Jump to content

Talk:Dexter (TV series)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Bret Easton Ellis section

PLEASE READ THIRD OPINION EDITOR: Although there are multiple editors involved, the dispute began with Ckatz and TomCat4680 reverting/refusing to revert in an edit war. Indeed, there are only two opinions on the subject, regardless of how many editors have contributed to the dispute. As you may discover, I suggested each party seek a third opinion, but feel I should remove myself from the dispute because I have already expressed my opinion. This disagreement belongs to Ckatz and TomCat4680. Thank you, BotBot (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


The exact disputed text is as follows. Please do not remove it until a consensus has been reached.



Comment Please stop removing the above Bret Easton Ellis section. I don't see how it violates "no original research" since several editors have added to my original post (I only added the first paragraph of the section). I strongly believe the "no original research" rule in general is pretty vague as to what IS and ISN'T original research. and since others have found more examples of how the show is similar to the work of Ellis its not just something that I concluded.TomCat4680 (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I came across this dispute when I observed that TomCat4680 had restored the text without explanation. Examination of the article's edit history shows that this editor first posted this text in January 2009. It has since been removed by several editors who have expressed the concern that the original text, and the material added to it in the interim, is unreferenced, speculative, and original research. Every time it was removed, TomCat4860 restored it, generally without explanation or discussion. TomCat4860 is currently in violation of the three-revert rule over this matter, and has been offered the opportunity to self-revert. He/she has been advised that he/she is edit warring, that the material fails several Wikipedia guidelines, and that the proper course of action is to leave out the disputed material until consensus is reached. --Ckatzchatspy 08:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine I did as you asked, please remove all warnings from my talk page as promised.TomCat4680 (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Actually, I inserted and edited much of the information in question. But I guess it's easy to lambast a single editor when your reason for removing the information is weak. In fact, it's more than weak, it's flawed: of the content in question, much of the first bullet and all of the third is verified here: [1]. Because this is a valid, credible reference, there is no logical reason why most of the information should not be reinstated. But I doubt that will happen, given that I'm dealing with a bunch of dickheads who have just turned an argument about article content into a censure on one user's editorial conduct. So go ahead, continue disrupting wikipedia to prove your point, mischaracterize another editor's actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper. I bet you'll ignore the reference I gave just because I called you a dickhead, or at least hide behind the cowardice of silent consensus. I don't care, I'm just an IP address, but you'll always be a dick. 66.19.101.27 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey anonymous I agree with you, Wiki has way too many rules that make no sense.TomCat4680 (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The rules aren't the problem. If everyone followed them, there would be no problem. What's going on is some people apparently do not *like* the content, so they found a rule to remove it. Fine. Dandy. However, because I have now provided a valid reference, much of the information that was removed now conforms to the rule and should therefore be included without delay. There is another problem though: Please note in that the only comment opposing the inclusion of the content, the editor chose to write more about TomCat4680's edits than the merits of the information itself. This is because that editor knew his/her argument against the material was flawed, and was trying to poison the well. I guess their dying argument could be that I am myself engaging in an ad hominem attack against another editor...which is interesting, because that is exactly what has already happened to TomCat4680. Hey, I'm just living by the same rules they are. 66.19.101.27 (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.100.73 (talk)
Yeah exactly, people love attacking me because I stand up for what I believe in and I'm not afraid to go against the flow. So 2 votes to keep, one to not. Anyone else?TomCat4680 (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Couple of things... one, it's hardly an "attack" since it is just a list of what transpired. Secondly, please read through the requirements for verifiability, reliable sources, and not including opinions. Finally, a quick search of Wikipedia talk pages will clarify that IMDB is not considered a reliable source for this sort of material, given that anyone can submit the information without verification. --Ckatzchatspy 01:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, you're right, and you're also wrong. Yes, IMDb does rely on user input, but it also has staff editors (not volunteer editors, like you), people who are paid to verify the information before it is actually published on the site (unlike wikipedia). Plenty of other TV articles use IMDb as a source, sometimes as the only source. But if this really is the path you wish to take, then I guess you should also remove 90% 0f the main article, including entire sections such as Main crew, Plot (all seasons mind you), Cast, and Differences from novel, as they appear to consist of original research or unverified claims. But I don't see you doing that. Therefore, it would seem that you hold this section to a higher standard than you do the rest of the article. That's what appears to be transpiring, anyway. 66.19.100.73 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You're 100% right anonymous, that's exactly what happened. He also violated policy by not discussing disputed material and instead just took it down and threatened to block me if I put it back up.TomCat4680 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This is so stupid. I'm putting it back in, with citations. BotBot (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, but not for the reason you've outlined. Again, IMDB isn't considered a valid reference for many (many) elements. Check it out, ask around if you don't believe me. The blog (besides being a blog, which is not considered reliable, again ask if you wish), makes no allusions whatsoever to American Psycho or to Ellis. You might be able to use it to explain the title sequence, given that the author is an established critic, but only in the context of the imagery. As for your claims about policy, the general understanding is that disputed material comes out, goes to the talk page, and gets discussed. --Ckatzchatspy 03:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah ckatz and you didnt move it to the talk page to discuss it, you simply removed it and threatened to ban me if I put it back. I think you should have your adminship revoked for this blatant disregard for the rules.TomCat4680 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, you're entitled to your opinion of course. However, please keep in mind that the discussion about a block was based on your pattern of constantly reverting the material back in for the past month, without any explanation or discussion until now, and despite several objections from different people.
Anyway, the "allusions" text isn't sourced and cannot stand as an opinion. However, I have merged the "food" note into the production section, as it is referenced and the writer - while a blog - is an established critic. It also ties in to the Emmy award and nomination for the titles. Look, if you can find a notable critic or commentator who makes a comparison between Ellis and Dexter, by all means put it in. That sort of material is useful and does help flesh out the real-world information (as opposed to just in-universe plot.) What you have to avoid - and what is a perpetual problem with all of the TV articles, not just this one - is opening it up to unsourced or poorly sourced opinions. Comparisons are a dime a dozen, and people will happily type them up all day for their favourite shows. Over at the Heroes articles, there have been scores of "comparisons" and comments on the show's "influences". Trouble is, the producers never actually made those claims, it was just something a reader - either here, or on a blog or IMDB-type user-editable site somewhere - decided to add. That is what we have to avoid. --Ckatzchatspy 03:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You obviously didn't actually read the information you removed, as it states no opinions, only facts. If you are capable of objective thought, consider this: 1) It is not an opinion that in the season 1 episode "Return to Sender" the character Dexter Morgan used the name "Patrick Bateman" as an alias, it is a FACT (If you are confused on this matter, transcripts of the episode are easily available online). It is also a FACT that the name "Patrick Bateman" is same name as the protagonist of the book and film American Psycho. These are facts, and not opinions. It is also a FACT that the character "Patrick Bateman" is portrayed in the book American Psycho (written by Bret Easton Ellis) as a serial killer concealing his crimes to escape punishment. The statement in the first bullet consists of nothing but facts. 2) It is a FACT that in the season 1 episode "Shrink Wrap" the character Dexter uses the alias "Sean Ellis." This may seem rather elementary, but it is a FACT (not an opinion) that the name "Sean Ellis" is a combination of the names "Sean" and "Ellis". It is also a FACT that "Sean Bateman" is a suicidal protagonist and younger brother of the character "Patrick Bateman" in a novel written by Bret Easton Ellis, called The Rules of Attraction and the film of the same name. None of the statements written in the third bullet are opinions, they are merely facts, and from the beginning were purposely framed as such. 3) So, my only question to you is, what excuse are you going to come up with now? Why don't you just say you don't like the section, and you (alone) are willing to edit war and endlessly revert the work that appears to be consensus of several editors. It's clear to everyone: you don't like it, you're going to be a dick about it until someone stops you, and you know you're wrong. So what are you going to do now? I mean, you've asked for comments, they are stacked 100% against your opinion, and still you tirelessly argue and revert. The only thing left for you to do is e-mail some buddies and beg them to comment in your favor. If that's the only way you can get your way, then fine, you deserve the dickhead of the year barnstar. But you have never yet explained why your standards for this lone section of the article are so much higher than the rest of the article's content. Or maybe you can't. 66.19.100.73 (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You can be as crass as you like, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. What you're missing is that the text (and particularly the section heading) implies that there was a purposeful attempt on the part of Dexter's producers to make a connection or association with the earlier work. Unfortunately, though, you have not provided any proof of that intent - and without said proof, you cannot incorporate text that makes such an assertion. As for your comment about the rest of the article, you are correct in that it does need a major cleanup, including much more in the way of out-of-universe details. However, that does not happen overnight - and what initially drew me into this was the problem of the unsourced material that was being repeatedly reinserted despite the concerns of others. One step at a time, please. --Ckatzchatspy 05:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the "Sean Ellis" one is kind of imaginative, but the Patrick Bateman one is blatantly obvious and should be included; its a direct reference to American Psycho, there's no arguing that. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
See, the problem lies in the claim that it is "blatantly obvious". That is not sufficient for the verifiability policy, which requires that "readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The juxtaposing of the two independent facts, combined with the section title, make a new assertion that the association was a deliberate one on the part of the producers - but you cannot prove that, it is just your opinion. It may seem logical, it may well be absolutely true - but it is not verifiable with the references you have provided. To use another example, the USS Enterprise is the fictional ship in the 1967 Star Trek series. The first US space shuttle, which was in service in the 1970s, was named Enterprise. It certainly would seem reasonable to say that the shuttle was named in honour of Star Trek, or even just to mention both facts side by side. However, doing so would imply to the reader that that NASA consciously chose to make such an association, something we cannot do without proof. (Fortunately, in the case of the shuttle, there is such proof.) Look, the best way to resolve this is not to go around and around on this page. If you are convinced the association is deliberate, then find proof of that claim. Listen to the DVD commentaries, read up on interviews with the producers, and so on. Remember, I'm not saying you are wrong or right - just that you cannot yet prove you are right, which is what the encyclopedia demands. --Ckatzchatspy 06:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
That "blatantly obvious" problem is real, but it is two-edged. No where in the content is any assertion or implication made...that was just YOUR blatantly obvious opinion, that someone was making an implication. People can look at the facts and decide for themselves. No one is trying to prove anything in the article (proving something is considered original research, after all). I haven't read any content on wikipedia that says it was a deliberate choice by the producers of the show. I guess it wouldn't matter then that Showtime's official summary page correlates Dexter's alias with the character in American Psycho [2] and other novels by Bret Easton Ellis [3], because Showtime's summary relies on user input. I guess your standards are too high even for the network the show is aired on! 66.19.100.73 (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The section is entitled "Allusions to American Psycho, The Rules of Attraction, and Bret Easton Ellis"... that's hard to misinterpret as anything but an implied connection. As for the link, you didn't link to the "official summary pages", which are here. Instead, you linked to the show's fan-edited wiki, which does not fit Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. (As for your crack about standards being too high, keep in mind that Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source... an acknowledgement of the fact it is user-contributed.) --Ckatzchatspy 08:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
As for IMDB, you may wish to read through the page Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. While this is not a guideline or policy, it is a supplement to the reliable sources guideline, and reflects the trend in terms of Wikipedia's recommended uses for IMDB listings. Specifically, it cautions against using any user-submitted information such as the Trivia sections. --Ckatzchatspy 08:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Look, I am not neutral on this, but no one else appears to be. Consensus has not been reached, however there has only been one editor/administrator to comment in favor of permanently removing the section from the article. From where I sit, mainly the issue is between Ckatz and TomCat4680; both have opposing interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines on this subject. Would it not be fair to seek an unbiased Third opinion? At last count, there are 108 third opinion Wikipedians. I realise this could mean that what I want may not happen, and that my personal understanding of Wikipedia guidelines will not be taken into consideration, but Wikipedia is not a democracy after all. To me, this seems like the only fair way to diffuse this situation. I am willing to step aside, and at this point I believe all others should be willing, so that Cktaz and TomCat4680 can resolve this. After everything that has been written, I believe a Third Opinion is the only way to restore good faith. If either of you are willing, there are instructions on how to list a dispute for a third opinion HERE. Many thanks, BotBot (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
actually 66.19.100.73 is the one that keeps disagreing with Ckatz more so, if he/she hasn't been banned yet for attacking ckatz so many times. But yes I am willing to take it to third party arbitration. I never assumed bad faith either I just disagree with the whole no original research policy overall, it makes no sense and its oxymoronic and counterproductive in regards to an encyclopedia. and second, wikipedia IS a democracy, that's why we're having such an in depth debate like this. Isn't that exactly what the U.S. Congress does every single day? TomCat4680 (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I never said it was the producers' intention, and I don't see why that has to be the threshold for verifiabilty. And actually if you go back to the archives my original title for the section was "Trivia". someone else changed it to "Allusions..." later. I'm just explaining who Patrick Bateman is to viewers who are unaware of the book and film American Psycho, and how eerily similar Dexter is to him, that was why I started the whole section. the FACT of the matter is Patrick Bateman was the name he chose and Patrick Bateman is a killer, just like Dexter. theres no debating that. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)




Comment -- I believe that Ckatz has a legitimate point regarding the presentation and the title of the section, it does not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability. The way the section was entitled draws a comparison where there should be none, and the narrative POV assumes the comparison is valid, neither of which is acceptable without reliable sources. On the other hand, consensus indicates that at least some of the section content would be considered relevant were verifiability not a factor. To be crystal clear, this Wikipedia article CANNOT assert an unverified "comparison" between Dexter and American Psycho or Bret Easton Ellis. I humbly submit however that the very name "Patrick Bateman" in and of itself establishes an "intrinsic connection" (not a "comparison"). It is the same name. Dexter's alias is intrinsically "Patrick Bateman" and it is intrinsically the name of the main character from American Psycho. The "intrinsic connection" remains, and without verifiable sources confirming a deliberate allusion, there is no way to editorially disambiguate "Patrick Bateman" in the given context of the Dexter program. Therefore if the article section content were worded neutrally, editors assuming good faith should not presuppose other editors are forming an unverified comparison just by simply pointing out an existing and factual connection. I recommend:

  • If rewritten from a more neutral POV, the "first star" of the disputed content should be incorporated into the main article. I believe it could be formatted encyclopedically and as such improve the article as a whole. Also, from another perspective, it seems relevant to include Dexter creating an alias, as an entire episode is dedicated to the subject and nowhere is it currently mentioned in the main article.
  • If possible, this content should not be compartmentalized under it's own section, and should be incorporated into another existing section. Any section heading describing this content alone could lead to comparisons which cannot be proven (we cannot prove it is an "allusion").
  • Other than the "first star", the remainder of the disputed section is not viable as it is either speculative or forces comparisons, and should not be included. Sean Ellis is "like" Sean Bateman and Bret Easton Ellis, but it is not "the same". There is no existing intrinsic connection, unlike "Patrick Bateman".
  • There are no clean hands here. While every editor and administrator has a right to his or her opinion, a concerted effort should be made at all times to abide by the principles of Wikiquette, and frankly that has not happened. I like Kingturtle's Wikicovenant:
  • Make others feel welcome (even longtime participants; even those you dislike),
  • Create and continue a friendly environment,
  • Turn the other cheek (which includes walking away from potential edit wars),
  • Give praise, especially to those you do not know (most people like to know they are wanted and appreciated), and
  • Forgive!

With that spirit, I recommend all of you editors who know this content inside-out work together either collaboratively or by consensus to follow these recommendations, should you choose to accept them. All of you have so much to offer if you are willing to be co-contributors, rather than just contributing to a problem. amAB(Talk) 15:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, my original title of the section was "Trivia" and someone else changed it to "Allusions..." after that. I never implied it was the producers' intention. So AmAB, is "Trivia" acceptable? If not, specifically where does the Patrick Bateman paragraph belong, and what exactly should be the title or subtitle of it, in your opinion?TomCat4680 (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


Tomcat4680, I do not see why it needs it's own section. It is better to incorporate the content in an organized way somewhere in the rest of the article--trivia sections are by nature disorganized and unselective. Creating a trivia section would encourage a lot of other unrelated content that is not encyclopedic or even just rumors. These are the reasons why trivia sections are strongly discouraged, although they do admittedly exist.
I have not ever edited this article before even though I am familiar with the program. Please try to collaborate with other editors too, gain their insight and use their ideas. Looking at the history I see there are many editors that regularly maintain this article that may have great ideas where to put the content, and you might think think of a good place yourself. You obviously care about the content a great deal, so it makes perfect sense for you to be involved in the process. If no one is responsive in helping, do it yourself. Be bold but responsible, and whatever you do make sure you use good reasoning in case you need to defend yourself (eg: detailed edit summaries; if you quote a character provide a link to a transcript; include any relevant citations; etc.). It is most important that the content be revised and rewritten from a more neutral narrative POV--think "detached". The Wikipedia NPOV tutorial could be helpful, and the neutral language section in particular. Also, in integrating the content into the rest of the article, some of the suggestions in trivia sections could help you out. Good luck! amAB(Talk) 12:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I put the Patrick Bateman paragraph under "season 1".TomCat4680 (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ckatz, why are you removing it again? As you recall from above, YOU were the only person who was against it being in, while 4 others were for it. This is called a consensus and YOU must follow it. Read the third party arbitrator's opinion again. He said it could stay in if A. It was part NOT its own section and instead part of a larger section and B., if a reasonable edit summary was given as to why it was important. Please follow the rules. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Meh... it's not worth arguing over, since apparently you won't permit a copy edit to remove the excess detail and fix the overly long sentence. Whatever, I'm sure someone else will come along and try to improve it; at least the unsubstantiated claims are gone. --Ckatzchatspy 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You removed so much of it, it was unclear as to why the name was chosen and why it was relevant, thus destroying the meaning of it. I think it is explained pretty well as is. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The original text was

"In season 1 episode "Return to Sender," to avoid being caught, Dexter erases an email containing the alias he uses to buy powerful tranquilizers which he uses to render his victims unconscious. The alias, "Patrick Bateman", is the name of the serial killer, a normal businessman who no one suspects, in the 1991 novel American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis (and later the 2000 film of the same name). According to Dexter, the reason for choosing the name was because it sounded, "So wholesome, so inconspicuous"."

You've restored it as:

" In the episode "Return to Sender", Dexter is shown to have used the email alias "Patrick Bateman" to disguise his actions. This is the same name used by Bret Easton Ellis for the serial killer in his 1991 novel American Psycho (as well as the 2000 film of the same name). Bateman has the same modus operandi as Dexter, he is a seemingly normal businessman person by day but a ruthless, sociopathic serial killer by night. According to Dexter, the reason for choosing the name was because it sounded, "So wholesome, so inconspicuous". "

The 3rd opinion specifically said "If rewritten from a more neutral POV, the "first star" of the disputed content should be incorporated into the main article.", not "put in essentially the same thing that was disputed." As such, I have restored the version you added immediately prior to this,you should consider restoring your version immediately prior to this one, which you described as " how's this? please do not remove or change without discussing on talk page FIRST." --Ckatzchatspy 23:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving it as is. Since no one agrees with you, let's lay this dispute to rest. Truce?TomCat4680 (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you've changed your note to "I'm glad you see it my way" and then "I'm leaving it as is. Since no one agrees with you..." I've self-reverted to avoid 3RR, but I think the original comment you'd posted a moment ago ("Okay fine I guess I over expanded it a little. I guess if a reader wanted to learn more about American Psycho or the Bateman character himself they could read the appropriate articles.") is far more accurate. If you can undo my self-revert and go back to the version you posted earlier, we can end this, seeing as how we agree that it is too long right now. In the grand scheme of things, it is not worth arguing over. --Ckatzchatspy 00:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm indecisive like that. Anyway I reverted per your request. However I do think the line "According to Dexter, the reason for choosing the name was because it sounded, "So wholesome, so inconspicuous". that someone else added is somewhat relevant. I don't remember it from the show, and I haven't read the books but if its an exact Dexter quote I think it belongs in to explain the significance of Dexter using Patrick's name, Discuss? TomCat4680 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

List of characters / cast members

Can someone with more experience with TV templates help me with this? I came to this page to find the actress who plays La Guerta and was surprised at the difficulty I had finding a link. Almost every other TV show has a section regarding the main cast of characters in the show, but there is very little information on this page. Even a small section with a simple link would be nice. I'll see what I can do, but my experience is mostly in editing sections and I don't want to mess up the page by trying to add a new section. Tegrenath (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Dexter's Kill Count - assisted suicide

I don't think we can count Camilla Figg as part of Dexter's kill count, as he does not murder her. She simply helps her die by supplying her poison, when she is already terminally ill. To kill her would be to give her the pie without informing her it is poison. It's assisted suicide, not murder. Can I get a consensus on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoak (talk • contribs) 07:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

They charged Jack Kevorkian with murder for the same thing...TomCat4680 (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

He actually injected that man with the poison, that's why he was charged and convicted with murder. In Dexter's case. He supplied her with poison cake. She chose to eat the poison cake, knowing what would happen. It's different. Also, she's not a victim of Dexter in the traditional sense. TheJoak (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Including all kills is extremely important as it assists us a learning about Dexter's driving forces and how he balances the code verses his desires and the real world. I found this kill very insightful as the development of Dexter. --Bmoshier (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor Nitpicking

She assumes that Dexter is a heroin addict. He acquiesces to being an 'addict,' though he characteristically allows the double entendre to go without clarification doesn't he admit to 'having an addiction', rather than being an addict?

Wouldn't being addicted to something, cause you to be an addict? I see only a semantic difference; not worth mentioning. As a side note, he states verbally that he has an addiction, as well as being an addict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.111.154 (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

September 27 premiere of Season 4

The reference does not mention a September 27 premiere of season 4. Someone with more experience than I have should remedy the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.20.191 (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

List of kills and adaptations

I removed the list of kills because it is superfluous in-universe trivia/plot. It's sufficient to know he kills people. A lot. A play-by-play is better suited to a fan wiki or other WP:EL site.

As for the adaptations: I don't know if the TV wikiproject has similar phrasing, but the Movies wikiproject practice is appropriate here: absent citations to or evidence of third-party discussion about these adaptations, the "here's what's the same, here's what's different" section of original research and selective plot trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So, this material has twice been restored without an explanation here. It's what the talk page is for, folks. Please use it. JWalrus, and whomever else thinks this content belongs: please read WP:BURDEN, WP:OR, WP:PLOT. --EEMIV (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
EEMIV: The "newspaper" comment was just an analogy (but I think it's OK to make a literal interpretation like you did). If you think that an empty page is better than a page with some content, just because it might not be strictly (i.e., 100%) right, then I guess I'm just going to sit back and see how you (try to) empty Wikipedia (or alienate people that just wants to contribute)... Your history of posts and edits suggests that there's no use in discussing with you. Have a nice week! Jwmwalrus (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree this list does not fit in the article and thus should be removed. It is a plot fork, fancruft or however you call it. It is not encyclopedic type of information. Basically, trivia sections (such as this) are strongly discouraged in WP articles. --Tone 07:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the list doesn't fit the article BUT I think it's petty to just delete it. I think instead of just deleting it the info should be integrated into the episode summaries. I found the information fun and interesting; if the goal here is to take away anything that's not "encyclopedic" then you can delete 99% of this info because I highly doubt Encyclopedia Brittanica would have given episode summaries (Or ANY other encyclopedia, for that matter). If you're going to be so brazen as to delete someone else's work; at least do the work to integrate it into a different location rather than falling back on "it is not encyclopedic". --ds394'22:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Petty or not, it does not belong. It is literally trivial - JeffJonez (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Flag Icon?

On movie infoboxes, it's generally not practiced, because there's not enough room to also name the country and input the flag. But here on the TV infoboxes, since we don't have release dates, I think it might be acceptable to use the flag, considering the fact that the country's name always follows it; therefore, it adheres to the guidelines, while simultaneously being aesthetically pleasing.

I won't be butthurt either way, but I'm just posting this following Xeworlebi's recent revision. Weigh in!--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 05:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Image

What's wrong with my edit File:Dexter(TV Series) Poster.jpg? There isn't anything wrong cause there isn't any rule that says i can't change the title card, is there? --JKSarang 00:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Cinematic86 apparently doesn't mind cause it is more appealing. "Secondly, you should read up on fair image use. It may sound like the lines are blurred, but your image (which, by the way, I really like--very cool promo poster) is too high in quality. On Wikipedia, to avoid copyright issues, you have to resize the image to a much lower resolution, in order to make it less likely to be used by outside sources. The terrific Dexter image is very HQ. At the link provided above, read the guidelines regarding the maximum size and pixellation." --- Cinematic86 and I've resized it so what's the problem now? --JKSarang 02:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKSarang (talk • contribs)

I see no reason for the change, the intertitle is just fine and see no added value in replacing it with this promo card. Xeworlebi (t•c) 12:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dexter_(TV_series)/Archive_2&oldid=1088638358"