Talk:The Acolyte (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Referencing

References should be defined in-text like they are for most Wikipedia articles and this should be no exception. It doesn't make sense for references that are only to be used once to be defined in a long list. It makes referencing properly more difficult for less experienced editors. It is a lot more time-consuming to write a reference name in text and then write a full definition at the end of the article in the correct order with its exact preceding and succeeding references between it. Secondly, when references are invoked multiple times, they should be given names that actually make sense by following the standardised Harvard author-date naming system rather than using generic names like "VanityFairMay2022Acolyte". Using odd and vague names like "FilmingLocation" may describe specific information but that it's only useful when the reference is only being utilised for that specific purpose. For example, a reference in this article named "FilmingLocation" has also been used when discussing things completely unrelated to filming locations. This can make it hard to follow references and understand what they are. Xselant (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Putting full references as in-line citations makes it incredibly difficult for anybody to edit the article. This formatting is used at almost every article I have worked on for the 10 years that I have been on Wikipedia so it is not rare or unusual. There is nothing wrong with the naming conventions either, as long as the ref name is accurate to the source. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Full references as in-line citations are much more easy to understand as the source is placed beside the corresponding information rather than being placed at the end of the page that has to be searched for among the bizarrely named and ordered reference list. You also didn't seem to read what I said about the problems with giving random names to sources. The problem with using names like "FilmingLocation" is that, yes it describes what is in the source, but the source may not be exclusively about filming locations and may be invoked elsewhere in the article where filming locations is not being discussed. Your objection seems to be purely based in opinion and personal anecdotes rather than addressing the many problems raised. Asserting that this bizarre referencing system is the norm simply isn't true. In-line citations are used on the overwhelming majority of Wiki pages and some Star Wars and Marvel pages should not follow their own unique referencing system just to be special. You just need to look at any page for any actors, journalists, politicians, movies, etc. and you will see that they all use in-line citations. Whether you like it or not, the system used on this article is the extreme minority and is being justified for no specific reason other than being used on a select few related pages controlled by the same insular community of editors. Xselant (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope, this is not some "bizarre" new thing that a small group of editors decided to do just for the Marvel and Star Wars pages. See WP:LDR, it is an option for all Wikipedia articles to choose which has been around for more than 10 years, longer than I have even been on Wikipedia. It makes no difference for readers of articles, but it significantly improves the ability to edit articles: we can edit the text without having to try read between citations which can be extremely difficult and confusing, and we can maintain the references in one section without having to search through all the prose. Full references as in-line citations are much more easy to understand as the source is placed beside the corresponding information rather than being placed at the end of the page that has to be searched for we still put in-line ref tags beside the information, all you have to do is put the name into your browser's "find" function and you get the full citation. This is also the case on articles that do not use LDR but have one source supporting multiple pieces of content, but in this formatting we are consistent with all references plus you have the benefits of actually be able to read the text and the references as stated above. You also didn't seem to read what I said about the problems with giving random names to sources this is clearly not true since I responded to this point already. The naming system is fine, we just give each one an appropriate name based on the content and differentiate with dates and/or websites where needed. If a citation has ended up with a less accurate name then it can easily be updated, but it doesn't always need to be since you can still find the reference no matter the name. In your example, "FilmingLocation" is what the source was primarily used for. Just because we got other information from it doesn't change that.

Regardless of your own opinion, this is a completely normal approach to referencing and being used for this article and many others. You don't get to decide to change it just because you don't like it. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about my opinion and you seem to be completely unaware of your own deep biases and personal feelings or being malicious in choosing to not recognise them. It's about being consistent with other articles rather than wanting to use a unique referencing system. You may have an unnatural attachment to your weird references called "SquiresVanityFairAcolyteLocation" and "WorkingEp9TwitterConfirmedApr2020" rather than using a consistent naming style like author-date across all references.

Even in the LDR page you cited, it states that "A drawback of the approach is that these references can be harder to insert into the source because they are separated from the text." It's much harder to add new references with your extremely minoritarian style because you have to write the in-line ref tag, know what exact references, weird names and all, that come before and after the reference you added, scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page, and then add the full citation which is not practical. LDR is not easier to edit with because "The editor must either open the entire document to see the source for both the text and the reference list". It's impossible to simply edit one section of the page because you will have to add ref tags, publish the page, and then edit the page source again to be able to edit the reference list manually rather than having the full in-line citation automatically appear. Saying that this isn't a problem because you can ctrl+F is a genuinely childish way of thinking. Just because LDR is an option doesn't mean that it should be given preference. There's a reason why Wikipedia's own referencing template uses in-line full citations. It's because it is simpler and less time-consuming to use.

Citing WP:FOOTNOTES like whipping out a Pokemon card doesn't make the point you think it does because on that page, it assumes that in-line citations be used as it is the most basic and universal form of referencing that most pages would use. You simply can't deny the fact that in-line citations are used way more commonly because they can be automatically generated and organised using reflist. Xselant (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

You are just making up problems, there is nothing difficult about adding the in-line ref tag then scrolling down to the bottom of the article and adding the full citation there. I agree that it is slightly inconvenient if you want to just edit one section of the article, but that does not outweigh all the positive of the approach. Anyway, you are just resorting to personal attacks and ridiculous statements now so there isn't much point continuing this discussion. LDR exists, people use it, get over it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

In-line citations have more advantages. More people use it, get over it. You are just saying "aNyOne WhO CriTciSeS mE iS UsInG pErSoNAl AtTacKs" Xselant (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. WP:LDR formatting has been chosen for this draft/eventual article. I see no strong reason to change from that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Xselant: You are edit warring. Again, please see CITEVAR I quoted above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Bob Iger confirms Star Wars: The Acolyte will release on Disney+ in 2024

Bob Iger during his conference interview with Morgan Stanley that Star Wars: The Acolyte will hit Disney+ in 2024. He said it at 21:44 to 21:54 in this portion of his interview: https://event.webcasts.com/viewer/event.jsp?ei=1599361&tp_key=1311d36648. MarvelDisney20 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a question here? Nemov (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Because of this information, can we put the 2024 release date into the show's wiki page? MarvelDisney20 (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Episode writing credits available

Not sure if these credits can be added just yet, but all 8 episodes have been added to the WGA directory: https://directories.wga.org/project/1246372/the-acolyte -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) 23:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

We could start the table with that info, for sure, but we typically keep the table hidden until at least one more column can be populated. Maybe you could just use “2024” as a release date, but worth getting other’s input there as well. -2pou (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Added. Yes, it's better to have another piece of info, but just from the stand point of displaying the info, since we have all 8 credits, going to the table now just makes sense. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Release date

Until there's an official announcement or reporting by a reliable source, this article shouldn't state a release date like it's a fact. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 please find consensus and stop reverting. You can find a list of reliable sources here so I'm perplexed at your claim that Collider is a reliable source. Please provide an explanation. Nemov (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: Please see WP:VNT. Collider is a reliable source (no idea why that's being questioned) and just because Lucasfilm has yet to announce a release date doesn't mean we should discount this nor remove it from the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Pointing me to a link about verifiability doesn't mean Collider is reliable. I don't think they're reliable and they have a pretty hit or miss record when it comes to Star Wars news. This needs to be better sourced. Nemov (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Your personal thoughts on the site doesn't mean that's reflected or aligned with the site's. Wikipedia considers Collider a reliable source, so the info, per WP:VNT, can stay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Where's this discussion of reliability? I'm questioning it, because it's not a good source on this topic and it's not listed at WP:RSPSS. Nemov (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Collider is widely considered to be reliable across film and TV articles. Your personal opinion does not change that. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I am asking a very simple question, you as an experienced editor should be able to point me in the direction of "why this is considered reliable" when I'm pointing out it's not listed as a reliable source in the place most people look. Nemov (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSPSS does not list every source, only the ones that have been significantly discussed. See WP:RSPMISSING for more. But it is a reliable source and you saying "it's not a good source on this topic" isn't going to change that. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 Consensus can change. I guess I'll look for a discussion about this since apparently neither of you are interested in providing a link to one. Nemov (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_334#Collider. As has been stated, it is considered a reliable source, even for scoops/exclusives. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Primary topic

I moved The Acolyte to The Acolyte (fanzine) and cleaned up the topics titled The Acolyte at acolyte (disambiguation). There are three: the 1940s fanzine, the 1976 novel, and the 2024 Star Wars series. In the last 20 days, the series has had about 61K views while the other two topics have had 200 views combined. This article should be the primary topic for The Acolyte. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I am happy for us to make this move as long as we don't think there will be any controversy about recentism. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It may be best to move it once it starts airing. I agree about the possibility of concerns regarding recentism, but the other topics are so minimally visited. Any Star Wars film or series will have staying power in terms of visits. Even the Star Wars Holiday Special gets hundreds of views daily. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Per WP:LEAD, the most noteworthy context should be established upfront. Leslye Headland is not more noteworthy context than Star Wars itself. Doing a quick WP:SET proves this: acolyte 2024 tv intitle:headland shows 930 results (at least on my end) compared to 163K results for acolyte 2024 tv intitle:star wars. Here's an example, Variety doesn't even mention Headland until the fifth paragraph. In contrast, that would never happen for a Christopher Nolan film. It's essentially WP:UNDUE weight to prioritize Headland at the very top, and there are no "standard" rules. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

All of the new Star Wars TV show articles have similar formatting, that is what I meant when I said "standard". Consistency is good when dealing with a single topic, though it does not trump the needs of the individual articles. In this case, the creator of the show is very important and definitely deserves to be one of the first things mentioned. For the research done, I think it is obvious that more headlines are going to mention that this is a Star Wars show over including the name of the creator, that doesn't mean that she is less noteworthy in the context of this article than other series creators are. In fact, her role in conceiving the series, publicly discussing all elements of production, marketing it, and likely being called out by a lot of the reception to the show (even beyond the target of internet trolls that she already is now) makes her role key to the article. I think this being a Leslye Headland show and a Star Wars show are both similarly important, and both are mentioned in the first two sentences of the lead so I feel they are both being established "upfront". Not every key detail needs to be in the first sentence, and I personally don't feel the suggested alternative wording is an improvement because of how much in-universe detail it crams into the first sentence. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It is POV to assert that the creator is always more important than the franchise to mention in the opening sentence, in contrast with the evidence I have shared so far. At WP:FILM1STSENTENCE, I highlighted the relevant policies and guidelines that indicate putting the noteworthy context upfront. We cannot be worshipful of the creator/director in every single instance; it always depends on the topic. With this being the case, a de-facto standard of always placing a creator or director upfront across all Star Wars works is inappropriate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I never said the creator is always more important than the franchise. I feel like you have just ignored my entire argument. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Dude! You're making your own personal assertion about this, contrary to the evidence. It's an easy head-check, do readers know what they're about to read when they see that it is a show created by Leslye Headland, compared to when they see that it is a Star Wars show? This bears out in the coverage about the show, as I mentioned. I have cited policies and guidelines accordingly. You have claimed a standard, which despite your claim that they are similarly important, that the creator will be named in the first sentence, and Star Wars named in the second sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You keep putting words in my mouth, I have not made any of the arguments that you seem to be responding to. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. This is a Star Wars series that's created by Leslye Headland. Just like Seinfeld was created by Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David. The showrunner of a series is generally one of the most important aspects of the project. The fact that the IP of Star Wars notability dwarfs Headland is kind of irrelevant. Nemov (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant. See WP:FILM1STSENTENCE for why it matters to put the more noteworthy context upfront. This series is known for the Star Wars association, not the Headland association. The search-engine-test result and the Variety show how Headland is lesser for mentioning compared to Star Wars. It doesn't mean that Headland should not be mentioned upfront. They are a notable figure, but they are not why this topic is noteworthy. It is the Star Wars franchise, as seen in the results and the coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

As I stated above, the series is known for both and both are introduced upfront. The only difference between the two versions is which has the best wording, and that is not the version which tries to cram too much detail into the first sentence. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not about the wording. Star Wars needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence. Headland doesn't. That meets the policies and guidelines. Doing things they way they've always been done isn't an answer. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that says what should go in what sentence. The one that you linked to is a personal essay. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Erik please refrain from making more changes to the lead until there's a consensus. Nemov (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  My change of "science fiction" to "Star Wars" was a distinct change than switching mentions of Headland and Star Wars. Are you saying you oppose this? I don't know if Adam would be fine with that since it mentions both in the opening sentence. The priority is to mention Star Wars upfront per the policies and guidelines, which you haven't responded to. Does it not make sense for you to at least mention Star Wars in the opening sentence as the most noteworthy context? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  My statement stands... Quit making changes to the opening sentence until there's consensus to do so. That said, I don't object to removing science fiction from the first sentence. The 2nd change isn't necessary. Nemov (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not super keen on replacing the genre with the franchise, I know you seem to have something against being generally consistent across topics but I'm going to say it: we never do that with any film or TV articles, readers expect us to put the genre there and I think it is asking for trouble to make such a big deviation from the norm, especially when there is nothing particularly unique about this series to justify the change.

  You keep saying that we must state that this is a Star Wars series in the first sentence because of policies and guidelines, but that just isn't true. I agree that guidelines suggest we should have the most important information listed upfront, and I agree that this being a Star Wars series is one of the most important facts to be upfront about, but I disagree that we need any wording changes to do that. The lead of this article states upfront that this is a Star Wars series created by Headland, just because Star Wars comes after the first period doesn't mean we aren't being upfront about it.

  I also find it curious that you think it is so important to de-prioritize Headland in this article and seemingly not do the same for Favreau, Filoni, Gilroy, etc. at the other Star Wars TV articles. I don't want to make any bad faith suggestions about your reasoning for that, but without any other explanation it is not a great look. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  That is indeed a bad-faith assumption. I saw the trailer and was curious what showed up on Wikipedia, and I engaged in cleanup at acolyte (disambiguation) and thought this article should be the primary topic and suggested that. I made a similar change to Return of the Jedi recently based on visiting it following a WT:FILM discussion. The opening-sentence problem is prevalent across film and TV articles, and I will only fix that problem in articles I visit. I don't want to look for the problem, but I will fix it in the process of visiting as a reader. I did that with the superhero films when I saw that editors wanted to name three companies before even linking to the superhero and identifying who is playing them. To go looking for the problem is just plain overwhelming, and I don't feel like with dealing with many fronts. Here, I am saying that Star Wars should be prioritized over Headland, and it should be done elsewhere too.

  Below are the policies and guidelines from WP:FILM1STSENTENCE because no one has even argued against them directly:

• MOS:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." Star Wars is the more appropriate context than Headland. To say "The Acolyte is a Star Wars series" is more definitive than "The Acolyte is a series by Headland".
• MOS:FIRST:

• "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." I know that you said that Headland did a lot as creator, and I agree with that, but that's not what nonspecialist readers know. It's Star Wars that better tells the subject in this case.
• "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." Again, it's Star Wars. There are other notable entities tied to or working on the series, but Star Wars is essentially why this series is known.

• MOS:CONTEXTLINK: "The first sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable." Star Wars is the broader topic here. Think about World War II battles, do you think it ever makes sense to have the opening sentence that said so-and-so won the battle, and not mention World War II in it? If a topic falls under a broader topic, it's likely that the broader topic should be mentioned and linked.
• WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." (emphasis mine) With films, a lot of editors think that directors should always be mentioned in the opening sentence. For some films, that is true, but it is not a universal truth. It's possible to have an undue focus on lesser entities when greater entities are the ones worth identifying first.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

None of those quotes support the idea that the franchise must be mentioned in the literal first sentence of the lead. However, it seems clear that you aren't going to change your mind about this and I am losing interest in this discussion. I don't love this wording, but I much prefer it to the previous updates that have been suggested, so how about this?

The Acolyte is an upcoming American science fiction television series in the Star Wars franchise that was created by Leslye Headland for the streaming service Disney+. It is set at the end of the High Republic era, before the events of the main Star Wars films, and follows a Jedi investigation into a series of crimes. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I prefer the status quo for consistency. I'm not sure about "science fiction" as it relates to Star Wars since it's more on the fantasy side of things, but without seeing the series it can stay for now. Nemov (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI if we changed to my new proposed wording, I would be recommending we make a similar change at the other Star Wars TV articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, just keep the status quo. It's worked for a variety of articles with no issue. Nemov (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that wording, but I am also wondering, is Star Wars: The Acolyte a valid alternative title? The core issue is not identifying the Star Wars element upfront as part of the topic's definition. I explored the other media, and most media already mention it as part of the title or at least the first sentence.

I saw that Ahsoka (TV series) has, "Ahsoka, also known as Star Wars: Ahsoka, is an American science fiction television series created and written by Dave Filoni for the streaming service Disney+." Similar for Andor (TV series). In contrast, I also saw that The Book of Boba Fett opens, "The Book of Boba Fett is an American space Western television miniseries created by Jon Favreau for the streaming service Disney+," not mentioning Star Wars in any of that. Same with The Mandalorian and Obi-Wan Kenobi (TV series).

The Book of Boba Fett and Obi-Wan Kenobi have "Star Wars" above their logos, but The Mandalorian does not, not sure why that inconsistency. I do see Star Wars: Skeleton Crew as a rare series in having it in the title itself. As JDDJS suggested below, I can propose at least mentioning Star Wars in the first sentence if the title or its variant does not already mention it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Skeleton Crew was announced as actually having Star Wars in the title, which is different from all the other shows. Enough sources saying Star Wars: Andor and Star Wars: Ahsoka were found that led to those alternate names being added, or at least that is the idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to offer my 2 cents on the matter, I agree with the argument that the association with Star Wars is generally more notable than it's creator, but I think that some people are a bit over valuing the importance of the first sentence. I really don't think that it really make a significant difference between whether we mention Star Wars in the first or second sentence. I think sentence flow is more important, and I think how it is now flows perfectly fine. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEAD has a whole section devoted to the first sentence, so it is important. Leaving Star Wars out here (and other such topics) is an omission. Even just Googling the acolyte, the result for this article shows, "The Acolyte is an upcoming American science fiction television series created by Leslye Headland for the streaming service Disney+. It is part of the Star ..." literally stopping before it says Star Wars. Sentence flow is not in conflict with noteworthy-context primacy and should not override the latter. Even just calling it a "Star Wars series" instead of just generic genre labels is in line with reliable sources covering this series. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If you feel this strongly about this, then I highly recommend that you start an RFC and/or ask the relevant WikiProjects (Star Wars and television) to weigh in on the matter to see if a consensus to change the lead can form. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Another filming location

I’ve not edited Wikipedia before so thought I would leave a note here. During April 2023 for about a month the forest opposite me was used as a film location for the Acolyte forest scenes. The location is called Benyons enclosure between Silchester and pamber heath. This is not far from the film studios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.209.117 (talk • contribs) 10:49, April 1, 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source to support this information. We cannot take your word for it. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Newer source

Hello Adamstom.97, why do you think that the original Público source should not have been replaced? The newer 2024 source includes updated details, like the trailer's Madeira scenery and Portuguese people in the trailer credits, that strengthen the claim that the Madeira filmings were real, although nor Disney nor LucasFilm confirmed it. The original source was published at a time very close to the event, which editors consider primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, despite being independent. See also WP:RSAGE. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 13:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The current three sources support filming taking place on the island with specific dates. You removed one of these and replaced it with a more recent source that does not support the same information, and is primarily speculating based on what they see in the trailer rather than reporting on actual details about the production like the original source did. That is why I removed it, we don't just replace old sources with more recent ones for the sake of it. However, on second reading I see that the new source does confirm a couple specific locations so I have added it back to support those. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, thank you! Though I had kept the other two sources since they support the filming dates. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 16:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like LucasFilm confirmed it now. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 14:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I have added some details from this interview. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Format list items consistently

One entry in the list should not have a break just because it's a long paragraph. It makes it inconsistent. Similarly, just because the credits format the writer in a specific way does not mean we must. Feel free to point to a policy, manual of style or similar to support that claim. Until then, we should honour MOS:LISTFORMAT and "format list items consistently, shouldn't we? Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I have made the other two long entries consistent. To avoid long paragraphs, we may want to provide the extended details in a separate section, such as the casting section. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LISTFORMAT doesn't say anything about line breaks, and it is standard practice for many articles' cast lists to add a paragraph break to any list items that become longer paragraphs. This is not a requirement so there is no guideline stating to do this, but there is implicit consensus for it across WP:TV and WP:FILM. That means you are the one who needs to gain consensus for your bold change away from an established style, not the other way around.

As for the series' writing credits, they need to be formatted per the official credits as there is a difference between "and" and "&" when discussing writing teams. See MOS:TVEPISODE. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

LISTFORMAT is a manual of style. The overarching guidance is consistency. If it's standard practice in your experience, or in the history of those projects, to do something, perhaps you should follow the advice of those who have a sense of style.

As per the credits, why do they need to be formatted per the "official credits"? We regularly change the titles to match Wikipedia's capitalization rules. We regularly change punctuation and use of numbers to match Wikipedia's guidance on those. TVEPISODE does not support any of what you claim. Sorry.

I assume that you will continue to edit war to have the article the way. Thanks for discussing. Is there a person who has some sense who would like to weigh-in? Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Just so I don't get attacked for changing the titles, https://www.starwars.com/series/the-acolyte doesn't have the spaces between the nouns. Change it yourself @Adamstom.97. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The rule of when to add a break to the cast list is being applied consistently.

As I have explained multiple times, and as is explained at MOS:TVEPISODE, "and" and "&" mean two different things in writing credits. Changing it to not follow the official credits changes the meaning, and you have not given any reason for why this needs to be done. The fact that Wikipedia styles take precedent in some other instances does not explain why this change is needed.

You are the one who keeps making the same change without consensus. WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD apply.

The titles have spaces on Disney+ and official releases, which trump the listing on StarWars.com.

Finally, please be WP:CIVIL when interacting with other editors. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Episode credits in the table should follow on screen crediting. So that includes the distinct use of "&" and "and" for writers as they mean two different things, as explained by MOS:TVEPISODE as well as at WGA_screenwriting_credit_system#Teams. Additionally, as has become commonplace in genre/popular/pop culture series, using line breaks in cast list for large entries is acceptable and no issue with WP:ACCESS. This is a consistent formatting for these entries, though it makes no sense to line break an entry with just a few words (generally just the character description) after it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2024

Conversely the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is an abysmal 26%. 82.17.20.194 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:USERG thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Episode 3 - "Destiny", errors and typos.

Hello! Mae and Osha are confirmed to have two mothers in this series, and it is outright stated in dialogue in Episode 3 that the Zabrak identified on-screen as Mother Koril was the parent who birthed the twins. Koril is not mentioned at all in the synopsis of the episode, and the mother that is mentioned, Aniseya, has her name misspelled at times in the synopsis as "Amediya ". Minor thing, but I thought it best to mention it regardless. If someone could edit the synopsis for this episode to better reflect this information and fix the spelling error mentioned, it would be very much appreciated. MucousMembraneX1 (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The summary has been updated. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2024

The main characters Osha and Mae are named after the soap brand Osha Mae Soap. Hwg979 (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay? I'm not sure what you're asking? Nemov (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of "by whom" tags by Nemov

Nemov, can you please justify removing the tags I inserted? The point is that users should haven't to read an article to find out who said something. Comments like "right wingers" are not specific. If a blogger or someone else said something, their name should be given. John Smith's (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There is already a section above where this is being discussed. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Reception section

I added the the very long section template. That section is too long at the moment and it's not balanced for the weight of the reviews. Obviously, it'e embargo day so it's in flux, but needs to be eventually trimmed. Nemov (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The reception is not overly long but it does need some improvement, it overuses quotes and should be reworked a bit to put more focus on general ideas rather than specific reviews. Still, it is a good start especially when a lot of similar articles sit around for ages with the bare minimum reception info. Thanks for the work you have put in so far @BarntToust. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition. I'm gonna add back the critical infobox but hide it until the show finishes its run. BarntToust (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how to hide it. Can you help? Thanks. BarntToust (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I have hidden it for now, but I am personally against including it. It would be impractical to include every review of the series in that template considering there are already more than 60 of them and more to come as the series continues. I feel that only highlighting specific ones raises questions about how we are deciding which ones to fit in there, and it doesn't add a whole lot when we already have the average score for all of the reviews. I can see how it could be nice in cases where there are only a few reviews to highlight, such as a TV episode, but I don't think it is appropriate for a series with many reviews. It is also not standard for any of the Star Wars television articles so it is really on you to gain consensus for why it should be included at all before it is restored. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's use Shōgun (2024 TV series) as an example. They have 12 critic reviews in the infobox, I would stop this article's # at the same. The logic that "It hasn't been done before, so it should not be done here" just doesn't seem quite right as cause for not having it. Perhaps the other Star Wars articles could do with an infobox, now that you mention it? Again, the general policy on inclusion of anything is that the notability of the sources helps convey notable opinion (opinion on the series in this applied case), which therein holds to encyclopedic editorial standards. Good articles use visual aids. Now, The Last of Us (TV series) and The Last of Us season 1 use image boxes, with the latter (which I reviewed for GA status, in case that may be a conflict of interest, although a user by the handle "Rhain" edited that to my taste), having an attached cite note indicating specific praises (specifically for the actor). I don't think we'll get that far at the present for this article, so we should focus on notability in the current.

Check out Collider's review for another positive appraisal. Someone added The Guardian earlier, albeit out-of-style citations, and I had to fix prose and add a hyperlink. Have not fixed that ones citation style. Hope this helps convey my idea well. Take care. BarntToust (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I never said "It hasn't been done before, so it should not be done here". I said the Star Wars articles don't usually do this so you need to gain consensus for this change in format, which you have not yet done. My concerns about the random way reviews are being selected for the template still stand, it sounds like you are arbitrarily capping the number of reviews at 12 just because another article does the same, which is not good reasoning (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). And you say that these reviews have been selected because they convey notable opinions, how have you determined that? Did you read the 90+ reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and pick the 12 that you liked the most? It is far too early to know which, if any, images would be appropriate to include in the reception section but that doesn't mean we must use some sort of visual aid in the section at all. In fact, it is far too early to be having any discussions about this becoming a Good Article. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, which is why it is good to be hidden for now. I agree, we shouldn't be basing just a 12-cap on another article, but we should learn about what works and doesn't. We should be writing with what is most informative however, and keeping high editorial standards for a show, such on in Star Wars, is important. I note that many of these sources are ones wikipedia considers to be good, which is why we have to eventually decide if we go by a Rotten Tomatoes score, or by traditionally accepted reviews. Then again, why do we trust trades and websites that are Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? This is the consensus from them, which is discordant from MC and RT grades. I agree that many sites may change their opinions later, and I anticipate many more "definitive" reviews to come later once the second half of the series meets critical eyes. But, hey. Representing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is encyclopedic, but maybe not.. reflective? I am confused, about whether we should be using "mainly reviews that go along with what an aggregate suggests" or "keep to website policy and go by reliables".

the reason I say 12 is because more is potentially excess. maybe it doesn't need that box after all, but there is not a reason why it shouldn't be there, and the question is "is having is more informative at a glance, or should it be considered redundant?" I would like to assess that value when, as you said, consensus is drawn to the subject.

Thank you for your work on this subject and for chipping in your opinion to create discourse around this subject, it is very much appreciated! BarntToust (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, thanks for talking this through and your input here, I mean it. BarntToust (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the lawsuit section be moved and incorporated into development? It's out of place in reception. Nemov (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Lawsuits usually go in reception, they are a response to the show. What someone did while not involved in the show isn't part of the creation of it. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Makes sense, but it's not really a reception to the show either since the lawsuit was filed long before the series was released. Nemov (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  It was in response to the production of the series. The reception section doesn't just have to be responses to the series' release. For example, it could include influences of a behind-the-scenes decision such as at Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• By my count the the reviews mentioned in the reception section: 7 negative, 3 positive, and 1 mixed. This doesn't really seem like a weighted reflection of the balance of the reviews. Nemov (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Feel free to add more. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Added The Guardian and "Deadline. Not sure I should add more without dragging the section out too much. Might remove one of the negatives ones and it should be close. Nemov (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Review bombing

I added a section about review bombing that's backed by several sources. It was recently changed in the voice of a Forbes opinion piece that's framed as a disconnect between fans/critics. That could be perhaps worked in eventually when we have some better information, but the review bombing isn't really alleged at this point. Nemov (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I made this revision by *adding* the Forbes source and additional information. The review bombing is alleged by professional critics, who clearly have reason to believe their own reviews are more "legitimate," for lack of a better word. The sources you used have positive reviews of this series--which is fine, it doesn't make those sources illegitimate, but it does mean they require context due to their bias. I did not delete *any* of your sources. You deleted everything that I contributed. Your original contribution also had missing punctuation and was generally messy, with all due respect. I fixed that for you, and you reverted. That's not good-faith editing. You shouldn't be reverting edits that add to your own contributions or otherwise provide context. I'm reverting back to the full version of this section with all sources and contexts included, and with the more neutral heading ("Audience Reviews"). Please do not make any further reverts; feel free to edit or provide additional context if you want, or even better, discuss it here beforehand so we can have a discussion. See Wikipedia:Edit_warring for guidance. Open to any input by others. Map42892 (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverting your edit and bringing the discussion to talk is perfectly reasonable. What am I supposed to learn from you linking to edit warring? Perhaps you should review it since you apparently are committed to edit warring instead of consensus. Nemov (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I never reverted your original contributions. I kept your added sources and provided necessary context. You reverted my additions back to your messy first version. That's starting an edit war, which is why I linked to guidance. Looks like a senior editor is stepping in. To your second question, the links you provided explain that the audience score is low, as does the one I added. Yes, there are bad-faith actors with any Star Wars entry, but the presumption that the negative feedback as compared to other SW series is merely "review bombing" is a conclusion by those professional critics that you linked. It's a matter of their opinion, which doesn't make it false, but it is not inherent fact. That said, I understand that this is a somewhat difficult topic to "prove," and understand your point. I trust User:adamstom.97 to use their guidance for now, and I'm curious to check back later to see how this section is improving. Map42892 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I really don't about your opinions about critics or their supposed bias. However, if someone reverts your edit, instructs you to find consensus in TALK, and you put edit back in, that's called edit warring. Nemov (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not my "opinions about critics." They're critics and they have opinions. We can surely agree that critics are in the business of giving opinions and defending their own reviews (and the reviews of the publications they work for). You may have a personal opinion that the opinions of these critics are "correct," I'm not sure, but that's ultimately your opinion. Again, you did the revert to remove context to keep a certain tenor that you personally wanted to apply to this subsection; you thus started an edit war. We won't see eye to eye on this, and ultimately it doesn't matter, because it's being looked at by someone else. Cheers. Map42892 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Please do not leave any more messages on my talk like you did here.[1] Apparently, you're an inexperienced editor based on your edit history. Your actions could be perceived as WP:BATTLEGROUND in nature so I would recommend you review the edit warring link you shared. It's clear you don't understand it. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, please. The ad hominem about your perception of my edit history is unnecessary. I generally only edit when I see egregious issues or missing context on a page that is easily fixable, but I'm familiar with WP's guidance on edit warring. I don't think you are, because you're doubling down, but again, it's water under the bridge at this point. Map42892 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Also the addition that the audience reception is significantly more negative than published critical reviews comes from what exactly? How can that be said in a Wiki voice when only measure of audience is been widely discredited? Nemov (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nothing has been widely discredited. A handful of "professional" blogger critics are claiming that review bombing is occurring and have zero evidence provided to backup their claims. Literally zero examples. TheJoeGreene (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:USERG. User generated scores are easy to manipulate and generally unreliable. Nemov (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I am taking a look at expanding the section to be a more general audience response section at the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 Looks much, much better now. The heading was the main thing that needed fixing. Thanks for your work ✌️ Map42892 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW I agree with Wikibenboy94 the audience reaction section is too long. It can talk some about the faux outrage before the series' release and there's many sources about the review bombing. The Forbes article is an outlier, but the entire section kind of overkill at the moment and could be reduced to a paragraph. Nemov (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Can you be more specific about what you think needs to be removed? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  The stuff about "breaking canon" could be junked. The section doesn't have to get in the weeds about specifics like "The Wokelyte." A couple of sentences saying some fans online were upset about the diversity of the cast and writers room could be mentioned. It just needs to be summarized better. Nemov (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  We shouldn't suggest that everyone who dislikes the series is racist, sexist, or homophobic. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, not sure what that has to do with the overly long section. Nemov (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's what the "breaking canon" part does, it clarifies that the negative comments online are not all just prejudice. I'm open to slimming down the section as needed, but I don't think we should just delete random sentences that you think are "junk". I put them all there for a reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I understand you're protective of the section you wrote, but it's too long. I've given you the feedback you're requested. The vast amount of coverage of the pushback is decidedly about the diversity of the series. It's not about "breaking canon" just because Mr. Bacon mentioned it. If you're determined to leave canon bit in that's fine, but the again... the section gets majorly into the weeds about Headland's motivations. Her quote about who she thinks are fans doesn't need to be in the reception section either. Nemov (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not being "protective", I am just responding to your feedback. The section is not objectively too long, but I am still willing to work together to find a compromise.

  As I noted above, most of that first paragraph would be elsewhere in the article if this section didn't exist. In fact, some of it was, I pulled bits from writing and marketing to put in the section because it is all talking about the same stuff. The fact that it is now all grouped together is not a good reason to start deleting stuff.

  We have three sentences about negative fan responses, mostly about the casting but we note that there are some "legitimate concerns". Addressing this stuff is the whole point of the section. Then we have two sentences about negative responses to Headland being gay, which is another pretty key element of the responses to this show and should not be ignored. The end of the first paragraph is a response from Kennedy that is clearly noteworthy, and a response from Headland that I also think is clearly noteworthy. Starting the second paragraph we have some audience interest data; this would be in the viewership section if it wasn't here, and it is key for showing that the negative responses do not reflect the entire audience. That is followed by discussion of the review bombing and comparisons to other Star Wars series, which again is the whole point of having an audience response section and is important context. I don't love the line from Erik Kain, who I think has become ridiculous and biased in his reviews of late, but it was added by another user as a counterpoint to the review bombing claims so I kept it in for the sake of trying to be neutral. The last two lines are not as integral to the section, but they specifically comment on wider conservative media criticisms which I think is important to include in some way.

  So, with that breakdown, can you give me specifics on how we can slim down the section without just pretending that none of it is important? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  This breakdown is no longer accurate, as I shuffled around a couple things and consolidated some lines with my latest work on the section. The intention behind each part is still there though, along with the latest details that I just added. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  No. We should focus on what reliable sources say. As with all recently released Star Wars media, there are legitimate criticisms, yes, but it's not helpful to pretend like these are what the negative reception is about.

  Complaints about a show within a greater franchise "breaking canon" are nothing but blatant concern-trolling, and after the events of the past 10 years, we should really know better than to fall for it. Star Wars is an ongoing franchise, ever changing as more and more installments are released. The canon is constantly evolving.

  The creative decisions are made at Lucasfilm, making them the authority on what's canon and what isn't. If anything, the complete absence of "midichlorians" or whatever the heck they're called shows that the current owners of the IP care more about what could or could not break canon than Lucas ever did. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's relevant whether you think criticisms of Star Wars are concern-trolling or not. If people don't like something, that's the end of it. It's not our job to sift audience criticisms for "valid" opinions. John Smith's (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, I've made this really simple. The article talks about post-release reviews from audience members. Following that there should be a reference to what people actually said. After this, only at the end, should be comments about review-bombing. Otherwise the article comes across as being partisan by taking sides on whether the audience views were valid or not.

For similar reasons I removed the text that will have come across as an attempt to dismiss non-critic views. If someone wants to add in that text, I suggest it be added in the critic review section. Otherwise I don't see how it's relevant. There will always be critics who disagree with audience reviews, just as there will be audience members who disagree with critic reviews. There's no reason to merge the two. John Smith's (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't have any audience reviews that aren't WP:USERG. The weight of the sources state that the audience scores are review bombed so we say in Wiki voice that those user generated scores are attributed to a review bombing." Explaining that user generated content is not reliable isn't dismissing non-critic reviews. It's the reality. Nemov (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

At the minimum the article should say who has said the negative reviews came from review bombing, so I have put that back in. John Smith's (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted it since there's several sources for it including The Independent. This isn't the view or opinion of one source. With that much sourcing we don't need to attribute to one source. Please find consensus for your change before reverting again. Nemov (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@John Smith's You reverted it anyway. Please find consensus before making further changes to this wording. Nemov (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No, you should find consensus. I took the time to rewrite the section so it was less partisan. You have not explain why it is inappropriate to say who mentioned this was review-bombing, not least because this article relies on Screen Rant's reasoning. John Smith's (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You changed the section. Editors took time to write it before you showed up. Your change has been challenged and now the onus is on you to find support for it. This is now your warning on edit warring. I would recommend you self revert. Nemov (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I clearly can't get "consensus" because you're opposed to it. Or do you recuse yourself from any discussions on finding consensus? Also, as I pointed out the section was a mess before I stepped in with other users complaining it was biased and others saying "huh, well you fix it then". So I fixed it. John Smith's (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You've been Wikipenda awhile so I don't need to explain how consensus works. You're also not the aribetor of what is a mess or how to fix something. Nemov (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

So you prefer the previous version of the section before I rewrote it? John Smith's (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

We do not just present complaints from online commentors without context and analysis from reliable sources. There is a difference between critical reviews of the series and commentary on the review bombing and online responses. I am also against the order change in the section, as the review bombing is clear and obvious now while the audience complaints are still developing as the series releases new episodes. It doesn't make sense to mention initial audience complaints, then talk about review bombing, and then return to audience complaints when there are updates. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

First, regarding the change you made, Kennedy did not "speak out against personal attacks by the primarily male fandom". All that was said was:

"In a brief telephone interview, Kennedy’s support for “The Acolyte” was steadfast. “My belief is that storytelling does need to be representative of all people,” she said. “That’s an easy decision for me.” “Operating within these giant franchises now, with social media and the level of expectation — it’s terrifying,” Kennedy continued. “I think Leslye has struggled a little bit with it. I think a lot of the women who step into ‘Star Wars’ struggle with this a bit more. Because of the fan base being so male dominated, they sometimes get attacked in ways that can be quite personal.”

You've read into her comments what you imagine she was doing, which isn't appropriate. So I'd encourage you to revert your own change.

Second, I don't follow what you want the article to say. Could you post in the Talk section what you want it to say? John Smith's (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how you can read that quote from Kennedy and come to the conclusion that my summary was inappropriate. She is literally speaking out against online comments made about Headland and the show, and specifically says "Because of the fan base being so male dominated, they sometimes get attacked in ways that can be quite personal." - adamstom97 (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The two thoughts were separate. She defended the show. She then went on to say that because most Star Wars fans are male, sometimes women who work on Star Wars can be attacked in ways that can be quite personal. It's quite clear. John Smith's (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

What you just said does not contradict what I said. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It does. She defended the show. She then talked about how criticisms of staff could be personal. She didn't speak out against personal attacks by male fandom. John Smith's (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Defended the show from what? Like Adam, I don't see the contradiction. Nemov (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Defended the show from criticism. She didn't reference "male fans" in the criticism, that's you and Adam joining the dots yourself. John Smith's (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Attribution tags

I just reverted a bunch of tags that were completely unnecessary.[2] The most egregious was asking for attribution for something that has multiple sources. Please quit trying trying to jam in stuff into this section without support. Nemov (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nemov, we don't need to specify who exactly said something when multiple commentors or analysts are saying it. The review bombing attribution in particular is currently sourced to seven different articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful to say who specifically is being referred to. "Commentators" is a meaningless term, as is "conservative". Why not say the specific websites/people? John Smith's (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Also it's not good-faith for you to make statements like asking me to quit "Jam in stuff without support". I'm trying to engage with your views, but you're shutting me down as if you own the page. John Smith's (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Good faith would not to be adding these tags after my comments yesterday. You went ahead and did it anyway and I had to come here an repeat myself again. The section is adequately sourced and doesn't need attribution. I'm not gonna keep beating this dead horse. Nemov (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You're deliberately ignoring what I'm saying. I am not saying the section was not adequately sourced. I'm trying to reason with you to allow the page to be specific. What the hell is a "commentator"? It's a completely meaningless term. Why are you so opposed to specifics? John Smith's (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

When we refer to a specific piece of commentary we note the name and publication that it came from, but when we are aggregating the views of multiple commentators we do not. Otherwise we would end up with long lists of names and publications that add nothing to the reader's understanding of what is actually being discussed, and it is particular inappropriate when we are just providing examples of wider opinions that also exist in other sources not being used in the article. Do you seriously think the sentence "This was attributed to a review bombing campaign" would be improved by us listing the seven sources we have referencing it, as well as any other name and publication that expressed the same thought on the internet in recent weeks? - adamstom97 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I never suggested adding every source in, I specifically cited one example (Screen Rant?) on the basis they had done the analysis. Most of the others just said "review bombing" and added nothing. Indeed I don't think it's necessary to have seven different citations for the same point. I didn't try to claim that the review bombing claim was a lie/fabrication/whatever. I personally would prefer to say something along the lines that there was review bombing of audience reviews, and that X and Y sources identified it via a,b,c factors.

More importantly only one instance of the tag was for review bombing. The other two were for "commentators" and "conservative commentators". Both terms are unhelpful because "commentators" is a meaningless term. They also contradict each other, because "commentators" would include conservatives. That makes no sense at all. John Smith's (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If we were including specific quotes or opinions from certain sources analysing the review bombing then I would agree that those specific sources should be called out, but the latest version of the section has been streamlined to just note the basic facts and details due to concerns at this talk page that the section was too big. If you have a different collective term that you prefer we use over "commentators" then feel free to suggest it, but I disagree that adding a qualifier to specify a group of commentators is somehow contradictory. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not really a group of commentators, it's two websites. You could say Forbes and Screen Rant. But this is one reason I've suggested below just removing all the section on audience reviews, because it's clear that I'm outvoted by people who want audience reviews dismissed or qualified to the point where it no longer serves any purpose. John Smith's (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes stepping away from the dead horse is the wise decision. Nemov (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Mate, your behaviour is starting to come across as harassment. I made a suggestion below about stripping out audience reviews as a sign of good faith. Rather engage with that, you've quite rudely tried to drive me off. You don't have to like me, but can you please just leave me alone if you're not going to act in good faith? John Smith's (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Please try to avoid personal attacks, Nemov is simply responding to your comments and is in no way harassing you. A similar argument could be made about the way you have been bludgeoning this talk page with complaints without much support from Wikipedia guidelines or other users. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss this anymore, I'm not going to force you to. But there's only three of us here, so it's a bit hard to get other users involved. John Smith's (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion - strip out audience reviews entirely

As a sign of good faith, can I make one last suggestion which is to entirely strip out discussion of audience reviews until after season 1 has broadcast. One of the "counter-complaints" was that negative audience reviews were based on plot developments that might be explained by later episodes. In which case it would make sense to simply take out everything other than critic reviews and viewship numbers. Then, after the last episode has broadcast, can audience reviews go in.

Simultaneously it might be possible to bring in non-traditional critic reviews, such as video reviews that don't get picked up in metacritic and the rest. John Smith's (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you also suggest we remove the critical response section since those reviews are only of the first few episodes? Just because the season hasn't finished airing doesn't mean the responses to it by critics and audiences so far are not noteworthy. You are correct that some of the audience responses are noted to be premature in the section, but that is the whole point. We wouldn't necessarily leave that line out if making this section once all the episodes are out. Just as has happened over the last few weeks, the reception section will continue to evolve as the rest of the season is released and more details emerge.

While we are not restricted to critical reviews that are aggregated by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, those do give us a good indication of noteworthy and respected review outlets. Any other reviews added would need to be seriously creditable, and definitely not the kind of clickbait nonsense that comes to mind when you say "non-traditional critic reviews, such as video reviews". - adamstom97 (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If the page cites an article that says negative audience reviews are premature and therefore "bad", the argument could be made that print media critic reviews are also premature because they haven't seen the entire series. Indeed, a lot of the print media reviews do not do end of series reviews.

However, I personally do not care if the critic review stay up. I just think it would be better to remove the audience reviews until after the series is over, then there's no need to say "negative reviews were premature" as it would include people who have seen everything. Right now the page reads very dismissively of audience views - so why bother including them at all for now?

Regarding video reviews, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Presumably you'd accept that people with millions of subscribers and hundreds of thousands of views for their reviews would be acceptable? Like Redlettermedia, Angryjoe, Jeremy Jahns, etc? John Smith's (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is dismissive of audience views because all of our reliable sources are dismissive of them, due to them being highly affected by review bombing. That is the only reason it is being discussed at all, usually we would exclude audience reviews and comments per WP:USERG. Hiding the section until after the show is done in hopes of the audience reviews being proven right is not how things are done here. Similarly, having millions of subscribers and hundreds of thousands of views does not make a review acceptable for Wikipedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not suggest "hiding" the section. I said nothing about audience reviews being proven right, either. You can't "prove" audience views are right or wrong. I made a suggestion about removing it until the series was over.

How would you assess a video review of being appropriate for including in a reviews section of a page like this? Objectively speaking. For example, could you give an example of an acceptable video review for the Mandalorian? John Smith's (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes: The Critics Scores Are Inconsistent

The Rotten Tomatoes score should be removed, since it is regularly inconsistent. The number currently cited on the Wikipedia page "85%, 150 reviews" came with the breakdown of 125-25, which is only 83.3%. This inconsistency has been regular - and apparently confined just to the All Critics entry, not to other movies or TV shows, nor to the "Top Critics" entry (which, currently, is 72%, with a breakdown of 21-8). At the time of writing, this inconsistency still exists, with the current rating "84%", 167 reviews, having a breakdown of 139-28, which is only 83.2%.

Edit: Upon closer examination, the inconsistency not just confined to the season 1 Acolyte page. At the time of writing, the main page for the Acolyte also lists 84% for All Critics, but with a breakdown of only 82-20 (80.4%). On both this page and the season 1 page for the Acolyte, only 102 critics reviews are actually listed, not the 167 claimed to exist. They break down as 82 positive, 20 negative, as stated on the main page. The numbers on the same program don't even match from page to page.

Nor is it confined to just the Acolyte. The combined page cites a All Critics score of 86%, but breaks down as 91-20, which is only 82.0%. The season 1 page also has a score of 86% with 267 reviews, which breaks down as 232-35 (86.9%). The Top Critics score is consistent 73%, with a break down of 16-6 (72.7%) on both pages. Only 101 critics reviews are actually listed, with 91 positive and 20 negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA00:151F:0:0:0:193B (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - we don't remove RT data because it is out of date, if you see that it needs to be updated you can feel free to make those changes. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Dislikes

I'm removing this recent addition by @Andykatib until there's some better reporting.[3] YouTube doesn't show dislikes and this "dislike" data comes from a browser extension that estimates dislikes based on the people who install it.[4] In other words, it way over estimates dislikes. It's not accessing an API. Google removed that back in 2021.[5] Nemov (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nemov:, no worries. Thanks for explaining the methodology behind the MovieWeb article and the reliability issues. Will wait for better sources on the topic. Thanks for getting in touch. Andykatib (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity? Where does your information comes from that it overestimates dislikes? I only heard it tends to underestimate dislikes, sometimes drastically.

The information itself is still not worthy for the article of course, but that claim makes me curious.. 2A02:908:190:AF80:BD2B:32C2:D544:765D (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

he pulled it out of his as 46.186.200.116 (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Episode 5-6 Description Issues

The Episode 6 Description has a punctuation error. At the very least, "which is made from the lightsaber-blocking metal cortosis" should have a comma before it. That's separate to the issue that the helmet has other things more important about it, such as Qimir explaining that it deprives the senses to enhance the Force (which is what allows Osha's vision in Episode 7). Also, the lightsaber-blocking component is entirely irrelevant to the story after it is mentioned in Episode 6. The lightsaber-blocking element only comes up in Episode 5, in that he uses his helmet and armor to defeat the Jedi. Even then, though, "resistant" is a better term, since the helmet does get broken by a lightsaber in Episode 5. 97.84.36.34 (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The plot summary is not the place to explain all the details of how the helmet works. It is for a brief summary of key plot details. The sensory deprivation and vision elements are not necessary to summarise the plot, and would take up too much space to properly explain to a reader unfamiliar with the series. What we do have space to do is explain what cortosis is, which is a lightsaber-blocking metal. It is not resistant to lightsabers in the way that beskar is so I don't think it would be right to use that term. It was broken by force, rather than a lightsaber blade. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

"The Acolyte (upcoming TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Acolyte (upcoming TV series) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 27 § The Acolyte (upcoming TV series) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Fan Reception ?

I came across several articles stating that some fans have been "campaigning" on social media to get the show a second season, however, I wanted to discuss if that seems relevant or not to be added on this article.

Here are a some sources I found : MovieWeb, Newsarama, ComingSoon.net, Screen Rant, ComicBook.com, GeekTyrant, Comic Book Resources.

I believe that it seems notable enough to be mentioned somewhere, what do you think ? Higher Further Faster (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel that is enough coverage to warrant a mention. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The Stranger???

I know that Qimir is his name but shouldn’t we put his alias “The Stranger” in the cast? HiGuys69420 (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added this with a source to support it. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)