Talk:New Amsterdam (2008 TV series)

Title font

In case anyone can work it into the article (a comprehensive section on the title sequence, perhaps), I went to the trouble of IDing the font used in the titles (on the map of New Amsterdam) and it's basically Allegheny from Scriptorium. (With a little customisation.) You can see a sample at Myfonts. Barsoomian (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline as OR?

Someone keeps deleting the timeline as WP:OR. I disagree, it's just events from the episodes arranged chronologically. There aren't any new facts deduced, just a listing of things presented in the show, ordered chronologically. Many articles have "biographies" of fictional characters derived in exactly the same way. E.g., James_Bond_(character)#Literary_Bond, Thor_(Marvel_Comics)#Fictional_character_biography, Horatio_Hornblower#Fictional_biography, Sherlock_Holmes#Life. I don't think these are WP:OTHERCRAP. The only difference is the presentation as a table rather than prose. Barsoomian (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let me ask you a few questions, Barsoomian; is there a reliable source who's noted the chronologically-arranged events in the series? Was the info noted explcitily within the series, or is this simply Sherlocking (ie. synthesis) in arranging the timeline? How about the following information regarding the following dates and information (I've emboldened the fields that I feel are synthesis and OR):

*642 Johann is stabbed through the heart saving the life of a native girl. She and the women shaman of her LenapeE-3 village (sited in what would become New York's Times Square) save his life,

• "1880s or c. 1903 As J. G. Benwaar, he is a well known furniture maker. (A fuzzy picture in the pilot might say 1903, but later episodes account for John's aliases from 1893 through WWI, suggesting that Benwaar was retconned to before "Dutch".)"
• c. 1917 John fought in France during World War I.E-5 He was wounded and underwent contrology therapy—now known as the Pilates exercise regimen—in his recovery and rehabilitation.E-8
• c. 1950s During the Cold War John blackmailed his superior in a government agency.E-5 This was possibly the CIA which John served in for 10 years.E-6

I think this properly illustrates many of the problems in the section; indeed, the problem with trying to timeline any immortal in a tv series. Text is best way to present the information contextually and not as a gleaning from tiny (and often contradictory) clues that require the editor to play detective (the term I used was "Sherlocking"), and add themselves and their own perceptions to an article, which in turn makes it less encyclopedic. If the information in the section is not explicitly mentioned within the series or by a reliable source, we cannot use it. As well, we cannot cite information to the primary source if it is likely to be challenged (and my actions towards the inclusion of this section should be seen as such). SO, my problem is less with the table than with the information being presented within it - though I prefer prose to lazy-ass tables any day of the week. And OTHERSTUFF is a pretty weak argument to use here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)\

I didn't create the table. I don't defend every word it it. See above and other previous discussion on related issues over the years here (ignoring the long argument about the number of dogs he had). If you can't be bothered to work through the details, you don't have a licence to delete the whole thing because of a few niggles and you don't get an answer you like immediately. There is no rush, no BLP concerns or copyright issue, it's just pedantry and WP:POINT to abruptly erase the whole thing for whatever small issues without even attempting to discuss, after it's been here for three years without raising any alarm with anyone except you. And if you want a reliable source to arrange dates chronologically, please refer to any calendar. Raise your issues here, separately, or tag them in the article if you want to be pushy. Wait for at least several days for responses, not everyone monitors every page in real time. I will revert any wholesale deletion you make on the trivial grounds you have raised. And I did not cite the other articles lightly. They use exactly the same methodology as here, and they are pretty mature and well regarded articles. And I just had a look at List of Lost characters, which links another 30 or so fictional biographies of TV characters in the same vein, whose backstories were also revealed non-sequentially as flashbacks, and which cite the episodes of the show as sources. That Amsterdam is supposed to be immortal is not relevant, it just means it covers a longer period; and actually makes it easier as historical events and people are often referenced. Barsoomian (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you might want to presume a little more good faith; attacking me isn't going to accomplish anything. The problem would still remain with the section, and you'd simply get trout-slapped for being prickly. Be nice, or begone. I am not your enemy; I am an editor just like you, seeking to get the article to GA and FA quality. We can find a middle ground without trying to tear out each others' throats.

Now that that's out of the way, I'd point out that this is an encyclopedia. I understand that sometimes that point can get lost when we are dealing with fictional characters and the fantasy worlds in which they reside, but we need to keep that in mind. We are charged with rendering cited, out-of-universe perspectives on the material. In point of fact, I did read the prior discussions, most of which ended up in one WP:IDLI or [[W{:JDLI]] stalemates. Nothing was happening to fix the article or improve it in several months, so I made a bold edit. And of course, I am going to revert if someone doesn't even have the presence of mind to explain why they put it back to the prior (and worse) way.

And let us be clear: there is very little in this section that can be cited to a secondary source or that isn't one bit of Sherlocking or another. My presentation of a few points was to not inundate you with the issues present; it was to point out that several issues do exist, and simply reverting them back in isn't going to resolve the problem. We do not synthesize information here in Wikipedia - that isn't a "trivial" concern, as it contravenes our policy against original research. Instead of reverting wholesale material which you appear to agree isn't encyclopedic, maybe start removing or tagging those bits you know to be less than acceptable.

Again, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a strong argument to make here. None of the articles you noted wither in your previous two posts are even of FA- or even GA-quality. Of them, only one (Sherlock Holmes) has even been nominated for GA, and it failed spectacularly. Your arguments might find more purchase with me if you can find a number of FA examples to support your viewpoint. That is the sort of precedence that counts in articles.

Lastly, I would again suggest that much of the information we can support from external, secondary sources could be translated from a table into text. Primary sources are "okay", but secondary sources remove any responsibility on our part from suppositions made about any seeming contradictions. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to ignore the snide remarks and accusations and again, say, just point out the specific problems. If you just hate the whole idea of a chronology, that's a valid feeling to have, but it's not a valid reason to delete half the article. And it's not supported by the consensus of those who edited this article over the years, though you obviously think they were all idiots: "someone doesn't even have the presence of mind to explain why they put it back to the prior (and worse) way"; "prior discussions, most of which ended up in one WP:IDLI or [[W{:JDLI]]". Really, could you be more dismissive, and rude if you tried? Just a thought, please don't "trout slap" me (whatever the fuck that is, I don't want to know). And for God's sake, of course there aren't any secondary sources for much of this. You think they wouldn't have been cited if there were? You think no one else knows what a secondary source is? Here's some more OTHERCRAP: Ben Linus. 90% of the references are to episodes, primary sources. And what do you know, "This article has been rated as GA-Class ". How did that happen? As for converting to prose, yes, you could make a nice essay that way. You also make it much harder to assess and revise for anyone else looking at it critically. The table format exposes all the assumptions made and makes it very clear. And actually, composing it into a narrative would be an act of synthesis, combining the now-independent series of statements. Regardless: the format is irrelevant as to the facts' accuracy or otherwise, so does not bear on whether the section should exist. And: "seeking to get the article to GA and FA quality" That's impossible, for a TV show that went only 8 episodes, was cancelled and never even released on DVD. There just isn't any more that can be said about the show than what is there now. It is never going to get any more critical attention or secondary sources. If you gut it as you intend it will be little more than a stub. That would be the Ben Tre method of improving an article. Barsoomian (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, clearly, you seem to be taking exception to anything I say, and aren't really willing to see how your comments are inflaming the dialogue. If you feel I have been dismissive of your opinion, accept my apologies. I do not think people who revert without summary or discussion are idiots, unless you define as idiotic someone who thinks they can enforce a n edit through reverts. It doesn't work that way. I don't call that idiotic; I call that a problem of OWNership; it doesn't belong here at Wikipedia.

As well, I do not subscribe to your opinion that the article can never be elevated to GA or FA; that's defeatist and - quite simply - nonsense. The whole point to editing here is to make articles as good, as encyclopedic as we can make them. Not bothering to try and do just that makes your efforts seem a bit like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

I am unsure why you think that no secondary references for the series exist - I did a very quick Google search and came up with dozens. Here are just a few:

• 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10...

Indeed, over two dozen more reviews alone can be found here. So, I am having trouble understanding where you arrive at the point that there is no critical secondary sourcing for the series at all. Maybe you are unsure how to go about researching; if you would like to learn hw to do that, I don't mind helping you out. We got off on the wrong foot, but it doesn't have to stay that way. We both have a lot to learn, and maybe this is something I can help you enhance your skills at.

As far as converting a table to prose goes, I think you will find that the general consensus in Wikipedia is that such is not an act of synthesis, so long as assumptions aren't made connecting events that a secondary source doesn't. Of course, consensus can and does change. In this article, the last consensus was quite some time ago. New consensus can be forged rather easily.

One thing to remember is that our opinions are not (and never will be) citable. It's one of the harder truths that newer wiki editors have to come to grips with. When you let that go, you learn to enjoy what you are doing a bit more, and stop making it a knuckle-duster. Editing Wikipedia is not and should not be a bloodsport. Editors disagree, and its the common ground - based in solid references and policy that ends up providing the best article to the reader.

If you want to work on this prose conversion with me, that would be awesome, and might keep things more neutral than I might unintentionally make it acting by myself. Let me know. I'll start the reference reading tonight, provided I have available time to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

All of the things you pointed out were mentioned in the episodes cited. The location of the village becoming Times Square was a montage in the episode cited. The Benwar date is fuzzy enough that it could be 1903 or 1883 or 1893, only 1893 fits later episodes, but I though pointing that out in the timeline was better than picking 1883. "Contrology" therapy was the term used in the episode. I moved the CIA time to its own "post 1947" entry.

As noted by Barsoomian, the large number of dated and specific details are common in series about immortal characters, and a timeline is a common way of collecting such details.

I also agree that we should not change details that are inconsistent to try and find a "correct" narrative. Having said that, noting inconsistencies is not OR, trying to explain them would be. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to point out that:

• it is you that is you identifying the image as Times Square, not a source, nor a source within the episode.
• It is also you that is looking at the Benwar date (likely through pausing the DVD and squinting to try and make it out), not a source or a source within the episode.
• It is also you that is adding the additional notes, not a source or a source within the episode.
• It is also you that is calling the therapy 'yoga', not a source or a source within the episode.
• It is also you that is identifying his service as being with the CIA, not a source or a source within the episode.
• It is you that is adding the rest of the collected information at the end (totaling the number of girlfriends, dogs, etc.), , not a source or a source within the episode.

Now, you may say, 'why Jack, it isn't me that is adding this information'. I would then point out that when you revert the information back in (as you have a few times), you are insisting that your interpretation and observations - we call this at best primary sourcing and at worst OR or synthesis - be considered equivalent to that of cited sources. We do not do that, and there is oodles of precedent for this view. Ask any admin.
I think we are at an impasse, guys. I am fairly certain that my interpretation of policy and guidelines (as well as the spirit of such) is correct, and am surely not going to bend on the topic of proper (read: secondary) sourcing or original research. I see your points, but I don;t agree with them - not for this encyclopedia.
Perhaps we should open a request for comment or drop a question at the appropriate noticeboard, so we can get some outside input. I'll wait to hear back from either of you before proceeding; maybe you think a compromise can be struck before doing such becomes necessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with an editor describing the details of an episode/series/character/etc. in their own words. That is in fact how every article about those things gets written.

With respect to your listed points:

• The series identifies the location as Times square both in dialog and in the visuals of landmarks unique to that spot.
• A date shown on screen (to the extent of its legibility) is a valid reference.
• The additional notes written by me make no attempt to synthesize or explain. Pointing out a math error, is not considered original research, nor is listing dates shown on screen.
• Dialog called the therapy "contrology"
• I was not the editor who equated the CIA and the blackmail. According to dialog, John 1) served 10 years in the CIA, and 2) blackmailed a boss while working for a government agency during the cold war.
• Dialog stated all the numbers of girlfriends/kids/etc.

Of course I am adding the information here (everything on Wikipedia was added by an editor), but I am not the one creating the details. They come directly from the series.

P.S. It shouldn't have to be said, but I always welcome additional input. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 23:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, MBurrage. If the information was imparted within dialogue, or was clearly displayed (ie, intentional for setting a scene, etc.) then that is clearly fine, as it is an obvious observation of the series. What concerns me is the DVD-pausing check of blurry images and the like to make an "educated guess" as to what something is/was, and what it represents.

As far as the 'pointing out the math error' thing, it is indeed original research to point it out; you are not citable. If you notice a contradiction in the show, it is you making that observation. We cannot cite you, so we cannot use your observations. If you have a secondary source that points out the math error, then we note how 'John Jones from NYT' points out the error. It may seema subtle distinction, but it is all the difference in the world between an encyclopedia and a fan forum.

Lastly, note that I didn't suggest that you were the one adding the info; I stated that by reverting it back in, you were supporting its inclusion, which is - in the final analysis - the same thing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Jack Sebastian's wall of text: you begin all your screeds by belittling anyone who opposes your opinions, and proceed to lecture on the basics of how to edit. You introduce yourself by deleting without discussion. And after a few sneers here, have continued to do so. "I am fairly certain that my interpretation of policy and guidelines (as well as the spirit of such) is correct," well, of COURSE you are. The purpose of a discussion page is not for you to lay down the law, it's to discuss. You simply dismiss, denigrate and threaten. You give patronising lectures: "One thing to remember is that our opinions are not (and never will be) citable", implying again that I don't understand the basics of editing and am just making up theories out of thin air and inserting my POV.

You haven't raised individual points and tried to resolve them. You haven't even noticed or that most of the points were discussed and consensus text agreed on years ago or just dismissed it. Your list of criticisms "It is you...." demonstrates that you aren't familiar with the show at all, since all those points were stated explicitly in the show. And the article cited which episode (mostly the pilot, if I recall), before you erased it. For instance, how is reading a date off text on the screen illegitimate? There could hardly be anything requiring less "Sherlocking", as you like to say. But you just erase anything you dislike. You don't ask for comment or clarification on the talk page, you don't tag it , you just delete it because you're sure you're right and discussion would just be a waste of time.

"I am unsure why you think that no secondary references for the series exist" I am unsure why you think I said that, since I didn't. All the links you found were reviews of the pilot from 2008, adding no analysis worth noting. I said there aren't going to be any new ones. Of course, that is just my prediction, but it's more realistic than your proposed turning this into a FA by gutting it and converting a table into prose. Barsoomian (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was a tremendous amount of bad faith you just imparted. I have suggested this before, and not I am going to have to emphasize my earlier request: if you wish to work collaboratively with me, then treat me the way you would wish to be treated yourself. I am sorry that you feel my tone was denigrating, sneering, etc. - it was not meant as such. I was explaining the underpinnings of our policies. I wasn't sure you were as clear on them as I know I am.

Upon seeing your grasp (or lack thereof) of our Civility policy and prohibition against personal attacks, I think its a fair assumption that you might need some help understanding how we choose to edit and act within Wikipedia. If you don't want help, that's fine. But if you are going to choose to act unpleasantly, you will be largely ignored or reported. I have a right to enjoy my editing time here as much as you, and your behavior has been unpleasantly trollish. I urge you to act more professionally or at least more civilly.

Sidestepping the personal attacks, let's address the only points of yours that warrant response:

1. "You introduce yourself by deleting without discussion" That's usually how editors work, they move amongst articles, correcting where they find mistakes or oddly structured articles. I am sure its how you got involved. This is how we do things here.
2. "The purpose of a discussion page is not for you to lay down the law, it's to discuss" I completely agree, Barsoomian, with one exception (which I will detail in a moment). The point is to discuss, not to attack the other editors who disagree with you.
3. "You haven't raised individual points and tried to resolve them" Then you haven't been reading my "wall of text". Take a moment: I've pointed out at least three glaring issues, all of which you've reverted.
4. "For instance, how is reading a date off text on the screen illegitimate" If it is something like: "Paris, 1945" or whatever, that was intended by the director and of course okay. If you are pausing the DVD to interpret the date on a blurry picture or whatever and guesstimating what it means, that is you inserting yourself into the evaluation process - you cannot do that.
5. "But you just erase anything you dislike. You don't ask for comment or clarification on the talk page, you don't tag it , you just delete it because you're sure you're right and discussion would just be a waste of time" First off, nothing is "erased" within an article; it remains in the edit history. Secondly, look at all the info I was removing, Barsoomian. All of it is cited to the primary source - the episode itself. None of it coming from a single secondary source. If you cannot see the problem with that, most of our discussions are going to prove fruitless. I prefer secondary sourcing, and challenge any inferential info being offered without it. You should be doing that, too. If there is any failing on my part, it was not initiating discussion on the talk page. I usually do that, but instead contacted MBurrage on their talk page to get their input on their initial revert. It bears mentioning that he never responded to it.
6. (re: secondary sources for the series) "I am unsure why you think I said that, since I didn't" Actually, you did: "It is never going to get any more critical attention or secondary sources." Considering that there are only nine sources listed, I thought you might be operating from a lack of research capability - no insult was intended, since some people simply suck at online research while at the same time being good at writing or arguing or knitting. And while it is true that no new citations have come out since the show's cancellation, it doesn't mean that all the sources can't help the article. And your suggestion that all 30+ sources are only about the pilot is a misapprehension on your part. Maybe I gave you too many sources to look at: http://www.tv.com/shows/new-amsterdam/episodes/ here's one] where the episodes are actually summarized for you. Enjoy.

Lastly, I take some exception to the idea that I want to "gut" the article. If the information is uncited or personal observation it needs to be removed. We are an encyclopedia, not a fan forum. I am thinking that, with over thirty links and reviews, we can come up with something better than we currently have. I intend to help it get to GA or FA. You don;t seem interested in doing that, so it begs the question - why are you even editing the article if you have no interest in its improvement? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• If only you could bother to argue points about the article in such detail as you do to attack me. Anyway:

Wow, that was a tremendous amount of bad faith you just imparted. I have suggested this before, and not I am going to have to emphasize my earlier request: if you wish to work collaboratively with me, then treat me the way you would wish to be treated yourself. I am sorry that you feel my tone was denigrating, sneering, etc. - it was not meant as such. I was explaining the underpinnings of our policies. I wasn't sure you were as clear on them as I know I am.

Of course you meant to denigrate me. "We do not synthesize information here in Wikipedia". etc, ad nauseam.

Upon seeing your grasp (or lack thereof) of our Civility policy and prohibition against personal attacks, I think its a fair assumption that you might need some help understanding how we choose to edit and act within Wikipedia. If you don't want help, that's fine. But if you are going to choose to act unpleasantly, you will be largely ignored or reported. I have a right to enjoy my editing time here as much as you, and your behavior has been unpleasantly trollish. I urge you to act more professionally or at least more civilly.

"Civility"? You call me a troll in the same breath.
"the prior discussions, most of which ended up in one WP:IDLI or [[W{:JDLI]] stalemates."
" someone doesn't even have the presence of mind to explain why they put it back to the prior (and worse) way."

And while we're at it: hypocrisy:
"Instead of reverting wholesale material which you appear to agree isn't encyclopedic, maybe start removing or tagging those bits you know to be less than acceptable."
"unless you define as idiotic someone who thinks they can enforce a n edit through reverts. It doesn't work that way. I don't call that idiotic; I call that a problem of OWNership; it doesn't belong here at Wikipedia."

Sidestepping the personal attacks, let's address the only points of yours that warrant response:

Finally.

"You introduce yourself by deleting without discussion" That's usually how editors work, they move amongst articles, correcting where they find mistakes or oddly structured articles. I am sure its how you got involved. This is how we do things here.

Delete once, ok. You deleted a whole section, with a sneering, dismissive comment, were reverted, immediately deleted again. Since then you have continued to delete, without prior discussion or even tagging the sections that you had issues with, despite my requests.

"The purpose of a discussion page is not for you to lay down the law, it's to discuss" I completely agree, Barsoomian, with one exception (which I will detail in a moment). The point is to discuss, not to attack the other editors who disagree with you.

Correct. So why do you keep attacking other editors?

"You haven't raised individual points and tried to resolve them" Then you haven't been reading my "wall of text". Take a moment: I've pointed out at least three glaring issues, all of which you've reverted.

They were already refuted by another editor, so there was no need for me to comment.

"For instance, how is reading a date off text on the screen illegitimate" If it is something like: "Paris, 1945" or whatever, that was intended by the director and of course okay. If you are pausing the DVD to interpret the date on a blurry picture or whatever and guesstimating what it means, that is you inserting yourself into the evaluation process - you cannot do that.

You can't read text on screen without "inserting yourself in the process". You need to use your eyeballs. Same as you can't hear dialogue (much less so, in fact). Your rule would mean that editors could not cite anything seen or heard in any episode. But to adopt your patronising style, that's not how we do things in Wikipedia. Every article about a TV show does recount things seen and heard in the show, the primary source.

"But you just erase anything you dislike. You don't ask for comment or clarification on the talk page, you don't tag it , you just delete it because you're sure you're right and discussion would just be a waste of time" First off, nothing is "erased" within an article; it remains in the edit history. Secondly, look at all the info I was removing, Barsoomian. All of it is cited to the primary source - the episode itself. None of it coming from a single secondary source. If you cannot see the problem with that, most of our discussions are going to prove fruitless. I prefer secondary sourcing, and challenge any inferential info being offered without it. You should be doing that, too. If there is any failing on my part, it was not initiating discussion on the talk page. I usually do that, but instead contacted MBurrage on their talk page to get their input on their initial revert. It bears mentioning that he never responded to it.

The discussion should have been initiated here, (which it was, by me, trying to get an actual discussion going instead of revert/delete/revert/delete) it doesn't belong to MJBurrage, or me, or you. And this article is three years old, you have no reason to insist you get an immediate response. What is the urgency? As for primary sourcing, sorry, that's "how we do things in Wikipedia" as someone said. Look at any other article about a TV show. Also, primary sourcing in general is not disallowed. WP:PRIMARY : "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." If you see any deviations from that, feel free to point them out. Most have been well picked over since they were written, but who knows.

(re: secondary sources for the series) "I am unsure why you think I said that, since I didn't" Actually, you did: "It is never going to get any more critical attention or secondary sources." Considering that there are only nine sources listed, I thought you might be operating from a lack of research capability - no insult was intended, since some people simply suck at online research while at the same time being good at writing or arguing or knitting. And while it is true that no new citations have come out since the show's cancellation, it doesn't mean that all the sources can't help the article. And your suggestion that all 30+ sources are only about the pilot is a misapprehension on your part. Maybe I gave you too many sources to look at: http://www.tv.com/shows/new-amsterdam/episodes/ here's one] where the episodes are actually summarized for you. Enjoy.

I ignored your TV.com ref as I thought you hadn't noticed what it was. If you actually cite the drivel that is TV.com, you are the one that sucks at online research. Any idiot can and does post anything they like there. It's totally unreliable, no more than a random forum. As for the rest, I don't see anything worth citing. How about you find something worth adding to the article? As I said, there aren't any NEW (since you seem to have missed that the last two times, I repeat, NEW) secondary sources. Nothing beyond reviews of the first one or two episodes. Why not use your "research capability" and find something helpful to the article?

Lastly, I take some exception to the idea that I want to "gut" the article. If the information is uncited or personal observation it needs to be removed. We are an encyclopedia, not a fan forum. I am thinking that, with over thirty links and reviews, we can come up with something better than we currently have. I intend to help it get to GA or FA. You don;t seem interested in doing that, so it begs the question - why are you even editing the article if you have no interest in its improvement? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You have done nothing except to attempt to delete large slabs of the article. "Gut" is as good a word as any. Myself, I have improved the article in small ways over the years, in formatting recently, updating links, and also in defending it from vandalism (not referring to you, of course). Go ahead and add a "Reception" section if you actually want to improve the article rather than make it into a stub. Barsoomian (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In either case, I am going to reboot the discussion with an RfC, to draw in other editors and get their input. I will ask you once last time to follow our civil, polite and professional. Please stop attacking me; if you do not stop, I will be forced to escalate the matter elsewhere. Again, focus on the article, not your problems with someone coming into "your" article and "gutting" it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2011 November 8 (UTC)

Timeline section OR and Prose Vs. Table

In a short television series about a man who is immortal, there is debate as to whether the section concerning the events of his preternaturally long life should appear as a table, or whether the information should be converted to prose (or avoided altogether, as exampled by similar GA and FA articles).

Secondly, there is substantial debate concerning whether some of the information being presented within the aforementioned timeline is Original Research and Synthesis.

We would invite editors to come and help us figure out the best course of action, as we are having plenty of difficulty in finding some middle ground. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Jack is using the royal "we" now, I see. Anyway, how about explaining exactly what you propose to change and why, and exactly which statements you think are unsupported. So far you haven't made that clear. Also, please respond on whether you have actually watched at least one episode of the show, as it seems you really aren't familiar with it at all. Barsoomian (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As any Wiki editor knows, I do not need to be an expert on the series to edit or interpret it. However, I did watched the series during the initial run and more recently as well, since the series is available on Hulu for free viewing. We aren't editing the article for fans of New Amsterdam; we are creating it for those who might have never heard of it before. Therefore, were I actually new to the subject, I would be as if not more valuable to the article than someone who's worked "years" on it without effect or expansion.

That said, my focus is on what form the section should take - be it table, prose or avoided altogether (as in other articles about immortal characters and FA character articles). As well, I am concerned that some of the information being provided for certain dates is at best synthesized info, and at worst speculation. If it has been provided explicitly within the series, then there is no issue of inclusion - though the interpretation of vague information or dates (using information creep) remains a concern.

My view is simple: I don't like tables for this sort of thing; it attracts cruft/trivia, and is in essence lazy editing. I prefer prose, since all of our FA-quality articles tend to list character histories in such ways. Often, the preset them as character development, and not strictly by date and year.

I also don't like information cited only to primary sources. It leaves the door wide open for editorial interpretation, often drastically increasing the signal-to-noise ratio (as evidenced by the unpleasantness above). By relying more heavily upon secondary sources, we close that door, as it is the reference itself interpreting the source, and not us. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We edit both for those who have not seen the series, and those who have seen but need to refresh their memories (I think of the practical balance point in plot information is that we should give enough to enable a person to fill in what happens during a missed episode or two well enough to understand the subsequent ones.) I dislike tables for data that can be expressed in prose, but repetitive data can be clearer in tables. I consider timelines necessary for stories with plots that shift back and forth in time; when it's merely extensive backstory, it can be done in paragraphs. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course the reader does not need to have seen the show to make sense of the article. But to write about it sensibly I think you do. I asked because it seemed odd to question events clearly depicted onscreen otherwise. As for the timeline, flashbacks to different periods appear in each episode, non-sequentially. I can't see why a table of dates and events isn't appropriate. No one suggested it wasn't until a few days ago when it suddenly became a burning issue for both an RFC and DRN. Barsoomian (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As for why a table isn't necessary, let's look at characters from another series which relies heavily on flashbacks for backstory, Lost. Characters like Daniel Faraday, Boone Carlyle, Mr. Eko, and Martin Keamy (all GA articles, save for the last, which is FA). In each of these articles, the driving backstory is presented in prose form illustrating their entire character arc - no tables. In the case of immortals, there is Darius (Highlander), from the Highlander: The Series. Again, no table, and the character's story arc is presented as prose. NA is no different. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

For any character whose story is told out of sequence—be it time travel, flashbacks, or what have you—a timeline can be very informative. Having said that, I have no problem with detail being presented in prose. Once that prose is in the article, the timeline could be simplified until it becomes a sidebar, but removing cited details from the existing timeline before writing the prose is a mistake. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that last statement. Removing the references to the episode was a mistake on my part, at least, not before finding appropriate secondary references with which to replace them. My issue with the references is that we do not need (nor should we have) instruction creep interpreting or 'setting up' the meaning of the information being offered alongside the primary source. That is Synthesis; taking two points of information and linking them in a way that was not explicitly executed within the source itself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You keep implying that the table is full of syntheses, could you please give specific examples, which I could address. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 22:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll detail each of the issues as soon as this experiment initiated by m.o.p. with Barsoo is completed. When it is done, I'll detail them specifically. Sorry if this is going to leave you hanging, Michael - though the article hasn't changed/improved/deteriorated in almost three years; a little bit longer probably won't bring about the End of Days. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Both Sebastian and myself have been asked by an admin to step back from conflict, and so neither of us should engage in debate here. However, I would not object if he could simply tag each incidence of SYN that the sees in the article and leave it to you to deal with. Of course, simply tagging the whole article or section won't get us anywhere. Barsoomian (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Table - I'm here at the invitation of an RfC bot. Because the main character's timeline in the show seems to be complex, I think a table works best for clarity as opposed to the use of prose. A table would serve the reader best, in my opinion. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Amsterdam (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513092513/http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Ausiello-Scoop-Fox/800039290 to http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Ausiello-Scoop-Fox/800039290
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.abcmedianet.com/Web/progcal/dispDNR.aspx?id=031108_05
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140916212127/http://www.zap2it.com/blogs/forever_ioan_gruffudd_new_amsterdam_matt_miller_tca-2014-07 to http://www.zap2it.com/blogs/forever_ioan_gruffudd_new_amsterdam_matt_miller_tca-2014-07

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)