Talk:Reign (TV series)

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stubilan. Peer reviewers: Lmlambe3, Bambiwikipawdia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect?

Why does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Williams_(actress) redirect here? I noticed this when viewing the Changeland TV series page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.115.49.5 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information

The editing of the first episode to remove sexual content that was present in copies sent for media review attracted widespread non-trivial media attention. This needs to be included. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, any specific references you'd like to be used? AD (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Front page

Main articles should NOT have posters to represent the article. All TV shows use their logo or title screen to display their show.

For further examples;

One Tree Hill (TV series) Pretty Little Liars Neighbours

Character tenures also are more accepted than the previous list. It also provides users with a better viewing experiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Davis2003 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts with ~~~~. I've kept the logo, that's perfectly acceptable and widely used within television articles. However, the form of table that you are putting across is deprecated and no longer used per many discussions at WT:TV. They may be sparingly used for series that have had an extremely high number of seasons and cast changes; definitely not a show with a mere (so far) three seasons. And episode counts for characters are no longer used per WP:TVCAST: The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g. (# episodes), to indicate the number of episodes in which the actor/character appeared. We are not here for a pleasant viewing experience, we are here for information. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is what you want presented, the best way is to have it in a clean and clear matter - currently that isn't the case. B.Davis2003 (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the current listing isn't in a "clean and clear" matter - it's certainly better than a table full of accessibility issues. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is the table "full of accessibilities issues" The table outlines the character tenures over the course of the series, giving the viewer a clear idea of what they are looking at. If you can't see that, then I would like to open this discussion up to others. The current list view is a mess and looks terrible. Hardly gets the information across to the reader. B.Davis2003 (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current list gives identical information to the reader that the table does. Character names, cast names, seasons of main and recurring. And this discussion is on a public page, so it's already open to others. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, so what is the issue of making it more "clearer" to readers? You're making an issue out of an edit that has (as you pointed out) the same information, but presented in a better fashion, something that is still used across numerous TV show pages on Wikipedia. B.Davis2003 (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is a table of colourful cells, bolded text and unnecessary episode counts clearer than a simple list of "ACTOR as CHARACTER"? And I'm not making an issue over it; tables of this format have been discussed time and time again over the past several years, and the consensus of the Television WikiProject is to not use them. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Character table

The character table is a current format that most articles use on Wikipedia. The table meets standards, it is clean and easier to read for the user. Examples of TV Show pages that use this format.

As the examples show, this is a CURRENT and ACCEPTED format used. B.Davis2003 (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect in many of your statements. "Most" articles do not use the tabular format, due to (as per the notes you have most clearly ignored), they are deprecated per many and multiple discussions at MOS:TV. You will also note that the table only describes the characters of the series, in which you have only linked articles that related primarily to the characters of series, and not to the parent articles themselves. Please gain consensus for this format before you re-implement it. You were already warned after trying to add multiple tables of this sort to One Tree Hill. And fully enough, I just noticed that we had exactly the same discussion in the section above, three months ago. And where did that end up going? Alex|The|Whovian^? 17:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so 99% of the articles using this format are wrong? Ok Alex, you go ahead and changed every TV show article using the CORRECT table as you insisted to be used on the One Tree Hill character page on Wikipedia. When your done, I'll give you a gold star. B.Davis2003 (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, link the articles that use the table on the parent article, and I just will. Drop the sarcasm. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Alex, go to Beverly Hills 90210, Melrose Place and change the innocent tables, please prove your argument. B.Davis2003 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now link me to a valid table for a series that has only four tiny seasons with bare cast changes. By all means. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to. What you're asking is not the reason why the table should or shouldn't be used. Your arguments for removing the table are invalid in ALL of the EXAMPLES of the TV show articles that I have provided. B.Davis2003 (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are acceptable (just) since they have so many cast changes, and so many seasons. It adequately describes the changes in the cast. It is not necessary for a mediocre show of only four seasons with barely any changes. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not justified when shows like these (with "tiny" seasons as you describe Reign) use this table format.

The Real Housewives of Miami

Your argument to not use the table has been made invalid with all my examples. Until the tables are updated or change in format across wikipedia, I will reinstate the table that is accepted in use across wikipedia. B.Davis2003 (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last two you linked at LoC articles, and I agree that the first one really don't need it - thanks for linking so I can update it. If you disagree, you can contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Cast and characters section, one section of which is in relation to cast tables. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should also update these articles as the tables are not what YOU like.

I can go on if you want. There are at least a thousand other shows I can give you to help occupy your time since you're always on here. I've had a look at the discussion page, and many users point out my POV and agree with the current table. Many of the comments argue about where the tables should stay be; on the main page or the character page. Since Reign doesn't have a LOC page, its appropriate for the table to be on the main article page. I will reinstate the table shortly. B.Davis2003 (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would recommend that you go through the archives at WT:MOSTV and WT:TV, and read the discussions that have formed the current consensus against the tables (I believe that there was one on the Arrow talk page too); the discussion I linked is ongoing and does not give any standard for current practice. Please, go on. Some of us actually enjoy editing Wikipedia and improving it. If you reinstate it, you will be reverted again. You have no support or consenus for it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And when it comes to Reign, you have no support or consensus either! Currently it is the two of us! With your argument that the table is not suitable, yet almost 90% of TV show articles USE the TABLE! Who the are you to dictate what should or should not be used, when the consensus is already in support of the CURRENT table!!!! B.Davis2003 (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have the support of the deprecation of these tables from multiple discussions, discussed by multiple editors, whereas you do not. And your statistics are wildly inaccurate. Most television series articles use the examples supported by and listed at MOS:TV - your cast table is not even supported by a guideline. This is a discussion between editors - do try to remain calm. Cheers. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking to a brick wall. How can a table that is used on one TV show article page be accepted but not on anther one?! B.Davis2003 (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insults will not make this discussion go by any faster. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And trying to get you to see that your argument is invalid by every other TV article page on Wikipedia using this format is also getting me nowhere. I've noticed you have not changed any of the "INCORRECT" tables from the examples above... Proves my point doesn't it? B.Davis2003 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies that I haven't had the time to update the articles, I'm trying to socialize and run a website at the same time; never fear, they will be updated. And every other article does not use the table. Again, most articles follow the guidelines given by MOS:TV. Insults and incorrect statistics. This discussion definitely isn't going anywhere. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not incorrect when the evidence speaks for itself Alex. Some fresh eyes and opinions is definitely needed. B.Davis2003 (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. Suggest an alternate consensus at the discussion linked. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Reign (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]