Talk:John from Cincinnati/Archive 1

Archive 1

Episodes

Probably need to set up an episode article list, etc. like Deadwood or The Sopranos. --CPAScott 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I added info from Episode 2. As of yet, I cannot find a citation for the writer or director, however the episode is currently available on Comcast's Video On Demand so I was able to ascertain this information. This info should be available on HBO.com within a few days. If this stretches the boundaries of what constitutes "Verifiable Content" then please inform me, and I will refrain from posting such content in the future. Yem75 11:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image

Maybe the image should be changed to this poster? – Ilse@ 18:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I added that John's last name Monad is most likely a reference to the philosophical term monad. It was deleted but I would like to add it again because there is no way this is a coincidence. (On the other hand, I think it is not significant that monad is an anagram for nomad). Whoever deleted it, or anyone else with an opinion, please comment. Mhl26 20:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. Basically, what you or any other editor thinks isn't relevant. -- Jibal 06:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links

The fan site John From Cincinnati Fan Site has been deleted without explanation twice in the last 24 hours. It's unclear why. I have looked for examples of other TV shows on Wikipedia and many of them include fan sites in the external links section. Is there a reason not to include this site in the external links? It seems valid and relevant to me.

 -  Tmarvelous 22:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

External Links policy in a general sense prohibits fan sites, although it has been established that exceptions can be made. Exceptions would be for a noteable and established fan-site. While it is possible that a brand new show would have already have an established noteable fan site, it is unlikely, and in this case the proposed site is not noteable. I could elaborate further if you want.Gwynand 15:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Understood and thanks for the explanation. What would make a fan site noteable?

To be blunt, a fan-site could be notable by having other useful information outside the normal realm of a fansite. Something that more or less links to summaries and discussion forums will always be removed per WP:EL policy. Hypothetically, HBO could have a sponsored fan site with exclusive media and other items directly related to the show. What other tv show articles do you see that have fan-sites that are allowed to stay?Gwynand 19:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the deal?

Details of fan's attempts to revive the show have been removed again; these are not links to fan sites these are factual links to things that are happening (press releases/print ads). Why are they unacceptable? (Backinthegame 03:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

Viewer Response

I'm concerned with the wordage "performing poorly" or other similar amateur analysis of the ratings. HBO is a pay for use service and often has lower ratings then even lower rated cable shows... however this is not neccesarily bad. While 1 million viewers in the second episode may have been bad, the 3+million viewers for the premier is considered succesful for HBO, IMO. I've reviewed pages for both cancelled and succesful HBO shows and they do NOT include discussion of specific ratings and whether this is good or bad, presumably because the nature of HBO's service. With multiple broadcast and In Demand, a single broadcast's Nielsen rating for HBO might mean very little... it is certainly an interesting discussion to have, but I don't think we can leapfrog it and start stating shows like this are performing poorly.Gwynand 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cast and Characters

Would it be exceptable to use the character descriptions provide by HBO at http://www.hbo.com/johnfromcincinnati/cast/ and then reference the site? I think these descriptions are more accurate and inciteful. Also it seems that someone has already done this somewhat (i.e. Bill Jacks' description that says "he constantly tries to fill the hole that Butchie has made in Shaun's life" is is a direct quote from the site aside from the added "constantly") but has made no reference to HBO's character write-ups. Dispatch318 2:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've repeatedly attempted to update the existing character descriptions, but my changes are always rejected. Now I'm getting "vandalism" notices from Wikipedia, although my descriptions are far more in-depth and knowledgeable than the existing descriptions, which are very shallow and show no depth of understanding of either the characters or storyline. The existing character descriptions are, in short, sorely inadequate — even amateurish — and could stand a great deal of improvement. User:Charles A Miller 21:25, 8 Nov 2007 (UTC)

The problem is your edits are unsourced and contain editorial commentary. You need to cite your sources and only report what reliable sources have written. I think the revert of your edit was appropriate. Sarah 03:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Alien or Avatar ??

Tonights episode suggested by the character Mitch that John is an alien. I thought about adding this but considering the sparseness of this listing -there would have to be a ton more context given or anyone reading it wouldn't understand the duality... ie that John at once seems to be an angel or some type of alien being. Someone with better writing skills might want to add something like this. Thanks. Astrocloud 06:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

He really shouldn't be listed or clarified as either and instead it should be stated his origin is a mystery/he is an enigma up until such time as the show actually clarifies (unlikely now post cancelation), or a source is linked where the writers/creators officially clarify somewhere else (more likely, i.e. if the shows writers in an interview refered to him as an "angel", then it could be put here he is an "angel", which I believe is where people are getting that angle from, he was refered to as such a few times in formal and informal interviews by the creators, though if they were speaking generically or literally biblically is unclear). Now on fan sites it's free to list theory/inference all you want, however on wikipedia the only things that should be listed on characters is establish fact that hasn't been officially contradicted (i.e. if a writer said he was an "angel", but the creater said it wasn't that clear, then he SHOULDN'T be listed as an "angel" OR if one character calls him an angel, but one calls him an alien, and neither has any in show supporting evidence then neither should be stated here as fact). The important thing is, like all wiki 'facts', you need to find a source for any claim or it falls under original research rules. As for within the context of the show, the character of Mitch isn't an expert on aliens or angels, he doesn't have advanced knowledge of religion or science, so he really can't be considered a reliable in-show reason to clarify the issue either way.

Spelling

Oops. My last edit summary on the article page should have read "'Canceled' with one 'L' is correct in the U.S. and Britain, though 'cancelled' with two 'L's' is OK in the UK as well.

No, FYI, one l would be wrong in the UK (think of woolen/woollen, traveled/travelled and so on), but as this is an article on a US show, it's tangential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.142.139 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Nielsen Ratings

Nielsen Ratings: Please correct me if mis-taken, but the Nielsen Ratings mentioned without actual number source I perceive as a non-neutral POV. Is it possible to provide an accurate quote? 76.211.118.102 22:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Giada

Any sourced number would be fine and shouldn't be too hard to come by, but broader statements like "low ratings" seem to border on POV and I'd be hesitant to include them. -Tomdobb 01:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Should be Written in Present Tense

I've noticed the very first sentence being changed from "was an American television drama" to "is an American television drama" and back again. The entire rest of the article is written in present tense. Therefore, the first sentence should be "is an American television drama." I made it clear that it ran from X date to Y date. (I suppose you could also change the entire article to past tense, but that would be really awkward.) Lowell33 16:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen cancelled shows written about in both past tense and present tense. Is there a proposed standard? I understand your point, but it's also awkward to refer to a cancelled show in the present tense. Dave b kc (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge John Monad into this article

I do not think there is sufficient information or references in the John from Monad article to sustain a separate article, and it should be merged into this one. Riverpa (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)