# Talk:The Long Bright Dark

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Long Bright Dark. 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/20140718204656/http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 08:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please explain why information belonging to True Detective (season 1) should be duplicated in this article. ---- 91.10.63.67 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:TVPRODUCTION, any information relevant to the development of the episode should be included—the show's development and casting is relevant to this episode, being the first, so it should be included. This is also the case with other pilot episodes: Parks and Recreation, House, Smallville, or Supernatural (all FAs) are examples of this. It is expected that there will be some overlap in development information between the pilot episode and the season article, but I believe both are unique enough to remain. – Rhain ☔ 01:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Which section of WP:TVPRODUCTION?
Maybe more important: Why is it a good idea to duplicate information form the season article here? ---- 91.10.63.67 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:TVPRODUCTION already redirects to the section "Background and production". While it's not technically a "good" idea to duplicate information, in the case of the first episode it is expected that some details will overlap, as development information is relevant to both the season and the episode. – Rhain ☔ 01:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
My browser just pointed to the article, not a particular section
I could not find anything particular to the first episode - did I miss it?
Alternatively, do you propose to duplicate the section into every episode article? It certainly is just as relevant for the second, third or last episode.
"It is expected" by whom? Could you please step out of the rules and regulations and provide an argument standing on its own? Why should be duplicate the information here, instead of just a pointer to the season article#section? Also, which part of the sections in question are relevant specifically to the pilot, and not for the season?
By the way: If it's not an exact duplicate then either one (or both) are faulty.
The section also includes this: "This section should be structured to fit the available content and the type of article being written." So we don't really need IAR, the section says it right there: Use your judgement. ---- 91.10.63.67 (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
What I think it comes down to, is that if something new or different occurs within the show's production at a certain point, it should be discussed within the relevant article. Obviously, in the case of the pilot episode, a brief summary of the show's development is necessary, as has been the case with several other articles, as it is the development that leads to the pilot. However, this development information is not necessarily relevant to the second and third episodes (and so on) as the show has been established at this point—if a major casting or production decision occurred during one of these episodes though (e.g. a new lead character is introduced, the show's executive producer leaves to join another network), then it would be mentioned, but the series' development in general isn't particularly relevant there. That's how I see it, and that's essentially the rule that has been followed in the past, from what I can gather. – Rhain ☔ 02:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the reason you give is pretty far-fetched. Would you with that reasoning agree to remove the sections from the season article? Why would you not copy almost the entire article from Season to First Episode?
Please also be careful with terms like "obviously", as I obviously don't think it's that obvious. Other than duplication, the current solution necessarily includes information about episode two+ into the pilot article, because their production is described as well. Would you include information about sugar-digesting enzymes into every article of every mammal in Wikipedia? What about Repitiles?
I have to restate it: The Information is DUPLICATED. That is always a bad idea. How would you make sure that a fix in one article is brought over to the other?
Thousands of articles face the same problem, and this seems to be the only case where the solution is not: Write one article normally, write a short summary in the other and use {{See also}} to point from one to the other. That's perfectly easy and avoids all problems, while still maintaining a very quick way to get the information.
Lastly, I still can't find anyting in WP:TVPRODUCTION to support your case, so please point out the specific seciton you are referring to. ---- 91.10.39.145 (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion the characters' surnames should be used in the plot summary, rather than their first names.  Does anyone (especially DAP388, who got the article to GA status) object if I make this change? --Viennese Waltz 09:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Viennese Waltz: Do you have any reason for this change, besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT? – Rhain ☔ 09:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's a matter of style.  When discussing the lives of adults, whether real or fictional, it is more appropriate to refer to them by their surnames. --Viennese Waltz 10:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Viennese Waltz: I don’t mind. Feel free to make said changes if you haven’t done so already. DAP 💅 17:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I think the plot summary reads better now. --Viennese Waltz 07:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)