Talk:The Shannara Chronicles/Archive 2

possibly duplicate material
this was removed from the "list of shannara chronCICLES episodes" a missspelled page. some of this may already be here. i dont care about the subject at all, i will not be checking the content here vs the article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The Shannara Chronicles is an American fantasy drama television series created by Alfred Gough & Miles Millar. It is an adaptation of the Shannara series of fantasy novels by Terry Brooks, primarily The Sword of Shannara Trilogy. It is filmed in the Auckland Film Studios and on location elsewhere in New Zealand, and premiered on MTV in the United States on January 5, 2016. The first season aired from January 5, 2016, to March 1, 2016 and consisted of 10 episodes. On April 20, 2016, MTV ordered a second season of The Shannara Chronicles.

On-demand first release dates
So far, Episodes 3 and 4 have been released first on demand on January 5, long before they were broadcast. Why is this information continually removed from the episode section, including the references? The episode table template that you are using here is good for a series that is broadcast first and released on-demand later. However, MTV has decided that The Shannara Chronicles is not such a series, and some episodes are released first on-demand, while others are released first by broadcast. Now we have to make this work. There is no rule that says that first-release dates must not go into the episodes section if they are not by broadcast.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although it is not absolutely necessary, it wouldn't hurt to have a reference note next to those dates, informing readers about the release history but if this is going to be a regular thing (i.e. releasing some episodes online before broadcast), the notes would be redundant. However, if it is just these two, despite being slightly redundant, it may be helpful for the readers. Also, these notes can be as simple as "Released online on X date.", with the full blown references and reasons why in the release section. I'm readding the note to episode three now. Is that okay with you? —  Art manha  22:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Released on TV" is in no way the correct or true release format. The two episodes were released to the public on 2016-01-05, in the way the publisher thought best. Wikipedia is not the final arbiter on what format deserves to take the place in the episode table.-217.248.2.162 (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a Manual of Style that in a sense "dictates" the way things should be displayed here. This isn't us telling how it should be, but rather a consensus within the Wikipedia community. Please take some time to familiarize to Templates such as Template:Infobox television, Template:Episode list, Template:Infobox television season and specially the Template:Episode table. Thank you —  Art manha  22:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly still cannot even see an argument, not even a bad one. Yes, I know that you use TV templates, that does not mean that you should, or that you have to, or that you cannot use them in creative ways. It is a fact that "TV Show", in the way you use it, is already a historic term, and only applies accidentally, in the same way that "TV" is a historic term.
 * Your mistake, I assume, is essentialism, ie. you assume that if someone says SC is a TV show, then it can only be a TV show. That is 20. century thinking. SC is first-published on different media, and Wikipedia should reflect that and should not hide it.


 * Also:
 * * Your pointer to the MOS is a red herring, unless you point out the section that describes how web publications are handled.
 * * Why do you think we mention the "First Air Date" at all? What makes this date special? Don't ignore this question, it goes to the heart of the matter. Ask yourself what you would enter as a "First Air Date" if eg. Video Game High School would be shown on TV next year. Would you still relegate web publication to foot notes?
 * * There is no consensus on misapplying TV templates to web shows.-217.248.3.146 (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This is barely a discussion. I've explained to you how Wikipedia works and you've simply ignored it. Before tryng to use the WP:IAR, please consider reading Understanding IAR, What "Ignore all rules" means, Policies and guidelines, Policies and guidelines and List of policies. Thank you —  Art manha  09:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC) ^--[ Oh my god, this douche is using the "I'm more awesome than you" defense. This is why I hate Wikipedia. It's not "everyone can edit." It's douches like this guy and their little fiefdoms.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.170.255 (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah right, "Before I enter a discussion with you, first read all these rules and regulations".
 * So back to the topic: Given a first publication in the web, what is your reason to prominently display only the publication date in another medium? (Note: I already addressed "The template demands it" as an "argument".)
 * Could you please also address the other points I make above? Thanks!-217.248.3.146 (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, consider that the Video Game High School is a web series, which uses different templates than television series, such as the one in question. The dates for the earlier online release for those two episodes is there simply because of a consensus between editors, but it is not necessary. We can't use a web series template because two episodes were realeased earlier online, since the show was made for television and, expect for those two episodes—which were broadcast on television too—and is first broadcast on television. —  Art manha  09:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "A web series is a series of scripted videos, generally in episodic form, released on the Internet", just like episodes 3 and 4 of SC. More important however is the essentialism misapplied here. SC can very well be both, or a mixture, or something else entirely. Your insistence on rules is a very close match to mid-1950s TV, but not to today's mixed-media environment.
 * Have you checked Video Game High School? If you have, why do you claim that is uses different templates when that is plainly not true?
 * Consensus between editors is only valid if it is based on reasons, and cannot be a reason by itself. In this case, I would (again) like to learn why you think that given a first publication in the web, the article should prominently display only the publication date in another medium? What about the other reason I give?-217.248.3.146 (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are giving no reason. You are saying you are right because you are right and deliberately stating you have no respect for any Wikipedia guidance or policy. It's hard to keep up a discussion like that —  Art manha  09:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not episodicly realesed online first. Two episodes were realeased online before the original broacast for promotional reasons only —  Art manha  09:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have given a reason: The concept "TV Show" is no longer applicable in a strict sense in today's media environment (and never again will be), and therefore any insistence on placing one medium above the others is misguided. There simply is no reason to consider terrestrial broadcast above web publication.
 * Now that you (again) know the argument, could you please address it? Thanks!
 * "For promotional reasons only"? What does that even mean? Is there a Wikipedia rule that says that "promotional reasons" should not be considered? I don't give an airborne intercourse about MTV's reason to use a particular publishing platform - and neither should you.
 * "It is not episodicly realesed online first." - No, it's first publishing medium is MIXED. I never said otherwise.
 * I just checked Video Game High School again. Guess what Infobox template it uses?-217.248.3.146 (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Having a mixed template can confuse unaware users. Feel free to bring up the discussion on how to improve Wikipedia here. —  Art manha  (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah right, after the experience I just had I'm inclined to enter Wikipedia politics.
 * Still you ignore most of my arguments. Please reconsider, I would like to find a good solution for everyone here.
 * To recap, the strict adherence to the "rules" postulates that serialized media content today would match a traditional term like "TV show" as you understand it. That is simply not the case. Today's media are mixed content by default, and Wikipedia should reflect that fact.
 * You do not defend the point that SC is a purebred TV show, you just claim it is. More importantly, you'd have to show that purebred TV shows even exist today.
 * Your argument seems to be that a TV template can only ever hold data referring to TV publication. Why would that be the case? What is your main argument against dates from multiple publication platforms?
 * In what way would readers be confused if they don't even see the template? What would even be the point of confusion?
 * Also, stop using your obnoxious custom signature and use links like everybody else. Wait, you (partly) do now! You should have acknowledge that instead of silently removing the discussion from your userpage, then I would have noticed immediately.-217.248.3.146 (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Recap
The question at hand is whether First TV Publication Date should have preference over First Publication Date in the episode description.

The main argument for this seems to be that SC is a TV show, thus TV templates are used and First TV Publication Date should take precedence. I don't think this argument holds water, for a number of reasons:
 * "TV shows" in the absolute sense used here do no longer exist (or only exist incidentally). In today's media, shows are published on multiple platforms. Any insistence that a show is strictly this or that is misguided Essentialism.
 * The distinction is not made in many other articles on Wikipedia. Most prominently, no Netflix show is a TV show in the sense used here. Yet checking some of the more prominent shows (House of Cards, Orange Is the New Black and Jessica Jones), all use the templates claimed to be only usable for TV shows.
 * Furthermore, House of Cards is called "television series" in the lede although it was never shown on traditional TV in most markets. OitnB is simply called "series" in the lede (confirming my point above that the distinction can no longer be made) and all three garnered awards created for traditional TV shows.
 * Use of templates should never dictate content. I'm surprised that I even have to mention that. The only question should be whether or not the template is useful.
 * SC was in fact first-published on different media.
 * Insistence on First TV Publication Date ignores the point of the date in the first place: First publication says a lot about the work, how it can be placed among other works, whether it had impact on arts or society and so on. "First published on medium X" is at best of marginal interest, or of interest to a few readers.-217.248.3.146 (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * None of what you just stated applies in this case. Firstly, The Shannara Chronicles was first broadcast on MTV on January 5, 2016. After the broadcasting, episodes 3 and 4 were released online (along the two-part pilot) to help promote the series. But still, episodes 3 and 4 were broadcast on television following the schedule for episodes. All those series you cited are Netflix series, therefore are not broadcast on television (meaning they are made for the Internet i.e. web television) and their template state "Original release date", as oppose to the template on television series that state "Original air date". If it was a constant that Shannara Chronicles release the episodes online before the broadcast, then the template used for it would be a different one. What you fail to understand is that by placing on the episode table an "original air date" for the first two episodes and then "original release date" for episodes three and four and then "original air date" for the rest of the episodes is rather impractical. Since it was a one-time thing, we decided to put the information regarding the early online release for those episodes as a note, but it wasn't even something absolutely necessary, and most TV series articles decide even to not cite this information. If you think the template doesn't cover all the cases, you can add the discussion to the Template talk:Infobox television and Template talk:Episode list addressing the issue to the people that can effectvely change that and help improve the Wikipedia community. Thanks —  Art manha  (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "None of what you just stated applies in this case." - Really? None of it? Absolutely nothing whatsoever? I'm sorry, but I think you suffer from a bad case of confirmation bias. You should face my arguments and try to rebut them, it might even change your position.
 * Your use of certain terms notwithstanding, details about SC's publication history are not in question. What is your point?
 * "[Netflix series'] template state "Original release date", as oppose to the template on television series that state "Original air date"." - Earlier you recommended that I should "take some time to familiarize" myself with the templates in question. I can echo that recommendation: Both SC and HoC use the same template, which is prepared to accept all kinds of series (parameter "released"). My point stands, the medium should not matter, and does not matter in other articles.
 * "What you fail to understand [...]" - Not a good start, let's see where you are going...
 * "What you fail to understand is that by placing on the episode table an "original air date" for the first two episodes and then "original release date" for episodes three and four and then "original air date" for the rest of the episodes is rather impractical." - ...and incidentally, I never suggested that. Please do not use straw men.
 * "Since it was a one-time thing, we decided to put the information regarding the early online release for those episodes as a note, but it wasn't even something absolutely necessary" - Who is "we", and in what sense was or wasn't it "necessary"?
 * "most TV series articles decide even to not cite this information" - Argumentum ad populum; with that argument, any change in Wikipedia would be impossible.
 * "If you think the template doesn't cover all the cases ..." - I don't, it's just used wrong in this instance.-217.248.3.146 (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The same issue can be addressed as when an American television series is first broadcast in Canada or the United Kingdom. It wouldn't make sense to swap the air date from U.S. to Canada for one or two episodes and leave the rest of dates as the American ones. In those cases the users usually agree in putting the foreign broadcast as a note, or outside the episode table on the Broadcast / Release section or even not to mention it at all. —  Art manha  (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "It wouldn't make sense to swap the air date from U.S. to Canada for one or two episodes and leave the rest of dates as the American ones." - The situation is different here, this is the same market, and the publication was consecutive. Your bias towards the US market is noted, but not relevant here.-217.248.3.146 (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You've done nothing but offend me and state I am wrong because you are right. Please, be polite and avoid accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. And your statement lack evidence because House of Cards and The Shannara Chronicles do not use the same template; as the web television uses the airdate plus the released to differ from television series which uses simply the airdate. Thank you —  Art manha  (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "You've done nothing but [...] state I am wrong because you are right." - Again with the confirmation bias. You simply ignore most of what I say. Heck, you don't even react to explicit requests to clarify your position.
 * "Please, be polite and avoid accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." - I made no such accusations. Again, don't use straw men.
 * "And your statement lack evidence because House of Cards and The Shannara Chronicles do not use the same template;" - Simply false, and you imply so yourself: They both use Template:Episode table, literally the same template. They only differ in their use of a parameter.-217.248.3.146 (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You've just proved my point —  Art manha  (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What point?-217.248.3.146 (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It is immaterial to speculate why some networks release episodes before their broadcast. The fact that some episodes were released on demand before they were broadcast is very relevant because that is when and how they were first released, and also because a later broadcast will potentially change the number of viewers for the broadcast as people had the option to watch the episode on demand beforehand (and usually we don't know how many). Having viewer numbers together in one table where some are for the first release of the episodes while some are for a later release is not completely consistent and can be misleading and thus makes a prior on-demand release important to mention. And I would hope that other articles do not silently neglect that, but even if they would, that does not make it the right thing to do. For a mixed release, complete consistency cannot be achieved, and blindly following specific templates merely creates an illusion of consistency. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Two minor points:
 * If the number of viewers given is only valid for terrestrial TV broadcasts (with or without cable), then that number should be replaced asap. with something better. That number for House of Cards, one of the most popular and celebrated show of the last years, would be zero. You only mentioned one reason for that. The viewer numbers given for SC (1.03, 0.92, 0.75, 1.03) do imply that Eps. 3 and 4 were watched on another channel instead of regular TV. (One could even make the case that illegal views should be included.)
 * "For a mixed release, complete consistency cannot be achieved [...]" - I disagree, but maybe some information have to be removed for consistency. I am not sure that this is worth it however.-217.248.3.146 (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The viewers given in the table are for the broadcast (usually live + same day DVR, but L+3 (live + 3 days) or L+7 also exists). I am not sure they include all video on-demand viewers. While I am sure MTV knows how many people watched their episodes on what platform when, they choose to keep it secret, so I doubt something better is available. Which, as I wrote, makes it important not to omit information about which episodes were released on-demand before their broadcast, to not silently imply that viewer numbers for first-broadcast episodes would be comparable to viewer numbers for first-on-demand episodes.
 * For the consistency, it depends which question you expect the table to answer. In the last century, and even for some series nowadays, When was the episode available to watch first?, When was the episode broadcast first?, When was the episode broadcast first in its country of origin? all lead to the same answer (and then the template is easy to use). For Shannara, these answers differ. All are interesting questions, and you could make a consistent table for each question, but not for all at the same time. Different editors prefer to answer different questions. And the number of viewers problem which is immediately related to it does not make it easier. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the release.
 * I think I made a case why the first question is the most relevant in today's media world. The table could still be consistent, either by leaving out the number of viewers altogether (not recommended), or by pointing out in the header that only traditional TV broadcasts are covered.-217.248.3.146 (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't made any case, you're arguing a futile argument. In the United States, the ratings provided by Nielsen are what the network makes money on. All other forms of viewing are entirely unimportant to this discussion. This is an American show and the ratings reported by Nielsen are the only thing important here. I've made a long comment below explaining this but regardless, I would strongly advise you not try and remove the Nielsen ratings on the main article, you'll only find yourself immediately reverted. MyriadDream (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You sound positively hostile. Why? I never suggested to take out the ratings. (Not that a suggestion or even a bold change justify the vitriol.)
 * "the ratings reported by Nielsen are the only thing important here" - No, they are most definitely not. Writing a good article for the readers is the most (but not only) important thing.-217.248.3.146 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that digital media is not counted (link below), I don't see a good reason why Nielsen ratings are held in this high regard. They seem to be useful for some shows, less so for others, and of very little use for shows aimed at a young audience, such as The Shannara Chronicles.-217.248.2.44 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a quick explanation.

The numbers reported in the United States for TV shows are provided by Nielsen, they have given tens of thousands of households a box which makes up their sample size. If you don't have a Nielsen box your viewing is not counted and is not tracked by Nielsen. Live viewing is the most important viewing method tracked by Nielsen and is responsible for a shows renewal or cancelation. Live+3/Live+7 are mostly meaningless and are just PR fluff for networks. Networks sell adverts based on the C3 ratings, which is live viewing + 3 days of commercial viewing. If you have a Nielsen box and choose to DVR a show, if you don't watch the commercials, you're not helping the show at all. C3 ratings are not released onto the internet, and can't be reported because of that. However, online viewing is the least important viewing method and makes absolutely no difference to a shows renewal chances if the ratings are poor.

I understand that some people don't understand the Nielsen system, but it has been used for many decades by pretty much every network in the United States and is a perfectly fine system. The viewing numbers you see for shows aren't individual viewers, they're just the collective amount of Nielsen viewers who have watched the show, each viewer has a value, in the thousands. I would post a detailed report from TVBythenumbers explaining all this but I feel it would steer this discussion offtopic.

I don't know why anyone would question the legitimacy of the Nielsen ratings, but the Shannara Chronicles is doing perfectly fine for an MTV show and is pulling ratings you'd typically expect from the network. MyriadDream (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How does Nielsen measure Hulu, Netflix and similar sources? How are mixed web/TV shows like SC measured?-217.248.3.146 (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looked it up myself: This article (used from Nielsen ratings) explained that streaming formats are not counted.-217.248.2.44 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion
First shot at what the table should look like.-217.248.2.44 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So, any comments?-217.248.32.212 (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 (bing, bing, bing)
So, after an extensive discussion, and after my suggestion went without comment for more than a week, User:Artmanha just reverted the change discussed here, without any explanation. Is this the way Wikipedia is supposed to work? Artmanha, you should reconsider your actions and your outlook on collaboration here on Wikipedia. At the very least, you are wasting time and effort.-217.248.35.211 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A Third Opinion has been requested. While it is hard to determine, due to the length of the discussion, what the question is, it does appear that there are more than two editors involved. I am declining the request. If there really only are two editors, formulate the question concisely and refile. If there are more than two editors, try the dispute resolution noticeboard.
 * As an IP editor, I can't use the dispute resolution noticeboard. Please find a way to help resolving this situation.-217.248.29.218 (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't John Rhys-Davies listed in the Cast?
I'm just curious about this, because he appears in eight of the eleven episodes, including the first; he joined the cast at the same time the main actors did; and he's the most famous and accomplished actor in the cast. Why is he excluded? If there is some Wikipedia guideline that is barring him from inclusion, please kindly point me to it. Thank you. Chillowack (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ruelle (this show's theme song singer) nominated for deletion
Ruelle (singer), the singer of the main/opening theme song for The Shannara Chronicles, has been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Ruelle (group), if anyone involved with this article might be interested in weighing in. —Lowellian (reply) 00:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

High fantasy?
Should this be categorized as Category:High fantasy television series? Shannara is categorized as Category:High fantasy novels, and this show is mentioned in List of high fantasy films and TV series. Both Shannara and The Shannara Chronicles are mentioned in article High fantasy. Goustien (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh... I didn't realize that. I guess I'm being too strict in my definition. Feel free to add it back in. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Actors by Season?
Do we want to make note if an actor/character appeared in a season that wasn't season 1? Like Vanessa Morgan I know is joining for Season 2, just wondering if it should be noted for other characters (not done the season or I would do it myself).--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cast lists are based on original series broadcast credits as per MOS:TVCAST, so any Season 2 cast member inclusions in the Cast list would be premature since nothing from s2 has aired and there has therefore been no credit broadcast/"published" to establish someone's inclusion in that list. But if you have a reliable source, you can mention new cast additions in the "Casting" section under "Production". —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Like, these cast members have been added, so do we wanna add like:
 * Vanessa Morgan as Lyria (season 2)
 * Or something similar? So that people are aware that they don't show up in the first season. If not, I'm happy to just add it to the casting section.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out... I'm removing them from that section (which also shouldn't be separated by fantasy race. They're also not sourced properly there... the two sources are about season 1 characters. Please beef up the "Casting" section 😀 —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)