Talk:Friday Night Lights (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFriday Night Lights (TV series) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 26, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Deleted Trivia Items[edit]

Hi,

I deleted these two trivia items because not only were they not sourced but I could see no realistic way to ever be able to source them. If someone can find a source for them that would be great but at this point I don't even know if they are true and, as A man in black rightly pointed out, the Trivia section needs to go.

ThomasC22 10:07, 21 March 2007

Fictional Game Results[edit]

The game results section is clearly an Exception to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)and should remain. The original chart (which I did not create) did not have proper citations and I corrected that. Please do not delete it again. ThomasC22 16:49, 19 March 2007

Um. It's completely in-universe, and often not even important to the story. It's not an exception to WP:WAF at all; in fact, it's exactly what WP:WAF instructs us not to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, its absolutely relevant in that it details the progression of the story just as the plot section does. The series is the story of this season of the Dillon Panther football so saying the results of the games in that season isn't relevant doesn't track.
Second, the whole reason for not having an "In-Universe" perspective is that it lends itself to, as the article puts it, creative interpretation. A chart doesn't fall victim to that because a chart is simply a recitation of facts. Under the exceptions portion it says the following...
"Of course, out-of-universe information needs context; details of creation, development, etc. are more helpful if the reader understands a fictional element's role in its own milieu. This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as they describe a piece of fiction that does not change when it is read, watched, or played from one instance to the next. This is not inherently bad, if the fictional passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research."
This is exactly what the chart is, its short (as short as possible because its a chart with no exposition whatsoever), the text I put above the chart gives it proper context (e.g. these are the games of the FICTIONAL...) and (again by the nature of a chart) features no interpretation whatsoever.
The guidelines then goes on to say that...
"Note that when using the fictional work itself to write these descriptions the work of fiction must be cited as a source."
Which is exactly why I edited the original chart creators work to add the episode name and number for each score as a citation.
Further, my original point still stands. The article for the TV Series West Wing has reached Featured Article status and it goes extensively into the fictional world of the series including sections on each fictional presidential election (which is virtually the same concept as here its just an election vs a football game)
ThomasC22 17:08, 19 March 2007
The game results are so unimportant that often they aren't even mentioned in the episode. This is interpretive, trivial information backed by personal observation of the work of fiction itself, and it treats the fictional universe as though it were the real one, giving a sports-almanac-style summary of a season that exists only in fiction.
We don't give results like this for real-world teams. Why on earth would we do this for fictional ones? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well first, you're wrong there. Every score but one has been mentioned, if it hadn't, they wouldn't exist to be cited in the chart. Second, real teams aren't relevant. This is documentation of a work of fiction not an actual team so the question is "what is the acceptable standard for that" This is where my West Wing point comes into play as it is a Featured Article using the same logic. The election is relevant to the West Wing because if the fictional president lost there would be no show, the winning scores are relevant here because if the team lost there would be no show.
ThomasC22 17:08, 19 March 2007
Every single article can't be cleaned up simultaneously, and The West Wing (TV series) doesn't mention election results at all, save as part of prose summarizing the story. You've made a sports almanac-style table that mixes important and trivial information liberally, treats a fictional universe as though it were real, and duplicates the plot summary elsewhere in the article.
Can you see the difference between the two? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're just wrong here, the main article references a sub article which has a chart listing statistics of the election. See here: The_West_Wing_presidential_election%2C_2002
Also, where does it duplicate the plot summary? Because I wrote the plot summary, today, and its pretty frest in my mind and I don't see any duplication.
ThomasC22 17:08, 19 March 2007
Wow, that's a terrible article, everything that we shouldn't be doing on Wikipedia. Don't mistake a terrible sub-article as part of the featured article. The fact that one team won or lost is important, and the score is sometimes important. However, exact scores aren't important for each game, and in two different cases you're just inferring the score. Plus, this chart includes a game that isn't ever even depicted, just mentioned in passing.
Each game is of roughly equal importance to the fictional world, but each game isn't equally important in the real world. This table uses the fictional world's priorities, and includes info important to the fictional world whether it's important to the real one or not. That's what WP:WAF is telling you not to do when it's telling you that you shouldn't write content that "treats the fiction as if it were real, and describes it from the perspective of the people and characters of the fictional universe." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it may very well be a terrible article but it isn't wholly unacceptable and it takes what the chart in question does and goes way overboard with the concept.
Let me try this, imagine a wikipedia article about a fictional greek god who has to overcome challenges to earn...whatever. Would a listing of the challenges that greek god had to overcome be unacceptable? I don't think so because it is part of the story and the challenges that the greek god had to overcome puts the character itself in context.
Same here, the fictional team is as much a character in the series and any of the people on the team and the most important thing you can know about a team is their standing. That is what the chart provides. Now you could try to do the same thing in a narrative but then you get into the problem of creative interpretation. If I write a narrative saying how the teams they played got harder to beat as the story went on I'm then making the mistake of creating original research. With the chart, the reader can make up their own mind based on the fictional facts presented. Plus, what the chart also does is to keep everything in present tense which is a key point made in the "Exceptions" section of the WP:WAF.
Perhaps more to the point though is this, though you still might not agree with me I think I've put forward enough to indicate that I COULD be right. So, when given something that is debatable isn't it best to err in the direction of giving the reader as much information as possible?
ThomasC22 22:15, 19 March 2007

As a possible compromise I moved the chart to the Plot section and tied it into the plot narrative to re-enforce the fictional nature of it. ThomasC22 00:44, 20 March 2007

That doesn't solve the problem. Again, you're still mixing important and unimportant detail, with no distinction between same, arranged in a way that doesn't mirror the real-world arrangement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replied more below but again, what you are saying is that YOU, not the guidelines, don't consider this information important. Where as I, the person who originally created the chart, and all the people who created and edited those West Wing articles all believe this type of information is important and relevant.
ThomasC22 12:44, 20 March 2007


Just documenting here that I reverted your edits again (and will continue to do so). I'm open to compromise of some sort (and as shown above have tried to bring it about) but your argument seems to simply boil down to "you don't think this information is relevant". That isn't a guideline issue as I've shown this chart fits well within the exceptions to the guidelines you cited and have pointed out articles that have similar charts (so clearly there are a lot of people who think this type of information is relevant).

More importantly, I again make the point that when in doubt Wikipedia editors should err on the side of giving as much information as possible instead of deleting information that could be relevent based on their personal preferences. ThomasC22 12:44, 20 March 2007

Wikipedia editors should err on the side of summarizing fictional stories, not recreating fictional worlds in explicit detail. That's the point of WP:WAF, and "specific fictional statistics" are even called out as an example of what we shouldn't be doing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't entirely disagree with you its just that the WP:WAF is painfully contradictory in its descriptions which makes this a grey area. Look at the cited Captain Marvel (the DC version) article. This article is cited in the actual WP:WAF documentation but if you look under the "Powers and Abilities" section it does exactly what the chart in this article does (e.g. lists the powers of Captain Marvel which are attributes of the fictional character just as game standing is a fictional attribute of a Football team)
Anyway, sorry you went away angry, hope the fact that I knocked out the Trivia section makes you feel a little better.
ThomasC22 12:44, 20 March 2007

13 episodes so far[edit]

NBC has already ordered 13 episodes and so far 6 of the 13 have been filmed. I'm looking forward to Gaius Charles role. I wonder if he's new or in the role of Jett Jackson. I hope not. I want these to be all-new characters.

Guy in the bed[edit]

The thing with shows like these is, they have to much drama in it. They try to take the last episode, and twist it up so crazy, so that when you miss two episodes, you come back to a guy dead and a child molestor father, sometimes it just confuses me. I had high hopes for Friday Night Lights, but the QB getting paralized and watching football players cry? C'mon... My point is, something should be added about the drama in this show, more than mentioning it's "a drama". Thanks Kyle 02:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy dead and a child molestor father? I think you might be thinking about another show.

Cancelled[edit]

Im terrible with html, so could some edit this to show it's canceled.

Where was this reported? Some edit could be made, but there has to be a reference...WestWingFan 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind I thought it was canceled. Although i have seen several rumors saying it's on the verge of being canceled.Superway25 02:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the NBC executives said that Friday Night Lights (like Studio 60) is still turning a profit (Steve Something, I think... ), and will continue to run for at least the rest of this season. Keep in mind, I don't remember where I saw this, and cannot find it anywhere. Trocisp 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually heard NBC is picking it up for a second season. Hope its true, this show is the only reason why I watch TV.Ychennay 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that NBC made the brilliant decision to air a football show against Monday Night Football (an American Football institution!) and against the World Series (yet another American sports institution)? Would it not stand to reason that doing so would adversely effect the ratings? I don't know if this belongs on the main page. 128.195.111.164 12:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)intrepidsfsu[reply]

Represent[edit]

The team played my high school on the 5th episode. The maroon team they placed is an exact replica of the A&M Consolidated High School. Uniforms looks the same... they're the tigers... even the mascot shown briefly is EXACTLY the same. It's probably worth noting how these teams are modeled around real teams. :)--CountCrazy007 08:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the scenes were played by members of an actual team called the Panthers (it was on a link before)..72.200.27.179 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Monthly?[edit]

I'm not going to change it, but could someone justify why Texas Monthly's negative review is notable to the point where it deserves a specific mention? Texas Monthly is not exactly the New York Times. The AFI, on the other hand, has legitimate prestige, although the deservedness of that prestige might be up for debate.

Considering Texas Monthly has a circulation of 300,00 with nearly 2.5 million readers, I'd think it bears some importance, especially considering it's the only review in the article from a publication that is from Texas... To tough to die 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300,000 sounds impressive, until you compare it to the circulations of magazines like Time or Newsweek (around 4,000,000). Even the New York Times has a circulation of over 1,000,000. Texas Monthly caters to a very "niche" market, and I still don't think they're a prestigious enough publication to warrant such a specific mention. But I don't feel so strongly about this matter that I'm going to remove it.

Trivia editing[edit]

I just deleted the following: "Matt Saracen and Smash Williams wear the numbers 7 and 20, respectively, as do Chad Henne and Mike Hart of the University of Michigan." A cute coincidence, but barring any evidence that it's anything more than a coincidence, it shouldn't be on the page.--Eirishis 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theme music[edit]

Are we sure that it's "Your Hand in Mine"? I have that song, and I just don't hear it in the theme music. They're both in 3/4 time, but that strikes me as the only similarity. Bdure 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact it's not anything by Explosions In The Sky. Even though when I had closed captions on, it said that the song was 'Remember Me As A Time Of Day' by EITS. I read somewhere that the music was composed by WG 'Snuffy' Walden and another guitarist. I REALLY want this piece of music in its entirety so if anyone has it or knows where to get it, please post.

Cast and Characters section[edit]

Can someone explain to me why there is both a cast and character section, with the character section having the same information as the cast section? If I don't hear a good reason in the next few days I am going to remove the cast section. 64.132.190.26 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard[edit]

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tags?[edit]

Can we get spoiler tags in the appropriate areas? TheHYPO 03:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was reading this page and the character biographies ruined the show for me. If no one opposes the change I will put up the spoiler warning in the next few weeks. Joesixpac 23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revisions[edit]

I recently revised the order of the article and began a rewriting process that I hope to complete for the entire article when I have some time. The differences can be seen in the history. These changes were reverted though and I would like to discuss the direction that this article should take. As I said to ThomasC on his talk page, I would like to see this article resemble Lost. I also feel the prose needs help in a number of areas. Any input is more than welcome. SorryGuy 07:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The critical reception section of this article reads like it was written by the promo guys at NBC. This critic loved it, and here's what they said! Oh, and this critic loved it, and this is what they said! "Nonetheless," the article continues, as if all this praise makes it seem unfathomable that anyone could disagree, there have been negative reviews as well. These are perfuntorily listed, and none of them are quoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.89.173 (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead information[edit]

I disagree with the edit summary that the information in the lead as a fourth paragraph is properly sourced. As it stands, the article is from a source that may or may not be reliable. Besides that, the title is misattributed and source would seem to be editorializing. Personally, I am not confident about renewable based on the comments made, but that is my opinion. Saying that he indicated cancellation in that reference seems like original research to me. I think until we have actual confirmation, we should remove the speculation, or at least make the unclear nature of show's faith more clear. SorryGuy  Talk  06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 26, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article is pretty legnthy which raises some boredom concerns, however, the content is factual and well composed.
2. Factually accurate?: I have found no incorrect references to indicate any information is fradulent.
3. Broad in coverage?: As said above, the article is very lengthy and seems to cover all aspects.
4. Neutral point of view?: The article is written from a neutral point of view, and does not seem to have any indication of being biased in any section of the article.
5. Article stability? There are some issues in this department, which could have made the article fail. Some issues have been raised with attempted images and other information, however, the latest argument was early in 2007.
6. Images?: The article sees to have good images to support the subject, and they have all passed copyright issues.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Season One Themes[edit]

"When the season opens both characters [Smash and Riggins] despise each other but as it progresses they become more and more dependent on each other eventually forming a friendship. In doing so they realize that they aren't as different as they had once thought."

I know this whole idea sounds nice, but while I do recall the two characters growing friendly, I don't recall any significant on-screen moments in which Season One has them realizing "they aren't as different as they once thought." While it's a well-worded section, I think that claims such as these should have citations to support them in the interests of accuracy (as with sections in other TV articles like the one for 24). There are certainly some episode guides out there that should be able to provide the necessary references. --James26 (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. If you would be willing to write more through and neutral plot summaries, have at it. I have never really like the plot outlines, with one of them being my writing. It simply is not my thing. But if it is yours, please do have a go of it. Cheers, SorryGuy  Talk  00:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Campaigns[edit]

Does there really need to be an "as of today" donations update in this article? It doesn't really have anything to do with the show and we don't know when the author who contribute it wrote it so "as of today" could have been a year ago, unless whoever wrote it is so obsessed with their donation campaign they really are updating this page every single day. 68.229.185.85 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Mostly Improvised?[edit]

The "Filming" section states that the show is "mostly improvised." This is not true. Improvised moments often make the final cut, but the show is mostly scripted. NSpector (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHICH season airing on NBC this April (2010)?[edit]

Although I don't know this for a fact (if I knew it for a fact I'd edit the article rather than post here); but the article says Season Five, not Season Four, is airing on NBC this April (2010). That seems highly unlikely to me:

1) It would mean that they made two seasons this year (not out of the question, as seasons are only half length, but doubtful).

2) It would mean that Season Four would never air on NBC and Season Five would never air on DirecTV, which would defeat the purpose of their agreement to share the show and production costs, as DirecTV wanted customers who wanted to see the show ASAP and without commercials while NBC would still have a large contingent who hadn't seen the show on DirecTV as viewers. Otherwise Season Five would never air on DirecTV and confuse NBC viewers who hadn't seen Season Four.

Unless someone can prove definitively otherwise, I'm virtually certain that Season Four will be airing on NBC in April 2010; and then Season Five would air on DirecTV in Fall 2010 and then on NBC in Spring 2011.

Unless someone can confirm conclusively it's Season Five being aired this spring, the article needs modification. Niria1 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just confirmed, using the same source[1] used to verify that the show will end after Season Five, that is it in fact Season Four airing Spring 2010 on NBC, that Season Five will begin shooting this summer (Summer 2010), and then air that fall on DirecTV and spring on NBC, after which the series will end. Will edit into main article. Niria1 (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, someone beat me to the edit. It's all fine, though; I just wanted to see it accurately stated. --Niria1 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2010/02/10/friday-night-lights-to-end/

Status of the final season[edit]

Has the final season already aired or not? In the second paragraph it says the series finale aired in February and then continues to state that the final season will begin airing April 15 (today).--24.137.66.135 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-It aired on DIrectTV in the fall, and has just started airing on Network TV (NBC) April 15. Nightspore (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) The result of this discussion was to keep the list separate. This discussion has been open for a year, and no consensus formed for a merge. In addition, this show has clearly received enough awards to have a standalone list. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe List of awards and nominations received by Friday Night Lights should be merged into this article. It seems superfluous to have an entire article dedicated to the awards received by a single TV show. Jmajeremy (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Friday Night Lights (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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Friday Night Lights (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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Friday Night Lights (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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon, Texas is not a fictional town. It was/is a town in east Texas. It’s actually considered a “ghost town “, but it does exist![edit]

Dillon is a ghost town in Hopkins County, Texas, located 30 miles east of Miller Grove near Saltillo, Texas. The town was named after E. F. Dillon, who started operating the post office in his store in 1901. The post office closed in 1906, and in the mid-1930s the town disappeared from highway maps. From Wikipedia. 2600:8800:51A1:8900:C938:1F36:296C:EE68 (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mockumentary[edit]

Should Mockumentary be listed in the genres in the Infobox since it's filmed in that style, just like the office? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friday_Night_Lights_(TV_series)&oldid=1202151139"