Talk:The Man in the High Castle (TV series)

Excessive unsourced settings details

Drmargi and I (and perhaps others) have removed/reverted the addition of unsourced detail to the Setting section which constitutes original research. The IP editor in question has stated clearly in this edit summary and this one that they are interpreting prop maps and flags seen onscreen to build content. There are details and explanations being added that are not points covered in plot events or dialogue, which means they require sources to establish notability. This editor has been re-adding this information using various IPs for about a month, one of which 69.65.90.61 (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for edit warring in this article. I have asked this editor via edit summary and on the most recent talk page to find and provide reliable external sources that discuss the extended facts. If they are not notable enough to be mentioned by reliable sources, they are not notable enough for inclusion here. I also invite the IP to discuss potential additions to the article here to avoid further disruption. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 19:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this issue, TAnthony and Vanamonde. This editor has been nothing but a first-rate nuisance for weeks, and shows no signs of changing. He/she has IP hopped to evade the block above, and lacks any understanding that his/her behavior is inappropriate. I also note a some grammar errors that suggest this is not a first-language English speaker, which may contribute to the problem. Hopefully the page protection will do the job, but I'm not optimistic. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 04:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Somebody just protected Star Wars: The Last Jedi until April 2022, why can't we see more of that here and elsewhere? LOL — TAnthony^Talk 14:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary

OK: the episode list for the first two seasons has potted summaries.

The last two episode lists, don’t.

Could someone who’s better at summarising these thing, please correct this?

It seems blatantly inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddy2977 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

OK … it looks like someones making a start on the season four summaries. That’s good: thanking you.

Can we get anymore, please? Cuddy2977 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, the few that went up last week have come down again. Is someone working on their replacements? I’m hopeless with summaries, otherwise I’d do them, my self! Cuddy2977 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Whoever put the summaries up? Thank you! Cuddy2977 (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Some of these summaries are a bit too summary, in that they don't really tell you what happened. For example, "Juliana makes a startling discovery about her sister's death." Well, what was it? "The pieces finally fall into place for Smith, as he uncovers who was behind the assassination attempt." Who was it? There's too much of this kind of thing. There's no point in writing plot summaries without spoilers in them, because people who want to avoid spoilers won't be reading this. Richard75 (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Putting season appearances after cast members / Spoilers

I know there's a bit of a tug-of-war going on in articles like this between people who argue spoilers are fair game and people who want all spoilers removed. I don't really want to get into that, but I wonder if it is really strictly necessary in the cast list to put "seasons 1-3" (or whatever) in brackets after each actor. It's basically a spoiler by stealth because in the vast majority of cases it just means "this character dies in season 3".

If this is a genuine consensus view - i.e. we should have spoilers in the cast section - then that's one thing, but the way all the cast summaries are written is spoiler-free so it's like we've decided not to put spoilers in this section but effectively included them anyway with the season appearances. I think it's worth having a real discussion about what this section is trying to do. Do we want spoilers in this section or not? If we don't then the season appearances should really be removed, if we do want spoilers then there's no reason not to include more detailed descriptions in the summaries of characters. 119.24.200.63 (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER. Spoilers are 100% fair game anywhere. They should never be included simply for the sake of inclusion but they should also never be avoided just because they reveal something that is otherwise only revealed by watching a program. We don't usually include major spoilers in the prose of a cast list because spoilers are usually plot-based and plot-based developments generally do not belong in cast lists (that's covered by episode summaries). But cast lists should 200% include what span of time someone was involved in a show as that is factual information that directly pertains to the cast of a television series. Also, for an example of a major spoiler in the prose of a cast list, check Watchmen (TV series) (or, of course, don't if you haven't watched it and don't want the reveal to be spoiled). (That one is there because it specifically relates to who an actor is playing.) —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This drives me crazy. A spoiler is knowledge of plot before an episode is broadcast. After broadcast (or release), content is fair game, and it's reader beware. That's particularly true here, which is in no fashion a fan site. So let the reader exercise a little personal responsibility. Joeyconnick gets the balance right in his comments above. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute this as I was more looking to start a discussion over the apparent contradiction in the way this section is written, but for the record, I do think this sort of thing often gets pushed in to prove a point rather than because it actually makes the article better from the reader's perspective (which is, after all, the purpose of a Wikipedia article - to meet the needs of readers). It adds a very marginal amount of value at the cost of potentially annoying a large number of readers, which isn't a great balance as far as I'm concerned. I particularly think there's an issue here in terms of the expectations of readers - nobody who wants to avoid spoilers will read a plot summary, but they will quite plausibly read a cast section (they watch a show, want to know who an actor is, end up at Wikipedia, etc.) I'm fully aware I won't win that argument here, but I do think it's worth considering that winning an argument on a talk page isn't the same thing as working toward making the article as good as it can be from a reader's perspective. It's possible to win arguments about spoilers being "100% fair game anywhere", but it's probably a better idea to think a little bit about the value/annoyance ratio that comes with spoilers and ask whether something that can alienate a significant percentage of an article's audience is really worth including when the value provided is frankly pretty negligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.24.200.63 (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

summaries?

i wanted to read synopsis (for re-cap of past series), but bot read a novel! these summaries are far to large and cluttered with inadequate details. unusable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.47.44 (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)