Talk:Dynasty (2017 TV series)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Trailer
Has everyone seen the trailer? That's Nick Wechsler kissing Cristal in the car, possibly playing Matthew Blaisdel?— TAnthonyTalk 22:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Running Time
Running time is most certainly not 60 minutes. I'm going to guess probably like 42. Lukej (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Preliminary ratings
Jonathanjoseph81 and Lbtocth: Can you point me to a guideline that disallows the addition of preliminary ratings to an episode list? They may or may not be subject to change, but they are not what I would call "false information". As far as I'm concerned, sourced information can always be added, and can just be updated when and if newer information becomes available.— TAnthonyTalk 21:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Veteran Wikipedia editors reverted back my edits when they are not the FINAL ratings. — Lbtocthtalk 03:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Brojam: Can you answer TAnthony's question above? — Lbtocthtalk 03:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Preliminary ratings are often subject to adjustments (sometimes big ones or maybe very small ones with a few more or less viewers tuning in) but the information is still false. For me personally, the problem I see is that if we allow people to post the preliminary ratings, often they will never be updated with the final ones that come out a few hours or even days later. I don't think we should be in rush to post the ratings until they are final. The WP Television is in fact in the midst of discussing updates to the "Reception" section of the MOS:TV here. Maybe it should be discussed to add something about preliminary/final ratings. - Brojam (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Brojam: If someone is watching an article closely enough to remove/revert preliminary ratings, then they are watching closely enough to ensure that they get updated if necessary. I don't see how TV ratings are any different than any other sourced information we add to articles which may change, except that we're OCD about the content and format of TV and film articles. When a reliable source announces the release date for a book or film, or the casting of a role, or the engagement/pregnancy of a celebrity, we don't withhold the information until the film is released or the wedding occurs or the baby is born. We simply update the article when the film is delayed, the role is recast, or the wedding is called off. I myself probably wouldn't waste my time researching and adding prelim ratings, but it's not the end of the world if someone does. They'll probably be updated. The numbers may not even change. And even if no one notices an outdated entry for a few months ... having an inaccurate TV episode rating is a blip that will not compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.— TAnthonyTalk 04:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- The thing is that these preliminary ratings almost always change, not by much, but practically always. For example, looking at the ratings for last Friday [1], 12 out of the 13 shows changed in finals [2]. Why would we post something that we know is almost guaranteed to change, unlike something like a release that yes can as well change but the likelihood is far less. In regards to the reverting and people watching articles, that's very true but not all articles are as closely monitored as others and if we allow them on some then it would need to be accepted on series that are less monitored as well. Honestly, I have often left the prelim ratings up on some articles I follow since I know they will be corrected by myself or another editor within a few hours. But, there are some series that have a 3 day delay between both ratings so those I don't like have the wrong info up for a long time. Even though, I think there are now a couple editors who update the final ratings throughout almost all broadcast shows (not sure about this). When you add up all these "blips", they can become extremely tiresome to correct. - Brojam (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agreed with Brojam here. In addition, final ratings are usually released later on the day (several hours later after the preliminary ratings) throughout the week just not on weekends. It seems unnecessary to put preliminary ratings when they are subject to change. — Lbtocthtalk 06:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah I don't disagree that adding these ratings too soon is a waste of time, and I'd be fine with something in the MOS recommending against them, but actively removing them is a similar waste of time that I don't think can be justified with current policy. But I just opened this discussion to be sure I hadn't missed some MOS change. Thanks for your comments!— TAnthonyTalk 13:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Many veteran Wikipedia editors redirect me to Wikipedia:Consensus. — Lbtocthtalk 16:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm a veteran editor, and I'd like to point out that consensus is relative. The active members of any given WikiProject tend to be rather insular, and the content and format guidelines generated by consensus can be myopic. In particular, WikiProject TV, WP Film, and WP Novels are overflowing with active participants, many of whom are very passionate, detail-oriented, and dare I say obsessive about format and style (myself included), and as a result each Project has some specific "rules" which directly contradict the practices of other Projects. The use of years in nav templates, and the point at which it is appropriate to create an article for an upcoming project are just two examples of how the MOS for the TV, Film and Novels Projects conflict. This is understandable and acceptable, but it is also a symptom of well-meaning editors who aren't looking at the "big picture" beyond their topics of interest. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, and I agree that prelim ratings are a waste of time, but on a larger scale across Wikipedia we can't actually withhold information because it's likely to change. When Carrie Fisher had her medical emergency, the article was continually updated as the situation developed, we didn't wait for a final outcome.— TAnthonyTalk 17:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- @TAnthony:I asked several active veteran Wikipedia editors and most agreed that preliminary ratings are useless as they fall under WP:CRYSTAL and definitely fall under WP:NO DEADLINE. — Lbtocthtalk 21:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm a veteran editor, and I'd like to point out that consensus is relative. The active members of any given WikiProject tend to be rather insular, and the content and format guidelines generated by consensus can be myopic. In particular, WikiProject TV, WP Film, and WP Novels are overflowing with active participants, many of whom are very passionate, detail-oriented, and dare I say obsessive about format and style (myself included), and as a result each Project has some specific "rules" which directly contradict the practices of other Projects. The use of years in nav templates, and the point at which it is appropriate to create an article for an upcoming project are just two examples of how the MOS for the TV, Film and Novels Projects conflict. This is understandable and acceptable, but it is also a symptom of well-meaning editors who aren't looking at the "big picture" beyond their topics of interest. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, and I agree that prelim ratings are a waste of time, but on a larger scale across Wikipedia we can't actually withhold information because it's likely to change. When Carrie Fisher had her medical emergency, the article was continually updated as the situation developed, we didn't wait for a final outcome.— TAnthonyTalk 17:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Many veteran Wikipedia editors redirect me to Wikipedia:Consensus. — Lbtocthtalk 16:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah I don't disagree that adding these ratings too soon is a waste of time, and I'd be fine with something in the MOS recommending against them, but actively removing them is a similar waste of time that I don't think can be justified with current policy. But I just opened this discussion to be sure I hadn't missed some MOS change. Thanks for your comments!— TAnthonyTalk 13:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agreed with Brojam here. In addition, final ratings are usually released later on the day (several hours later after the preliminary ratings) throughout the week just not on weekends. It seems unnecessary to put preliminary ratings when they are subject to change. — Lbtocthtalk 06:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- The thing is that these preliminary ratings almost always change, not by much, but practically always. For example, looking at the ratings for last Friday [1], 12 out of the 13 shows changed in finals [2]. Why would we post something that we know is almost guaranteed to change, unlike something like a release that yes can as well change but the likelihood is far less. In regards to the reverting and people watching articles, that's very true but not all articles are as closely monitored as others and if we allow them on some then it would need to be accepted on series that are less monitored as well. Honestly, I have often left the prelim ratings up on some articles I follow since I know they will be corrected by myself or another editor within a few hours. But, there are some series that have a 3 day delay between both ratings so those I don't like have the wrong info up for a long time. Even though, I think there are now a couple editors who update the final ratings throughout almost all broadcast shows (not sure about this). When you add up all these "blips", they can become extremely tiresome to correct. - Brojam (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Brojam: If someone is watching an article closely enough to remove/revert preliminary ratings, then they are watching closely enough to ensure that they get updated if necessary. I don't see how TV ratings are any different than any other sourced information we add to articles which may change, except that we're OCD about the content and format of TV and film articles. When a reliable source announces the release date for a book or film, or the casting of a role, or the engagement/pregnancy of a celebrity, we don't withhold the information until the film is released or the wedding occurs or the baby is born. We simply update the article when the film is delayed, the role is recast, or the wedding is called off. I myself probably wouldn't waste my time researching and adding prelim ratings, but it's not the end of the world if someone does. They'll probably be updated. The numbers may not even change. And even if no one notices an outdated entry for a few months ... having an inaccurate TV episode rating is a blip that will not compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.— TAnthonyTalk 04:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Preliminary ratings are often subject to adjustments (sometimes big ones or maybe very small ones with a few more or less viewers tuning in) but the information is still false. For me personally, the problem I see is that if we allow people to post the preliminary ratings, often they will never be updated with the final ones that come out a few hours or even days later. I don't think we should be in rush to post the ratings until they are final. The WP Television is in fact in the midst of discussing updates to the "Reception" section of the MOS:TV here. Maybe it should be discussed to add something about preliminary/final ratings. - Brojam (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
About Michael Michele as Dominique Deveraux promoted to be a series regular
How is [3] a reliable source to confirm so has been promoted to a series regular? Per WP:RS, it's not a reliable source because the Instagram account is not a verified account and nowhere in the Instagram post said she has been promoted to be a series regular. This is considered to be original research. — YoungForever(talk) 16:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. WP:PRIMARY sources would be totally acceptable here, but without an explicit statement that she was promoted and it being from a verified account means we cannot use it. Amaury • 17:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Probably not a questionable change. Nothing in that source says she's a regular. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's actually in the comments, someone asked if she's a regular now and she said Yes. But in addition to the fact that the IG account is unverified, I would construe the post as a self-serving/exceptional claim under WP:SELFSOURCE. A reliable source will eventually come along establishing that she is a series regular for S3, but in the meantime there is no urgency.— TAnthonyTalk 20:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Shows typically make official announcements when they have new series regulars. Actors don't get to decide that for themselves, verified account or not. That's a contract thing. We would need a reliable source actually reporting that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- A TVLine citation was just added, but it says "according to the actress’ Instagram." That's the same as citing the Instagram post itself, which we seem to agree is not a reliable source.— TAnthonyTalk 19:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- We clearly established that her Instagram is not a reliable source for now unless it is a verified account. I don't understand why some editors are keep adding that. — YoungForever(talk) 22:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- A TVLine citation was just added, but it says "according to the actress’ Instagram." That's the same as citing the Instagram post itself, which we seem to agree is not a reliable source.— TAnthonyTalk 19:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Shows typically make official announcements when they have new series regulars. Actors don't get to decide that for themselves, verified account or not. That's a contract thing. We would need a reliable source actually reporting that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's actually in the comments, someone asked if she's a regular now and she said Yes. But in addition to the fact that the IG account is unverified, I would construe the post as a self-serving/exceptional claim under WP:SELFSOURCE. A reliable source will eventually come along establishing that she is a series regular for S3, but in the meantime there is no urgency.— TAnthonyTalk 20:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Probably not a questionable change. Nothing in that source says she's a regular. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- We will talk again after season premiere in october ... they said from the beginning of her casting, that Michele will be a regular in season 3, but okay. Don't care. Talk again in October. --Stupid-serienjunkie (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
While her Instagram is not verified, it is from my understanding that if a reliable, third-party and/or parties report the information, then that is enough verifiability on Wikipedia's part to include said-information. So, if TVLine is willing to report it, then per Wikipedia's own guidelines, it's reliable enough for the encyclopedia to report. I know there is a WP page concerning this, and once I find it — as it was previously pointed out to me in the past — I will be more than happy to share here. livelikemusic talk! 23:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
.jpg){kind=link}
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)