Talk:Remember (The Walking Dead)

Plot
I just watched this and what I read in the summary is wrong an couple of points. I'll have another look later and look out for those two things, While considering how to write the reason for the fight at the end. which is very important but currently missing. That's from memory, I'm still watching it again. [a false positive prevented the posting of this on 12:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)]... 24.79.36.94 (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't remember Rick asking Glen to get the guns back.
 * I don't remember Michone worried about how mundane and complacent the place is.
 * Carl meets three other teens.
 * Rick shaves and then is given a hair cut.
 * Carl follows one of the teens, and then mets up with his father and they kill some walkers to remind themselves of what's will remain outside the walls..
 * The supply run guys play with a walker that killed half the last group. This almost gets Tara killed, which sparks anger between Glen and the supply run leader. Glen knocks him "on his a$$," and Daryl holds his partner down. Rick intervenes and then he and Michone are offered the Constable/Deputy jobs, which they accept.
 * The episode ends with Rick telling Daryl and Carol that if the town is too weak they will take it over.
 * Finally figured out what was preventing the post. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this actually in the episode?
"Rick instructs Glenn (Steven Yeun) to find a way to get back their weapons." I watched the episode 3 times and still can't figure out where this appeared? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OussDB (talk • contribs) 04:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Plot
Rick (Andrew Lincoln) and the group enter the Alexandria Safe-Zone and are met by Nicholas (Michael Traynor), who asks the group to surrender their weapons. When Rick refuses, but then Aaron (Ross Marquand) suggests he first meets their leader, Deanna (Tovah Feldshuh). Deanna who first discloses to Rick that she was a former Ohio Congresswoman, interviews the group members individually, documenting the conversations on camera. During his interview, Rick warns her not to accept strangers, to which she notes that he is already protecting the Safe-Zone. While being interviewed, Carol (Melissa McBride) lies about her past, implying that she has few survival skills and was merely a "den mother" for the group.

After hesitantly surrendering the weapons, the survivors are given housing, complete with electricity and hot water, and begin meeting the other residents. An elderly couple are enthused about Judith, having not seen a baby for a long time. Rick meets, Jessie (Alexandra Breckenridge), a former stylist who gives him a haircut, while Carl meets the local youth, whose latest member is Enid, a young survivor recently brought in from the outside. While pleased with their protection, the group is unimpressed with the residents' survival skills, Carl especially noting to this father that the comfort in which they live has made them weak. Carl notices Enid sneaking out of the Safe-Zone and follows her over the fence. He instead meets Rick, who is attempting to retrieve the gun he stashed in a blender, only to find it has been taken. Rick and Carl team up to kill a group of walkers that rushes them, which makes for a good reminder of the world outside their new safe home.

Glenn, Tara (Alanna Masterson) and Noah (Tyler James Williams) join Nicholas and Deanna's son, Aidan (Daniel Bonjour), for a supply run. Despite Aidan's cocky behavior, his inexperience and recklessness nearly gets Tara killed by a walker which they had tied up as a practice dummy in revenge for it killing half of the last group. Glenn and Tara disagree in not so many words with Aidan's careless use of a walker. Adian also confronts Glen more directly as they get back, starting a shoving match, then taking a punch at Glen. Glen ducks the punch and lands one one Aiden while Daryl gets Nicholas on the ground, Rick as pull Daryl off to keep him from going to far, and then Deanna steps in to break up the brawl, instructing the town's residents to treat Rick's group as equals. Deanna sends everyone one off to check in their weapons and offers Rick and Michonne (Danai Gurira) the jobs of towns Constables, which they accept. Deanna makes a point of thanking Glenn for knocking her son "on his ass." Later that evening, alone with Carol and Daryl (Norman Reedus) Rick states that if the residents prove too weak to protect themselves, their group will have to take it over.

This is the version that was changed to add incorrect information. For example: I'll list others. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Glen doesn't start the argument at the end or the fight.
 * Deanna didn't "privately" or "secretly" as written before thank Glen, it was out in the open.
 * It's not just any old wandering walker that "almost gets Tara killed."
 * Rick and Carl killing walkers together is a significant plot counter-point.
 * Aaron did not tell Rick that Deanna is a former Ohio Congresswoman.
 * What makes Rick's haircut more important than Judith & Carl meeting the elderly couple?
 * Rick panics when he looses sight of Carl & Judith. This is missing and leads to them meeting Natalie & Bob Miller.
 * Carl is the first to mention the townsfolk are weak. Carol mentions it at the end. 2 people doesn't make it a group consensus.

What are the main events?
I think we need a list of the events of the episode that are correctly worded before deciding which are actually the main ones.24.79.36.94 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the synopsis at IMDB just for comparison:

Box for Important Quote
Also this keeps getting removed from the plot section for no good reason and worse no discussion.

24.79.36.94 (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been on the talkpage this whole time waiting to discuss this, but unfortunately the other person seems more interested in their opinion and edit warring. So I will have to report it. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a pivotal point in the series. They have finally found a genuinely real home. So there is nothing that says that this episodes article has to be strictly ordinary and not highlight some part of that fact in some way. I would even go as far as to add a couple of screen shots. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So after attempts at bullying on my talkpage and also on the administrators board, I'm still waiting for some discussion on this in the legitimate venue. I know that a summary and a quote are very different things and being that the quote is unique and important I expect in the end it will be returned. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to reply for awhile, but there's been several edit conflicts. I suggest stop being so overdramatic, don't expect other people to reply within seconds. I take time in what I say, and need to rewrite based on additional comments you've made. You seem to not understand that this is an encyclopedia, and not a fan site. To state this quote is somehow "important", "pivotal" or "unique" is completely your opinion. You're embellishing it solely based on your opinion, and are ignoring guidelines for usage for block quotes. I suggest understanding the Wikipedia guideline WP:QUOTE first. I've posted on your talk page, but you've removed the comment twice now, so I'll just readd it here. No other Walking Dead article has this format. It's two sentences, not enough to warrant use for a block quotation, which is meant for long quotations (please read WP:QUOTE). Also, the direct quotes are actually completely unnecessary in of themselves, as the quotes can easily be incorporated into the summary as paraphrased prose, which it what the entire summary basically is, paraphrasing character dialog (for the most part). The direct quotes are still there (if you're so dead-set on including them, which is fine), as to not interrupt the flow of the summary. It's not as if these direct quotes help the understanding of what was already written in the summary; it's just an add-on. You're just using block quotes for the sake of using them, which is not a good rationale. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Can the plot summary contain a separate/block quote?
Can this pivotal episode contain a quote in the plot summary to reflect part of the important shift in plot? 24.79.36.94 (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The quotes are in the summary. It's just not in a block quote. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The are the final lines of the episode and the point is to make them stand out, not just refrase them or tack them on at the end, but to highlight them as important. You seem to not want to get this point just to have your perfectly ordinary format. It isn't going to kill you to back down on this and allow the section to have some style. If I were to add screen captures you would also say they are unnecessary, without considering whether they benefit the article. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you're treating this as if you're editing a fan site and not an encyclopedia. Are critics noting that this quote is "important" or "pivotal", if so, source it. And yes, if you added images that were against non-free image guidelines, they would be removed. And no, it's not "[my] perfectly ordinary format", it's the format of pretty much every television episode summary. If quotes can be paraphrased in prose in the summary, then that's how it should be (read WP:QUOTE). Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (from above) It is completely in appropriate and false for you to be trying to change the venue of the discussion to my talkpage where no one else would see it. Most of what you have said is false. You are telling me what my rationale is and then saying that it's wrong for instance. I don't have the rationale that you prescribe to me. The summary doesn't have to have a perfect "flow" (this is false) any more than it has to have exactly three paragraphs. As I already said, you think there is no reason and that's your reason for deleting it. But the articles don't have to be exactly like very other episode article, another falsehood. The article could have a screen capture, and you would use the same lack of reasoning and say there is no reason. You aren't being encyclopedic but you accuse me of treating the article as a fan page. These things exist at Wikipedia to be used, both blockquotes and photos. You would rather it was a plain template cookie cutter version of the last episode article. That's not a good enough reason not to use the features that Wikipedia allows for in an article. You should learn to understand that when you use the term unnecessary you are only talking about your opinion of what is necessary. There are a lot of things that are not necessary in your opinon I am sure, and there would be a lot less everywhere if everyone just accepted that whenever you dropped that word on people. Rather than continue to repeat myself I'm going to past this in the RFC instead. From WP:QUOTE: "In some instances, quotations are preferred to text." There are obviously exceptions but you of course refuse to imagine them. And of course you are only mention using the wrong type of photo so that you can tell everyone every photo has to be deleted, which is untrue. Just to show they are in articles. I don't see you using the same silly/false reasoning that this photo should be removed, because "it's an encyclopedia not a fan site" Using that expression is like throwing mud, I find it very rude. It should also be noted here that you are taking the WP:QUOTE reference to an extreme by using reason that suggests it applies to something else like Poetry and not to Dialogue, which this is, and because it isn't Poetry it must be deleted: This is very much the exception because it's dialogue in the show, not poetry. I think you should stop throwing the WP:QUOTE reference around like you know who has read it, and maybe read it yourself. You should know better than this, Encyclopedias, especially this one, are not "all and only" Text.  24.79.36.94 (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's almost impossible trying to reply to you as you constantly add to your comment, causing edit conflicts and forcing me to rewrite what I have to say every single time. I've been trying to reply for almost an hour now. I'm going to be as brief as I possibly can and reply with bullet points for clarity.
 * I did not change the venue, I did not see any discussion started. You need to understand this article is not on my watchlist, thus I do not see every change made.
 * Stop putting words in my mouth or telling what I think ("you would use the same lack of reasoning", "You would rather it was a plain template cookie cutter version of the last episode article")
 * "In some instances, quotations are preferred to text" — the quotes are in the article. What are you not seeing?
 * Per WP:QUOTE, "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided", "Quotations should generally be worked into the article text, so as not to inhibit the pace, flow and organization of the article", "Overuse happens when: Quotes are used to explain a point that can also be paraphrased"
 * My rationale is a guideline, I don't see what yours is other than opinion.
 * Quote boxes are meant for long quotations, not two sentences. Your asserted belief the quote is important is your opinion.
 * As for images, your overblown response is mind-bogglingly. I never mentioned them, you brought it up, and I merely pointed you to a guideline regarding non-free images (which is what Walking Dead screencaps would be). Yes, I know they are in articles, did I say they weren't. I don't understand what you're trying to say other than wanting to put words in my mouth or telling me what I would do.
 * Per Bjelleklang, a Wikipedia administrator who posted on the ANI page, "I'd like you to consider another thing as well; adding the quote implies that it has a special significance, but there is no source that can verify this present in the article, which to me suggests that this might be original research." This is what I've been saying the entire time, you're adding significance to a quote based on your own personal preference, not on any understanding of Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Lastly, this is my last response. Wait and see what others think. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm only going to reply to the things you've written that I find to be ridiculous. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are somehow still at this WP:QUOTE even though your last edit leaves more actual "quotation marks" in the section than I did.
 * You are obviously mistaking dialogue with prose, which is what your WP:QUOTE references are about:
 * You are talking about dialogue straight out of the show as if it were itself an opinion when you quote WP:QUOTE. Wrong.
 * There is nothing in WP:QUOTE that prohibits the use of Quote Boxes
 * You assertion that "Quote boxes are meant for long quotations, not two sentences" is completely false: See examples: Template:Quote_box
 * Your statement "I never mentioned [photos]" is a lie, there is a reply just above where you talk about deleting them. Emphasis mine.
 * "In some instances, quotations are preferred to text" Obviously this isn't backing you up, as you suggest, on not having Quoteboxes.
 * Even if I agreed that using one two line quote in the paragraph was too much, then that would be another good reason to use a Quotebox.
 * Your watchlist excuse is irrelevant. "I did not see any discussion started." is a lie, you could be bothered to revert edits in the article 8 times or more without bothering to look on the talkpage for the discussion that was there.
 * The Plot section is a summary of the episode. I don't see any reason not to use the last two statements made by the characters themselves, as it is in this case, as a good summary of the plot section.
 * Please remember to assume good faith when discussing with other users. Using individual users talkpages like User:Drovethrughosts did is perfectly acceptable, simply because the chance that you'd actually see the comment is a lot higher when it's put on your talkpage instead of the talkpage of an article. Let's assume for a second that the guidelines allow this; why is the quote notable enough to be included in the article? Bjelleklang -  talk 20:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Plot section is a summary of the episode. I don't see any reason not to use the last two statements at the end of the episode made by the characters themselves, as it is in this case, as a good summary of the plot section. It may only happen in this episode, It may be only coincidental good writing, but I think it's fantastic. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not the things we think are fantastic which are relevant, but rather the things that reliable sources tell us are fantastic. If these two statements are so significant to the episode or the series as a whole, then that is what relevant reliable sources will evenutally bear out. When those sources are found, they should be properly attributed to whomever made the claim per WP:INTEXT. Using the quotebox just to summarize a section in such a way, gives the impression that these two particular sentences are more significant than any of the other things said throughout the episode. Maybe that's true or maybe it's not, but until such a thing can be verified through reliable sources, I think it's unnecessary per WP:LONGQUOTE and quite possibly WP:UNDUE. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Bjelleklang. I original removed the quote box as it seemed unnecessary and simply a decorative add-on, but was reverted; I then incorporated the quotes into the summary by paraphrasing, but was reverted by same user; I then directly inserted the full quotes in the summary, but was still reverted by same user. The full quotes are still in the article, so I fail to see what the problem is, other than wanting to use block quotes, but that is not warranted as block quotes are generally limited for long quotations (for example, see block quotation). Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Per WP:RFC, I suggest posting something about this RfC at both WikiProject Horror/Notice Board and WT:WPTV (since they are the two Wikiprojects listed at the top of this talk page), and at Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series) (since that is the main page for the series). This would make others who do not watch this particular page aware of the ongoing discussion. I think it's probably best for the editor who proposed the RfC, in this case 24.79.36.94, to let others know, but I'm not sure of proper RfC protocol. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes - I don't see why the quotes cannot be in a box. They are two lines, spoken at the end of the episode, and I do believe they are significant. I prefer the template with the graphic quotes rather than the box, however. I think it looks much better, graphically. I'd be very surprised if there were no reviews discussing those last two lines. Let's not get so obsessed with "this is how it has to look" that we cannot work with each other. Wikimandia (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Yes - if there is to be a vote: There are times when the characters say it better themselves than anyone of us editors could. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources discussing the significance of these statements, then that information should indeed be added to the article. However, this significance shouldn't be inferred to indirectly in the "Plot" section through simple formating; It should be specifically mentioned in the "Critical Reception" section. I can see using a quotebox or blockquote for such statements if it was accompanied by information about what reliable sources say like was done here in Made in America (The Sopranos); However, simply using an blockquote or quotebox to make them stand out because we as editors feel they are pivotal and significant seems inappropriate to me per WP:NOR and "WP:LONGQUOTE". Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity, my above reply was only intended to be a response to the post added by Wikimandia at 02:10 on 5 March 2015 (UTC). It was not intended to be a response to the post inserted in between and after the fact by 24.79.36.94 at 23:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC). - Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Long quotes can be placed in quote boxes, though all quotes, even those in plot sections, need inline citation per WP:Quote and MOS:PLOT, and the decision to highlight quotes should be supported by reference to reliable sources per WP:UNDUE. So, first, regardless of how it presented, the quote needs citing; second, if it is to be highlighted in a quote box, there needs to reference to a reliable source talking about the quote.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:WAF and WP:MOSTV, "The plot summary is an overview of the episode's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes and technical detail." - If the quote is important, then it should be where there is critical commentary on it instead of the plot section. Otherwise, it because more of a "he believes it's important" than "we have evidence to show that it is".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Who decides what the "episodes main events" are, like you've said the "he believes it's important" problem would also apply to that also wouldn't it? The whole thing reads like a bad policy making to me. In this case, the group settling down to a safe haven is a major plot point and shift in story arc. I can't imagine anyone who actually watches the show disagreeing with that. There are currently three large paragraphs that ballooned from one paragraph when I first started editing. So I'm going to need a breakdown on what events in the episode are really the main events. I've seen the episode twice and I believe that if it's going to be ballooned up to three large paragraphs and you're going to quote that it should only be the main events, then all the events will have to be prioritized scene by scene, or event by event if you prefer. As I have noted above, events keep getting misrepresented and I think it would help to clarify them. Main sticking points are that Glen didn't start the fight or the argument and that's twice been written that way, and Deanna didn't secretly thank Glen which has also twice been written that way. Also, it keeps getting written as though Aiden told Rick that his mother was an Ohio congresswoman. So here we don't even have correct events yet, let alone know which are the main events. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe that the quote represents a major plot point and a shift in the story arc that is a good argument for including the quote. However, as others have also stated you need a reliable source that says the same. Having a reliable source to back it up is important, because it means that a journalist and an editor deemed it important enough to publish (at least in theory). Otherwise this is just original research, and has no place in the article. Bjelleklang -  talk 14:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I was summoned here by the bot. I'm not a fan of The Walking Dead, but have a couple of comments to offer.  Firstly, to correct Drovethrughosts who wrote: "My rationale is a guideline..."  Actually, WP:QUOTE  MOS:QUOTE is an essay, not a guideline.  I think that the point remains, however, that quotations like this ought not to be emphasised in a blockquote, much less a quote box, unless they are regarded as particularly significant by reliable sources (per WP:UNDUE).  A quick Google reveals these lines are quoted in numerous episode summaries, including Forbes, Variety, Nouse (captioned as "Line of the week"), Huffpo, Entertainment Weekly, and NYT—so maybe there is a justification for including this particular quotation.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 04:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that MOS:QUOTE is a guideline; It's part of WP:MOS. Maybe you're referring to WP:QUOTE which is only an essay. Even so, WP:QUOTE begins with "For the Manual of Style on quotes, see WP:MOSQUOTE." "WP:MOSQUOTE" and "MOS:QUOTE" are just different shortcuts for the same section of the MOS. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Drovethrughosts referred to WP:QUOTE (Quotations), which is an essay; MOS:QUOTE  is indeed a guideline.  I hate when similar shortcuts redirect to different places!  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 08:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Although I cannot say for sure, my guess is that Drovethrughosts just made a similar error as well. Regardless, the links you provided do show that quote has received coverage in reliable sources. I think, however, such a discussion is more suited for "Critical reception" than "Plot". My understanding of MOS:PLOT is that the "Plot" section is intended to be a summary for happened and not an interpretation of what happened. In order to show the significance of the quote we need to properly attribute the sources doing the interpret at ing per WP:INTEXT. This is pretty easy to do in the "Critical reception" section; All you need to do is say "So and so said this about the quote." or something like that. It becomes much harder to do so in "Plot" because you you have a "box quote" and then an attribution to a source while everything else is just a summary. The quote could be added or paraphrased as simple text in "Plot" as long as it's properly cited using cite episode or something. Any discussion of it's significance, however, needs to be in the voice of the reliable sources discussing it and not Wikipedia's. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Drovethrughosts not only mentioned WP:QUOTE repeatedly, they lifted several quotations from that page.
 * MOS:PLOT says: "If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points." So quotations are acceptable in plot summaries, although they may be rare in practice.  It doesn't need to be or refer to critical commentary of the quote, although the fact that such commentary exists may indicate its importance to the plot, and hence that it is worthy of inclusion.  The critical commentary can also be used as sources for the quote.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 16:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that "WP:QUOTE" is a bit like WP:BRD. They are both essays which attempt to summarize and clarify particular guidelines or policies adopted through consensus so they both are often cited instead of the actual policies themselves. Anyway, as you correctly point out, WP:QUOTE is what it is so it is just opinion and not a formal guideline or policy adopted by the community at large. I think it's fair to note that that MOS:QUOTE (the guideline) hatnotes "WP:QUOTE" (the essay) as a "See Also", which to me seems to imply that there is some general acceptance of what is written in the latter among the Wikipedia community.
 * Regarding this particular quote, I think it can be added to "Plot" as long as it's properly cited per "WP:PLOT" and "MOS:QUOTE". The sources you provided can be used for that for sure (sorry if it seemed as if I was implying they couldn't). Whether is should be added is something that should be determined through consensus. Personally, I don't think the direct quote is needed for "Plot" for the reasons given WP:LONGQUOTE (Yes, I am aware that is from the essay). I don't think its use (quotebox or not) significantly improves the reader's understanding over the current summary. I do think using the quote, however, could actually work well in "Critical reception" because it is there where its significance can be discussed using the sources you've provided. Of course, any interpretation added to the "Critical reception" section should be properly cited using in-text attribution per "WP:INTEXT". Even here though, I think simple text is fine, but a block quote might work be OK. I don't think a quotebox is needed in either case. Just my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Globalize
TWD is supposedly broadcast to potentially 200+ million viewers in 125 countries. The FOX International website shows 28 regions (Africa isn't broken down by country) have broadcasts of TWD. "'''The Walking Dead Season 4 will premiere in the US on October 13th and it has been officially announced by FOX International Channels that it will also air in 125 countries within 24 hours of the US broadcast:

'International fans of global super-hit The Walking Dead will be able to catch the season four premiere on FOX channels around the world within 24 hours of this Sunday’s U.S. premiere. In a global television first, FOX International Channels (FIC), who for the past seasons launched the series within the first week of the U.S. broadcast, has further narrowed the gap for its 200 million FOX viewers around the world. This is the first time ever the worldwide premiere follows the U.S. launch so closely, demonstrating FIC’s commitment to fans of the series, and to a global release strategy aimed to actively combat piracy'''."

Obviously, that source is potential viewers and no where near actual. FOX International claims that the are ratings metered in 18 markets and their top mentions were the markets in Germany, the Balkans, Spain, Korea, Taiwan and the Netherlands and indicate these markets were large during season 5. The season 6 opener reached 4.3 million viewers which is up from approximately 3 million of the season 5 opener. So about 3 million international viewers beyond those listed in the article were reached and in a couple of these markets it was the highest rated show in the timeslot.

Hopefully someone else has ratings for some of those markets. I found [http://www.videor.co.jp/data/ratedata/top10.htm#drama ratings for Japan (season 6 episodes are not making their top 10 list) from Video Research. LTD] who are supposed to also have Korean and other Southeast Asian ratings. Not sure where to find German, Netherlands, Spanish, Taiwan, Russian, Brazil and Balkan ratings but maybe this will help?

This section is about ratings and viewership which, for TWD, is global in scope and not limited to English speaking countries. This being the English Wikipedia doesn't limit the article to English speaking television markets and the reason the section is tagged with a bias.

97.85.173.38 (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)