Talk:La Brea (TV series)

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

Television 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. 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.

I thought it was the format to give episode plot summaries of aired episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the editors' note in the editing screen: Episode summaries must be expressed in your own words. Do NOT submit content you find from another website as it is plagiarism and likely a copyright violation, which Wikipedia cannot accept and will be removed or reverted. Superficially modifying copyrighted content or closely paraphrasing it, even if the source is cited, still constitutes a copyright violation. Summaries should be about 100 to 200 words in length, per

MOS:TVPLOT, and those substantially less than 100 words are most likely to be scrutinized for possible copyright violation. Wyliepedia @ 09:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I don’t care what format, just want plot summaries! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In this case, User:Jgstokes, please state where the source sais the casting was yesterday, because maybe I missed this part. For me it just sais it happened, without any date of this event, so it can be yesterday, a year ago, or at any other day. IKhitron (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary states: "No way he was cast 12 days before his first appearance in the series, the episode was wrapped much earlier." No one said he was or was not cast 12 days before his first apperance. You implied that's what the source says. Had you looked at the actual source, you'd know that when he joined the cast is not the material point. When the report of his joiining the cast was released is more relevant. And if a source pubished yesterday noted his casting, it's unnecessary to say "it was reported", which is why I reverted your insertion of that wording.

It was the wording of your edit summary to which I objected. The wording was not necessary, and your mention of him being "cast 12 days before his apperance" is you interpreting what the source says. The onus is not on me to "state where the source said the casting was yesterday." The source didn't say that the casting was yesterday. Rather, a source that was published yesterday said he was cast. And saying that "it was reported" is unnecessary, because the material point is that the source, which happened to only be published yesterday, was the confirmation of him being cast.

The source itself says nothing about when in the series he will make an appearance, (just that he has a major role) or when he was actually cast. That's your interpretationn of the source, and personal interpretations that are not verified in the sources do not belong in either an edit summary or as a rationale for inserting unnecessary wording into an edit of a page. Hope that clears up the reason for my revert. Feel free to post any follow-up questions here. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All that you said just proves that my edit that changed from "was cast yesterday" to "published that was cast yesterday" was right. The source didn't say that the casting was yesterday, only the article sais it now, and said before my edit. I'm going to fight for this. If it's better that the articles sais now "On September 22, 2022, Martin Sensmeier was cast", so be it, I quit from this. IKhitron (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say this often enough: character is NOT plot! this list is NOT about every reveal about every character, its about their basic roles! pls consider before editing.

Sadly this is an error made on many pages for tv shows, so pls keep an eye out for other shows too. WP is NOT a fanpage substitute. 95.90.129.68 (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about the mixed reviews from critics has recently been removed from the lede.[1] I have restored it, but since no explanation was given for the removal, I'd like to ask The Shadow-Fighter what has been their motivation to do so. Articles about TV shows generally have such a statement in the lede, compare Treme (TV series) for another example. Renerpho (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because for one thing it doesn't seem accurate, since the RT score is in the 20s, and also because it's an awkwardly short sentence that feels tacked on. I suppose it would be better to leave it in, but change it to "negative" or "mixed to negative", and follow up with an explanation for why critics thought this way, and maybe with a source. I can look into it. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Shadow-Fighter: Remember that the lede is there to summarize the article. Unless you are aware of a reliable "meta-source" not yet used in the article (something like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritics), you'll have a hard time justifying the claim that it received "negative" or "mixed to negative" reviews, because that's not what the article or its sources are saying. The Critical response section speaks of "mixed or average reviews" (quoting Metacritic). RT doesn't provide such an easy translation of its 29% approval rating into prose, but its average rating of 4.5/10 doesn't seem far off from Metacritic's 49/100. It is not obvious that the two assessments differ much from each other. It sounds to me like "mixed reviews" is exactly what the series got. At least that's what the sources are saying. As for the shortness you criticised: This is the lede. Any details (including sources) belong into the appropriate subsection. Given how short this lede is, I don't think the reviews deserve more than a single sentence in it. Renerpho (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]