Talk:The Originals (TV series)
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to The Vampire Diaries#Spin-off. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cast
[edit]Why is the cast separated into current and former? I don't remember seeing this in any other TV series' page even if some of the characters were not part of the show anymore...why do it here? TeamGale 11:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are right. See MOS:TV#Cast information. Splitting them is completely unnecessary and just the result of people editing WP:INUNIVERSE. Nymf (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
why don't you stop reverting edits
[edit]I added Alisha Gillies with more sources then the other person stopped reverting my edit but why after a couple hours a nobody just buts in and reverts it AGAIN. I know she is part of the cast the references show and prove it but, why keep deleting? And stop deleting her.
- You need to understand what a reliable source is. Please see WP:RS. You also need to understand what the 3 revert rule says, which you are way beyond in violation of. Oh, and yeah, you need to understand what civility is.Onel5969 TT me 23:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note the IP has been blocked as a sock of Jemima West. --NeilN talk to me 23:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Ref column for awards table
[edit]@IJBall: I'd like to challenge the notion that this is best practice. I have definitely seen it around a lot and I tend to remove it as I don't see what benefit having the references in their own column provides. The important thing is to note the award, the nominees, and the result. Yes, that should be sourced, but it takes up considerable extra room to grant those references their own column and I think the fact that those columns are unsortable (whereas all the others aren't) points to the awkwardness of that approach. Also, inline citation seems to be the norm for Wikipedia as a whole and I'd argue pulling out the references like that and giving them the prominence of their own column really undermines that approach. The references back up the information in the table but they aren't important in and of themselves. So unless there's a specific guideline I'm not aware of that says we must do awards tables in that format, I would favour reverting your change here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Pretty much every WP:FL for actor awards pages – e.g. List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence, List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio, etc. – does it this way, so it's not just me saying it's "best practices": it's WP:FILM (effectively) saying it. Ditto, WP:TV – e.g. List of accolades received by Miami Vice, List of awards and nominations received by Parks and Recreation, etc. (Remember, WP:FLs and WP:FAs are supposed to represent Wikipedia "best practices".) On my end, I agree with the practice, as the refs are often hard to see when they're not in their own column – and I disagree that the refs aren't important in their own right, and don't deserve that kind of "prominence". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- C-Class television articles
- Mid-importance television articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- C-Class American television articles
- Unknown-importance American television articles
- American television task force articles
- C-Class New Orleans articles
- Unknown-importance New Orleans articles
- WikiProject New Orleans articles
- WikiProject United States articles