Talk:American Gods (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Redirecting

I'm redirecting this to American_Gods#Adaptation, as there just isn't enough here for a separate article at this time. I've managed to sum this up at the main article in about two paragraphs, which is all that is needed at this point in time. It's just WP:TOOSOON to branch off into another article at this point in time, especially since Gaiman hasn't even finished the script for the pilot episode yet. When/if it ever gets finished and gains more coverage we can see about re-creating the article, but the problem is that there's not enough to justify a separate article. While I'm aware that pilots (prospective, failed, or successful) that have never aired can become notable, it takes an awful lot of sustained coverage, which this pilot lacks. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Vulcan

I think that it's important that the article on the tv series makes it clear that Vulcan is both a new character and one created by the author of the book. Just being in the cast list doesn't convey that. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Season one color theme change

I propose changing the color theme of the first season to the pinkish/red used in the title and on the poster, from the drab, overly generic black being enforced now. Please let me hear your view. LLArrow (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Pink is not the main colour of either the title (it is indeed black, where any pink makes up < 7% of the title per extraction), or the primary poster for the series, (where #7c7a7a is the main colour per extraction). We are not here to make the site look pretty; "drab" and "overly generic" are terms which do not apply here. -- Alex^TW 02:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

We should strive to pick the color that suits the majority of visitors to the site. That's what I'm doing, finding out what that is. Thanks for your 2 cents Alex. LLArrow (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad to give my opinion based on the guidelines and supporting links. If we wanted the colour suited towards the majority of this article's page viewers, we would need about 4,800 opinions (half of the daily average per [1]). No other editor who has visited the article has felt the need to change the colour, so I believe that this particular goal has already been achieved. -- Alex^TW 02:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

We shall see. LLArrow (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The color should be of the logo, which is pinkish-red. Black is just the background color of that particular image. However, the opening credits have been released online here or if that doesn't work (might be U.S. only), try here. The lettering of the logo appears to be orange. But yeah, pink, red, or orange (not black). Take your pick. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The colour is typically (or always has been, I've noticed) the primary colour in the image that contains the logo, rather than the logo itself. For example: Daredevil (season 1) with a blue background/red logo, A Series of Unfortunate Events (TV series) with brown background/pale logo, Frequency with a dark red background/light logo. Now, I've gone ahead and uploaded the official title card after the opening title sequence was released, and for this, that colour is #22121B, per extraction. -- Alex^TW 21:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with Drove. LLArrow (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please provide opposing examples against what has been given. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 01:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

As stated, I support Drove's comment and stance. Nothing more to add other than that. Cheers B, LLArrow (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"Please provide opposing examples..." Sure, how about Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) which uses orange when the image is predominately black/dark grey; Game of Thrones (season 1) which uses teal when the image is predominately black/dark grey; Homeland (season 4) which uses red when the image is predominately black/dark grey. It's always best to use the most "striking" color, not some boring black/grey/brown unless the entire image is made up of those colors or is the "focus" (not just a background). Just my thoughts. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough; seems like there's an equal number of examples for either case. Perhaps a post at MOS:TV to determine the best course of action? The most prominent colour would then be #B02A22 (specifically, #A62620 when made AAA Compliant). -- Alex^TW 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how this tyrannical hold can still be in place. One editor has been trumped in Wikipedia logistics and opinion, yet they are the controlling party of the article, slamming their stamp of approval and disapproval at every turn. I hate to cry WP:OWN, because it's condemnation is constantly abused and misused around here, but I think it's worth considering in this case. Serious reform is in desperate need. Other editors please let your voice be heard. Don't stand by and not let your opinion be known. LLArrow (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

While it may be hard for you, do try to keep on topic. Got an issue with an editor? Take it to their talk page. Learn what WP:NPA means, and realize the "just cause". Here is a nice reminder for you. -- Alex^TW 01:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Try pulling regulation foul all you please, the fact is, the topic at hand is you. I'm not personally attacking a person, I'm attacking the actions, which are aplenty on this article. If I need a reminder, I'll ask for one. Thanks for your unbridled concern though. It's quite touching. LLArrow (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:EASTEREGG

It doesn't assuage my fears about WP:EASTEREGG to simply relink, for example, Mr. Wednesday to Odin but still having Odin linked in a prose description. It's still explicitly breaking EASTEREGG: the linked text gives no indication to what it is linked to and it is not transparent. Additionally, it's still unsourced that this is how it'll all shake out for the TV series. I'm sure it will, but at the moment, there's no source in the article justifying connecting Shadow Moon and Baldr. I don't care about spoilers, I'm concerned about it being unsourced. At this point, it's just better to unlink them all in the names, unless the character name matches the deity name, and leave the links in the prose description, and if there's no source to allow the name of the deity in the description, leave it out entirely until it is. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Broadcast

Hey @AlexTheWhovian:, something's wonky with this. I have Starz through a DirecTV cable package and watched American Gods at 6PM PST. From what I saw on Twitter, streamers got it an hour later. Was that a special deal for the pilot, maybe? Let's look into it. Thanks The Red Queen (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely sure; I was attempting to find a source that explicitly details the situation with the release, but I haven't been successful as of yet. From what I can see, episodes are being released on the Starz app early, though I'm not sure how early, and then being broadcast on the network at 9pm. -- Alex^TW 00:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Too many spoilers?

Is it just me, or are there far too many spoilers in the "Premise" and "Cast" sections? I came here to find out more about the actors, and now I know a couple of major spoilers for the show.  :-( 2602:306:CD0E:D410:213:72FF:FE32:59B5 (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This has been covered before. Per WP:SPOILER: Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers. -- Alex^TW 08:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this information may be wrong and based solely on the book. Our main source has this information about the "iteration", but it is not clear where it comes from. That article is based on the article from CBR.com, which also has this "iteration"-thing. That article is based on TVLine article, which doesn't have word "iteration", but explicitly states that this information is taken from the book (quote: "and here’s where it gets a little tricky — the character is later revealed in the book to be Norse god Loki, who also shows up in the form of Mr. World, leader of the New Gods"). This is pure speculation made by journalists and should be removed. M0d3M (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to have this discussion in two sections on the same talk page, seriously. Stick to one section. -- Alex^TW 10:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Let's stick to this section. This information about Mr.World=Loki=LowKey was made up by Kimberly Roots from TVLine (our article is based on the source which is based on that source) website and it is based on the book. M0d3M (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue it's inappropriate for a wiki page explicitly for the TV Series to include story elements from the novel, which have not yet appeared in the TV Series. The issue with the "spoilers" is that they are assumptions and not verified information, which means they're not appropriate for a Wiki page. Where a TV Series is concerned, nothing is a verified information until it appears in a legitimately aired episode of the show. The producers have stated (and already demonstrated with the first aired episode) that they intend to deviate from the novel. The Red Queen (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I state again per WP:SPOILER: Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers. Spoilers are not simply just "assumptions and not verified information", a spoiler is "a description of an important plot development in a television show, film, or book which if previously known may reduce surprise or suspense for a first-time viewer or reader." If it is verified in the article, which it is (regardless of where it came from; it is not up to us to determine how the journalists came about the content), then it is acceptable content that can be added into the article, as, again, "spoilers are no different from any other content". Yes, they intend to deviate from the novel - do you have a source stating that it will be this particular topic that they plan to deviate from, or are you just pulling out random quotes to support your unsourced claims without a basis? Cheers. -- Alex^TW 00:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You're being unnecessarily hostile and entirely ignoring my argument which is that the novel and the television series are distinct entities and should be treated as such. The Red Queen (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm putting my arguments across as I see them; take it as you will. They may be separate entities, but they are still related - after all, the television series is based on the book and its events. We have a source stating that the two characters are connected in the television series as they are in the book, so if you have a source that states that they will not be connected, then do present it. -- Alex^TW 02:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't disprove a negative. I can only assert that the show itself has not yet revealed Mr. World, much less any alternate identity he might possess. I would also point out that although Tucker's character appears multiple times in the pilot, his evocative name from the novel - Low-Key Lyesmith - is never used. Some cast members have freely spoken about their character's identities but Crispin Glover has made a point of saying little more than "We are the children." In this case, I think we should err on the side of caution and rely only on the legitimately televised material. The Red Queen (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So, you would remove all listings of character names that have not been spoken in the show yet? All the characters who ave yet to appear in future episodes? The real identities of the deity characters? That is not the spirit of Wikipedia, we list the information that can be added with reliable source, not just that which has appeared in one singular episode. -- Alex^TW 04:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Don't hyberbolize.The Red Queen (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The end credits of the first episode literally say "Guest starring Jonathan Tucker as 'Low Key' Lyesmith". There's no ambiguity here. —Flax5 16:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You can't just take information out of context and put it in the article as a fact. It is important to read the source and understand what the author meant. It is very clear that these journalists are just speculating. The only confirmed information is that Glover plays Mr. World and Tucker plays Low-Key. The journalists just express their surprise, because in the book Mr. World and Low-Key is the same character. But we can't say that it is a fact. We don't have sources for it yet. M0d3M (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I repeat: If it is verified in the article, which it is (regardless of where it came from; it is not up to us to determine how the journalists came about the content), then it is acceptable content that can be added into the article. I feel that this the reasons given are just a basis to remove the content because it spoils the show. -- Alex^TW 09:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not talking about spoilers. It is not a spoiler. This speculation is not more reliable than any other fan-theory and hypothesis. And in our article it can be represented as a hypothesis and not as a fact. It is clear from the sources that this information is just a hypothesis. But for some reason this part was lost in our article and therefore the information was misleading. M0d3M (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That is why the content is put in quotes, to show that it is indeed the view of a reliable source. -- Alex^TW 09:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Publication is just one aspect of Reliability, not the sum total of it. Merely having an article to link to does not wholly meet the requirements. Wiki editors are obligated to consider the Sources and the context in which the information is presented. When editors disagree on something, the article must present both sides of the argument neutrally. The burden of equal and neutral presentation cannot be met here, because the television show has aired exactly one episode. The issue with the "spoilers" is that they are only Speculation at this point in time, and for this reasion should not be included on the TV Series' page. The Red Queen (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources about the tv show, yes. But not if its about the books. And not if it's speculation. Or even hypothesis, this is an encyclopedia. No crystal ball, remember? Doug Weller talk 19:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's make this clear, shall we? If the book says that '1' follows '2' in the novel, but the series hasn't mentioned '2' yet, we don't get to take that leap. The sources we use are those explicitly related to the series itself, and not to the books, no matter how effing obvious the connection seems to the editor. No source, no statement. It is that fucking easy, really.

And as for the person concerned with spoilers appearing in the cast section, when all they wanted was to learn about the cast, they should have stuck to the infobox, which lists all the cast. So long as we aren't posting episode summaries ahead of broadcast, we're fine.
Lastly, I am finding some people adding into the summaries those who they Sherlock out who a character is, without reference. That needs to stop, pronto.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Spoiler in article

Linking Mr. World to the corresponding mythological figure is a major spoiler for the final part of the book - should that link really be contained in this article for the TV show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.22.8 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPOILER; we do not filter spoilers from Wikipedia articles. -- Alex^TW 02:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand that they are the same in he books but are we sure that this is also the case in the TV show? Would it not be best to keep them as separate characters unless it is revealed in the TV show that they are the same? --AndreasMWendt (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Then source it in the article, and it will be confirmed. For example: [2] "Low-Key will be “another iteration” of Mr. World", and [3] "Hollywood legend Crispin Glover playing Mr World (an interpretation of the Norse god Loki)". They're the same. -- Alex^TW 09:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion this information is unnecessary in "cast" section. It is more appropriate to place this information in the plot section. Moreover, the source actually doesn't say anything about it. Let's look at the quote: "Low-Key Lyesmith (aka, Loki, get it?), who is described for the show as “wiry and fast-talking, with an offbeat sense of humor.” Interesting, because in the novel, Mr. World was revealed to be Low-Key. Now, it seems, the show is at least starting off by presenting them as two completely different people, er, deities, but in this adaptation, Low-Key will be “another iteration” of Mr. World. Huh?". Where this thing about "another iteration" came from? If you follow the chain of sources from that page, you will find that this "iteration" thing appears somewhere in the middle and it is again a speculation based on the book. M0d3M (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The content is sourced and is therefore acceptable. Both quotes concerning the topic are included in the reference that uses the source: "Low-Key will be 'another iteration' of Mr. World" and "Hollywood legend Crispin Glover playing Mr World (an interpretation of the Norse god Loki)". Therefore, given that there is a relationship between the two characters, it is worthy for inclusion; removals of it are just an attempt to circumnavigate spoilers. How would you add it to the plot section when it hasn't been covered in the plot? Many details, including the real identities of the Gods, haven't been covered yet, and they are included here with reliable sources. -- Alex^TW 10:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's move our discussion to the "Too many spoilers?" section. Where my arguments are. M0d3M (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Smooth, how you want to move it to a different section where my arguments aren't, after this was the very first post that even you replied to, that we both first replied to. How very bad faith of you. -- Alex^TW 10:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Let's discuss it here. I don't care. I've read your arguments and I hope you've read mine. "The content is sourced and is therefore acceptable" is not a valid arguments here. These sources are not official. It doesn't come from the official (or unofficial) statements from the authors or from the show itself. It is just a speculation from some movie-journalists based on the book. I even pointed where exactly it was mentioned first. M0d3M (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. New to the article and I was very much on the lookout for Synthesis or other types of Original Research for this article. I do note that, of the two references used to connect Glover's character to Loki, the first one doesn't even contain the word Loki in it. The second one makes a literary wink-and-a-nod to the similarity in names (ie. Low-key and Loki). Neither are good enough to connect Glover's prison inmate to the Norse Trickster God.

Something similar happened over at the Gotham series article, with a character named Jerone Valeska. Everyone was so very goddamn sure that he was the Joker, looking at all the nuances of reviews. Turns out, he's not the Joker.
We don't deal in nuance. We deal in explicit fact. Find a reliable source that says, 'fuck yeah, he's Loki!' Then we're golden. Until then, its out.
On another topic, we don't block content due to the spoiler issue, but we do not post episode content before the episode is aired, due to copyright issues. This would include leaked episides, as happened with Doctor Who a year or so ago. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The first one is for Crispin Glover himself appearing in the series as the character; the second states both "Low-Key will be 'another iteration' of Mr. World", and "Hollywood legend Crispin Glover playing Mr World (an interpretation of the Norse god Loki)". Both of these quotes are actually included in the wiki-reference in the article. For an editor who mass-deletes unsourced information, you have a funny way of leaving the line completely unsourced. -- Alex^TW 04:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you are probably going to want to examine those sources a wee bit closer, Alex. Neither source names Low-Key as Loki. Maybe it will be the same as it is in the book; then again, maybe it won't. As with all conversions from books to series, show runners often take completely different avenues to tell their story that the source material did not (Game of Thrones is a perfect example of this, as is Gotham and The 100). Its really important that we stop Sherlocking what we think might be the intention of the showrunners. It is absolutely vital that we remember that:

• We are not in a hurry.
• We are not sources; we are editors.
• We are not the smartest people in the room. Ever.
• We cannot predict the future.

Keeping this constantly in mind helps us avoid synthesis and original research. Until we have a source that explicitly states that Loki is protrayed by Glover's character (or some other actor's character), we cannot Sherlock that connection.

Lastly, you're right; Ithe sources support Tucker's (and not Glover's) role as Kow-Key, and with Glover as Mr. World. Maybe instead of removing the sources, I could have just removed the unsourced info. As it was, I thought the refs were in support of the Loki connection, which of course, they were not. Maybe instead of making it all about mean ol' me, you could have just put back the refs without the Sherlocked Loki connection. Don't worry; I'll do that for you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've read them. So, on one hand, if one were to find a source that explicitly states that Low-Key is Loki, and then re-use the sources that were already used stating the relation between Mr. World and Low-Key, then the connection would be valid? However, on the other hand, given the sources that were being used, it would be completely valid to list the character as "Mr. World, the New God of globalization, the leader of the New Gods and interpretation of Low-Key", yes? That is explicitly defined in the source. I get all of your dot points, and consider me a skeptic, but I believe that the ultimate reason for editors removing the information is to remove the spoiler given by it. And posting episode content before it has aired, as you were concerned about before, is in relation to the plot summaries, per WP:TVPLOT and WP:COPYVIO, as the only way to summarize an episode before its release is by copying or paraphrasing official summaries. I also could have re-added the refs. But how was I to know that I wouldn't be re-reverted? I trust previous experiences. -- Alex^TW 08:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I would submit that they were removed correctly but for the wrong reasons. Spoilers arent a valid reason for removal, whereas lack of specificity in citation is. And I get yiur subsequent points. All's well that ends well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed the reference in the Cast List and my explanation is provided in the original thread below this. The Red Queen (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Being the original poster, I wanted it pulled because, in the case of movies and TV shows plot details aren't posted until it has aired. The show has not yet reached the point of that reveal and may not do so for another season, so shouldn't we make sure this article ONLY reflects the TV series? 68.226.110.141 (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Guy who Originally posted

Since when aren't "details aren't posted until it has aired"? If they can be reliably source, then they can be added. That refers to anything. -- Alex^TW 03:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)