Talk:Ringer (TV series)

Jaime Murray

Why does someone keep deleting the line about Jamie Murray. It has been confirmed by several sources that she will appear in the show and I included a link? As she is only possible recurring cast I put her under 'Supporting Cast' but the whole thing has been deleted? Dallum89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Main image

I thought this screenshot taken from the teaser trailer would do until the series actually starts and we can get the title card from the credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallum89 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Cast and characters

I split this into two sections as this seems to be the layout for other shows. This way we can add new casting information as it comes and have a paragraph for each season if new characters are introduced or depart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.124.46 (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is this section not allowed to be split into main and recurring characters? If there is a reason then that's fair enough but someone keeps changing it without an explanation which I don't think is right. The characters in the recurring section have sources which state they are recurring. Also, the majority of other tv shows pages have their charcters sections sorted like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.255.113 (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Character name change ?

There appears to be a new surname for the rich twin, Martin instead of Marx .It was mentioned in one of the reports of the Upfronts and appears now to be confirmed in this extended trailer [1] .

Dead Ringer (1964 film)?

No mention how this show appears to be inspired by/a remake of the 1964 Bette Davis film? I guess there are no sources saying so but it seems obvious. 64.121.150.175 (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Episode titles

There seems to be a habit of people removing things that have been added without explanation; most recently, of which were the first six episode titles. If the sources were unreliable then it's fair enough to remove them but could whoever is doing it give an explanation so that, if possible, more reliable sources or any solution might be found before removing it entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.9.26 (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't always obvious

Can we look at edits in a less American centric manner please .

The edit summary for this edit [2] was Obvious and completely irrelevant for now and while the irrelevant part is correct the obvious comment is not correct since it would not be obvious for most readers worldwide that the success of a show would lead to an order for more episodes for the first season but for example in the UK and many other countries an order for a second season .Garda40 (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm from the UK and I wrote that because it is obvious, it's an American TV show and an American article, so it's written American. Besides, edit summaries are the users preference. Jayy008 (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing it in an American style is not an issue and neither is what way you write an edit summary .

However extending the number of episodes (in a season ) of a drama series is if it is successful while it may be obvious if you are familiar with American TV practices if you are only familiar with British TV practices then you know that the BBC or ITV no matter no successful a show such as Downton Abbey is then they won't add extra episodes to the ongoing season .Garda40 (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

and that's your views and that's fine. However, edit summaries are a users preference and they don't affect the article. UK networks have always done things differently. My edit summary is my opinion and doesn't affect the article. Jayy008 (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well considering the fact that edit summaries are meant to be more or less an accurate account of what you did in an edit they are therefore only a users preference within certain limits and it also implies that the article is being edited according to what was reported in that edit summary .Garda40 (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And I did, in the first part I wrote the factual reason "pointless trivia" and my opinion followed after. Jayy008 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In US the period from September to the following September is reckoned as one season. Apparently, in the UK, a batch of episodes ordered together is considered a season, and so there could be 2 seasons in a year. If there is no standard terminology, we might as well let the writer use the terms he chooses. CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally there are two seasons a year, spring and autumn. Series used to follow this quite strictly, with about 20 episode each season. Now series seam to have quite random dates but still runs with ~20 episodes per season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.34.130 (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is a US show in the UK then the series will be the same. For example shows like Desperate Housewives and Gossip Girl may be shown at different times (so not Sept-Sept) and break for a month or so around Christmas in the UK but they will still be advertised and described as one season just as they are in the US. So however many episodes are in the first season of Ringer will be the same and regarded as one season in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.198.87 (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

Let's not have a revert war about reviews. Discuss any needed winnowing here. --Lexein (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll just say this: reviews are a vaulable piece of information on a TV series page and shouldn't be confined just to a specific episode page. When critics judge the beginning of a series, they generally do not judge each episode individually, that comes later. What they do is make their assessment of the series as a whole, which is why the reviews belong on this page as well. If a user wants to go to the trouble of creating individual episode pages and tracking down reviews for each and every episode that gets released, that's fine and I'm happy to help if I can, but there's no reason not to include reviews of the overall series on this page as well. That's my two cents. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that series reviews here, and episode reviews on the episode pages, make sense. We can't do that just yet, of course. In the meantime, I think this review section should shrink, but only removing only redundancy. Typically a few reviews (meaning 3-7) are sufficient to represent the gamut of opinion. How about just naming the candidate publications to cut here, and we'll hash it out that way? --Lexein (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally see no reason for them to be here, for the time being. There has only been a pilot episode out, so listing 20+ reviews just from that episode alone on the main article would not be a very proper representation. Sure, it could be toned down, but I think at least until the second episode is out, reviews should not be present in the main page. I created the Pilot page for that reason. — Status {^talk_contribs  10:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I would just suggest taking a few sites, like TV.com or the AfterElton, and just leaving them here for the meantime. Obviously we can't have reviews for the whole season just yet, but when they do come out, the reviews here can be replaced? Marchfur (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cut down on a lot of reviews, and left the major sites in, like E! or People. Some of these sites are not very prominent in the online blogosphere for TV shows, and seemed to have been picked from a Google News Search. Nevertheless, there was a wealth of choice, so let me know if there are any problems. I also tried to pick reviews that commented on the film's atmosphere, like the noir-ness or the intensity, effects, etc. instead of individual performances or the events of the pilot alone. Marchfur (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Character pages

Obviously it's still quite early in the series to make these yet but I was wondering what people thought would be best to do about Bridget/Siobhan. Since both are played by SMG and will have similar information would it be better to make one page for them both or have two seperate pages? 2.101.0.185 (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Even though both characters are played by Gellar, they're two different characters so there's no reason why there can't be an entry for each character in the "List of Ringer characaters" article (whatever it's called) if and when that's eventually created. Obviously it's way too early for individual character articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

People's Choice Awards

Ringer was not nominated for the 39th People's Choice Awards 2012 - have a look here too -> http://www.peopleschoice.com/pca/awards/nominees/index.jsp?year=2012 Hambacher (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources

1. https://tvline.com/2023/01/18/sarah-michelle-gellar-ringer-season-2-cancelled-renewed-cw/
2. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/sarah-michelle-gellar-reveals-she-230925383.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAH1pAaSGRo1xNgCOCebdKPvXBzJsE2TwF0LZrMDEXvf_EXqq-8z7f0g1zBjoZqexv1sW11xtA93Jg8GkPYfCwLXBPMDYJL9nKQj3-993MFTjxS2owHPhwk1vAabECUHEBDCQFvHcpbEDoWUXLovDVFgFwmSzU_7NKysK_amHYYgP
3. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/sarah-michelle-gellar-revisits-five-pivotal-post-buffy-roles/the-crazy-ones-2013/
4. https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a377341/ringer-exec-on-season-two-its-about-the-consequences/
5. https://www.tvguide.com/news/ringer-cw-pam-veasey-1046084/
6. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/ringer-finale-postmortem-pam-veasey-siobhan-cw-season-2-313723/