Talk:True Detective

Related Articles: Charlie Work?

I already posted this on Talk:True_Detective_(season_4), but it's probably more appropriate here. Why is the episode "Charlie Work" from the series It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia listed as a related page at the bottom? What part of this is related to that episode (or IASIP in general)?

- Ambndms (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Per the article for "Charlie Work", the IASIP episode was inspired by the long take from "Who Goes There". I don't think that makes it's worth having in the TD template just for that reason. It would make more sense just to include that information in the article for "Who Goes There" instead. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

reception was polarizing?

We do not report on IMDB's user grading which has repeatedly been shown to be easily manipulatable by internet trolls. And the second source discusses the final episode not the season as a whole, and it STILL states "excited some fans while making others outraged" which is NOT the same as a mixed audience reception: that sentence could be true even if, for example, the number of outraged fans numbered in the thousands while the number of excited ones number in the millions (or vice versa).

Removing undue emphasis from lead, especially since this is the article of the show as a whole and not the article on the specific "divisive" episode. CapnZapp (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Contradictory statements about the fourth season being the most-watched ones.

The Reception section currently states that the fourth season is the most-watched season, based on articles from Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter. It also states that it "averaged 12.7 million cross-platform viewers for the season, to become the most-watched season of the series". This doesn't add up at all. Based on the chart in that section and the viewer numbers in the Episodes section, the fourth season is the least-watched season. Even just looking at the average viewers for seasons 1 and 2 (which are also sourced), you can see that they surpass 12.7 million.

The US audience for the finale of the fourth season was apparently less than a million based on the Nielsen Media Research source, yet the body states that it was 3.2 million. Where those all international viewers then? In any case, this needs to be presented differently because right now, the information is contradictory. Cortador (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The viewership in the episode tables is just the linear, live ratings. While the 12.7 million viewership number is coming from cross-platform numbers (linear HBO, HBO Max). For comparison, in the Ratings subsection, it mentions season 1 had a gross audience viewership of over 11 million, but the episode table lists viewership in the 1-3 million range. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

In other words, we can't compare oranges to apples. But the more important point is something else: we shouldn't be making any comparisons at all - doing our own research (otherwise known as original research) is forbidden on Wikipedia. What we do instead is we find reliable sources and trust what they are saying. In other words, if Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter says the fourth season is the most-watched season, and we have no reason to believe otherwise (such as conflicting reports by yet other sources we also find reliable), then it is appropriate for our article to say the fourth season is the most-watched season.

That said, it can well be that a claim made by a reliable source has aged poorly. For instance, it probably happens that we say something that several years later turns out to no longer be true (as a hypothetical example: say viewership of season 2 shoots up for some reason and overtakes season 4). The problem we run into then is finding sources that actually bother to track and report on this, because again, on Wikipedia any claim made needs to be attributable to a reliable source. In other words, even if it isn't actually true (anymore), we would still report it when nobody has published any updates. For instance, in our hypothetical example we could find a source saying season 2 has now been watched "12.8 million". Since we cannot know whether the two numbers cover the same thing, we can't compare them, and thus, cannot use the new information to remove the older claim. At least not without a consensus-building discussion. And even then, it's likely the old claim would simply be removed (and not replaced with what Wikipedia calls "synthesis" - see WP:SYNTH - where us editors draw non-trivial conclusions of our own). Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

None of that changes that the information presented here is contradictory. If what the current version of the article calls average viewers per episode aren't the actual average viewers per episode, the two ables need to be labelled more clearly. Otherwise readers are going to wonder why the article states that the fourth season performed best right next to a table that (supposedly) shows it had the lowest amount of US viewers.

That said, removing information because it's contradictory isn't original research. We regularly assess which sources are the most reliable, and plenty of articles present information attributed precisely because of this. Cortador (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

You wrote This doesn't add up at all and the information is contradictory. If you aren't satisfied with Drovethrughosts' reply you will need to gain a consensus for these claims. Otherwise it is a you problem, not an us problem. So hold off for a week or more and let's see if your complaints gain any traction. CapnZapp (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The burden for inclusion of content is on those who wish to include it - you, not me. The information as presented here remains contradictory for readers, since it shows two different numbers for viewership. If you want to retain that content, you need to edit the article so it become clear what these numbers are actually supposed to mean. Cortador (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort. If you remove the current content without first gaining consensus I will revert you, Cortador. What you should instead do, is present clear arguments for why and how the current presentation is contradictory, and once people agree with you (or at least don't object), institute those changes. But you certainly didn't make it easier for yourself by going in so hard, claiming things like "This doesn't add up at all" which Drovethrughosts could easily disprove. Generally, I urge you to abandon your current confrontational style if you want to collaborate. Here at Wikipedia and everywhere else. CapnZapp (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

If you wish this content to be included further, you need to either modify it so it is coherent, or make another case for it to be included. I will also advise you that there is nothing "collaborative" about calling inconsistencies in an article a "you problem", and neither is a pre-emptive announcement of reversing edits that haven't even happened yet. Cortador (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to note, this is not exclusive to just this article, so I suggest instead of adding tags to List of True Detective episodes, you bring up your concerns on the talk pages for Template:Series overview and Template:Television ratings graph or more generally, at WP:TV. The ratings in the series overview table match the ones in the episode tables and the ratings graph. Viewership for those have always been linear broadcast, live viewership numbers. It why's in the ratings section, phrases like "gross audience", "cross platform" or mentioning streaming is done, because it's indicating a much larger, cumulative number. But I understand if you're looking for more clarification regarding the numbers in the episode tables, etc. but that should be done at a project-level, because it effects every TV series not just this one. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not interested in some project-wide changes. I'm interested in this article not presenting the reader with a section that states that the fourth season was the most-watched right new to the chart that suggests it was the least-watched season. Cortador (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Other people clearly manage to reconcile the two data points as not an apples to apples comparison, maybe you can too. Look. We can only work with what we have, and the current setup is likely the best, or at least least-worst, we can do. If articles about TV shows have settled on this pattern, there likely is no better way to convey this information. But if there is, I concur with Drove's advice: this discussion needs to be had at the project level. Consistency between various TV show articles is good. CapnZapp (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Do they? What do you base this on? Cortador (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If you are asking what I am basing Other people clearly manage to reconcile the two data points on, it's the simple fact this (and countless other tv related articles) use this format (or close enough). Please address the crux of the problem: the fact that only some of our data points are apples, while others are oranges. You are probably not the first editor to spot the incongruity. That we still present the information this way suggests it is the least worst way of doing things.

You won't get anywhere as long as you aren't coming up with constructive suggestions for how to solve this. Just editing the article to "not present" the current data is not something I believe you will gain any consensus on. CapnZapp (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

This article currently doesn't make it clear that some data points are what you call "apples", whereas others are not. As long as that is the case, the tag will stay. Since you support this version of the article, the onus is on you to address this. I've already explained this to you above: inclusion requires consensus, not exclusion. Cortador (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

You're talking to me as if I am new to this site, which normally itself is a newbie mistake. But we are both very well established users, and thus I am giving you the courtesy of ceasing with this onus nonsense: the first time I simply ignored you; since you repeat yourself I apparently need to point out the simple fact I'm happy with the article as-is. Since I am, I need to do nothing.

Now, you have started a talk discussion to effect a change. Please focus on making constructive suggestions if you must continue this talk section. Mere complaints and posturing will get you nowhere. So far the only responses you have got are ones that should tell you people here tolerate the article as it stands, and also try to help you by pointing to where you might constructively achieve something. CapnZapp (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If you believe this to be "onus nonsense" and felt the necessity to start this discussion my lecturing me on OR and SYNTH above (contrary how you act now), I ask you to take a less hostile stance here. You are the one talking about being constructive or collaborative, after all. Cortador (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If all you got is making it about me, how about we end this discussion? CapnZapp (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If you did not wish this discussion to be about editor behaviour, you should not have brought it up as an issue. Cortador (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

about the name of the show

As far as I can see, this topic has never been approached, even 12 years after the show started.

First off, if there *is* previous discussion I missed, please link me to it.

Now then, what are the origins of the name, why did Pizzolatto choose it, and is there any connection to the now-defunct magazine?

I found this: Even the title TRUE DETECTIVE is meant to be, of course, purposefully someone generic before you even get to the deeper indications. The word ‘true’ can also mean honorable and authentic and things like that. But all the previous incarnations of anything titled TRUE DETECTIVE were anthologies, right? Interview: Creator Nic Pizzolatto on the true grit of TRUE DETECTIVE

I'm sure there are more coverage of these issues. For such a well-developed article (it even has GA status) not even the shortest of mention of the "etymology" of the show's name seems like a strange omission. CapnZapp (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)