Talk:Fear the Walking Dead season 4

Move to main space?

I'm pretty sure this article is ready to be moved to the main space. It was declined two months ago, but it looked like this. Since then, the cast section was expanded with character descriptions and references; an episode table is now available with information for the first eight episodes; and the production section was also expanded. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The episode table does not contribute to the prose at all, production is only three/four sentences. Empty critical reception. The primary reason to split content away to a separate article is if the parent article has become unwieldy and bloated enough that it requires separation to become readable - this is not the case anywhere for this article. -- Alex^TW 03:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Hurricane Seth in this. -- Alex^TW 02:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Alex, but it's not up to me whether this be created as a main page. I agree that it should. Sure, some of your points are valid but the season is almost here and will be contributed to more if it's available to be edited as a main page. Hurricane Seth (talk) 2:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because the season's about to air, does not mean its a precursor that the page must exist. I can name dozens of series where the season has come and gone, and still no season page. A split is only required when other articles have become too bloated that the content needs to be moved away to to a separate article. So, answer me this: what content elsewhere will be moved/removed once the article is moved to the mainspace? -- Alex^TW 02:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I see where you're coming from. I just thought it would be easier to see all the cast information and episode/production information in one single page rather than having to go to 2 pages. — Hurricane Seth (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It would definitely be easier, but we don't simply create pages for every season, only those that need it. For example, The Flash has a separate article for Season 4, but not the first three. -- Alex^TW 02:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is the fact that this article was originally created way too early (back in November 2017) and it was then moved into the draft space to be worked on, which it has been, significantly. If this article was created last week with the same content it has now, no one would have a problem with it. This article is no different than the articles for previous seasons of FTWD in terms of content, except it doesn't have episode summaries and reception information, simply because it hasn't premiered yet. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

False. I would have had a problem with it, and I would have moved it to the draft space. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason - simply because nobody focused on the season articles enough for the previous seasons, does not mean it's acceptable for the upcoming season. -- Alex^TW 15:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Right, but you're not the sole decider of what gets to be an article on Wikipedia. The draft submission was declined over two months, before the article was significantly expanded, and it will be expanded even further when the season premieres. We'll see. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not, no, I just go by the standards that the Television WikiProject uses. We shall see indeed. -- Alex^TW 15:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the article should be moved from a draft. The basic framework is there for a season article, and it can't really be helped that it lacks things like summaries, ratings, further character descriptions because the show hasn't premiered yet. The article would justify itself when the show airs and people visit the page and add to it. Esuka323 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've asked for further input on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Mz7 (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for taking the time to handle the issue on here. I believe that any issue remaining that prevents the article being moved from draft status is trivial and that it would be unreasonable for anyone to jump through hoops any further for arbitrary reasons. Esuka323 (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

further input? Hurricane Seth (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that you answered me earlier. As I said, a split is only required when other articles have become too bloated that the content needs to be moved away to to a separate article. So, my question was this: what content elsewhere will be moved/removed once the article is moved to the mainspace? -- Alex^TW 00:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears that you're not fond of accepting new articles. Like Esuka323 has said, it can't be helped that the article hasn't been expanded substantially. I also agree with Drovethrughosts's statement that the page will expanded even further when the season premieres. — Hurricane Seth (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, flexibility is needed here. It would be ludicrous and counterproductive to deny it further. Esuka323 (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I love creating new articles, so I recommend you don't try to act like you know someone. And it appears that that you cannot answer my question at all, so you try to deviate away from it. Do you have an answer or not? Why is this article the only one that doesn't need to abide by splitting guidelines? -- Alex^TW 23:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Why does any content need to be removed/added? I mean, yes, content will be further added as the season progresses, just like every other season article from Fear the Walking Dead and The Walking Dead. I don't think it's too bloated, I just think it would be easier to have one article, instead of two or three. To view everything on the season 4 article page in question, you'd have to view Fear the Walking Dead's main page and the seasons page to see the episode list. I honestly just think it would be easier to have one article. It's whatever. It will happen sooner or later, evidenced by FTWD and TWD's other season pages. — Hurricane Seth (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I recommend that you read WP:SPLIT. Creating an article such a this, a season article off of a parent article, is splitting the content of the parent article to the season article. We don't simply create articles because others exist like it, or because we fancy ourselves creators, or because we want them to make matching sets, we create articles because we need to move the content to a page that is specific to the content. So, as I said, a split is only required when other articles have become too bloated that the content needs to be moved away to to a separate article. So, again: what content elsewhere will be moved/removed once the article is moved to the mainspace? If the answer is nothing, then a split is not necessary. -- Alex^TW 13:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Good lord, such rigid and irrelevant rule structures for the sake of a season article. The relevant content is there and in place and would be expanded upon if such rules didn't prevent the article from existing in the mainspace where people can edit it when the show airs. To hell with creativity right? As long as content split rules that most Wikipedia users wouldn't know or care about are there. This is what's wrong with Wikipedia, the nonsensical policing that prevents users doing what they love to do, edit!. If a lack of common sense is preventing the article from existing, then there's something very wrong, and that's a shame. Esuka323 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

They can easily edit the content in the mainspace when the content exists in the parent or episode article, there's nothing stopping them. Once they contribute enough to provide enough to split, then yes, that's when this article should be created. To hell with creativity right? Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place for people to be flaunting their arts degrees. Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion, we don't simply create articles so we can have a matching set of seasons. I would recommend you take a breath before going on your rant, and that you and the "most Wikipedia users" actually know their Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

However, we digress - this discussion is not the place on when to split an article, it is for when to split this article. -- Alex^TW 23:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear God, I give up! There doesn't have to be anything that needs to removed/added from the main article. Like I've stated numerous times, it will be easier to view the article. Whatever, you don't seem to care where anybody comes from except yourself. The article will be approved sometime, just like the rest, since you are not the sole decider of what articles get approved. I'm done talking with you. Good day. — Hurricane Seth (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Then as I said: the content should be added to the parent or episode article, then split when there's enough. I'm not accepting or declining the submission, I'm not edit-warring by revering it back to the draft space; I never said I was the sole decider, so I recommend that you strike that personal attack on me. Learn how to discuss civilly, then you might find it easier for yourself. -- Alex^TW 23:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• @AlexTheWhovian: I am fairly sympathetic to your opinion (this draft merely duplicates the exact wording of sentences that can be found in the main article Fear the Walking Dead :P – we'll probably need to attribute those per WP:CWW if they aren't already). On the other hand, I believe the standard that most AfC reviewers use to determine whether to accept is "does this have greater than a 50-50 chance to survive at WP:AFD?" I think the answer is "yes" because this is a fairly significant show, so the relevant guideline may not be WP:SPLIT, but independent notability per WP:GNG. For that reason, I'm inclined to accept this draft. If you feel that the page should be deleted/redirected elsewhere, you can bring that issue up at AfD after it is published. Mz7 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. I haven't planned to AFD it, or revert any move, I've just opposed the move in discussion. If the move does in fact go ahead, then that's perfectly fine with me, I'll let it be. -- Alex^TW 04:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Madison Clark

• Moved from User talk:AlexTheWhovian#Madison Clark

All scenes with Madison in season 4 are NOT in the present and take place before Morgan Jones meets Alicia and Nick, they're all flashbacks. Here's the source. [1] The Optimistic One (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article talk page, as it's up to you per BRD, as it's your edits being disputed. -- Alex^TW 06:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

If one character needs "appears in flashbacks", then they all do. -- Alex^TW 06:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Great! Lose one argument just to start another. Btw, Madison is the only character to appear solely in flashbacks in this season so, yeah that's why it's supposed to be mentioned. The Optimistic One (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

What? -- Alex^TW 07:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You know now that they were flashbacks. You lost that argument! The Optimistic One (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Great! Lose one argument just to start another. That's what I was asking you about. You think discussions on Wikipedia are arguments? You're solely mistaken, bud, and I recommend you get that idea fixed. If they are indeed flashbacks, why are they in a sentence of such poor grammar? "appears in flashbacks" just stuck to the end of the sentence is a poor structure, and explains nothing. How? Why? What happened? -- Alex^TW 07:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That's your opinion and even if you're right about my use of grammar (which you're not), it still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong about the flashbacks. The Optimistic One (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You think discussions on Wikipedia are arguments? You're solely mistaken, bud, and I recommend you get that idea fixed. Still looks like you're wrong about the grammar. "An intelligent and domineering high school guidance counselor and the mother of Nick and Alicia, who appears in flashbacks", yes, that's correct. It still explains nothing why, how, or what. You've given nothing in the article that supports anything to do with flashbacks.

It's still an acknowledgement to say the least. Why didn't you explain why, how, or what? Instead, you revert me. The Optimistic One (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not up to me to fix your edits. You added the content, you support it, else you get reverted. That's how it works with literally every editor on this site - you have to back up the content that you add. -- Alex^TW 08:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Well my edits were correct and the initial reason why you reverted them was because you thought they were false and misleading. Now, you come up with another bad excuse. The Optimistic One (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You can be upset all you want. The edits cannot go back in until they're at the very least sourced, and at the most grammatically correct. -- Alex^TW 08:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not upset (Redacted). Thanks for the talk page block! I really needed it. Thanks also for edit warring which is why I mentioned the fact that you reverted me three times. I made no mistakes with them edits and you should learn to adapt to WP:Civility. The Optimistic One (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you want to try that again without the WP:PA? -- Alex^TW 08:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ní thuigim. Cén ionsaí pearsanta? The Optimistic One (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

There were two separate storylines this season, one which had Madison & her kids at the stadium(Past) and the current one with the new cast & surviving old ones(present). The Optimistic One is correct in that by the time Morgan, Dorie & Al had met Alicia's group that Madison was already dead. They just teased the reveal until the mid season finale for the greater emotional impact on the audience. Esuka323 (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Was this known during the first half of the season, and are there references to the flashbacks in the article? -- Alex^TW 03:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

He just answered the first question for you. Reading: It's REALLY fundamental! The Optimistic One (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Technically they are NOT flashbacks. It was non-linear storytelling which is different than flashbacks. Spanneraol (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's a nice quote from an Entertainment Weekly interview with Ian B. Goldberg. "We are also going to be revealing a bit more about the journey that Madison and her family took from Mexico to where they are when we find them in our flashback storyline. And it may involve a wonderful bottle of Scotch." It's the last answer from an interview here. [2] Esuka323 (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Goldberg can say what he want, but unfortunately, he doesn't define words; the season remains in a non-linear storytelling format per Spanneraol. -- Alex^TW 02:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

He (a showrunner), explicitly stated that the Madison's storyline was a flashback. A flashback is a scene set in a time earlier than the main story. That pretty much sums up everything. @AlexTheWhovian: I feel that you're just being blatantly oppositional towards me. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a single scene. However, this is not the case for this series, as it goes back and forth between the past and present, and hence is more than just a flashback - it is non-linear storytelling. You may feel that, but I've got a lot more important stuff on my plate than to just sit around opposing you. -- Alex^TW 02:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Since when do Wikipedia editors decide over a showrunner if something is or isn't a flashback? I would have thought the very people who work for many months to create the show are more qualified than any of us to determine that. You also wouldn't struggle to find websites describing the Madison episodes as flashbacks. Just take a look at the very ones that cover the show. Esuka323 (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! "No one can come and claim ownership of my work. I am the creator of it, and it lives within me." If a showrunner says their work is a certain thing then we have to take it on board. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yup, it's a little disappointing that this is even an issue. Entertainment Weekly is the biggest American TV news website on the internet, and it just happens to have a quote supporting an argument to include the information the season page. But that's apparently not enough, sadly. Maybe someone should break the news to Goldberg that what he helped create wasn't a flashback storyline? Esuka323 (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Since the beginning of Wikipedia. They use their own terms, Wikipedia uses their own terms; it's why when a showrunner says "This season is coming out in Summer 2019", we do not and cannot list that directly. Your personal opinion is noted, but we don't have to do any such thing. Your snarkiness is also noted. -- Alex^TW 03:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt the note taking, but staff writers for the likes of EW, Hollywood Reporter, Forbes and many others who have done write ups of the episodes as they air have all called many of the flashback scenes flashbacks. Here's one from Forbes [3] Esuka323 (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Good for them. Now, back to here on Wikipedia, given that it's an even split in this discussion on the terminology, should an RFC be held? -- Alex^TW 03:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Release dates are completely different and irrelevant as their not opinions or arguments. If a showrunner says their work is a certain thing then we have to take it on board. Alex, no offence, but your known to have an attitude on this site. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

That's because as I said: They use their own terms, Wikipedia uses their own terms. We have to? Can you back that up with a policy? If not, then we don't have to, and it's up to editor interpretation and consensus. -- Alex^TW 03:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

From Skybound Entertainments recap "Flashback to the Diamond: Nick informs Madison that their crops are coming along nicely,"(It's a long recap, I've just included the part that starts the flashback stuff). Needless to say throughout the article they clearly distinguish between what is and isn't a flashback scene. Incase you didn't know, they're a production company that produces the show, founded by Robert Kirkman and David Alpert. See here [4] Esuka323 (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Good for them. -- Alex^TW 04:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see you don't have an argument to refute the production company that makes the show calling the scenes flashbacks too. Esuka323 (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I do have an argument, I'm just not going to repeat myself. Actually, I will. They use their own terms, Wikipedia uses their own terms. -- Alex^TW 04:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not an argument, you're attempting to hide behind your interpretation of policy because you can't refute what's being presented to you. The showrunner, the TV media, the very people who produce the show can't all be wrong. These are all reliable sources, and if you can't see that, I'm clearly wasting my time and effort here. Esuka323 (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I can, and I have. I consider it non-linear storytelling, as does another editor, meaning this current discussion is split on it. Not saying they're wrong, just saying there's different ways to interpret the same thing. But if you believe you're wasting your time, best of luck with your future editing; I'll wait for other editors to contribute. -- Alex^TW 04:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

A flashback is when you interrupt a scene to "flashback" to an earlier point.. Non-linear storytelling is when you show scenes out of order chronologically.. It's significantly different than an actual flashback. And why is it even important to have such a distinction in the character description anyway? Spanneraol (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Alex^TW 03:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

And why's that? -- Alex^TW 03:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you answer my question below first regarding RfC? The Optimistic One (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

When are we gonna start this RfC? The Optimistic One (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I support your position on this issue and have seen nothing to convince me otherwise. However, I'm not that bothered about this to raise a fuss, so if nothing happens, that's OK with me. If I can be perfectly honest with you, after adding the +7 ratings for penultimate episode & finale in the future I likely won't even visit the page again until probably closer to season fives airdate. I've also said all I've had to say, so unless there's a vote, I won't be participating further. Esuka323 (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)