Talk:The Walking Dead season 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Episode Order[edit]

Moved episodes to last section, following the example of The Wire (season 1). Pejorative.majeure (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't necessarily follow the example of one article. I don't think there's a set guideline for the order of the sections. If you look at Fringe (season 2), which is a Good Article, the episodes section is actually first. I moved the episodes from the season 1 article back up, ahead of the reception and home media releases section because the order should be a mix of chronological and importance. And leaving the episode list at the bottom is a little odd given their importance. For season 2, it's fine, because there's not that many sections. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Redneck" ?[edit]

Is "redneck" a technical term? used to describe merle. i'd use it too, but not in encyclopedic writing, ya know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.189.6 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Redneck", although derogatory, has its own Wiki article and therefore is worthy of inclusion. Or would you prefer "racist" or "bigoted"? How about "cracker", "hillbilly" or "white trash"? No, "redneck" fits Merle perfectly. I'm a hillbilly and I approve this message. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV in reviews section[edit]

Other critics such as Scott Wampler of Collider.com recognised the mediocre first half of the season claiming that "there seemed to be a helluva lot of water-treading." However Wampler also distinguished the increased quality of the second half saying "The second-half of the season, on the other hand, seemed far more intense, more interesting, better written."[39]

The words 'recognised' and 'distinguished' imply a preexisting quality which was merely brought to light by said author, which is not correct when used in reference to subjective things such as what constitutes water-treading, and whether writing is better or more interesting to the author.

An example of a more appropriate wording would be as follows:

Other critics such as Scott Wampler of Collider.com described the first half of the season as mediocre, claiming that "there seemed to be a helluva lot of water-treading." However Wampler also wrote that "The second-half of the season, on the other hand, seemed far more intense, more interesting, better written."[39]

Blocky (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Walking Dead (season 2). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Walking_Dead_season_2&oldid=1216341626"