Talk:Stranger Things/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The IP's crusade

Someone is determined to remove from the cast list anyone who doesn't appear in the opening credits. Clearly a lot of people think these characters are important enough to mention and want to credit the actors. Why not work with them instead of just removing their work and writing "AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN" in your edit summaries? Headers for "Main cast" and "Recurring cast" would work. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You need a reliable source saying they are Main cast or Recurring cast. Your seeing the show is not a reliable source. Earthscent (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually it is. The implied source is the show itself, not me or any other editor. The information is verifiable by checking the credits. But anyway, the distinction between the main and the recurring/guest/whatever-you-want-to-call-it cast is somewhat arbitrary. Joe Keery (Steve Harrington) for example appears in every episode yet doesn't appear in the opening credits. It just comes down to how the producers choose to bill them in the end. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Recurring cast and main cast are different sections. Guest stars are not listed in the main cast. Those are the rules. Make a recurring section if you want but stop doing it incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.96.237 (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"Those are the rules"???? Wikipedia has no "rules", only policies and guidelines. And I can't find any policy or guideline which justifies your removal of other people's work. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

YES, there are standards for TV wikis (no guest stars in infobox, etc). If you bothered to view ANY OTHER SERIES ON HERE, you would have seen the standard. It would have taken you five seconds and saved time to do the correct edit, but I'll do it for you.

I have no opinion on this particular subject, but "other articles do it like this so we should do it too" isn't a good argument. Many, many Wikipedia articles are a long way from being perfect. Popcornduff (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Shannon Purcer/Barb

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon_Purser. Basically the nominator doesn't think an internet meme is notable and I tend to agree. Please give your opinions. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The date

The exact date the show takes place on is unnecessary detail; it isn't important to understand the premise or plot. See WP:TVPLOT. The summary that last restored the date is: "During Advent, ie for the winter solstice, it expects the victory of Light over Darkness, of the Good force against the Evil one. This series cites Star Wars, isn't it?)" ... which I can make no sense of whatsoever. Popcornduff (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Who shoots whom?

The description for ep 1 says, "After Will goes missing, a young girl appears at a restaurant wearing a hospital gown and shaved head. The owner calls the authorities and a woman arrives, saying she is a social worker. She immediately shoots him, and the young girl runs away from the restaurant." It's not clear who the male is who is being shot (or indeed whether it's the girl or the social worker doing the shooting). I haven't seen the ep - can someone fix this? Sadiemonster (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure who fixed it, but it's done. Melodyschamble (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Individual episode articles

I have noticed multiple episode articles have been created recently. I took a closer look at them and most of the references are about the series itself, and episode reviews do not establish notability because they simply review every episode. And the "Reception" section and possibly others are basically just copy-pasted nearly verbatim between them, with the section talking about the show itself rather than the episode. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I am writing indvidual review for an episodes. Just wait a bit. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 17:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this content correct re: Natalia Dyer as Nancy Wheeler,

The article says: Natalia Dyer as Nancy Wheeler,[14] daughter of Karen, older sister of Mike, girlfriend of Steve Harrington but secretly loves Jonathan Byers.

The citation provided (14) leads to an article that does not say she is in love with Jonathan!

Is she in love with Jonathan?? Perhaps she has a crush on him? I revised the text. See http://www.vulture.com/2016/07/stranger-things-douchebag-boyfriend-trope.html Peter K Burian (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That's plot info to be noted in the summaries. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Bride is NOT the working title (it is the production code OR sign code

@Favre1fan93: So you reverted me once again 01:38, 4 January 2017 Favre1fan93

I explained when I originally deleted "Bride" that Bride is not the working title. And I gave the filming of the Jumanji movie as an example: Jumanji (production code: JAGUAR) set up shop in Atlanta at the end of November The working name of the movie is Jumanji, not JAGUAR which is a code. http://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/whats-filming-in-atlanta-now-jumanji-stranger-things-the-quad-and-a-look-at-whats-in-store-for-2017/

Just this week, Hangman (HANG) wrapped production. And HANG is not the working title of that movie. When they shoot movies or TV shows, they assign a short CODE to it so crew etc. can find it quickly by looking for the short code name on signs.

BET’s The Quad (GAMU) is still working hard this December. GAMU is not the working title of The Quad. It is a code.

Jason Bateman’s Netflix series Ozark (BRYDE), which has seemingly been filming BRYDE is not the working title of Ozark but the code.

FOX’s Star (SOS) shot at Northside Tavern on the 1st, then moved to Douglasville SOS is not the working title of the show Star. It is a code.

MacGyver (EYE) filmed in downtown Atlanta EYE is not the working title of the series MacGyver; it is a code.

Many other examples of code for productions while they are filming at http://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/whats-filming-in-atlanta-now-jumanji-stranger-things-the-quad-and-a-look-at-whats-in-store-for-2017/ Peter K Burian (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia has an article Working title does not mean that production code means the working title. Many movies do not want the public to know the final title so they assign a working title.

But all of the examples I provided above a clearly not working titles. (I know what a Working title is.)

Would you agree that we should again delete the part about Bride being the working title? I do not want to again ask administrators to have to again provide Wikipedia:Third opinion Peter K Burian (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, this is useful ... Another term is SIGN CODE. You can find many examples of such sign codes at http://www.whatsfilming.ca/inproduction/

e.g. Supergirl - Season 2 TV Series SG2 Clearly, SG2 is not a working title but a short code. Just as Bride is a short code for Stranger Things. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

But, industry slang doesn't mean squat to the common reader. I do more in music so let me give you musical examples - today they say "my single is set to impact radio", a few years ago they say said "my new album is going to drop on Tuesday". They all mean the same thing. It is just industry lingo.

Whether or not the line is included is up to you guys. But don't write it using words that few will understand or words that will change in a few years. The album is going to be released. It is not going to impact or drop or fashizzle. Kellymoat (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the independent Wikipedia:Third opinion @Kellymoat: So the compromise should be to not to discuss the issue of the Bride name at all. (It is NOT the working title but a code - both industry jargon.) I had already deleted all reference to BRIDE in the past But someone kept reverting it. OK, I deleted the BRIDE comment again earlier this aft. So far, no one has changed that.Peter K Burian (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sci fi or horror? Or both

13:00, 3 January 2017‎ Kellymoat

Some debate about the genre in the editing/reverting edits. In my view, it's sci-fi/supernatural not horror; perhaps the last episode has some horror. And yes, the monster does get involved in earlier episodes too. Hmm..

ACCORDING TO Netflix: This nostalgic nod to 1980s sci-fi/horror classics pays homage to "E.T.," "Poltergeist" and the novels of Stephen King https://www.netflix.com/fm/title/80057281

But this review is not sure it's horror: It’s so fixated on stirring nostalgia for the science-fiction, fantasy, horror, and adventure tales of yore that it has no time or energy left over for what made those horror tales compelling in the first place: wrestling with the fears and desires of the time period, and the different kinds of people — boys and girls, men and women, parents and children, kids and teens and adults — who found themselves struggling with them. http://www.vulture.com/2016/08/stranger-things-and-80s-horror.html

The industry news magazine, Variety (NOT a fan mag): Nov 7, 2016 - The shape of “Stranger Things” to come is becoming a little clearer. Season 2 of the Netflix horror thriller will include Sean Astin, Paul Reiser, ... variety.com/2016/tv/.../stranger-things-season-2-sean-astin-paul-reiser-1201911580/

The highly respected The New Yorker (NOT a fan mag): Stranger Things,” the new sci-fi horror series on Netflix, is a cool summer treat. It’s spooky but not scary, escapist but not empty. It’s a genre throwback to simpler times, with heroes, villains, and monsters. Yet it’s also haunting, and has a rare respect for both adult grief and childhood suffering. It’s an original. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/22/stranger-things-and-the-get-down-reviews

The highly respected, daily newspaper (England), Guardian: It quickly spread its narrative out over eight episodes into string-theory-twisting sci-fi horror via real-life CIA conspiracy thriller with a side of high-school romance. ............. After a terrifying first episode, Stranger Things became gradually less scary as it unfolded and explained (or sort of explained) its secrets. But it still contained a moment that had this viewer considering going to bed with the lights on .............. a pitch-black parallel reality filled with demons https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/dec/17/the-50-best-tv-shows-of-2016-no-3-stranger-things

Bottom Line: Sci-fi horror is probably a suitable description. It's a thriller too but sci-fi definitely needs to be part of the description. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment from blocked user removed BOTH. Sources are what define everything on here and judging from the majority of sources it's a sci fi - horror show. Your given source examples pretty much confirm that and If Netflix themselves describe it as so then I see no reason for it be categorised as anything else. We ourselves can't decide what genre it is through personal observation of how many elements of horror or science fiction are depicted in episodes. I agree with you that Science fiction-horror is fine , the genre was only just recently changed due to a sock puppet issue I believe.If there are any other genres people feel are necessary to be listed they can be put forward and if sourced put in the genre section which lists all the sub genres. Thank you for your research into this as the sources and information provided will help avoid future genre changes/warring User:Lanabanabonana92 (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanabanabonana92 (talk • contribs)

Do people refer to Netflix as Web television - as in the lede - or as Streaming media? I favor the latter. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: The Wikipedia article Netflix refers to it as streaming media, not web television. It specializes in and provides streaming media and video on demand online and DVD by mail. ... In 2013, The company expanded internationally with streaming made available to Canada in 2010[8] and continued growing its streaming service from there;

On the other hand, the Web television article refers to it as such: The current major distributors of web television are Amazon.com, Blip.tv, Crackle, Hulu, Netflix, Newgrounds, Roku, and YouTube. Still, food for thought as to the term we should use in the lede.Peter K Burian (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is my name listed here but I was not pinged? Please learn.

But, since my name was brought up --- I don't care what the genre is. I have not added or removed any content from this page, with the exception of a hidden note. I have, however, reverted improper edits. There is a difference. In this case, I reverted edits from a recently blocked account (a permanent block). Do you think that he was blocked for doing a good job? You cannot trust any of the edits he made. If one edit happens to be legitimate, put it back. I undid his actions, not his content. Put the content back if it is correct. Kellymoat (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kellymoat: This is the full info on the revert I mentioned 13:00, 3 January 2017‎ Kellymoat (Reverted changes made by confirmed sock puppet.) . . (58,889 bytes) (-23)

I believe we DO need to keep both the sci-fi and horror words (unless we decide by consensus to remove the word horror). In any event, the text is fine now since someone fixed it at 13:04, 3 January 2017.Peter K Burian (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me this time. Kellymoat (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to update the situation - "the person that changed at it back 13:04, 3 January 2017" was a sock puppet. He was the same guy that I reverted earlier. All he did was get a new account to put his edit back. He has since been blocked as well, which is why I reverted his edits again.Kellymoat (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we add Season info for each character?

Another article that I am editing has info after each character, indicating the Seasons during which he was active.

e.g. (Season 1) or Season 1- indicating all seasons to date, or (Season 1-3). This is most useful with series that are already past Season 2 but might make sense for Stranger Things as well.

See Main Cast at Longmire (TV series) Peter K Burian (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea, but there has only been one season, so let's wait to the end of Season Two or Three to establish that. I feel like it is too early on to do this.Ericf505 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Barb Holland character killed off in Season 1

There are already many "spoliers" in the article, so I am not sure whey we don't say that Barb is killed in Season 1?

Current text: Shannon Purser as Barbara "Barb" Holland, best friend of Nancy Wheeler. She is intelligent, outspoken, and very loyal to Nancy. She does not care about being popular with the other students at the school she and Nancy attend, but is concerned that her and Nancy's friendship may be threatened by Nancy's relationship with Steve.[20]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/for-the-last-time-barb-from-stranger-things-is-dead_us_57e7485be4b0e80b1ba278d5 Thankfully, the Duffer brothers put any confusion to rest during a live panel on Saturday night at Samsung 837 in New York City, after an audience member flat-out asked, “Is Barb dead?” “I mean, yes ― yes, she’s dead. I thought we were pretty clear about that,” Matt Duffer said. “There’s a slug hanging out of her mouth ― out of her dead corpse. And then if you were still confused, [Chief Jim] Hopper finds her in the nest, also very dead.” Peter K Burian (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation #40 was used to indicate that the Barb character would be in Season 2, but that article does not confirm this: Quote: Though Netflix did confirm to Deadline sister site TV Line that Winona Ryder (Joyce) and David Harbour (Jim) are set to return, they’re not seen in the photo, which showcases the younger cast. Featured in it are newcomers Sadie Sink and Dacre Montgomery, along with Brown, Finn Wolfhard, Gaten Matarazzo, Caleb McLaughlin, Natalia Dyer, Charlie Heaton, Joe Keery, and Noah Schnapp. Alas, sorry fans, no Shannon Purser, as her character, fan-favorite Barb, has all but been confirmed not to return for season 2. (Barb was killed off, but the show’s creators have been coy about the character’s lasting impact.) http://deadline.com/2016/11/first-cast-photo-for-stranger-things-season-2-released-online-1201849068/ Peter K Burian (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As with the question about Nancy Wheeler above, this is plot info that does not need to be in character descriptions. You will run into WP:SPOILER warriors and many headaches. Trust me I know (see the talk page of Westworld (TV series) (and yes there are spoilers there regarding characters)). So at this time, I am removing this info. However, give all of the third party coverage surrounding the character's death, the info can be moved to another part of the article where it would be better suited. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Fan. I never really know with an article like this whether spoilers are a problem, but many of the cited articles include spoilers too. (There are many spoilers in the Star Wars Rogue One article that I have done a lot of work on.) Perhaps we should say something about this actor not returning and leave it at that. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER states that Wikipedia does not have a spoiler policy, which means all info is fair game. However, many users will argue (sometimes correctly) that there still is no need for spoiler info in a character's description. The content always has to be navigated carefully. We don't want to censor ourselves, but we also shouldn't be unnecessarily putting info places just because we "can". That said, as I stated above, there was a large amount of third party coverage on the series regarding Barb's death and the eventual "Justice For Barb" movement on social media and from the fans. So this can be mentioned in another spot of the location. And regarding the character returning, it is mention through the casting section wording, though indirectly. Purser is listed as a recurring actor for season 1 with the others, and in the next paragraph for season 2, she is not, which indicates she is not confirmed/known to be returning (which we know is true). A statement such as "She is not returning" or the like is not good writing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, her character is confirmed dead following a skit on the Golden Globes last night. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

New info coming

The first look at season two is the cover story for Entertainment Weekly, so expect articles throughout the week for info we can add. Just wanted to drop the FYI here incase people were not aware. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Explanation of bold flow edit

See this diff. I find that it reads better (in terms of what is introduced where) to have a sufficiently thin-enough premise for the entire series (which we don't know yet 100%), and then have short seasonal summaries (eg what I did for season one) to introduce the episode lists.

This does a couple of things:

• Given the high likelihood we will get a 3rd season, at that point we will likely need to split off season pages for size purposes. The season premise easily "moves" with the episode lists.
• Outside of a few case I see, we can introduce the cast list without too many details about the plot (we need to explain what the Upside-Down is), and focus mostly on their relationships to other characters or place in the narrative.
• We're not trying to introduce S2 concepts before fully spelling out S1 in detail. It makes it easy, specifically, to include all these spoilers coming out about S2 in a cohesive narrative flow. Yes, when S2 comes out, most of that will become unnecessary but I am pretty sure we are going to see a lot of visitors between now and Halloween looking for this. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Masem. I think it might be better to include what you put under the "Premise" section here in the lead, and move back the paragraph chunks to the premise section, possibly with a c/e or moving some of the new info to other sections (like maybe "writing"). That's just my feeling on the matter, as well as trying to apply the new material/consensus added to WP:TVPLOT. Let me know what your thoughts were in doing that edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow I'm an idiot and completely missed you already starting the conversation Masem. I feel that it would work by including what is currently in the "premise" section in the lead (as that is season 1 specific) and then move back the chunks before the tables to the premise section, with a possible c/e moving some of the new info to other sections (like maybe "writing"). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

See above, but one of the issues is that explaining what we know is in S2 with clarity is dependent on a full synopsis of S1, but the short paragraph we had about S1 when that was up in the "Premise" section was nowhere close. Even if you make a reasonably short one, there are a lot of little details that we are learning on S2 that come from S1 that would not fall into a single paragraph summary of S1 (like Barb for example). I'm thinking of this from the stance of a person who has never seen the show but is reading this article for comprehensiveness. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I can understand that. What about this bold idea: we move what you created for "Premise" to the lead, since I mentioned that is only covering the first season and is even shorter summary than what is now above the episode tables. Then, we don't even include a premise section, and just use the "Episodes" section, with the prose before the tables, and then the tables with the individual episode summaries. The "Episodes" section could be renamed to indicate it is including premise prose along with the episode tables too if needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

We could do that, effectively eliminating the Premise section, but I do think some people jump to a page to look for that, and don't read the lead, so we jump in with a cast of characters which looks odd. I think the major issue is that without excessive much knowledge about S2 beyond that it is now closely narratively tied (rather that, say, a show like True Detective that takes a new narrative each season), it's difficult to write too much of a simple premise that covers both. We'll know better after October, obviously, but the short term this might be best. As I note above, once we have an S3, the structure will change significantly and presumably follow the example of The Walking Dead. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Are ALL of the new characters included in the article?

This is a newer article (Nov. 18, 2016) about the cast for Season 2 including all the new actors. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/stranger-things-enlists-brett-gelman-season-2-948778 Does it not include some that are not yet covered in this Wikipedia article?

The Hollywood Reporter is a highly respected news publication for the film and television industry.

Peter K Burian (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

What? Everything announced regarding new castings is already in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note for Favre1fan93 : The Introduced in season two section did not include two major characters added for Season 2 (Max and Billy) - as discussed in the Hollywood Reporter article that I quoted above. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/stranger-things-season-2-cast-938431

Yes, they are listed in the Cast and Characters section but you had only four listed under Introduced in Season 2. (There are six new characters.) I added Max and Billy to the Introduced in Season 2 section.Peter K Burian (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sadie Sink and Dacre Montgomery are starring actors, not recurring. They are all there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This section includes some of the new Season 2 characters, but not all of the new ones.

The Cast and Characters section should either A) include only Season 1 characters or B) include both Season 1 and 2 characters, with all six new ones from Season 2. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

16:56, 2 January 2017‎ Favre1fan93 ‎ . . (55,847 bytes) (-826)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 757837557 by Favre1fan93

I added these two. They are introduced in Season 2. If someone feels they should be deleted, let's discuss here and get consensus. Do not just arbitrarily revert my edits with vague explanations. Introduced in season two Sadie Sink as Max, a teenage girl who is a tomboy type. Dacre Montgomery as Billy, Max's macho, and unpredictable, brother.[25] Peter K Burian (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: Please read WP:TVCAST. Are you not seeing them listed under the "Main" heading? You are adding incorrect duplication of this info. See my response above as well, where I stated about Sink and Montgomery's billing for the upcoming season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

YES, Favre1fan93, I see them in Cast - Main. With no indication that they are new in Season 2. (You deleted that info after I added it.) But how can the section Introduced in Season 2 not include Max and Billy? There are six new characters. Not four. The title of that section is not Minor Characters Introduced in Season 2. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This is heading for WP:MED. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You are clearly not understanding this Peter. Per WP:TVCAST, we list characters in sections based on billing with the common ones being "Main/Starring", "Recurring" and "Guest". This article uses two of these sections: Main and Recurring. Also per TVCAST, new additions to the cast, in any form, are added to the bottom of the previous list-no indication in the prose is needed to state they are "new to season X" etc. For the recurring section, it can be helpful to indicate when characters were introduced per season, as done at this article. These are ONLY for recurring characters who do not receive (or will receive) starring credit, as Sink and Montgomery both will (and why they are not listed there). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 You have reverted my edit three times now. Who is edit warring? These are the three I am referring to:

16:56, 2 January 2017‎ Favre1fan93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (55,847 bytes) (-826)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 757837557 by Favre1fan93 (talk): Removed poor, unnecessary descriptions; unnecessary tags for new starring; duplicate cast info added as well. (TW)) (undo | thank)

17:06, 2 January 2017‎ Favre1fan93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (55,847 bytes) (-612)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Peter K Burian: Please read WP:TVCAST. per my response on the talk as well, they are already on the article above since they are "Starring" characters for the season. this section is for recurring, which they are not. (TW)) (undo | thank)

17:25, 2 January 2017‎ Favre1fan93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (55,847 bytes) (-612)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Peter K Burian (talk): WP:STATUSQUO. THIS is the consensus, NOT what you are changing. YOU discuss. you are also EDIT WARRING and will be reported. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Trying to get the discussion re-started. If these four characters (also introduced in Season 2) are recurring, why are Max and Bill not recurring? They are NEW and they will be in several (or all episodes of Season 2)

Introduced in season two

Sean Astin as Bob Newby.. Paul Reiser as Owens .. Linnea Berthelsen as Roman ... Brett Gelman as Murray Bauman Peter K Burian (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: Have you not been reading any of my responses? I have answered your question multiple times now regarding the characters Max and Bill played by Sink and Montgomery. The sourced used in the article for them, which I will provide again for you here, lists them as starring characters for season two. So per WP:TVCAST, they are added to the bottom of the "Main" section. The section "Introduced in season 2" is completely independent of this information as it is a subheading of "Recurring", not the Cast section as a whole. You still do not seem to understand this per your continuing questioning responses. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93:Yes, I have been reading your replies. Again, I make this point. Why does the article not explain, anywhere, that Max and Billy are new characters introduced in Season 2? I had tried to add that info after the coverage of these two in Cast, Main, but you reverted that edit. A reader who comes to this page has no indication whatsoever as to the fact that Max and Billy are new characters introduced in Season 2. Why not?

Would it not make sense to have a section: Characters introduced in Season 1 and another Characters introduced in Season 2?

A new reader scrolls to the section Introduced in Season 2 and finds four characters. Meanwhile the other on-line articles make it clear that six new ones have been introduced. I cannot understand why this problem cannot be solved. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Please properly indent your comments with a ':' to help better understand the flow of discussion. The article does indeed state there are new characters in the season. In two places in fact. In the season 2 subsection: "Two new characters for this season include Max and Billy.[source]" and in the "Production and release section": "The second season sees additional characters introduced to the series.[source for Sink and Montgomery][source for the recurring characters]". It would not make sense to have character sections as you suggested, because that would not easily indicate who is/was a starring character (which is a distinction easy to create sections against) and who was not. TVCAST was created to use these sections and ordering to avoid any biases and non-neutral preferences. You seem to be creating a problem that does not exist in stating readers will not be able to find the "missing" characters and that you personally do not like established guidelines to handle cast ordering. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Since we know well enough that S2 continues the narrative of S1, rather than a new starting point, it may make more sense to eliminate the Season splitting of the cast list over the use of a "(Seasons 1-2)" description at the end of the cast list prose for each character. That should eliminate some of the confusion. But that said, it also might be bbetter to wait until this is made available to watch so we can confirm how characters/actors are credited and casted. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Great to see an unbiased comment from Administrator MASEM. I might agree with postponing changes but it might be 10 months before Season 2 is aired. That is a long time. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Another problem: The lede mentions actors playing characters from both Season 1 and Season 2, although we don't know if filming of Season 2 has even begun. Again, a new reader to this article should know, right away, that there are two seasons, with only one having been aired. And that some of the actors listed will only be in the future Season 2. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Question: Do we know that all of the stars of Season 1 will return for Season 2? P.S. I edited the lead to explain to the reader that two of the stars will not appear until Season 2 (which is many months away from airing.) Peter K Burian (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I asked this in my previous note; answer is, yes, all of the stars of Season 1 will return in Season 2. http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/12/millie-bobby-brown-stranger-things-season-2 Peter K Burian (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem here? It looks to me that all the newly announced cast members have been added appropriately. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97:Thanks for your note.

In the past hour or so, I had added the fact (in Cast, Main and in the lede) that some of the actors are new to Season 2, and other content that clarified what refers to Season 1 and to Season 2. Considering that most of my previous edits have been reverted, I am not hopeful that the content will remain as is.

The primary issue before that was this: Should the section titled Characters Introduced in Season 2 include all six of the new characters? There are only four listed. When I added the other two new ones, my edit was reverted. The other editor insists that is not necessary because the other two are listed earlier in Cast, Main. My point is that a new reader will see a section called Characters Introduced in Season 2 and expect to see all six new ones listed. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I have created a new "Casting" section in the production section to help alleviate some of this perceived confusion/thought of missing info, with this edit here. This section is the appropriate location to state (as I have done) who are new starring actors for s2 (replacing the similar sentences that were in the "Cast" section). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am not happy about some of the changes; I still believe that the new actors for Season 2 should be discussed earlier in the article, not only in the Casting section much, much later in the article. Still, when a new reader now reviews this article, he will know that there are some new actors in Season 2. I did another small edit to ensure that there is no confusion between the plot of Season 1 and Season 2. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I don't disagree with the recent edit re: the two Atlanta citations. In fact, thank you. But you might want to watch how many times a day you Revert others' edits. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't Linnea Berthelsen, as Roman, be listed under the main cast? She's reported by Hollywood Reporter as being a series regular (along with Max and Billy), in this article: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/stranger-things-season-2-meet-three-new-characters-925040 LuminousThing (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2017

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. Votes were roughly split (I think slightly in favour of the move), but as I'm sure most of us know, on Wikipedia consensus is not a vote count, it is based on the strength of argument. This debate was purely about the primary topic, a guideline which has two criteria laid out. The first is usage; those in support of the move demonstrated that the TV series meets this criterion and this was not refuted by those in opposition. The second is long-term significance, which is always harder to measure and less objective than usage. Even so, I found the arguments of those in support – that the series was critically acclaimed and received numerous awards, in contrast to the other topics listed at the dab – to be a stronger arguments than those in opposition gave – that the other topics were equally as significant (a claim I did not see backed up with any sort of evidence) and that we don't know if the show's popularity will last in, say, five or ten years. I did not find either to be a compelling argument in terms of our primary topic guideline. If in five years the TV show has fallen off the face of the Earth and is no longer the primary topic, articles can always be moved then – consensus can change and primary topics can change. Jenks24 (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

---

• Stranger Things (TV series) → Stranger Things
• Stranger Things → Stranger Things (disambiguation)

– Definitely the most prominent Stranger Things Mikenucklesii (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Most definitely not the only article per Stranger Things (disambiguation), regardless of prominence. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • User:AlexTheWhovian, could you explain your oppose vote further? Nobody ever argued that it's the only article, and prominence is precisely what we should be considering per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I can't make heads or tails of this vote and it's concerning that two other established editors piggybacked on this vote without any elaboration. --SubSeven (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel that it needs any further explanation. The move of this page is unnecessary. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Moved the dabpage back. @Mikenucklesii: I've not yet modified the RM tag; there are instructions at Template:requested move and Template:requested move/dated. Here's the format shown at Talk:White House Situation Room#Requested move 13 February 2017. --George Ho (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose move. The show might now be the most recognized form of "Stranger Things" but that may not be true in 10 years, and there's enough other pop culture things named similarly that have equal claim to fame. Best to keep the situation as is. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per AlexTheWhovian and Masem. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per AlexTheWhovian and Masem. Also this is a malformed request. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Converted to multi-move. The TV series is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There's an element of recentism, but the show gets over *99.6%* of the page views,[1] and was hugely popular, critically acclaimed, received numerous awards, and has been renewed for another season. None of the other topics on the dab page can claim remotely comparable long-term significance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Cúchullain . Somethingwickedly (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is exactly what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is for. You've got five articles which are basically seeing the bare minimum in page views, versus the article for the TV show which is one of the most-viewed articles in the encyclopedia (ranked #137, and that's during off-season when episodes haven't been released for months). Those numbers will never come close to converging. No, not even in ten years. It's impossible. Popular TV shows still get considerable traffic here well after their active runs are over. --SubSeven (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Cúchullain made a really good point. Also, saying that it shouldn't be moved at this point because it may not have a similar recognition in ten years sounds a bit too prudent to me. -- ChamithN (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support: see Cúchullain's point. Also, the chances of something with the exact title achieving this kind of popularity are slim, especially with such dense modern copyright laws and anything with good marketing not wanting to gain confusion with it. -- TheGnerd (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctant support: Per WP:RECENTISM, I usually recommend to wait before turning a new TV/web show article into the primary topic, but in this instance, with the amount of media and award recognition for Stranger Things, the show is here to stay. Might as well make it the primary topic now. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support with suggestion: Having read everything above, I think that moving the page probably makes sense; however, I'm hesitant to say this will be the definitive Stranger Things if it ends up being a one-season wonder, which lends support to those who oppose the page move. Could we wait until Halloween and see how season 2 fares before making the move? Assuming it performs as well as the first season did, I think it will be far more apparent at that point that the show is more than a pop culture phenomenon that lasted for a summer (and the months that followed). -RM (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This makes sense - I agree re-evaluating the move in mid-Nov or after a 3rd season is greenlit (whichever is first) would give us better insight. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I too agree that this is a good proposition. -- ChamithN (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Even if Netflix cancelled it today, its impact still dwarfs the other like-named properties by a large margin. A phenomenon for one year is still more significant than stuff that was never a phenomenon. --SubSeven (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not nearly the Wikipedia buff that it seems most of you are, but this seems like a no-brainer to me, which is why I suggested it. If somehow season two tanks and it's not renewed, it is still such a huge thing that it would be inconceivable for someone to use the name again for anything unrelated in one year, ten years, or any somewhat near time interval. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be not catastrophic to change it back to a (TV series) again, in the off-chance that something does happen? Mikenucklesii (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Technically, there is no issue, but we really want to avoid page moves like that when we know there's a likely a lot of incoming links to an article. Hence the desire to make sure we have the move right before we do it. (And I will argue that the Yuck album has enough recognizition, even if far less popularity, that it does compete enough with the recognizition of the show for the name). --MASEM (t) 07:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think waiting is necessary. As SubSeven says, even if the TV series went kaput tomorrow, it's still the primary topic over all other existing subjects. If something does change in the future, we can revisit.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I still oppose the move; however, I would agree waiting, and then should it become valid or necessary, move the page then. Alex|The|Whovian^? 17:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Alright, it sounds like the general consensus at this point is to wait until after Season 2 is released, with a few still favoring the move now or opposing it entirely. Why don't we put the conversation to bed for now and re-evaluate about two weeks after Season 2 (right now, November 14). I think that's a reasonable compromise, sound good to everyone?-RM (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be best to let the current RM play out, as it's only been open 2 days.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with RM. The consensus is clear. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not how WP:RM works. After 7 days it will be placed in the elapsed listings, and an uninvolved closer will determine the outcome.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Then we wait the seven days. I'm not seeing your confusion with this? Wait the required time, and then let it wait until the proposed date. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies; Rmaynardjr's comment, which you appeared to second, was to end the discussion now; I'm pointing out that that's not the way RM works.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Rmaynardjr, do you want to discuss it at all instead of rushing for a close? I thought I made a fair counter to your initial vote, is there any part of that you disagree with? --SubSeven (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not rushing for a close, I just don't think we need to perpetuate the discussion only to talk in circles. There are some who clearly oppose the move and others who clearly support it, it's fairly evenly split, and the arguments don't seem to be convincing anyone to switch sides. Continuing a discussion that doesn't really seem to be going anywhere is a waste of time. The one thing we can all agree on is that waiting will allow us to more fully evaluate the series. It was once pointed out to me that the best time to write an encyclopedic article about a topic is after the subject is dead, finished, etc. We'll have a more clear picture of the series as a whole the longer we wait, so I suggested waiting until a specific day, and several users on both sides seemed to think it was a good idea. I see a lot of arguments based around "probably"s and assumptions that season 2 will be just as successful and popular as the first. And while I think we're all hoping for that, until it occurs, it's not true. To particularly respond to your comment, while I would tend to agree with you that the popularity of this show dwarfs the popularity of anything else with this title, I don't think it's the DEFINITIVE Stranger Things just yet. Moving the page and then moving it back because something else becomes a more popular Stranger Things would be a bit of a mess, so we don't want to prematurely move the page, and I think we should hold off until it becomes so popular and well known that it would be impractical or at least highly unlikely for anything else to call itself Stranger Things, along the lines of Harry Potter or Star Wars. This show is quickly working its way to that point, without a doubt, but it's not there yet. IF we wait until it has a second season, maybe a renewal for a third, and if we have seen that it has maintained its popularity and viewer base for more than just a few months, then we can have this discussion. Until then, though, I can't fully support a page move. -RM (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm reading a lot of personal feelings about what a primary topic should be, and very little application of actual Wikipedia policy. How the heck would you determine whether something has attained Star Wars or Harry Potter status. Are you going to be the judge of that? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has much more practical and objective guidelines, and that's an established guide, not criteria we dreamed up just now. And for the record, I do not agree with the statement beginning with "The one thing we can all agree on is...". Waiting to make this move would just be bureaucratic absurdity; as I've said, the series could be shut down today and still be the primary topic by orders of magnitude. --SubSeven (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't really read my thoughts as "personal feelings," but I can see that interpretation. The point I was trying to make was in response to another comment about moving and then moving back, which is a nightmare in terms of links. If we move the page as requested, we need to be confident we're not going to move it back, and in THAT regard, I don't think that I'm out of line. I'm still hesitant to support a page move if there's a possibility we'll have to move it back. And just to respond to your later comment... My statement was NOT, "The one thing we can all agree on is that we should wait to move the page." I think the rest of my comment makes my understanding of everyone's opinions pretty clear. The statement was, "The one thing we can all agree on is that waiting will allow us to more fully evaluate the series." I'm not really sure how that is up for debate. If we were to wait for 10 years, we would have a more complete and thorough understanding of this topic as a whole, unless no subsequent seasons are released and the show is never reported on again. As time passes, we learn more about the topic and add information to the page. That's pretty much a given. So, whether you think the page should be moved now, in a year, or never, you can't argue with the fact that more time gives us more information to use to better evaluate the series and its appropriate place on Wikipedia. -RM (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand. I was disagreeing with the full statement. There is nothing more to be learned by waiting. Purposely making the site less functional for 10 years? That's not prudency, that's paralysis. --SubSeven (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting waiting 10 years, I just picked that number as an example. But there's certainly more to be learned in waiting. If season 2 never premieres, waiting will tell us why. Waiting for season 2 to be released in the first place allows us to cover its reception. Like I said, a pop culture phenomenon for a summer is great, and it may even make this page the primary topic, but until we're absolutely certain we won't be moving it back, I think we should wait. I think November might be a good time to do that. A successful first two seasons shows serious staying power for a TV show, whereas a single successful season followed by a lackluster season and then a cancellation (or a cancelled second season that never airs) is more akin to a miniseries. I understand that you want the page moved now, but those who oppose a move bring up some good points. If we wait, it's likely that at least some of those who oppose the move may change their minds. Conversely, I doubt anyone who supports the move will be changing their mind in the next few months. So, move now and appease half? Or move in a few months when it becomes even clearer that a page move is warranted and appease a majority? -RM (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Arguing from page views is a bit like arguing that Dan Brown is a more significant writer than William Faulkner because he sells more books. There are many culturally significant topics which are not covered by wikipedia but should be. There's also a lot of trivial pop culture crap. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The point of establishing a primary topic is to provide a better experience for the end user in getting the information they are looking for. How do we determine such a thing? Page views. To quote WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Also refer to WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. --SubSeven (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Page views are one of the primary ways we determine primary topics. Long-term significance is also a factor, but none of the other topics rival the TV show in either page views or significance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So, it only meets one of the two criteria? Not much of a base for an argument to move it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

As I said, it meets both the criteria; none of the other uses remotely compare in terms of either page views or long-term significance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per AlexTheWhovian and particularly per Masem. This show will probably not last many seasons so while it is currently the primary topic, it will most likely not be the case in the future. Completely unnecessary and should remain as is. Brojam (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per AlexTheWhovian and Brojam. I was surprised to see so many alternative subjects with this name, and taken together they should not be dominated by this one. --Netoholic @ 18:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• support: The chance that a new thing of this name may come around tomorrow is utterly irrelevant. Of the existing things of this name, the TV show is the primary topic, and it will remain ahead of its 2017 rivals in 2027 or 2117.Homunq (࿓) 14:28, 23 February 2017 (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.

Dates of Series/Episodes

The section for Season 1, Episode 1 beings "In November 1983..." I'm curious as to the source for this date. In Episode 3, Eleven watches television and there's a short clip that appears to be from Ronald Reagan's "Address to the Nation on Events in Lebanon and Grenada" which was given on October 27, 1983. It seems likely that this was televised live or clips shown during a news broadcast the next evening rather than a week or more later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenJV (talk • contribs) 14:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

References

The source is the episode itself. At the very beginning of the episode, only about a dozen seconds in, "November 6th, 1983" is displayed in white letters, beneath which is "Hawkins, Indiana". -- Alex^TW 14:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Arguably it is original research to try to date a work of fiction by trying to date a background news broadcast. (There are plenty of reasons from a production standpoint that they used something that didn't find their exact timeframe, including quality of the material or the means to establish a certain setting). That said, I don't remember off hand where November comes from and would need to rewatch to know if that's explicitly stated at some point. (which Alex has answered already) --MASEM (t) 14:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Good point Masem, and Alex somehow we'd missed the note on ep1. Thanks, both. This is my first `Talk`, so a) I'm unsure how to comment properly, and b) if this should be left here for posterity and others' info or deleted; please advise. . StevenJV (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech specs

Stranger Things is shown in a 2:1 aspect ratio and 5.1 surround sound. The 5.1 surround sound is actually published by Netflix and usually displayed as a technical spec on several devices for playback.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to cite that either in the infobox or in the body of the article per WP:BURDEN. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech specs that aren't in some sort of dispute don't require sources, fall under Wikipedia:Common knowledge, especially those that are published on numerous 3rd party guides and the distributor itself. Your revision also does not cite sources for the show being in HDR, 4K, and numerous other specs. This is how the vast majority of articles are organized, including the aspect ratio. You'll be hard-pressed to find a single other Netflix series, or series from any network, with cited tech specs for that reason.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech specs can be unsourced if it is something obvious, for example, episode length, aspect ratio. But details like Ultra-high def requires technical knowledge OR does not allow for, and needs to be sourced. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Netflix does display specs on several devices for playback that shows are in 4K and DD5.1.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see the "Release" section for cited material for the series being released in Ultra HD and in HDR. As it is cited in the article, a source does not to be subsequently used in the infobox. As for aspect ratio and sound, those are definitely not common knowledge for your average reader here and viewer of the series, unlike episode lengths. So those should be cited. And you've provided those sources so as with my initial response, the burden is on you to then add those sources with the info into the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

As previously discussed, there's no need to cite sources for technical specs published by the distributor and that aren't in any sort of dispute, bridges on Wikipedia:Citation overkill.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The mere fact we are having this discussion is reason enough to include the citation, which would in no way be overkill. Aspect ratio, picture format and audio format are not something that one can easily look in the credits of a show to find to make it common knowledge. A bit of searching has to be done. You also did not provide a source published by the distributor that had this info, so obviously it isn't something an average watcher of the series, or reader here, can find. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and in my humble opinion an incredibly pointless discussion, since there's no dispute over the accuracy of the specs but whether this show specifically needs inline citations when few, if any, other TV show articles include them. Also, as I stated a couple up a couple of posts, "displayed as a technical spec on several devices for playback" with a 5.1 icon, and is displayed as a signal to AV receivers that Netflix is sending a Dolby Digital 5.1 signal. So yes, this is exactly "something that one can easily look [up]". Also, Dolby 5.1 is the only audio format Netflix uses for their content. Ditto for 4K, displayed on playback devices and also to receivers. And as another contributor stated, aspect ratio is as obvious as running time therefore not requiring citation unless otherwise disputed.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The info is in disagreement, as in your initial addition of the info, I questioned the validity. Since you claim audio if is displayed on several devices, but not all, that should definitely need a source. Aspect ratio also is not as obvious as running time. Common knowledge would suggest general suspect for the ratio would be 16:9. So again, as I keep repeating myself, the info should be cited. And also again, you've provided the sources, so the BURDEN if for you to implement them with the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope, info is not in disagreement, distributor data clearly states what the original broadcast audio format is (the defined term for inclusion in the template), and there's been no indication it could be anything else, you haven't questioned the validity of anything, just insisted on an unnecessary inline citation, and interestingly haven't questioned the validity of audio specs on a single other TV series that doesn't include an inline citation. If anything, aspect ratio is more obvious as running time, it's questionable as to what is included, e.g. company logos, opening credits, recaps and featurettes included in original broadcast, whereas aspect ratio blacks out a consistent portion of the frame. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Citations never hurt anything. The fact you are so resistant to add them is alarming to me enough as it is. Once again, for technical data such as this, where a user can not quickly check this info on any platform or device, a citation should be used to back up such information. You have still yet to explain to me how one is able to verify the aspect ratio without a citation stating it. Just by looking at the episodes and seeing there are two black boxes above and below the image isn't enough. That can mean plenty of different aspect rations (again as I have stated, I feel like I'm a broken record here). For example, it could be 1.78:1, 2.39:1, 2.40:1, etc. These are all widescreen release formats. You keep claiming that the aspect ratio is one of the more obvious aspects of a series, so how can one confirm it without a citation or a deeper knowledge of film and the filmmaking process? And I keep coming back to my original point: you added this information to the infobox, it was challenged, you came here and provided the third party sources for them. The next step would have been for you to add the content back with said sources and all would have been swell. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

All right, fine. We'll put an in-line citation in since it's apparently so alarming. However, as I previously stated Netflix identifies shows in Dolby Digital 5.1 in their technical specs so no citation is necessary.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Halloween

Is "Halloween" specific enough to definitively say that October 31 is the release date? We see ads all the time advertising "This Christmas," etc, when in reality the release date may be a week or more earlier (Think Star Wars: The Force Awakens). Netflix typically, though not always, released their shows on Fridays, and October 31 is a Tuesday. Not impossible, but I think we should discuss. -RM (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps sources that explicitly state October 31? [2]: "Stranger Things, Season 2 will begin streaming on October 31st, 2017." [3]: "Netflix also shared the air date: Stranger Things 2* will be released October 31, 2017 (Halloween!)." Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand your thought process RM, but I do believe October 31 is the actual date. Netflix has released shows on non-Friday dates before. I can't think of any that have already, but House of Cards season 5 will release on May 30, 2017, also a Tuesday. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I would just keep an eye out for sources from Netflix or relaying info in case they meant "around Halloween". Every RS that reported on this is assuming Oct 31, since that's really the only day that that Halloween normally represents. --MASEM (t) 06:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering we're talking about 8 months it would be wise not to assume 10/31 as a specific official date just yet. We've plenty of time to update the page when Netflix will properly announce next fall première dates. --Supernino (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Only to comment that spot checking all the major news stories on this, everyone is assuming it is Oct 31, so even if that's not the intended day, we are following WP:V/WP:NOR policy with stating this as our date. If that changes, then we can just update with the reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've given two valid sources that explicitly state October 31. Whether they're determining it themselves as their own "original research" is indeterminable. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Not trying to give anyone a hard time or dispute anything, I was just asking to be sure. Of course, given the style of the show, Halloween would be the perfect release date, and now that so many outlets are reporting October 31, I imagine they'll try to release it that day. I've just never seen a date announced for a Netflix show more than 5 or maybe 6 months in advance, and this is almost 9 months notice. It was a little red flag in my mind, that's all. -RM (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian already updated it but Netflix today clarified its Oct 27, so we were still fine with saying Oct 31 based on the SB teaser. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

GA before S2?

Anyone see any issues that might prevent this from going through a Good Article nomination prior to S2's release? It's fairly complete right now... --MASEM (t) 01:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I personally, for series with more than one season, like to wait until at least a couple of months after the second season has released before considering nominating. That way, decisions on if anything needed to be split off is taken care of, and you have more info to populate the article. This isn't me saying we need to split anything, but if we nominate and get reviewed before the season and then do decide to split things, I see that as doing the article nomination a disservice. My 2¢. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's fine. Makes sense to hold off then. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)