Talk:Daredevil (TV series)

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

A list of episodes is viable according to MOS:TV

I created List of Daredevil episodes following the Manual of Style for television, which suggests that after a show has a second season, it is advisable to create a List of episodes article. However, User:Favre1fan93 reverted these changes, arguing that the article is not necessary yet. I've read the discussion people had before, with some saying that because the articles for seasons (Daredevil (season 1) and Daredevil (season 2)) existed before, a list of episodes is not necessary. It is true that those articles contain enough information to justify their existence. Regardless of that, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias have conventions. The convention of this encyclopedia is to create a separate article for episodes after a TV show has more than one season. Those articles are useful because, only in one page, a comprehensive look at the series is available.

I don't see why some people are opposing so bullheadedly to this. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles about TV series that have more than one season have a list of episodes. I had never seen such a discussion before. There's no sensible reason not to have said article in this case, so I am reverting the changes to keep List of Daredevil episodes. -- Gonzalogallard (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:SIZE applies here. The convention of this encyclopedia is to create a separate article for episodes after a TV show has more than one season. Just because other articles have LoEs, doesn't necessarily mean this series needs one. For a series with only a total of 26 episodes, just about the size of one "normal" broadcast series, there is no need, per WP:SIZE, to split off the episode tables from this article. The main reason the MOS says what it does is from a network mentality of 23 or so episodes a season, in which size of the article then becomes an issue, especially when the tables are not transcluded from season articles and still have the plot in the table (unlike these). There are not any additional items or material being added on the proposed LoE article you are creating, beyond the fact that other series do that, so since this series has more than one season, it should too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding this: Those articles are useful because, only in one page, a comprehensive look at the series is available. That is happening here, and you aren't changing or enhancing it by moving it to a new article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing with this Favre, is that per Aussie in the discussion above, the transclusion process actually brings over the entire article, not just the small part of the episode table that we see, so behind-the-scenes size is potentially an issue. That, plus the fact that we have 26 episodes here (more than when we would split for a network show) and more confirmed makes me lean towards making the split, or at least giving it a bit more consideration. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing for or against, but from everything I have read, that sounds a bit misleading. While it is true that the entire transcluded page must be parsed, the result is cached. In this case, since there are no parameters, it is very efficiently cached. As far as the size goes, only the included wikitext is counted toward the post-expand include size, not the entire page. - DinoSlider (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are still on the cusp of the time to split, since it is a total of 26 episodes. Once a table for the third season can be created, I think that will be fine to split at that time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that my personal opinion is really important in this discussion but I want to say that as far as I'm concerned it's much more convenient to have all the epsiodes collected in once place than split up on multiple articles. I don't understand why the episodes are listed on the separate season articles at all. The season articles should be an overview of the season as a whole.*Treker (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This mania for manufacturing pointless split-off articles has to stop. Its an impediment to readers, a serious maintenance hassle, and its again multiple guidelines, starting with WP:SIZE and much of what's listed at WP:LIST.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reviving a discussion over a year old to agree with an already-formed consensus? Or are you suggesting that the episode tables shouldn't be listed on the separate season articles? -- AlexTW 05:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DVD/Blu-ray table

DVD regions
Regions for the Blu-ray Disc standard

The "DVD and Blu-ray" table mistakenly mixed release dates so I removed "and Blu-ray" but Adamstom.97 restored the table claiming "the idea is that there are equivalent Blu-ray regions to go with these dates. Redundant to repeat the information in the same table". However, you simply cannot do this. DVD regions (1-6) and Blu-ray regions (A, B & C) cover geographically different areas. For example, the United States and Canada are in both DVD region 1 and Blu-ray region A while Mexico is in DVD Region 4 but Blu-ray region A. Australia, like Mexico, is in DVD region 4, but Blu-ray region B. All of the African continent is in Blu-ray region B but different parts are in DVD regions 2 & 5. When listing release dates you must list release dates for the different regions in the correct cells, even if that requires duplication. You can't combine cells because that is, at best, misleading to readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who else is watching this article that could contribute to this discussion, but I personally don't think it is all that big of a deal. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it this way: A reader comes here and looks for Blu-ray region B. What column is it in? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I said that I don't think it is a big deal, I meant that I don't really care either way. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And another one gone

Another one bites the dust. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already added. -- AlexTW 02:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Name

Should the title be, Daredevil (web series)?Halbared (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a web series. A web series is typically short form content (usually a few minutes long), not long form narratives like this. Being released on Netflix is irrelevant to the matter of its article name, but we note it is a "streaming series" released on a streaming service in the article lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daredevil_(TV_series)&oldid=1206880036"