Talk:Legacies (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

'Special guest star' vs. 'Guest' star section

There's a reason I had a 'Special guest star' section at this article, and not a 'Guest' section, is that the former is easily definable (by crediting), but the latter isn't, if you just "pick and choose" who you decide to list...

(Add: To be clear, this is in response to this edit.)

'Guest' cast sections are highly problematic, IMO, and should be avoided. The first, and biggest issues is – who do you include?! At this point, including just Lulu Antariksa at this point is highly problematic – why just her? It's basically WP:OR. So, if you don't do that, then you have to include every person who's been guest star credited, and as of just episode #2 that would already be 4 people (see: here), but will quickly grow to a long indiscriminate list by about episode #10.

If we're going to do that, then it's better to just do what's being done at the sandbox page, and just list the entire guest cast for each episode in the episode table.

I strongly advocate that we go back to just a 'Special guest star' section, with just people who are specially credited as 'Special guest star' (that's likely to be just former cast members of the previous two series – people like Zach Roerig and Steven R. McQueen).

As for Lulu Antariksa, if things continue as they are going, she is very likely to have 4 or 5 appearances by episode #6, and can be added to the 'Recurring' section at that point. Ditto Demetrius Bridges. There is no reason not to be patient here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. There should be some reason that we can give as to why Lulu Antariksa is notable on this series. Or any actor, really. For articles like this, where it's just a parent article, we should either avoid the sections entirely or seriously limit them and list only those with a special guest star credit, with some occasional exceptions. For example, even if an actor only has a guest star credit, if they starred in another series on the same network, that itself makes them notable. Once or if there's a separate character list article, then you can be a little more free, but you should still explain what makes particular actors notable. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

What you're basically saying is to list "notable" guest stars only, and the easiest way to determine those is to only list those guest stars that get (significant) solid secondary WP:RS coverage (e.g. Deadline or TVLine, not fan-type sites)... So, far, for this series, that actually seems to overlap with just those credited as 'Special guest stars'. So we're back to where we started... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much, and if you limit that to only special guest stars, generally, it's easily manageable. Right now, only Matt Donovan would be a notable guest star. And a Recurring section shouldn't even exist right now, as from what I can see, Emma Tig has only appeared in one episode thus far. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't like having a 'Recurring' section yet either, but there is actually a WP:RS that describes David's role as such, so it's legit. And it's better doing that, than having editors just create one prematurely with a bunch of unsourced entries... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

We do, which would be great under other circumstances, but it's meaningless, just like at Famous in Love. If Emma only ends up appearing in one or two episodes by season's end, we would remove her. And if she's only in one or two episodes by series' end, even more so. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

She is significant guest star for now because she was in the series main trailer. — Lbtocth^talk 20:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

She isn't an irrelevant side character that has nothing to do with the main characters. She has more lines and scenes than any other not significant guest stars in the series for now. — Lbtocth^talk 20:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that at all – just because somebody's in a trailer doesn't automatically equate to "notable". (There are numerous example of this, esp. in comedy film trailers – where somebody shows up in the trailer, but is not a significant character in the movie.) (Also, which trailer? What's the link?...) The other part of your argument is basically WP:OR, which again is why 'Guest' cast sections are generally a horrible idea. (E.G. Why is her character more "notable" than Bridges'?!...) Again, I strongly think we should go back to having a 'Special guest star' section. We can add Antariksa (and Bridges) to the 'Recurring' section when/if that happens. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I have changed it back myself. I am not sure where in the MOS:TV say that 'guest stars' are pointless and should not be added on TV series articles. It did not say anything like that. — Lbtocth^talk 20:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The main trailer for the series: [1].

@IJBall: Where in the MOS:TV say that 'guest stars' are pointless and should not be added on TV series articles? It certainly did not say so on there nor in the archives. — Lbtocth^talk 21:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I never said "MOS:TV says don't do 'guest' cast". But I do think 'guest cast' is a highly problematic subject area under MOS:TV (on several fronts, not just this one!), and that MOS:TV currently does not handle the topic well. In general, I (and, note, this is what I personally believe...) think either 'guest' cast should generally not be included in articles, or should only be included in the episodes tables (as is done at some articles)... Basically, the "MOS:TV" answer would probably be: "If you can't find a good strong secondary source (e.g. Deadline or TVLine or EW) reporting someone appearing as 'guest cast', then they should not be included..." At this article, that seems to dovetail well into the idea that we should only be listing the 'Special guest star' (credited) cast at this article, as they're the only ones who've gotten secondary source reporting, from what I have seen. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I want point out there guest stars are listed in the end credit. WP:VERIFY applies. — Lbtocth^talk 22:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Only if you list the episode for which they appeared (which I have done for Zach Roerig's appearance). (But this is one of the other issues that many editors get wrong, which is why I don't like 'Guest' cast sections...)

In general, this is an area where MOS:TV is weak, and WP:FILMCAST is stronger – from FILMCAST: "A film's cast may vary in size and in importance. A film may have an ensemble cast, or it may only have a handful of actors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc." What this basically means is you don't have to list the entire cast. On a TV show, what generally is not of importance is one- or two-appearance guest cast. That's why we have 'Recurring' cast sections – recurring cast are usually important. Guest cast usually aren't. That's why most WP:TV editors want to see a secondary source for guest cast on TV shows... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a gray area between recurring characters and guest characters in number of episodes they appear in. — Lbtocth^talk 00:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep – some of us wanted a "hard number" to define "recurring" in MOS:TV; others wanted to keep it "loose". The compromise we came up with is: "2 episodes is definitely not recurring" and "3 episodes probably isn't". So, for most shows, somewhere around 4 or 5 episodes, you can label somebody "recurring". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright, if Lulu Antariksa's character Penelope Park appears in MORE than 3 episodes, she would be a recurring instead of guest. — Lbtocth^talk 00:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes – I will agree with that! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The new "lede" reads pretty badly...

The current version of the lede of this article, which was added Dhalh with this edit on Nov. 1 reads pretty badly in my opinion. Stuff like "It is a spin-off of The Originals, which is itself a spin-off of The Vampire Diaries, and features characters originating from both series. reads like a tangled mess. (It also spells "spinoff" archaically.) The current lede is bending itself way too far to include The Vampire Diaries, when this series is primarily a spinoff of The Originals (as the sourcing at the article is pretty clear about). I'm not 100% adverse to mentioning even TVD in the article's lede but it needs to be handled more concisely, and elegantly, than this!...

Pinging Lbtocth and Joeyconnick to see if they have any ideas on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I actually prefer the spelling "spin-off" as I don't feel it's a common enough word to merit the dropping of the hyphen as yet. But I am all for dropping any mention of TVD in the lede... all sources I have seen have positioned/described Legacies as a spin-off of The Originals, which makes sense given Hope is the central character. There's no need to give the entire pedigree of the source series. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Ref #3 mentions both in its title, but the others only mention The Originals in their titles – I concur that this show is primarily a spinoff of The Originals. It may be worth mentioning that this show features characters from both series in the lede. But I agree that we don't need the details of the entire "pedigree" of this show (e.g. "...a spin-off of The Originals, which is itself a spin-off of The Vampire Diaries...") in the lede. Add: The ref that Lbtocth most recently added discusses this show in terms of being part of "The Vampire Diaries franchise" – that may be a better way of handling this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH no not another franchise, which will then become called a "universe" by fanboys! (sorry, the whole obsession with "universe" really triggers me LOL) The only character it regularly includes from TVD is Alaric, so I think maybe mention in the lede is a bit WP:UNDUE. I would probably go with:

Legacies is an American television drama series, created by Julie Plec, that premiered on October 25, 2018, on The CW. It is a spin-off of The Originals and stars Danielle Rose Russell as Hope Mikaelson and Matt Davis as Alaric Saltzman, reprising his role from The Vampire Diaries.

The entire provenance of Russell as Hope is totally unnecessary in the lede, as is explaining that Plec helped create or created both the previous shows. A lede should summarize and be simple. The detailed history of creation, connections, evolution of Hope as a character, Davis' history as Alaric, etc. can be left to the article body. This article is about the show, not about Hope the character or Alaric the character (or Russell or Davis, for that matter). I mean... maybe mention the backdoor pilot from The Originals in the lede because that at least is specifically about the show and a key way it came to be. But all the it's from this, based on this which was based on that which was based on this book by this author is muchly too much much. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Joeyconnick that Danielle Rose Russell stars as Hope Mikaelson, a character that was first conceived during the fourth season of The Vampire Diaries. Russell began portraying the teenage version of the character in the fifth season of The Originals. Matt Davis also features prominently in the series, reprising his role as Alaric Saltzman from The Vampire Diaries, which is based on the novel series of the same name. is unnecessary and Legacies is an American television drama series, created by Julie Plec, that premiered on October 25, 2018, on The CW. It is a spin-off of The Originals and stars Danielle Rose Russell as Hope Mikaelson and Matt Davis as Alaric Saltzman, reprising his role from The Vampire Diaries. sounds better. — Lbtocth^talk 00:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, that version is a lot closer to what the lede was previous to Nov. 1. I also prefer something closer to that formulation... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I obviously disagree. Pretty much every source being used makes some mention of the connection to The Vampire Diaries, so it’s actually quite a reach to not mention it. I realize there’s some negative connotations attached to a series being called "a spin-off of a spin-off" but that’s what it is. Manipulating the facts in order to make them seem prettier is unnecessary. That’s not what we should be doing. Also, the previous lede (which was underdeveloped and insufficient) mentioned TVD (unlinked) only as another series that Plec created, not the actual connection between the series. As far as "spin-off" goes, that’s how the word is spelled on its page in this very encyclopedia, so if you want to request a change on that page, go right ahead. As far as the characters in the lede go, I stand by it because the information there is not currently anywhere else in the article. If it’s relocated, then that could work, but there should also be a mention of L.J. Smith's work, especially if we’re crediting Plec as the "creator." Dhalh (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Several issues here. No one is not saying TVD shouldn't be "mentioned" – the issue is whether it belongs in the lede. Specifically, calling it "a spin-off of a spin-off" in the lede is indeed clunky – if that belongs anywhere, it's elsewhere and not in the lede. The suggestions for the lede from JoeyConnick and Lbtocth above I think are improvements over the Nov. 1 version, and I'd support a change to their suggestions. As to the second point, it's completely irrelevant – the Wikipedia article on "humor" is at "humour" (the UK spelling) – that doesn't mean it has to be spelled one way or the other; similarly, there's a recent WP:RM about "re-education" vs. "reeducation", and I came away from that with the conclusion that both/either spelling is correct. In the specific case of "spin-off" vs. "spinoff", both spellings are used (check the lede of spin-off (media) for proof), and both are valid. But it's basically true that the "spin-off" spelling was used a lot more in the 1970s and 1980s but the more recent trend in entertainment reporting is to spell it "spinoff" – heck, just look at the sourcing use at this article: nearly every source cited here is spelling it "spinoff" in their titles. So while either can be used, it was spelled "spinoff" in the lede (until you changed it on Nov. 1) because that's how the sourcing was spelling it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The mention of TVD absolutely belongs in the lede. See Legends of Tomorrow, which is in an almost identical position in its own franchise, and likewise mentions both of its predecessors (Arrow and The Flash) in its lede. The rest of your issues seem to be a matter of petty preference. The wording is clearly fine to me, especially since it’s accurate, however, if the TVD mention is only about the shared universe (i.e. "...spin-off of The Originals and the third series set in The Vampire Diaries universe." or "the third series in The Vampire Diaries franchise.) then that would make sense as well. Although, someone expressed a phobia of franchises so I assume that we’d more readily agree on the former suggestion. To the latter points, if we all agree that humor, spin-off, humour, and spinoff are correct, then I’m not sure what’s being debated. As you said, the sources use both forms. Also, article headings and even bodies are meant to be as concise as possible and we are not under such constrictions here. Dhalh (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and as an example, "...and is a spin-off featuring characters introduced in Arrow and The Flash..." is a much more concise way of saying something along the same lines. We could easily go with something like It is a spin-off of The Originals and stars Danielle Rose Russell as Hope Mikaelson, as well Matt Davis as Alaric Saltzman, reprising his role that show's predecessor The Vampire Diaries. Again, the current lede is unnecessarily wordy which three of us agree is a problem... The other point is that you changed "spinoff" to "spin-off" on an WP:ILIKEIT basis, despite pretty much all sourcing here using "spinoff", so it should go back to "spinoff" on that basis, and on the basis of WP:STATUSQUO.

But, at this point, it's clear that several of us are unhappy with the current lede, and would like to see something more along the lines of the pre-Nov. 1 version restored (with agreed upon "tweaks"). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHER is a not a valid argument for including the entire pedigree of the various TVD properties in this article. Just because the Legends article includes it doesn't mean this article must, or even should. And while I would object to the use of franchise, I much more strongly reject the use of "universe".

This show is a spin-off/spinoff of The Originals and it features characters from TVD. That's all that needs to be said. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This show is a spin-off/spinoff of The Originals and it features characters from TVD. That's all that needs to be said. Yep. Exactly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it should be short and simple. It doesn't need a run-on sentence. — Lbtocth^talk 01:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Matt Davis as Alaric Saltzman

Does this sentence Davis described Alaric's role in the series as "somewhere between Professor X and Dumbledore". belong to the main character section? It seems to belong more in the Casting section because the actor is describing the character's personalities in a way which normally belongs in the Casting section under Production. — Lbtocth^talk 20:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed – probably belongs in the 'Casting' section. Indeed, the current "cast summaries" in the 'Cast' section are long on "This character originated on The Originals...", and quite short on actual character summaries, such as "Lizzie is prone to violent emotional oubursts. She considers herself the "Queen Bee" of the school." (Note: This is just an example, but you get the idea...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. I think it makes more sense to be in the Casting section under Production. — Lbtocth^talk 21:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at MOS:TV, it says the cast section should primarily discuss real-world stuff, so the comment about Davis describing the character is actually more appropriate than a long, detailed description about the character. In fact, long detailed, primarily plot-driven descriptions about characters are something we should be striving to avoid in these sections. To quote: Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real-world information on the characters and actors (this could include, but is not limited to, casting of the actor or how the character was created and developed over the course of the series). The key is to provide real-world context to the character through production information, without simply re-iterating entertainment websites such as IMDb. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Joeyconnick, I thought commentaries of characters from actors belongs in the Casting section was what I meant. Like the example given on MOS:TV: Fringe. I don't see the commentaries on the Cast and Characters section, but instead they are on the Casting Section under Production. — Lbtocth^talk 16:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Well I was quoting directly from the MOS:TV guidelines. I think the problem is that MOS:TV suggests either a cast list OR a character list, and yet many people merge these... and then make bad additions to include very concrete-operational plot-based descriptions of the character's history. A cast list could be a simple "A as X, B as Y" list... or it could, as the guidelines state, include sourced real-world info about the character or actor. In this case, Davis is describing his take on Alaric's role in this series, which seems about as relevant as you can get for that section. It's not casting info... it's info about how the cast member thinks of/conceives the character, which is highly appropriate for a "Cast and characters" section. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

publisher vs. work for Futon Critic

Both IJBall and Amaury contend that the Futon Critic is for some reason a publisher in terms of citations. Template:Cite web#Publisher clearly states: The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.).

So I'm wondering what the rationale is for thinking Futon Critic is a publisher. The Wikipedia article on The Futon Critic indicates its corporate owner is "Futon Media", which, under another section of Template:Cite web#Publisher stating Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work, we wouldn't need to list. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

First off, let's once again point out that neither guidelines nor template documentation can possibly account for every possible scenario... Now, with that out of the way, let's think about what the work (or website) parameter is to be used for – it's to be used when the source cited is putting out original material. IOW, we italicize The New York Times or The Huffington Post to indicate that the source cited is an original article from these publications. OTOH, when TV Guide puts out a TV schedule grid, or The Futon Critic republishes a press release, or somebody else republishes ratings data, in none of these cases are these publications putting out "original work" – they are simply republishing material from another source (e.g. either the production company, the TV network, or Nielsen media, etc.). Thus, using the publisher parameter makes far more sense in these cases, as sites, like The Futon Critic, are not the origin of the materials being cited. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, The Futon Critic does occasionally write original articles (as does Zap2It) – when they are publishing original material, then using the work parameter is appropriate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, there is a useful discussion here we had on this very matter. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there is probably one other legitimate way to handle this issue: use 'publisher=The CW' with 'via=The Futon Critic' in the citation... But there's no scenario where the work parameter is appropriate in cases like these, IMO, as The Futon Critic is definitely not the originator of either the airdates or the episode titles (or the directors and writers) – that's all coming directly from the network, with The Futon Critic just republishing the info. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link to your discussion, Amaury. Could either of you point us to any policy or guideline that indicates the use of |work= vs. |publisher= should be based on whether the article being cited is considered an original creation of the publication in question (be it online or print) and would be a good reason to ignore the documentation for the template? Because if all there is is a discussion the two of you had on one of your Talk pages, and there are no such policies or guidelines, then I don't see what reason we would have to contravene the template guidelines and list a website as a publisher, which the documentation clearly says not to do. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

We've given you legitimate reasons (incl. that template documentation can't cover every eventuality, and isn't necessarily written to do so), and a possible alternative if you don't like the current way. If you choose to ignore that, it's up to you. But, at this point, you have to establish consensus for changing what's now being done, and I don't think you've shown that. And to be clear, I strongly oppose using the 'work' parameter as you've suggested, for all of the reasons I've already given. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Article on Kaylee Bryant

I have updated Draft:Kaylee Bryant and submitted to AFC due to disputed notability.

I have been asked to discuss here in order to get the draft accepted.

It seems to me that the subject passes WP:GNG now and article should be separated.

Views? ML ^talk 08:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It has been few days since I posted the above message, though no one has responded, so I am pinging @IJBall:, @YoungForever: and @Jonathanjoseph81: for further reactions on it, as you three guys are top contributors to this page.ML ^talk 17:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this before... My main concern is the subject does not currently meet WP:NACTOR – Legacies is certainly a "significant role" for her (indeed, all of the sources at the article are Legacies-related), but I don't see any others. I don't do WP:AfC, but if I handled this one, I'd still reject putting it in mainspace, on WP:NACTOR grounds... Now, if Bryant ever gets a second "significant role" (e.g. headlining a widely-released movie), then I think the question can be revisited. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

An actress that has only one significant role, does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:NACTRESS. She has no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say I am conflicted on this. As it has been stated above, she has had no significant roles outside of Legacies, which would indicate there is not enough worthy information to justify an article. However, she has been in many small roles in notable television series. I am leaning towards agreeing with YoungForever and IJBall, but I think if there happened to be something else worthy of mentioning in her page; i.e. a strong and informative philanthropy or background information, then there could be a new discussion. --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Episode summaries

Should we see if someone can draft some summaries for the recent episodes or post an infobox that the page needs them? (might not be using the right words) I think it would greatly improve the page to have full information for episodes, not just a few. Thanks for any help! --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Followup on episode summary lengths

Just a point here – while WP:TVPLOT does say in terms of episode summaries to do "...plot summaries of no more than 200 words per episode...", this is a guideline, and thus 200 words cannot be considered a "hard limit", just a strong-ish suggested best practice. As such, I don't think we should get bent out of shape if an episode summary here or there ends up being 210 words or so. IOW, tagging episode summaries like that with {{Long plot}} is probably overkill – I'd reserve doing that for episode summaries that are clocking it at more like 250 words or more... FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A plot summary is meant to brief, not a very detailed scene by scene recap of an episode. According to {{Long plot}}, it is not to reproduce the experience of reading or watching the story, nor to cover every detail. BTW, I use a script tool and it tells you if the plot summaries are way too long or not. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

225~ words is not way too long. A plot summary of 350 words for a television series can be brief. If the summary is very well written, then it being 350 words is acceptable. Not all television series are the same, either. Straight up comedies can easily fit within the general 100–200 words window; however, for more complex series, like dramas or drama comedies, it's not as easy. Basically, when writing a summary, you want to sift through the details and include only those that are important, and even when including only important details, a summary can end up being around 250 words. A summary can be condensed to use fewer words to mean the same thing, but even then, it may not put it right at 200 words. We should be focusing more on writing good or having well-written summaries than be worried about whether we're going past the "limit." Most pro-writers, without worrying about word count, can write a brief summary, including only relevant details and keeping word count fairly low. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not flagged the ones that are only few words over. According to the script tool, 225 words is considered to be way too long. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

225 words is only 10% over the "limit", which isn't a "hard" limit anyway. I don't think it's productive to 'tag' in cases like that. 250 words? Sure, I can see tagging that. But 225? – In a case like that it's probably better to not tag, and to simply try to edit it down by a few more words at the editor's leisure. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. 25 words over is not just few words over. — YoungForever^(talk) 07:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A few is about 3 to 5 items, but 25 over is still not way over. There is no reason to be ultra strict on this, because it is only a guideline, not a policy. Amaury (talk | contribs) 12:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, I did not flagged the ones that are only few words over. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I never said you did, but WP:COMMONSENSE should be used in cases like this, not some automated script that is programmed to simply just look for anything that's over 200 or 400 words, depending on whether it's a series or film. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I do use common sense as I said I don't flagged plot summaries just several words over (which just say few words over on the script tool). If it is way too long, editors can improve by using fewer words that mean the same thing. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Updating character summaries

@IJBall: I think these need to be updated to contain information rather than the first episode. Lizzie and Josie has a birthday mid season. So they’re not really 15. They’re actually 16 for more of the season. And Kaleb’s character extends far beyond drinking human blood. I think others need rewritten as well, but we’re being incorrect to leave it as is now. DLManiac (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Ages are generally not updated the way you're suggesting – in character summaries, the age of the characters at the series' open is generally what is included (anyone reading the episode summaries can figure out they turned 16 in episode #6...). More importantly, the key point here is that the twins are two years younger than Hope – this is something that was clearly established back in The Originals, and shouldn't be muddied... I have less issue with updating the other summaries, though your update to Kaleb's summary removed key information about the character in the first half of season #1... My suggestion is to start slow with the character updates, and maybe do just a couple at a time. Then the rest of us can leave, or revise, or rollback to the earlier version, depending on the changes made... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Episode table

Amaury explain your reverts. 193.115.92.65 (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll explain my reverts when you actually present a relevant and valid argument rather than just coming on here and demanding me to explain myself. Amaury • 07:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

[2] Three lines, proof. You stated "It wasn't going on three lines". I stated "It may not be at your resolution, but it is for mine and therefore others". Explain your reverts 193.115.92.65 (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You are still demanding. Has no one taught you manners? We can't just put a number on one and leave the others blank. It's either all or nothing. Amaury • 07:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide a guideline or policy that states that "we" don't do that? 193.115.92.65 (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Amaury here – if there's a spacing issue in one column, then we need to put "width (%)" values into all of the columns. I wouldn't have a problem with that, and it'll set up for consistency with columns in the season 2 table (when that becomes necessary in a few months). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there any guideline or policy that supports that "we" need to put width values into all columns, or is it just a personal view? 193.115.125.122 (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Does it matter? If the consensus is that all the column values should be filled in, why fight it? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Two editors is not a consensus, it is tag teaming. There is therefore still zero reason for reverting and no citable policy or guideline, other than editors wanting their version of the article to remain as-is. 193.115.125.122 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Change unofficial logo to official one

The current logo does not accurately represent the one in the official title card (you can check my edit here). Both The Vampire Diaries and The Originals have their logo, I don't see why Legacies should use a secondary/unofficial one.--TheVampire (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You can't just copy the logo exactly, or there are copyright issues. (If the other two articles do that, they may be in violation.) An "approximate" rendering of the logo avoids those issues. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Most articles on Wikipedia do that under fair use. I've never seen "approximate" renderings anywhere. Just look at Coca-Cola.--TheVampire (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Season 2, 20 episodes

Don't know if this information wanted or not:

1. Season 2 is slated to have 20 episodes: https://www.newsweek.com/legacies-season-2-release-date-cast-trailer-plot-cw-time-1464356
2. Episode 14 is "There's a Place Where the Lost Things Go": https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8103070/episodes

Bubbecraft (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

On the first, I think I'd prefer another source for that, as it's unclear where Newsweek got their info (and, AFAIK, no one else has reported this). As for the second, IMDb is WP:NOTRS as per WP:RS/IMDb, but The Futon Critic has that, so we're good. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, this Twitter thread, and specifically this tweet and this one, do imply that they did originally intend to do more than 16 episodes in season #2. But with the current TV production shutdown, I don't think season #2 will end up being any more than 16 episodes... Not strong enough to put in the article yet IMO, unfortunately, though. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's just wait for an original promo from The CW stating "season finale" at this point.--TheVampire (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Julie Plec stated on her twitter that season 2 was intended to have 20 episodes, however they only produced 16 episodes and the remaining four will either be scrapped or moved to season 3.--silveirinhabs (talk) 9:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

We have no reliable source from the network that they ordered 20 episodes, no source that the remaining 4 will be scrapped or moved to season 3. The showrunner does not speak for the network so we need to wait and see how they market episode 16.--TheVampire (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the showrunner is an acceptable source for this kind of information. The issue is that her statements seem to be equivocal. IOW, it is unlikely that any "final decisions" have been made yet, and may not be made for another month... So we can't say "16 episodes" is a "hard number" right now. And, yes – it would be better to get something from The CW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, The CW isn't marketing episode 16 as a season finale but just as the "next episode" (see promo). Hence, they are still waiting to find out if more episodes can be produced for the second season. Until they announce anything new via press release, the "TBA" should remain in the table.--TheVampire (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Their showrunner announced on Twitter that episode 16 is currently being called a "Spring Finale", but they intend to put the remaining four episodes in season 3 if they can. If I understand correctly, some of it is filmed, but they can't do post on any of the episodes. QueerFilmNerd^talk 22:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

We can't put a hard number until the network confirms the season is finished. The showrunner explained the production situation, but she' also said she's working with the network to figure out how to procede, and we don't know what the network wants to do until they tell us officially.--TheVampire (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm about 100% sure those "last 4 episodes" will ultimately be rolled into season #3. But you're right – nobody, neither Plec nor The CW, has confirmed this yet. This probably won't be confirmed until late April or May. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

THIS article summarises the current situation perfectly, so to anyone who wants to put a hard number on ssn 2 episodes, please read it first. :D --TheVampire (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The TV Line source clearly says "As a result, regular in-season episodes are being hastily rebranded as season finales (or, in some cases, “spring finales”)." and does not specify anything more for Legacies. I still believe we shouldn't decide whether it is a season finale or not ourselves cause that would be WP:OR. Michael Ausiello doesn't know, Julie Plec doesn't know, and clearly, The CW doesn't know either (yet). So, let's wait until the network decides what episode 16 is, cause for now the only source is the showrunner saying it's a "spring finale", whatever that means. Predicting that episodes won't be produced is understandable and reasonable, but we shouldn't predict anything, not even in these circumstances, per WP:CRYSTAL.--TheVampire (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

What we could do at the moment, if you all agree, is add "16 (aired)" with a note explaining the situation as news have.--TheVampire (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't watch the series, but pretty much this. Spring finale does not equate to season finale. It's really no different than calling an episode the winter or mid-season finale. Amaury • 17:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I personally think we should wait until we get more word from CW or otherwise about whether or not 16 is the final episode of the season. Until then, we should leave it at TBA until its confirmed. QueerFilmNerd^talk 20:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This is also where I am – while I think the odds are 99% that season #2 will end up being just 16 episodes, we still have no "official word" on the matter, so we should not pretend that it's a "settled question" by putting the # of episodes and a season "end date" into the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree.--TheVampire (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur that the # of episodes and a season end date should be TBA for now as nothing is officially confirmed yet. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, are we ALL in agreement that it remains TBA until its announced by The CW or otherwise the fate of the remaining 4 episodes? Just so we can add it to the note on the table? QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, add the note. Most of us agree on leaving the TBA for now.--TheVampire (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that this will finally be settled in the upfronts in May, when The CW formalizes its plans for next Fall. At that point, I expect a story specifically on Legacies and what's happening with its season #3 episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

While not an ironclad confirmation, this from the source that was just added to the article – "The exec also noted that episodes that were unable to be produced as part of this current season will be incorporated into the 2021 orders." – does make it pretty likely that we can put an end date on season #2 now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the 2019-20 TV season is basically over so those episodes have to be part of a new order at this point.--TheVampire (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm fine with it being added. QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I also concur that it can be added now. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Episodes Section vs Page

Hi all,

Is there a reason this page has all the episodes and summaries on the page, instead of a table with episode numbers and a redirect to "Main article: List of Legacies episodes", the way most other TV pages seem to have? The episodes table with all the descriptions is very long and I think it might make more sense to move it to its own page. What does everyone else think?

Apathyash (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Still a little too early to WP:SPLIT to a LoE article – time to do that will probably be after season #3 episodes start to air... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It is definitely too soon to split, please see MOS:TVSPLIT and Wikipedia:Article splitting (television), WP:SPLIT, WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPINOUT, WP:LENGTH. When it is between 50kB and 60kB of readable prose or 50 and 60 episodes, then it is time to split into List of episodes article. But, right now, it is not even close to that at all.— YoungForever^(talk) 20:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The "informal" WP:TV benchmark is around 50 episodes is when a LoE article should split off – Legacies will likely hit that by the end of season #3. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Understood, thank you both for the replies and explanation. Apathyash (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Kaleb Hawkins

@IJBall: How can this name be considered trivia if it's official (used in the promotional material of the show alongside all the other official names)? WP:COMMONNAME does not prevent the addition of a full name if sourced, and i provided two official and reliable sources following WP:CRITERIA. Trivia is how many inhabitants Mystic Falls has, not the name and surname of a main character. So this name is NOT trivia, it's the name of Chris Lee's character, just as Rafael Waithe is the name of Peyton Alex Smith's character, despite the frequent name mentioned in the show being just Rafael. I'm not adding middle names, titles or any other useless names, I am simply adding the official surname of the character and reverting my contribution with no arguments other than "it's trivia" doesn't seem constructive. --TheVampire (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Because who cares if it's never even mentioned in the show?! This is a fictional character, not a "person". And the controlling guideline here is MOS:TVCAST, which says "names as per credits or by WP:COMMONNAME". In no way is "Kaleb Hawkins" the common name. So it should be "Chris Lee as Kaleb..." If the surname gets mentioned in an episode, that can be noted later in the character summary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

On the character description, it can say It is later revealed his surname is Hawkins.^[source] — YoungForever^(talk) 22:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes – this is what you should do when surnames are mentioned, like, once or twice over the whole course of a TV series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. If people want to cut the surnames for M.G. or Rafael, I wouldn't object (as per "not common name"), though in both of these cases the surnames have been mentioned on more than one occasion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If the full name is provided why should it be in a note and not next to the actor where it belongs? Neither MOS:TVCAST nor WP:COMMONNAME prevent the addition of surnames if sourced. Specifically, the section of WP:COMMONNAME that supports my edit is this one: common "names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above" (the ones in the WP:CRITERIA section, ndr, which I mentioned in my summary). Following those criteria the surname can be added with "reliable English-language sources". That is what i did and it's not against any policy. I honestly don't understand why a constructive contribution like this one, which does not disrupt the clarity of the article and neither does it go against any policy, must be reverted. It's not like I'm adding middle names or useless stuff, I'm adding the full name of a main character as credited by the original networks in the source I provided, and this follows MOS:TVCAST ("All names should be referred to as credited", AND "their full proper name (where available) should be used in cast lists"). C'mon.--TheVampire (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Per official press release cast bios, Quincy Fouse is only credited as "MG" whereas Peyton Alex Smith is credited as "Rafael Waithe". — YoungForever^(talk) 22:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

We have reliable sources for all their full names (Milton "MG" Greasley, Rafael Waithe, and Kaleb Hawkins) so they should all be listed next to the actors. That is what every cast section that follows MOS:TVCAST does and I don't see why we shouldn't do the same.--TheVampire (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You are deliberately ignoring the wording of MOS:TVCAST which was already quoted to you – it absolutely does not say "always use the full name", because these are fictional characters and not real people, and so full names often don't matter. In fact we do not always use "full names" in cast listings (and this is also done wrong in a number of articles when editors, esp. IPs, don't pay attention to MOS:TVCAST). So, no – just because a source (and a primary one at that) can be provided doesn't mean it's the common name, or that it should be the primary name listed in a cast listing or in a Filmography table. (See also WP:ONUS.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You are also misreading TVCAST which actually says For unscripted shows where cast are referred to in a program by a stage name or first name only, that name should be used in episode descriptions, but their full proper name (where available) should be used in cast lists. (emphasis mine) That's for reality TV series with real people, not scripted series with fictional characters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a good case can be made that Rafael's full name should be dropped too – if his full name is ever mentioned in the show, it's been very infrequently. Just "Rafael" is probably the common name. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Aria Shahghasemi

Aria Shahghasemi has page on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsal200921 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've converted that to a redirect to this article – notability was not demonstrated, and Shahghasemi almost certainly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR (or WP:BASIC). I would advise starting Draft:Aria Shahghasemi first, and trying to demonstrate the subject is notable in a draft article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Arsal200921 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Eliminating the graph

I don't see how the per-episode graph is supposed to be of any real use as the episode viewership for each episode is already listed and soon it might grow too large. I suggest eliminating it entirely as it serves no essential function. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

In general, I agree that ratings graphs are generally unnecessary, especially for shows that have aired since about 2005. I would support removing it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I also agree to remove the graph as they are pretty much redundant to the episode table U.S. viewers column and the Ratings table. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)