Talk:Fear the Walking Dead/Archive 1

Sources

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/walking-dead-spinoff_n_6515218.html?1421854152&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Move?

Resolved

Should this article be moved to Fear the Walking Dead? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I moved the article, then moved it back once I read that the pilot will be called "Fear the Walking Dead"? I see both titles being used, so perhaps it is best to wait for official confirmation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wolverine625336995: Any thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's now been officially been picked up to series and does not have a title[1], neither Cobalt or Fear the Walking Dead is mentioned. Think we should move it to something like, Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off? Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we should leave it here (or the title the pilot is most often referred to) until the series name is confirmed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources for Pilot (Fear the Walking Dead)

For the pilot episode:

---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Running time versus episode length

I am too lazy to look up the referenced term's technical definitions, but why does a Wiki editor insist that the premiere's running time is 63 minutes, even though AMC's own website lists its episode length at 90 minutes?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's always been the run time without commercials, and 63 minutes is the length of the pilot. The regular episode length (more than likely 43 minutes) can be added when the second episode airs. This is covered in Template:Infobox television. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources for episode 2: "So Close, Yet So Far"

For episode 2:

---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Patricia Reyes Spíndola

Please, decide once, does that role have the actress in this series?. A day walk into this article and I see that Patricia is in the principal cast, then come back and see that this section of the recurring cast. This is very confusing.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

She's recurring/guest star. I think some editors believed since she was included in the promotional cast photos (usually just for main cast members) that she was in the starring cast, however, the episodes confirm she's a guest star per the credits. Drovethrughosts (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: Thanks for the clarification, is that I did not enter very followed this article and always see that they modify that.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

End of episode two

While this link does say "They watch Mrs. Cruz’s husband attack her in her front yard", it contradicts the content of the episode itself: 1) Alicia, with flashlight, looks out the front window of her mother's house and sees the next-door neighbour—identifiable by the plaid shirt he's seen wearing earlier in the episode while loading water and supplies into the trunk of his car and coughing—shuffling in zombie fashion towards the street, in the direction of the Cruz's home; 2) the man attacking Mrs Cruz is not wearing the shirt Mr Cruz is earlier seen wearing; and (most telling) 3) Alicia distinctly says to her mother as Mrs Cruz screams "Mom, Mr Dawson's hurting them." Thus, the attacker isn't Mr Cruz. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

From AMC's site: "Madison and Alicia hear a scream outside. They watch Mrs. Cruz’s husband attack her in her front yard. “Don’t look,” Madison says, drawing the shades. Alicia starts to run outside to help, but Madison blocks the door." An editor's POV about a video is meaningless.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, Mr. Dawson may be her husband!--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You evidently didn't read what I wrote, as I quoted the link. And episodes can be used as sources themselves; so, it ain't my POV that the next-door neighbour is seen shuffling towards the Cruzs' or that Alicia says "Mr Dawson's hurting them."

The "may be" in your comment is evidence enough that there's at least doubt about who attacks Mrs Cruz (why would she be Mrs Cruz if married to Mr Dawson?). Hence, its safer to say something along the lines of "Mrs.Cruz's is attacked by a zombie, but Madison prevents Alicia from intervening" and avoid trying to choose between the conflicting sources. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I must admit that I have just watched the episode and agree that Mr. Dawson was the attacker. Also, I did not know that videos could be used as sources. I had just assumed that AMC's own website's written summary would suffice as proof.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Other sources: "A woman shrieks outside. The neighbor gets attacked by Mr. Dawson, who was seen coughing earlier. Alicia wants to help but Madison won't let her outside"[2]; "And at one point the nextdoor neighbor, who showed signs of illness in the last episode, attacks the people across the street"[3]; "A peaceful (but very wrong) picture greets the family as they get home. Across the street, the neighbor is having a party—with a bouncy castle—for her daughter, who is turning 9. Next door, neighbor Pete is loading his car with supplies (but coughing all the while)... Looking out the window though, Alicia sees something truly terrifying. Their neighbor, the woman who had set up the bouncy castle for her daughter's birthday, is being attacked by Pete—walker Pete"[4]. So, I'm not the only one.

That said, other sources do peg the attacker as Mr Cruz. Still others just avoid identifying the attacker. I still believe the latter is the safest course of action for us here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

How about "The zombified Mr. Dawson attacks Mrs.Cruz..."? Feel free to re-edit it as you did notice the possible error.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure; that seems incontrovertible. Though, there's no explanation as to who Mr Dawson or Mrs Cruz are. Perhaps "Alicia witnesses the zombified Mr Dawson attacking Mrs Cruz in the latter's yard across the street" gives enough context to understand the two are neighbours. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it as you please because your eagle eyes caught the error. However, I suggest limiting details because summaries are supposed to be short and declarative. And this is not the first time that AMC's summaries have been wrong.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources for episode 3: "The Dog"

For episode 3:

---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Collapsed discussion unrelated to this television series

Huh? We don't need sources for episode summaries. Please stop cluttering up this page with them.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC) They aren't "clutter" and they can be used to construct articles about individual episodes and/or to expand reception/productions sections. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your contributions, but talk pages are for debates about article content, not link storage sites.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC) ... ok... (?) I think the project will survive just fine. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Please refer to these articles before further cluttering up this page in violation of Wikipedia's policies: Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages, Help:Using talk pages, and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC) I'll post links related to topics as I see fit, thank you, but I did collapse the link lists to make your life easier... ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC) I had been unaware that you own Wikipedia, your worship.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Been fun, but moving on now. Let's stay on topic, please. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources for episode 4: "Not Fade Away"

---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Episode 6: "The Good Man"

---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Season 2 Premiere

Tonight (10/11/15) on the Talking Dead, it was announced that season 2 would begin February 14, 2016 (of all days!). Can this be worked in somewhere? FriarTuck1981 (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't watch all of Talking Dead last night, but are you sure it's for Fear season 2 and not for the second half of The Walking Dead's sixth season (as that's the return date for that). I've been searching online and have found nothing that mentions this. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought that's what he said, however I'll rewatch and double check. If I was mistaken, I'll tuck tail and run lol... FriarTuck1981 (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Due to the large amount of vandalism and illiterate spam coming from IP addresses, I hope that someone who knows what he is doing will request page protection for FTWD's article (like that on TWD's article.) FTWD looks like it is going to be a ratings monster and thus attract spam from every prankster and his mother, so why postpone the inevitable?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Because there doesn't appear to be an influx of defacement of vandalism as you seem to imagine. Just as the policies you cited as an excuse to arbitrarily remove an entire segment of talk page including multiple users responses do not exist. If you are new to Wikipedia I strongly suggest you spend more time observing others, reading over ACTUAL policies that exist, and joining some of the communities around about the place. (Personal attack removed) 121.211.33.244 (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing episode?

Am I losing my marbles or have they really already humped the bunk and skipped a week? S01E03 should have released last Sunday, but there appears to be no sign of it. Given the lackluster banality of this TV show and how boringly slow it's progressing, more like a teenage drama attempting to 'bring zombies to teen girls' as opposed to a lateral take or expansion of TWD universe skipping a release date could quite literally be a killing blow for this series. At present I doubt there will be a season 2, but can anyone confirm whether there's just a bit of constipation in the distribution channels to Australia where I am (and pirate websites, too) or whether they really humped the bunk and didn't release episode 3 on time / at all yet? 121.211.56.55 (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase - it's notable that far superior TV shows have doomed themselves to ruination by fucking around release times, let alone release dates, of episodes. The purpose of a TV serial is it's episodic nature. Maybe the article should reflect the missing third week release date, which would double as providing information for those of us not in the United States watching the show. 121.211.56.55 (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not missing, it didn't air because it was Labor Day weekend in the U.S. and Canada last week. Drovethrughosts (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reinstated this post, it was arbitrarily removed by User:PhiladelphiaInjustice who seems to be new to Wikipedia and thinks that because I have an inability to communicate without the normal profanity adults use is in breach of some imagined policy. Thankfully wikipedia is not censored, or as an Australian I would find it incredibly hard to write if it were. The post above is even more relevant now after another episode has turned up MIA, so I will reinstate it. 121.211.33.244 (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Another weekend. Another missing episode.

It appears that my above commentary is even more relevant. Another weekend, another missing episode. Given the pedigree of the series when it was announced I originally said that I bet it will be one of those single-season-only-spinoffs because of Hollywood insurance. There is a reason that there are hundreds of spin offs of good pedigree shows that last one season where they're intentionally distributed poorly to cause failure - you can make more money off of one failed season than several successful seasons. Many underwriters will take the gamble, I mean why would a Walking Dead spin off fail? Walking Dead is huge, so a spin off will be well received, you'd have to get M Knight Shamalamadingdong directing it to mess this up, or him AND Lucas! So undoubtedly it was insured for a pretty penny to run into the umpteenth season. Sadly this isn't even a conspiracy, it's something avidly discussed among many film production students the world over, and is a woefully overused tactic by producers to make big bucks in a fire and forget contractual deal. Two weekends in one month with missing episodes truly appears as though they're intentionally attempting to write this TV series off, and the only reason you write off a TV series of good material is if you have a better insurance policy. 121.211.33.244 (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, what are you even talking about? This is not a forum for ramblings. There is no "missing" episodes, AMC skipped one week because it was Labor Day weekend, usually common practice in American television by not airing new episodes. There was no new episode this week because the season is over. Have you even looked at the article itself, which would tell you right away the first season is just six episodes. You speak of it as a failure for some random reason, yet it's already been renewed for a 15-episode second season and recently became the highest-rated first season of any series in cable history. I suggest actually knowing what you're talking about before making completely random non-sense ramblings about a subject. Also, talk pages are for discussion of the article, not the subject of it (WP:TALK). Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Tedious, Non-Encyclopedic details

We don't need to know when FTWD premiered in every country in the world. TWD's article only lists the U.S. and international premiere dates, as do other I've checked. Also, tedious Australian ratings details about the premiere barely belong in their newspapers, much less on this international encyclopedia.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And just because other show's article have a "Home media section" does not mean that one belongs here if its only entry is not encyclopedic. Please, Wiki is not a newspaper that lists every trivial detail: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There's not a clear consensus on international premiere ratings, but international premiere dates in English speaking countries is permissible per and is quite common throughout television related articles. Whats new? (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If you list the premiere date for Australia, you will have to list it for hundreds of other countries. Listing it would violate: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia does not allow the inclusion of trivial facts, which the premiere date of a small, insignificant country certainly is. TWD's own article only lists the U.S. and international dates.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

From WP:TVINTL: "Special mentions can be used where a show does something noteworthy for a country/international channel." What is noteworthy about a new show premiering in any of hundreds of countries, dozens of which are English-speaking? Again, listing such a trivial fact would violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous examples of Wikipedia articles on television programs where the premiere date is listed, such as Agent Carter, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., How to Get Away with Murder and Stalker to name just a few. The Walking Dead's article probably should include international premieres if reliable sources could be found. It is noteworthy when a show first premieres in a nation/region outside the country of origin, in just the same way release dates for a smartphone or a song are for example. The reason WP:TVINTL mentions English-speaking only is preseumably so it doesn't have a huge list. In response to WP:NOTNP, you could argue whether or not WP:TVINTL conflicts or not elsewhere, but I don't see how the fact a television show hasn't been confined to its country of origin violates subjectivity, etc. Whats new? (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

SEVENTY English-speaking countries (as per nationsonline.org) are not a "huge list"? Again, if you are going to include a tiny country like Australia, whose total population represents less than one percent of the English-speaking world, you will need to include ALL of the other 69 English-speaking countries' series premiere dates, which would clearly be violations as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I repeat, a tiny country's premiere date of a television series is not encyclopedic. Merely because other articles' editors have made the mistake of adding such trivial, non-encyclopedic facts does not make such additions appropriate here. Citing other editors' errors is not akin to citing case law. Wiki is not a court of law. And if you are going to pull the common stunt of getting an editor friend to agree with you, refer to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not > Wikipedia is not a democracy.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Only English language nations with reliable sources of premiere should be listed is what I'm advocating, but in any case I've added this discussion to WP:3 to hopefully achieve a more diverse range of opinions. Whats new? (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi Whats new? and PhiladelphiaInjustice, while you both present very good arguements as to why the inclusion of when FTWD premiered in particular countries is or is not necessary on the article, my third opinion will ultimately side with PhiladelphiaInjstice. This is mainly due to the general ideas behind What Wikipedia is not. However, Whats new? raises some very good points as to its inclusion on the basis that it does provide addtional encyclopedic content and context, if (and only if) they are glancing mentions and are from "reliable sources of premiere" for "Only English language nations". My reccomendation would therefore be to include such dates only when the event was notable enough to appear in multiple independent reliable sources. Samuel Tarling (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Further comment: Although I don't see this heading that way, I advise Whats new? and PhiladelphiaInjstice to make themselves aware of the 3RR if they aren't already. Samuel Tarling (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks Samtar for your third opinion. I appreciate your considered response and acknowledge it is a tricky issue in some respects. I believe the two sources I originally provided were reputable enough to be included as a passing mention in the article, and included it in my most recent attempt at the end of an existing sentence which mentions it premiered globally on a service which isn't available in Australia. I'll await further comment from yourself, the other commenter or indeed any other opinions (should there be any) before re-adding it. Thanks again for your thoughts. Whats new? (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC) @Whats new?: having reviewed the edits you made, I cannot see any harm in including the information. As it stands, the statement is incorrect, as it clearly did not premier globally. Samuel Tarling (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Huh? Thank you for your opinion, but I can find reliably-sourced premiere dates for most if not all of the other 69 English-speaking countries. Just because a frivolously impertinent fact can be reliably soured does not make it encyclopedic by default. Why would you want to include such a trivial fact about a country that comprises but 23 million of the world's 1.5 BILLION English-speaking people? And only 38,000 of them watched the series premiere! It is obvious that the complaining user has an agenda, which is to exaggerate his tiny and insignificant country's importance. Can we let Wiki's actual policies dictate what gets included, instead of how nice or friendly an editor is?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC) I don't have an agenda, but America is not the Centre of the world or Wikipedia. By that logic, any article about Australia or a smaller country wouldn't exist. Even articles about Tuvalu deserve to exist, just because it's smaller than America means nothing. I don't believe I'm violating Wikipedia policy, which is why I asked for further discussion from other users. I'll wait a day or two before re-adding the information to see if any other comment is generated. Whats new? (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC) If you add the ridiculously trivial info about Australia's premiere date, I will be forced to add the premiere dates for up to 69 other English-speaking countries, about 10 of which I was able to found within three minutes of searching. Others will object based on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, then delete this impertinent info; only the U.S. and non-U.S. premiere dates will remain. And, judging by your editing history, you clearly do have an agenda, which is to promote the profoundly irrelevant Australia.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Also, merely because another editor agrees with your invalid position does not mean that you can make an invalid edit, as per Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not > Wikipedia is not a democracy. Adding microscopically trivial facts is a blatant violation of Wiki's policies, as per Wiki sources cited in my prior posts.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC) @PhiladelphiaInjustice: Firstly, I haven't readded the Aust info to the article, to allow for further discussion should there be any. Secondly, if you can find relevent sources for 69 English speaking countries you should go ahead and add them to the article, and if another editor should object you can argue your case as you and I are doing here. Thirdly, the fact you take no issue with the "non-U.S. premiere date" remaining in the article weakens your case, as Australia is a non-U.S. country but doesn't have the listed AMC global network, with a local broadcaster has the Australian rights and premiered it in the same time period. Finally, I agree Wikipedia isn't based on poll, but so far only one other user has participated in the discussion apart from you and I, and they have said the Australian premiere can be re-added, and unless there are further comments, that would make a consensus. User:Whats new?(talk) 12:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Your argument is the weakest which I have ever seen on a Wikipedia talk page. You are illogically twisting Wiki's guidelines to fit your Australia-promoting agenda. Only a television series' U.S. and first non-U.S. premiere dates, the latter of which usually occur simultaneously in several countries, are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia -- as per the Wiki sources previously cited. The Walking Dead's main article is also so edited. Adding 69 other English-speaking countries' series premiere dates would be a blatant violation of Wiki's policies. Wikipedia is not a website which lists trivial facts. Only noteworthy information should be entered. There is nothing noteworthy about a series premiere date for each of 70 different countries. Having relevant sources for incredibly insignificant facts does not make them any more noteworthy. And Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not > Wikipedia is not a democracy TRUMPS editorial consensus.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC) @PhiladelphiaInjustice: With respect, I'm not twisting anything. I don't know where you are getting that only the first non-US date is worthy, and in any event the Australian premiere occured within the same 24 hour period as the AMC Global debut, FTWD just aired on a local channel, so in other words the Australian premiere was equal first non-US. None of the Wiki policies you cited state otherwise specifically, and it is noteworthy that a show airs in another territory, as otherwise the assumption would be the show only ever aired in the US, and I disgree it is an insignificant fact. Insulting other countries as "insignificant" and "tiny" is not civil or a good way to frame your argument. I was hoping for further comment here from neutral parties, but should we not get any I'll pursue formal dispute resolution proceedings to finalise the outcome so this doesn't drag on and on. User:Whats new?(talk) 23:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Your excuses and rationalizations are illogical, disorganized, and impertinent, as previously explained. The final outcome of this dispute is highly predictable. If you add frivolously, painfully trivial, non-encyclopedic details about FTWD's series premiere date in Australia, an insignificant micro market which comprises less than 0.25% of the show's viewers, I am going to add the show's premiere dates of over 100 other countries. It should take but five minutes of copying and pasting. Other editors will then restore the section to my original TWD-type version, in accordance with Wiki's aforementioned policies.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC) @PhiladelphiaInjustice: I would welcome the premiere dates of other English speaking nations, and disagree they are painfully trivial. As I explained previously, it is notable if a major retailer opens a store in a foreign country, or an album is released in a nation outside the artist's home country. Television premieres are no different, and many countries would share premiere dates and the Broadcast section would make up barely a few sentences. If you're going to base inclusion on how big a country is, India has a much larger English speaking population than the U.S. so why are you not fiercely advocating its inclusion? Literally all I am advocating is the inclusion of "and in Australia on FX" to the end of an existing sentence in the article with a viable reference. Literally five words, and if other country premieres can be sourced, another five or so words is not going to drag the article into frivolity. User:Whats new?(talk) 04:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) It does not matter what you welcome or disagree with. You analogies are irrelevant. The section was re-edited a few hours ago, and now contains all of the necessary info about worldwide premieres.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Considering streaming rights have been added for three territories I've added the Australian broadcast, considering it aired in simulcast with AMC Global, which is also added. Necessary info should include all relevent and sourced. User:Whats new?(talk) 13:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) There is a loophole that allowed the Australian premiere to sneak in: it is a continent, as are others listed in the source. Otherwise, Australia is too puny to warrant mention.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC) @PhiladelphiaInjustice: While I'm glad the sourced Australian premiere has finally been allowed in, I hate to break it to you but Latin America, the Middle East, the UK, Germany and Austria are not continents, yet are all mentioned specifically. Kind of undoes your logic a bit, but I think all are valid additions to the article, all have reputable sources and are notable. User:Whats new?(talk) 01:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

When did I state that Germany, et al are continents? Others listed in the source are, and they and the individual countries mentioned were part of ONE network's premiere. My point was that only because Australia is technically a continent, it and its puny, 58,000-FTWD-viewer cable network is by default sufficiently significant to include on the premiere list. Otherwise, lowly Australia would be not be worthy of notice. You clearly have an agenda to promote your microscopic, irrelevant country.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Reading the above, I find the attitude of PhiladelphiaInjustice to be rude and offensive. Personally, I don't care if the article includes the premiere dates or not (although, on first reading about this I was of the opinion that such details might well constitute trivia). Most people won't be interested in them ... but I'm guessing most people aren't interested in reading about 'Fear the Walking Dead' either! But there might well be some people who, being interested in this TV series, are also interested in finding out about its premiere dates (and, if they happen to be, they'll probably look here for such info ... in the belief that an online encyclopedia such as this is able to provide such encyclopedic knowledge).

The matter of the dates is one thing. The issue of how it is dealt with is another one altogether. And for PhiladelphiaInjustice to accuse someone of "having an agenda" and to follow this by describing that users country as "microscopic" and "irrelevant" is absurd (in fact, the use of such words is highly suggestive that PhiladelphiaInjustice has an agenda). PhiladelphiaInjustice suggests that what the other user says is "illogical, disorganized, and impertinent". Indeed, I find PhiladelphiaInjustice descends into poor logic, disorganization and impertinence as he/she seeks to dismiss the points made by Whats new? For Whats new? makes a clear, rational and cordial argument. If PhiladelphiaInjustice can't discuss matters without being abusive or ranting - which, in my view, this user tends towards - then they ought simply to not try and contribute. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hypocritical much? You trash FTWD (re: you are "...guessing most people aren't interested in reading about 'Fear the Walking Dead'...") while simultaneously criticizing me for pointing out that Australia is an insignificant country, at least with respect to the referenced edit, which it clearly is. Seriously, do you honestly believe that 58,000 premiere viewers warrants mention in an encyclopedia article that breaks it down in million-viewer sections? Australia did make the cut only because it is a continent. Also, it is curious that you believe that one's agenda can be determined by his username (in my case it cannot.) And yes, the referenced editor (whom you may actually be or have a connection to, given that your unwarranted attack against me mimics his) clearly has an agenda to promote his insignificant (in terms of FTWD viewership) country. You have a paranoid view of the world if you believe that my responses were anything but in the best interest of Wikipedia. You are highly hypocritical and sanctimonious, as you falsely accuse me of being illogical, disorganized, and impertinent. Please reread your post to notice that your criticisms of me actually apply to you.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Oh, I do find it funny when people who are losing an argument descend into a rant. Ha ha ha. I really must apologise, given that you thought I was "falsely accusing" you of something. I wasn't. I was offering a view that I thought truthful (and still do). Nice to see you make the leap to claiming (without any evidence) that I am - or have some connection to - the other user. Don't know them, never met them. Of course, I'd be happy to meet them - as it would probably involve a trip "down under" (he lives in Australia, while I'm located in Britain. He's been contributing to this site since 2006, if I read his profile correctly; while I've been doing so since 2008 ... or maybe I'm utterly delusional and he's really me!!!).

As I said above, I started out thinking that adding the dates might well constitute trivia. But I offered by "two cents" on the issue given the illogical, disorganized, and impertinent remarks by PhiladelphiaInjustice - who has gone on to repeat his illogical, disorganized, and impertinent drivel!!! I'm always baffled by those who, upon being informed that their approach might be erroneous, simply "dig in" and spout abuse. You see, I don't actually care whether the dates for countries are cited. Include them or don't. And I'm open-minded enough to say that my view on this matter might be totally wrong. It's not something that bothers me. Nor does being called "highly hypocritical and sanctimonious". Nice one. Even so, Mr. PhiladelphiaInjustice, your attitude to others stinks - and I just don't see how your approach to this matter is in any way a positive contribution. My view is, be tolerant of others and relate to them in a civil, respectful manner - unless they demonstrate intolerance. You did demonstrate intolerance towards "Whats new?" - so I pointed that out. Of course, you'll no doubt wish to offer some delightful retort ... Go on, have the last word! Let's see what you can come up with - as you obviously enjoy spewing forth verbal dung whenever a user says something contrary to your opinion. I'm sure you can do so much better than merely saying "highly hypocritical and sanctimonious". And I'm definitely expecting some form of ironic ineptitude. Have fun. You've certainly provided me with a smile. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Youtube clips not shown in Russia

I just read a couple of articles about how AMC blocks their videos for viewing in russia and how it encourages illegal downloads. Would this be something to include in the article? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUs45qepsCs

109.225.220.173 (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The info is probably not encyclopedic. Besides, I suspect that most Russians are sophisticated enough to know that they can use VPN's, proxies, or other means to watch the show online.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not just Russia. Hong Kong as well, at least. But many US networks block anyone outside the US from seeing their web content. Not so much piracy as they have agreements with local or satellite broadcasters. 202.81.249.36 (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Fear the Walking Dead (season 1) and Fear the Walking Dead (season 2)

Since the series has already been picked up for a second season, I went ahead and created the redirects Fear the Walking Dead (season 1) and Fear the Walking Dead (season 2) in case we want to split content by season. If editors are interested in working on articles about individual episodes, the first season should be pretty easy to create a Good topic since there are only 6 episodes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Labeeb A. Ali: Thanks for creating Fear the Walking Dead (season 1)! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: Seems User:AlexTheWhovian disagreed and moved the page to Draft:Fear the Walking Dead (season 1). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts and Froid: Pinging past page editors in case they wish to help determine the appropriateness of having a separate article for Season 1. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion in one location. There is no need to have it occurring in two locations at the same time. Cheers. Alex|The|Whovian^? 17:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, just trying to invite a wider audience to participate since I doubt many folks are following the other page/redirect/draft. See also: Draft_talk:Fear_the_Walking_Dead_(season_1). Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

An editor has gone ahead and created these two articles again, however, all the content is just copied-and-pasted directly from Fear the Walking Dead and List of Fear the Walking Dead episodes with zero original content. I fail to see how these articles are necessary when the content is already available in the two articles mentioned. Should just be redirected again. Anyone have any opinions? Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Alex^TW 12:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I like the split and find this format consistent with other TV series articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's consistency is far from other series. The articles contain no unique information that isn't found in either of the parent article or episodes article (season articles are used to detail the season), and we don't create articles based on how we "like" them. -- Alex^TW 15:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, well, agree to disagree. I prefer having separate articles for each season. Either way, I've requested a history merge to preserve the Season 1 article's history and correct the attribution gap. If consensus determines the article should be redirected again, that's fine, but we should be moving pages, not copying and pasting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, so far, the consensus is to merge them, so they should be moved back to the draft space and worked on until they sufficiently detail the seasons. And yes, moving pages should occur, and draft spaces should be checked first, but you disagreed with the latter. However, that's not the discussion at hand; solid drafts or a solid discussion and arguments are required to gain a new consensus to split the articles. -- Alex^TW 16:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Cast and characters

I thought I explained in my edit why I had done what I did. I can leave the references, as I didn’t know they were needed after they have been proven to be correct. That’s my fault. But I changed the characters’ info/bio—whatever you want to call it—to resemble The Walking Dead’s wiki page. It added more in depth detail and I thought it described the characters more than what it currently is. Hurricane Seth (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to show an in depth analysis of the characters and to mirror TWD's page. Hurricane Seth (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The Walking Dead (TV series) only displays the main cast because it has a separate character's article. If a series doesn't have a separate character's article, then we can include recurring on the main page. -- Alex^TW 07:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Madison Clark (character)

Hi everyone! I tried moving this draft to the namespace but another editor reverted my edits. What do you think? Should it be published? I think it should. The Optimistic One (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No, per Onel5969's comments at User talk:Onel5969#Madison Clarke. -- Alex^TW 12:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian: You probably don't know that my last comment on Onel5969's talk page was removed because it was "uncivil" and I'm also not allowed to comment back, maybe that's why it looks like he won the debate. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "winning" or "losing". It simply has to do with comprehending the notability criteria, and not wasting other editors' time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Character Articles

Since there is an article already created for Madison, Does anybody think we should create articles for Alicia, Nick, Travis, Chris, Victor, Ofelia, and Daniel? Matt Campbell (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Matt Campbell: I've just created drafts for Alicia, Nick, Victor and Daniel. You can work on them for now as drafts and when they're good enough to be in the mainspace we can move them. The Optimistic One (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

We need to create drafts for Travis, Chris, Ofelia, and maybe the Otto brothers, and John, Althea, and June! Matt Campbell (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Matt Campbell: Having too many drafts will only make things more complicated. Wait until these four drafts are finished. The Optimistic One (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I understand, and i have already made some progress on Nick, and Victor. I will need some help with these drafts as well. With finding sites and the character bio's. Matt Campbell (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll work on one draft at a time, I started with Nick's draft which is now in the mainspace. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Pretty soon we should create drafts for Travis, Chris, Ofelia, Luciana. Matt Campbell (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are the drafts for drafts for Travis and Chris! Matt Campbell (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Pretty soon we should start on some drafts for Ofelia, Luciana, Troy, and Jake! Matt Campbell (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

1) Please sign your posts only once. 2) Make sure you are aware of MOS:TVCAST: Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and even fewer will deserve an individual article. -- Alex^TW 15:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I did sign my posts! Matt Campbell (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk)

@Matt Campbell: AlexTheWhovian said you don't need to sign your posts twice. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't do it twice! Matt Campbell (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Then why is your name coming up thrice, your talk page and the date twice? -- Alex^TW 23:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Here are the drafts for drafts for Draft:Ofelia Salazar (character) and Draft:Luciana Galvez (character)! ~~User:Matt Campbell~~

Victor Strand

• Moved from Talk:List of Fear the Walking Dead characters#Victor Strand

TheKerberos01 believes that Victor Strand was a recurring character in season 1 because he appears in two episodes, this is because he believes that appearing in two episodes count as a guest role. Guest means that you only appeared once, recurring starts at two appearances. This link supports my statement by referring to Strand as a recurring character. Please feel free to discuss. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It has always been that guest characters have up to two appearances! As a recurring is only listed from three appearances, at least in the supporting roles. See The Walking Dead at Merle Dixon. In Season 1 he will be a guest despite two appearances. He is not the only one who is. There are still some other characters that are listed despite two appearances as a guest.

And with the Nwes, I'm sure that's what they meant, that he'll have more than one gig. And if not, do you seriously believe a New? As has been said before, for example, Colman will have 12 appearances in Season 4, but in fact they were 11. Or we were told that Cohan and Lincoln will have six episodes. But after their departure, there were only five. Well, there is still the second half of Season 9, but Cohan is more likely to occur again. In the end, I would like to say that a lot has already been told in the news, but not everything was right. TheKerberos01 (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Merle Dixon only appeared in one episode in Season 1, that's why he's listed as a guest. Show me where there's a character listed as a guest with two appearances. I know Colman made more than a few appearances last season, I'm talking about season 1 of FTWD where he only made two appearances. And why are you going on about Lauren Cohan? That has nothing to do with this discussion. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Season 5

I seen online that it will be released in the summer of this year would that be June also if that is true when could you make the page for this season B.Maidment (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Summer" isn't an acceptable term per WP:SEASON (it's summer for me right now!), and there's no source backing up a June premiere date. Besides that, an article likely won't be created for the season until it has premiered, so there's enough information for the article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent reviews

Okay..... Where do I start? This show's quality has drastically declined in the last year or so, ever since the new showrunners came along in the beginning of the fourth series. I've already stopped watching it halfway through the current series. The fanbase has noticed this too and ratings and reviews have been on a constant drop. The critics is catching on and comparing it negatively to the first couple of series's. Can we add the shows recent reviews and popularity? All that's in the reception section is the RT score. I would like to see what critics have to say about thelast couple of episodes of the show.The Optimistic One (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not a blog... we shouldn't be giving our opinions about the current state of the show. Spanneraol (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not why I posted this, I posted it because I think we should add more reviews from critics for the last few series's. All that's available for the fifth is a score from RT. The Optimistic One (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Interested in what needs to be edited

how can i help Year2040 (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)