Jump to content

Talk:Desperate Housewives season 2

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

UK airdates and ratings

[edit]

I feel that the UK airdates and ratings are trivial facts that do not improve the article. If anything, I feel as if it clutters the page. When it comes down to it, the American ratings are what matters for television series in the United States. The ratings for the United Kingdom aren't nearly as important. And they don't have sources, which is a problem. But sources or not, I think the information should be removed from the article. The introduction includes the dates for the premiere and finale in the UK, which is sufficient. I don't think we need each individual airdate. Thoughts? Akcvtt (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary changes to ratings chart

[edit]

I'm not sure why, but the ratings have been split into a new ratings table? This is SO unnecessary. First off, the table is not complete. It's just been sitting there. Secondly, the only ratings information for season two episodes that we have available are the viewer numbers. I haven't been able to find information shares, rankings, etc. If that information is available somewhere, then this new table is fine. But someone needs to find it. I can see that whoever made this change wanted the article to be as parallel to the other seasons' articles as possible. That's not a valid reason for doing that. We have to go with the information we have, not what other articles are doing. I strongly think that this should be reverted and the viewer numbers should go in the episode charts. Please discuss. Akcvtt (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Desperate Housewives (season 2)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 06:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD
 Done No longer confusing. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My complaint was that you were omitting details leading to confusion, and your solution was to remove more detail, if I am understanding what you did.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That refers to Ratings, I was talking about reviews, but now it's no longer confusing, as I edited the sentence.
More content omission?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are present in other GA Leads like the one for Grey's Anatomy (season 2). Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am just saying that details about airings of clip shows is far less important than details about Emmys, Golden Globes and Nielsen ratings.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel you can structure this lead like the 4-paragraph leads in the examples above?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misunderstood. Grey's Anatomy (season 2) and Fringe (season 2) had their leads restructured, in order to get the article nominated for FA. They only had two paragraphs (just like the one in this article, as I wrote it like the one for Grey's Anatomy (season 2) ), when they were promoted to GA (see Grey's Anatomy (season 1) and Grey's Anatomy (season 4)) Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason not to try to format the LEAD in the preferred manner. It is too bunched up in two paragraphs when you have similar content to that expressed in four paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping a note - Fringe (season 2) had four paragraphs when it achieved GA status. I have no expectations (at least now) for it to ever become a FA. I agree with Tony that this lead should be expanded. Currently your first paragraph is so big, it detracts from its readability. Ruby 2010/2013 21:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Production
 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Next is the second season premiere of the show. I added a wikilink to its article, so it so no loger confusing. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is now WP:OVERLINKed (four times in the text and once in the table). Reduce to at most twice in the text and once in the table.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I wrote the section this way, in order to present the gardener in the second subsection. In the first subsection, it is only a mention of him, due to my wanting only to present the character of Gabrielle Solis. I suggest it is better we leave it as it is. What do you think? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, but in the second section you must make sure it is clear who the gardener is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Critical response
Almost every review for the season was critical of the development. However, there were many awards, but that doesn't change the negative feedback in the "Critical response" subsection, which refers only to the reviews. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done As the series was not in any top 10 lists. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe it was GG- and SAG-nominated as one of the best 5 comedies and not on any top 10 lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to explain this point with this link in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second. You use the GG and SAG for the 2005 calendar year and you now point to the top ten lists for 2006. Isn't this the set of top ten lists that goes along with the GG and SAG ceremonies that you have already included in the article. It has at least 3 top 10 lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Best of 2006" is what should be used, because "Best of 2005" is for season one. Top ten lists go by the second part of the TV-season. ie. Grey's Anatomy#Critics' top ten lists's third season (2006-07) would refer to top ten lists for "Best of 2007". Hope this helps, TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not make sense to only present GG and SAG for the 2005 calendar year and the top ten for 2006. I argue that both years should be mentioned for GG, SAG and top 10 lists. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument against this common sense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily an argument. House, M.D., a FA, only uses the second half of the year. As does Grey's Anatomy, a GA. It seems to be a standardized use. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Calandar_year_awards_in_season_articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awards and nominations
 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I don't know what you mean. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
E.g., GG and SAG awards are not an a TV season schedule. The GG and SAG are almost on a calendar year cycle (probably a November to November) cycle. Since most shows are on hiatus in December it is loosely regarded as a calendar year cycle. Thus, the Jan-May episodes were part of the awards recognizing the 2006 calendar year that you are omitting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand. Thank you, Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the awards are strictly calendar-based for eligibility. Just called both.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You must explain to the reader that which year each calendar year based award covers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings
 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any commentary on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the episode attracted less viewers than CSI, it outperformed both Lost and Grey's Anatomy, one of the most successful series of the season." seems ungrammatical because you have a both this and that, followed by one of. I am not sure how important this sentence is. It needs to be restructured if it is to be kept.
 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unchanged in this regard and remains ungrammatical sounding to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Home vieo release
I will start addressing the issues right away. Thank you so much for reviewing! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't finish checking everything, but you seem to be a hostile editor doing almost the opposite of every instruction.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly am not a hostile editor. I apologize if I made it seem that way. I'll start addressing the other issues. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the main discussant that he should attempt to resume making progress on this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Desperate Housewives (season 2). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Desperate_Housewives_season_2&oldid=1216220966"