Talk:Scream Queens (2015 TV series)

Sources

I'd like to say, there are no valid sources giving the character last names, let alone giving names to Ariana Grande's character. The source for those names, other than Emma Roberts' character (Chanel Oberlin), came from a Twitter account claiming to be an insider. The first names of characters (Aside from Grande) were leaked on a cast call sheet, but I'm not sure if that counts as a reliable source. At least, the only names that should be given in the cast list are Emma Roberts as Chanel Oberlin and Niecy Nash as Denise, and the most should also have only first names for Curtis, Michele, Hudson, Palmer, Breslin, Samuels, Boneta, Morris, & Jonas and that's it. 2602:304:B1AF:D0F0:8D87:2F6:84C4:A590 (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please allow this edit to be made. There are literally 0 verifiable and reliable sources giving last names for any of the characters other than Emma Roberts as Chanel Oberlin.Ificannotlove (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

OnLocationVacations is a reliable in terms what and who films what where. All names are stated in that source. Now, please stop messing with the cast's names (I am talking to everyone). Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 12:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing photo in box

Would people be okay with the photo in the box being changed to one of the recent promotional posters? I feel the title card isn't as necessary now that some promotional posters have been released. Brocicle (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content

Any involved editor who reverts edits here will know that the addition of unsourced content is very occurring here. In a last ditch effort to attempt to save this article from being prohibited of IPs and new users to edit, I am giving my last warning. Do not add content without proper sourcing. Any attempts to do so will result in reverts. If disruptive editing from God knows how many users continues, the page will likely be protected and hopefully indefinitely this time around. The article suffers a lot of unsourced content and all attempts to avoid more edits like this aren't helping. Please stop. Thank you, Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 03:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Cast and characters quotations

Why do many of the entries in the cast and characters section have these big quotations about the character? They seem totally unnecessary. If there's useful information in the quotations for a general understanding of the character, they can be summarized. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, of course there is usful information in them, or else they wouldn't be there. Please read something before commenting on its validity. LLArrow (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, they're not necessary and make the cast section look messy with it being a huge block of text. Surely there's a more appropriate place for quotes that big. Brocicle (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure there is, on individual character articles, yea since they do not exist this pertinent info shall stay put. Both of you are presenting nothing but opinion, in which Wikipedia does not divulge.

LLarrow, I love you but you could please take a step back and dial down on the rudeness? "Please read something before commenting on its validity." was unnecessary, for anybody. Secondly, so what if these are opinions? Last time I checked, Wikipedia does allow opinions in certain areas. Thirdly, I agree with both above. It is unnecessary. It's a TV show, for god's sake. It's not a movie. It does not belong here. It should be elsewhere, such as character pages of existed. But they don't, so they should be removed. It lengthens the article, not to mention the episode summaries exceed the number of words. These quotes make it worse as well. I say they should be removed per the people above me. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

If I'm coming off as rude than it's mearly a manifestation of my angst. I worked for hours editing and adding this informative, pertinent, incisive information that the creators deemed noteworthy. And as for your jab, "It's a TV show, for god's sake", what the hell does that even mean? As if TV shows are somehow inferior to movies. And no Wikipedia is quite strict on its regulation of opinion, with little room for guesswork. The information should stay until someone creates character articles, not just be removed because you don't like the way ot makes the page look. Surely I'm not the only one that can see the absurdity in that. LLArrow (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally consider TV shows inferior to films. You can look at articles from films where the characters are detailed. Meanwhile, for TV shows, it does not exist. I am going to ask for the Wikiproject's opinions for this. Seeing that there's 3 against 1, I know you won't back down and I do agree that the reasons given aren't guideline-based or policy-based, but opinions were used for a discussion at Fifty Shades of Grey (film) regarding the reception. I am going to follow the same process. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well frankly I'm disgusted by that point of view. However, I'll be more than happy to let diplomacy reign. LLArrow (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm coming off the notification on the WikiProject Television. I echo the original sentiment of CrocodilesAreForWimps: these particular quotes on the page right now seem totally unnecessary, but that's coming out of the quotes not actually saying much, and if there's important information, summarize to cut out fluff bits and long-winded phrasing. Taking some of the entries, something like:

• Emma Roberts as Chanel Oberlin, the president of the Kappa Kappa Tau sorority described by executive producer Brad Falchuck as "kind of that mean girl." Falchuck also said of Chanel: She's not looking to learn anything. She's looking to get what she wants, and in the process of doing that, she starts to think, 'Maybe what I want right now is actually to be connected to this girl, to be nice to this girl.' So it's not about what she should do but what she wants right now."
• Skyler Samuels as Grace Gardner, a Kappa Kappa Tau legacy and pledge. Samuels felt that Grace is the "eyes and ears of the audience" in regards to college experience and used some of her own experiences to "feed into" Grace's.
• Jamie Lee Curtis as Cathy Munsch, the dean of the university who carries her own secrets and whose connections to the events lie in the past. Falchuck hoped that the role would give Curties "some great, interesting, weird, unexpected stuff to say and do."
• Ariana Grande as Sonya Herfmann / Chanel #2, a member of Kappa Kappa Tau, one of Chanel's minions, and and a reformed alcoholic who had an affair with Chad. Falchuk said of Sonya's death scene, "It's the idea that it just doesn't exist if it's not put onto social media in some way; it becomes irrelevant, it's a fantasy — it only becomes real when all of your followers know about it. [Chanel #2] uses Twitter as her way of telling everybody that she's being killed and who the killer is, but she runs out of characters eventually, and she can't even say the answer because she decided to use Twitter as her way of communicating. When you have Ariana doing that scene, it also gives it a different little punch because if you have a star that big, you're not going to kill her in the first episode — but that's the fun of it. It's a bit of an homage to Psycho."

And so forth. The quotes aren't so substantial, in my opinion. For example, Powell's quote on the Radwells reads like fluff to me, Michele's isn't overly insightful. Falchuk on Sonya's death is long yes but it's a meaty quote and difficult to cut down, and my summary skills are lacking. Heck, I wouldn't even necessarily keep the quotes in my given example. But, anyway, that's the principle of the idea I'm going for. In this way, it does quote relevant material from actors and crewmembers, but it doesn't clog the section with fluff, or overlong turns of phrases.

However, I do agree that callmemirela's comment that "TV shows [are] inferior to films" should have little bearing on what to do here. That kind of logic just doesn't really make any sense to me. Whether or not something is debased should not affect the way Wikipedia covers it. And if the article has no separate character list or articles, and there is something truly insightful regarding the construction or casting of a character on a television show, I see no reason why we cannot include it, summarize it, as we do with film articles. Side note, I'm not sure if it's necessary that EVERY cast member that currently appears on the page really needs to be there, but that's for regular editors of the page to work out, I suppose. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't really see how this solved anything. I'm even more bemused about the situation than I was before. LLArrow (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of the quotes aren't offering any useful information, like Glen Powell's and Lea Michele's for example. There's no reason to include a quote about Lea Michele's character in glee being compared to this character nor a personal view from the actor Glen Powell's opinion on his character. Some information in the others can be useful, but may be in not such a huge quote and may be not in the cast section. Open to ideas. Brocicle (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:QUOTEFARM we want to be avoiding the use of too many block quotes like this. If the information is useful at all, paraphrase it instead; if it's not, bin it. But as it stands right now it's undesirable and counter to guidelines. GRAPPLE ^X 11:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

So do the quotations stay or go out? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

They go. If there's a big block quote that someone feels says something useful, paraphrase the gist of it; if it's really just filling space, throw it out entirely. But repeatedly quoting several sentences at a time is a big no. GRAPPLE ^X 07:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We could do a consensus? Brocicle (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Anything is fine with me as long as we've established that the quotes don't belong or should summarized if they're so important but they don't entirely belong. All per Grapple. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I vote they're removed completely. It's overusing quotes and some are redundant. Brocicle (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I second with you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait. Does the, I presume, consensus apply to just the cast and characters quotations, or all meaning those quotations and the production quote boxes? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Just the cast and character quotes. Brocicle (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the deemed "unnecessary" quotes, so now please find another subject to bitch about. LLArrow (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

LLarrow, enough with this. "So now please find another subject to bitch about."???? May I remind you, you are nearing 3RR right at this moment. I've removed all quotes per the discussions above. Stop enforcing WP:OWN. It's getting beyond frustrating right now. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

How am I enforcing my opinion, I'm the one that just reverted my hours of work to meet consensus. I'm done with this. Drop it and move on people. LLArrow (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A bit late for this but I think there was no real "consensus" to remove the quotes altogether. MOS:TVCAST suggests including them, just not in the cast/character descriptions. This discussion went from not liking the box quotes to not liking the inclusion of the information altogether to LLArrow removing his hard work because a few, literally a few, people don't like it. There was no consensus and even still no actual voting, which a consensus is not. Shame on those who didn't assume good faith. — Wyliepedia 20:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

We had a consensus on removing the quotes from the cast/character descriptions. That's exactly what happened, or does the "I vote" and "I second" not register to you as proper voting? Per WP:QUOTEFARM it was overusing quotes. There were suggestions to cut down the quotes or to put them in other sections but LLArrow said they had said their piece on their talk page when I asked if they wanted to join the discussion. Thanks. Brocicle (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Three people neither a consensus nor a vote make. As for LLArrow saying his "piece", there were veiled personal attacks here and he was the "offending" editor here. Of course, he's not going to feel up for discussion. As for the precious quotefarm weapon, true, there shouldn't be too many quotes, but there also should've been a happy reworded medium, rather than editor bashing to the point of him removing his work and ending discussions over it. — Wyliepedia 16:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

LLArrow was more than welcome to participate in the discussion. Neither myself or any other editors removed the quotes, that was on LLArrow's part which he didn't have to do. Instead of complaining that he had to remove hours of his hard work he should have discussed with other editors suitable alternatives then to removing the information. I myself even said further up to possibly keep the information in the cast and character section but condense it or move it to another section. There were plenty of options and opportunities to come to a compromise but LLArrow did not want to partake. No one was editor bashing, and no one forced him to remove his work. Again, LLArrow removed his own work and chose to whine instead of engage in a discussion that he was more than welcome to participate in. Brocicle (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you failed to see my previous comments in this very discussion above. I'm not an idiot, there is no compromising. The only suitable place for the quotes in question were where I had them placed under the character info or a character article, which no one has created. I had already streamlined the comments down to their barebones and that still was not enough to appease others "cluttered" eyes. P.S. Brocicle, it's improper etiquette to talk about a user in a discussion/argument, especially smack, without pinging them. LLArrow (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Well if there was no compromising perhaps you should have discussed via the talk page to obtain other editors opinions on adding them in the first place rather than just going ahead knowing very well that others may have a different opinion to you. That way a proper discussion could have occurred beforehand and saved you the trouble of adding all that information. I do apologise for not pinging you but if you want to bring WP:ETIQUETTE into this then perhaps you could do with a refresher on a few things regarding that yourself. Brocicle (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That is absolutely ridiculous. I was not enforcing an opinion by adding informative, insightful information, one of the very reasons Wikipedia exist; you and others are expressing opinion saying the information was not presented to your liking. As for etiquette, I give as good as I get. After further thought, I will be re-adding the info, until consensus is reached. LLArrow (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I had already given my two cents and I am out of patience to repeat it. I agree that per WP:QUOTEFARM the quotes shouldn't be there or at the very least, in which I would agree to, shortening it. We already have quote boxes in the production section. Hours of work for researching this information is invalid as an argument as we could all say that and it would be shut down by policies and guidelines. I am debating whether to request for comment to get closure on this mess (discussion; not edits). Clearly we are all at odds. This number want to keep it and the other opposes. It should be resolved once and for all. I will, however, ask LLarrow them self to explain why they want to be included as I ashamedly admit that I didn't ask previously. More than "It took me hours", "Because it is" please. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have now stripped the quotes down even further. And that's all for me folks. I'm over this issue. If consensus is ever reached to remove them, fine, but they shall stay put until then. LLArrow (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Quotes may be stripped but now there's a maintenance tag for over-quotation. If we could get someone who is outside of this discussion to comment then that would certainly help close this. Brocicle (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Total and delayed viewers

I've seen articles with delayed viewer ratings before, but they always get removed from the charts because of Wikipedia guidelines. Are there any exceptions that can be applied to this show as it's delayed "live plus three", "live plus five", FoxNOW, and Hulu ratings are actually record braking? (Source) --LurganShmith (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I need to get off the mobile app more often, it wasn't pulling up the chart at the bottom of the page. Sorry. --LurganShmith (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Addendum to the Cast section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television#Addendum_to_the_Cast_section; Since this will effect this, and every, season of this series, I thought it prudent to bring it to other editors attention.

Crowded cast

I think we should just list the recurring characters. Recurring is generally 3 or 5 but since most characters have less than five appearances I say three. I also don't think its necessary to have Special Guest Stars. They should just be in recurring. Scream4man (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is an opinion, and not formulated by regulation. The inclusion of present cast, including "Special Guest Stars", are exactly where they should be. You obviously are not familiar with television series articles. LLArrow (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well where do I read up on this? I just think that there are some characters listed that are irreverent to the story. Scream4man (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly you think, Wikipedia is not about what any one editor/person thinks, it's about following regulation. Here's everything you need to know about television articles, but I fail to see why you're interested. You obviously didn't read about opinions. LLArrow (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Guest stars shouldn't be listed. They have only one or two appearances in the show. It is highly unnecessary and I agree that the special guest stars should be listed as recurring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyNameIsASDF (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Special guest stars are credited as such because they stand out from the guest stars, making them deserving of the status. Literally every other series that feature them have the category; and it shall remain here as well. LLArrow (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

they are credited by the producers or whomever decides as special guest stars, along with many other tv shows. They deserve to be credited as such. As for the guest stars they also should remain, again, as they are credited at the beginning of the episode, not the end like extras and such. Brocicle (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

on the topic of cast i'm removing the spoiler that names the season 1 killer, there is no need to mention who it is in the cast section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.73.136 (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There are too many actors listed, it has become crowded. The cast and characters list should oly list the main cast and recurring. The guest column does not need to exist. If you want to list them, then go to the List of Scream Queens characters page. MyNameIsASDF 17:50, 11 December 2015. (UTC)

Consensus is already against you on this matter. Next... LLArrow (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@MyNameIsASDF: The guest column is a common thing to use on television articles. Go to any article about a tv show and I can guarantee there will be a guest column. There is absolutely no issue with it. They're credited as guests by the producers of the show and this page should reflect that. Brocicle (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

There's really no reason to list anything but main cast on the main series article if a character list article exists. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Good topic template

0% complete

Scream Queens

14 articles

• "Pilot"
• "Hell Week"
• "Chainsaw"
• "Haunted House"

• "Pumpkin Patch"
• "Seven Minutes in Hell"
• "Beware of Young Girls"
• "Mommie Dearest"

• "Ghost Stores"
• "Thanksgiving"
• "Black Friday"
• "Dorkus"
• "The Final Girl(s)"

I've created a draft template for a potential Good topic about Scream Queens. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Scream Queens episode table sizing

@AlexTheWhovian: Firstly, WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO apply here. You've made a bold move that has been reverted so the burden is now on you to establish consensus to remove the set widths and, while it's under discussion the status quo reigns. The fact that three users reverted my edits does not change that. Clearly, with no other edits about it having been made by other editors in the past 2 and a half months, it isn't bothering most of the editors. The set widths have been there for three months now since it was first added,[1] so that's definitely the status quo. As per WP:DONTREVERT, your claim that one-season shows do not require set widths is not valid unless there is a Wikipedia rule claiming so. I'm reverting it once again so the staus quo remains until we enter a consensus here. Thanks - Artmanha (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

All of the above, and you've listed zero reasons as to why they are necessary. BRD does not, in fact, apply here given that it was not a bold edit that drastically changes the article's content, and the matter of three editors reverting you is an issue given your act of edit warring, having reverted this issue not three but now four times. Not everything is rule-based, but standard practice, much like my run-in with you a while back concerning Teen Wolf. @Ebyabe and LLArrow: Care to weigh in? Alex|The|Whovian 02:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Three editors reverted, thus BRD applies to Artmanha. The format is fine the way it is. It may not be perfect, but what is? It functions effectively currently. Please consider moving on to other issues. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 05:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The user in question decided to take this discussion elsewhere and not post their decision to keep the episode table's widths unset here. However, they stated that "[o]nce the series is officially renewed for a second season (and it will, as the showrunners stated themselves) I'll add the set widths again" - the widths should only be reinstated once and only once a table for the second season has been created, to bring the columns in line with each other, and not as soon as the show is renewed (if it is) as this will merely be a re-occurrence of the above discussion. Alex|The|Whovian 12:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel like that discussion involves canvassing. Anyone correct me if I am wrong. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This wasn't canvassing at all - the ping to other editors were to the editors who were also included in the reverting, per Special:Diff/697331122 and Special:Diff/697325094. Alex|The|Whovian 23:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

No, not your pinging of editors. I know that wasn't canvassing because both editors were involved and your message was neutral. I meant the canvassing on Artmanha's (sp?) part on User talk:Geraldo Perez. From what I know, he never participated in the discussion and Artmanha just contacted that user out of the blue. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Episode summaries

The instructions for {{Episode list}} state that |ShortSummary= should be "A short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode". A tag alerting editors to this problem was added to the article in December 2015 by AlexTheWhovian,[2] but it was largely ignored and inappropriately deleted in this edit, which also added a redundant heading. I subsequently tagged problem episodes individually, including a note explaining how long each episode was.[3] At that time, only 1 episode complied with the 100–200 word requirement. Brocicle has since pruned several summaries, but six are still longer than 200 words and require further pruning. The current offenders, as of this revision, are (with length):

• Episode 1 - 279 words
• Episode 3 - 227 words
• Episode 4 - 213 words
• Episode 8 - 243 words
• Episode 9 - 222 words
• Episode 12 - 217 words

Summaries for these episodes need to be pruned, after which the tags may be removed, but tags should remain if the episode summary is longer than 200 words. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Episode list article

I undid a WP:BOLD split to a separate episode list article as it is too soon for a separate list article. I consider that a split proposal. Also the split was done incorrectly. The required attributes as specified at WP:CWW were not done. When a split does get done the process described at WP:SPLIT#How to properly split an article needs to be followed. The split I undid was at List of Scream Queens (2015 TV series) episodes. Article should be split to List of Scream Queens episodes (2015 TV series) as the disambiguator parenthetical should be at the end of the title. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now: Generally we need specific well-referenced information about actual named episodes being scheduled in the second season before the episode list is split out. It is not sufficient that a second season is planned, actual episodes must be in the schedule with names and dates, and a table for the second season started. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per WP:TVOVERVIEW – until a second season starts being produced, with announced episode titles and airdates, a separate List of Scream Queens (2015 TV series) episodes article is unneeded. It should remain a redirect for now... Also, @Geraldo Perez: can you give another example of an episode list article with the "List of [series] episodes (XXXX TV series)" article title format? – I'm nearly positive the only examples I've seen previously have been of the "List of [series] (XXXX TV series) episodes" variety. Maybe a discussion at WT:NCTV is in order? (Or has one already taken place about this there?...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: WP:NCDAB just says add, but the examples all show append, the parenthetical disambiguators. When done that way the Help:Pipe trick works and it won't if the disambiguator parenthetical is in the middle of the article title. WP:NCTV says nothing that conflicts with the general disambiguation guidelines. The disambiguation parenthetical is not really part of the official title of the show so shouldn't be treated as such even if it is needed to disambiguate ambiguous article titles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I requested comments about this issue at WT:NCTV and WT:TV. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

General consensus and conventional practice is for the split to be to List of Scream Queens (2015 TV series) episodes when it is done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Let's just wait until we at least have an airdate for the second season. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• for there will be a 2nd season Judor92 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And when that actually happens there will be an episode list article created. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Episode articles should only be created once there is enough information on the premiere of the second season, such as episode title, air date, director, writer, etc. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose I'm confused why a split proposal was made, when the person who made it, Geraldo Perez, did not want the article split. Personally, I don't think even when there's enough information on the second season episodes table that a list of episodes article should be created seeing as how there are only 13 episodes for season 1. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@74thClarkBarHG: The proposal was implied by the editor who in good faith made a WP:BOLD split. I just formalized that into a split discussion as a courtesy to that editor and my listed oppose was to justify why I undid that split. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose till first episode of season 2 press releases roll out (late August-early Sept 2016). — Wyliepedia 11:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)