Talk:Obi-Wan Kenobi (miniseries)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ewan McGregor confirms Obi-Wan Kenobi has wrapped filming

In a new interview Ewan McGregor did with Variety during the Emmys, he confirmed Obi-Wan Kenobi has finished shooting: https://twitter.com/variety/status/1439785569458950147?s=21.

Hoping we can add this into the show’s wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.177.249 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming TV series

I added Upcoming in the short description as the TV series is not out yet but you removed it. Why? Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

THR confirms Obi-Wan Kenobi will hit Disney+ in May 2022

According to The Hollywood Reporter, their sources have corroborated that Obi-Wan Kenobi will arrive on Disney+ in May: https://view.email.hollywoodreporter.com/?qs=98e2457480f4e0c6d9119e065e6fce7dff95e91f66956fcdf989c64efa89dcd27ec0570158e50571dfdeed03d89c0029479523e99bf0e5509704028b9c3230c2e50a9cfaac03c350.

I'm hoping we can add this information into the show's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvelDisney20 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"Our own sourcing corroborates the rumor, but it's not official until it's official." I don't think that is good enough, they still call it a rumour. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Dubious milestone in feminism on the Star Wars front

Some editors seem to think that the recent addition about Natalie Holt being the "first woman to score a live-action Star Wars project", is something that needs a mention not only in the Music section but even in the lead. Based on my understanding of the relevant guideline, I am strongly of the opinion that this is not lead material. By far. This is far too specific an "achievement" to be lead material. I can understand how some people might want to push this as a matter of POV, but not as something that is objectively lead material. In short, I propose to keep "while Natalie Holt composed the rest of the score" in the lead, but remove ", making her the first woman to score a live-action Star Wars project" and keep that part in the Music section only. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It is reasonably significant and your only argument against having it seems to be that "some people" are "push[ing]" an agenda that you disagree with. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see score information being listed in very many leads of film and TV articles at all. As such, this probably deserves mention only if the first woman part is also mentioned. And for the record, I'm not in any way a "feminist". But in this case, it is significant, as Star Wars has nearly a 50-year history. BilCat (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it is genuinely significant CreecregofLife (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s pretty significant, but I don’t really have an opinion on whether it should be in the lead or not. I can see why it would be in there and why it wouldn’t. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 My argument is that "This is far too specific an "achievement" to be lead material". Please read more carefully next time, and also, please do not make assumptions regarding what agenda I agree or disagree with.

@BilCat A mere coincidence. What is significant about the fact that after 50 years a score was written by a women? And if a score were written by a black or hispanic person, would that be notable? Or of it were years? The answer IMHO is "no" on all accounts.

@CreecregofLife What in your opinion is the significance of this factoid? Debresser (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"What is significant about the fact that after 50 years a score was written by a women?" -- if that is your opinion then there is no point continuing the discussion as you clearly just disagree with everyone else. Unless a bunch of other people also share your opinion then I think we should leave it to the consensus so far which is to keep it in. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I see no explanation of the importance of that fact. None of the 3 editors above, have explained what is important, or even notable, about that. I have asked, but no reply. Wikipedia does not just count votes, but also looks for arguments. Debresser (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe because your argument is in bad faith in the first place CreecregofLife (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I seem to recall someone recently saying that "just because someone else mentions it doesn't make it important for our purposes". Is that not so? BD2412 T 01:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me? CreecregofLife (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to gauge what you consider to be evidence of significance, as I seem to recall that you have a pretty high standard for the inclusion of arguably trivial content in an article—much less, as the originator of this section notes, in the lede. BD2412 T 02:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Knock it off, you’re trying to play Gotcha as if one size fits all CreecregofLife (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking for consistency. BD2412 T 05:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No you’re not. You’re trying to prop up the importance of an unrelated coincidence as equivalent to a milestone in representation. CreecregofLife (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Editors do not seem to be able to explain what the significance of the addition is. Please reply asap, or I will remove this or have it removed as per standing policy that any challenged content that is not supported with at least some argument must go. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Congrats on your complete misinterpretation of policy. CreecregofLife (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

You guys there is no need to be having an argument like this. There is no need to be making smart aleck comments. Be civil about it. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that she is the first woman to compose for this 40+ year old franchise is obviously noteworthy, especially when music is such a prominent part of it. That is likely why the sources specifically highlighted this fact, which we are just reproducing here. If it was the first woman to do colour correction or something then that would not need to be in the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be contrarian here, but none of the other modern Star Wars TV properties seem to mention their composers in the lede at all (I haven't looked at pre-200o series). I'm not sure how prominent music can be said to be, given the lack of mention elsewhere, though I would concede that some of those articles are rather rudimentary. BD2412 T 05:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. Is the milestone presented here the only thing that justifies mentioning the composition in the lede? I'm not hostile to including it, I just want clarity on how important this is considered to be in the field. BD2412 T 05:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

You say you aren't trying to be contrarian but throughout this discussion you have been very unconstructive. I have been responding here assuming good faith but it seems like you are just trying to wind everyone up. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I have also said that I'm not hostile to including the milestone in the lede, although I do have doubts. Some editors might respond to an assertion that they were "just trying to wind everyone up" by becoming hostile to the underlying proposition. I'm not that editor. Comments like that may influence my perception of your judgment, but not of the underlying issue. BD2412 T 06:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What a very useful reply. Once again we are at a point in this discussion where it is going nowhere and there has been no compelling reason given for removing the information from the lead. It's getting time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

From a Google search, there are plenty of sources that view this as significant. How many would be needed to prove its significance? 10? 20? Which sources would be acceptable? We can list them all here if need be. (Which apparently it will.) BilCat (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I would want to see three or four pieces from reliable sources noting this. The Vanity Fair piece in the article is good for inclusion in the article, but I'd like to know that this is not an anomaly. BD2412 T 06:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, we already have this in the appropriate section. Why do we need it in the lead? @BilCat Nobody says that this is not sourced. The question is whether it is lead material.

@Adamstom97, what is so obvious about "The fact that she is the first woman to compose for this 40+ year old franchise is obviously noteworthy"? You simply repeated the statement, without adding any explanation as to its significance. I read that same statement, and see no significance, at least none that makes this lead material. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Debresser: How do you expect someone to explain the significance of the fact that she is the first woman to compose for this 40+ year old franchise without just saying that she is the first woman to compose for this 40+ year old franchise. Like is that not the significant part? What would make it significant to you? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

In this case basically nothing. This is simply a factoid, a coincidence. It could as well have been 0 or 5 or 25 or 50 years. And it is not as though music composed by women is inherently different form music composed by men. As I asked above, so now we will start mentioning the first time an African-American composes a music score, or a Hispanic-American? You see where I am going with this? This is simply not something important and a short mention in the music score section is all it warrants, and even that is only because sources decided to mention it, not because it really is something important. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@The sources view it as significant. That all we can go on, not what we personally believe. (Personally, I do agree with you. Editorially, I don't.) BilCat (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What's the problem with noting it? I don't see anything wrong with it being in the lead. It is pretty noteworthy, as other editors point out. Many sources emphasize her as being the first woman to score a SW project. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The question is not if this is noteworthy. The question is if this is lead material. See WP:LEAD that a lead should "summarize the most important points" from the article. I don't think that the fact that a woman composed the score is one the most important points of this article, and it should therefore not be in the lead. Debresser (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

So you want to remove her entirely from the lead. CreecregofLife (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I just saw this in passing. I think Debresser has a good point that it can be mentioned in the article, but shouldn't be mentioned in the lead as it does seem to be a record with overly narrow qualifications. I don't think the "first in 40+ years" argument stands up that well, since the Star Wars movies were all scored by the same person for most of that time. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Nah he said he doesn’t want the woman in the lead at all CreecregofLife (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not try to make me look bad by misrepresenting my point of view. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming the misunderstood you. You've said you didn't think the score should be in the lead, and perhaps they conflated that in their memory. BilCat (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"I don't think that the fact that a woman composed the score is one the most important points of this article, and it should therefore not be in the lead" is what they said. Sounded to me like they didn't want her to be there at all CreecregofLife (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we should at least say who composed the music in the lead. We do it with other articles. Also this kinda just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Could we possibly make this an RFC for additional opinions? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 00:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Must we? I think consensus is clearly established for inclusion in the lead already. BilCat (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: The Mandalorian does not mention the music in the lede of the main article, or in The Mandalorian (season 1), The Mandalorian (season 2), or The Mandalorian (season 3). The Book of Boba Fett does not mention the music in the lede, nor do Star Wars: The Bad Batch and Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series). Even Rogue One, only lists the musical score in passing among the things praised about the film, saying nothing about the composer. All that being said, I also agree with User:BilCat that this discussion currently evinces a consensus favoring inclusion of the line in the lede. BD2412 T 00:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah my memory must be off I could have sworn the composer was mentioned in the lead for The Book of Boba Fett my bad. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Add poster instead of logo

As per common practice here on the Wiki, should we change the cover art to the main poster instead of just the logo since it's confirmed to be a miniseries? Iamnoahflores (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The logo is also sufficient. We also should see what the actual title card is upon the release before making any changes as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Individual episode articles

Should we make individual episode articles?? I mean it's a miniseries but I feel that we have the chance to cover the information about the production for each episode. And honestly I see that possible considering that the show is being released weekly. I'm hopeful that will find enough coverage for this kind of articles. Ulises1126 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Drafts can be started and maybe eventually they'll be able to move to the mainspace. -- Zoo (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ulises1126 Sure, we just need enough production info and stuff to actually warrant it. Feel free to add any helpful information you can to the draft, once they are created. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Reception expansion

Hey everyone. I was working on adding more reviews to the Reception section, and I was in the middle of a major edit, which included fixing up the citations and adding in additional reviews, until for some weird reason, I had a power outage, thus ruining my edit. Can someone please add in the reviews, so I can CE them later?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-reviews/obi-wan-kenobi-tv-review-1235151337/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2022/05/27/obi-wan-kenobi-review-ewan-mcgregor-aces-star-wars-return/9956369002/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2022/05/27/obi-wan-kenobi-review-ewan-mcgregor-aces-star-wars-return/9956369002/ Dcdiehardfan (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Was there a different third source that you intended? Because USA Today is here twice CreecregofLife (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yea, I wanted to put the AV Club review here too, but accidentally posted USA Today twice, thanks for noting that Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Why does this page refer to Obi-Wan almost exclusively by his last name?

I changed most instances of "Kenobi" to "Obi-Wan", which was reverted by CreecregofLife. Why does this page almost exclusively call him by his last name when all prior appearances of the character called him by his first name and his first name is more commonly used in secondary sources? Unnamed anon (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

He has two different first names in the series, it is much easier and clearer to use his last name rather than changing between the two first names. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Leader Vladimir, Adamstom.97, CreecregofLife, and Unnamed anon: I suspect there's a good reason for using "Kenobi". The only one I saw in the history was this revert that made the case that [h]e goes by Obi-Wan, Ben, Kenobi, Obi-Wan Kenobi, etc. in the series. Easiest to stick with his surname. Any other reasons? —Locke Cole • t • c 08:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

His full name is also pretty commonly used (it's the title of the show!) and if we are referring to him by his full name then we actually only need to use that once and then stick to his surname the rest of the time. So that combined with the "Obi-Wan" vs. "Ben" thing makes it seem a lot simpler to just stick with "Kenobi" (which he also does get called in the show quite a bit as well). - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:SURNAME. —ADavidB 13:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Last part of that, though: "For fictional entities, use common names. For example, Jason, Luigi, and Wesker." So the question remains is "Kenobi" common enough to use? I say yes. It's not exactly an unknown last name to the general public. Hardly relatively obscure compared to say Jason Vorhees's last name (to use one of the other examples at the guideline). oknazevad (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

His last name isn't unknown, but secondary sources almost exclusively use his first name. Just googling "kenobi review", most reviews use his first name, even despite the google result using his last name. 4 examples: one, two, three, four. Unnamed anon (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that we would be adding unnecessary confusion by changing between "Obi-Wan" and "Ben" throughout the plot summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There would be no confusion because we only ever have to use one, and "Obi-Wan" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME, as you can clearly see in the reviews. Remember, Luke Skywalker usually only called the character "Ben", but summaries always use "Obi-Wan" regardless. Likewise, just because Reva only calls the character by his last name, does not mean this page should use it, inconsistent to every other page that mentions him mind you. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

“We should not use a character’s last name” is a weird argument to make CreecregofLife (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

"We should be inconsistent with other pages and secondary sources that mention the character because the antagonist calls him by his last name" is even more weird. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Claiming that we have to be consistent with secondary sources when secondary sources have their own MOS? CreecregofLife (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean, secondary sources are exactly how we decide on common names, so yes. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

And yet he goes by Ben during this time CreecregofLife (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

He went by Ben in A New Hope, plot summary for that movie still uses Obi-Wan because that's his common name in real life. Unnamed anon (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

When you actually look at the guidelines and examples, Wikipedia:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to this situation. This guideline would establish that his "common name" is Obi-Wan Kenobi, and then from there, MOS:SURNAME is a more appropriate application to list his name as Kenobi in subsequent uses. This is consistent with most articles/plot summaries discussing fictional characters. TNstingray (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Poster for infobox

As per the common practices here for miniseries, I think we should change the cover art to the poster. Who (dis)agrees? Iamnoahflores (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy that requires the poster be the main image of miniseries articles, so I tentatively oppose this. Not to mention, the series has potential to be renewed, and in addition to that, I have not seen a miniseries article actually use the poster. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I thought that the posters were only used for season articles, while the logo was for the main article of the series. -- Zoo (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I said common practice, not required, see Escape at Dannemora and The Stand (2020 miniseries). Also, considering marketing says its a miniseries, its unlikely it'll get renewed. Iamnoahflores (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess I should be more specific. I'm mostly referring to how it's been done with the Marvel and Star Wars Disney Plus series so far. They have all kept the logos on the main series article, but Mando and soon Loki use the season's main poster for separate season articles. -- Zoo (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

MOS:TVIMAGE suggests the intertitle logo or a poster. The logo is fine in my view. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iamnoahflores I reviewed MOS:TVIMAGE, either one is really fine. However, I think we should use the logo to keep with the consistency of other SW and Marvel D+ series articles, as Zoo noted. So, I'm okay with either one now to be honest, though I prefer the logo more. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

James Earl Jones and Respeecher

Though a lot of places speculate that Respeecher was used at least in part for James Earl Jones in the series, I have yet to see a source definitively say yes or no either way.

The currently-cited source says:

"Though Jones was confirmed in the credits for the episode, just like old times, it's possible that his voice was modulated with the help of cloning software. "Kenobi" also credited Respeecher — the same technology that reworked Mark Hamill's voice for "The Mandalorian" and "The Book of Boba Fett" — for voice conversion services in the episode."

That's still a speculative statement and nowhere currently directly attributes those services to any particular voice, so this in the article:

"the Respeecher voice modulation technology, first used for Mark Hamill's voice on The Mandalorian and The Book of Boba Fett, was used for Jones in the series."

Is either unverified information or is worded in such a way to seem that it's a confirmation that Respeecher was Vader's voice rather than Jones himself. giftheck (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Based on the credits of the series that's the conclusion people have made, but if it's not sourced it should go. Nemov (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Showrunner

Most articles i found referenced Deborah Chow as showrunner, and for Joby Harold there is just the vanity fair article that is used as source everywhere. Starwars.com wrote Chow would "helm the show", while referencing Joby Harold just as writer and executive producer. I'm not sure what to do with this information right now, besides the VF article most sources say Chow is the Showrunner, but i'm not familiar which ones are more credible then other Norschweden (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Theatrical release

There are reports that the show will exclusively release all 6 episodes theatrically in select Cineplex theaters. Should this be noted in the article if this is proven to be true?

https://comicbook.com/starwars/news/star-wars-obi-wan-kenobi-movie-theater-marathon-event-rumor/ https://collider.com/obi-wan-kenobi-screenings-canada-hayden-christensen-deborah-chow/ Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Chow's directing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Deborah Chow has not been 'praised' for her directing. She has come under heavy criticism, especially for her use of shaky cam.

Dishonest intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:6807:4600:E5B3:EACE:FF7D:CE9 (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that you can provide to back your claim up? -- Zoo (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Reviews say otherwise. Post some reviews that criticize Chow's direction. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I endorse these requests CreecregofLife (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cognitive dissonance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please forgive my ignorance as I'm not sure how to even address this. There is a huge difference between the article and what seems to be a general opinion of the movie. Not just from SW fans, but from viewers in general. When you read the article, it looks like it's a decent show, praised by some critics, maybe criticized a bit by others. Whereas if you ask anyone who saw it, you will get the answer similar to what you can read in IMDB in the User Reviews section. Basically, it's obvious the show is a huge disappointment.

I understand that it is WP and as such the article must be based on reliable sources, not on anybody's opinions, no matter how prevalent they are. But it really feels strange to come here, read the article and feel like I'm living in a different universe. Any advice as to how to solve this will be appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.222.189 (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Any advice as to how to solve this will be appreciated. Really the only way to add anything about the fan reaction would be if there was a reliable secondary source that discussed it. It's possible once the series is over there will be more focus in our sources to how viewers felt about the show overall instead of the early tilt towards just looking at viewer counts/media ratings. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

All I could find are "Star Wars fans are X about Obi-Wan Kenobi episode Y scene" articles. — SirDot (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we may see more coverage of fan reaction once the series has finished. I get what OP is talking about, but the sources don't support adding anything yet and that's really the only way we'd be able to justify anything. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Same thing happened with The Last Jedi. The article makes out that it was a good movie and near unanimously acclaimed, but in reality it was received quite negatively by a majority of the audience. The reason for this is that Wikipedia views "critics" as reliable sources and public opinion as unreliable. Consequently, this leaves Wikipedia with skewed information. Kiwichris (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

There's never been any reliably sourced data showing that the majority of people dislike the film. There's not one controlled survey that's ever showed that the majority of people disliked the film. However, every controlled sample and industry standard used to measure audience reception shows overwhelming majority people like The Last Jedi. So your real issue here is that Wikipedia doesn't cover opinion as fact. Nemov (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources don't support it because it does not exist. Misinformation from known false rumour mills do not warrant serious consideration beyond their acknowledgement as false and a part of an organized disinfo campaign. People who push false narratives are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree, it is frustrating that WP page only references critics ratings, and not average people ratings, ratings that paint very different picture about how recevied this TV show was. IMDB ratings not transparent, can be moderated by imdb staff and thus not representative, parsing ratings from individual user reviews at IMDB is as transparent as it gets. It is 7.2 agains 4.3 at this moment, decide for yourself which is which. Diimdeep (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not that public opinion is unreliable, it's that it's hard to accurately gauge. If you can find reliable sources that actually talk about any fan backlash to the show, we'll include it in the article (as we do in the Last Jedi). But that's simply not easy to do. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 11:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is especially true for TV series since all we really have are ratings of how many people watched. In regards to Star Wars, there's now an entire internet industry built around feeding outrage. Lucasfilm stands up for their actor getting harassed by racist trolls, so The usual suspects generate content talking about how "fans are being attacked." At this point Star Wars is such a large IP it's difficult to separate what's a real backlash from the an internet cultural phenomenon of outrage farm clicks. Create some videos, get people to vote bomb, and then major outlets to cover it. Is it real? Who can say but it's on the internet. Nemov (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually Nemov my point wasn't that Wikipedia doesn't cover opinion as fact, it is that it covers selective opinions as fact and not others. The opinions of "critics" are considered as reliable sources, opinions of anyone else are not. This leads to any mention of negative reactions to a movie like The Last Jedi to be conveniently omitted because they are purported to be "unreliable". If we aren't careful the same thing will happen to this article. Kiwichris (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "selective opinions" since it's just a summary of a well documented and reliable sourced consensus of critic opinion. Audience reception for film is documented through industry surveys which are also reliably sourced. For TV we have ratings. I guess I fail to understand what's being "conveniently omitted" other than internet hearsay. Nemov (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

We aren’t here to legitimize when an audience doesn’t get the films they watch CreecregofLife (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Separating real backlash from outrage-farming by the Fandom Menace should be, and very much is, very easy. Contrary to what the post-truth right loves to imply, objective relality exists. Authoritative reliable sources exist. The best metric to determine objective reality, is to consult reliable authoritative sources. Reliable authoritative sources present zero evidence of this supoposed "fan backlash" but plenty of evidence of a racist hate-campaign against actors of color. Ergo, the "fan backlash" is fake, and the racist harrassment is real. This is the objective reality. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

location

Can the article indicate filming locations, at least in general? All it says is "Los Angeles", but on location sets would be interesting to know about. Gah4 (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, we need reliable sources indicating what they are though. If you can find any, feel free to add them in the article. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

It's the Manhattan Beach studios where the Volume is set up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Added Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Moses Ingram

I added a subsection about all of the hate Ingram has received in the reception section. I mostly just copied the information from her page, but that will be rewritten/expanded in the coming days. I didn't know what to name the subsection, so I just went with Moses Ingram for now, but please change it if you have any better ideas. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: I think this was added previously, and the editor who removed it said it is better on Moses Ingram's page. — SirDot (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it got removed again. Let's try a consensus. — SirDot (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If there is something put here, it should probably be more succinct than on the actress’s page. Or the other way around. Honestly I’m not sure CreecregofLife (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

JDDJS, sorry... I didn't see you opened this up before reverting again. Since this is about Moses Ingram it should remain on her page. I'm following the precedent of Kelly Marie Tran and how it was handled in the The Last Jedi article. Maybe that was wrong? Anyway, that was my reasoning. Nemov (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That’s exactly where I went to look, but I didn’t do so in comparison to the presence on the TLJ page (I didn’t want to find it inundated with every gripe about the film the kind of people who harassed her would have wanted platformed). I agree that it should be precedent considered, but I don’t know how consistent it is with Jake or Ahmed, or even John and Daisy. CreecregofLife (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Disney and Ewan McGregor felt that it was necessary to respond in my opinion makes it notable that it should be included here. She is getting the hate for being on the TV show and is happening as the TV show is airing. This has also led to a lot of conversations about racism in the State Wars fandom, which would be beyond the scope of the actress article, but might be more relevant to briefly mention here. (Example here [1][2]) JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

She is the topic though and it seems WP:UNDUE since this is already mentioned on subject's page. There may be enough to support an article on Racism in Star Wars Fandom, but that's not the subject of this article. Nemov (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind what happens either way, I'll go with the flow and will be more than happy to help format the section. With this being said, I was wondering if we could add a note in the casting section about how Ingram was actually warned about racist harassment (prior to this controversy, obviously), so that it would read something like:

Ingram was reported to be playing a 'very important role' for the series,[ref] and accepted the role, despite Lucasfilm warning her about racist harassment.[ref]*

• Additional ref in case paywall blocks you

Do you guys think that this is separate issue is enough to warrant a mention in the article? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I have the same opinion on this, it's about Moses Ingram and should be mentioned in her career section (if it's not already). Nemov (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

KMT’s ordeal is in her personal life section CreecregofLife (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good then. So, we established the consensus that we will not address the controversy in this article, but on Ingram's page, correct? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yup, as far as I can tell CreecregofLife (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently I'm the outlier here, but I take the opposite view: I think it's WP:UNDUE within her article because it's not been a pattern in her career but rather just with this show. And given the response from Disney through their official channels (their official Star Wars pages on Facebook, etc), it seems relevant here as a subsection of Reception. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I see what you're saying here, but I am under the assumption that we are following precedent here and handling it in a similar manner to the way KMT's harassment was handled from TLJ, in that it was only noted in KMT's article. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall, but was Disney's response the same during that with all the posts by their official social media? I do recall all the online support from her peers/co-stars, but even KMT's article makes no mention of anything beyond that. I feel like this situation is different enough to justify noting it here since these same social media accounts are also used to promote this show. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not a pattern with her but rather it's a pattern with Star Wars, and more generally, anything coming out in the past couple of years that features women, people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community. This is the work of a well documented internet hate group that calls itself The Fandom Menace, a direct outgrowth of Comicsgate, with possible ties to russian trolls. But every time these people make headlines, Wikipedia appears to insist on downplaying the connections. Heck The Fandom Menace still redirects to "Cultural impact of Star Wars" - a relic of that one time members of the group tried to promote themselves on Wikipedia, but got foiled. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If you believe a subject should have its own article please feel free to create the article with reliable sources and submit it for review. The editors of Wikipedia aren't working in concert to downplay the connections. Nemov (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Locke Cole here - this is manifestly an issue connected with Moses Ingram's appearance in Obi-Wan Kenobi and deserves some mention. A sentence or two maximum, but definitely not WP:UNDUE as it is a significant aspect of the public reaction to this show. Cnbrb (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Then this needs to be applied to other Star Wars related articles where people like Kelly Marie Tran were also quite publicly harassed. This isn't a new phenomenon when it comes to Star Wars. This isn't unique to this series. All I ask is for the same standard to be applied. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely worth another look for KMT's situation, the biggest thing to remember is that there is no "precedent" here, and consensus can change. That being said, the facts of each incident/situation should be considered when making our decision. The "standard" that should be applied is relying upon our reliable sources and ensuring articles have a neutral point of view. There may be other guidelines/policies that help with making this decision as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

But isn’t KMT’s situation part of the precedent? Let alone John Boyega and the general harassment of Lloyd, Best and Christensen CreecregofLife (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Lloyd, Best and Christensen are not precedents, their case is completely different. People had legitimate gripes with the roles they played, and the harrassment they faced was misdirected anger that should've been aimed at the writing/directing.

The reason why the harassment of KMT, Boyega and Moses is completely different is because it's racially motivated, and has to do with the identity and immutable characteristics of the actors themselves. They are also astroturfed entirely by a dozen or so members of a well known alt right hate group. This is a well known and documented phenomenon that can be traced back to Gamergate, and does not come from within the Star Wars fandom. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's the same because people didn't like the role. If people actually really liked the role, if writers did better writing, people wouldn't even complain about the race. Just take a look at Billy Dee Williams, Samuel L. Jackson, Donnie Yen, Riz Ahmed, Forest Whitaker, Thandie Newton, Carl Weathers, Ming-Na Wen, Giancarlo Esposito, Paul Sun-Hyung Lee and Sung Kang. Nobody complains about them because they all act perfectly and were written better. I'm pretty sure nobody would be bullying Moses if writers wrote her better 80.91.24.208 (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not your argument is valid, this is a clear and complete contradiction of WP:NPOV (referring to IP 80.91.24.208). Either way, we must proceed with caution to ensure neutrality. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

What a bizarre and preposterous point to make. This is a discussion about real racist abuse and you seem to be justifying because you think "people didn't like the role." Who cares if they did or didn't like the role. It doesn't justify racist abuse. Nemov (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't justify abuse, I don't justify it either. Still, it is safe to say that if they had done a better job with the character no one would have said a word. It's just race is the easiest thing to go after in this case. Now prove me wrong on this 80.91.24.208 (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You haven’t proven it’s poor writing in the first place that caused this the. We’ve seen Trojan criticism like this before, using what looks like genuine criticism to justify the bigotry that was always the intent. Since you haven’t fulfilled your burden, your dismissiveness is still at hand. CreecregofLife (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I just mentioned all the people of color and different races that have been in Star Wars, and they are all pretty much popular or at least interesting. No racism or bigotry. Why? Cause work was done. It's just sad that Reva's character didn't get better characterization and as a result she got abused. Come on, don't pretend it's not true. I repeat, if writers had done a better job, she wouldn't have been racially abused. And I repeat again, racial abuse isn't justifiable even if the writing's bad. And what burden are you even talking about? What does this have to do with anything? 80.91.24.208 (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You made a claim, the burden of proof was on you to prove the motive behind the harassment of Ingram and what you came up with was “Look at all the POCs we didn’t harass!” If it was really the poor writing, what was so incredible about the writing of Bodhi Rook? CreecregofLife (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it was incredible about Bodhi. At least he wasn't boring, his actions weren't stupid or ridiculous. He was neither good nor bad. That's saying something. Maybe even writing about the Fifth Brother wasn't incredible either, but at least his actions were pretty reasonable and lines were good, not stupid or irritating. It all starts with the idea, then it grows into the script. So far Reva's actions were ridiculous and her motivation isn't really relatable, and so far she hasn't caused any sympathy, nor has she been charismatic. Just a bit hard to be invested in that type of character 80.91.24.208 (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And that justifies harassment? Did you even see the types of messages she was getting? CreecregofLife (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Dude, can you read? I've written so many times. If you don't see it, I'll quote myself again, "Of course it doesn't justify abuse, I don't justify it either."; "And I repeat again, racial abuse isn't justifiable even if the writing's bad."; "It's just sad that Reva's character didn't get better characterization and as a result she got abused." Or are you just impervious to these? 80.91.24.208 (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You're not adding any value here. Your opinions about writing, the character, and the general reception of the character are irrelevant to the question of whether the racist abuse of the actor should or should not be included in this article. Please stick to the subject. Nemov (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with @Nemov and @CreecregofLife here, people's personal opinions about the character, or whether or not the character was written well or not is irrelevant as to whether or not Ingram's racist abuse should be included in the article. Stick to the topic here, should Ingram's racist abuse be included in the article or not? Right now, consensus seems to be a tentative no, but I think we should wait a little bit more to see if any other people might want to give their input on the situation. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I say it's time to WP:DENY. This is WP:NOTAFORUM. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, this seems to be a case of “Other people exist, therefore the racist abuse can’t be racist”, which is quite odd and telling CreecregofLife (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It's worse than that. This argument is taken word for word from the Fandom Menace playbook. I get the feeling that IP 80 isn't here to build an encyclopedia. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"...if writers did better writing, people wouldn't even complain about the race. Just take a look at Billy Dee Williams..."

Hello, where have I heard this particular talking point before? Hmm. I wonder. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. So with this being said, I think we should all now do a vote on whether or not people think Ingram's racist abuse should be added in the article, just to clarify our position on the matter and to establish a consensus here. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is this even a question? Yes, obviously. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a question for the reasons stated above. In the past, coverage of this kind of thing was covered on the actor's article. The question isn't "should this be on Wikipedia" it's a question of where? Nemov (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Definitely should be included here. The effects of this racist trolling on the public perception of this miniseries is absolutely relevant to this series, not just Ingram as a person. Omitting it does a disservice to the readers. oknazevad (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Started a poll below, I think it looks like we're leaning towards inclusion above, but might as well take a poll to see where people are at. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That’s pretty nondescript CreecregofLife (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

In what way? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Poll

Should we include something on the reception to Moses Ingram in this article (and the reactions to that reception)?

• Support per discussion above —Locke Cole • t • c 05:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think you need to be more specific because you’ve only made one comment in the whole discussion yet this poll is based on you? You’re going to need more, because “per discussion above” on an ongoing issue that has no clear answer does not match a “support” vote CreecregofLife (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think you need to be more specific Why? you’ve only made one comment in the whole discussion You sure about that? this poll is based on you It is? You’re going to need more No, I'm not, actually. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral will proceed with whatever consensus is established. I frankly see a valid argument for both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcdiehardfan (talk • contribs) 2022-06-17T00:07:43 (UTC)
• Oppose Per previous comments... No one has really made a compelling argument how this is different from previous instances where it was not included. Nemov (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment @JDDJS, SirDot, Cnbrb, and Oknazevad: Pinging participants from above. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support: This is particularly relevant to the reception of the series. We can cover them in both this page and Ingram's page just fine. — SirDot (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support: yes, it's completely pertinent to the programme's production history and critical reception. As long as it is short enough to avoid giving the matter undue weight, well cited, and written in an appropriate WP:WIKIVOICE, there is no reason for it to be omitted. Cnbrb (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per my above comment. oknazevad (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support There is nothing that forbids repeating relevant information in two articles. There are two sentences in the Moses Ingram article, and those same sentences should be here as well, as the information is relevant both here and there. Even more here, than there, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comments. It is extremely notable information that is extremely relevant to this page. There's abs no policy that is against information being found on multiple different articles that it's relevant to. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support I think everyone has the right mindset as to how to go about it--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Now that the majority supports the inclusion of this in the article, has the consensus been established that we are for this? We can officially close the matter, right? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that it has, but given how controversial this was (it was removed repeatedly) I'm fine with waiting a few more days in case anyone has any last minute objections. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed it since I had seen similar things removed from other pages. The consensus here is to add, then go right ahead. I'm going to look to include the KMT stuff on The Last Jedi as well. Nemov (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, make sure Wikipedia policy is applied equally everywhere. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I do have to ask, would John Boyega apply? I’m sure both phases of it are already on his page, but is “OMG Black Stormtrooper?!!?!” covered on The Force Awakens? (I admittedly haven’t looked at any of the pages lately) CreecregofLife (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m not so sure. I don’t know of Boyega received significant harassment that actually received this much publicity. If that is the case, then I see no reason why it wouldn’t apply for him too. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the coverage of KMT so that would justify inclusion to me. It was certainly in the news after the first trailer for The Force Awakens was released. Nemov (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

We can add that too, and we can also take our time too so that the details can be integrated into the article properly. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Ok guys, well, if any of you all challenge the results of the poll, now is the time to voice your concerns. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Episode drafts

Here are the current episode drafts for anyone that may be looking for them or wants to edit them. I'll add the others as they become available in the coming weeks.

• Part I - needs production info and reviews
• Part II - needs production info and reviews
• Part III - needs production info and reviews
• Part IV - needs production info and reviews
• Part V - needs production info and reviews
• Part VI - needs production info and reviews

-- Zoo (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Writing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel there should be a paragraph concerning the appalling writing in this show. The lack of any criticism of what can only be described as massively inconsistent writing, with frankly ludicrous storylines and numerous plot holes, should be at least mentioned. Instead, the article focuses on the racism of some viewers (which there undoubtedly was). In reality, this series left a lot to be desired, but the actors were not the problem. The problem was the writing and the direction, and we can easily cite evidence to back up the issues (one example being the fact that apparently, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Leia are unable to simply walk around a laser barrier that blocks a road). This failure to focus on legitimate problems is why Wikipedia is regarded so poorly by people who want a bit more from the platform than corporate propaganda and fanboyism. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place for your own personal opinions. The reception section needs to reflect what reliable sources have actually said about the series. The "Cognitive dissonance" section above is basically about the same thing. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems like most of your confusion is about Wikipedia guidelines. I recommend starting at H:INTRO. It appears there's an element of WP:RGW in your accusations that this article doesn't conform around your point of view. Once you familiarize yourself with the guidelines that should alleviate your concerns. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I hate to pile on here, but it needs to be stated explicitly - this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, nor a review site. If you want to write a review, go to a review site. I'd suggest looking at what Wikipedia is not and also understand WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If a reliable source says the the storyline was poorly written, that might be worth mentioning as an attributed quote. But as for providing original opinions and critique of media, that's not what we do here. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Music and Soundtrack

A new article specifically for the soundtrack has been created which has full details including tracklisting. This is in following with other Star Wars articles whcih have their own articles for their respective soundtrack albums (ie. The Force Awakens, Rogue One, The Last Jedi, etc.). Some of the information on this article on the music can be merged into the separate article and a new shortened summary can be written for the series article. Xselant (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Consensus has not been established on this yet (that would be needed here, right?), your argument is literally WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is an invalid one. Films always have their own soundtrack articles. Not to mention, other D+ seriesarticles , such as MK, WV, and Mandalorian, usually don't have a soundtrack article. The track info should be listed here anyways. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You don't need consensus to be WP:BOLD and create a page. That being said... the real requirement is being notable, and in addition to WP:GNG, you'd need to make sure the article subject meets WP:NALBUM requirements. If you believe it doesn't, you should nominate the page at WP:AFD. Not to mention, other D+ seriesarticles , such as MK, WV, and Mandalorian, usually don't have a soundtrack article. Don't chide someone for using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and then immediately use WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. =) C'mon. For what it's worth, I loved Natalie Holt's work on Loki (TV series), shame there's so little on the music in that article.. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that this is a different case than with The Mandalorian as Kenobi is a limited series which The Mandalorian is not. As far as we know at this current moment, Kenobi will only be one season whereas we don't know how many seasons of The Mandalorian there will be. Secondly, the entire soundtrack for Obi-Wan Kenobi was released at once as a single soundtrack album similar to movies. It makes sense to have a separate article for the soundtrack which includes the tracklist, personnel and more detail than what can be fitted into the main article for the Kenobi series itself. Xselant (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Forgive me for my ignorance on this matter. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Grand Inquisitor

What are we going to say about the Grand Inquisitor? Is he dead or injured? To me he is dead. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Could just say something like he appeared to be killed, at least for now. I'm sure we'll know for sure in the next episode. -- Zoo (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he appeared to die but I have a feeling that we will be getting follow-up on that soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ll admit, I got very confused when I didn’t see NOTAFORUM-invoking responses, but then I realized a death this early puts in serious jeopardy whether a character can grow into recurring status, and thus actually is about working the article CreecregofLife (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Not only that, but what we should put in the summary of the plot was the main reason I was asking. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 00:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Plus there's the whole part about the character also appearing in Rebels, which takes place some five years later in the timeline, so we already know out-of-universe that he survives. Stating that he's been killed would be plain incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The show seems to act that Reva killed the Grand Inquisitor, which is interesting. — SirDot (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should honestly wait until the end of the series at this point. In a new VF article, the writer, Joby Harold, confirmed he'll stick to canon, so I think there could be something that might reverse it, we'll see. There's no need to make conclusions prematurely as per WP:NORUSH. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The world acted as if Darth Maul died too. Until he wasn’t dead. CreecregofLife (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That's because it didn't matter until he popped up again, and as soon as that happened, it was explained. In order to explain this, they would have to have shown him being merely badly wounded, which they didn't.Ianbrettcooper (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This debate is irrelevant now. The dispute has been solved, the Inquisitor is indeed alive. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Critical Response

Nearly all the reviews cited in the "Critical Response" section are early reviews of just the first two episodes. These don't seem relevant anymore, being based on an incomplete viewing. I think the entire section needs to be replaced with up-to-date reviews that were written after the show was completed. 75.175.120.135 (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free be WP:BOLD and add in full series review. I am planning on adding more full series reviews soon enough. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

GA progress?

Hey guys, I was just wondering what work is needed in order for the article to be ready for a GA nom? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it is way too early to consider this, in terms of how long it has been since the series finished and in terms of progress in the article. A lot of the pre-release info is good, but there is a lot more that we will want to add in terms of post-production stuff and critical response (see section above this). A lot of that production info also ends up coming out during marketing for awards which will be months away still for this show. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yea, I understand that. I am right now having difficulty finding more information for the Filming things and onwards, including Design and whatnot. I am planning on fixing the Reception thing soon. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)