Talk:Once Upon a Time season 2

Oh, G-d!

Oh, G-d! The characters are themselves again. Why are their alter-egos' names mentioned?

Anonymous173.57.44.147 (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Until otherwise differing information is published, their name's remain the way they've always been. Plus, co-creators Adam Horowitz and Eddy Kitsis have confirmed that both names for the characters will be referenced/used throughout the season. LiamNolan24 (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ratings

Recently a Ratings section has been added, I feel that this section is bulky and irrelevant, due to the fact that the Episode section has individual ratings info, not to mention each episode that is made into an article usually states ratings info. I wanted to get opinions other than mine, before I took further action. Please, discuss. LiamNolan24 (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been drafting a season article, and I find that some of them that have been recently promoted to GA, such as American Horror Story (season 1), include a ratings section. But at the same time, I agree with your separate episode articles sentiment. I feel that the section should be kept, but the tables nixed. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, to clarify my position, I am opposed to the table because the episodes have separate articles and the info in the table is listed there. If the episodes did not have a separate article, I am totally okay with the table because it lists ratings shares (which seems important, but I don't really know) and weekly rank. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section, at least until the season commences. Please continue to discuss. LiamNolan24 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats fine. Sorry for causing any inconveneience. Could we add a ratings table when the season begins airing in the States??? Thanks. Liam74656 (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No inconvenience, as stated above we are discussing whether a Ratings table is really necessary due to the fact that each episode of the season is normally made into an article itself with extensive Ratings info. Ratings tables can be seen as tacky and irrelevant, and I can not find hardly any examples of them on Good or Featured like articles. LiamNolan24 (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It really is a shame to lose ratings shares and weekly rank info. I think those three bits of information -- total viewers, rating shares, and ranks -- are more meaningful when presented together and can be compared to previous and subsequent weeks. I only wish there was a different way of presenting it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Merp. Just realized I'm flip-flopping a bit on this issue.... ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand what you're saying. Perhaps a separate article should be made specifically for Once ratings, a best of both worlds scenario. LiamNolan24 (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(Outdent) I don't know if that article would meet notability standards. And ratings lists never make it past AFD: AFD for Neighbours 2011 Ratings, Ratings of The Suite Life on Deck, List of Chuck Weekly Ratings, and it appears to be in violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that those articles were deleted speaks to my point. I really would like to hear other's opinions. Thank you for all your research User:TenTonParasol. LiamNolan24 (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ratings 2.0

I firmly believe that the Ratings table/section added to this article is a redundant distraction from more especial information. I understand why some may find it useful, but useful only to a select few, which is why I deem the episodes individual articles with rating info, sufficient/efficient. Having the table in place also makes editing the article quite stressful, due to its enormity. I highly recommend removing the section. LiamNolan24 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the Season 1 talk page and read what I have suggested for the ratings under the ratings section. Thanks.Liam74656 (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply on season 1 talk page. 17:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Episode summaries

The episode summaries are meant as a very short, general description of its synopsis. Grant it, this synopsis can/should be longer when there are no individual episode articles. When there are separate articles they should be left very short (and according to, if at all possible, the network's press release lead), as on the article. Please discuss. Cheers, LiamNolan24 (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is all incorrect information. Episode summaries at season articles should be about four lines each, more when the show's plot is complicated (such as OUAT). Please see Parks and Recreation (season 1) and Glee (season 1), two featured lists for good examples. Also, "this synopsis can/should be longer when there are no individual episode articles" is totally incorrect. For an article to be comprehensive, readers should not have to navigate to a different article for a sufficient plot summary. Take Glee for example – every episode has an individual article, yet the seasonal article's plot summaries are still long enough to be comprehensive. Finally, "and according to, if at all possible, the network's press release lead" is absolutely a fallacy – we do not base Wikipedia plot summary length on the network's press release. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant that episode summaries should be based on the network's press release BEFORE that episode has aired. Also, your examples of other articles do not come into play here, we do not base every article on other articles. Each episode has a short, sufficient, efficient synopsis. LiamNolan24 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're wrong. Actually, yes, we do model articles off of featured ones. Featured content is the model for other articles. Please review any good or featured season article; the plot summaries are 4-6 lines. What we don't model articles off of is press releases completely unrelated to Wikipedia. You obviously have a lack of content guideline knowledge, which stems from your inexperience. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. 21:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Cut the sarcasm; it's not my opinion, it's the Wikipedia standard which you are obviously unaware of. First your ratings table rant, now this. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I do believe that we should have episode summaries on the season page, with it being around 4 to 5 lines. Just because the episode may have a page for the episode doesn't mean that it should have a one sentence summary. It's supposed to be an episode summary, having a one sentence summary doesn't tell us anything about the episode, it mearly shows one storyline, or only one part of the episode that happened. Furthurmore, we do base pages, on other pages, we do so to help make wikipedia a better place, and a more reliable source for people. Yes before the episode airs, we should either have a one sentence summary from the network press release, but then after the episode airs, we should add a longer summary. Tvlover96 (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You would be right, if it wasn't for entire episode synopses on the episode's article page. As long as the summaries cover the plot, in very general, non-detailed form, it doesn't matter how many "lines" it is. LiamNolan24 (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why after talking about this subject, you are now going back to shortening the episode summaries. Tvlover96 (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Liam, you continue to rant on about subjects I've already covered. Please reread everything I've said before writing back another ignorant response. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, Liam, please read WP:CON. You are proposing a change in the article's format, so the episode summaries remain as they were, until you can garner support for them to be shortened. Further, I recommend you read WP:3RR, because you're on the brinks of violating the rule. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

User:TRLIJC19 you are a child. You are also on the brink of violating WP:3RR, the street goes both ways. You are not being at all constructive or descent. I recommend you read WP:CIV. LiamNolan24 (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm 24, but thanks for the tangent! No, I am nowhere near breaking 3RR – let's take a look at the facts: You have made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours; if you revert again, you will have broken the rule, and will be in danger of a EW block. I, an experienced user, payed careful attention to 3RR, and have made only 1 revert in the past 24 hours; I would need to revert 3 more times today to violate the rule, and I do not intend on doing so. TwoThree users have explicitly opposed your unified view that episode summaries should be short, with rational, policy-based arguments. You continue to ignore every comment I make, and are imposing arguments unrelated to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Oh, and thanks for the civility link, but had I broken that policy, you'd be aware. Calling someone "a child" is actually a personal attack, so I suggest touching up on WP:NPA. Regards, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything TRLIJC19 has said. Creativity97 21:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That is now consensus against my point-of-view. LiamNolan24 (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The policy-based arguments make the consensus. Consensus is not a matter of "voting". TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I could not agree more with LiamNolan24, it is stupid to have two synopses. Period. 108.218.194.152 (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC) (This IP address has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of LiamNolan24; therefore, their opinion is not valid as it mimics that of LiamNolan24.)

Just noting that the above IP have been reported as a sock puppet. Regardless, it should be four lines, per WP:TVPLOT, a Wikipedia guideline that is apart of the Manual of Style (MOS). I agree with TRLIJC19. Liam, also stop your ridiculous personal attacks above. Regards, TBrandley 04:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Poster of Season 2

Can somebody add the poster of season 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfianke (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DVD/Blu-ray Cover

Does anyone else think we should add the cover of the season 2 dvd/bluray, since abc has released it? and with that change the color of the season's page to the color of the box?

Here is a link to the cover http://tvshowsondvd.com/news/Time-Season-2/17667 Tvlover96 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

DVD cover art

Since the DVD cover art was called into question, here is a picture of the cover art on the obviously reputable Amazon.com. Also, the colors are not too similar. On Wikipedia, we match the season episode list color to the DVD cover art, so there will be no exception here. There has been cases of similar colors (for example, see featured list List of Grey's Anatomy episodes), and to be honest, these two are not even similar. One is blue, and the other is purple. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, for uninvolved readers, these are the colors being called similar:

....

....

They're obviously two completely different colors. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

My question is who made the sanction that the colors must match the DVD cover art. For people that suffer from disabilities (like myself) it can be hard to distinguish like colors such as blue and purple, especially back-to-back seasons. I just wish it to be considered not changing the color from green. Thank you, LiamNolan24 (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It is the normality of episode articles; please review any episode/season list, including List of Grey's Anatomy episodes. The colors are purely decorative, so it does not matter if some people cannot differentiate them. You don't just pick a random green shade and use it; if the DVD's cover art was green, then green would be used. If the colors represented something internally important, then it would be different per WP:ACCESS. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

They represent something to me; it is how I find and differentiate between seasons. If it didn't matter wouldn't be making this effort to repeal it. Please consider changing this tedious rule Wikipedia. LiamNolan24 (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The color has to change. It makes it impossible for screen readers and other adaptive technology to read the text in the table, and it too bright to read around/through. This isn't advertising; it's an encyclopedia. There is no rule (since Wikipedia has none), policy or even common practice that DVD art governs the colorations used elsewhere in the article. That's just something some editors like to do because it cuts down on constant changes. But some commonsense has to be applied, and none has been here; the color used isn't even all that close to what's on the DVD cover, and there are other options available. --Drmargi (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The white text is completely visible; it does not affect screen readers. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. Screen readers are sensitive to surrounding color. The table and color generally are not 508 compliant. Moreover, it is excessively bright to sighted readers because it flares, and there's no defensible reason to select a color that bright versus a more muted one; it's not even close to what's on the DVD box. --Drmargi (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Compromise

Gentlemen, I've tagged you both for WP:3RR, since you are both there and how, and put up a compromise coloration in the article that draws from the poster's color palette without throwing screen readers off and making the table impossible readers with visual sensitivities. Now, let's leave it alone and talk about what works. --Drmargi (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've been here quite a while, and know how 3RR works; I was careful not to break it. I like the new color. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a doubt in my mind you both know 3RR, but you were on the brink, and the warning was in order, as well as less draconian than using a notice board. Glad you're good with the color; I tried quite a few before settling on it. --Drmargi (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but this really doesn't help me at all (see above comments). As a matter of fact it is worse now. The color difference is hardly there at all, I thought it was the same as season one. Could we please get away from this blue/purple hue. LiamNolan24 (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

But why? Why is a color difference needed, and between what and what? And why the specific objection to blue/purple? Given the lack of explanation, this sounds more personal and/or esthetic than of benefit to the encyclopedia. --Drmargi (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but the DVD cover art will not be released util the season has finished airing, thats the way it usually is for other shows. Also for the image, on other season pages the season poster is put there and then the DVD cover is placed there when it is releases. Also the light purple is a really bad colour here, I am findng it hard to look at the screen its hard on my eyes. I think the darker purple might be a better option or revert back to the green that was already there. Liam74656 (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The DVD cover art was already released on Amazon.com. The light purple is neutral, and supports screen readers. It doesn't matter if it's hard on your eyes, because that's a personal thing. The green is just ridiculous as it has no resemblance to the cover art, and the current colors has encyclopedic benefit. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

TRL, I don't know that you know it's the final DVD cover art, but it is promotional art of some sort that's appropriately added to the article. Liam74656, the point of aligning the art and the coloration is to prevent arbitrary color changes. Aesthetically, it's never going to be perfect. But it's a suitable color, versus the screaming bright purple originally there, through which the black print is easily read and which no longer has the problem with flare. If you or LiamNolan24 has an objection that is based in color vision or visual impairment, it could be addressed, but given blue and purple are used widely in Wikipedia, I'm not sure "it's hard on my eyes" is going to be seen as a reasonable objection, particularly given the color adjustment capabilities on most computers designed for people with visual impairments and who are color-blind. --Drmargi (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The colors used for individual seasons is how I identify/differentiate between them. The colors used per season (especially when the seasons are back to back) should be drastically different from the season before it (as seen over at List of Glee episodes). It makes viewing so much easier on people like me. LiamNolan24 (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for you to identify them by color; you are capable of identifying them by reading if it says "season 1" or "season 2". TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my response: that's what the text is for. The color is simply an additional organizer, and individual editor aesthetics aren't enough reason to make a change. --Drmargi (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Being disabled, colors are easier to intake than text, if not less stressful. It is something I am asking to change, again I'm just one person, but I don't see why it so imperative. Why can't we stay with the green color it was previously or perhaps the gold from the poster. Anything that's not remotely similar to blue. Also, nobody addressed what's wrong with the way List of Glee episodes is organized color wise, it works superbly. LiamNolan24 (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with the background color chosen, given its use on the season DVD, but if you're going to use something that looks dark enough that black type doesn't show up well on it, then the color of the type should be reversed to white: this applies here in the infobox and table. Contrast between type and background is important, and this particular purple is simply not good with black. I notice that WP:ACCESS is mentioned above: good contrast is an accessibility hallmark, and WP:COLOR should be taken into account. The other alternative is to go with a much lighter purple from the DVD's background above the "Once": that would contrast quite well with both black type and the first-season background color. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

LN24, most of this site is text-based, so we are not going to make exceptions just so you can identify seasons easier. You are saying that you need the colors to differentiate them on the episode list page; seriously, #1 there is text and #2 they are in order (ie. S1, S2). As for List of Glee episodes, I don't know what you're referring to, because the S1 and S2 colors are quite similar. Also, List of Glee episodes utilized the DVD cover arts to choose the colors, so no, we're not going to use those colors. BM, I thought white text looked better on the color as well, but Drmargi said it added a hard-to-read flare. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It was the bright purple that created the flare with white text; I think the black is more contrasty with this purple, but it may be monitor variations in color. White v. black isn't a hill I want to die on; if others feel the white is better, it can be changed, but it's generally harder to read than black text. --Drmargi (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Colour contrast problems

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)