Talk:Pose (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2019[edit]

Please change "such as Jose Gutierez Xtravaganza, the inventor of voguing," to "such as Jose Gutierez Xtravaganza, an early arbiter of vouging,"

Vogue existed before Jose Xtravaganza, but he helped to popularize it in the late 80s and early 90s. https://nypost.com/2018/05/31/vogueing-legend-looks-back-on-nycs-underground-dance-scene/ Cdstallworth (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

character relations corrections[edit]

i believe the relationship between Ricky and Pray Tell is incorrect, at least as of the end of season 1. Ricky is the boyfriend of Damon.

also,side question: what's the generally acceptable time between an episode airing and adding items that could be viewed as spoilers without advising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.202.35 (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary creator Steven Canals[edit]

Why does this article present Ryan Murphy as if he is the primary creator of the show? Pose originated with Steven Canals. Earlishly (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awards "snubs" section[edit]

The following paragraph was included the article in a new awards "snubs" section:

Some of these statements, beginning with the first, fail WP:SYNTH right away. The two cited sources only verify that the actresses were snubbed for Emmy Award nominations, so to paint a broad brush and state in Wikipedia's voice that said actresses do not receive awards recognition in general is not supported by any of the sources. The same issue is present with the following sentence, where the following two sources only say that Rodriguez and Moore were snubbed for the Emmys as opposed to acting awards in general. Furthermore, these sources also highlight Dominique Jackson, so to only mention Rodriguez and Moore (with the appropriate attribution) would be a WP:WEIGHT issue.

Mock stating the series was overlooked for NAACP Image Awards might be verifiable, but there's no existing connection between this information and the (supposed) lack of awards recognition for the series across the television awards spectrum. Willis' analysis of Porter's nomination also seems worthy of inclusion as it is, but as a single sentence, it's hard to know where it fits in the article. All of that in mind, I have removed the section for now, but I believe there's a way to include some of the information published. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 02:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did we include Awards "snubs"? I have never seen any television series articles include Awards "snubs". That is pretty much saying every TV series that didn't get nominated. — YoungForever(talk) 03:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think an argument could be made for the inclusion of the actresses being snubbed for this year's Emmy Awards per reliable sources, including the THR article cited above, the Los Angeles Times, Digital Spy, NBC News, and Variety, but it would only be appropriate for a single sentence inclusion (e.g., "the series' trans actresses did not garner nominations for the 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards, which was regarded as a snub") that I wouldn't know where to place in the article. That aside, I did a quick search, and I wasn't able to find a reliable source that states the series is generally snubbed for awards, so the proposed section as written isn't an appropriate inclusion. KyleJoantalk 08:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for starting this conversation. I agree that the passage could be improved with precision; for example, "Critics have noted the lack of award recognition for the trans actresses on the show from the NAACP Image Awards and the Primetime Emmy Awards," as those are the specific award programs that have been mentioned. And, I agree that there is no evidence to say the show does not receive awards, as it does. The first sentence specifically mentions that the trans actresses have been "snubbed", per the references. I think with editing, and perhaps additional references, a paragraph on this is sensible as a single sentence would likely lack context for general reading. Thanks, Citrivescence (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But even the new proposed sentence contains issues, as Out specified that the series as a whole–as opposed to only the actresses–was snubbed for NAACP Image Awards. Furthermore, award recognition insinuates the cast did not win those awards when the viewpoint published is that they did not get nominated. Along with that, the NAACP Image Awards snub was only additionally analyzed by two other (supposedly) reliable sources–Essence and Paper–so to include such a viewpoint could still be a weight issue, and even if it is worthy of inclusion, I don't believe the two snub instances warrant their own section at this time, especially since no reliable source has drawn any connection between them. KyleJoantalk 04:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Emmys Snub Transgender Stars of 'Pose,' 'Euphoria'". www.advocate.com. 2020-07-28. Retrieved 2020-07-29.
  2. ^ Carras, Christi (2020-07-28). "Indya Moore on 'Pose' snubs: 'Imagine if we depended on cis ppl to validate ... us'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2020-07-29.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ "Emmys: 'Pose' Star Billy Porter Nominated for Best Drama Actor, Trans Actresses Snubbed". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2020-07-29.
  4. ^ a b "Why the Emmys Got it All Wrong". PAPER. 2020-07-28. Retrieved 2020-07-29.
  5. ^ "'Pose' Trans Actresses Snubbed From Emmy Nominations". Essence. Retrieved 2020-07-29.
  6. ^ "'Pose' Was a Glaring Omission from the NAACP Image Awards". www.out.com. 2019-02-15. Retrieved 2020-07-29.

The white actors who only appeared in Season 1 shouldn't be labelled as first[edit]

While it may have made sense for the white actors who appeared in Season 1 (Evan Peters, Kate Mara, James van der Beek) to be first according to the pilot's credits, Season 2 and Season 3 have completely aired without any appearance from these actors. Therefore, I am changing the order to the most recent accurate one (Season 3 Series Finale) to better reflect the cast and to not give off the impression that the actors in Season 1 stick longer than they actually are in the show to not mislead anyone. RogueShanghai (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:TVCAST and this discussion. KyleJoantalk 08:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleJoan: Okay, but there isn't even any indication that the top billed white cisgender actors (which I personally find very problematic) stay longer for a season in the lead. I am going to add an indication that these actors do not appear in Seasons 2 and 3, for accuracy. RogueShanghai (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleJoan: I also read the consensus and manual of style, but this is a tricky situation because none of those examples that you listed in the discussion have the specific problem we are facing: that the white, cisgender actors who did not appear in the majority of episodes in season 1 and were not present at all in Seasons 2 and 3, are being put first over the black & latina transgender actors who were put in the majority of the show. No examples you listed have that specific situation. That is why people are reverting it, because the order of actors seems in nature problematic. RogueShanghai (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then propose a change on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television to make exceptions for white, cisgender actors on a series about LGBTQIA+ BIPOC. Regarding the billing being in nature problematic, take that up with the series' executives. We document what they do. We don't create our own order (and notes) based on our own preferences. KyleJoantalk 09:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleJoan: But here's the thing, it is not documenting what they do, it is documenting what they did in the first episode. As I've stated, later episodes of Pose have the more accurate billing order. That is an issue with Wikipedia's policy and not the series executives. It's not just "your own preference" if later episodes of the show don't match the current apparent "cishet white first" cast order in the first episode. RogueShanghai (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then propose the change that I suggested. Cheers!
P.S. Peters, Mara, and Van Der Beek were the first, second, and third actors billed in the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth episode. Did you actually watch the show? KyleJoantalk 09:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was plain incorrect. Woodard appeared in season two. Did you actually watch the show? KyleJoantalk 09:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleJoan: I am proposing a compromise. I am going to add an EFN that states that these actors only appeared in Season one, so as to prevent misleading information (which was my entire goal in the first place) Therefore, the billing stays the same but it is clear that these actors do not appear in Seasons two and three. Please don't assume that I am being racist against white people. Also, no need to use the same passive aggresive diss twice.RogueShanghai (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is misleading. Everyone in the lead starred on the show. I've also asked multiple times why you're not proposing to add notes for Ross and Bernhard, so if your qualm is simply with the "cishet white first" cast order, then other users are free to interpret that as they choose. Please go do something else. KyleJoantalk 09:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleJoan: First of all, you are being unnecessarily passive aggresive even though Wikipedia is a collaborative project and civility must be maintained. Second of all, it is misleading because it is insinutating that these characters stayed on the show for longer than one season, which fails policy. A simple footnote to explain that they do not appear in Seasons two and three is not a bad faith edit. I am 100% agreeing and going to add notes for Ross and Barnhard, I am going to do it but you keep reverting my edits literally the minute I do them. Please calm down. RogueShanghai (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No policy has been violated. And I never said I supported notes for Ross and Bernhard. I simply asked why you didn't propose notes for them. In the archived discussion, I stated that I did not support adding qualifications in regards to who starred in which seasons because it would make the lead muddy, so we're back to WP:ONUS. You do not have a consensus for your proposed notes. KyleJoantalk 09:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to propose notes for them in addition to the first three actors, but again you are engaging in edit warring while I am literally trying to reach a compromise on the talk page to avoid edit warring. A EFN does not make a lead muddy or make the text look ugly, it simply explains contextual information as to not insinuate that Peters has a lead main character role, for example. You are telling me that I do not have a consensus for my notes, yet you are disregarding every possible change I'm making and you are being unnecessarily passive aggresive and uncivil. Please calm down. Can someone ping another editor so we can get a third and fourth opinion. RogueShanghai (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes do make the lead muddy the same way too many citations do per WP:OVERKILL. Also, WP:THEREISNODEADLINE, so take your own advice. KyleJoantalk 10:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notes are spaced out and do not look muddy at all, because citation overkill talks about citations that are next to each other, at least that's what I'm seeing. Otherwise, the lead currently insinuates, on first glance, that Evan Peters has a lead role in the show and stays longer than one season, which both of which aren't true. ONE citation saying that he only stays for Season 1 is important context, but doesn't change the order of the cast per MOS. You have been unnecessarily passive aggresive, please try to reach a compromise.RogueShanghai (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, you choose to completely ignore MOS:TVCAST which clearly states The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list.. It is clearly inappropriate to rearrange the main cast order to personal preference or/and go by the starring cast order on later episodes. — YoungForever(talk) 18:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to add to this conversation so late, but I really think the cast order should be changed. Wikipedia's guidelines are exactly that, guidelines. They're meant to give editors a general idea of how each page should be formatted, for consistency. But every situation is different, and I just do not see how it makes any sense that three actors who have not appeared in the show for nearly 3 years are billed over the four leads, those being Rodriguez, Jackson, Moore and Porter. It's misleading to the readers and frankly, (this next comment is subjective to me) offensive in nature. I would be willing to discuss more with anyone who has a counter argument for me, because the section as it is now needs a redo in my opinion. Ajack15 (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2021 (CT)
I don't see how this TV series should be any different from other TV series. We can't be rearranging the starring cast to the final season. It is also inappropriate to rearrange the starring cast every time a new season has different starring cast order. Do you realize this is a recipe for disaster? — YoungForever(talk) 00:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, every situation is different. It's not just that the characters don't appear in later episodes, but they also don't have any major impact on the series moving forward, aside from maybe a mention or two in the early episodes of season 2. I never suggested changing every TV series, just this one. Ajack15 (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2021 (CT)
Which source says that Rodriguez, Jackson, Moore, and Porter are the four leads? And on what basis are you suggesting a billing order change other than your personal preference? KyleJoantalk 01:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it is still a recipe for disaster because putting Peters, Mara, and Van Der Beek to bottom of the list will mess up the entire starring cast list as other starring cast members appeared in later seasons are at the bottom. — YoungForever(talk) 01:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleJoan: Well, we could start with FX's own website[1] which (rightfully) completely omits Peters, Mara and Van Der Beek from the cast list. Then, the original casting announcement from Variety[2] which states that Rodriguez, Moore and Jackson had all been set as the series' first five actors, implying that they are leads (Porter was relegated to an additional cast member due to the article's topic, but Peters, Mara and Van Der Beek were once again, completely omitted). And finally, I think I can confidently say that, objectively, the show itself dedicates the most screen time and character development to those four. As for your second question, there's really nothing I can say that would answer that because most of what has been said is subjective. But context matters, and given the context of this situation (the fact that the show is centered on the LGBTQ black/latine vogue scene of the 80s and the three actors billed first do not significantly appear again throughout the series; also FX themselves have since officially changed the cast list due to the confusion) it simply does not make sense to leave it as it is. They don't have to be moved to the bottom, just below the four aforementioned actors, then a note could be added that states, "Peters, Mara and Van Der Beek were top billed during season 1, but have not appeared in the series since", that way the information isn't completely removed from the article, and readers could still see it if wanted, but it also respects the current (more accurate) cast billing of the show. Ajack15 (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2021 (CT)
I'm confused. So which billing order are you suggesting we follow? Should we follow the FX website order and rightfully omit Peters, Mara, and Van Der Beek? Variety put Ross and Sahar over Porter, which contradicts your hypothesis about Porter being more important than those not named Rodriguez, Jackson, and Moore. I'll also say that, objectively, Porter received more screen time than Jackson, so why should Jackson be listed first? And how should we arrange the rest of the cast? Every editor is going to have a personal preference based on what makes sense to them. I don't see the point of addressing why one's preference warrants implementation over another's–and FWIW, I've never stated mine–and why any personal preference should take precedence over the MOS guideline. KyleJoantalk 01:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you fully read my last message, and the references (that you asked for), you would have an answer to most of your questions/concerns. List Rodriguez, Porter, Jackson and Moore first (in that order), then Peters, Mara and Van Der Beek (also in that order), with a note explaining their current position on the show for any readers who are unfamiliar. The rest of the cast can be left how it is. The Variety article highlights the trans actors, which Porter is not. Wikipedia's guidelines are there to serve as a guide for editors to follow, not dictate every edit made on the platform. If a situation calls for it, which I think this one does, they could be bent. Ajack15 (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2021 (CT)
So you're suggesting the implementation of synthesis that combines elements you like from each source to create a MOS-noncompliant order because you believe the series' context allows any individual editor to suggest their preferred order based on what makes sense to them? KyleJoantalk 02:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me for sources stating that Rodriguez, Porter, Jackson and Moore were the leads, and I provided them. I did not suggest that either of them be used in the main article. I have not once said that any individual editor can suggest a change based on what makes sense to them, I am specifically suggesting a solution to the top billing of the cast, because as it is now, it is misleading and inaccurate. Ajack15 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2021 (CT)

Whether or not we use the sources in the article, your proposed solution fails Wikipedia:No original research per your explanation. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 02:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ "FX Pose Cast". FX. Retrieved July 20, 2021.
  2. ^ Holloway, Daniel. "Ryan Murphy's 'Pose' Casts Record Number of Trans Actors for '80s NYC Drama". Variety. Retrieved July 20, 2021.

RfC about notes in the lead[edit]

Should the lead include explanatory footnotes to explain which cast members appear in which seasons, as seen below? KyleJoantalk 18:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Peters, Mara, and Van Der Beek only appear in the first season.
  2. ^ Woodard is a series regular in the first season; she makes a guest appearance during the second.
  3. ^ Ross is a series regular in the first and second seasons; she appears as a guest during the third.
  4. ^ Bernhard is a series regular in the second and third seasons; she appears in a guest capacity during the first.
  5. ^ Jason A. Rodriguez is a series regular in the third season; he recurs during the first and second.
  • No In addition to being unnecessary, they hinder the lead's readability. Are we going to note each cast member's episode count next? Readers that are interested to learn who appeared when can do so from the body. KyleJoantalk 19:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No impairs readability and unnec detail for the lead. Pincrete (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It's needless for that information to be included in the lead. Sea Ane (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Makes it harder to read. It's questionable whether, given that it is a (large) ensemble cast, it's worth including the cast names in the lede at all. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, leads are supposed to be brief. It is unnecessary to include explanatory footnotes on the lead. — YoungForever(talk) 19:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It would make it difficult to read. But the order should be changed to reflect the reality of the show and who it focuses on. Ayzmo (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It'll make the lead cumbersome and redundant; readers can just scroll down to the 'Cast and characters' section to see that sort of information. Some1 (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per above editors. Idealigic (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is for our best to revise and expand the rules for MOS:TVCAST as the rules are made was not compatible with the current situation, not to mention that the current rules that made are discriminatory, racist, and unjust towards the actors who appeared most, such as MJ Rodriguez and Billy Porter. Gagayoulookbeautiful (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gagayoulookbeautiful: Your accusations of MOS:TVCAST are completely baseless. Per MOS:TVCAST, The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. which has nothing do with race, gender, sex, and etc. at all. — YoungForever(talk) 19:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pose_(TV_series)&oldid=1209835352"