Talk:Rick Grimes

Great page, would love to help

First off I love this, its about time this guy got a page, and with the show returning in July its bound to see more traffic. But shouldn't we beef up his history a bit more? http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Rick_Grimes That is the page from the "The Walking Dead Wiki", and its huge, maybe we should take some of that for this page?--76.116.228.175 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

He starts a relation ship with Jessie? Also an idea.

I deleted that line saying he started a relationship with the character, she kisses him yes, but he is clearly surprised by the fact, and then the issue ends of a cliff hanger. Until the next issue is released, I say that whole line is speculation. After all he is still seeing his wife via hallucination on the telephone.

I'd also like to suggest using this picture in the article. http://www.kirkmania.com/kirkblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ewtwdcover.jpgJokersflame (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Who added all this information?

Is there anyway to clean some of that up? This should only be about Rick, not be an overall plot summery.76.98.53.123 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll try to cut it down. Beatbots (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just revised the character bio using an older version, added citations and new information reflecting the last few issues. The article still needs some work, but it's definitely a start. Beatbots (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning that up Beatbots, me and another user contributed to that mess, my bad. I do agree, it was a basic plot summary within a section that should have centered more on the exploits of the article's subject. 1Matt20 02:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing! I actually thought it was a fantastic summary of the series as a whole, but just a little too long for a character bio. Maybe that info can be used for some pages on issue/story arc synopses? Beatbots (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it really fair to have Tony Moore's Rick compared to Charlie Adlard's Rick as the main image?

I mean as much as I love Tony's artwork he only has drawn the first 6 issues of TWD. Charlie has done issues 7-87 of TWD. I mean I know it's nitpicking, but wouldn't it be best to have Charlie's version somewhere on this page? I mean anywhere you can fit Charlie's version would satisfy me. Does anyone else agree or is willing to discuss this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokersflame (talk • contribs) 05:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Guess I'm alone in this?Jokersflame (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Joker, but this really isn't a big deal, encyclopedia wise. This would be more of a discussion if this case was such on The Walking Dead wikia. 1Matt20 23:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Adlard has been the artist for far longer than Tony Moore was, but one practical issue with using an Adlard image is that Moore drew most of the portrait-type images available online. Google images of "Rick Grimes comic" or "Rick Grimes" in Black and White. Most of the suitable images you find are Moore's drawings.Fatbrett2 (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Rick realizing Shane was right

When did this happen? Fatbrett2 (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe make a second character history for the TV show's Rick?

I'd say they're pretty different right about now.76.98.53.123 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A cool image that can be used.

http://0.tqn.com/d/comicbooks/1/0/Z/v/02_TWD_CCbanner.jpg

I've seen this image all over, it originally started as a banner for Season 2 at conventions, and later found it's way online. I don't think there's a copyright on it, but I'll leave that up to you guys who know much better than me about what is cool with Wikipedia.Jokersflame (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Especially when it comes to Wikipedia usage, one must always assume that a work is copyrighted unless you have evidence to the contrary such as a permissive license statement. See Copyright#Obtaining and enforcing copyright, third paragraph. Unless you know where it came from originally and who created it, and that they expressly licensed it for reuse, it's not acceptable as a "free image" by Wikipedia standards. See also the image use policy. —Darkwind (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Complaints

Hello, there is a User named Mocollo who has been replacing my pictures (with relatively useless ones) and has basically been shifting the article to summarizing the television character only. The second problem needs to be fixed especially, the comics are the basis of the character and where he's spent most of his fictional existence. Mocollo is starting to get on my nerves with these strange, needless picture replacements and his ignoring of the comics. 1Matt20 13:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Television bias

The editors on this page have done a great job compiling casting and characterization information; however, I feel that the article in general is extremely biased towards the TV series and almost entirely ignores the comic book. Although I realise the TV series has granted the character more mainstream recognition, he is originally (and currently) a comic book character and I think this needs more emphasis. Why is the main image of Andrew Lincoln? We don't use a picture of Robert Downey Jr in the Iron Man article; just because there is a recent popular adaptation doesn't mean it should take precedent over the characters' history and origins. I could understand using actor images for prose characters such as Harry Potter and Edward Cullen but comics are a visual medium so there's no shortage of alternate images.

The bulk of the article is also biased; the comics plot is nicely summarised but the TV section is over-detailed. 19 episodes don't require as much coverage as 90+ comic issues. I gave the lead a quick rewrite; it fired straight in by mentioning Andrew Lincoln when he didn't arrive until 7 years after the character's first appearance. It also rambled about the TV storyline (the CDC was in one episode...) and completely failed to mention zombies, which must have read as confusing for someone unfamilar with the series.

There's been a lot of good work put into this article, but can we please remember that this is primarily a comic book character with a recent TV adaptation?  Paul  730 03:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree! Fans of the television series who had little to no knowledge of the comics have invaded this page (as well as several other Walking Dead character pages) and bluntly ignored the comics! It has frustrated me because much comic book information I added to the article was removed for television info, not to mention the needless replacement of my two character photos by Mocollo, who is REALLY starting to get on my nerves.1Matt20 06:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The page is an outdated mess now though it seems.76.98.53.123 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Plot sections

With this edit, I reverted 81.99.78.157 and Drmies, but left Drmies's "overly detailed" tag in place. Note, however, that the Television series section already has an "overly detailed" tag. I then somewhat reverted myself, stating, "The IP added citations. So restoring that without all the subheadings." The reason that I reverted Drmies is because he removed the whole Television series section, stating, "poorly written, excessively detailed, unverified." While I agree with him that some parts of that section are poorly written and that the section is overly detailed, television plot summaries do not necessarily need citations; this is per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries. I also feel that WP:Preserve is the way to go on this matter. What I hate about having restored the IP's content is that the IP added too much comic book plot material. I will ask the IP to cut that material down. I have not read the comics, so I don't know what can be cut out without sacrificing the plot. I have watched the television series, however, and can help cut down that plot information. Flyer22 (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I alerted the IP here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Flyer, you're one of the good guys--thanks for the note. Here's the thing: this isn't a TV show, or an episode--in other words, can we have plot in the first place? My answer is "no": you can have (brief!) character description, but not plot. We already have that, in the no doubt looooong article on the show. Mind you--how long was this article? 90k or something like that? If indeed we do have plot, then MOS:PLOT should apply--and that suggests that (for a movie) we have between 400 and 700 words. I humbly submit that a character is not a movie, and shouldn't get as much space as a movie gets. Stick to description, and only sketch the general role in the plot. Ghost of Christmas Past isn't even a decent article yet it's better than this one. Ishmael (Moby-Dick) is a very decent article. Why do these articles on TV show characters all have to be so terrible? Drmies (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies (last time pinging you to this discussion via WP:Echo because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies). As you know, it's common for a comic book, television and/or film character article to have a plot summary section. And by "common," I'm including the fact that it's allowed by guidelines and is accepted in WP:Good and WP:Featured article reviews. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#Characters 2, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Role in "SHOW NAME", and the WP:Featured articles Jason Voorhees and Jack Sparrow. And for soap operas, see the WP:Featured article Pauline Fowler and the WP:Good article Charlie Buckton. For the Rick Grimes plot sections, we should be aiming for something similar regarding the aforementioned comic book, television and/or film character articles. A character often has more history than a film. Flyer22 (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I noted here, the IP has taken a stab at cutting down the plot section; however, it's the comic book content I'd advised the IP to cut, not the television series content. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

When you say "A character often has more history than a film" you're touching upon something that is incredibly problematic here: a character is fictional, a film is not--a film is an actual thing, that was made, which cost money, which was filmed somewhere, etc. Jack Sparrow has eleven paragraphs, and that's a lot, but that's for four full-length movies. Grimes actually has fewer paragraphs, but that's because someone forgot to insert paragraph breaks. And if you look closely you will see minutiae in the Grimes article, and broad sketches of plot development in Sparrow. I mean, "They head towards "Terminus" later, a sign promising sanctuary. In the episode "Us", while walking, Carl and Michonne do a dare where they walk on the tracks and the person who loses his/her balance doesn't get the chocolate bar they're having. Carl wins and eats the chocolate bar. He drops the wrapper on the tracks as they continue the walk. The chocolate bar wrapper is later found by the marauders Daryl was with on the way to Terminus". Seriously? This article is so bloated that it's unreadable. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, by stating "A character often has more history than a film," I don't see how I am "touching upon something that is incredibly problematic here." I know the difference between what is real and what isn't, and I know how to take care of plot summaries, which is why I pointed to the aforementioned guidelines. I follow those guidelines, and I've edited various Wikipedia character and film articles and helped get a good number of them to WP:Good or WP:Featured article status. That is how I know that there is often a lot more information to relay in the plot section of a fictional character article than there is to relay in the plot section of a film article, and that is what I meant by "[a] character often has more history than a film" (which, by the way, I only addressed because you suggested that plot sections for character articles should have the same word count rule as WP:Film plot); I considered clarifying that soon after I posted it, but I thought you would see what I meant, given how I pointed to the aforementioned guidelines and specifically stated, "For the Rick Grimes plot sections, we should be aiming for something similar regarding the aforementioned comic book, television and/or film character articles." I pointed to exemplary articles. Compare the plot summary of any WP:Good or WP:Featured film article, such as the 300 (film) and Inception articles, to the plot summary of the Jason Voorhees or Jack Sparrow article, and you will see that the film articles usually have significantly shorter plot sections than the character articles. And for daytime soap operas, their plot summaries are usually even longer because soap operas commonly air new episodes every day of the week, and the characters have often been on the series for decades. And yet the Charlie Buckton article's plot summary is fine, and so is the WP:Good article Sharon Newman (Sharon Newman has been a character on that show for decades). Nowhere did I state that I am pleased with the way that the Rick Grimes plot material is; what I did state is that we shouldn't hack away all of the television plot summary, that it's common for fictional character articles (including WP:Good and WP:Featured character articles) to have a plot summary section, and that we should base the Rick Grimes article plot material on the structure of one of the exemplary articles.

If you look at the Jack Sparrow article, you will see that there is a subsection briefly summarizing each of his film appearances. The Rick Grimes article should do similarly with regard to each of the seasons that Rick Grimes has been in. The IP has done more cutting, as seen here and here. I removed the "overly detailed" tag from the top of the article because of that, and because I will be helping out with shortening the television plot summary. It seems that the IP will be helping out with that as well. The IP is the one who removed the "overly detailed" tag from the television plot section; if you feel that it should be restored, I am fine with that. If you want the "overly detailed" tag added back to the top of the article because there are other parts of the article you have a problem with, I am fine with that. If it's just the plot sections that you have a problem with, though, I prefer that the tags be placed there. Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree Drmies. But why are the episode names being identified? Articles such as Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad have overviews of the season. Why can't TWD be the same? It would be better to do this.Flyer22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.78.157 (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You agree with Drmies about what? Do keep in mind what I've stated by pointing to exemplary articles. I'm fine with the episode names being removed from the plot section; someone started adding them to The Walking Dead character plot sections, and now it's done with all of the The Walking Dead character plot sections. And as for the Game of Thrones, do you mean the Game of Thrones article? Or do you mean its character articles? The show article and the character articles are, of course, different matters. Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, a character only has "real" history in terms of the development of the writing of the character. "Character history", exemplified in lengthy summarizing of plot, is completely fictional--that is the problematic part. That plot sections are usually shorter than character sections/articles--well, not in the areas I work in (literature etc.), and I think that is precisely the problem. Character descriptions should be shorter, esp. since it's typically all original research. I appreciate your efforts in the article; I'm not going to mess with this article since it's giving me a headache; instead, I'm focusing on Father Mapple, who is a certifiably important character with a demonstrable influence, who's been written about in reliable publications--monographs, journal articles, etc. It does not have 90k of content, though Father Mapple is by now 163 years old (plus his age in the book), and has appeared in a a couple of movies and a few TV shows as well, but what it has is, for the most part, relevant, to the point, and not excessive, as well as properly verified. I probably shouldn't be looking at these kinds of articles in the first place. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What I stated about "[a] character often ha[ving] more history than a film" has to do with plot summary information, however, as I've clarified above. Are you stating that you would prefer that character article plot summaries be described from a WP:Real world perspective? If so, MOS:PLOT mentions that as an option, and the Pauline Fowler article that I linked to above takes that approach (not just with its Early storylines section, but by beginning in that way with its Character development and impact section). I like approaching storyline sections in that way as well, but it takes a lot of work (adding that critical commentary and sourcing). What I am basically stating is that I am in agreement with you on having succinct plot summaries, as long as no valuable information is lost, but that I don't see anything wrong with having the type of plot sections that the Jason Voorhees and Jack Sparrow articles have. Film plot sections are usually WP:Inuniverse, and I don't see why character article plot sections shouldn't have the option of being like that as well. These character articles, going by their respective guidelines, are supposed to summarize the most important aspects of a character's plot history. Summarizing these matters commonly results in a longer plot section than summarizing the plot history of a film would. Maybe the guidelines will change in the future, and the character articles will have the even briefer summaries that you prefer, but, given the debates I've seen over such sections, I don't think that will happen any time soon. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources

Per WP:WPNOTRS, Wikipedia articles are user-generated content and are not considered to be reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles. Therefore, I have removed all Wikipedia articles cited as sources in the article. If these are relevant to the information being discussed, then they should added as simple Wikilinks and not inline citations. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the WP:WPNOTRS that marchjuly was talking about, and read the previous versions of the article. He was right in deleting the citations being pulled from other articles on Wikipedia and I stand by his actions, as we the contributors are the ones creating the work that was sourced here. It's a lot easier and cleaner just to either Wikilinks or let someone read further into what their speculation is by pursuing other venues on Wikipedia. The contrary would lead every article with little organisation and thus little reliability. Complete turing (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what Marchjuly deleted; he deleted it after he made the above post. I am fine with that deletion. Note, however, that like I stated in the #Plot sections discussion above, television plot summaries do not necessarily need citations; this is per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Complete turing (talk · contribs), how did you find this discussion section so soon after Marchjuly commented and removed the aforementioned material? I've never seen you at this article before unless you edited it as an IP. I'm asking because the quick response time, the fact that you hadn't edited Wikipedia since "02:53, 19 January 2015" before now, and the fact that this talk page is not highly active, makes me think that you are Marchjuly (not to mention the way you both linked "Wikilinks" above). Flyer22 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)