# Talk:Pretty Much Dead Already

Goddammit people... Couldn't you give a more spoiler-filled photo than this? Jesus Christ... I'm deleting it till somebody comes up with a non-spoiler one. Thanks for ruining the newest episode for me. :/ --Jaro7788 (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers are allowed. Don't read the Wikipedia entry then >:(. RAP (talk) 22:06 28 November 2011 (UTC)
But NOT at the TOP OF THE PAGE! Do you know why I entered this article in the first place? Because I wanted to find out whether it was out already. Not to learn the episode's biggest spoiler! --Jaro7788 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Than don't read the Wikipedia page. We are allowed to spoil, get over yourself. RAP (talk) 12:49 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Even though spoilers are allowed, there are many other pictures that could be used for this episode. Keeping up a spoiler picture is just looking to ruin the episode for people.  Its like putting up Dumbledore dies instead of a picture for the Harry Potter book.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.81.105 (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the picture as well to help not spoil the episode for anyone else.  I'd put up another picture but I don't know how to.  For those that do, maybe one of Shane and Rick arguing to show the growing tension within the group and with the family.
Spoilers are allowed, in text AND picture. Restored the picture. It bears significance to the importance of the episode. You're just mad because you decided to read the plot off the internet instead of watching the episode. RAP (talk) 15:44 29 November 2011 (UTC)
"I wanted to find out whether it was out already" - got some reading issues? That's not my problem, I'm afraid. --Jaro7788 (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Just because spoilers are allowed doesn't mean they have to be the first thing you see. It is significant to the plot but so is the growing tension with the characters, or Shane getting more unhinged, why not have a picture of that? Thankfully I watched the episode last night or I would have been upset to see this picture. I believe you would be hard pressed to find another article that has a spoiler in the picture. Just do a favor and find some other picture so you don't ruin it for anyone that is going to this page for any reason.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.81.105 (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I have excellent reading skills. You, on the other hand, haven't read WP:SPOILER, since you are still very emotional about this. This picture is the perfect example of the episode's highlight. Don't read the page if you won't want to be spoiled. Case closed. RAP (talk) 17:50 29 November 2011 (UTC)
So you delete my comment asking why you include this spoiler\surprise but no other episode articles have a picture ruining the spoiler\surprise, classy.  At this point you know you're wrong and are just being stubborn.  If you want to repost the picture again which only serves to ruin a great ending to a great episode, go right on ahead.  Just be a honest about it and leave my comment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.81.105 (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I have to step in here and side with Rusted AutoParts. WP:SPOILER is very clear. Also, you should not accuse RAP of knowing he/she is wrong and simply being stubborn, especially when I, too, reverted your removal of the image (twice, including once with a request to discuss on talk page). I believe the image should be included, but I will not re-add the image or undo the most recent edit until I am certain this action would NOT be seen as edit warring. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to edit war and WP:SPOILER is very clear but it also says that spoilers should make sure to serve an encyclopedic purpose. I don't see this picture serving any greater of an encyclopedic purpose than another that could be used for the same episode. I'm not saying to remove the plot from the article but just change the picture to one that would be considered more neutral and in the spirit of the show, not ruin the ending of the episode.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.81.105 (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Given the reception section's references to the final scene, the multi-episode story arc relating to Sophia, and the pictured "walker" as the main subject, I'd say the image is perfectly encyclopedic. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully this is the last of this. IP 199.68.81.105, you are on notice. If you revert me again, i will have the page protected and you blocked. RAP (talk) 21:51 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Its encyclopedic by why that picture.  Theres plenty of other ones that work and have been on going parts of the story arc as well. The tension between Shane and Rick, Daryl searching for Sophia, or Hershel and the barn, they all are encyclopedic, and work without ruining the surprise ending. I'm not going to remove the picture again but realize that this particular picture has already ruined the ending for one person and could do so for many others.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.81.105 (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Stop being bitter that you spoiled the ending for yourself by looking it up. Couldn't you of recorded it or watch it on the internet? Rather than moan about it here? And other people would of watched the ending before coming here to read about it. RAP (talk) 22:23 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I give up. This discussion is going nowhere. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
As previously stated I saw the episode the day before coming here, so it wasn't ruined on me. If someone was coming here to read the story, why would they be upset about the picture?  You're totally ignoring what Jaro7788 said.  I'm just looking for an answer about why any of the picture ideas I brought up couldn't be used.
For what is worth, I also think that Sophia's picture should be removed. Tha fact that Wikipedia policies permit including it (and it's good they do) doesn't mean that we have to, and I believe that another picture could be found that didn't spoil the plot as heavily and could also visually identify the episode. For instance, an image of the group shooting the anonymous walkers of the barn would be as much illustrative and much less spoilery.--RR (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree that it's too much of an "in your face" spoiler. And, like RR, I came here after already having seen it, so I'm not having any kind of personal reaction to the episode being spoiled for me.  It's just a starkly obviously case of an excessive spoiler that, if not malicious, is at least reckless. The image and caption give away, just from a glance, the resolution of the main drama of the entire second season so far. That's too much when many will not have seen the episode yet, and have just come here looking for something like the air date. It's not fair to the readers to kill the suspense like that.  This isn't comparable to writing a complete plot summary, it's like putting a "GUESS WHAT HAPPENS!" spoiler as the first sentence of the article in extra-large font size. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
(outdent).  WP:SPOILER absolutely does not encourage in-your-face spoilers for their own sake, and RAP is being quite beyond stubborn, but tendentious, incivil, wikilawyering, soapboxing, editwarring, and overall just snotty and flippant (there's a page here about that, too, but it's generally considered bad form to cite it by name). Anyone who thinks that "don't read the article then" is the solution to problems other editors raise with an article should rethink their participation in a site like this.  Multiple editors are disputing the image and caption, and RAP is now the one on notice, per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD, WP:3RR, WP:OWN, WP:DE and all of these related policies and guidelines. Don't come in here and bully and threaten people.  Perhaps the most obvious page to read would be WP:COMMONSENSE. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER clearly states we are Allowed (want everyone to understand that one, simple word) to spoil. And it's not "in your face" (as Candlish so "politely" put it) it's the episode's highlight. I didn't bully anyone, just tried to explain to the people who feel spoiled because they chose to read the Wikipedia entry rather than watch the episode and moan that we "spoiled" the enidng for them. Re-adding picture, and that's that. Candlish, rethink your own words and read WP:CIVIL yourself, before you lash out at me. RAP (talk) 14:01 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that you seem to have recognized there's no consensus to use a spoiler of that magnitude on this page, and changed it to something more reasonable, as others have been suggesting (though your "hostile to everyone who disagrees with you" edit summary was unwarranted).  The scene with the walkers coming out of the barn to face our armed heroes is climactic (and contains the sub-scene the bickering has been about), but isn't a bad spoiler. Everyone watching the show knows those walkers had to be dealt with one way or another, just like the missing girl has to be found, alive or not, or abandoned, one way or another. But an armed conflict between the living and the walkers is not a surprise, and no suspense is ruined for anyone, which was not the case with the girl. So, it's a compromise that I think anyone can be satisfied with.
I stand by my criticisms, but that's all a matter for user talk now, since the debate with regard to this article has ended.
PS: There is no such thing as "that's that" on Wikipedia. If this isn't clear, please see WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CCC, WP:BRD, WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE, and the "see also" sections of those pages for further reading.
— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 12:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thank you to SMcCandlish.  I was the guy commenting with the IP address (just created an account) and I think you cut right to the heart of the issue, and explained it better than I could.  Thanks again for resolving this! Thedustman86

I hope I didn't offend anyone by removing a line "Daryl fires his shotgun at the walker who used to be Hershel's wife, hitting her in the face, causing Hershel to collapse to the ground in grief." Hershel collapsed to the ground when Shane killed the walker Hershel was holding with the snare. The scene also doesn't show any clue as to if the female walker killed by Daryl is Hershel's wife. Again, sorry, but I just though it would be more accurate by simply relating what's verifiable on the scene.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.198.39 (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC) 

I agree. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Me too. In fact I never assumed that that walker was his wife, and I was surprised to see that claim here. --Againme (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
She was the the only female one they lingered on, so it's clearly implied (along with the young male the camera also spent a lot of time on, obviously the step-son; these characters were mentioned repeatedly as foreshadowing), but that's still original research without a sourced statement about it from the production team. If they're still airing those "making of" things, maybe it says? If not, no real loss; a WP plot summary isn't meant to pass on every nuance of a video production. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pretty Much Dead Already. 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) 10:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)