Talk:Big Sky (American TV series)

"The Big Sky" has been renamed to just "Big Sky" by ABC

Someone should fix the show's main page to reflect that. I don't want to because I'm afraid of breaking a lot of other linkages. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Brojam (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this a "settled question" – articles are still calling the series "The Big Sky" (e.g. [2] ), though I will note that ABC's Fall schedule press release ([3]) does call it just "Big Sky". FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The article calls it "Big Sky". Also, see the show's Twitter account. - Brojam (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: The Deadline source has been changed to Big Sky, I just checked the link. In addition, here is the official ABC press release website called it Big Sky — YoungForever^(talk) 20:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Main cast???

Why would you list someone as main cast who does not even make it to the end of the pilot episode? 84.190.192.123 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:TVCAST, we go by according to credits. Ryan Phillippe was credited as part the main cast on the "Pilot" episode. The episodes that he did appeared in following the "Pilot" episode, he was credited as Special guest star. There is already a note on the article next to his character name. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Cast order in infobox

Hello,

My understanding is that the cast order in the infobox doesn't change, per the hidden note. Am I correct? Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Episode date (S02/pt 2 continuation)

@YoungForever: I take it you didn't look to see if there was another item that could be added to satisfy your "two column" policy, but you could've at least added the date to somewhere in the text instead. That is useful information, why just right-out remove it completely? - wolf 05:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, there is a general consensus on MOS:TV and WP:TV that a row on an episode table needs to have at least two columns filled (the overall and season numbers do not count toward that) to warrant the row on the episode table. WP:NORUSH, the Futon Critic usually list the episode title and airdate once it gets closer to the airdate. — YoungForever^(talk) 06:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@YoungForever: that doesn't answer the question, like... at all. The second season has been split, with the latter half delayed. Now there are multiple sites reporting that the season will resume with E09 on February 24. If that can't be added to the episode list, then why can't it be added somewhere in the article text instead? This is relevant, useful information that is typically found in most tv articles. - wolf 08:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. I am aware of this discussion. TV series often have a 1–2 months hiatus to split a season. They did this for the first season of this TV series which can been seen on the Episode table. As I said, WP:NORUSH, the return for a new episode airdate is going to be on the episode table alongside the episode title once it gets closer to the return airdate. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@YoungForever: I made a single edit, which you reverted, and now I'm asking you a simple question; the date upon which the second half of the season will begin airing is just a few weeks away and is now reported on multiple sites, since you removed it from the table entry (for... reasons), I'm asking you why the date is not being added to the article, somewhere (anywhere) else...? You keep posting the shortcut for an essay, which "in a nutshell" is: "Wikipedia is a work in progress. Don't rush to edit: it is not a competition.", which does not only not seem to apply here, but does not answer the relatively simple question I'm asking of you. Do you have a straight answer or not? - wolf 17:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, please stop pinging me as in please stop "@" me. It is a month away. It is in prose format for now until enough info to warrant the row on the episode table. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@YoungForever: "It is in prose format for now until enough info to warrant the row on the episode table." - which is precisely what I have been asking you for, despite this latest bit of disingenuous gaslighting, and something you only added 3 minutes ago. Next time, try more collaborative, less combative, and hopefully avoid such useless, time-wasting exercises. Have a nice day - wolf 21:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia is not a battleground. I will no longer response to your personal attacks. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@YoungForever: That goes two ways. But, this is off-topic, hence the discussion on your tp. Have a nice day - wolf 23:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You are clearly misusing gaslighting. Gaslighting is to make someone question their reality. At no point, I did that at all. Yet, you could have put in prose format yourself, per WP:FIXIT. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@YoungForever: Why do you have such difficultly with the truth? You never asked me to not post on your tp and two comments is hardly "harassment".

"You are clearly misusing gaslighting. Gaslighting is..." blah, blah blah. - You only read the first sentence, it goes on to say that: "The term may also be used to describe a person (a "gaslighter") who presents a false narrative to another group or person which leads them to doubt their perceptions and become misled." - I "clearly" used it as intended.

"At no point, I did that at all"[sic]. - I've clearly demonstrated that is exactly what you did.

"Yet, you could have put in prose format yourself, per WP:FIXIT" - I already made an edit to this page, which you reverted. Per WP:BRD, I initiated a discussion to try and seek a resolution. I suggested adding the date to the prose in. every. single. post. I. made. You refused while going on and on about "no rush" and "no pings"... hardly collaborative on your part. The content issue wasn't resolved until you enacted my suggestion. Every step of the way you've been uncooperative and rude. But whatever, I got the edit I wanted and I demonstrated a clear attempt to make peace, which you refused. I now find I don't care anymore and so with that... I think we're done here. Have a nice day - wolf 02:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. You are clearly doing the same thing. You did not put it in prose format at all. It is harassment when you repeatedly personal attacked me on my talk. We are clearly not done when you deliberately chose to personal attack me continuously. If you expect an apology, you are not going to get one. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@YoungForever: 1. I'm doing the same what now? Actually, nevermind.

2. What part of wp:brd do you not understand? It's a widely accepted community practice and I was following it.

3. I was the first to suggest adding the date to the prose. You rejected it. This thread speaks for itself.

4. I tried to reason with you, then I tried to disengage when it was clear you were not willing to work towards a collaborative resolution.

5. I have not attacked you. If anything, you need to look to your own poor behavior here.

6. Nope, I certainly do not expect an apology from you.

7. Now, you have taken this waaay off topic, so I'll say it again; we are done here.

Now let this go and move on.

Have a nice day - wolf 08:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yet, here you are clearly not letting go here either. You seriously need to move on, too. Your behavior is poor as well, you chose to call someone a gaslighter which is a personal attack. Your comments say a lot here. — YoungForever^(talk) 08:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@YoungForever: "Yet, here you are clearly not letting go here either." - Erm, I'm the one that keep's saying "we're done here", you're the one that keeps dragging this on with your must-have-the-last-word attacks.

"You seriously need to move on, too." - Res ipsa loquitur.

"Your behavior is poor as well" - Are you the pot or the kettle here?

"you chose to call someone a gaslighter which is a personal attack." - I called your comments disingenuous, which is a fact.

"Your comments say a lot here." - Yawn. But not as much yours. Are you done now...? - wolf 19:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Your comments are also condescending which is a fact. It seemed that you have nothing better to do than patronizing other editors repeatedly. Now, are you done? — YoungForever^(talk) 19:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@YoungForever: "Your comments are also condescending which is a fact." - Glass houses, sweetheart.

"'It seemed that you have nothing better to do than patronizing other editors repeatedly." - It seems you have nothing better to do than post personal attacks while complaining of being personally attacked.

"Now, are you done?" - Are you? - wolf 20:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Source?

@YoungForever, you added the row for S02 9th episode today, re-adding the date and now including an episode title, while removing the mention of the episode date from the article. But in the process, you removed the source for the date as well, and did not add a source for the title, meaning both items appear to be currently unsourced. - wolf 01:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@YoungForever: Pinging you as you have not responded and you've been actively editing since my last comment, as such I've had to revert. You've removed sourcing and added new content without sourcing all without explanation. I'm sure this was just an oversight, but when you have an opportunity, please address this, thank you. - wolf 16:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That is wrong, they are both reliably sourced. Please see |titleR= and |airdateR= for the reliable source which cover the entire columns of the Episode titles and airdates. They are located at the top of the Episode table. The Futon Critic has updated its listings for the TV series which now included the Episode title and the airdate for February 24, 2022. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm... yes, perhaps if you'd mentioned that in the summary of any one of the four consecutive edits you made instead leaving a useless and ridiculous "I told you so!" comment, then none of this would've been necessary. Please try to leave more effective edit summaries as you go forward, thank you. Have a nice day - wolf 21:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not my fault that you intentionally reverted without checking the edit yourself in which I updated the access-date of the reliable source. The reliable source on |titleR= and |airdateR= have always been there FYI. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Riiiight, so nothing is ever your fault, and you can't take any responsibility for misusing the edit summary function. Got it. Meanwhile, I suppose you'll continue moving the hatting template to either include your off-topic remarks, or disclude my on-topic remarks, while also posting yet another must-have-the-last-word comment. (That, or follow me to another article so you can correct my "error".) Or, you could try letting things go, for once. Have a nice day. - wolf 00:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Big Sky considered a Western by the author

@Thewolfchild:

Numerous articles indicate that Big Sky is considered by the author to be a Western.[4], [5], [6]

--Linaure (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

While the author may have written the books as westerns, and hoped a western vibe carried over to the show, that does not necessarily mean it did. Perhaps post a comment at WT:TV, maybe some more editors will join the discussion and there'll be a consensus one way or 'tother. - wolf 04:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)