Talk:Pan Am (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Potential conflict of interest

Please be aware of any potential conflict of interest which may arise regarding Ethanbauer24 (talk · contribs), who claims in this edit to be a consultant for this television show. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing about critics' Mad Men remarks?

Considering that the #1 remark I see in critics' advance coverage on this series (and on The Playboy Club) is that the networks are desperate to take a bite out the pie of success that is Mad Men, I'm surprised there are no citations on that here. Putting this note here to encourage someone else to be bold, since just at the moment, I'm feeling surprised enough to complain but not worked up enough to start the search myself. :) Lawikitejana (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wish people would stop comparing Pan Am to either Mad Men or the Playboy Club. It isn't the same at all. Yes, they share the same time frame, but Pan Am stands on its own two feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.177.237 (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Hult Ganis

I think it should be mentioned somewhere on the page that one of the executive producers was once a Pan Am flight attendant herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.177.237 (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!15.251.169.70 (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Hult Ganis as A developer or THE developer

I've been going back and forth with Lhb1239 over whether it's appropriate to describe her as "a developer" (suggesting there are others) when in fact the credits say "developed by Nancy Hult Ganis". This is the second-most prestigious credit someone can have on a TV series, denoting a significant contribution to the distinctiveness and viability of the series. There is nobody else that Pan Am credits as "developer" or "developed by", so it seems wrong to describe her as a developer of Pan Am. (In addition, it's a little weird to explicitly describe her as one of the show's writers, when she as yet has no story or script credit on any episode.) Mathew5000 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not me you're "going back and forth with", it's the reference being cited that shows Ganis to be a "spearheading" developer, not the only developer. Same with her being listed as a writer - it's what the reference cited says. Remember, the threshold for inclusion of content in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For more information, see WP:VERIFY. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The reference is a blog entry by Scott Carmichael dated March 1st, 2011, several months before production even began. It does not describe her as "a spearheading developer"; rather it says the show's "development is being spearheaded by executive producer Nancy Hult Ganis". It doesn't specifically say that there were other developers involved. There almost certainly were other people involved in the process of development (researchers, writers, secretaries, and so forth), but that does not make them developers. In any event, it was a blog entry from March; obviously not the final word about who should be credited as a developer of the series. That issue typically is determined when the development of the series is complete or near completion. In the case of Pan Am, only Nancy Hult Ganis is credited as the series developer. You have not cited any source that describes anyone else as a developer of the series. Mathew5000 (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The reference is to a newsblog (which is allowable as a reliable source for Wikipedia citing purposes). Doesn't matter how old it is - it's a reliable reference, it's says she is spearheading development (which means she is leading in the area of development for the series - which further indicates that she is not the only series developer). I have provided a source for her part in development, I have also provided a source that says she is one of the series' writers. I'm sorry you don't like or agree with what the sources say, however, you have done nothing to provide sources that say otherwise. If you find better sources that say differently, then by all means bring them. Until you can do that, the references are what they are and the content regarding Hult Ganis in this article should stay as it is. Verifiability over truth is one of the hallmarks of Wikipedia articles. End of story. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Watch your tone; it's not up to you to declare "end of story" on an editing dispute. It's debatable whether your source (Gadling) meets the criteria set out in WP:NEWSBLOG but in any event the source doesn't say that there were other "developers". Mathew5000 (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Watch [my] tone"? ROFLMAO! Know this: it's not me saying "end of story", it Wikipedia editing policy saying "end of story". I'm following the verifiability over truth policy, you're following no references and original research. Like I said above -- if you have a reference that says what you seem to want the section on Hult Ganis to say, then bring it. Until you do, Wikipedia policy trumps and overrides your personal opinon and original research. Still ROFLMAO, Lhb1239 (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The Gadling reference does not say what you have inferred from it. Just because there may have been others involved in the process of development does not make them all "developers". Hult Ganis is the only one credited as such in the series so Wikipedia should not imply otherwise, particularly not based on a misreading of a blog entry that predates by several months the début of the show. Mathew5000 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Found a reference that says what you want it to say, yet? If not, your argument (and point) is moot (hence my previous statement, "End of story"). Lhb1239 (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that based on what the source actually says, balanced with the early date of the source, vs. what is shown in the credits, it is safe to say that Hult Ganis is the only developer and should be labeled as such. Credits displayed for television episodes are authoritative sources about the cast and crew. Elizium23 (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Without a reliable source that says definitively that Hult Ganis is the only developer for the show, I believe that what you're suggesting is dangerously close to WP:SYNTHESIS (as well as WP:OR). There needs to be a reference that states she is the only developer -- if stating in the article that she is the lead developer (as the reference states when saying "spearheading") becomes a point of contention, then it should be taken out completely until a reference stating otherwise is found. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As I just told you, the episode credits are a reliable, authoritative source for cast and crew. If every episode aired has listed Hult Ganis as the sole developer then we can safely assume that there is no other developer on the show, or they would have received a credit. It's very simple. Episodes do not need to be cited, but can be if necessary, with the {{Cite episode}} template. Elizium23 (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you've said that. Now, can you please point me to Wikipedia policy that says "episode credits are a reliable, authoritative source for cast and crew" and don't need to be referenced? Lhb1239 (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. WP:V says, in part, To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material. Film credits are factual, uncontroversial information, and not the type of thing to be challenged in ordinary practice. Film credits are primary sources, and so they are authoritative for information about themselves: please see WP:PRIMARY for that policy. Elizium23 (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, anyone with eyes can see the overwhelming consensus in effect regarding not needing to cite credits: just go to any actor or filmmaker's biography page and see the filmographies there. Citations are normally only demanded for uncredited work or future projects where no published work exists from which to draw credits. Elizium23 (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

But the problem here is that it will be challenged - especially since we already have a reference that states differently. Since the inclusion of something that will be challenged and already has an existing reference that states differently, you and Mathew5000 saying she's the only developer is akin to WP:OR. If you are going to press this, then her listed as the only developer in the article either needs to be removed or a reliable reference needs to be found and provided. And..."consensus" in the face of going against policy re: verifiability over truth in regard to a living, breathing person is not a valid consensus. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Only you think that we have a reference that states differently. Elizium23 (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that at this point, you have no reference at all. Unless I missed a post in this thread where you pointed me to a link somewhere that says Hult Ganis is the only developer for the series..... Lhb1239 (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The article could say something to the effect of "Nancy Hult Ganis is a writer-producer on the show and credited as its developer". Mathew5000 (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I checked the sources provided, and neither indicate that there is any other "developer" for the show. I think the statement should be: "...and the series developer". She appears to be the only confirmed "Developer". As for "writing", I don't know why that section is for one filled out in the infobox (as I counted a half dozen writers in the episode table and it would become too cumbersome to list everyone). With regard to the sentence describing her as a "writer", WP:V may be about what can be verified instead of what is true, but what can be verified does not necessarily mean it needs to be included. Nothing, a part from a single blogger's description, shows that she had a hand in writing anything for the show. Unless she gets a writing credit, being called a writer does not mean that she is one. That includes writing at least a treatment. If she has no hand in the writing, then she's not a writer. You need to find a source that indicates that she actually has a hand. She doesn't need to necessarily receive episode credit, but there needs to be something indicating that she is taking part in the writing process. As a single blogger's opinion doesn't carry much reliable weight as far as I can see.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement with most of what Bignole wrote, but a couple of things need clarifying: the description of NHG as "writer-producer" comes not from the blogger, but from an article in a real newspaper, the Edmonton Journal. (It might be a mistake, however, to assume that "writer-producer" means "writer and producer". There are other things it could mean.) Moreover, the "developed by" credit itself can be taken to mean she is a writer; certainly under the WGA screenwriting credit system, "developed by" is a credit that goes to someone who has contributed to the writing of the series. That said, I don't see any particular reason for this article to describe her as a writer until she has a story or script credit on an episode. In other words, I believe it is probably accurate to call her one of the show's writers, but better to omit it for the time being. I have removed it from the infobox, for the reasons stated by Bignole. Mathew5000 (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's more than accurate to say she's one of the show's three writers. In fact, she's written 5 episodes. But why you think it's okay to remove referenced content is beyond me. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Which five episodes? Mathew5000 (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see her credited as a writer for any specific episodes. As for the infobox, I removed the writers again. Per Template:Infobox television, it specifically states that if you have more than 5 writers you're not to use that parameter. On a side note, the parameter of "Producer" is for just that, the title of "Producer". An "associate producer" and a "co-producer" is not the same position as a "Producer". There is a big difference between those 3 jobs. The section in the infobox is for someone with the title of just "Producer".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you don't see where Hult Ganis is credited as a writer for the show, then you need to look closer, Bigmole. She's not only credited as being a writer for 5 episodes, there is an included reference in this article that says she is a writer for the show. Didn't know about the infobox standard for more than five in each category, though - I won't make that error again. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Then please, open my eyes as I've looked at the 3 instances of her names and there's only 2 sources attached any of them. Not a single one of them indicates she has written 5 episodes. The only source (this one) is the only one that says she's a "writer/producer". It does not say what she has written, and based on how she described the concept for "Pan-AM" it sounds more like she "wrote" a treatment for the idea of the show and that was as far as her writing went. Now, unless you've got another source somewhere then she has no specific writings credits. As she is only mentioned 3 times on this page and none of them indicate she has written 5 episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you. What I'm asking you to look for is not in the article or in the reference provided, bI'm asking you to do some research. There's nothing in the references provided about Hult Ganis about her writing 5 episodes because there's no need for it since there's no mention in the article about her having written 5 episodes. The reference that speak to the number of episodes she's written is found at imdb.com. Regardless, the article states she is one of the writers for the show, and that is backed up by the attached reference from the Edmonton newspaper article. And - no matter how you are choosing to read into what is written in the Edmonton journal article, it states she is a writer for the show - and this is backed up by what already exists at imdb. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is not a great source for matters like this, because it makes no claim to completeness, and can be inaccurate especially on things like recent TV shows. IMDb considers "developed by" to be a writing credit, which is why it lists Hult Ganis under "series writing credits" with the annotation "5 episodes" ([1]). It is incorrect to say "she's written 5 episodes". Also, the Edmonton Journal article describes her as a writer-producer, as Bignole mentioned; not as "one of the writers for the show". As for the infobox, I see that Bignole removed [2] a producer (Kurta) and co-producer (DeJoie) but left in Moline and Camps, who have "associate producer" credits. In any event, it's problematic to say that only those specifically credited as "producer" can be listed in the infobox, because what about positions like "supervising producer" and "co-executive producer" that are higher in rank than "producer" but don't have a specific infobox parameter. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, imdb is a great source for everything except biographies. Average schmoes like you and I can edit the biographies without any fact-checking or vetting. Everything else in imdb is vetted and fact-checked before being added. Where are you getting your information that imdb considers "developed by" to be anything but "developed by"? And where are you getting your information that it's incorrect to say Hult Ganis has written 5 episodes? In other words, do you have a reference/source you can cite? As far as what the Edmonton Journal article says, "writer-producer" is not a credit, it's how they are describing her in the article as far as her contribution to the show. She's a writer as well as an executive producer. You can go ahead and try to argue until your face is blue that Hult Ganis isn't a writer and is the only show developer, but as I stated days ago - until you have a reliable reference that says differently, you have no proof. I've supplied references (that you've alternately chosen to ignore and interpret in order to fit your agenda) - you've produced zero references. That speaks volumes as far as Wikipedia is concerned. (remember "verifiability over truth"?) Lhb1239 (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(1) Please see the essay Wikipedia:IMDB. Just about all content on IMDb has been user-submitted. The "vetting" of credits data published on IMDb has unfortunately been declining in recent years; there has never been comprehensive "fact-checking" of that data. (2) As an example of how IMDb includes "developed by" as a writing credit, see the IMDb page for Law & Order: Criminal Intent. René Balcer is listed under "series writing credits" with 195 episodes, but that doesn't mean he contributed to the story or script for all 195 episodes of the series, but rather that he got the "developed by René Balcer" credit on each of them. Another example is the 148 episodes listed under writing credits of Greg Daniels on the IMDb page for The Office. (3) Where am I getting my information that it's incorrect to say Hult Ganis has written 5 episodes? From the table of episodes in the Wikipedia article Pan Am (TV series). It lists eight episodes, none of them written by Hult Ganis. (4) Your other questions have been addressed above by Elizium23 and Bignole. Mathew5000 (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Point 1 - Your first clue re: your "proof" that imdb is not a good source is that you are directing me to a Wikipedia essay. There are tons of essays in Wikipedia - and none of them are considered Wikipedia "law". Any idea why? 2 - You still haven't given any proof re: your claim about imdb not being well vetted - and your example of L&O:CI isn't proving it, either. 3 - You're using Wikipedia as your source? Really? You do know why Wikipedia articles aren't used as sources by colleges, universities, and itself, right? 4 - As for the other questions being addressed by the others....no, they haven't been answered. Which brings me around once again to asking you: have you been able to find a source that says Nancy Hult Ganis is the only developer for the show and is not one of the series' writers? I've been asking you to do so for nearly a week, and yet you are still arguing from your own original research and without a verifiable reference that backs up what you're claiming. This is the last time I'll say it, Matt: if you have a better reference that gives different information, then bring it. If you don't, then this conversation is over. Policy stating that original research isn't acceptable trumps original research. Get it? Lhb1239 (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To review this conversation: You stated baldly a couple of days ago that Hult Ganis had written five episodes of Pan Am. You were asked twice to elaborate on that; first you just repeated the claim she had written five episodes, but eventually you explained that you found this information on IMDb. It turns out that you are misinterpreting what IMDb means by "series writing credits", which I civilly explained above. That was the point of the examples of L&O:CI and The Office. Whether IMDb is a reliable source is a different question (I pointed out to you an essay that takes one position; if you have an argument that IMDb does qualify under WP:RS then go ahead and make it). However, when you choose to rely on IMDb please take the time to understand how IMDb is structured, and in particular that the number of "series writing credits" that IMDb lists does not mean the individual wrote that number of episodes. Similarly it has been pointed out to you that there are other ways to interpret the wording in the Gadling and Edmonton Journal sources. The sources don't expressly say what you claim they say; rather you have made inferences from those sources. Finally, it was pointed out to you above that the credits given in the episodes themselves are valid sources per WP:PRIMARY on the issue of such things as who developed the show and who wrote each episode. Mathew5000 (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not researching for YOU something that you actually have no proof exists. IMDb is not a reliable source for such things. Case in point, they currently say that there will be a series titled "Metropolis" in 2012 that will feature Tom Welling as Superman. That's a load of horse crap, because there is no show that will be released in 2012. But hey, look it's going to be directed by Al Gough and written by Brian Peterson and Kelly Souders. Crap. IMDb is often times worthless. The fact that they credit this lady for writing episodes of "Pan-Am", yet the actual episodes don't credit her just shows how reliable they actually are. So, unless you have a reliable source (one that meets WP:RS) then she hasn't written any episodes as far as I'm concerned. IMDb's user submitted content is not considered reliable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you two are taking so much time arguing something that isn't even a part of the article. I haven't tried to make it part of the article or even suggested it should be part of the article. I know that at this time WP doesn't consider imdb to be a reliable source. I'm not trying to add anything about Hult Ganis that comes from imdb. Why keep arguing something that isn't even an issue? You keep saying Hult Ganis isn't a show writer. There is a reference that proves you wrong. Once again, if you can't bring anything that says differently, then there's nothing more to argue about (which is all you two are doing at this point). Policy says verifiability over truth. I've provided the verifiability regarding her being a writer, and it's already in the article. No one else has. Others in this discussion have only been able to argue about things that aren't in the article and aren't proposed to be in the article. Unless anyone else has something to add that involves a different, better, and verifiable reference, this discussion has run its course. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you repeatedly make an inaccurate claim on the Talk page, and then after you've had the inaccuracy explained to you, you don't apologize for your mistake but instead chastise others for spending time discussing the point. Interesting. You have not “provided the verifiability regarding her being a writer”. The Edmonton Journal source describes her as a writer-producer, not a writer. Mathew5000 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose then, in the interest of consistency, because of what it says in[this article], you will also claim that because Orman is described as producer/writer he's not a writer for the show, either...? (after all - if your reasoning works for one, it should also work for another, correct?) Lhb1239 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Orman can be described as a writer on the show because he has a "written by" credit on various episodes. Mathew5000 (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Orman is listed in the above cite as a producer writer. The above cite is a reliable source, and the wording is the same as what is used in the article from the Edmonton Journal (another reliable source) to describe Hult Ganis. Basing your answer above on what Orman is called anywhere else is using WP:SYNTHESIS and is not allowed in Wikipedia. If the reference above for Orman as "producer/writer" is acceptable on its own for Orman, then the reference for Hult Ganis as "writer-producer" is also acceptable on its own. You can't use synthesis and you can't have it both ways. Orman is a writer (according to the above reference) and he is also a producer (according to the above reference). Hult Ganis is a writer (according to the Edmonton Journal reference) and she is also a producer (according to the Edmonton Journal reference). QED.

And I'm curious: how are you doing on finding a reference that says Hult Ganis ISN'T a writer for the show? Lhb1239 (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We have produced for you six authoritative references from primary sources that back up what we are telling you, but you are completely unwilling to listen to reason here. Elizium23 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You have not provided reliable references acceptable to Wikipedia standards for verifiable inclusion that say Hult Ganis is NOT a writer for the show. I have provided a Wikipedia-allowable reference that says she is, and I have provided information that leads you to what is not considered a Wikipedia-allowable reference that says she is. Logic states that if you had a reference stating her responsibilities for the show are A,B, & C only (with writer not being A/B/C) you would have provided it and taken writer for Hult Ganis out of the article content already. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that while you maintain she's not a writer, you know you don't have verifiable proof she isn't and will continue to argue this point endlessly. No reference? Discussion over. (and until you have something solid reference-wise that can be used in the article, I won't be responding to any more of what has now become a complete waste of time and bandwidth) Lhb1239 (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Pilot". Pan Am. Season 1. September 25, 2011. ABC.
• "We'll Always Have Paris". Pan Am. Season 1. October 2, 2011. ABC.
• "Ich Bin Ein Berliner". Pan Am. Season 1. October 9, 2011. ABC.
• "Eastern Exposure". Pan Am. Season 1. October 16, 2011. ABC.
• "One Coin in a Fountain". Pan Am. Season 1. October 23, 2011. ABC.
• "The Genuine Article". Pan Am. Season 1. October 30, 2011. ABC.

Elizium23 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Is ABC considered a secondary source via Wikipedia policy? Policy states, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources". Lhb1239 (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I can't believe you guys spent this much effort over "a" or "the". For the record I support the "is credited as" suggestion. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's part of the problem. Everything listed online as a reference for "credited as" is not a reliable reference and there is nothing in the credits on-screen for the show that shows who's doing what. The above references provided by Elizium are considered a primary source. Secondary sources show Hult Ganis as a show writer. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

As it stands now, the article provides little credibility to the claim that Hult Ganis is a writer. While the Edmonton Journal reference says that she is a "writer-producer", she isn't credited as a writer in any of the episode press releases or on-screen. A look through several reliable sources show her credited as EP etc, but not as a writer. Given that, I think the Edmonton Journal's claim has to be questioned, and it's probably best to leave it out of the article until corroborated by another source. As to her status as "the" series developer, I couldn't really find any secondary sources that support that. However, and this is a big however, she is credited in every episode as "series developer". Nobody else is mentioned. The gadling.com reference says only that Hult Ganis is spearheading the development. It doesn't say that anyone else is part of the spear and to assume that there are others is original research. Since no other people have been mentioned in the role of developer, the claim that she is "the" series developer seems substantiated based on verifiable sources, and can be supported by {{cite episode}}, as suggested above. That episodes are primary sources is irrelevant as policy provides that primary sources may be used. WP:PRIMARY says:

• "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully."
• "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
• "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

Given all of the above, changing the article to read "is one of the show's executive producers and is credited as the series developer", followed by appropriate citations, seems entirely appropriate given the available evidence. I've expanded the references provided by Elizium23:

• "Pilot". Pan Am. Season 1. Episode 1. September 25, 2011. ABC. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help)
• "We'll Always Have Paris". Pan Am. Season 1. Episode 2. October 2, 2011. 05:56 minutes in. ABC. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help)
• "Ich Bin Ein Berliner". Pan Am. Season 1. Episode 3. October 9, 2011. 09:51 minutes in. ABC. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help)
• "Eastern Exposure". Pan Am. Season 1. Episode 4. October 16, 2011. 06:04 minutes in. ABC. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help)
• "One Coin in a Fountain". Pan Am. Season 1. Episode 5. October 23, 2011. 04:08 minutes in. ABC. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help)
• "The Genuine Article". Pan Am. Season 1. Episode 6. October 30, 2011. 05:22 minutes in. ABC. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help)
• "Truth or Dare". Pan Am. Season 1. Episode 7. November 6, 2011. 08:41 minutes in. ABC. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help)

Any, or all of these can be used to reference the claim that Hult Ganis is the series developer, maybe with the exception of the pilot - credits were scattered throughout it! and I didn't see Hult Ganis. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As it stands now, there is a reliable secondary source that says Hult Ganis is a writer for the show. There is a primary source that DOESN'T SAY she is a writer for the show. Using one to prove the other is synthesis, is not allowed, and makes for original research. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be of the opinion that secondary sources are always more credible than primary sources and this simply is not the case. When there is only a single source that says she is a writer, almost as a passing comment, and multiple sources that do not support the claim and in fact point to her not being a writer by virtue of listing other people as writers, but never her, then the claim made by the single source becomes questionable. It is not original research to question the claim. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You are attempting to use WP:SYNTHESIS to prove your claim. Synthesis is not allowable. It is considered original reasearch. I didn't make the rules, standards, and policies - I'm merely trying to keep this article compliant with those rules, standards, and policies. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Lhb1239, you are confused about the application of the Synthesis policy. It applies to statements in articles, not statements on Talk pages. If anyone wanted to include in the article the statement "Nancy Hult Ganis is not a writer on Pan Am", then that would need to be sourced. But nobody wants to include that statement in the article. Rather, the article should be silent on that issue. We don't need a source for a statement that doesn't appear in the article. Furthermore, you still have not identified any reliable source that describes her specifically as a "writer" on the show. (The one source you keep mentioning refers to her as a "writer-producer".) Mathew5000 (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one who's confused here, Matthew5000. Who said anything about talk page comments and synthesis? (sure wasn't me and I'm pretty certain no one else has either - except for you.....) Lhb1239 (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In your comment of 2011-11-11 22:07 you said that AussieLegend was attempting to use WP:Synthesis to prove his/her claim (i.e. the claim made on the Talk page that Hult Ganis is not properly described as a "writer" of the show). Mathew5000 (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of what I wrote, Matt. My statement re: synthesis was directed at what this discussion is about: changing the content on Hult Ganis. From what he's written here (and what Elizium queried at the original research noticeboard today), I can reasonably assume that both of them are trying to justify a future change of the content through the use of primary sources against secondary sources (which = synthesis). Lhb1239 (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are mistaken. Nobody has proposed that the article be changed to say "Nancy Hult Ganis is not a writer". Mathew5000 (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems that you are the one who is confused about the use of sources and what constitutes synthesis. In our case, we have two conflicting statements from two normally reliable sources: one is a newsblog that reported on facts from months before the series premiered. Six sources are saying something different. Synthesis would be merging two or more coincident assertions to produce a new one. We are making a determination of the reliability of sources. This is subject to the process in WP:IRS. We see from WP:SPS that episode credits are reliable in this case. Full stop. End of sentence. These sources are reliable for this statement. It doesn't matter that they are primary, because they have passed the tests in WP:SPS. Now these sources conflict, so which is correct? One is outdated, and reflects things that were true in March. Seven sources are updated and fully vetted by producers and being run on network TV. We must therefore throw out the newsblog's statement about Hult Ganis as an unreliable statement. (Note that the source is still a reliable source, and may still contain reliable information about other aspects of the show. We've only determined that one assertion is outdated.) We are choosing one source over another, using the process given in WP:IRS. No original research or synthesis has been done. Elizium23 (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on what is stated above by Elizium, Matt....QED. Yes, changing the content in the article by way of synthesis is exactly what at least two of the above editors are trying to do. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTOR and WP:SYNNOT. Also, for God's sake please review WP:IDHT. Elizium23 (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Essays? ROTFL! No thanks, I'm interested in policy, not opinion - I've yet to see a dispute resolved or an article truly improved via opinion-based essays. When the rubber meets the road in WP it's because of policy. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS then. "'Consensus' refers to the primary way in which decisions are made on Wikipedia, and is accepted as the best method to achieve the goals of the project, including neutrality and verifiability." The very nature of consensus is that it is opinion based. Every AfD results in consensus, but there hundreds, maybe thousands, of AfD results that don't reflect policy in one way or the other. I agree with the others here, you are misinterpreting WP:OR. It's not OR to exclude something that's verifiable on the basis that it's dubious by way of the fact that it is not supported by any other sources. Consensus would seem to indicate that it shouldn't be included, and that's policy. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"Consensus discussion has a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense"; "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority." A consensus that goes against policy means nothing. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think that a consensus that goes against policy means nothing, I suggest you become involved in more deletion discussions, because there are plenty where the outcome goes against policy, which is fine, because in most cases the result is for the betterment of the project and the result is justified by application of WP:IAR. However, that doesn't apply here because there is nothing in this discussion that is going against policy, just your opinion of what that policy means. You'll notice that the part you've quoted doesn't just mention policy, it also includes sources and common sense. There is a distinct lack of sources that support your opinion and several sources that specifically support the opposite. Common sense dictates that where a claim is dubious we should leave it out of the article until corroborated by more sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm content for a wise administrator (or more than one) to step in, give their opinion on who has what wrong and so forth. So far, the editor arguments against keeping the Hult Ganis content as is haven't been persuasive - because they seem to fly directly in the face of policy. If an unbiased, uninvolved administrator with good sense and a record of fairness steps in an says I'm out to lunch on this.....well, I'll have no problem saying I'm wrong. I'm not in this to win. Lhb1239 (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The opinions of administrators have no greater weight than any other editor. Administrators simply have a more extensive set of tools. While one might think they may have more extensive experience too, this isn't always the case. Anybody can make comment here and consensus doesn't require a single administrator to pop his or her head in. You already have the opinions of four editors disagreeing with you here, and another at WP:NORN#Pan Am (TV series). Consensus could be determined on that alone. You don't get to say that you won't accept the opinions of others. If consensus is reached (and consensus does not have to be unanimous) you have to abide by consensus, whether you like it or not. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As I stated a couple of days ago, consensus that goes against policy means nothing. More succinctly, consensus that defies policy is invalid. As well, consensus can (and does) change. Further, to repeat what I stated above directly from what already is policy: consensus is "...viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority". Lhb1239 (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As you've been told elsewhere,[3] you can't set yourself aside and declare that you're not going to follow the consensus agreed upon by a group of editors. If consensus is to reword or remove the content from the article, and so far 83% of editors agree that is the best thing to do, you can't ignore it. You have to learn that you need to collaborate with other editors and accept that sometimes things will not be the way you want them to be. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You have it backwards. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Policy reflects consensus. Local consensus, however, cannot override global consensus, which is described by policy. In our case here, local consensus agrees with global consensus, which agrees with policy, and you're arguing against all three. Elizium23 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone thinks I don't have the integrity of the article as my main interest in this discussion, you're mistaken. If anyone thinks I have a desire to blatantly go against policy, you're mistaken again. If either Aussie or Elizium thinks I'm going to fold based on heavy-handed strong-arm tactics and veiled threats, they're wrong. If anyone thinks they can remove referenced content without a formal consensus while an RfC is still active and a noticeboard query issue is also still active and not closed, then you are, once again, wrong. Again - no one has come up with a compelling argument based on policy that has persuaded me in the other direction nor have I as of yet been proven wrong about synthesis as a basis for removing secondarily referenced content. User talk page Harassment and article hounding hasn't helped this issue, either. You want to see things in this article change in your favor? Try doing it according to policy, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. Personally, I'd rather we all come to a pleasant and Wikipedia-beneficial agreement about the whole matter. From what I've seen so far though, I don't have a lot of hope that any of you want or will work toward that. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Cast order

I've just reverted an edit by an editor who feels the cast should be listed in the article as they appear in the credits. I disagree; this is not a fan page, and our responsibility is not to slavishly follow billing that has far more to do with union and contractual issues than a meaningful presentation of cast, and we are not an outlet of ABC. Rather, our job is to present the cast in an order that is meaningful to our readers. This is particularly important with this cast list, where readers who may not be familiar with the characters need to see the cast listed in a way that makes the various jobs clear, as well as the relationship between the Cameron sisters. Drmargi (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. I reordered the cast list for the very reason(s) you mentioned above. Lhb1239 (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree, however I agree it is important for the readers to clearly understand who these characters are, I must stress that no other article on Wikipedia follows your "order" see here a list of several TV shows that list the characters in billing order/credits order, as they should be ordered in this way.

Main article: List of One Tree Hill characters

Main article: List of 90210 characters

Main article: List of Gossip Girl characters

Further information: Characters of The O.C.

I highly doubt you would go and change every article on Wikipedia because the character orders are not in relationship correspondent's. B.Davis2003 (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If anybody disagrees, they should bring it back up for discussion. Anything other than credit order or alphabetical order is more of a fan page. It's a users choice and has no place on Wikipedia. The rules are listed here Please stop reverting good edits that are based on these guidelines. Jayy008 (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, before this goes any further, there are no "rules" governing content save a tiny number regarding censorship, the consensus process absolutely applies, and the reverting needs to stop at the edit I put in place until consensus is reached, per WP:BRD. As for the rules assertion, Wikiproject television is a collaborative group that agrees within itself on how articles should be formatted. It doesn't set rules, and it doesn't have absolute power to govern the appearance or content of articles. It's a problem-solving group, not a cabal of rule-makers. So the assertion that you're "following the rules" is a false one. Worse, the guidelines linked by Jay008 are for the infobox, not the body of the article. Typically, cast are listed in credits order in the infobox early on, then later in the order they join the cast, but if the cast becomes large, with numerous changes, may be listed in some other order (as was done with ER later in its run, where the current season cast was listed). But there are plenty of variations on that which have been put in place by the consensus process. Moreover, B.Davis2003's assertion that no other article lists cast in other than credits order is nonsense; I edit on several in which the cast in the main body of the article are in order established by the various editors who edit the article. The infobox template doesn't govern anything but the infobox, and the discussion Jay08 cites is a long-standing one that comes back up from time to time, as is part of a problem-solving process.

At present, two things are true: we've got an edit war going that needs to stop, and we have no consensus for the edits BDavis2003 made; WP:BRD makes that clear. We need to talk it out and find a solution. The consensus process very much applies here, and must be followed. Drmargi (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, as I said on your talk-page and I'm currently waiting for more users on the Project discussion. If a consensus is reached there and added to guidelines, then we do have to follow it. Unless there's a reason why this show is exempt from it—which I doubt—And as I said on your talk-page, I will no longer be discussing this particular issue directly with you, I don't deal with editors who want to plaster an article with their opinion on who they think should be first. I have to deal with too much Wikipedia:fancruft. Anybody interested in solving the general issue on how the cast should be ordered in the article itself please join the discussion here Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

First, please review WP:CIVIL. Second, there is a huge difference between guidelines and rules, and between editorial judgment and opinion, and none of what we're dealing with is fancruft. What's being exercised her is editorial judgment, as is done on the Wikipedia on a daily basis. The consensus process then balances judgment of individual editors into one mutually agreed-upon decision. Opinion has to do with the substance content, not the presentation of content. Moreover, please remember that the project does not set absolute rules for anything, and consensus by editors on a given article takes precedence. That's well-established all over the Wikipedia. So the question of this article being "exempt" from anything is moot. I'd suggest you go back to the Project and spend some time with experienced editors learning about how the Project actually works and what its goals, and limits, are. Drmargi (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a topical issue, it's a television issue in general and should be discussed at the television project page for future reference. That way if (which is all the time) other editors come into disagreement, there's an archived consensus regarding what should be done on an article. I don't know why you won't discuss it on there as it's not limited to one article. Jayy008 (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I am being civil (regarding WP:CIVIL), considering you calling me "rigid" etc on your talk-page. Making personal comments about a user. Jayy008 (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Says you, expressing your opinion. I disagree. The is a local problem with one article that can be handled on its talk page. The overwhelming majority of issues relating to TV articles are handled at the immediate level: the article's talk page, as guidelines recommend be done. One or more editors is certainly free to bring it up on the Project talk page, but even then, they have no absolute power to enforce policy, simply to add voices to the discussion. You really need to get a handle on what the project can and cannot do, and when things are discussed there, versus here. Remember, too, that consensus only stands until it's challenged. An archived consensus is useful to establish a starting point, but it's not a fixed entity that can't be changed. Drmargi (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware that a consensus only stands until it's challenged as the first thing I said to you was to bring the issue back up for discussion. And nothing has absolute power. Also, I can express as many opinions as I like, but I will never put them into an article. Back on topic - The consensus so far rated 3/2 (one on the project page, you can review), but I'm willing to wait for more voices. Jayy008 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that the article should follow the standards put forth by the WikiProject it is a part of. If relationships among the characters are unclear due to the ordering then we need to do a better job of explaining them in the prose. Elizium23 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

At present, there are none. What we have is two editors trying to create them on the fly by using the project to suit their own edits. That's not how it works. Drmargi (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you know how consensus works, then you know consensus is agreement, not a vote, and all the project can do is express an opinion, not supercede or over-ride the discussion here. Attempting to get around the consensus process on this page by running to a discussion you contend is on the project talk page will get you nowhere. Worse, we're going to get nowhere until you have a grasp of opinion v. editorial judgment. Drmargi (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it goes down to a vote when people can't agree. I've seen it many times when the discuss becomes long. I have simply brought up the issue there, I'm not trying to get around anything, just add voices. And we don't have to get anywhere, on this page alone, three people are for having credit order, so far. It is your opinion because you're trying to decide who should go first and there's no proof that all you're doing isn't putting your favorite characters first. That's my point, doing it your way everybody could do that. People were doing that, which is why I brought the ordering issue up for discussion months ago. Jayy008 (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it happen once or twice on rare occasions and only with the agreement of the group. We're miles from that point, and this discussion may need to go on for days before we even begin to think in that direction, and then only after exercising other established problem-solving methods. Drmargi (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it many times on the music pages (I know this isn't music, but you have been preaching about the discussion process in general). Also, days is how long a discussion should go on for. But I don't know what you're hoping for from this, I'm not going to suddenly agree with you, and three people on this talk-page are weighing the discussion for credit order. I will obviously leave it a couple of days for extra opions, but if nobody else comments, then I will be reverting the edit. Also incase you missed it the first time The order you suggest, makes it easy for people to choose their favorite characters/actors and put them first. There's no evidence to suggest you're not doing the same, which is why your way is complicated. Jayy008 (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that what you've done is announced you intend to unilaterally declare consensus a vote and there by to edit war, don't you? It's time for you to step away and get some perspective. I can pretty much guarantee that any attempts to enforce the so-called vote will result in a speedy revert, and might come back at you in ways you'd rather it not. Please take a deep breath and think again. Drmargi (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't enforced a vote... But there's a consensus so far, but it still needs time. Also, that's the second time you've ignored my point and whole reason why your way won't work on Wikipedia. Jayy008 (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The guideline for these things is to list by billing, and to add later additions to the cast based on the order they joined the series. For instance, The X-Files lists the first two stars in the order they were billed, then each of the remaining three stars in the order they were added to the series as stars. However, one of these actors, Gillian Anderson, is arguably the 'star' of the show, having appeared in the most episodes and having later gained top billing - but she was initially billed second behind Duchovny, as is thus listed second. Same should apply here, ordering by billing. then chronology. GRAPPLE X 20:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's true of the infobox, but not of the main article. It's always been up to editorial discretion how to order cast. Drmargi (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, not subjective. The most objective way of looking at the cast is keeping them in order of their first appearance (i.e. new cast members go to the bottom of the list, even if older cast members are no longer on the show) and using the credits as a guide for cast members that all started at the same time. WP:MOSTV#Cast information even alludes to this, and points out that credit listing is done by the series producers. Keep interpretation and subjectivity out of the equation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Arguing subjectivity v. objectivity in the treatment of content is a reach when it comes to ordering of cast; it's a simple matter of meaningful arrangement that makes the cast easily understood. There seems to be an (erroneous) assumption made that the current and any future arrangements of cast in other than credits order, something that is routinely done all over Wikipedia, is somehow an expression of a given editor's preference for a cast member. That's utter nonsense, and there's no foundation for the assumption it was, or may be, done here. The cast is arranged as it is now so that the flight crew is grouped as they're seen on the show, and so that the Cameron sisters' relationship is easily understood, a perfectly objective approach to ordering the cast. Moreover, I fail to see how the editorial choice to arrange in credits order is somehow imbued with any greater objectivity than any other ordering simply because ABC, SAG and a group of fat-cat agents got together and decided whose contract allows them what billing. That's even sillier. Further, we make editorial judgments about the arrangement of recurring cast routinely. Why is that acceptable while main cast must follow credits in lockstep? That's ludicrous. Lastly,WP:MOSTV#Cast information is absolutely silent on the matter of ordering, which speaks volumes. Drmargi (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if we were allowed to list the cast however we want to, how can you know with such a new series. Only two episodes have aired. It is not at all obvious who has the biggest parts. JDDJS (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea that you're not allowed to list the cast as you wish? Nowhere in the MOS does it state we must order by credits, just a guideline that recommends (key word) that we order by credits order, then order of appearance in the infobox, or reach consensus on an alternative. Drmargi (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, As Drmargi stated, there are no "rules" for how to include a list of casted characters in the body of an article. Jayy008, you tromped over to my talk page and Drmargi's talk page (and yes, I mean "tromped" - not unlike a bull in a china closet) spouting off about "rules are rules" and how the two of us were out of order in how we were viewing the placement of cast on the article page. Problem was, you were talking about standards for the infobox, but that wasn't what was happening, was it? No one owns this article, nor any article in this encyclopedia. We are all expected to work cooperatively and in a manner that shows good faith, yet from what you put on my talk page, Drmargi's talk page, and the article talk page, I saw none of that. Your accusations of "fancruft", not following "the rules" (which isn't even Wikipedia terminology, by the way), that we were editing based on personal opinion, and claims that consensus is out of order here is not only unfair, it's extremely wrong. Hopefully, as the day as worn on, the uncivil and rigid attitude you exhibited earlier today has changed. If it has, then we can have a discussion. If it hasn't, please get back to us when it does and calm, rational discussion based on actual Wikipedia policy and the Manual of Style can commence. Secondly, as Drmargi pointed out, consensus is not a vote, it's an agreement. I, for one, would like to see us come to an agreement on this issue. Next, essentially saying that you will edit war in order to get your way helps no one -- especially not yourself, Jayy008. I don't want to see anyone get their account blocked or this article get locked from editing for a period of time, do you (or anyone else)? So, moving on to some possible solutions: As the cast list in the article body was this morning after I and Drmargi edited (and reverted) it, it made sense because it was, essentially, in order of appearance. I see nothing wrong with how it was at that time and that order is my first choice. If, for whatever reason, a consensus on how it should be cannot be reached, I believe the list should be in alphabetical order and just do away with worrying about who came on the scene when. So, at this time, I'd like to boldly start the building of a consensus here on the article talk page. Thanks for your time. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The only reason and simple reason: Doing it in order of who a user thinks is more important is an easy way for people to put their favourites first. There will never be evidence to suggest that any user is not doing that and only that. Jayy008 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

--"Doing it...is an easy way for people to put their favourites first" Which is why you use editorial discretion when using the "undo" feature when acting as an NPOV editor in the light of possible POV.

--"There will never be evidence to suggest that any user is not doing that and only that." Yeah. That's called utilizing one of the basic, foremost standards required of a Wikipedia editor: "Assuming Good Faith". Lhb1239 (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You can always assume good faith, but if you don't trust the editors intentions—which I do not—then they'll always be an issue. I don't think there's anything else left to discuss, all points have been added. How long do we have to leave the vote for before making the changes? I've never initiated a vote. Jayy008 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not "can...assume good faith", it's always assume good faith (except, of course, in the case of blatant vandalism and/or deliberate disruption). Too bad you don't trust Drmargi or me -- I think it's fair to say that both of us are editors in good standing who have done nothing to deserve your distrust. We've been very upfront from the beginning about why we believe the cast should be listed a certain way and at no time have we indicated our thoughts on this are personal opinion-based or "fancruft" (as you have accused us unnecessarily). Anyway, as far as your comment/question regarding whether there is anything left to discuss and that "all points have been added"......not so fast there, pardner. First of all, there is no deadline in Wikipedia, consensus is not a "vote", and consensus building can take days, not just hours. Since you seem unfamiliar with consensus building, how it works, and what it's really for, it would probably be a good idea for you to read the article on consensus in Wikipedia. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding on to what Lhb1239 said, there is no vote. A WP:RFC is a Request for Comment, a dispute resolution strategy used to separate users' views from the rhetoric in a discussion. Moreover, you do not have the option to unilaterally determine "all the points" (in other words all the editors who wish to comment) have done so. An RfC generally stays in place for some days when an edit is as contentious as this one does. Again, you need to learn about how an RfC works before you engage in editing such as this. Likewise assumption of good faith, which isn't an optional feature when it suits you. It's a prime tenet of Wikipedia, and if you were familiar with WP:CIVIL, you'd know that. It's not our problem that you have trust issues; it's up to you to manage them within the standards of discourse established for Wikipedia and that means assumption of good faith at all times, not just when you trust an editor's motives. You are obligated to assume good faith, particularly in the absence of any evidence that other editors are editing for any other reason but the best interests of the article. Leaving aside the absurd notion that we could prove a negative such as you seem to want to happen, and how utterly insulting your insinuations are, we've seen two episodes of the show, which is hardly time to form an opinion about the characters, much less have a favorite. Ordering of cast by favorite might be an issue practice on the articles for the teen-dream shows cited above, but we're adults here, and we make judgments based on the best interests of the article. Your argument (and opinion) are entirely without foundation and that's an end to it. Drmargi (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "all the points" it's all the points I'm willing to discuss, there's nothing further I feel I need to add to the discussion about the article itself. I find your tone demeaning "If you were familiar with [this], you'd know that." Also, I think you've answered your own argument. You said two episodes isn't enough time to form an opinion of the characters, then it's also not enough time to determine who's important and who isn't. Having things that way you want is BIAS. And nobody here simply gets things the way they want, having a guidelines to follow avoids arguments and disagreements, I don't see why this show should be different from others. Please stop linking to Wikipedia guidelines telling me I don't know them, or I'm not familiar with. It's rude. The only thing I don't know, and haven't been able to discover is a set timeframe and what happens next as only you and one other want the page ordered in a chosen way. Jayy008 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You'd better develop an awful lot thicker skin, get used to the fact editors will point out your lack of understanding of policies and practices when they're in evidence, particularly when they impede appropriate development of an article, and stop telling people what they can and can't do when they write comments. The established practice around her is to link to policies when their are being discussed, particularly when an editor evidences lack of understanding of them. That's considered civil practice; if you care to interpret it as rude, that's another issue you need to get a handle on. I can't speak for Lhb, but I link far less than many editors do. Again, your statement regarding bias is yet another failure to assume good faith. You have no grounds for the assumption, yet continue to make it. An WP:ANI may shortly be in order if this keeps up.

Now you're arguing a second erroneous assumption: that the cast is being ordered by importance. Not so. The cast ordering Lhb did and I am supporting groups the cast into two logical groupings: the cabin crew first, with the senior crew member (the purser) going first and the sisters together, allowing the narrative to be constructed so that the reader to understand their relationship, followed by the cockpit crew. It's a simple, coherent and rational way to group the cast, that has nothing to do with favoritism or importance, just simple comprehensibility. If you choose to put another interpretation on it based on experiences you've had with cast articles (a different type of article than this) where favoritism was an issue, you need to recognize your bias, put it aside and deal with what's at hand here. Drmargi (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I expanded on my request below, link all you want, but please don't try to make a comment/insult after it. And I agree, an ANI is appropriate. Jayy008 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

--"Having things that way you want is BIAS" Which is exactly what was happening when Drmargi and I were told on our talk pages about "rules are rules" when said rules don't even exist.

--"having a guidelines to follow avoids arguments and disagreements" Where are these "guidelines" ("rules") you keep referring to?

--"Please stop linking to Wikipedia guidelines telling me I don't know them, or I'm not familiar with" Sorry, but in a word: no. I will continue to refer to policy because that is the best and only way to keep this discussion on topic and impersonal. Further, you seem to not already know Wikipedia policy and standards. You asked how long we should work on consensus and that you have never even been involved in consensus - which I find strange since (as you markedly pointed out to us early on) you are a Veteran Editor. Because you seem to not understand exactly what is going on, I have been talking (and linking to) Wikipedia policy. Certainly not out of being "rude" (and that's another undeserved, bad-faith accusation, by the way), but in the spirit of being helpful and courteous. You said that opinion doesn't belong here, but now you are saying linking to policy doesn't belong, either? Frankly, I'm confused by the duplicity and ambivalence I read in your statements. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the first comment, I made a mistake as I've already said, so using it against me to enforce your argument is wrong. Also, how I word things is a personal preference, if I want to call guidelines rules, then I don't see what the issue is? A set guideline doesn't exist, Bignole pointed out that WP:MOSTV#Cast information aludes to it "When organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time." I'm not asking you to stop linking to it, I'm asking the other user who has to make a snide comment at the end of every link, to try and insult me. Finally, I'm confused as to if you made it up, or simply really thought I said something I didn't. I've never said I've never been involved in consensus, where did you get that from? I notice how you didn't quote me on it. I said I have never initiated a vote, and that I don't know how long things should go on for as when I read up it's never clear, that's all. So you saying "you have never even been involved in consensus" regarding me is a "lie", unless you simply got confused. Jayy008 (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but that has to do with who is and is not main cast (such as a situation we had to deal with on the article for White Collar, where a main cast member is billed as a guest star), not how they are ordered. The guidelines are silent on ordering. Drmargi (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

But if a cast members is billed as a guest star, then to the producers, they aren't a regular? (Off topic, I know. Don't feel obliged to reply) Jayy008 (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This guy started out what appeared to be a recurring role based on billing, but appeared in every episode of the first season in an increasingly prominent role. When the second season came around, he was treated as a regular in everything but billing, and now appears in the opening title sequence, but mysteriously remains billed as a guest star, despite the producer's statements that he's main cast. Happily, we had multiple reliable sources that allowed us to treat him as main cast, and that's how he's listed in the article. Union contracts and billing negotiations are mysterious things sometimes. Drmargi (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Drmargi, the guideline says "when organizing", which insinuates ordering of cast mates. The fact that it uses the word "organization" instead of "ordering" is irrelevant. Do you actually need an MOS to spell everything out for you (you being "everyone" not you specifically) word for word?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion, which seems to be OK to exercise when it supports one side, but WP:OR any other time. Frankly, your interpretation is one helluva stretch. I read nothing that remotely relates to arrangement or ordering of cast outside of the division between main and recurring/supporting cast. The difference between organization and ordering is a significant and meaningful one, not the irrelevancy you claim. This isn't an issue of everything being spelled out; this is an issue of your interpretation being just that -- your interpretation, based on "insinuation" (a word you've misused in this context) and "alluding" to ordering, something you seem to see is in the guidelines, and I don't. Given the narrow interpretation you're putting on a set of guidelines generally intended for looser interpretation, as is generally the case on Wikipedia, it would seem that ordering needs to at least be explicitly mentioned, if not specifically spelled out, as is done with an infobox. There is a notable and telling difference between the two. Drmargi (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: gender and cabin/cockpit crew - Okay I see what you were going for there. I feel it is unnecessary as this division is still easily gleaned from the text describing each character. If consensus swings to your preferred order, I think it would be more beneficial to note that with subheadings so it doesn't seem as arbitrary at first glance (personally I'd go for the kind using the semi-colon mark up code over an actual subheading). Since you're correct that the Cast section explanation of the TV MOS doesn't actually specify order (or my reading comprehension is really off today), that outcome could very well happen (and given how heated this got, perhaps that is something the TV MOS editors should talk about). I still don't see the point of grouping the sisters together, however. Much like with cockpit vs. cabin crew, as long as their character descriptions note that fact, I don't see what the problem is. How are you grouping the cast within each group (cockpit and cabin, I mean)?Millahnna (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I had actually planned to add the headings you suggest when "cast wars" broke out, and agree that they will go a long way to aiding in comprehensibility. I'm guessing you haven't seen the show; the sisters' complicated relationship is a central plot line. Drmargi (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Seen every episode so far. Kind of waiting for them to get to the meatier stuff of the era that the airline was involved in, myself. But I grok what you're saying. No worries. Millahnna (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Me again. Within the cockpit and cabin crew groupings, how are you ordering the cast? We've already established that I'm having some serious reading dysfunction today so I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something there. Beyond the grouping of the sisters together, is it an alpha sort or something else? Millahnna (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I didn't do the original edit; Lhb did. I believe it's purser (senior stew) first, then the sisters elder first, then Collette. He'd have to speak to why Collette falls where she does. Cockpit crew is the same way: pilot first, then co-pilot. Ideally, I'd rather arrange entirely within the crew structure, labeled as such, and add the (recurring) navigator. We didn't have time to explore that before all this broke out. It's a shame, because no one's thinking about what's best for the article except one or two of us, and we're losing an opportunity to organize and label the cast in a way that helps the reader understand how the characters relate to one another using a simple organizer and concise summaries rather than lengthier summaries alone. Drmargi (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That seems to fit with what's on the page. I'd guess Collete ended up where she did because she was the one left over after Purser and the sisters. And it seems the sisters, then, went first because Kate is the next most senior flight attendant. Collette is, technically speaking, more experienced than Laura but Lhb's idea was to group the sisters together so as to more easily explain their relation to the plot, right? I kind of like your idea about grouping according to rank but this might get confusing if some members of crew are guest or recurring (I'm thinking specifically of the Indian flight engineer whose name I'm blanking on, I think he's been a guest star thus far). Or that may not be much of a deal; just throwing it out there because it's what I do. But I can see how one might feel that helps readers more. Cabin crew also might have potential "down the road" issues if this order is kept. I don't believe the show has clarified beyond the Purser but are the stewardesses ranked? Right now it's basically in order of experience, except for the sister grouping, I think. But is there anything more formal than that once you get past Ricci's character? Millahnna (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We probably should let Lhb weigh in on this; he can clarify the initial thinking. I'm not clear that Collette is more senior than Kate, but it's early days and it's easy to miss details. If she is, she should probably fall right under the purser. I'm not sure adding Raj (the flight navigator) would harm the effort, particularly given he seems poised to appear in the vast majority of the episodes, if we go with crew organization. Drmargi (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

My initial thinking was to list in order of importance to the main storylines. Right now, the plotlines seem to be revoloving most closely around the replacement purser (Ricci's character), the new intelligence operative (Kate), and Kate's sister (the stewardess who is on the cover of LIFE). The character of Colette should likekly come next. From the promos as well as the current storyline, it seems this series is focused way more on the stewardesses and their lives than the storylines of the pilots (which, if you think about it, we really have no backstories on the pilots at all right now - just the stews). Even the pilot/Bridget storyline would go nowhere without Bridget - who is, so far, the focus of that arc. There have only been two episodes aired, so however the story continues to evolve, the cast list can also evolve. Or not. Because of all this arguing, I'm more inclined to see the list be ordered alphabetically - but would still rather see it stay as is. As it is written and ordered, I think it makes more sense from the standpoint of the reader. Let us not forget that we are supposed to be writing this stuff for the benefit of the reader, not ourselves. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Cast list

Requesting comment on the above dispute from neutral editors not originally involved.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Leave the cast list in the body of the article as is

• Support. And, if an agreement between the supporters and the opposers cannot be reached, I suggest we alpha order the cast to take out any possiblity of subjective favoritism from either side of the discussion. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Changing my vote to the new category. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. What-if scenaria, specious arguments about opinion and rules that aren't rules don't hold water. We as editors have the option, and the responsibility, arrange content so as to make it meaningful for readers. The subjectivity/objectivity argument doesn't hold. Drmargi (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Put the cast list in alphabetical order

• Strong Support. I'm changing my original "vote". Seems to me that in the interest of the article's stability, alphabetical order is the wisest course to take here. Eventually, there will be other editors who will come along and disrupt the cast listing if it is listed according to how the show lists the cast. What's more, what if the show changes how they list the cast? We keep changing it according to the whim of the producer(s)/director(s)/network? (this is another problem with the "we do as the network does" argument that's being supported here). Alphabetical order makes sense from a number of angles, not the least of which is that it's obvious to an editor new to the article. Above all, alphabetical order is the only way to stay completely objective about cast listing since it takes all preference out of the equation (Wikipedia editor preference and TV show/network preference). Lhb1239 (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. It's completely objective, easy for everyone to understand, and eliminates any bias, either real or perceived. –BMRR (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Put the list in order according to the show's credits then new cast members at the bottom

• Support JDDJS (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support GRAPPLE X 05:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support B.Davis2003 (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Jayy008 (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Elizium23 (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Easiest way to keep the list objective (barring alphabetical); any order based on a character's perceived importance is inherently going to be WP:OR. Millahnna (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No one supporting the other manner of listing has said anything about a character's importance, perceived or otherwise. Lhb1239 (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies; am I misunderstanding? Re-reading the above discussion, it seems like the debate is how to order within each section (Starring, recurring, etc). An actor's status as a starring/recurring/guest role is dictated by the studio producing the show. I thought the dispute was in regards to the order of the actors in the Main (aka starring) section specifically. What am I missing? Millahnna (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No Millahnna, you're correct. The discussion is about a user deciding who is more important, and ordering that way. Jayy008 (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That is INCORRECT. Please disregard Jayy008's assertion above, as he has a vested interest in misinforming you. We have never, at any time, stated that importance of characters was the reason for the ordering; in fact, we have stated on more than one occasion that is not the reason, nor is an imaginary preference for any given character. Moreover we have, on more than one occasion, noted quite clearly that the ordering is designed to a) group the characters as cabin crew first and cockpit crew second (not by gender as you seem to thing; that's a by-product of the times the show reflects) and b) to allow the reader to understand the relationships among the characters, notably but not exclusively the relationship between the Cameron sisters. It is no more or less objective an ordering than slavishly following the credits, and far more coherent. The comprehensibility of the article has gotten lost in all the nonsense about WP:OR, which doesn't apply and lock-step adherence to imaginary rules. Drmargi (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let me clarify my question (since I gather that "perceived importance" is a note of contention in both camps here); am I misunderstanding the basis for the other manner of listing? What is the logical rationale for listing the cast in the order it has been in? It doesn't seem to be an alpha-sort and unless I'm recalling the show's credits incorrectly, it doesn't seem to separate out the with/and/as roles (often contractual and occasionally indicative of higher salaries thought not necessarily character importance). I've read over the above conversation twice now and I'm still not clear on why the previous order is preferred by those editors who prefer it. The only major differences I can see in the current version is that 1) the sisters are grouped together and 2) the men seem to be grouped together. I don't see how grouping by gender is helpful in any way (honestly it's rather silly) and I'm assuming most people have enough of an attention span that grouping the sisters is unnecessary.

Also, if someone would like, should we move this thread in response to my !vote up to the conversation above instead of here by the !votes? If Jayy and Lhb don't mind having their comments moved I'm fine with that. Just copy my comment I left with my vote so the thread stays coherent. Millahnna (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Given we spelled out on multiple occasions the actual reason for the ordering, I would respectfully request you reread the discussion carefully, since you clearly missed the explanations offered. As a comprehension aid, I have added a third presentation of that explanation just above. Drmargi (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Jayy008 (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - This is the best way to stay objective and remove any subjectivity from the decision. The guideline for article structure, WP:MOSTV, even states this about cast sections (not just infoboxes).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Grouping by credits is no more objective than any other grouping. You're making a subjective decision by doing so. Drmargi (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It is because we ourselves are not deciding anything it's the most objective thing you can do. Jayy008 (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

But that's the point you repeatedly miss. You are deciding, given the guidelines are silent. Drmargi (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not deciding anything, the producers have, I'm simply using an order already laid out. Last comment in this section. Jayy008 (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

But that's the decision you're making -- to use the producers' order versus some other. There are no guidelines recommending or requiring we do so, explict or implied, and as such, is just as subjective as any other ordering. See below. Drmargi (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That's ridiculous to say an order made by somebody, the most important part of the show, is subjective. I am not deciding what I want based on who I want first. There's no evidence to suggest you've put the cabin crew first because you like them better, or you like a certain sister better. Jayy008 (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

But that's not what I'm saying. What is subjective, given the established lack of guidance from the guidelines, is your decision to use the producers' order. And you're correct, there's no evidence (not that this is an evidentiary issue) we've put anything in any order because of preference, as we've attempted to state over, and over, and over again. It's you who keeps insisting otherwise, despite our repeated explanations to the contrary. Drmargi (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking in general terms. If you claim that you're not putting them in the fan-order you like then I can chose to believe or not believe. It's a general issue, and on other article without a guideline that every can follow will avoid fandom. Also, I don't get why you do not understand that an order determined by a third-party source, is a way to avoid arguments and be the most objective of all. I will no longer discuss this issue with you individually, I have no more to add as I've explained my case and will await what the objective user has to say when he/she responds below. Jayy008 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And we're back to lack of assumption of good faith, used to somehow cast yourself as objective and others as subjective. All that's being misunderstood here is you failing to understand the difference between the objective construction of the producers' list and the subjective application of that list. Using that list is one way to subjectively settle (but clearly not avoid) an argument, not the only way -- there are others, as can be seen here. Drmargi (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bignole, Drmargi is correct, I think, in that we don't actually specify an order for the cast section on a series page in the relevant portion of the MOS. I may be remembering wrong (or remembering something from the fim project and not TV) but I think there was a conversation last year about what this means generally for the project. I recall some editors saying they didn't really care how a cast list was organized as long as it had some logical rationale that was easy to track (Alpha, billing, whatever) and others having more precise preferences. But I'm wondering if this isn't something we should nail down to avoid future content disputes of this magnitude? I'm generally more for a little bit of flexibility but I thought I'd toss the idea out there. Millahnna (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely best to have a set guideline for future reference. Jayy008 (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Generally support since it's an obvious ordering that no-one can fight about. However, I do not support this ordering approach when the initial main cast is very large ( >=10, think Lost, Carnivàle or Game of Thrones). I see those articles tend to describe the cast in prose though, so the subjective ordering may be a non-issue there. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Requesting opinions at WT:MOSTV#Organizing cast members in a cast section. Jayy008 (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should cast be ordered only in credits order, or can editorial judgment as to best ordering be applied

We have gone around in circles recently about the assertion, gleaned from very, very lose interpretation of MOS guidelines governing organization of main v. recurring cast, that cast in TV article main text (not in the infobox or in a list of cast article) can only be arranged in credits order, and that any other ordering is WP:OR. The cited section of the MOS is silent on ordering aside from a guideline assisting in the determination of what cast is main cast. We have attempted to group the cast in two meaningful groups: cabin crew first, then cockpit crew, so as to assist in developing clear and coherent narrative descriptions of the various characters. There is no preference for characters or judgment on importance of characters stated or implied. Moreover, we contented the overly narrow interpretation of a very broad guideline materially harms the article. Drmargi (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The summaries should be written in a good enough way to describe the characters. If a user reads the summaries and can't tell their role on the show then they're poorly written. If they need to be ordered a certain way to understand, then they're also poorly written. Jayy008 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Any good manual of style highlights the importance of meaningful ordering of information as a key tool in assuring the clarity and comprehension of written material. Drmargi (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

But again, who are you to decide what's meaningful and what's not? It's the producers show and they've determined who is more important. Jayy008 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The producers decide what's important yes. But we're talking about what's meaningful in the context of the article, a totally different discussion. That's for us as editors to determine, within the boundaries of Wikipedia practice. Drmargi (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is the project of those who edit it. Individual articles about people, things, TV shows, etc. aren't owned by nor is the content decided by those people, the inventors of those things, or the producers of those TV shows. We're not bound to anything within those articles other than verifiability over truth and creating encyclopedic content that is readable and understandable and useful for the reader(s). Lhb1239 (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"But again, who are we to decide what's meaningful and what's not?" Jayy008 (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would notate who/what you are quoting above. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic, related discussion

Myself and just to make it clear, half of the people who support the credit order list I didn't personally ask for their opinion on the matter. Also, there seems to be a clear consensus on the matter so far. However, I feel that you, nor drMargi, are willing to back down even at the end. Jayy008 (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Jayy008, it is my opinion that you seriously need to do two things here (based on your latest comments just above this post as well as what you've been saying/claiming over the last two days).

(1) Stop looking at personalities in this issue and commenting on editors, rather than edits and solutions to issues brought up by those edits.

(2) Stop thinking of the discussion over this issue as a "war". Wikipedia is not a battleground, and editors are not supposed to be warriors who are fighting. Enabling statements such as "we will prevail" is antithetical to what editors are supposed to be doing here. Using the terminology "back down" shows a mind-set that indicates a warring mentality and is, I believe, a mentality that is detrimental and unhelpful not only to this issue, but to you as an editor and Wikipedia as a whole. It really all comes down to this: do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution? Fighting your way through this (as you've been doing since the beginning) while concentrating on editors is part of the problem; discussing civilly and concentrating on developing the article to be understandable to the reader is part of the solution.

Your choice.

Lhb1239 (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

1) "Stop looking at personalities in this issue and commenting on editors" which was what you and Dr.Margi have been doing on either or of your talk-pages, discussing me, my motives etc. Also, I did not say "we will prevail" that's the second time you've twisted my words. The first was much more blatant, a complete lie making up something I never said. There doesn't seem to be a solution, there's two outcomes to it, credit order or DR. Margi's order. I've discussed and weighed in on everything as much as I can. It's tiresome. But there's a clear consensus, I have nothing further to add. Jayy008 (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I challenge you to show anywhere on any talk page where I have discussed you, personally. No, you didn't say "we will prevail", and I never claimed you did, did I? Again, you are accusing me of twisting your words/lying about you and, again, concentrating more on editors (and any perceived slights other editors may or may not have directed toward you) than on edits and articles. If you look past what you're taking personally you'll see that I've given you some good advice. Yes, this whole thing has been tiresome. Even more tiresome is the continued baseless accusations about the motives and actions of other editors. If you continue in that vein and ignore the advice I've offered, this whole thing could end up badly for you. I'd hate to see that happen. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Jayy, you've lost sight of who is doing what. Lhb did the credit ordering under discussion. I'm simply supporting it. I've split this out from the RfC, since it's wildly off-topic, is interfering with the conduct of an RfC and has mostly to do with what's already been discussed above and/or happened on one or more talk page, a discussion that should remain on the talk page(s) in question. I would prefer to put in a section heading and make this a new section, thus opening up the bottom of the RfC again, if no one objects. Drmargi (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It went off topic, but the first point I made was perfectly relevant and I'm adding it back. The other stuff, I don't have a preference as to what is done. Jayy008 (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Right now there's more drama on this talk page than there is on the TV show. I say put it in alphabetical order and call it good enough. –BMRR (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It may all be academic in a couple weeks at the rate the ratings are falling. Drmargi (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@Drmargi, perhaps. Jayy008 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Uninvolved, via RFC - follow the style guides for the encyclopedia - present cast in credits order. Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Critical Reception

The extended quote from the Association of Flight Attendants does not seem to be "critical reception" but more of a political point. Does it belong in this section? William Alan Ritch (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you caught that. Reading it again in the context of "Critical reception", it really does seem out of place, doesn't it? And - I can't really figure out where it should go in the article is it is currently. I suppose we could put it in its own section, but that seems kind of like undue weight to put it in its own section. Any ideas? Lhb1239 (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I had questions about that quote when I first saw it, but shrugged them off. Now that it's being discussed, I'd say it probably doesn't belong anywhere. It's a self-serving press release (read "primary source") without any secondary sources establishing it as being noteworthy. It's certainly not "critical reception". If reference to the statement must be kept, it could be placed in the "Production" section, either at the end following the authenticity paragraph or just before that paragraph, following the content about Nancy Ganis' background research. In any case, I'd prefer eliminating the block quote and substituting a paraphrase if someone can extract something meaningful about the show from all the self-congratulation in the release. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say it should go altogether, but not totally convinced at this point. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed it. Placed it below, just in case. William Alan Ritch (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"The world's largest flight attendants' union, the Association of Flight Attendants, issued the following statement regarding the series:

The premiere episode of the new Pan Am drama on ABC may be a nostalgic escape to the days before deregulation, but it also highlighted the myriad of social injustices overcome by the strong women who shaped a new career. Weight checks, girdle checks, the no marriage rule, sexism, gender discrimination, racism – all of this was challenged by intelligent, visionary women who helped to usher in the call for social change throughout the country and around the world."

Removing it before others could comment was premature. After all, there is no deadline in Wikipedia. I added it back - with a little more of the actual quotation. I also put in more of an introduction to why the quote is significant and renamed the section it's placed in. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Talking of the reception section, it is a little biased isn't it? Considering the show has nabbed somke bad reviews. Any plans to add some?RaintheOne ^BAM 06:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Episodes / DVD release date

My view here is that the table in the Episodes section does not need the "DVD release date" feilds as it is suggesting there is going to be a DVD release - there is no evidence to suggest that there may even be a DVD release in any region. Has anyone got any information or evidence that there are talks about one. If so I take back what I said. If no then can we talk about removing its inclusion as it has the power to be misleading.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's fairly common to include DVD release date sections in series overview tables. I don't see this as an implication that there will be a DVD release (the likelihood is high though based on most other TV shows) as the use of {{N/a}} indicates that the fields are "Not Applicable" at this time. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean Aussielegend - these TV shows nearly always have DVD releases, but that isn't to say this one will. We don't deal in chance, only fact. Adding the field and the use N/A is often used when the is a confirmed DVD release but no set date. With no confirmation it will make it to DVD, means we are asserting there will be a DVD. We are essentially telling the general reader, "There will be a DVD release but at this moment in time, there is no information available, but there will still be one". Which is false information. But as I said initially, I totally get your point, it is quite likely it will.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a little bit WP:CRYSTAL to include the DVD fields at this time so I've gone ahead and commented out the fields for now. They can always be uncommented when there is a confirmed DVD release. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Well I will create a google news alert for incase any DVD information is released.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)