Talk:The Good Place

Confusion

"After she is struck and killed by a tractor-trailer carrying erectile dysfunction products..." Who's she? Kevon kevono (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 09:07 (PDT)

The sentence goes on with "woman named Eleanor wakes up to discover she has entered the afterlife. " Always read full sentences before asking useless questions.....--Robberey1705 (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

hiatus in the broadcast

Why is there a two-month (Nov-Dec 2016) hiatus in the broadcast schedule? Have all 13 episodes already been filmed? Will this show continue, despite the decline in viewership?-71.174.187.182 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ever heared something about the thanksgiving/christmas-break in.the US, where nearly all TV series on the big 5 networks take a break of about 2 months (mid november to about end of january)? Thats what it is here, too. Btw: this is no forum for asking questions about TV series.--Robberey1705 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

they do nothing of the sort. they usually go off for 3-4 weeks.

9 weeks (2 months) is exceptional, and ruined the whole show! i was so into this, but by the time it came back, i was like...MEH.

is a season 2 really in the works? i think they've lost too many people with that weird hiatus. 209.172.23.178 (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Season 2 Premiere is an hourlong one-episode show

Hello, everyone! Every source I have seen on "The Good Place" relating to the season two premiere has said that the first episode will air on September 20 as an hour-long episode. Unless I am misunderstanding the sources I read, it is one episode that lasts twice as long, not two different episodes. How can we fix this? --Jgstokes (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I am confused on the somewhat ambiguous nature of this matter. It appears from some cited sources, like the Futon Critic, that the premiere of this show's second season will indeed constitute two episodes. But then, on the other hand, I have read some other sources that talk about how the hour-long premiere of this show will just be one complete episode, meaning that the entire hour will be devoted to Chapter 1, and that there will be 12 other episodes (aka chapters) of this show. I don't know what to believe about this. Do any of you have any thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Development

Here are some sources for expanding the shows development: Mike Schur on How Following the Rules Led Him to The Good Place and ‘The Good Place’ Boss Mike Schur: The Model in My Head is ‘Lost’. Anyone should feel free to use them in the article or I'll add them when I have a chance at some later date. Knope7 (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Spoilers

There's a difference between spoilers and plain old bad writing. The most obvious example is telling things out of order. There are many details that should be included in this article so that someone who has never watched the show might be able to fully describe it but those details should be presented in chronological order (more or less). That way readers should have the choice to get an overview of season 1 without learing about season 2 unless they choose to read the full page. -- 109.79.156.34 (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that you may have concerns about some of the content on this page. What is a problem for me is that, as with many other users editing Wikipedia with an IP address instead of an official account, there has been a tendency to for such concerns to take the form of generalities rather than speaking of specific concerns. What in particular do you have a problem with, and what in particular are you suggesting should be done to address this issue? I do not see anything that reflects whatever you are concerned about. And in terms of general application of the spoiler policy, such spoilers are permissible to add as they occur in the series. Part of creating good Wikipedia articles include providing important plot details as they are presented. The season 2 information could be simplified and condensed, but the details in the lede are also clearly outlined on the page where the episodes of this show are described. Without knowing specifically what concerns you, these are just some initial thoughts. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought I replied to this but I guess I only previewed my comment and never submitted it.

The character descriptions were describing things like "Vicky" a character we only know about in Season 2, and several other descriptions were front loaded with season 2 information, and that's just bad writing structure. I made changes to the character descriptions so that character descriptions were more or less chronological and revealed information in roughly the order the show gives it to us. It is fairly basic good writing to present things in order and I'm disappointed it was added in the first place and more disappointed that it survived in the article for so long. The character descriptions still need more work.

The article does a decent job otherwise, and it is good that the twist isn't explained the intro (and I've seen the edit history, in earlier versions it was explained badly in way too much detail right in the intro). -- 109.79.179.4 (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't mean to be disagreeable, but you're wrong. Vicki was introduced in Season 1. She played the role of the "Real Eleanor" who had been sent to The Bad Place by mistake because she and "Fake Eleanor" had died in the same accident and had the same name. When Michael's ruse was exposed, "Real Eleanor" was unmasked in her actual role as the demon Vicki. So, at least in that regard, the "problem" you had with the content was because, for whatever reason, you failed to notice that the Vicki of this season was the "Real Eleanor: of last season. As for your general comment that "the character descriptions need more work", again, you are being more general than specific. I think you will find that many of the "problems" you see in this article will be as easily dealt with as this one was. But I don't mean to sound as if I know that everything you see as a problem might not be. What else concerns you? Hope you take no offense at this. Just trying to be helpful. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

She wasn't introduced as Vicky, she was introduced as Elanor. She wasn't revealed as Vicky until later. Her character description should first say that she was Elanor, then after that explain that it was a disguise and she was actually someone else. All the information is included but it should be presented in the same order it was revealed to audiences.

My point would be the same if Michael or Shawn or another character turned out later to have another name of some sort. Sure mention it, but don't front load it in the character description.

Frankly I don't think the character descriptions should be anything more than an introduction (no need for any season 2 details at all) but I'm showing a good faith effort to keep what others have added. -- 109.79.168.244 (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't as big a deal as explaining who Kaiser Soze is in the character description but you wouldn't do that either unless you were being a troll and the same logic applies. The rules are there so information is not excluded, but they aren't a license to include it any place or in any order whatsoever either. -- 109.79.168.244 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Also WP:TVCAST which says: Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary -- 109.79.168.244 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my comments that there is too much plot in the cast section already and that information about season 2 should (if included at in the cast section at all) should definitely not be front loaded, but the anonymous editor is at it again and not making any effort to discuss or explain the edits, not even an edit summary. -- 109.76.241.81 (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing this show as philosophical

In order to avoid a potential edit war on this subject, and in response to the gracious invitation to discuss this here, this article points to the valid categorization of this show as based on philosophy. This page itself, which describes how the show represents the philosophical notion that "hell is other people", should be enough evidence. If more evidence is needed, I can look for it. But that should do for starters. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If it had been a Category at the bottom of the page I wouldn't have challenged it at all, in that case I'm fine with tagging any genre that broadly applies but we are specifically talking about a Genre added to the Infobox and I think more restraint is recommended. There is a tendency among editors to add more and more genres to the Infobox but it was my understanding (IIRC) that only the main genres were intended to be included in the Infobox (Template:Infobox_television says that genres should be reliably sourced). I'm not even convinced the genre Fantasy should be listed in the Infobox, I think it is more likely to confuse than to inform readers to label this show as Fantasy. I understand Fantasy is not limited to dragons and mythology but the fantastical elements of this show are more related to metaphysics (and philosophical fiction). Anyone want to argue this genre is necessary? (Do any of the references already included in the article actually call this anything other than a Comedy series?)

Ideally I would have the Infobox say this is a comedy.

Add many page categories if you want, it seems to be fine if those are not very specific at all. -- 109.76.143.59 (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who has watched the show knows that it has quite a lot to do with popular philosophical concepts, and it is the philosophical conundrums each of the characters face that results in the comedic events of each episode. So, far from being "not specific at all", this category is perfectly relevant. And I get not wanting to clog the infobox. But if a category fits, it should be included, and this category is very relevant to what happens on the show every week. But it is obvious that you are not in favor of it being added, and until a consensus can be formed one way or the other, I won't add it. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

If Joeyconnick agrees with you or there is anything to indicate a small local consensus I'm not going to belabor the point, I just didn't think adding more genres was a good idea. After having thought about it I do think Fantasy should be removed from the Infobox, irrespective of any other genres being added or removed. -- 109.79.184.125 (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Joeyconnick definitely does not agree LOL. I don't think one source (and a blog, at that) that implies a genre is sufficient to add that to the overall infobox for the show. I agree with 109.79.184.125 in that I'm fine with it having a similar category added but no, not in the infobox without significant coverage of it as philosophical fiction. Its obvious genre is comedy; I don't care either way about the fantasy label... I see arguments for or against and will not object either way on that one. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed Fantasy from the Infobox genre parameter, and added a note emphasising that genres should be reliably sourced.

I'm going to try not to think about the dubious Categories this article has been filed under (a few flashbacks and someone claims it is "set in Jersey"? Damn, was trying not to think about it. Nevermind.) -- 109.79.184.125 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to remove fantasy from the infobox, but leave fantasy in the categories and more importantly, the lede ("...is an American fantasy comedy"); it either stays or gets removed completely. I believe fantasy should stay, I'm sure I can dig up some reliable sources for it later. I've removed the "set in New Jersey" category, it doesn't really seem appropriate. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to think about categories too much because Wikipedia seems to have many articles with categories that it is very difficult to know for sure if they actually apply, and it is a rabbit hole I don't want to fall into. (I don't think is applicable. Janet is an artificial being but from what we've seen so far it seems inelegant to use the category although I suppose broadly speaking Janet is sort of a robot. That's just this article and even after watching 20 episodes I have my doubts about the categories, so I wont bother telling you about the article that made me not want to even think about Categories.)

The difference between "Fantasy" and has some fantastical elements is what makes me think fantasy does not belong as the genre. From my admittedly brief search the few mentions of this being Fantasy seem to be from early in season 1 before people had a clear idea what the show was going to be about. (I don't think this show is a sitcom, I don't think it is a comedy-drama either, but I think I saw reviews which did think that.) But if you can come up with sources that seem reliable enough ... give it a shot. -- 109.79.184.125 (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)