Talk:The Following/Archive 1

Archive 1

Changes to character summaries

Just to expand on my edit summary here [1] in case there are any questions or concerns -- afaik, Hardy has not officially returned to service for the FBI. He's a consultant -- as the reference says, "the FBI calls former agent RYAN HARDY (Bacon) to consult on the case. ..Hardy isn't calling the shots anymore. He works closely with an FBI team.. " [2] In episode 2, when Agent Weston tells Hardy they can't enter the house through the window, Hardy implies that he's not officially with the FBI. I've also changed Carroll's summary [3] since he is no longer an escapee. El duderino ^(abides) 11:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like most of what you've changed is residue from the limited PR surrounding the pilot. Looks good to me with a couple minor tweaks. --Drmargi (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Future" date cites

It's my understanding that, if the title refs contain all information out from it, we do not need extraneous refs for things like writer/director and airdates. Anything not contained within that ref would need a source. Am I wrong? — Wyliepedia 10:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That's my understanding. If the references for the title provides writer, directors, air dates or production codes then the one references is sufficient. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. There are a few editors around who insist on each item being sourced, regardless, but the standing assumption is the source for the title covers any additional information absent other sources. --Drmargi (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! — Wyliepedia 06:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Those projected dates in otherwise blank cells need to be commented out again. That's Futon Critic estimating dates, not Fox confirming them. --Drmargi (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

When TFC estimating dates, they use the (Projected Date) format, their page for The Office being a good example. Since they are not using them for their page for The Following, it stands to reason that the dates have been confirmed by Fox. However there is a school of thought that a confirmed air date alone is not sufficient justification for creating an episode cell. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Episode summaries ahead of time

I see someone keeps deleting sumamries for episodes that are yet to air, claiming that they are in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:COPYVIO. However, this is not the case. It is not speculation to edit in a summary of the episode when the source used to support other contents (such as the episode title and date) contains a summary. And it is not plagiarism when the summary is put into an editor's own words. For example, this is what the source for "The End Is Near" says:

In the season’s penultimate episode, Ryan, Parker and Weston prepare to storm the follower’s mansion, but Joe already has an escape plan in action. Meanwhile, disguised followers create a diversion at the town evacuation center, which causes panic among the residents and leads to a dangerous kidnapping of one FBI official in the all-new “The End is Near” episode of THE FOLLOWING.

And this is what the summary in the article says:

As Hardy and the FBI prepare for a raid on the Followers, Carroll puts the final phase of his plan into action, forcing them into a bloody confrontation on the streets of Havenport.

As you can see, the source supports the contents of the summary. The summary itself has the same meaning as the summary given in the source, but is not copied directly, and so therefore it is not in violation of WP:CRYSTAL or WP:COPYVIO. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As the person reverting most of that future episode stuff out, I'd point out that if FutonCritic were a reliable source we could attribute to a single person - or any person for that matter - your reasoning would seem pretty sound. However, the reliability of FC is an unproven quantity.For all we know, it could be a couple of high school drop-outs living in their mother's basement. It would be worth a ne winquiry at RSN, since a check at that noticeboard reveals two fairly inconclusive resolutions in '08. As of now, I am not convinced that we can use it to cite future episodes.

Another point I'd make is that even if the source were good and reliable, we'd still be dealing with the fact that the reviewer hasn't seen these episodes yet, and was likely regurgitating the press release. That is less than useless to us. A plot summary is the agreed-upon main points of an episode. There is no way to construct one when no one has seen the ep yet. This is by far the strongest of my objections to the inclusion of as-yet unaired and unviewed episodes.

We are not in a hurry, and any impulse to "scoop" or get ahead of information is counter to our mission here at Wikipedia. We provide stable, verifiable and reliable information to the reader. Anything less than that is a waste of our time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jack. Moreover, you haven't written episode summaries; you've simply rewritten the episode teasers. You can't summarize what you haven't seen. Worse, those pre-written teasers are having a quelling effect on editors who have previously come in after the episode and written full summaries -- look at 1-7 versus 8 forward and see what I mean. So the article suffers; instead of getting a good summary based on what was shown, we get a superficial PR-style teaser based on a press release at best, something that happens far too often on Wikipedia. --Drmargi (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could consider writing fuller sumamries once the episodes air, instead of simply leaving one line. There is nothing to say that once a summary has been submitted, it has to stay that way.

And Jack, you can't pick and choose which parts of a source you choose to believe. If The Futon Critic is being used to support episode titles and air dates, then it can be used to support summaries. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no real problem with a more expanded summary, once the episode airs. Of course, no editor has any real say over that. So long as it covers just the main points, and not all the details - if that many details exist, I propose writing an actual article.

And Prisonermonkeys, I submit to you that we can indeed pick and choose parts of a source that we use. Take IMDB, for instance. It is a valid source for peisode titles and cast lists and other small bits of info, but not for plot detials or the like. There is a saying amongst Wikipedians: the more detailed the information, the better the citation is necessary. FutonCritic might (and the italics stress my concerns over the source) be good enough for titles, cast and crew, but not for the detailed sort of information such as reviews. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The premise section

I have been forced to repeatedly remove the premise section from this article, because it is deeply flawed. It contains a lengthy quote from an Entertainment Weekly article that is clearly intended to promote the series, and its presence in the section is used to justify the inclusion of a "Premise" section. It's a quote dump: a lenghy, unnecessary quote that serves no other purpose than to simply pad out a section of an article.

Secondly, when it's not leaning on a quote from magazine writer, all the premise section does is restate the article lead. This is what the article lead says:

Created by Kevin Williamson, it follows former FBI agent Ryan Hardy (Kevin Bacon) and his attempts to recapture serial killer Joe Carroll (James Purefoy) following the latter's escape from prison. Hardy soon discovers that the charismatic Carroll has surrounded himself with a group of like-minded individuals and turned them into a cult of fanatical killers.

And this is the only editor created content in the premise section:

The series follows a former FBI agent who finds himself in the middle of a network of serial killers, where a diabolical serial killer uses his charisma and the Internet to create the network.

Not only does the article lead do it better, but the premise section has an inappropriate tone. It is simply too casual for an encyclopaedia.

In short, the premise section is redundant, poorly-written and relies on a quote designed to promote the series to justify its presence in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, no one is forcing you to do anything. You chose to revert again, contrary to BRD, rather than to discuss what was bound to be a controversial edit. Removing an entire section because of an issue with quotes is a draconian approach to the problem you believe exists. You had the option to a) edit the section, removing the questionable quote and/or b) discuss, either of which would be preferable to simply hacking out the whole premise section, a section present in the vast majority of television show articles and potentially starting an edit war.

That said, repetition of what's in the lede in the body of the article is not inappropriate, but rather common practice. The lede functions a bit like an abstract of the upcoming article, providing the reader with an overview of the subject matter. A certain amount of redundancy is commonplace when the topic is more fully developed further into the article. I am strongly opposed to wholesale removal of the section as an approach to solving the problems you cite. Instead, engage in some consensus building, or consider developing the content further rather than simply excising it. --Drmargi (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I did remove the quote. The result was that the section was a single, redundant sentence, and not enough to justify an entire section to itself. I am fully aware that there is some redundancy in these articles, but the problem is that articles should be written with the most important presented first and the least important information presented last. The current version of the page has a compeltely redundant paragraph as its first item. This is not the most important information in the article, and leaving it there undermines the entire article.

Also, you should be aware that not every edit requires a consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Patronizing me won't accomplish anything; I never said every edit requires consensus, but challenged and controversial ones do. Once an edit is challenged, as yours has been more than once, you take it to the talk page to reach consensus, not to boo-hoo about not being able to remove a section key to every television article because it's too flawed for your taste. I can't support that being done, especially given you've made no effort to rewrite it to whatever standards you feel it should meet. I suggest you start there, and that you do so in American English; I know I'm weary of having to follow behind you and fix your spelling errors. --Drmargi (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think your edits keeping that section in place are controversial ones, because they add nothing to the article, and the section appears to have been placed there simply because other, similar articles have oen of their own, even though there is nothing to justify its inclusion.

You say I have made no attempt to rewrite the section. Well, here's my theory of it: the section was so poor that not having it at all was the lesser evil compared to keeping it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So start over. --Drmargi (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Why? Under that logic, one could be forgiven for assuming that content cannot be removed from Wikipedia - it can only be added, or changed. So even when there is a section of the page that offers absolutely nothing to the article, it has to remain in place. Even when the article would be better off without it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

-Slaps heads together- Come on guys! You know better than this! Per MOS:TV plot/premise sections are a part of the article. You shouldn't just delete what is there because you don't like it or because it is repeated elsewhere. MOS:LEAD clearly points out that the Lead is going to repeat what is in the article. Probably without any waffle. Prisonermonkeys naughty for deleting a section and not discussing it properly when it was reverted. You should of either rewritten it yourself or tagged it appropriately. As for Drmargi, perhaps you should of done the job for him. These arn't accusations guys, just sugggestions for avoiding this in the future. Don't forget, this is a developing article, things can and will change over time as new editors come in over time as they watch the show. Keep up the good work. -- MisterShiney ✉ 08:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not under any obligation to rewrite, and I didn't do so for two reasons: a) because I don't find the extant section particularly problematic and; b) because this issue of deletion was on the table, and there's not much point in investing a lot of time in a piece of writing that someone else wants to delete in toto. My concern is that Prisonermonkeys is taking a scorched earth approach to a fairly minor problem that is easily fixed with a rewrite, then attempting to justify it as the only approach. I don't think my stance is particularly inappropriate, as humorous as your head-slapping metaphor was; I'm simply attempting to propose alternatives to removal of a section that is always in these articles. --Drmargi (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fair enough. It was an attempt to alleviate any tension that was in the room. -- MisterShiney ✉ 08:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Which you accomplished, which is why I noted the humor. Ya done good. --Drmargi (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Confusing 'Production' section

The 'Production' section is confusing and hard to follow. It contains a number of quotes out of context that don't make a lot of sense. For example, under 'Conception,' it reads "Williamson knew he wanted to produce a show that would be gory; he knew it would also be controversial. When Fox Broadcasting Chief Operating Officer Joe Earley was asked about the subject material, he answered that the network felt pressured to draw in a large audience to equal the broad scope and intensity of the narrative." What specifically was Joe Earley asked, and was he saying they made the show gory and controversial to draw in a large audience, or that they felt pressured to tone down the gore and controversy to draw in a large audience?

Likewise in the 'Writing' section, it says 'To slip gory scenes past the Standards and Practices department at Fox Broadcasting,' Williamson explained, 'There are tricks... Okay, in the same episode there's an actor cutting someone in the jugular, and you're harping on the sex scene? So I sent a little email to [Fox Entertainment chairman] Kevin Reilly, and within 15 minutes the broadcast-and-standards people were like, It's okay'." Who is he talking to when he says "you're harping on the sex scene?" Is the trick inserting a sex scene to make the gore less problematic, or is the trick emailing Kevin Reilly? What exactly were "the broadcast-and-standards people" referring to when they said "it's okay?"

This section just reads like an avid fan cut and pasted a few quotes from some interviews. It doesn't read well for others, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Could someone rewrite, and make the points absolutely clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadiemonster (talk • contribs) 08:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Premiere date for season 2

There seems to be some confusion regarding the premiere date for season 2. The Fox site for the show indicates the show will return February 18. Another editor has also noted seeing advertisements for a February, not January, return for the show; that's not verifiable in and of itself, but does lend some veracity to the return dates. Regardless, Fox is the most reliable source for broadcast dates, and the February 18, 2014 date is sourced, so it should stand for now. It's possible Fox plans to extend Sleepy Hollow's run given its success, and move this show to another night. --Drmargi (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

My problem with the cited date (here) is that it says "MON 9/8c Feb 18" which doesn't exist (Feb calendar). It wouldn't advertise an incorrect return date on purpose, because they want everybody to tune in at the right time. I cross-referenced this with the only other show (that I could find) to have the return date like this (in the top left corner) (found here), which is possible. So, I see three options: 1) leave the Feb 18 date just because it's an RS (which I currently don't find to be reliable), 2) change to Feb 17 and remove the ref (resulting in OR), or 3) remove date completely and leave "2014" until some press release from TV by the Numbers or the date shows up in The Futon Critic. My choice is #3.

BTW, I don't think Sleepy Hollow will be extended because they renewed for a second season instead of ordering a back nine.—Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 21:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel your pain on the Monday Feb 18 business, and it's likely the show is starting on February 17. But until we know what's wrong, the day or the date, we've got to live with what we have. The trouble with FC and Zap is they're still showing January, we we are at least aware of advertising for a February premiere, for whatever reason. Let's see what others thing. I'm a bit torn, and brought the discussion here so we could get some consensus before the endless back-and-forth gets out of hand. (BTW, the Sleepy Hollow comment was just conjecture to explain a change; I found the show too silly for words and don't watch it, so I have no idea what they might be planning.) --Drmargi (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I was about to suggest we add {{sic}} but then realized it wouldn't look wrong to a reader until they checked the source. So, I guess I'm okay (*stomach twists*) with leaving it there.

BTW, I actually like Hollow; Ichabod's reactions ("Four dollars for a few donuts?!") balance the goose bumps with camp.—Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 18:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion with the premiere date/editing. I was unaware talk pages existed! Anyway, the most recent article I can find stating anything about when season two premieres is from October 14 (here) which says January 2014. There's also an article with official teasers from FOX that say "Coming this January" (or something) (here), hence my editing it back to January 2014. Again, sorry for the confusion on my end. Jessicastroupsource (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for joining us. We're a little confused, too, as you can see from the discussion above. I'm beginning to think the February date is from last season, and that Fox simply stopped updating somewhere around the middle of the season, given there was a February 18 episode last year. I'm coming around to the idea that changing to 2014 with no given date might be our best course of action until we can have confidence in a month or specific date for the beginning of the new season. --Drmargi (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The first look from today, October 21, (here) states January too. It would be nice if they confirmed an actual date, though. Jessicastroupsource (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Directors/writers/shooting dates

I stumbled across a photo on executive producer/sometimes director Marcos Siega's WhoSay/Tumblr (here) that has a list of directors plus the prep and shooting dates for each episode located (here). While some of the dates are difficult to make out, The Following typically shoot 8 week days per episode, minus the standard holiday exceptions that get in the way. It can be used for future reference if director/writer information is posted on various social media sites without any indication of what episode is currently being filmed, the information is there. If this for some reason is not a credible source, I apologize. I figured it would be helpful to at least post. Jessicastroupsource (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Tumblr link you provided above is broken and only links to an error page. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm, strange. (here) is another. Jessicastroupsource (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Notes on a whiteboard, especially as illegible as these are, are not a reliable source. This stuff changes. --Drmargi (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Valorie Cruz / Gina Mendez

Would anyone else agree that Cruz is likely a main character in the cast this season? She's appeared in every episode so far. Gloss • talk 22:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

All four of them? It's far too early to make a determination like that. Billing determines main cast status, and thus far, Cruz is billed as guest cast, and has appeared in enough episodes that she's a recurring character. If you can find a source that she is main cast (i.e. Fox) that she's main cast, we can make the change. Otherwise, we can't arbitrarily designate actors main v. recurring v. guest based on our own criteria. The MOS is quite clear about that. --Drmargi (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

All five, yes. I'm wondering here if you have a source claiming that she is recurring cast. Where is this billing that determines her recurring status? Gloss • talk 01:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A link would be helpful. [[User:Gloss--Drmargi (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)|Gloss]] • talk 01:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The show credits are the primary determinant, and the most reliable source. Please review the cast information section of WP:MOS-TV; the credits determine who is main cast. I also checked the Fox Flash media website, and you've got a list of main cast on their fact sheet for Season 2:

Kevin Bacon (Ryan Hardy)

James Purefoy (Joe Carroll)

Shawn Ashmore (Agent Mike Weston)

Valorie Curry (Emma Hill)

Connie Nielsen (Lily Gray)

Sam Underwood (Luke)

Jessica Stroup (Max Hardy)

Tiffany Boone (Mandy Lang)

As I said before, we don't get to create our own criteria for who is/isn't main cast, particularly this early in the season. The show's producers make that determination. --Drmargi (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to keep repeating yourself. I never once suggested we create our own criteria and I'm familiar with the MOS for television, so please keep the condescending comments to yourself. I've been asking all along where you're getting this information from and until now you hadn't posted a link with this information. I have no problem keeping her where she is if that is what FOX considers the character. Gloss • talk 01:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

But in practical terms, you did create your own criteria: that she's been in four of four episodes. The show's credits clearly list Cruz as a guest star. MOS-TV gives us guidance regarding how we list cast. She's recurring; end of story. BTW, please assume good faith and edit civilly. There was nothing condescending in my comments, and no need to get bent out of shape, particularly given you profess to know what MOS-TV tells us to do. Watching the show alone was sufficient to show you Cruz is recurring; we need never have had this discussion get so complicated. --Drmargi (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, continue beating a dead horse. Very productive! Gloss • talk 01:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sniff! I think I smell sour grapes. Drmargi (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Intro changes

Who changed my information regarding Microsoft's Windows 8 advertisements in the introduction? That information was accurate. 70.194.1.161 (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)