Talk:Wynonna Earp (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

1 April 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Wynonna Earp (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chch.com/shows/wynonna-earp/ When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found. If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Archiving citations

Just a reminder for editors: don't forget to archive citations when you add one to the article. At some point in the future some URLs will no longer be accessible and their archived copies will be the only means by which they can be retrieved. The digital library used most often by Wikipedians is Internet Archive @ https://archive.org/web/. However, when a webpage has robots that block IA access or IA servers are down, archive.is @ http://archive.is/ is an excellent alternative. (The Futon Critic, for example, does not allow IA's web crawler to capture its pages -- but TFC can be captured using archive.is because it responds to user requests.) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I would recommend a respell for the title. Is it pronounced "erp" (to rhyme with "derp") or "ee-yerp"? "Winn-oh-nuh" as in Winona Ryder? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. The "Y" is a long I sound, like Wynonna Judd, so it's "wye-noh-nuh erp." Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Plot section length

As of "Revision 22:00, 23 November 2017", the plot is at a length where it has only 66 more words left to be added -- and right now it's only about seasons 1 and 2. There is little allowable wordage available for forthcoming season 3 (and further season/s if renewed). The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television (aka MOS:TV) is very clear about the maximum wordage a plot summary can be. The main article Plot section is for a generalized description -- more specific plot summaries about a season belong in the article for the individual season (maximum words: 500) along with summaries for each episode (maximum words: 200). If there is only a list of episodes article, per-episode summaries are added with the same wordage limit for each. The plot summary needs to comply with MOS:TV. Therefore, the current summary in this main article needs to be reduced. (For those who do not have a word counting tool installed on their system, this website is useful: https://wordcounttools.com/). Pyxis Solitary talk 05:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Katherine Barrell in Cast credits

To-date, I've counted at least 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 edits since season 2 began in which Barrell's name was erroneously moved to Main cast; either in the *Cast and characters* section, the infobox, or both. (— Updated 14 October 2017)

Wikipedia television articles are based on the Manual of Style/Television (aka MOS:TV). Actors are listed per the policy guidelines in Cast and characters information. Within this section you will find the following instruction:

• ..."main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally have a set order in the credits....

Regardless of Katherine Barrell's popularity, and regardless of how many episodes she appears in, she has not been promoted to "Main" cast by the producers.

In episode 2.01 her name was credited after Rachel Skarsten. In 2.07 her name appeared after Adrian Holmes. In 2.08, the most recent episode, she was credited after Michael Eklund.

The names of Wynonna Earp's main cast appear before the show title. Until Barrell's name is credited before the Wynonna Earp title card: she is a recurring actor and must be listed as such. See above Talk page topic "Cast and characters section" for how names have been credited. Pyxis Solitary talk 07:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Barrell and Wayhaught, too, but the obdurate edits by those who refuse to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for television articles is resulting in this article being protected to prevent disruptive editing. Pyxis Solitary talk 19:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The reverts resulting in page protection means that this strikes me as a good case for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Rather than rigidly sticking to what the opening credits list, we could follow the channel's cast list, the show creator's frequent allusions to the "core five," and our own cast photo. This way, we avoid hitting double digit reverts over what section we have Barrell's name in. After all, "[boys are like] rules, they were made to be broken." Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The network/channel cast list is not the producer's cast list. The network/channel promotes actors/characters for publicity value. If you look at the archive of Syfy's cast page for Season 1 -- Katherine Barrell is not included. Syfy is now milking Wayhaught for all it's worth because it has become a fan cash cow, and Nicole Haught's half of it has put a spotlight on Barrell (not that she doesn't deserve it, imo).

Producers are the only ones who decide who is main and who is recurring because not only are they the ones that negotiate contracts, but the production company owns the copyright to the series. Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines exist for a reason: to create and maintain across-the-board consistency. The "good case" would be a case for Wikipedia:Consensus, by opening a discussion in MOS:TV's talk page about an acceptable way to distinguish Barrell in the article, even though she has not been officially promoted to main cast by producers and first appeared in the second episode of the series. Pyxis Solitary talk 09:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I do wonder if the main credits were set at the start of the season, and when the most recent contracts were signed the producers just didn't anticipate Barrell's connection with the fans. I'm willing to wait and see who the season three titles list. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 13:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Barrell was at the 2016 SDCC panel (the image file seen in main article is the Camp Conival celebrity event) and the second season renewal was announced there. The buzz about Wayhaught was already in gear (May 2016 teaser pics). The season went into production from December 2016 – April 2017. The main cast credits were not changed, but the illustrations on the opening titles seen between Scrofano and Anderson (now: antique photograph of two women), and between Anderson and Tim Rozon (now: little girl facing seven figures holding scythes) were changed from what they were in Season 1 (antique photograph of two cowboys with horses, and photo of the remains of a steer with "Black Badge Division Evidence" stamped on it). Producers knew very well that Barrell had become popular because of Wayhaught (her second season contract was still being negotiated in November 2016), she's been booked on Wynonna Earp publicity gigs, yet her name was not included in the main cast credits when the title cards were revised for the second season. Her name has also not been set as the first actor listed after the show title (see Cast and characters topic above). It's all about the contract. And I, too, am waiting to see who's listed as main cast in the third season. Pyxis Solitary talk 19:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

A leaked photo of the opening credits for a not-yet-broadcasted post-3.02 episode shows Katherine Barrell before the title. When such episode is aired, her name can be added to the infobox and the "Main" cast list. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Wynonna Earp at ClexaCon 2018: re Season 3

Mason, Jessica (April 9, 2018). "5 Things We Learned About Wynonna Earp Season Three From ClexaCon 2018". The Mary Sue. Pyxis Solitary talk 10:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

explanation

I've recently noticed a few articles which used {{cite web}} everywhere, even for articles newspapers, magazines, television and radio news shows. It is my understanding that these should all employ {{cite news}}.

I found a {{cite web}} to Variety magazine, so I changed it {{cite news}}.

Pyxis Solitary reverted my correction, with the edit summary "Undid revision 878065354 by Geo Swan (talk) Published on website - not in trade paper."

Yeah, I suggest this is not how we should distinguish between where we use {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}. Some magazine do have a larger online presence, where they publish online articles, that aren't in their print publications. I strongly disagree that those articles they only published online should use a {{cite web}} template. This is not a useful distinction. Without regard to where the article is published, the articles that end up online nevertheless went through the editorial process, where subject to the efforts of the publications' regular professional editors and fact checkers, and so should use the {{cite news}} template.

IMO {{cite web}} should be reserved for corporate or government websites, or those of non-profits, etc -- not news sites. Some news sites, here in the 21st Century, are entirely online, have no print publications. Geo Swan (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So, looking at what's on Template:Cite news, the cite web template is intended to be used only for things that don't fit into one of the other citation templates. Although in this case the actual correct template would be {{cite magazine}}; magazines are quite different from news agencies. That said, the specific bit on that help page for choosing between templates suggests to me that switching a citation from one to the other is an utter waste of time, unless there's an actual issue with the parameters. And as a side note, please do try to respect WP:BRD (which notably has just one R, not two or any other number). -- Fyrael (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The key word in your comment is "IMO". Editing of articles should be based on WP policies and guidelines, not 'IMOs'.
This is what the {{Cite news}} > Choosing between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} guideline states:

Before 2014, editors needed to decide whether to use {{Cite web}} or {{Cite news}} based on their features. In 2014, however, most of the differences between the two templates were eliminated.
As of 29 July 2016, {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} have the following differences:

• {{Cite news}} can be used for offline (paper) sources whereas {{Cite web}} generates a missing URL error when no URL is provided
• {{Cite news}} accepts |issue= and |volume= parameters while {{Cite web}} does not ....

But given the same set of valid parameters, their output is exactly the same:

Cite web:	Silverman, Dwight (July 15, 2011). "Microsoft envisions a universal OS, but it might not be called Windows". Houston Chronicle. Hearst Corporation. Retrieved May 26, 2015.
Cite news:	Silverman, Dwight (July 15, 2011). "Microsoft envisions a universal OS, but it might not be called Windows". Houston Chronicle. Hearst Corporation. Retrieved May 26, 2015.

In a nutshell, the only difference between choosing between {{Cite web}} or {{Cite news}} today is if the citation needs to include "volume, issue, page" -- which occurs when a source is not available as a web page, but is accessible as microfiche. In the case of Variety, the cited source is available as a direct web page and as an archive copy. Editing boldly is not as simple as many editors interpret it to be, because policies, guidelines, and consensus remain the foundation upon which Wikipedia is built, and even "Be bold" advises editors to "Be careful". Pyxis Solitary yak 10:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ah. a teachable moment for me.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Grasshopper. :-) Pyxis Solitary yak 11:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Putting season info under seasons

Pyxis Solitary, did you bother to actually read what my changes were before reverting or did you just count references and hit the button? The ones that got removed were attached to duplicated information. Literally the same information with slight rewording. If you want to have extra references for those, that's fine and you should've just copied the references down. Your approach was entirely destructive. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I see now that I broke some references, which I will fix and restore. Reverting the whole thing still wasn't the best option. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, it's done and the only reference change was one about coronavirus. If you want to change that one bit, go for it. Sorry that I didn't think about citations being reused on the first edit (or double-check that I hadn't broke some citations). It's sad that it means someone consciously duplicated information between the lead and the seasons, which makes no sense. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverting the whole thing still wasn't the best option. You exercised bold editing -- I exercised bold reverting. Your idea of how this article should be written decimated the lead section, and contradicts MOS:LEAD. As I see it, your edit is disruptive and has diminished the purpose of the lead:
"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents....The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on...The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
If anything, the "approach" that "was entirely destructive" is yours. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with you at all. Reading exactly what you've pasted here it should be clear how multiple sentences about the details of every season's renewal is very much not giving "the basics in a nutshell". I think adding one sentence about how many seasons have aired and what's currently being filmed is a good idea and very consistent with other TV show leads, so I'll do that. By the way, I also did not at all appreciate you failing at WP:GOODFAITH in your initial summary, implying that I was trying to sneakily remove references when that was obviously not the case. Hopefully we can proceed with the knowledge that we're both trying to improve the article and simply have instances where we may disagree on how that should look. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)