Talk:Powerless (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Production Codes[edit]

101.98.165.25‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add production codes for future episodes without any source to back them up. They are typically listed at the end of each episode, which is when they are added (after they've aired and are therefore verifiable), and do not necessarily correspond to episode numbers. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This editor does not know that futon ep codes are listed by network code, not studio code. And that the network one is based on the studio one. Therefore the studio code T12.15402 is an offset of the 101 network code. If the original pilot had aired it would have had a studio code in the form T15.XXXXX and network code of 100. I will not going to contribute to this article and any article as long as this editor continues to revert things they don't understand. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm seeing in your above reply is original research; extrapolation based on your own observations. This is not allowed in any article on Wikipedia - everything must be sourced. I understand it perfectly - you have nothing solid to back up your personal statements. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has dealt with production codes knows this and anyone who doesn't can see the obvious pattern the codes follow. It has nothing to do with WP:OR which is for ref quoting. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're basing content of an article on nothing but an observed pattern. That is textbook-level original research. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what other articles have been doing for years due the fact that futon gets network codes from press releases not studio codes. And most of the only publicly accessible studio codes are only on the copyright slate of Warner and FOX produced shows. So based on that you might as remove all prod codes from the other articles that have derived codes as well. Also the basic converting of network formatted code to studio format is not research. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, current Doctor Who prod codes have the format HDWXXXXX but they can never be included here due to editors like you expecting a ref for everything. Which is completely absurd in terms of prod codes. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware of WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, and yes, it would be appreciated if you linked the other articles so that they can be updated accordingly. I understand your explanation of where the production codes come from, but they need to be explicitly stated in the source to be able to be used in the article. For example, for episodes that have aired, the production code is (as you stated) listed on the copyright screen, and hence can be used from there. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's far too many to go to every non-Warner and non-Fox show article and remove the codes. But you do like enforcing things to how you see them, so you better get started as there's a lot of them. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what AWB is for! I could have it done in... a half-hour? You better get started listing them. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to list them. You need to go through every non-Warner and non-Fox show article to justify your childishness about prod codes. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor Who no longer uses production codes (which were listed as X.XX), so I'm not sure where you're getting your information. See List of Doctor Who serials. And yes, editors who know what they are doing do request references for article content per an actual policy. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where's your ref source for the supposed X.XX???? The HDWXXXXX is still used internally at the BBC. It's included in all the STL subtitle files. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The episodes and DWM. Production codes were ceased after Series 6. However, this is not related to this article. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where's your source???? Sounds like original research or gossip. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I literally just said. Now you're being childish because you're not getting your way. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the numbers that use to be included on show credits is a script number not the production code the BBC assigns. And script numbers don't define when the ep was produced. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam West[edit]

I'll start a discussion for you here, WatcherZero (talk · contribs). As I stated: While the note might be nice touch as to West's involvement, the article for a television series is not the place for a note about an actor's role, that belongs in the article for the actor. Concerning what you said about Doctor Who and my additions concerning the viewership, such a milestone (or opposite of), that relates directly to the series. (This would also indicated that you stalked my contributions just to find something that you disagreed with, and that's in very bad faith.)

Per the documentation at Template:Episode list, the |ShortSummary= parameter is "A short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode." If there are real-world details that directly concern an episode such as the one at "Van v Emily: Dawn of Justice", the consensus at the WikiProject Television is to include those, but details on an actor's role are unnecessary. That is also why we don't list the summary as "Chairman West (Adam West) delivers some unfortunate news to Van and Emily." If you disagree with this, please allow the WP:STATUSQUO to remain and follow WP:BRD and discuss the issue here. -- AlexTW 03:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I guess you will be removing all the references to Heath Ledgers death from the Dark Knight article as well then. Consulting the television manual of style it says real world information on characters and actors is notable in preference to in world information, this would normally be included in a character section however Chairman West/Adam West was not a recurring character only appearing or mentioned in a single episode and even directly refers to his presence in the episode as a 'Gratuitous cameo', the manual of style suggests this then relegates a character from character section to plot summary level which is where the detail was. WatcherZero (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, as the two cases are very clearly different; Ledger had a starring role in the Dark Knight movie and was a main character in the film, whereas Adam West had one cameo role in a singular episode of a cancelled television series. Real world information is preferable when it comes to the list of cast and characters, not to the plot summaries of the episode table; I would recommend reading the Method of Style guidelines again, especially WP:TVCAST. Quoting from the section that I just linked, Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary - i.e. in-universe information belongs in the plot summary, real world information belongs in the cast section. Given that, as you noted yourself, he did not have even a recurring role in the series, and it was only a guest or cameo role, an entry for his character is not required. And if an entry were to be included, the fact that it was his last role is most trivial and irrelevant to the series. -- AlexTW 10:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Order - "Win, Luthor, Draw" = Season Finale[edit]

When you look at the events in the episode "Win, Luthor, Draw", it's obvious that it was meant to be the last episode - episode 12 - of the Season. The Charm City office is closed down; Jackie gains superpowers; Adam West delivers a speech along the lines of "what will happen to our plucky crew ?" It's a season ender. Because the last few episodes weren't aired as scheduled, somehow the impression was created that this was intended to be Episode 11. Following these events with "Van of the Year", in which apparently nothing has changed, makes no sense. Unfortunately, NBC only list 10 episodes on the Powerless website, but they do put "Win, Luthor, Draw" last, as it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.68.54 (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Order Information in "Production" Paragraph[edit]

The article currently states:

The episode "Emergency Punch-Up" was mistakenly aired instead of "Van v Emily: Dawn of Justice" in Canada, several regions of the US and on the NBC website. The running order was changed because of the prominence of a chemical gas attack in the episode which similarly occurred in Syria just before the episode was aired.

Was the episode order changed by accident? Or deliberately because of the real world incident? Or are those two sentences completely unrelated to each other? This whole paragraph is very confusing and seems to missing important context. The attached source for this also no longer exists. ShyKen (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Powerless_(TV_series)&oldid=1209848537"