Talk:Jessica Jones season 1

	Jessica Jones season 1 has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 6, 2016 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 15, 2016. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the first season of the Netflix television series Marvel's Jessica Jones was awarded a Peabody Award in the category of "Entertainment and Children's programs"?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Marvel Cinematic Universe Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force (assessed as Low-importance). Comics: Marvel Bottom‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group. United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Jessica Jones (TV series) was copied or moved into Jessica Jones (season 1) with this edit on January 17, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

@Favre1fan93: I would definitely drop the "the" in this case, but I can't seem to find a definite rule for Americans, as it seems to vary between nouns and even speakers. The problem here, is that "the hospital" tells me that there is a specific hospital that I have missed earlier in the narrative, or that there is only one posible hospital (which is deffinitely not the case). Not even "a hospital" seems appropriate, as that puts emphasis on the fact that it could be any place, rather than just the idea of hospital in general. If I say that I am going to the hospital, I am talking about my local hospital, the only logical one that I could get to, or if I had already been talking about a different hospital then that is what I am talking about. If I just talk about hospital, then I am just talking about the idea of hospital, and so the actual location isn't really important. Similarly, I would just say "I am going to church", or "I am going to school", or "I am going to work", and if specifics are needed then I could clarify afterwards. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I've never seen that grammar applied given the examples you provided. If anything, I'd use "a hospital", but I also don't feel "the hospital" gives off the meaning you described. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it must just be an American English vs. Non-American English thing then. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping a few people to get their opinions from the project (@AussieLegend, AlexTheWhovian, and Bignole:) to see if it's just me or not. As well as @Onel5969:, if they care to comment, since they copy-edited Guardians of the Galaxy for the Guild of Copy Editors. And for those joining, please see this edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a case of British versus American English, I believe. Americans would not say "go to hospital", it would always be either "go to a hospital" or "go to the hospital". Either would be correct. This is a vagary of American English, for we would say, "went to college" (although we could also say "went to a college" or "went to the college"). We could also say "went on vacation" or "went on a vacation". In the first instance of college, if the sentence was "went to college", that would refer to the act of attending college, as opposed to "went to the college" (or a college), which would refer to the act of going to a particular place, which was a college. In other words, in context, we might say, "John went to college to study engineering", but we would also say, "John went to the college to visit his sister". However, in this case, since this is about an American show, it should use the definite article, the (although a would not be incorrect, either). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Onel5969! Ya learn something new everyday! I knew I wasn't wrong or crazy, but I also knew Adam probably wasn't wrong either. That's why I figured it must have been a case of American versus Non-American English, which we've come across before editing together. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Onel's explanation has left me even more confused But that's alright if we are in agreement to use "the hospital". And I'm sure this won't be the last time we have an issue like this. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an article in front of "hospital". British English would typically say "Go to hospital", but American English uses an article in front of that location. There are exceptions yes, like "Go to school", but that isn't the case with "hospital". This page points out the difference, specifically for hospital too.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)— Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The character Malcolm is never referred to by his family name Ducasse in the show. Hard to understand why some editors think it is somehow more professional or whatever to refer to the character by a name that isn't used except in credits. Makes the page very confusing. older ≠ wiser 01:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it confusing? The character is introduced just like any other. For someone who has seen the show, they can see that Malcolm's last name is Ducasse and follow on from there. For someone who hasn't seen the show, it will make no difference—they will hear of Malcolm Ducasse, and follow the last name from there. We are referring to him as Ducasse because we aren't mates with him. This is a professional encyclopaedia, and in formal writing we refer to people using their last names. The only way confusion will arise, is if you don't read the article properly, and I'm afraid there isn't much we can do about that. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You assume that a reader starts at the beginning and proceeds in sequence through the article. I was looking at the summary for an episode and saw repeated references to this character that I'd never heard mentioned on the show. That is confusing. And there is nothing unprofessional about using the name for the character that is used in the show rather than only in credits or ancillary materials. older ≠ wiser 10:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not assuming that. If someone decided to come here and just read about the filming of the season, then they would come across the name Loeb. If they don't know who that is referring to, they wouldn't demand that we explain then and there, because it is just common sense for them to look back through the page and find where the person was introduced. They would then see in the writing section that Loeb is Jeph Loeb, the head of Marvel TV, and they could then continue reading what they want to read knowing who they are reading about. Likewise, if you just come here to read about a particular episode, say "AKA Top Shelf Perverts", then you would come across several names (Hogarth, Ross-Hogarth, Ruben, Walker, Simpson, Ducasse). If you want to know who these names are referring to, you simply have to look back up and see where they were introduced. If you haven't watched the show, you will likely have to do this with all the characters. If you have watched the show, then there may just be a few. Either way, it is pretty standard practice.

Remember, using the name Malcolm may be helpful for you avoiding confusion, but for anyone who hasn't seen the show it will be no more meaningful than the name Ducasse, and so they will still need to go back and look for who they are reading about. And if we are just picking and choosing who we call by first names and who we call by last names then we are being inconsistent and can be influenced by our own biases and perceptions. Having a blanket rule that always works is the better way to go. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except it avoids the issue that he is never referred to as Ducasse. That is simply stupid to use a name that is not used in the show. There is nothing unprofessional about using names as they are actually used rather than some artificial formality. older ≠ wiser 13:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unprofessional, but it is informal. Wikipedia, like an encyclopedia, is written in a formal tone. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We also use the common name rather than formal names. It is decidedly unhelpful for any readers to use names that are not actually used in the show to refer to the characters. older ≠ wiser 16:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME is for article titles, not the content. MOS:SURNAME is the guideline being used here. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]