong teachers of English, these are the same people who have been harping about not splitting infinitives and not ending sentences in prepositions for the past 500. Pure fiction.JesseRafe (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been right through the "whilst" discussions, including on your talk page, the ANI dscussion and the "Yo" edit history. It is "plain as day that ONE of those three is applied to A situation". Until now we've been consistently apply No.2 but you've arbitrarily decided to force No. 3 into this article, which I've discussed on your talk page. "You're just wrong" is never a compelling argument and this is most certainly not the end of it. You can't just bulldoze your edits into articles. You should realise by now that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not just the opinion of one editor, and we determine outcomes by achieving WP:CONSENSUS. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You're acting like this is me and me alone, look at what Drmagi said, you're the outlier here. My edits put this article in line with the MOS (which you are still misinterpreting) and just about every style guide there is. I say you're wrong because I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you simply had a fundamental misunderstanding of the wording in the MOS section, but rather than re-examine the material or approach it like a scientist and think what is this saying, you simply think it says what you think it says and don't engage with the material to actually gain an understanding. That's wrong. It's being objective, not name-calling and it is not the basis of my argument. Facts: s' is plural possessive (cf. my parents' car) and 's is singular possessive (cf. Bridget Jones's Diary). When you go around just trumpeting, "La, la, la, facts are irrelevent...", yeah, I'm going to say you're wrong. JesseRafe (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point. MOS:POSS provides for three different practices. Each can be applied equally. There is no preference of one over the other two. We've been using No.2 but you arbitrarily decided to change that without discussion, preferring to edit-war instead of discuss, which is why I started this discussion. Before changing an established style there must be consensus to do so. As for me supposedly misinterpreting, that is demonstratively NOT the case. For example, there was a discussion about this in October last year and an editor subsequently tried to amend the MOS to remove the practice that you don't like.[7] However, that was reverted,[8] and, at the subsequent discussion it was pointed out that there is no consensus on which practice to use. If you want, you can always enquire of Wavelength whether this is the case. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of "what I like", it's a question of the rules of English, and it's not up to one to choose which of those three options, but the different options are dictated by the situation, and in this situation the possessive of Alexis is four syllables, not debatable one or two like that of James, but four all the time, thus it is to be spelled as four, Alexis's, not as three, Alexis'. That's it. You're missing the point, i.e. you don't understand what the MOS (and every other English style guide) says. JesseRafe (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point. Adding only an apostrophe is still a valid practice. So is adding the apostrophe and an s. Either is acceptable so why should we change? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it funny that Bridget Jones's Diary is used as an example here, but Bridget Jones' Diary (musical) is not. Guess whoever titled the musical didn't get consensus? — Wyliepedia 14:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm missing the point when you are wantonly ignoring the phrase, "according to how the possessive is pronounced"??? It's not a discretionary matter whether to use s' or 's, but is dictated by the word, and then you choose which to apply. It's a standardized thing, not a haphazard decision. For a singular noun like "Alexis" there is only one option and that ought be employed. For some, such as James, there are two and all that matters is it's consistent. JesseRafe (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

1) I'm just seeing this debate now, so you can consider me relatively objective, I think. The most relevant example at MOS:POSS seems to be "Morris" - same emphasis, same ending. MOS:POSS says (paraphrased): (1) You can add 's (Morris's works), or (2) you can add just ' (Morris' works), or (3b) you can add 's because it's pronounced as an extra syllable (Morris's works). It then says Apply just one of these three practices consistently within an article. If the third practice is used and there is disagreement over the pronunciation of a possessive, the choice should be discussed and then that possessive adopted consistently in an article. I can't see room for interpreting that to mean that only one of those practices is valid for a given name, since the MOS itself recommends two different choices for the same name.

2) The rules of English are not universally agreed on across all variants of the language or all regions. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the MOS is the guideline, and Strunk & White et al. are only references or sources (and there is no single highest authoritative source).

3) Parkinson's law of triviality

--Fru1tbat (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be one thing if someone were to say they pronounce the possessive as three syllables, but as not a single person has made that claim, I can only assume the standard extra syllable is used, making Alexis's four syllables. The MOS seems to leave no ground for alternate spellings if the pronunciation is fixed, but only if the pronunciation is fluxed. My argument from the beginning was that since it was four syllables, not three, it ought be spelled that way. It seems like the other camp just wants to archaic spelling conventions and has never challenged the syllabification. JesseRafe (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Fru1tbat, Parkinson's law is one reason I have temporarily removed this page from my Watchlist. Reminds me of Isner–Mahut in 2010. — Wyliepedia 18:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Archaic"? It's a practice that is still widely used throughout the English speaking world, including parts of the US. The apostrophe only option is a neutral practice that allows for alternative pronunciations. James' can be pronounced both as "James' house" or "James's house". --AussieLegend (✉) 18:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

JesseRafe: Please look at the MOS again, and consider this: It says "there are 3 practices", then has 3 numbered items: 1. add 's, 2. add just ', or 3. vary depending on pronunciation (that item itself happens to have 3 sub-bullets). After the list, it says "Apply just one of these three practices consistently within an article. If the third practice is used [...]". It is very clear to me that the "depends on pronunciation" practice (#3) is not the only allowable practice. I completely agree that "Alexis's" is generally 4 syllables, but even considering that, the MOS definitely still allows for either version of the possessive. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Castle (season 1)

Hello, Castle fans. This old draft will soon be deleted unless someone takes an interest in it. I noticed a discussion about splitting the episodes into seasons; I presume that this page is relevant to that. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)