Talk:Pretty Little Liars/Archive 1

New Promotional Poster
Just an FYI to editors. There is a new promotional poster for the show, as seen here:, in case anyone wants to replace the orange box. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?
This article doesn't do enough to maintain a neutral PoV in my opinion. For a show that premiered just today (and just hours ago, and only in part of the country so far-- it hasn't even aired on the West Coast yet) it does too much to make it sound like the show's reception is known and somewhat positive. Examples:

"Pretty Little Liars fast became one of the most anticipated new shows of the Summer of 2010." This needs a source, or it needs to be modified or removed IMO. Anticipate by who? For a show I never even heard of before today (and I'm fairly in touch with the shows that are "anticipated"), I find this to be far too strong of an assertion.

"Pretty Little Liars opened with initially mixed reviews." "Initially mixed" implies that reviews were later moderated to become less mixed in some fashion. That's impossible to show at this time, of course, because there haven't been any reviews except for the initial ones, and even those are somewhat limited. This should probably be changed to simply read, "opened to mixed reviews".

For that matter, I don't see any citations that support the idea that the reviews were "mixed". "Mixed" implies that some reviewers liked it and some disliked it. All the reviews quoted are of a similar opinion, and it would be more accurate (based upon the reviews quoted) to say it received "poor" reviews.

I won't go on, I'll just summarize by saying that it appears as if the author is trying to sell this series, rather than to inform about it. Please edit so the point of view is more neutral.

R0nin Two (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A source has been added about the anticipation of the show, but of course not everyone would have heard about it, it just generated buzz around the media with its heavy promotion. Initial does mean there's room for improvement, and it does now say "opened to mixed reviews". Metacritic is a site that gathers the professional and offical reviews by critics, so if you follow that reference, you will see that there are mixed reviews, as some liked, and some disliked, and some nuetral. I don't know how the point of view looked like it was trying to sell the series. Codywarren08 (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Cast and Characters
Isn't this section a bit long and overtly detailed? It also reads more like a fansite than an actual wiki entry. 184.78.169.231 (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers
Someone should go to that user's talk page and request they get banned. That jerk just spoiled the series for me.76.120.168.160 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored, which means spoilers, as long as they are not original research, are fair game and no one can be "banned" for adding them. If you don't want to be spoiled, a detailed encyclopedia article which contains everything on the series probably isn't the best thing to be reading. --132 16:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Critical acclaim
I removed the section on critical acclaim of season 3, as it included quotes that seemed made up, had no sources, and appeared to be written in a childish fashion including empty praise. A new section would be a good idea, if it includes actual factual information. particle25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.13.238 (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the second paragraph on critical acclaim of season 2, as it contained mostly plot summary and lacked any sources.particle25

cast section
(First of all, i don't watch this show) The starring in the info box lists many characters, but the Cast section in the article only lists five! Why doesn't it include the entire cast??Caringtype1 (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have enough 'edits' in my account yet and thus cannot change this, but the last sentence in the bullet about Spencer has the first letter of her name lowercase. Since its a name, it should be uppercase. Minor edit, but I'm a stickler for ensuring all information posted is correctly displayed, so if someone who is allowed to could change it, that'd be great. Siggy313 (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ratings
In the ratings section the dates for season 4 are wrong. They are listed as from June 2012 to March 2013 but they are actually from June 2013 to March 2014. 24.30.31.102 (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

PLL is an excellent shoe it is ooo awesome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.140.114 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2014
I just put stuff that was missing in 2011 and 2014, Get the update now, thanks!
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: did the 2014 updates. did not do the 2011 addition of the Young Hollyood awards as their site is inexplicably un-navigatable and I had no idea how to get to the awards of previous years. provide a RS for that if you want it added Cannolis (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Awards
201.40.175.191 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Pretty Little Liars (TV series)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pretty Little Liars (TV series)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "pll4x24": From Pretty Little Liars (season 4):  From Pretty Little Liars (season 4):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done SesquiZed (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2014
Please add Keegan Allen in the "starring" section.

79.118.107.239 (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. please provide a reliable source that shows Allen has star billing Cannolis (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014
Ashley Benson Tyler Blackburn Holly Marie Combs Lucy Hale Ian Harding Bianca Lawson Laura Leighton Chad Lowe Shay Mitchell Janel Parrish Sasha Pieterse Keegan Allen
 * starring = Troian Bellisario

86.126.194.135 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 17:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014
Ashley Benson Tyler Blackburn Holly Marie Combs Lucy Hale Ian Harding Bianca Lawson Laura Leighton Chad Lowe Shay Mitchell Janel Parrish Sasha Pieterse Keegan Allen
 * starring = Troian Bellisario

86.126.194.135 (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

❌ There is no point in repeating the same request, without addressing the reason it was refused last time. - Arjayay (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014
Remove the international broadcasting. It's unsourced and discouraged by WP:TVINTL. Replace it with a sentence saying The series airs in X (number) countries in Y (number)languages.

66.87.80.188 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Too many details about main characters
Please remove unnecessary plot lines and episode details from main characters section,because the section should be about introducing characters to readers.You should write details about characters in neutral point of view,which means introducing characters to people who haven't seen the show before,Plot lines won't help them.ChamithN (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Washington Post article on relationships
I found a possible source: WhisperToMe (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yahr, Emily. "‘Pretty Little Liars': When will the show stop with its creepy underage relationships?" Washington Post. June 10, 2014.

Controversy section?
I think there's enough criticism of the series to warrant a controversy section, whether it's items such as the Washington Post article cited above, to parents groups upset over a series with sexual content airing on a network called ABC Family (the article on ABC Family actually explains why the name hasn't changed so that can be ported over here), and most recently you had interest groups complaining over the revelation of certain character. For balance I think a section is warranted. (It could be argued that a number of series like The Fosters could fall under item #2, but PLL right now is the most widely known series on the network). PS: I'm not the same 68 who posted a comment just above. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Country of origin

 * As I explained in my edit summary  parameter is used to mention the nation(s) involved in the production of that specific series. This doesn't mean international filming locations could be considered as the countries of origin (see how weird this whole sentence is?). For example, take a look at Game_of_Thrones where it was filmed in multiple nations. However, production companies are solely American which makes the country of origin America. There is a specific parameter  to include filming locations. Cheers! --  Chamith   (talk)  16:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you so much for your helpful explanation. I will remember this for the future. Brocicle (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible Season 8 or Movie
Someone just recently added that Shay Mitchell and the producer say that season seven is not definitely the final season of the show and tagged a citation with it that cites Lucy Hale saying that season seven is definitely the end. So should I or someone else remove this information as it appears to be false? --68.118.202.114 (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * According to this 22-DEC-2015 article in Variety the series creator Marlene King says she "would like for Season 7 to be the last." Also in November it was revealed that Season 7 will skip forward so it will be five years later than Season 6 with the characters being more mature. ABC is silent on the matter but I suspect they are keeping their options open and also letting King be the bearer of bad news. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 16:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

About episode counts of cast
This is against the guidelines set in WP:MOSTV, under WP:TVCAST. An excerpt: The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g. (# episodes), to indicate the number of episodes in which the actor/character appeared. If an actor misses an episode due to a real world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source. As I saw it in the Cast and characters table, I have removed the offending column.  Further discussion about why this is not allowed can be found in the archive of the Television project talk page, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 5, where there is clear consensus against the episode counts and that such tallies require reliable sourcing. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also done the same at List of Pretty Little Liars characters. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Character list pages are not the same as season or parent season pages. From reading that it's my understanding that it applies to the number of episodes next to an actor on a season page, not character list page. Surely before removing and making a drastic change you can get clarification on of whether or not it applies to list of character pages. I've undone your edit on the character page for now. Brocicle (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just brought it up at WT:TV (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television). I'm pretty sure because of the reliable sources mention in the WT:TV (or WT:MOSTV) discussion I cited above, this would apply to character list pages as well, but I'll get clarification in the new discussion over at WT:TV. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As somebody who was a participant in the discussion where we decided to amend the MOS to exclude episode counts, I can assure you that it applies everywhere. There are no exemptions for other articles. As an example, this table from NCIS (franchise) was used as an example in the discussion and, as you can see, the current version of the table does not contain episode counts. If you read WP:TVCAST you'll see that it doesn't limit its applicability to only certain articles. It simply says "The cast listing should not contain an episode count", and that therefore must be taken to mean everywhere, unless an exemption is stated. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you for the clarification. Brocicle (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved both, primary topic is the TV series. There seems to be a consensus that both TV series and books are long term significant, and that the TV series enjoys greater common usage. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

– I've wondered for a while why the TV series wasn't at the "base title". Well, a look at the Pageview stats (see: here) confirms that the TV series is more viewed than the book series by a factor of about 10. Thus, the TV series is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should occupy the "base" title. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty Little Liars (TV series) → Pretty Little Liars
 * Pretty Little Liars → Pretty Little Liars (book series)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose more long-term significance for source material, and those views for the TV series are probably inflated by the fact that it's still on the air and thus not hugely reliable. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure any of that argument is based on policy. However, it's worth nothing that The Lying Game (the TV series) is still the primary topic over the book series more than 3 years after it stopped airing new episodes, so the argument that the TV series will stop being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC after it stops airing new episodes is hardly compelling. And, unlike the book series, the TV series has basically been a cultural phenomenon which is unlikely to be forgotten. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but not based on page views but on just organization issues. I was looking at all the titles with a search of "Pretty Little Liars". There is the primary book series article and a disambiguated (novel) article about the books. The disambiguated (TV series), 7 (season x) pages as well as "List of Pretty Little Liars episodes" are articles about the TV series, not articles about the book series. Just based on the number of articles that are sub articles to the TV series it makes more sense for the TV series to be primary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose regardless of page views or sub articles, the books were released years prior to the show. The show is based off the books not the other way around. The books are just as popular as the show. Brocicle (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, not an opposition based on policy. There is no "the first-released works get the 'base' title" policy on Wikipedia. In addition, not only does the TV series get many more pageviews, but it has also received substantially more press and media coverage than the book series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * TV shows get more press and media coverage in general than books regardless. Hardly any website gives book reviews, ratings, and even release dates or new book announcements nowadays so personally, I don't believe that should be your go to reason to change it but I do understand what you're saying. Per WP:TITLECHANGES the title has been stable with no apparent issues thus far. Brocicle (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I was surprised when I looked, and there had been no previous Requested move discussion. I've got to think that it's just that no one thought of it before now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "historical age" and "original topic" are not factors that hold any weight, and the notion that the book series has more "long term significance" (when it's just a few years older than the tv series) is pretty much nonsense. For comparible examples see Gossip Girl and The Vampire Diaries, both of which are about the tv shows and not the book series that they are based on. PC78 (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose first and support second 2601:541:4305:C70:6520:5765:605:D4ED (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Implies no primary topic and a disambiguation page as the base page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a vote, state your reasons. PC78 (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Request relisting – obviously, a relisting here would be a good idea to see if we can establish a stronger consensus with more time... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The TV show is primary topic. The book series only appears to have inflated pageviews because that's where visitors looking for the TV series are sent. —  Wylie pedia  15:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support there is evidence that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Send readers where they want to be. SST  flyer  11:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * Since the book series is primary for the topic it is the landing point for searches for that title which will inflate the page views for people who really wanted the TV series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comparative pageviews, as of this comment: 921,989 (TV series), 96,391 (current primary topic, the book series). —  Wylie pedia  15:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * About the only way to get accurate counts would be to move the current base page and create a disambiguation page there and then monitor page views for a month or so. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Awards 2
I removed two awards from the list as they are not notable, BuzzFeed Buzzie Awards from a website and J-14 Teen Icon Awards from a magazine reader poll. see this Awards without articles about the award itself are not generally notable and a redirect to magazine's Wikipedia article is not an article about the award. For an award to be notable it needs to be documented in reliable sources other than the magazine that is "awarding" it. Also needs to at least meet requirement at WP:GNG for significant independent-of-the-subject sourcing that covers the award. Magazine awards are generally marketing fluff based on reader voting. This show has a significant amount of valid notable awards related to it. It is not necessary to fluff up the award section. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Also Youth Rock Awards is another one with no article about the award. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Capricho Awards does not have an article on enwiki but does have an article Capricho Awards on ptwiki with references so it looks to be a notable Brazilian award.. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

About the table showing viewership numbers for every single episode of the series...
First of all, I think it is excessive, especially in this parent article. Expressing average viewership per season would be a better approach than staring at a whole bunch of numbers. Even if the intent is to show trends in the viewership from episode to episode, there would need to be context as to how these trends are significant to the series.

Secondly, it shows no references to verify each of the numbers. While anyone could look in the LoE article to check each individual episode's viewership (which is sourced there), it is way too much to go back and forth between the LoE and parent articles to do that. I will note that this table is also found in the LoE article, which again I say is excessive, but not only that - it is also an unnecessary duplication of effort. Transclusion may be a better way to handle having the table in two places, although if this table is to exist, it's better it stay in the LoE article, since the viewership data for each episode is already sourced there. (Still, going back and forth to verify numbers in a separate location for accuracy, even in the same article, is overkill.)

Thirdly, and consequently from the last point, this is a huge attraction for vandalism. As I've seen a few times already, numbers are being changed by IPs, and with no references to check, how will watchers of these articles (like myself) know that their reverting is the right call if the numbers are wrong to begin with?

Thus, I am removing the table from both articles, primarily for a lack of sourcing (and again, read my second point above for more). If it's to be restored, there will need to be references for each number, per WP:V, and it should be limited to one article, preferably the LoE one. I've stated my objection to the table, and will uphold it, but if others want the table, discuss its merits here. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My view is that that table would be fine at List of Pretty Little Liars episodes, but only if all of the figures are referenced/sourced. But I agree that it does not belong at the main article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of parent articles for tv shows have a table showing the average viewership for the entire season as a whole but not every episode. I think it should stay but not at the expensive of it constantly being vandalised. Brocicle (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what inspired this hatnote
The removal of this note about uses of "PLL" seems proper. For one thing, typing PLL in the search redirects to a completely different, and irrelevant, article ("Phase-locked loop"). And where outside of the social media (Twitter, Facebook, instant messaging, chat rooms, etc.) is this abbreviation used for the show? Doesn't seem to fit the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. It is listed on the disambiguation page for PLL, and it appears okay in that respect, but mentioning it in a hatnote here doesn't seem right. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)