Talk:The Shannara Chronicles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Based books

The intro says this series is based on the original trilogy. Do any sources explicitly say it is JUST the trilogy (77-85) that is the basis? I'm watching the intro now and it says "BASED ON THE BOOKS OF THE SHANNARA SERIES BY TERRY BROOKS" so by using 'series' instead of 'trilogy' I think this opens the door to other stuff like Heritage of Shannara, first king, Word and Void, Voyage of the Jerie, High Druid, Genesis, etc. 174.92.135.167 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I had a bit of a WTF moment when the opening credits started. The original series were high fantasy. I hadn't kept up with Brooks' series so its evolution into a post-apocalyptic setting from a purely fantasy one came as a bit of a shock. The post-apocalyptic setting I would say comes from the "series" since it's completely absent from the original novel. ~ Brother William (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct Brother William, Brooks said in an interview that he did not decide until about the time he wrote his 15th book that his stories were located in a far future version of this world. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Recaps

The Changeling did not die. It was obvious from the way the camera focused on the corpse before changing angles to the guard. Please amend the recap. Mir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.127.7.82 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not what the reliable sources cite here but let's take it by what MTV is saying. — Artmanha 10:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, to sign your comments on Wikipedia, all you have to do is type four tildes at the end of your comment, like this ~~~~ - Thanks — Artmanha 10:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Table width

Instead of edit warring over the table width I figured I'd come here instead ..... I've changed the table width from 99% to 100% as as far as I know it's what's commonly used in most articles,
Is there something inregards to perhaps the table layout that I'm not aware of ?... It seems rather pointless to have it at 99% when you can have it at 100% but hey maybe there's something I'm missing?...
Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Back when users first started making those tables, an issue was raised with the mobile version of Wikipedia. Apparently the 100% wide tables' formatting got screwed up in the translation from the desktop site to the mobile one. — Artmanha 10:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Artmanha I didn't realize you replied, I've just tried the mobile version and it looks normal to me although I suppose using the mobile version on a 1366x768 laptop would give different results although before this laptop I was using a 1024x600 laptop and everything looked weird .... So I guess it all depends on the screen resolution of your device ?)

So when I change it does it actually bugger everything up for you ? (It's just I've changed them to 100% on alot of articles over the years and no one's complained .... well until now anyway )

Anyway thanks for replying :), –Davey2010^Talk 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually it does not implicate any issues for me, but Wikipedia isn't just made for me and you, but for anyone who is interested in reading/editing it. It wasn't me who decided to make the tables this way; there has been a discussion (which I can't remember where it took place) regarding the matter and a lot of users involved entered a consensus. I'm simply following their standards to make the Wikipedia experience better for the larger number of users possible. Thank you — Artmanha 14:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, for future references, whenever you want to make Editing Tests, feel free to use the Sandboxes. You can learn more about them here. — Artmanha 14:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

But that's my point everyone in the world's always going to experience screen res issues and I'd imagine even at 99% someone somewhere in the world will experience issues....

Testing in the sandbox would mean having to copy and paste the ratings field on another page .... That's just too much effort ,

Well I'll leave it as seems kinda pointless editing warring over a number, Ah well thanks anywya. –Davey2010^Talk 15:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Opening theme song

As best as I can tell this is a remix of a song titled Until We Go Down by Ruelle (singer) but I don't think Wikipedia has much information on them yet.

I got thinking about this because the same song is used during the climax of the season 2 finale of Legends (TV series) too, makes me think the song and singer are rather notable at this point. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, if you could find a reliable source citing it (even an iTunes release as a single for The Shannara Chronicles), we should definitely add it. — Artmanha (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

[1]-217.248.32.212 (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 Great! It seems fine. Well done! — Artmanha (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Terry Brooks discusses the adaptation of the novels for television

Just did a quick websearch and found quite a few substantial interviews with the author discussing the adaptation process and the plot changes. Here are a few links for consideration of eventual inclusion:

• "How Much 'Shannara' Will Fans Find in MTV's TV Adaptation?" (The Hollywood Reporter)
• "Terry Brooks: MTV is Doing The Shannara Chronicles Right" (Paste Magazine)
• "The Shannara Chronicles author Terry Brooks on what fans can expect from the new MTV show" (Entertainment Weekly)
• "10 Questions With… Terry Brooks" (The College Juice)
• "Terry Brooks Interview - NYCC 2015 (video)" (IGN, Ziff-Davis)
• "Terry Brooks on How to Adapt Fantasy Right" (IGN, Ziff-Davis)

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 00:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Y Good. We can save these links here for once it's time to create the section. And we can always keep adding new sources on the way! — Artmanha (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Legitimate Content or Original Research ?

I am wondering if a section could be added to this article comparing and contrasting the characters and plots from the original books and this TV production. I know it is possible to have a section like this "Reactions" section in the LOTR article but if simple math is allowed to be considered non-OR then why not a binary fact-vs-fact comparison list? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 16:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, if there are reliable sources confirming the information, and therefore proving its relevance, I'd say go for it! — Artmanha 15:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Artmanha: Sorry, maybe I need to clarify what I am asking... Per MOS:PLOT WP editors can create a plot description using primary sources (usually the actual movie/show/video/book/etc). What I am asking is can two plot descriptions -- arranged as a side-by-side (or point-by-point) comparison of key points -- be included in the article, one describing the show and the other describing the (relevant portion of the) book(s)? No opinions. No synthesis. No OR. Just concrete "In the book XX happened however in the show ZZ happened." This would be probably identified in a section with a name like == Differences from [[the original story]] ==. Occasionally there also may be secondary and tertiary sources that will be used (see The_Last_Airbender#cite_ref-Iroh_31-3 as an example) but using those is S.O.P. for Wikipedia already. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 04:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I did understand what you were saying. The book's part should be sourced, since it's an article about the television series. Or you can do something like what's found on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) article. Anyway, I think you should definitely do it—always backed-up with reliable sources. Thank you — Artmanha (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand you request for reliable sources. Are those required by WP:PLOT?-217.248.2.44 (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I would expect that what you suggest would look awkward. I'm generally sceptical towards these section, and I doubt that they are of interest to anybody but fans of the books.

I see another problem: I wrote the summary for one of the episodes the other day. Interesting exercise, I definitely paid more attention. However, the plot is sometimes muddled enough that it is hard to write down a cohesive summary at all. Ugh. This might become a problem with the comparison.-217.248.2.44 (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The question regarding who would be interested in these information is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The reliable sources are to provide notability to the matter, rather than adding simply trivia information. Plus, WP:PLOT does not apply in this case for the books, since this is an article about the television series — Artmanha (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to MOS:PLOT, not WP:PLOT, as mentioned above. And no, plots don't need sources according to MOS:PLOT.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Any information added has to be notable, and the mere existence of sources does most certainly not make a matter notable.

Both WP:PLOT and MOS:PLOT apply to both TV shows and books of course.-217.248.2.44 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually you cited WP:PLOT. And that's not a case of merely a plot for the book or the television series, but a comparison of both, so a reliable source is indeed required. And I never said that the mere existence of sources makes a matter notable, but that there must have reliable sources proving its relevance. — Artmanha (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And although I'm 100% on board on creating such section, I think it is still too soon for it. Perhaps once the season finishes there will be more content available. But that's just my opinion — Artmanha (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

My response to the above discussions in four points. Feel free to respond to these individually if you want.

subtopic 1

• First, I agree with Artmanha that it would be best to at least wait until the season finishes. Both for the reason they mention and because it has been years since I read the books and I will need to re-read them to do justice to such a comparison. Perhaps someone else might even beat me to this project and that is okay by me. This also implies rather strongly that such a section would be placed into the main article on the entire TV show, rather than in any individual episode articles/sections. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 10:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

subtopic 2

• Second, as far as 217.248.2.44's concern about such a section being "awkward", part of the craft and the challenge of writing an encyclopedia is being able to take dry facts and phrase them into readable prose. I think I can manage that as writing prose is something I do a lot of in my non-WP life. If I am not up to the task, someone else will likely improve the text eventually. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 10:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and I should have phrased that differently: I'm sure what you have in mind is not awkward, but all other examples I've seen so far are awkward, most of all because they appear to be awfully fanboyish.

Also, be aware that the show might not be consistent enough (because of bad script writing) to allow any meaningful comparison. Sometimes such comparisons are relatively easy (LotR book minus Bombadil minus the Scouring of the Shire equals LotR movie), but sometimes they are complex (Blade Runner). If a comparison is complex though, how would you do it without OR? BTW, it's enlightening how the two articles cover the topic: Only meta ("Reactions to changes", LotR) and not at all (Blade Runner). A non-trivial comparison with a broken script might be a hell of a mess to write.

Given your description above ("side-by-side"), I also don't have a really good idea how the result is supposed to look like.-217.248.32.212 (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

To tell the truth, neither do I. Sometimes material lends itself to a certain format and sometimes you have to get creative to make the information palatable. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

subtopic 3

• Next, on the question regarding "who would be interested", Artmanha is quite correct that such a question is irrelevant to Wikipedia. However, please note that right now social media is abuzz with many comments by long-term Shannara fans griping about how the original story has been "changed", "compromised", and "corrupted" in the TV format. Some fans are even going so far as to accuse the author of "selling out" to Hollywood. This all is fodder for the Reception section of the article if some notable pundit decides to write an editorial about the outcry. The signal-to-noise ratio on this is high enough that it would be prudent for the encyclopedia to be able to inform readers what some of those "changes" are in order to provide perspective on the issue. Since such an editorial does not yet exist, this also supports my first point of waiting to write the section. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 10:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not everything that's Fit to Print is fit to end up here, and social media buzz certainly does not make it so (I think we agree on this point). Since both book and show will end up with plot summaries, every reader can already make up their own mind, so the comparison needs extra justification. Any analysis beyond this simple comparison however would be OR.-217.248.32.212 (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we agree in principal, but occasionally the adaptation of a book to film/tv is so profoundly upsetting to the cannon of a fictional world as to become a serious topic of interest. LOTR certainly falls into that category and I know there has been quite a bit of discussion among literary academics on the writing style of JRRT and how it is wholly unsuitable for modern audiences due to the seriously uneven pacing. Reboots like Star Trek also generate such discussions. While it is too early to tell (and yes, I known WP is not a crystal ball) I strongly suspect that this book/tv adaptation may rise to that level of interest *if the series survives*. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that you can compare LotR, the most successful novel of all time, and Star Trek, which spawned entire languages, with a third-rate TV show based on a book best known for being deriative. Sorry, I don't see how the plot comparison could be notable.-217.248.32.212 (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

First, the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) does not apply to content within an article. Second, even if it did your logic of comparing real world "impact" of different topics is absolutely not what Wikipedia considers as "notable", "noteworthy", "significant", "prominent", or even "important". Your understanding of WP policies and guidelines is seriously flawed. Whether a book or movie was successful. created new languages or had 39 sequels or anything like that has absolutely nothing to do with notability in Wikipedia. If any content follows the three core policies of WP:VER, WP:NPV, and WP:NOR and does not violate WP:WWIN then it may be included within a relevant article (to a level appropriate under the guidelines of WP:DUE). If that same content can be linked to multiple, in-depth, reliable sources then it probably can have an article of its own. That is Wikipedia policy. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 23:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you can accurately describe my beliefs about Wikipedia's notability guideline, although I explained them before. Thus, your comment about it is not productive. Sadly at the same time, you avoid the arguments I make.-217.248.29.18 (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

subtopic 4

• Finally, I want to address something else 217.248.2.44 said: "Any information added has to be notable" ... plain and simple this statement is wrong. This is a common misunderstanding of notability that I myself once thought was correct. Individual facts do not need to be notable, only whole WP pages. WP:Notability (citing two or more significant sources) is required for an article or list page, but it is not required for specific content inside an article. However, WP:Verifiable (citing at least one reliable source) is always required for "any information added". Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 10:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that any information added has the same rules for notability as articles have, but there has to be some justification. Example: Would you want to add a table with eye and hair color of the protagonists to this article? What about a word frequency statistics? A complete list of plants appearing in the background? I think you see where I'm getting at: Every information added has to be justified. That justification is often so trivial that it's done implicitly (eg. name of director, cast), but that does not mean that the requirement is not there.

Proper sourcing is a second step, a source does not provide justification. If some Shannara fanboy with the proper qualification writes an article about the background plants (which might even be a feasible academic undertaking), it still shouldn't be added to the article. Sourcing is required for stuff added, not the other way round.-217.248.32.212 (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Koala Tea Of Mercy. — Artmanha (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information!-217.248.32.212 (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Please place your replies BELOW the users replies, otherwise it might be confusing for users who currently are not a part of the discussion and may wish to join in the future. Thank you — Artmanha (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to micro-manage me, I know how this works. Thanks anyway!-217.248.32.212 (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me 217.248.32.212 but I was responding to your statement where you said "Any information added has to be notable, and the mere existence of sources does most certainly not make a matter notable." (emphasis added). You seemed to be saying that WP:notability is required for all facts and that WP:verify (the mere existence of sources) is insufficient. That is in contradiction with WP policies and guidelines and that was why I posted the 4th bulletpoint in my response. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand that I left that expression, that's why I explained what I meant. Doing that, I explicitly said that I was not talking about WP:Notability, but that we need some justification to add a certain piece of information. Would you add one of the examples I made?

It is indeed news to me that notability come automatically with verifiability. Please point out the section of the policy or guideline explaining this.-217.248.32.212 (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I never said "notability come automatically with verifiability", that is a completely erroneous interpretation of what I wrote. I said notability is not required for individual items of content inside articles. Please note the following excerpts from WP:N:

• "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own [stand-alone] article."
• "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity"
• "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article"

I did say that all items of content require verification. Verification is the primary threshold for inclusion of any content in Wikipedia. Requiring verification does not in any way automatically lead to granting notablity. It seems to me you are confusing "notability" (a specialized Wikipedia term and extremely important Guideline) with what Wikipedia calls "noteworthy content" (read this discussion). These are two very different things. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 23:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, apparently you only read your own comments, not mine. I've explained that I explicitly do not confuse them. Instead of using all the colors of the rainbow, you should have read that, would've saved you some effort.-217.248.29.18 (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to micro-manage us, we know how this works. Thanks anyway! — Artmanha (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Show Timeline

There are some problems with the timeline as described in this article:

• From the PLOT section: [the story is] set about 300 years after the War of the Races—which ceased magic and confined the demons in the Forbidding, locked by an ancient tree called the Ellcrys.

Problem 1. In the first episode of the show King Eventine greets Allanon and says that he thought he had died in the War of the Races because no one had seen him in 30 years (the time for which the druid apparently slept). That would put that war approximately only 30 years prior to the show's beginning. (Note: the books put the druid's sleep at about 50 years if I recall correctly).

Problem 2. The planting of the Ellcrys was what "confined the demons in the Forbidding". Ignoring the fact that the original books have the Ellcrys being planted before the dawn of humanity, one needs only look at the tree to realize it is far more than just 30 or even 300 years old. Yes, one could say it was huge due to magic but then it would not also be "ancient" (to the Elves, 300 years is not even close to ancient).

Problem 3. The plot above says it was the War of the Races that "ceased magic". Again, ignoring the timeline of the books, it is extremely unlikely that the widespread disbelief in magic among the people of the Four Lands would have become so deeply rooted in such a short period of time. If you do look to the books, they say it was the "Great Wars" of humanity (the nuclear wars depicted in the show's opening) that consumed the last of the Elves's magic to protect the Ellcrys.

How can we fix this? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. Wikipedia cannot fix errors in TV show scripts, and it's not our role to whitewash them.-217.248.0.149 (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with 217.248.0.149. Although those are all great questions to be raised, the television series is an adaptation from the book series, meaning changes must be done. All these arguments would be great additions to the proposed "Differences from the books" section. Thank you — Artmanha (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It is our role to get our facts correct per WP:V and WP:PLOTSUM#Citations, which apparently we did not. Please note the following excerpts transcribed from the mtv.com webpage videos:

"Chosen" Episodes 1 & 2 (single video)

• 0:02:06

Catania: "Princess, are you sure you want to step on thousands of years of elven tradition?"

Here the script is explicitly referring to the tradition of only male elves running the Gauntlet to become the Chosen protectors of the Ellcrys. The Ellcrys must be "thousands of years" old, since without it there would be no Gauntlet to have a tradition for.

• 0:09:35

King Eventine: "At the dawn of every new year we gather in this sacred garden to recount the Story of the Ellcrys. Thousands of years ago our elven ancestors fought a war against an army of demons. The elves were at the point of annihilation, when their elders turned to magic. Using this powerful gift they managed to imprison the demons in a realm known as the Forbidding. The Ellcrys was created to stand sentry. As long as it lives the demons are locked-up for all eternity.

Again the script says the Ellcrys was created "thousands of years ago". It also talks about a war between elves and demons which is not called the "War of the Races".

• 0:33:51

Eventine: "This is Allanon, the last Druid of Paranor."

Ander: "Druid?"

Arion: "You said the last druid died in the War of the Races."

Allanon: [to Eventine] "Did you now?"

Eventine: "No one has set eyes on you in thirty years. I assumed the worst, but it appears you have not aged a single day."

From this excerpt of the script we learn that the War of the Races ended approximately 30 years ago, thus it could not possibly be the same elf/demon war that is mentioned in the Story of the Ellcrys above. In the books this would be the Third War of the Races which started about 50 years prior to the events in Elfstones.

• 0:50:45

Allanon: "My mentor told me that he hid the Codex in this chamber before the Keep fell."

Wil: "When was that?"

Allanon: "Three hundred years ago."

I am trying to avoid using the books but I think it is fair to note that in the books "the Keep" was another name for the mountain fortress of Paranor, which fell during the Second War of the Races approximately 550 years before the events in Elfstones.

I am not sure where the details for the existing PLOT section came from but based on these dialog excerpts from the show I think the PLOT section needs a rewrite as it does not match the details in the primary source (the show itself). Any objections? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 03:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. What would you suggest to replace the current text? Can we evidently assume that in the television series there were three (or at least two) Wars of the Races? Should we use something like "set about 300 years after the second War of the Races" or "set about 30 years after the last War of the Races" or even something more general like "set years after the last War of the Races"? — Artmanha (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am thinking "set about 30 years after the recent War of the Races". Using "recent" does not imply either way there are or there are not more wars by the same name. On the other hand all the stuff about the Ellcrys, the demon war, and even the cessation of magic is now very problematic as none of that relates directly to the War of the Races timeline. If included it will need to be in a separate context. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Be careful. This looks to go quite a bit in OR country.-217.248.0.149 (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It could be, 217, if we are not careful, but as long as we stick to verifiable facts per WP:PLOTSUM we are okay. Consider each of those excerpts above as a quasi-citation to the primary source. If that was a written script how could we use that text to rewrite the plot section? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As long as you don't copy and paste and make it as simple as the current one — Artmanha (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggested rewording of PLOT section

Here is my first draft of a rewording.

The Shannara Chronicles roughly follows the storylines set out in The Elfstones of Shannara,. The series is set about 30 years after the recent War of the Races. Central to the story is an ancient tree called the Ellcrys which is supposed to magically protect the world from demons by banishing them to a realm known as the Forbidding, however many of the people no longer believe in magic or demons. The series begins by chronicling the journey of Wil, Amberle and Eretria who, with the guidance of the last druid Allanon, must go on a quest to protect the Ellcrys from dying and releasing all the banished demons back into the Four Lands.

Please comment on what works and what needs changing. Thanks. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 07:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

After posting this last night I walked away then took a fresh look at it this morning. The one thing in this paragraph that bothers me is the phrase "however many of the people no longer believe in magic or demons." I think the right information is there, but its the "many of the people" part that feels awkward and I would welcome suggestions for improving it. I have already considered and thrown out the phrases "most of the world" or "many in the Four Lands" because we haven't yet seen that much of the world (in the show) to make such a determination. There are four races and we know that many humans and elves feel this way but what about gnomes and trolls? We just don't know (i.e.: cannot WP:verify). I chose "many" over "all", "most", "some", and other similar words for the same reason, we just don't have enough information (from the show) to make that percentage level kind of claim yet. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 16:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Seeing no disagreement after more than a week I have gone ahead and used the above suggested text to replace the problematic text. Please discuss here if anyone feels further changes are needed. Thank you. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Suggested rewording of PLOT section, ROUND 2

Despite having made every effort to build consensus by posting this new wording for review and comment, then waiting 9 days for feedback before making the changes, I was very disappointed when my edit was completely dismissed and bulldozed with an undiscussed change and using an edit summary declaring the text "unsourced". In the parent section of this discussion the excerpts of the actual dialog from the show were painstakingly provided to show the source of the content I included in my edit. It now seems I must actually use the {{cite episode}} tag with those excerpts to avoid any misunderstandings. Mostly I am upset that my fellow editor did not have the courtesy to use these talk pages and say something during the 9 days I waited for feedback. Here is my rewording again. I will insert have inserted the appropriate cite tags inline via subsequent edits and again try to build consensus. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 10:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The Shannara Chronicles roughly follows the storylines set out in The Elfstones of Shannara,. The series is set about 30 years after the recent War of the Races. Central to the story is an ancient tree called the Ellcrys which is supposed to magically protect the world from demons by banishing them to a realm known as the Forbidding, however many of the people no longer believe in magic or demons. The series begins by chronicling the journey of Wil, Amberle and Eretria who, with the guidance of the last druid Allanon, must go on a quest to protect the Ellcrys from dying and releasing all the banished demons back into the Four Lands.

---

References

---

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 10:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please consider reading the WP:WWIN article and consider that As explained in § Encyclopedic content, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. — Artmanha (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC for Episode List Format

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a disagreement about the proper format of the episode list here. - 11:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of positions

SC should be regarded purely as a TV show

SC should be regarded as a mixed-media show

• "TV shows" in the absolute sense used here do no longer exist (or only exist incidentally). In today's media, shows are published on multiple platforms. Any insistence that a show is strictly this or that is misguided Essentialism.
• The distinction is not made in many other articles on Wikipedia. Most prominently, no Netflix show is a TV show in the sense used here. Yet checking some of the more prominent shows (House of Cards, Orange Is the New Black and Jessica Jones), all use the templates claimed by Artmanha to be only usable for TV shows.
• Furthermore, House of Cards is called "television series" in the lede although it was never shown on traditional TV in most markets. OitnB is simply called "series" in the lede (confirming my point above that the distinction can no longer be made) and all three garnered awards created for traditional TV shows. This proves that the traditional distinction is no longer valid.
• Use of templates should never dictate content. I'm surprised that I even have to mention that. The only question should be whether or not the template is useful.
• SC was in fact first-published on different media.
• Insistence on First TV Publication Date ignores the point of the date in the first place: First publication says a lot about the work, how it can be placed among other works, whether it had impact on arts or society and so on. "First published on medium X" is at best of marginal interest, or of interest to a few readers.
• Currently, Artmanha (the only one defending the "Pure TV" position) dodges the discussion and simply reverts proposed changes. He claims to act on consensus, but fails to show where that consensus was built.-217.248.47.101 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

While the above link does in fact provide the full detail of the dispute, it might be helpful if a summarized list of differences between the two proposed formats was included above this comment. I actively edit this page but I have not been involved in the formatting of this section at all and frankly I really do not plan to read through all that scrollback of argumentation just to find out what QUESTION is being asked. I strongly urge that a carefully considered and neutrally phrased compare and contrast between the two formats be put above as part of the RFC. It should be as minimal as possible without sacrificing needed details, and it should not include any opinions of any kind. In short it should describe two different objective procedures for how to format the section. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, someone thinks you are a participant, that's why 3O was denied. In any case, I don't understand Artmanha's case, and he ignores my arguments. I happy to summarize my view, but someone else should do the same thing for Artmanha.-217.248.47.101 (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well first, a very quick scan of the edit history for the page shows that from the 500 edits before 13-FEB-2016 there were edits with "episode" in the summary made by the following users: 93.141.45.62, Terraflorin, 9janedoe999, Hamz12a, 203.94.45.35, 197.211.52.33, 73.130.216.195, WikiKid100, 81.106.156.18, Dark Cocoa Frosting, NZunknown, 174.92.135.167, AlexTheWhovian, WereSpielChequers, 2601:983:801:69b0:31ca:7e3b:fc45:23a3, Johnedavisii, Tavilis, 83.221.190.255, Davey2010, Rawhunger, QuasyBoy, Kuralyov, Judor92, 2a02:a03f:2c88:b900:9852:9ba0:4476:9c18, Cutegirl456, 62.243.82.137, 80.111.145.139, 199.66.179.205, 99.232.224.182, Jdavi333, 184.145.18.50, 41.189.172.34, and Augchen. Several of those edits were specifically about formatting. My presence on the page was a waterdrop in the ocean had nothing to do with 3O being rejected.

And second, you are the one who requested this RFC and thus you are the one who bears the obligation to carefully present your position in a professional manner. You want the win, do the work! Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly spoiled the 3O, at the time I was under the impression that the discussion was between Artmanha and myself.-217.248.63.96 (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This is very TL;DR, but please take note of the discussion at User talk:AlexTheWhovian#Shadowhunters, and why the suggestion for the table above should not be implemented. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What is your opinion about AlexTheWhovian's Artmanha's [Edit: Sorry, I messed up the name] scattering of the discussion, while ignoring it here?-217.248.47.101 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is I am glad he did not clutter this page with an entire discussion that has already been posted. Instead he was professional and linked to relevant information. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to fill up the empty section above.-217.248.47.101 (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself: you are the one who requested this RFC and thus you are the one who bears the obligation to carefully present your position in a professional manner. You want the win, do the work! Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I did, see above. If Artmanha (or someone else) thinks the "Pure TV" case has any merit, I'm sure he will add his arguments.

Personally, do you think this discussion is a good example of how Wikipedia should work? If not, how would you improve it?-217.248.63.96 (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page too, but to splice the discussion together, please respond here.

Some definitions of "release":

Oxford: "3. [...] make (a movie or recording) available for general viewing or purchase.", eg. "The vast majority of independently produced films never get released.", "Production was completed in late autumn and the film was released in September 1968.", "As far as I know, the studio is not releasing the film into theaters domestically."

M-W: "4. to give permission for publication, performance, exhibition, or sale of; also: to make available to the public <the commission released its findings> <release a new movie>"

Dictionary.com: "3. to allow to be known, issued, done, or exhibited" eg. "to release an article for publication."

There is not the slightest mention of either a restriction to online, or ruling out that a release can be in a TV broadcast. So plainly, you are using the word wrong.

The Nielsen rating has a lot of shortcomings that cannot be explained in table headers. The point you address however, is addressed in the table headers, and if someone refuses to read them, they will have more problems then a misconception about the viewing numbers of a web show.-217.248.47.101 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't see anything at all wrong with how the episodes table is presented. Nor do I see any legitimate arguments for it to be changed. Could I also suggest that the IP user campaigning for change create an account? I've counted at least 6 IP addresses belonging to him/her on the page. 81.106.156.18 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please address my arguments specifically, and point out what "illegitimate" about them. Thanks.-217.248.63.96 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ears

Recent exchange ~15 into "Utopia":

Amberle "I'm all ears."

Cephelo "She certainly is."

Is this a line from the novel? It got me wondering because while as an elf she has bigger ears than Wil, they don't really stand out that much, Poppy Drayton's hair covers them most of the time.

If it was a line from the novel would that indicate that the ears of elves in the novels were a lot bigger than they're being portrayed in this TV series? Here is seems like they're sort of pointy but not very large like Orlando Bloom's Legolas. From what I've seen of the cover art of the novels the ear length seems pretty short for elves but I can't help but wonder if the text says anything different. Like if they were larger like the Warcraft II elven archer or even larger like the Warcraft III night elf archer. Basically, how are ear sizes/dimensions for elves described in the Shannara books' texts and are they being under-represented in this or accurately presented? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read the books, but bear in mind that 1) while her ears are smaller than those of some other series' elves, they are larger and more prominent than human ears, and 2) Cephelo is prejudiced against elves. If racists in the real world can make a big deal about even smaller differences between humans, it wouldn't be surprising if a similar thing was happening here. Iapetus (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)