This is Reverb Frost, a community councillor and a global discussion moderator.
With season 8 of suits going on, it will be really great to have a discussion board on this wiki. If you need any help with moderating it ,then I am happy to help.
Well the discussions have been enabled. I asked the staff and they out of courtesy started the discussions. Maybe some technical difficulties. Anyways you can see that "discuss" at the top of the navigation bar, that is discussion board.
I'm trying to make sense of the timeline of the show, and i'm curious about this statement re: The Other Time (3x06) which I believe was a revision of yours: 'While this [Mike and Trevor being underage] may seemingly mean that the present day is actually 2012, the timeline presented thus far from season one to present establishes that that this episode, at the very earliest, is taking place in January 2013.' What exactly establishes it?
I can't remember off the top of my head now, but if you look at the trivia for the episodes preceding it, you might see stuff like "this episode is revealed to take place 9 months after _____". There was an episode where Harvey mentioned a 2012 miniseries on TV, and then after that there are episodes where characters state that "7 months passed", "It's been 9 months since" something that had happened earlier in the season. From what I remember, it was mid 2012 and then prior to "The Other Time", there was a certain number of months had passed, placing it in 2013.
There's one thing I never really got, since I'm not from US and I'm not entirely familiar with the academic system. In 3x06, Trevor says to Mike 'you got into Harvard', and I always assumed he meant Harvard Law School, thus conferming that the flashback was set in 2003 (last year of college, he turns 22, he receive the admission to law school). Then someone suggested that when Mike replies 'they accepted my transfer?' he may instead refer to being transferred from one college (the one he was in) to another (Harvard). Now I don't know if that is possible, or if it makes any sense to do it, but this, along with the underage drinking reference, made me question if it was indeed 2002 and not 2003 (so Mike would be 20, going to turn 21 soon, and start his last year of college at Harvard). What do you think about it?
I found it to be not needed in the infobox, so I had it removed. It's sort of okay for people like Anita Gibbs, who has what, 9? But then there are characters who'd have 27 as an ep count on their infoboxes, or 99 for Harvey, Mike, etc. I realized the ep count doesn't need to be in the infobox, so I took it out.
Because I deemed it as such; I'm not a fan of the ep count in the infoboxes, with the number approaching 100 for people like Mike, Harvey, Louis, etc. 12+ for Robert Zane, Katrina Bennett, etc. .
For pages like Harvey and Mike, if you add the appearances in the article, you'd be listing like every episode. if you look at Anita's page, there's a list of every episode she appeared in. I prefer that format for minor/recurring characters, where each episode they appeared in is listed in the article itself. Therefore rendering the ep count in the infobox redundant anyways.
"going to". You should have added it in the first place. I've seen pages before where it gets created and then no infobox or other additional info ever comes, and the previous admins just deleted them or had to add the stuff in themselves. If it's a major character, we'll add it in regardless, even though it should be the page creator's responsibility. If it's a minor one-off character, especially one who's mentioned but never seen (with the exception of Norma), it falls squarely on page creator to have that done first. Otherwise it's just stub.
Because I seem to remember Jessica saying that she lost sight of what it meant to be a lawyer and how she didn't want to merge with Robert Zane because it would mean she would no longer be name partner, and how she worked too hard to get where she is to settle for less.
And now that she's in Chicago, are we supposed to automatically believe that she's a name partner at some unknown law firm? Why would they make her name partner when she tesitifed during a trial that she knew Mike Ross was a fraud and kept him anyways? Sure, the admission warrants disbarment in NY and she's in Chicago, but a disbarment is still a disbarment. Would a Chicago law firm make a woman who is disbarred in one state and kept a fraud on payroll a name partner? Not to mention... again, she said she lost sight of what it meant to be a lawyer and wanted to step down. Remember?
That's why I kept asking where the lawyer statement was made. But the edits kept being readded, so the page was locked to prevent edit war.
I didn't really pay attention to the part where you were asking where the lawyer statment was made, I'm sorry about that, but yeah the producers confirmed she is still a lawyer, they said her spinoff will be a legal one, besides where should she be working now? In the statue you still see a big office, which is probably owned/rented/used by a Law Firm, and even though everyone knows Harvey was a fraud they still have clients, so that explains why someone hired her, because she's still a great lawyer, or she could have opened her own firm, to help people, which is, IIRC is why she wanted to become a lawyer. As far as I'm concerned, the article should say that is a Lawyer in Chicago and formerly a Lawyer in New York, because it's ambigous, or maybe a "Lawyer (formerly?)" with a question mark.
She's getting a spinoff? I know it was discussed, but has it been officially green-lit?
Also, yes, I saw the office, but it could be anything - doesn't confirm law firm. I'm not gonna add (formerly?) with a question mark; that's speculation, which shouldn't be on articles.
Might I also add that Harvey is not a fraud, so it's plausible for him to have clients. As far as the world is concerned, Mike Ross is the fraud who faked his way to the firm and Jessica Pearson knew and kept him anyways. Certain people like Anita Gibbs and Sean Cahill know Harvey was in on it, but it's not something his clients would be privy to.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but you can have a bureaucrat demoted by staff if they are inactive for 1 year or more. The request is supposed to come from an admin (though I have seen staff do it once for someone who wasn't an admin on a wiki). I'm on about 75 Wikis (well they count any wiki with at least 1 edit), so I know the ins and outs of it.
The current main page is quite complex and all data is in that very page. It could be page less complex by creating templates for each section and adding only the templates to the main page. That way the main page could be edited by changing only the templates and leaving the main page as it is.
I do not want to mess with the main page, so I was wondering if I could create a dummy main page to test out the templates and if everything works out fine it could be moved to the actual main page?
Yeah, knock yourself out. I'm actually in the process of contacting a bureaucrat / fandom in order to grant you the ability to do things yourself at your own pace instead of you having to ask me. I feel like that way, it's more efficient in cleaning this all up.
On another note, instead of protecting individual pages, you could go to 'Admin' tab at the bottom of the page, then go to 'Wiki Features' and enable 'Require all contributors to log in'. Will be much easier :)
WolfOfWinterfell wrote: On another note, instead of protecting individual pages, you could go to 'Admin' tab at the bottom of the page, then go to 'Wiki Features' and enable 'Require all contributors to log in'. Will be much easier :)
I am protecting every page for a reason - it is to prevent people from renaming them. On another wikia, there were these 2 vandals who renamed everything and then renamed redirect pages and it was a hassle to repair that damage.
So just to be safe, when I come across an unprotected page, I protect it so that only admins and content moderators can rename them.