Talk:The Blacklist/Archive 1

Reception truthyness

I find no trace in the (a) USA Today's Robert Bianco The Blacklist review I found of it being called the fall's best new drama, as the series' ads claimed. I do see "USA TODAY review for 'The Blacklist': *** ½ out of four". I wonder if the ad misrepresent's USA Today's views of the drama, or if there's another explanation. I wonder if the others check out (5 Stars per the SF Chron, a "Surefire Hit" per the AP?) --Elvey (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grey / Newton Phillips

Are there two persons named "Grey" in this show? and why is Grey called Newton Phillips and the banker called Grey?

Something is not quite right here, can someone knowledgeable about this show correct this please? 98.203.247.11 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why was series 1 in 2 parts

Why was the first series down in 2 parts? Amanda138a (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first part was a special that was shown on a Sunday with the second part shown in its regularly scheduled time the following Monday. 98.203.247.11 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too many spoilers in the cast list

What it says. Those need to be rewritten and the spoilers removed entirely from the article. Its one thing to find things like that in an episode description, but something else entirely to find it like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.167.252 (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just say remove it! Don't say re-write it- nobody will! Unfortunately I didn't realise that just glancing at the cast/character list would hit me with the profound type of decision-changing spoiler- the decision being whether to still go for this series or not! (if it's not just uncool to be so late to the show that is). In truth though I did know better whether to look at pages like this one or not, but I still feel cheesed off to be frank. I'm certainly not going to look at this text again (the standard call to 'go remove' what offends is always ridiculous). I just think that the word 'why?' isn't used well at all on Wikipedia- it's typically more about 'do'. But doesn't why always need to be asked first? And if someone wants to remove what they see? Then it's so often about the word 'don't'. But it's only then can you realistically posit why? It leads to endless commotion. This place was originally intended to be an information aid, not a personalised fan site, a platform or portal for further exploration, not 'the last word' on anything in any sense of the term. The ability to be comprehensive (and competition too imo) meant it diversified pretty quickly into providing all kinds of news. But is stuffing like this even news? This place is still crammed full of needless and often in some way divisive padding. Isn't there already too much stuff in this world without so much additional digital trash to soak up our time (and, with it's increasing carbon footprint, to some degree our actual space)? Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.54.223 (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPOILERS we do not refrain from adding spoilers to an article if the content is otherwise useful. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be 'We' as in true Wikipedians? I have to ask you, 'Per' apropos to what? How is the above 'otherwise useful'? (If my comment was tldr- and why respond to it if it was- this needless spoiler is in the Cast/Characters list, not the plot breakdown.) Whatever may theoretically happen, people will often look at the Cast for actors, not for such details in the plot (there is another section for the story). Defending such a spoiler is a classic case of re-fastening guideline use above applying common sense. And (interestingly to me) it shows an all-too typical lack of actual interest in both the argument posed (which means the reader too) and the very subject itself - which is so often the case on here. It always left me scratching my head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.54.223 (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We, as in all editors of Wikipedia. Since the policies and guidelines apply to all editors.

You are right that spoilers are usually in a plot section, not the cast list (there recently was a similar discussion at Hunters (2020 TV series)).

I couldn't follow the rest of your arguments. Debresser (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International broadcasts

I don't believe it's necessary to Wikilink each country listed in this section per WP:OVERLINK. They are not particularly relevant to understanding anything about the article at all; they just give where these various TV stations are located. Most like Portugal, etc. are linked, but Germany is not. Germany not being linked does not make the article as a whole any more difficult to follow than it would be if Germany was linked. So, I have removed these Wikilinks. In addition, a piped link would be better for LNK (like was done for RNL) per WP:LINKSTYLE so I have added that as well. Finally. I have fixed the way the time is displayed per MOS:TIME: small case letters and a hard space should be used for am/pm. - Marchjuly (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation cleanup, etc.

I tried to cleanup the citations per WP:CITEVAR so that they followed the same WP:CITESTYLE. Some of them were also not using citation templates so I added them as needed. Moreover, some of the links were dead, so I added archived links whenever possible. I also filled in more of the template parameters whenever possible.

When cleaning up the links, I found some of the TV channels had Wikipedia articles written about them, so I wikilinked them whenever possible. I also did some editing and rearranging of the International broadcasts section to make it work a little better. I actually think this section might be easier to understand if a table was used instead, especially since a table would make it easier to add more channels as needed. Perhaps that is a topic worthy of future discussion.

I think I caught one error regarding the Swedish, Denmark and Norway broadcasts. The original text made it seem like the show was broadcast on TV3 in on all three countries. The Deadline Hollywood source says something slightly different. So, I moved the info for Germany closer to that of the other three countries to make it easier to cite them all with the DH source.

I probably should have made more incremental changes, so hopefully I didn't screw things up too badly. If I did, then my apologies in advance. Please revert whatever mistakes I made as needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Season Finale Awards?

That's nothing more than a poll by EW. I believe the awards section should be limited to actual award ceremonies. Chunk5Darth (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afd: Raymond Reddington

Please see the deletion discussion for the article Raymond Reddington: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Reddington. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Blacklist

I'm not sure why this section is in the article. Can any of the information on "The Blacklist" be verified by reliable sources? Seems like lots of original research to me. Right now, all we have is a pretty large table filled with lots of question marks. This section was added by 85.159.97.2 with this edit. 85.159.97.2 left a note that says "Please do not change the layout of the following table without first discussing it on the talk page and reaching consensus to do so.", but I cannot find anywhere on talk where this major expnasion was discussed at all before being added. Of course, there's nothing wrong with being bold, but I think it's time to discuss whether this section is actually an improvement or not. Personally, I think the mention of the list given in the lede is more than sufficient for the reader to at least understand where the title of the show comes from and that any further explanation of the list should be done using prose per WP:PROSE. As it is, I don't see any value of having this table in the article at all, but perhaps it could be split off as a stand-alone list per WP:SAL. Anyway, I am interested in hearing what others may think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that only 31 of the 161 names filled in the list (assuming it would last 161 or so episodes), with the other 130 of them having nothing more than question marks, it seems pointless to include this list in the first place. Besides, the episode list has the numbers anyway. Also, The Blacklist wiki has an entry on it. I wouldn't rule out linking this somewhere. -- Matthew RD 21:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to include more detailed information about "the list" and its significance as long as that information is supported by reliable third-party sources and in prose (as opposed to a table), but I'm not sure if "The Blacklist wiki" satisfies WP:UGC. Perhaps it would be OK to add a link to that wiki as an external link per WP:ELMAYBE. Regardless, the table in it's current form has no real encyclopedic value in my opinion and should be removed from the article per WP:UNSOURCED. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the Blacklist wiki as an external link, it fails WP:ELNO " Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. The Blacklist wiki has 43 editors. It can't be used as an external link, and definitely can't be used as a reliable souece. - X201 (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification X201. I was pretty sure that wiki couldn't be used as a reliable source per WP:UGC, but not so sure whether is was OK to use as an external link. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The list" has been edited numerous times within the past few days, and each edit appears to be nothing more than the "original research" of particular person making the edit. Some editors even seem to be confusing the numbers on the list for the episode numbers like with this edit. No sources are being provided for any of the information being added or removed and nothing is being added about the significance of the list as a plot point. This appears to be nothing more than just a "list" (A "Who's who" perhaps?) with very questionable reliability and no supporting sources provided in support. So I suggest in be removed per WP:UNSOURCED, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list should not be here in the first place. It's purely fancruft (pardon the term). There is no context as to why this is important. It's only purpose seems to be to list everyone that Raymond has given up to the FBI. There's a plot summary for the episodes that does this very thing. This type of information is best left to a Wikia. This is even more true when you think that the list of episodes page lists everyone there. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. Chunk5Darth (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why create a section for their number? If I'm not mistaken, isn't the actual title of the episode "Number X: Name"? Obviously, there's no colon, but my point is that the number appears with the name. So, isn't that part of the title then? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rswallis10: (Note:This was intended to be a response to a post by Rswallis10, but they removed their comment while I was editing mine.) The list, in another form, was previously removed from the article per the discussion in this thread. The consensus was that the information wasn't an improvement and was unsourced. Your version of the list looks different, but it is essentially the same in content: Just a list of names with no mention made of its significance to the series and no reliable sources provided in support. The information may be true, but verifiability is more important that truth on Wikipedia. FWIW, I can see possibly adding text which discusses the significance of the list, it's use to drive the story, or how it is being interpreted by reliable sources to the article, but in my opinion there is no real encyclopedic value in adding a list of "bad guys" and indicating whether they are dead. Not everything about a particular subject needs to be included in its Wikipedia article and this kind of list is probably more appropriate for a fan page or specific site devoted entirely to the show than Wikipedia. I'm happy to discuss this further, but I wasn't the only editor who felt the list didn't belong in the article. So, it would help if you could be more specific as to why you feel the list belongs and, if possible, which Wikipedia policies and guidelines you think support its inclusion in the article. Perhaps by doing so, you might be able to achieve a consensus in favor of re-adding the list to the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Do you think the list would serve a greater purpose on a page such as "List of The Blacklist characters" as it is essentially a list of the "bad guys" of the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rswallis10 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC+9)

I'm not sure. List of The Blacklist characters seems to be focused on "main characters" and "recurring characters". I would consider most of the people on "the list" to be "guest stars" appearing in a single episode. So far, only the "Pavlovich Brothers" have appeared in multiple episodes, but I'm not sure if even they would be considered recurring. I guess it might be possible to add a new section for "the list" to the "List of Blacklist characters" article, but whatever is added should be written out using prose and not simply be a list of names and episodes in a table. It would also be best to be able to provide some kind of reliable sources in support so that other editors can verify the names are on the list and the order they are listed; Otherwise, another editor could simply remove what was added per WP:UNSOURCED and WP:NOR. Finally, there is the question of whether such information is really needed at all since essentially the same information that was in your table and the previous table with all the question marks is already provided in the "Blacklist Guide" column of the episode tables in List of The Blacklist episodes. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I have a couple opinions on this. First, putting everything in the table in prose would ruin the entire point of having the information in the first place. The actual show is called "The Blacklist" and the entire show revolves around Red's blacklist. This table provides the namesake of the show, and it makes it really easy to quickly see everyone on the Blacklist which, in my opinion, is the most intriguing part of the show. This show is basically a guaranteed renewal for Season 3 according to the Cancellation Bear on tvbythenumbers.com, that means this list of criminals is going to get REALLY LONG.

Maybe it would be beneficial to make this list a Wikipedia page of its own that links to "The Blacklist" main page. I can always add more information to the table; including "country of origin," or "crimes committed" to make it more comprehensive. As for the sourcing aspect, it's starting to seem that bureaucracy is getting in the way of common sense. I understand having to source the viewership numbers, or even the name of the next episode, but I don't understand having to source the information in this table. Everything in the table comes from the episode itself which already aired, the source would be the actual episode. People don't have to source the information found in the short summaries because it was all IN the episode. Once an episode airs, the citations of get removed from the "List of Episodes," I don't see why this table shouldn't be the same way. You called what I did "original research," however it's not research, I viewed all of the episodes, and everything in the table can be found in the episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rswallis10 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC+9)

FWIW, I didn't remove your version of the list from the article because it was "original research"; I removed it because the consensus was that such a list was not needed in the article. Your version of list contained basically the same information as the "list with all the question marks" and basically the same information given in the episode tables in List of The Blacklist episodes#Epsodes. For sure, your list was formatted better, but formatting wasn't the only reason why the other version was removed. My edit sum did say "The consensus was that this list was not needed. If you'd like to propose adding it in another form, then please do so per WP:BRD at 'Talk:The Blacklist (TV series)#The Blacklist)'". I am only one editor. So, if other editors, including those who commented above, feel that your version of the list is an improvement over the previous version and should be re-added, then a new consensus will be established and everything will be good. You can try to achieve this either through editing or discussion.

Finally, and this is just my opinion, it's not details of the list (e.g., the individual names on the list, their respective crimes, where they are from, whether they are still alive, or how many people they killed, etc.) which are important. All of this information can be included in episode plot summaries. Rather, it's the significance of the list to the show (i.e., how it is used to by the show's creators to drive the various storylines, how it was originated, and how it is being covered and interpreted by reliable sources) which is important. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I think the list may warrant a page of its own. What do you think it would take to make that happen? What do people want in it to make it worthy of a page? It's takes a while to find information and put it in the table, I want to know what to put into it before I ask for a concensus. I do still keep the table in my sandbox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rswallis10 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC+9)

Personally, I don't think the list warrants it's own article, but maybe that's just me. I gave my opinion above on how information about it might be incorporated into this article. Stand-alone lists are subject to the same requirements as any other new article, e.g., WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPV, etc. You can trying creating a draft using WP:AfC, submit it for review and see what the reviewer says. If your draft is accepted into the mainspace, then great. If not, then the reviewer should leave comments on how you might be able to improve the draft. You can also move the draft into the mainspace yourself if you feel it satisfies all relevant policies and guidelines and, thus, does not need to be reviewed. There are not guarantees regardless of whichever approach you take, but be aware that once the article has been added to the mainspace, it can be edited, proposed for deletion, proposed for merging, etc. by any editor; In other words, the article is not yours so the way you envision the article when working on its draft may not be the way it eventually turns out. If you've never created an article before or are not too familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then I suggest going through AfC and using WP:WIZARD. If you want to see what types of things are generally considered acceptable for stand-alone lists, then check out WP:FA and WP:GA. Look for similar articles and see what other editors have done. Sorry, but I not sure what other advice I can give. Perhaps others watching this page have other suggestions. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article talk pages are for discussing ways to improve articles. Per "Wikipedia's talk page guidelines: Behaviour that is not acceptable", talk pages are not intended to be forums for general discussion of the topic.

:::::::: What a lot of wasted time and space over an illogical, badly constructed and ridiculously acted TV entertainment. Tell me what relevance any of this will have in five or ten years? I had always assumed that an encyclopedia shound contain information, presented fully and concisely, that will explain the subject and which may have some relevance to something. Guess I was wrong - here we have more than one could imagine, spewed out by a vapid actress and a onetime star who is counting his income whenever he speaks. And the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.37.136 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hisham Tawfiq promoted to series regular for Season 3.

Here's the source from Deadline. Npamusic (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is something worth adding to the article. I'm just not sure that where you added is the best place for it. That particular section is just a simple list of names and brief character descriptions, so the extra text and source you added seems oout of place. I removed the information about Tawiq that was accidentally deleted when your edited was reverted. I also re-added the information you added, but I have hidden it for the time being until it can be further discussed and a better place found for it. I think the source and information has value, but maybe it would be better added to the lede instead. Anyway, let's see what some others think. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Spader

I am editing the page of James Spader and would like some feed back on my ideas. If there is any way some one can check out the bottom of his talk page that would be great. --Joshewuh2 (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Joshewuh2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshewuh2 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Ruining the Show

Can we please remove deceased from the character descriptions on the main pages? I just wanted to look up an actor's name, not find out that they die in an episode I haven't seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3391:99C0:6130:EB2E:E175:19AE (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fulcrum

No mention. Koro Neil (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Blacklist (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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecesary, unencyclopedic Reddington Spoilers

I'm very lax about spoilers, but the description of Raymond Reddington under "Cast of Characters" is ridiculous to the point of violating the spirit of WP:SPOILER. Those revelations come in Season 4 and Season 5, and that policy says affirmatively that "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." Including them in a one-sentence explanation of the character doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose because that information (especially whatever him being an imposter means) isn't a core part of his character for most of the show.

In anticipation of someone quoting "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot", I am not saying that it should be removed solely because it spoils the plot. I'm saying that the information does not affirmatively serve the encyclopedic purpose of that section as it is right now. If his character description on this page were expanded beyond one sentence, including this information may become appropriate, but I think such a move would be fairly redundant. That info is certainly appropriate for the List of The Blacklist characters article and the individual articles on the Seasons, where it already appears. lethargilistic (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a police procedural?

It fits the definition from Police procedural. It's certainly not a conventional procedural in that you can't watch in any order, but I'm not sure that matters.

Megan Boone described it as "a very character driven procedural" and Tim Goodman said "it's a procedural ... but there's an over-arching element to the premise".

I think "police procedural" should definitely be added to the genres in the infobox, and possibly the lead sentence too (as "The Blacklist is an American crime thriller–police procedural television series ..."). Nloveladyallen (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't police, rather the FBI. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the FBI is as much police as NCIS is, and we consider NCIS (TV series) a police procedural. Nloveladyallen (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Raymond Reddington?

While throughout the series the true identity of the man we see as Raymond Reddington has been left ambiguous, never in the series has the true identity been revealed. Information and details used should remain within the limits of what is known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:1E07:2200:BDC3:34CB:1BC:B71C (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody replied to this, because you don't indicate what you mean. In other words, what change to the article do you propose. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't seem to agree that the man we believed was Reddington is actually an unnamed imposter, as was established in season 5. The description of the character was updated by another editor following the episode in which the fact that he is not the real Reddington was revealed, but the IP persists in removing that content, claimimg it is false. That the show has never revealed his true identity does not alter the fact that we know he is an imposter using Reddington's identity, as the article states. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that, but I would like to hear what they have to say, and to propose. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Chalk it up to frustration with the constant accusatory reverts. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war over episode list transclusion

We've got an edit war going over the episode list transclusion. A new editor persists in making changes that arent needed. I'm starting this discussion in the hope we can get this issue talked through and resolved. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a while(As I kept being redirected to the list of episodes page) but I see what you mean with the other editor. They probably don't understand that the table they're trying to add already exists on the "list of episodes" page and through some fancy Wikipedia coding appears on the main page too. For what its worth I'll keep an eye out and revert if I see the editor try and add the table back onto the page. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Default sort key "Blacklist, The" overrides earlier default sort key "Blacklist".

Hello guy's, what that mean's this message ? -- Sarah (Talk) 05:06, 13 May 2021 (CEST)

I'm not sure what you're asking but I would guess you're running into an error because you're adding an already transcluded table back onto the mainpage. If you would kindly stop doing that the error shouldn't appear for you. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for your intervention, precisely I could not find the error before talk. -- Sarah (Talk) 22:08, 13 May 2021 (CEST))

No mention of the show being animated?

Saw mention of the show's seventh season finale being animated on TV Tropes, was wondering if there could be mention of that here. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed in the season article; production had to be shut down for the COVID lockdown before the finale was finished, so they animated the scenes that weren't filmed. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 10:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]