Talk:Star Wars Forces of Destiny

Multimedia project?

Everything I've seen out of press release is calling Forces of Destiny "a micro-series and initiative". (From what I can tell the word initiative appears to be initiative to create heroine based content or iniative to generally expand the franchise.) A search turns up two sources that attach the word "multimedia" to them. I'm not necessarily convinced that the approach here is any different that the usual "release merchandising alongside a series" (esp. for this particular franchise). I was wondering if @Spshu: could explain it out a little more so I could maybe understand. And if there are third opinions. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Are there any comments on this? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I rephrased it. First and foremost, this is a web series, a particular work. It needs to be called such. Additional merchandising is a part of the accompanying initiative, but this article is about the series first and foremost. oknazevad (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with oknazevad, Forces of Destiny is a multimedia initiative as well but this article should primarily be about the web series. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The first I saw the title it was from a multimedia initiative with its lead part being the animated short series. I feel its generally the best that the largest grouping (the initative over the series) thus additional items are clearly not coatrack items or generate fork non-notable article to avoid coatrack issues. Spshu (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the primary topic is the web series; the books are literally novelizations of the series, and have yet to be published. Toys and other merchandising don't really count as other forms of media. The current wording, explaining in pgh 2 that the series is part of a larger initiative, is perfectly adequate per the sources. This can be explored again if/when we see other original media like video games or comics with FoD branding.— TAnthony^Talk 04:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Only the initial books are "literally novelizations of the series", there are future unnamed books that are not per the sources. Thus spreading the cost of the writers in case the initiative does not due so well and if it does well then keeps consumers ready for the original books. Sculpting has long been consider a media of art and comic books have been look down as not art. Just because the sculpted product is plastic "adventures figures" toys, a mass consumption art product, instead of stone or metal, doesn't make it any less a media then the mass consumption media of comic books. But that also put them in the product category.

While, yes, I understand the consensus is the topic is the web series as the source for all the ancillary media and products. It would nice to resolve whether or not the article switches over to initiative as more story media is created as we may lose willing editors to discuss the matter when that occurs. Spshu (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Lucasfilm PR may be branding it an "initiative" but in execution it doesn't seem different than, for example, Rebels itself, which is a TV series with derivative novels and merchandise. I understand that our coverage does need to reflect the sources, so it's proper to mention the initiative, keeping in mind that it's a marketing concept more than a tangible topic. I'm thinking of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (project) as the precedent here. I don't know the exact evolution of those articles, but clearly the video game is the primary topic and the overarching project gets the disambiguation, rather than the other way around. We may or may not need two articles in this case, but depending how this topic develops, I don't think there would be anything wrong with the initiative itself being the subtopic if there is less to say about it than the series.— TAnthony^Talk 17:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Release dates

Original release date implies first day available, whether it was web or TV. Original air date implies TV, as things do not 'air' on the web. Does that sound right, Oknazevad? UpdateNerd (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

UpdateNerd is right. The table is set up so AltDate is the original online release date and the Original Air Date is the traditional broadcast date, if any. Though, I haven't been able to keep up with information on this and I'm mobile so tracking it down myself is difficult, do you have a source to back the original air dates? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, we don't need the second dates at all. It's a web series first and foremost. That's which date is important. Any subsequent TV airing is secondary, and pretty much trivia. The idea that TV is the primary audience and the web is just early previews is outdated and incorrect. I think the YouTube postings have had more views than the Disney Channel airings. So I think we can ditch it. oknazevad (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as Disney, in their original announcements, sort of made somewhat of a deal that they were going to broadcast on television, noting the television broadcast dates isn't necessarily just to have it. Especially given that the intended television broadcast dates and the actual broadcast dates seem to vary for whatever reason. Since most of the episodes appeared to have broadcast in large blocks, perhaps incorporating as prose would be easy? It de-emphasizes it because it's not in the table, but it does adequately cover that Disney intended to and eventually did broadcast them. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)