Talk:Dexter season 6

Main cast

What about Batista, LaGuerta, Quinn etc.? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they've been confirmed yet, we'll just have to wait a while I guess. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 16:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are we referring to Travis Marshall and Professor Gellar in the episode synopses as if it isn't known who they are? Ratna0 (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Shepherd

{{3O}} Brother Sam's defining characteristic is that he believes himself to be the "Good Shepherd", and as such he "watches over his flock" – e.g. makes sure that his employees do not go back to leading lives of crime. We cannot just write that he employs them, since there is obviously much more to it than just him employing those people. Since we're describing a plot summary, WP:INUNIVERSE does not apply here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A) Yeah it does but you just dont see it. B) Refering to him as a shephered is an inuniverse statement. If your gonna put anything, putting his desire to help them or that they are his congregation is one thing or that hes trying to give them a second chance. But saying how he shepherds them is blatantly using inuniverse terminollogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well... the policy actually tells us that "relating to a particular fictional element [is] more helpful if the reader understands the role of that element in the story. This often involves providing plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations." Again, you clearly do not fully understand the meaning of in-universe as applies on Wikipedia, so please do some more homework before insisting on edits that are proven invalid to you. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes, like so: ~~~~ Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The

"An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis". Context of the show he is refered to as a shepherd, which you are refering to him in the article. You could easily just say he's trying to give his workers a second chance or prevent them from going back to a life of crime, which would characterize his role and more acturate then the shepherding discription. Using the term gives no greater understanding of the character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs)

Where is the real-world context? Where is the sourced analysis that is substantially different? The term "shepherd" derives from Good Shepherd, and this is what defines Sam – helping others by being a Jesus-like figure is his way of "fighting the dark passenger". Therefore, using a quote from the series is OK here, as we are still relating to a plot summary. Oh, and again: sign your comments please, as not doing so is disruptive. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"The term "shepherd" derives from Good Shepherd, and this is what defines Sam – helping others by being a Jesus-like figure is his way of "fighting the dark passenger"." Your using your contention of the term being used in the show and the shows own contetnion that he is shepherd instead of describing his role in the show in a neutral context. His role in the show, without using the nicknames his given in the show, is minister who has a congrigation of ex-convicts who he employees. Yet you keep using the shepherding because he is looked on as such by Dexter and the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Before we go any further, please explain why you are ignoring my requests to sign comments, because this is borderline incivility. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not uncivil its an accident. Uncivil would be saying duragatory things or purposely trying to annoy you. A accident that even the most distinguished wiki users can do is not being uncivil. You used not one but two inuniverse references. Shepherd and now talking about tableus. You wouldnt have used them if they werent in the show. Its the shows description, hence why your using it, not a reliable source for it, or because the only way to describe the character is in that way. Just like how people kept refering to Dexter in his page as a sociopath because he calls himself one, fits "paterns" people see sociopaths have found in Dexter, etc. However, it is not said by a reliable source (or at least last time I looked) hence why it shouldn't be mentioned. Same principle here. Its the shows view of itself, but we arent writing for the show, or in the shows style. Reliable sources, accurate, non bias, real world descriptions are what its suppose to be about. Not, the show says it, that sounds like a good way to catagorize it so I'll put that. You could easily describe the crime scene without using the term. Further, split is slang. The summary is suppose to be about major details. Just as you deftly removed the reference to the murder of the EMTS (kudos because it was such a minor detail, just like the murder of the quarter back. Minor details that can easily be mentioned in the character sections, or the description of the episode, etc) the fact Quin is dating again is irrelevant. It adds nothing to the understanding of the show. If someone he was dating ended up effecting the show, mentioning it would be one thing. The mentioning of LeGuerta trying to meddle with debras career because of Batista is interpretationa and analysis. There are other possible reasons (Matthews undercutting her authority, jealousy over Debra becoming the "new face" of the precinct, etc) for why she is acting how she is. However, non of those are said, nor is the retaliation for Batista, therefore, it shouldnt be mentioned why shes doing it, but that she is. Matthews is Deputy Chief, not chief.Odoital25 (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

First, it's LaGuerta, not LeGuerta. Second, have you seen the trailer for the most recent episode? Quinn dating is in fact relevant, as it has an effect on the show as seen in the preview. Third, you should try rewriting this sentence to make it less redundant: "Quinn (Desmond Harrington) proposes to Debra, but she does not want to change their relationship, causing Quinn to end the relationship. ".

If you're going to go out of your way to correct the article, at least make an effort to do it right. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 07:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How many times have trailers been misleading for shows? Also, if his sleeping with her causes problems that effect the whole show then yeah put how his sleeping with her effected the case. However, you put that hes dating again then that he slept with the former T.A, talk about redundant. Quit being rude.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs)

What? I haven't edited anything in this article, other than reverting your edits. Are you trying to appear smart by saying something that I haven't done is redundant because I said the same to you? I don't care that you're cutting down text or whatever it is you're doing, that's fine. But like I said, at the very least you can make sure you're not filling it with random typos like you did before.

Also, that other guy has brought it up like 3 times, why are you STILL not signing your posts? If you weren't the last person to edit this page, I'd have no idea who typed the above message.. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll make it quick, as we're falling for bull here.

1. As explained earlier, quoting the show or referring to it is more than OK when dealing with plot summaries. The relevant policy to read is WP:TVPLOT, in addition to what I already quoted. If you seriously think that calling Dexter a sociopath is wrong only because he's called that in the show... then I believe it's an issue of WP:COMPETENCE.
2. I won't start counting diffs, but you keep ignoring a simple request to sign your comments, and then calling it an "accident", when it is in fact a pattern. Unless signed, your next comment will be ignored.
3. Quinn is ready to commit to Debra for the rest of his life, proposes to her, she rejects him and he starts dating pretty much the next day, returning to his old self. Yes, I'd say it's relevant, as it is a part of outlining Quinn's character development throughout the show.
4. A couple splitting is a legitimate term. "I'm gonna split, check you later" is slang. Competence again? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Saying a couple split is a a slang term. Further, no its not relevant. Further, its never said hes dating again. All these women could be hookers. You dont know. The only women they show him actively pursuing is the former teaching assistant and only him sleeping with her may have any effect on the show. Which it very well may not because we dont know bc the episode hasnt happend yet. Last season trailers were implying Trinity might start attending a church in Dexter's area just to meet him but it was the other way around. A trailer also implied he was going to try to kill the reporter Quinn was seeing, but you find out its his daughter. Cannot base your contentions about going on about stuff that hasnt happend yet. Further, this is about the overall season development not of each character. And only revelevant details not blow by blow descriptions. Yes it is an accident. How many editors forget to sign, not because of rudness but because a)they thought they did but didnt or b)just forgot even when asked and even mentioned that as a reason. If you ignore the post then your the one being uncivil. Ive pointed out why these edits should be removed. You dont listen. Odoital25 (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

1. "Dating" is a mild and much more encyclopedic term for chasing women/having sex. Nowadays, dating doesn't always mean dating.
2. Nothing to do with the trailer. I already explained why it's relevant – character development.
3. No, couples split, but if it bothers you so much, it can be changed to "separate".
4. You can forget to sign once or twice. You signed once or twice. Big difference. You also didn't sign your 3O request. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian but I'm not here to give a Third Opinion because I don't have the time right now to go back through the edits and the discussion to give a fully-informed one. I just want to offer a few comments on general principles which might be useful and any other Third Opinion Wikipedian should feel free to still offer a 3O on a more substantial basis:

• There's too much incivility going on here. Comment on edits, not editors. There may also be an edit war going on. Remember that there can be an EW without the three revert rule being broken. As 3RR says, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." In general, making an edit that you are pretty sure is going to be reverted by another editor is edit warring.
• On just a quick glance, the dispute appears to be about whether and how to report what has happened in the show. Remember that everything in Wikipedia must be supported by a reliable source. The show itself can be a reliable source for what occurs in it, but as such it is a primary source and the primary source policy (click the last link to see it) absolutely prohibits any analysis, synthesis, evaluation, or interpretation of a primary source. That's the main reason that in-universe views are unacceptable, not merely because they're in-universe or use in-universe concepts or terms. Of course, a certain amount of evaluation and interpretation is needed to merely describe in words what happens in a visual medium, but it must be limited to the absolutely non-contestable descriptive. If you have to add 1 and 1 to get 2, engage in if-then or because-then analysis, or say x means y, then those conclusions cannot be included in the article unless they are supported by a reliable secondary source.

I hope this helps. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, except I explained numerous times why this is not a case of in-universe writing. Generally, other guidelines exist to prevent Wikipedia from getting painfully anal retentive. Specifically, this paragraph is a great example of why this whole thread is a waste of time. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And, again, I neither express nor intend to imply any opinion about whether the particular material in question does or does not require analysis, synthesis, evaluation, or interpretation of what was depicted in the show. I'll leave that up to some other 3Oer. I concur entirely with the references which you just listed, as they do not disagree in any way with what I said above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi there, I'm your third opinion editor. Let me first restate what TransporterMan said - the focus of this discussion need to be the content, not the editors involved. Unless someone is obviously trying to harm the page (which I do not believe any of the editors involved in this dispute are), then could we please assume good faith - let's avoid accusations or personal attacks. I'm not saying that everyone is, just that we should stay away from it. Also, as TransporterMan said, this is turning into an edit war. I would therefore ask that no one involved in this dispute edits the section in question until we reach consensus.

Before I dive in my my own opinion, it would be good to get to the cause of the dispute. It seems to me that the issue here is quite small. Also, please note that I had never heard of this TV show until reading the article, so cannot give information or opinions regarding the actual content of the show. From what I gather, the dispute is just about some of the terminology. This is what I perceive the problem to be:

• Whether Brother Sam should be referred to as "the Good Shepherd".
• Whether the term "split" should be used to describe a breakup.
• Whether the fact that Quinn is dating (who?) is relevant and notable enough to include.
• Whether LaGuerta trying to meddle with Debra's career because of Batista is neutral or original research.

Before we go on, could someone just let me know if these are indeed the problems, and let me know of any I have missed. Please do this without giving me your own view, just the nature of the dispute. Once we've established that, it will be much easier for me to provide a third opinion and for us to reach a resolution. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That, and the use of the term tableau. Also, once again, it was an accident. I'm tired of being accused of doing it intetionally. As you said, I didnt sign my comment on 3(0). It was an accident and yet I keep getting accused of it which is ridiculous. You keep pointing on when I didnt. If I was doing it on purpose, wouldn't I keep doing it? No, I'm not.Odoital25 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC).

Ok, thanks for that. Can we drop the issue of signing posts, please? Odoita says he forgets to sign posts sometimes and we have no reason to suggest that he is acting out of malice. It is a little annoying to see unsigned posts, but we have the {{Unsigned}} template - there really is no reason to bring it up; all it has achieved is to push the discussion off track. Odoita, it would be helpful it you can remember to sign your posts - I'm sure it is just forgetfulness. I would request that no one brings this up again.

As to the actual discussion as hand, I think the most useful guidelines are WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:TVSHOW. It is clear that a TV programme is a primary source and, as such, can be used to give information about itself. Thus, when we write plot summaries, the programme in question is the source. As a primary source, it must be treated carefully and we must not extract anything from the source, other than what is there. Therefore, if something is in the show, it can be included. If Brother Sam is referred to as "the Good Shepherd" in the show (by himself or others), that can be included. The fact that Quinn is dating someone I expect was learnt from watching the show, so can be included. The term "split" is a generally used term for a break-up. No term seems to be 'better' than another, so Wikipedia policy generally suggests that the article adheres to which term was initially used when the article (or section) was written. As to LaGuerta, if his meddling in Debra's career is obviously part of the plot, it should be included. His motives should only be included if they are mentioned in the programme. For example, if someone says that they suspect LaGuerta has motives, then the article should say "X suggested that LaGuerta's motve was..." (or words to that effect). To infer any motives without them being explicitly mentioned in the programme would be synthesis. However, if there is a reliable third-party source which suggests possible motives, it can be a reference as a possible interpretation of events. I hope that's covered everything - if I've missed something, let me know. If you disagree with me or have further questions, just post here and we'll see if we can reach an agreement. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)}

It is never stated why Laguerta is doing it. It could be because of whats going on because of the events of this season, however, Laquerta has showed antitapy throughout the show towards her and basically, shes in a sense replacing laquertas role. However, none of these should be mentioned bc they are unsourced, like the reasons stated for meddling. Sam is refered to as a shephered by his workers. "An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis." Refering to him as a shephered because that is what the characters view him as seems to fit this. He employees ex-convicts, who are part of his congrigation, and he tries to keep them from returning to criminal lives. Thats a description of his role, without adding any fictional connotations. Its also said in the show he looks out for his workers. However, that is not being used or quoted. Its actually been referenced almost as many times as the term shepherd. If one is ok, then the other would be aswell, according to the idea for why shephard is ok under your reply. Further, a character in the show describes crime scense as tableus. However, without adding the defintion or any opinion on the matter, they can easily be described as crime scense that have the various symbols adorning them. Also, to the Quinn thing, hes been seen with women in the show. But they may not be dating. No references to them has been made. Hes shown having sex with one, trying to get another one drunk and have sex with her. Another he just shows up with. What I'm trying to point out is that, in the show hes established as a "male whore" and a dirty cop. These women could easily be whores or the like. Further, its a minor point in the show. The trailer of next week shows that a professor he slept with may cause problems for a case. The other women he was showed with were on screen roughle six seconds, and have not mentioned again and have had no significane to the show. This next episode may change that. The other women have been extremely minor details and only the previously mentioned professor has been given any focus. Mentioning him sleeping with her would obviously show hes sleeping with women again so mentioning it, then that he slept with her would be redundant.Odoital25 (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

1. It's been pointed out to you, by myself and others, that you are repeatedly misinterpreting the idea of in-universe writing versus using terminology that is used in the show to better illustrate the plot or the characters. Please familiarize yourself with policies before going further. In a nutshell: having a certain word used in the show does not oust that word as in-universe.
2. It was stated by Batista and others that LaGuerta took pleasure in Debra's interview slip-up, LaGuerta tried very hard to convince Matthews not to promote Debra, and has been generally "catty" towards her ever since the beginning of the show. Reasonable deduction that is not grounds for dispute is generally not considered original research.
3. The trailer is irrelevant. In the last episode (aired 5 days ago), Batista ends up in Porter's apartment only to pick up Quinn, and that is when they discover Gellar's drawings. In any case, I already explained what "dating" means in such context, and the mere fact that he goes after random women only hours after Debra rejects his proposal is important for his character development.
4. Maybe the others are willing to believe that not signing posts is an accident, but let me just bring 12 edits you made to talk pages, so that everyone can judge for themselves.

• [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (five) comments are signed, less than half;
• [6] [7] (two) plain unsigned, User talk:69.232.198.94 and User talk:74.59.13.22 – two more unsigned;
• Here's the interesting part: [8] [9] (two) posts that are not only unsigned, but vandalize other parts of the thread, in a troll-like manner;
• [10] – well, this is plain removal of someone else's comment. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are you bringing something from other pages into this? That is ridiculous. The Dean Winchester remove was, if you would have looked, of a vandal explaining why he was vandalizing a page (writing characters as being gay who werent, brotehrs having sex, etc). He said how it isnt vandalsim it was fans blowing off steam and how we editors probably like it. Dont believe me, view the history of the article's talk page and main page. I've had to request repeated protections on the page and had to revert repeated vandalism, hence why I removed it. Further, showing other times I've not signed proves what exactly beyond the fact I forgot to sign another page? The talk pages I forgot to sign, one was adding info that contradicted what was on the talk page and I was trying to explain that, while the other was me talking to the previously mentioned vandal. Also, because I added a the to a wrong spot, that I didnt even know about until you just mentioned it, I'm trolling? Further, your following me on here, why? Thats shady. This issue between be and you is about this page. Nothing outside and you are dragging outside issues in here. Further you didn't even look into the acqustations you laid against me. All I did was not sign on here, on accident. You now are following me on wiki, bringing up stuff I did on other pages without context and trying to acquse me of stuff without even looking into it. That is beyond being uncivil that is just wrong. My reply wasnt towards you. The third party said I could reply, I am. I'm not talking to you so why not refrain from interjecting, or at the very least be civil. You were out of line.

I'm not talking to you anymore. Itszippy, if that sounds rude to say that, I'm sorry but, after following me like that and trying to bring up other pages, without even looking, I'd rather talk to you about this. That legitimately freaked me out. Not trying to be an attention grabber or brown noser or anything like that. Just, ugh. Anyway, back to the matter at hand. First LaGuerta took pleasure in her messing up...um, how does that prove why she's meddling? It was only stated by Batista she was taking pleasure, no one else. If shes meddling, and she screwed up and took pleasure in it, how does that prove why she is meddling? It doesnt state why she is. Never directly stated why, considering as you said shes been "catty" towards her sense the begining of the show, claiming its due to the fallout from batista not getting promoted. Its a reasonable deduction;however, there is no source backing it up by directly sayihg that is why. Further, there are other factor ror why she might be doing it: Matthews said she is the new face of the department and Laquerta is the old. Laquerta has hated her sense the begining, etc. So, stating one motivation, without definitive, not subjective, proof is OR. Further, I could restate my whole argument about Quinn again but I'm not and am going to wait for a response from itszippy. Don't talk to me anymore or make acqusations against me anymore, in turn I won't talk to you anymore. If you respond to this mentioning the unsiging again, or trying to prove I'm dileberately being uncivil, even after asked not to bring up then your being the uncivil one. Odoital25 (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's as Itszippy has stated

I think the most useful guidelines are WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:TVSHOW. It is clear that a TV programme is a primary source and, as such, can be used to give information about itself. Thus, when we write plot summaries, the programme in question is the source. As a primary source, it must be treated carefully and we must not extract anything from the source, other than what is there.

The source for this information is the show itself, Odoita.

As for the signing conversation that should've ended ages ago, just ignore it if he says anything more. However, that doesn't mean ignore everything he says, as he is part of this as well, and we'll never come to a consensus if you're ignoring part of whats going on. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 07:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The show itself does not state why Laquerta is treating Deb like that. Never is it said, "oh i'm doing this because you got promoted over batista" or does a character say "oh your doing this because batista didnt get the promotion". Stating of Laguertas motivations, based on supposed deductions is extracting more from the source then what is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, I am sick and tired of this signing posts issue. I have removed Hearfourmewesique last point and the first paragraph and beginnning of the second paragraph of Odoital25's post. Hearfourmewesique, to explicitly accuse Odoital of intentionally not signing posts is in violation of our WP:AGF policy and counter-productive to our discussion. If you are unable to discuss this issue without assuming bad faith and bringing up the signing issue, then I would politely request that you cease to participate. If you will post (and you contribution to the discussion is valued), keep your posts strictly to the content dispute at hand. Odoital, I appreciate the difficulty in dealing with the accusations made - if you could try to ignore any unhelpful posts directed at you, I would really appreciate it. I shall remove any personal attacks made about the signing issue or any posts which derail the discussion, per WP:TPO. I would suggest that you do not completely ignore Hearfourmewesique, as he has an important role in the dispute and, as someone who has seen the show, may be more qualified than I am to discuss the actual content.

Now, back to the matter at hand. It seems that both parties admit that characters refer to Brother Sam as "the Good Shepherd". If people refer to him as such in the show, then it is a reliable source and can be included. I would suggest the best of adding it would be something like "Characters including X, Y and Z have referred to Brother Sam as the 'Good Shepherd'..." or, if he refers to himself as such, "Brother Sam refers to himself as 'the Good Shepherd'..." By saying that this is how he is referred to, rather than what he is, we avoid any possible problems with WP:INUNIVERSE. As for the LaGuerta issue, I think that anything that is mentioned by the characters may be be included (in a similar format to the previous issue). If, as Hearfourmewesique has suggested, someone says that LaGuerta "took pleasure" in a slip-up, then that can be included. Going on to infer LaGuerta's motives would, I think, be synthesis and should not be included. If you want to include it as a possible interpretation (rather than absolute fact), then the interpretation needs to either have been voiced by a character in the show or suggested by a reliable third-party source. I think the Quinn issue will be difficult for me to determine without having watched the show. From what I've read of the discussion, it seems that the word "dating" is the problem. I suggest that, if he is seeing/sleeping with a number of women, that could be called dating (though you could add a brief clarification at the end of the sentence. I hope that helps and we can resolve this dispute easily now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that he is refered to as a shephered, the problem I had was using it as a description of his role. I can understand saying he is refered to as a shepherd by characters. To play off this point, I would suggest that, to saying he "shephereds" his workers away from crime, because that seems in-universe. The second episode he is refered to as a shephered. Brother Sam says in the show that his congrigation calls him a shephered, which he says because he looks out for them (with in the same sentaqnce). Dexter and Brother Sam in the same episode say at the end of the episode that he looks out for them and it is shown he takes drastic measures to keep them from going back to being criminals. He even says later in the episode, something along the lates that as he is a shepherd he has to look out for them and keep them from going back to being criminals. Not an exact quote but an aproximation. In the context of the situation and his own words hes at the time trying to keep one of his employees from doing drugs and from rejoining a gang. Therefore, I would say that, if it is mentioned that he is refered to as a shephered, it should be said he tries to led away from a life of crime, because that is why he is called as such. So something like, "Brother Sam is refered to as a "shephered" by his congrigation, composed of ex-convicts he employees at his body shop, due to his efforts to keep them away from lives of crime." I know the sentance needs to be shortened and needs to be polished. However, if shephered is being used, under this context, to refer to what he's called, not as a description per se, then it should be listed why he is called this, which is also referenced in the show. Doe that seem reasonable?

Also, it is stated by Batista, her former husband that Laguerta took joy in Debra's supposed botching of an interview. However, it is not stated why she is meddling by anyone, hence why it shouldn't added. Further, when she botched the interview (in her opinion) it is revealed by Deputy Chief Matthews (he is repeatedly refered to as a Deputy Chief, the sign on his office says it, I have tried to add that with my other additions but it keeps geting removed) that the people of Miami and his superior loved her for not being political and her honest. Hence why I added reference this but it has also been removedOdoital25 (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC).

I fail to see the problem with the way the shepherd sentence is written as it is now. Brother Sam considers himself a "shepherd", his people consider him a "shepherd", even his business has "shepherd" in it. He is a man of god, his character is based off of the idea that he is a modern day version of The Good Shepherd, it IS a description of his character. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 19:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I've just made a few changes to the above discussion, as there has been a little confusion. In my last edit, I removed some posts beginning to make personal attacks, which I saw to be damaging to the discussion. Hearfourmewesique was unhappy with that, so restored the content. As we should only edit others' comment when it is uncontroversial, I shall respect that decision and will no long edit comments on this page (other than blatant vandalism & personal attacks). That discussion can be found here. Because I also removed part of Odoital's posts, Hearfourmewesique thought that I was changing his post and attributing it to him. In fact, I made no changes to the content, other than the removal of what I saw to be unhelpful content. That's probably my fault for not being clear enough. I have now restored all the content from Odoital's post and reattributed it to him. I hope I've provided clarity there and we can move on - if you have a problem/question related to that, please leave it on my talk page.

I like the essence of Odoital's sentence. Jer, my problem with the current one is partially to do with the INUNIVERSE issue but, more than that, it is stylistically difficult to read. I would propose: "He operates a body shop where he employs other ex-convicts, who see him as a "Good Shepherd" helping them to lead crime-free lives." My changes are in italic. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

He refers to himself as such, so maybe "and sees himself as a Good Shepherd" would work better. Still, if we agree that the in-universe issue is no longer relevant (nor was it ever), we can just leave my original wording, as it is still a good and concise description. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that it be rewritten the way I put it, if that's what someone thought, lol. Anyway, yea. I thought the original wording was totally fine as far as the good shepherd part. The other stuff (dating and etc) we can probably elaborate more on after tonight's episode. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 20:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There might be a stylistic problem with it, but I think it is getting too trivial. I'm happy to leave it. If there's an episode tonight, I suggest that we leave the article until it is aired. Then add anything that is revealed in the episode, being careful not to over-interpret any new information. I would like to request that any potentially controversial content (ie. anything that is not simply recounting events) is discussed here before it is added to the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Blatant spoiler details in two line summaries

The details can be interjected into the season plot (I will get on that eventually). However, in the individual episode summaries, it looks more like deliberate griefing than legitimate encyclopedic writing. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As you're doubtlessly aware, Wikipedia does not hide "spoilers" -- which is not even the case here, as 1) these summaries deal with past, not future episodes; 2) they provide the specifics plot points of the episodes, not generalities. As noted at WP:SPOILER: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality..."

Your change/reversion removes the critical descriptive summaries, inserting instead inaccurate information: "A dead woman" is not an appropriate replacement for "Travis's sister"; and the statement "Dexter makes a shocking discovery about Travis and Gellar" reduces the summary to a promotional teaser that teeters into original research, based on your perception of what is "shocking." (As an aside, a number of viewers, myself included, saw it a foregone conclusion that Travis "imagined" the persona of Gellar, so it was hardly shocking.) The factual content is correct: "Dexter discovers the body of Professor Gellar frozen and realizes Travis is the killer all along..." Please understand that the reason Wikipedia includes such information is that it is intended to provide complete, accurate and neutral descriptions-- not promotional language or generalities, just to surprise possible future viewers. As such, I'm returning the previous content. --HidariMigi (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what I find funny is that the summary for the season finale here is longer than the actual article. Summaries should be taken from the lead paragraph, which should summarize the plot of the episode. If you basically put everything that happened in the show in the episode summaries, why bother have episode article pages??? — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Tableau

In episode 4, during a briefing about the Dooms Day Killers, Det. Mike Anderson categorizes the killers' re-enactment of scenes from the Book of Revelation as tableaus, then defines the term "tableau" as a "picturesque grouping of people or objects."

Previous version used the term "cryptographic tableau", which is a "construct of rows and columns with which one can encrypt and decrypt information", and makes no sense whatsoever in this context.

Since the original writer / editor seems to be getting at "obscure, difficult to understand" by using the word "cryptographic", I preserved the concept by replacing it with the more accurate "cryptic", leaving the noun "tableau", and removing the link.

W B Walker (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC) --W B Walker (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)