Talk:Hazbin Hotel

Lead Paragraph

Needs revision. The lead should summarise the contents of the article, while at the moment the information found there is found only there, and not anywhere else in the article. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Have removed the blatant copyright infringement from the lead. May still be a case of close paraphrasing, but its better than a copy pasted summary. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Related Media section

Ive removed the section, as I couldnt find any independent sources for the information. Gentle reminder that WP is not advertising nor a newsletter, its an encyclopedia. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed it again today [[1]]. Is there a source for this that establishes notability and which is not advertising? PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Sneak Peeks

• Should we delete the Pilot sneak peeks playlist, now that the actual pilot was released? Hamodebu50 (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps. We may be able to get away with a longer description of the pilot, too. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, the sneak peeks list has been removed. Wasnt notable content in any event. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Pilot vs series

I contribute to the Patreon account for this - by all accounts it looks like this isn't a series just yet - it's a developing series per the creator as she has no plans to put out more episodes until it gets picked up or she's otherwise able to put out a full season. I'm going to try to find a source for this that isn't paywalled, but I may have to use it since describing this as a series (as in current) isn't really correct per se. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct, its not a series just yet. Fortunately, the very first reference already explains that this isnt a series but a single pilot episode, so theres the source. Im going to see about rephrasing this for accuracy and the much needed NPOV. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

characters section

Largely unsourced at present. I've added an original research tag rather than deleting it, as I suspect that it's going to be worthwhile content for the article, assuming notable, independent sources can be found. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to have a crack at paring this down. Mostly comes under WP:FANCRUFT. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A good chunk of the statements that you have marked as unsourced were explicitly stated in the first and only episode. You have completely overdone it. --Trade (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Trade If they were stated in the episode, that would constitute WP:OR. Generally we need WP:RS to satisfy WP:V, which isnt really going to happen for statements that are mentioned offhand once in an episode. For good measure, WP:IINFO and as above, WP:FANCRUFT. If Ive completely overdone it, by all means explain how - Im keen for collaborative effort. Its a lot easier with more people working on it! PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

These came from the fandom site. That means it’s unreliable, right? Wrong. The wikia page directly and meticulously sources the creators (Vivziepop’s) YouTube videos, etc. These are all from a very reliable source-the creator of the media. TvTropes has a word for this: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod To fix these, go here: https://hazbinhotel.fandom.com/wiki/ and find the character you want to “verify.” PrimalBlueWolf, I’m looking at you. But anyone else can help too. These are from reliable sources, and we can add them, just not me because I need to go back to my math homework. (Note: This entire comment is probably a complete mess, but it isn’t letting me switch to visual editor. This will undoubtedly be an unsigned comment because I am a complete idiot when it comes to using source mode.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmawesome126 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the creator of the media is a primary source, and not a good one at all. TvTropes may have a word for this, but this isnt TvTropes - this is Wikipedia. See WP:NOTRS for details. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Per the lack of discussion since Feb, Ive removed the Other Characters section. Before reverting, Id ask for discussion here, as well as a cursory browsing of WP:IINFO, WP:FANCRUFT, and WP:NOTRS. Editing is a lot easier when we work together :D PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Sir Pentious, Cherri Bomb, Katie Killjoy, Tom Trench, and the Egg Bois are all voiced characters who have relatively significant enough parts in the pilot. Going by what's been presented by the pilot, they are indeed side characters and not intended to be main characters of a potential series. They however have been featured in various advertisements, merchandise, and etc. for the pilot so far. They also have enough screen time/characterization to rival the intended main characters in the pilot. This is especially so in regards to Niffty.

Niffty is clearly intended to be a main character by virtue of being hired as the maid of the hotel. Compared to the majority of the other characters however, she has a much smaller role. She is introduced, has a few lines of dialogue, and remains voiceless for the rest of the pilot either in the background or as part of the lineup of the intended main characters. When contrasted with someone like Sir Pentious, Niffty seems more like a minor character than him. Taking her out however would come off as silly as she's intended to be a main character. Therefore, if such a character with very little involvement in the pilot is worth mentioning, then it comes off as strange that others with more involvement in the pilot than her aren't deem worthy.

Travis has a very minor role in the pilot. Him being voiced by Don Darryl Rivera however kinda makes him a guest voiced character in a sense given the context of the pilot. He is though named in a tweet rather than in the show itself so there's that.

With the characters that are voiced and credited in mind, it might be worth considering to organize the characters at least for starters by who's voiced and credited in the pilot rather than by main characters, others, and etc. While it's clear by what's given by the pilot who are intended to be the main characters, with only the pilot to go so far, it's a bit unclear for some other characters if they're going to be recurring or etc. In other words, start with one character section listing at first the voiced and credited characters in the pilot instead of multiple subsections. If subsections have to be considered then at least consider just adding the voiced and credited characters at first.

Other characters that aren't voiced and credited in the pilot maybe should only be added gradually based on what happens next. Many of them are very minor characters so far and only exist as cameos in the pilot as of this writing. They should at least be kept in mind especially as the creators intend to expand the story through comics and other means.

On a sidenote, if the character list is going to be rewritten/reorganized, then Lucifer and Lilith's inclusion might have to be reevaluated. In the pilot, Charlie's parents aren't voiced and aren't even seen properly beyond pictures and silhouettes. They're actually other characters rather than guest ones but in context of the lore, they're kinda high in story importance.

Notability

per WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, is this topic (currently) sufficiently notable to warrant its own article? PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps not in the time being, but after the series catches up in terms of episodes, maybe it will warrant its own article. Hamodebu50 (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I propose that this would be best returned to a draft - I think we are still in WP:TOOSOON territory on this one unfortunately. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

copyright violation - Episode section

The description of Episode one is directly copied as-is from the Hazbin hotel website. Needs re-writing to remove the copyright violation. Im hesitant to just remove it outright, as it seems beneficial to the article, but Im also not confident of my ability to paraphrase it smoothly. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Your are correct, PrimalBlueWolf this was a blatant copyright violation of the official site. I have removed then infringign text, and replaced it with na very basic text, and use Revision Deletion to remove mall the revisions in the history which contained the ninfringing text from visibility -- which turns out to mean all of them before my edit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please do not reinsiter content copied from the official site unless it is marked, attributed, and cited as a quotation, and don't overdo quotations either. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The description of Niffty under the Main Characters section matches word for word the description found on an external website, quotev.com. The website claims the content is under a CC-BY-SA license, and indicates a series of users as the original authors of that content. Its not immediately clear how old the content is, and whether or not they are infringing WP's copyright, or WP is infringing on their copyright. DES can you offer advice? PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Inside of Every Demon is a Rainbow" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Inside of Every Demon is a Rainbow. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The series is brand new and (as of writing this, when the series has only 1 episode) the song only appeared once. --Chazpelo (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2020

"On August 7, 2020, it was announced that Hazbin has officially been picked up for a TV series by A24, but any information on the production or any proposed release date remains yet to be revealed." Please change "that Hazbin has officially" to "that Hazbin Hotel has officially" SauceyRed (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The link in Vivizians credit links back to this article. Could this be removed as it is unnessary?

There is no point for clicking on her inside of this article to lead back to this exact same article. Could it be removed? 169.244.116.71 (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. Yeah, I would say the links to it in this article should be removed, but the re-direct page itself which re-directs her name to this article, should be kept. Perhaps, in the future, it can be turned into a more proper page. --Historyday01 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Conventions for naming Vivienne Medrano

There is a discussion about how best to write Medrano's name over on the Helluva Boss talk page. I humbly ask you to give input over there, as the consensus there will likely apply here, too. I will update this section if or when a consensus has been reached. SWinxy (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@SWinxy, I've put together a draft page for her at Draft:Vivienne Medrano if you are interested. --Historyday01 (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Since this is apparently a "primary source" and can't be in the main article

This part:

Additionally, one animator, Faustisse, even said that a character, Husk, was pansexual, in a YouTube stream titled "Inking the Hazbin Hotel ALASTOR Comic"

I don't know what the deal is with @User:Drmies. Anyway, WP:SELFSOURCE says that "use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." One link to a tweet by Medrano falls under that standard. Also WP:Twitter-EL says "aspecific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source." Furthermore WP:ABOUTSELF states that "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources." This tweet also fulfills this requirement. So can people please read the Wikipedia rules before declaring war on all primary sources? Come on now. --Historyday01 (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll keep looking for more and better sources all the time... but I hate those people who grumble when a link to a video or tweet is added. Sometimes that's only where the information is available! Do editors never think about that or that review sites generally favor TV series over web series? I mean, this isn't that hard to figure out. There all sorts of great web series out there, but reviewers don't give a rats ass about them, so they don't write about them. They'd rather write about "mainstream" shows instead. Historyday01 (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Eh, I think my "deal" is that I like for an encyclopedia whose content is based on independent secondary sources to have its content based on secondary sources. That passive-aggressive shit is not very conducive to a collaborative atmosphere. What I don't understand in this somewhat inappropriate talk page post is this--you're complaining about someone having removed a footnote about some person saying something in a now-removed YouTube livestream (how's that for RS?), and then you're going on to talk about a tweet by someone else, which was the other part of an edit. And you had to lard that with a personal attack in the edit summary, an instance of WP:TDLI. No, I don't "like" it because it's a tweet by someone. And it's not necessary for the article. And if these people's responses were somehow important to the subject of the article, then secondary sourcing would have been available.

  But the second part of your diatribe indicates what's really at stake: you don't seem to care about RS, about independent, secondary sourcing (which is why you're citing a "white paper" published by...yeah, the writer of the "white paper"), because the "great web series" you refer to aren't discussed by secondary sources, who'd "rather write about 'mainstream' shows instead". Want to read some Wikipedia rules? You're enacting WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you want "reviewers" to give a rats [sic] ass, become a reviewer, not a Wikipedia editor. Because this is the thing that helps turn all these articles, from Disney to anime to K-pop, into heaps of trivia and tweeted stuff. You might as well cite every single tweet and Instagram post: what's stopping you? Not WP:RS! Drmies (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. There's a lot of negative vibes and passive aggressive energy in your comment. It seems like every discussion I have on here with users like yourself, especially in LGBTQ pages, falls into, I'd argue, WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH, which says while there is "nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources," there is a limit to "how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner." I'd say that WP:TDLI does not apply here, as that is about deletion discussions and this is clearly not a deletion discussion. So, I'm not sure why you brought that up. With this comment, I don't want to re-hash my arguments and want to pull back from the brink. As for the YouTube livestream, it seemed worth mentioning because an animator confirmed the LGBTQ identity of a character. But, hopefully someone writes about it someday. I still think the other tweets are worth keeping. Evershed, who wrote that white paper, has been cited mainly places in the past like Cartoon Brew and Animation World Network, as one of the showrunners of Happy Tree Friends, so it seemed to make sense to add him in, with the report summarized in Animation World Network. If I really was trying to right "wrongs," I'd be creating all sorts of pages for webcomics that I read, but I don't...because no one has written about them. And there should be more reviewers and there are some great web series out there, but whether they write about web series, that is their business. Whether I become a reviewer or not, that is my business. I do care about reliable sources, but I also believe that self-published sources, or what you call "primary sources," are fine with being used as long as they are using sparingly. To say that "secondary sources" prove that something is "important," does not recognize what I noted, that reviewers generally don't talk about web series. Well, I wouldn't cite every single tweet and Instagram post because it would be too many social media links, and too many self-published sources, which wouldn't follow rules on here. I still think it is is justified to use social media links here and there, as long as the rest of the article cites secondary reliable sources. There's always more Wikipedia rules to read from time to time. It did seem a bit arbitrary for you to edit this article specifically, taking into account that "it is important to recognize that everybody has bias" as it says at the top as it says at the top of WP:TE, and I'd say your comments almost falls into WP:AAGF, along with possibly into WP:CIR. And I'm ignoring your personal attacks here (talking about "passive-aggressive shit"). But, I would still like to accept other users, and try and do that, even as I'm not assuming bad faith on your part.Historyday01 (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

My two cents on this whole primary sources thing is that Wikipedia rules do not disallow primary sources. They are absolutely allowed. What it says, specifically, is that secondary sources are preferred, not required. If you see a tidbit on a Wikipedia article whose citation links to a primary source, you are not to delete it unless either A. the statement is the editor's interpretation and wasn't explicitly said in the primary source, or B. you have a secondary source that says the same thing to replace it with. To remove a primary source just because you remember they are frowned upon, though, is against Wikipedia's rules.

Here's a direct quote of the rule on primary sources: "Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)."

Applying this to the incident in this talk thread, it seems pretty cut and dry that Historyday's original edit was within the rules, as it appears to be a direct quote (not an interpretation) of someone who works directly on the show stating, explicitly, a character's sexual orientation. Replacing the livestream link with a verifiable secondary source that says the thing is an appropriate edit. Moving the link into a citation instead of being inline with the text is also appropriate. Editing the source with a timestamp to where the quote is said is appropriate. Replacing the link with an archived snippet of the video is appropriate. Deleting the link and statement altogether is not appropriate. That is, unless the link is dead. Which it is. For that reason alone, Drmies was right to remove it. B1KWikis (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"Oh, harder daddy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Oh, harder daddy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 14#Oh, harder daddy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Citation overkill

There is so much citation overkill in this article.

Sentences like. Hazbin Hotel is an American adult animated musical comedy web series created, directed, written and produced by Vivienne "VivziePop" Medrano.[4][1][2][5] It is made entirely by freelance animators and is largely financed by Medrano's Patreon followers.[6][7][8][9]

And

A spin-off series, Helluva Boss, unveiled its first season on October 31, 2020, almost one year after the release of its own pilot.[16][17][18][19][20]

Don’t need that many sources. These sentences are an example of WP:OVERKILL.CycoMa (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, I see what you are saying, and I did what I could to do some reductions (as you can see in my recent edit), but the reason that citations were added was to ensure that someone doesn't come along and declare "ah ha, this article doesn't have enough sources! Too many self-published sources are cited, ha! I'll add a notice to the top of the article to 'help' people out because I'm such a 'nice' person!" I'm not saying you or @User:SWinxy is like that, but that was the reason the citations were added, to blunt such comments of supposed "original research" or some BS that some editors pull out of their hats to put pages in question. I would rather more content be added to the page, than lesser at this point, but that's my view on it. And sure, content could be moved to another part of the page too, but I'm not so sure about slicing the page down for one reason or another. Historyday01 (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean Cy has a valid point. It can be particularly frustrating esp in the lede. For the point about too few citations, you shouldn't WP:REFBOMB to fake notability. But then again, Cy should have been WP:BOLD and removed citations in the first place rather than WP:DRIVEBY tagging (or, well, putting something on the talk page). I added the tag just for due diligence. SWinxy (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

SWinxy, I agree that Cy could have removed the citations in the first place. Haven't heard of "DRIVEBY" tagging, but that has definitely happened on some pages I often frequent, where users will add the tag, but then they'll never start a discussion on the talk page, which can be a bit annoying. So, I'm glad that CycoMa made a post on here. All I'm saying is that is why the citations were added in the first place. And in future editing I'll keep in mind about over-citation. In any case, I can always wish that more people would write about Hazbin, but that's a whole different discussion. Apparently, Medrano is going to be presenting something at the Ottawa International Animation Festival later this month about creating Hazbin and Helluva, so maybe there will be more coverage of that? I hope there is. Historyday01 (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Page not on topic

Half this article is about Helluva Boss, not Hazbin Hotel. 69.172.150.74 (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a gross exaggeration. The two are interconnected and there is small portion of the page on Hazbin, but definitely NOT half of the article. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hazbin hotel logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

episode

why hazbin hotel made its only episode which is the pilot itself? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:B8A8:7E75:EDEB:4A70 (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Episode listings typically show the pilot episode in the table if it was broadcasted, regardless of if it was part of the first season or not. I'm pretty sure that the pilot will not be considered part of season 1, and instead be a standalone pilot episode. SWinxy (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

now there's 8 episodes on prime video :) 24.115.255.37 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

and btw sorry for the necropost 24.115.255.37 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Removals on Hazbin Hotel page

In relation to the discussion on the Vivienne Medrano talk page, @User:Ganesha811, your comment to "avoid overdetail, promotionalism in lead" doesn't help. The cited sources like CBR and Senza Linea are meant to show the "dedicated fanbase", to be promotional. Furthermore, the movieweb source notes how many views the series has received, and the CBR source noted how this had changed from the past.

I suppose all of this could be moved from the lead to a possible sub-section in the reception section of the main page entitled "Fandom" (like the one at Steven Universe#Fandom), as I did in recent edits here and here. But, it shouldn't be removed entirely. As for your other edit, I think some of those sources should stay, as I did in my edit. I did remove some more of the sources and here in recent edits. There's only two student papers, I think, cited in the article, presently. I think it is worth mentioning the John Evershed paper. In any case, whenever the first season premieres, there will (presumably) be many more reliable sources which can be added, and the page can be further improved then.Historyday01 (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

There's still some material I would consider overdetail, but on balance, your changes after my edit resulted in a fair compromise between our positions, so thanks for your work on improving the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. As I said in my previous comment, considering this will be a series premiering on some platform, it is likely it will get additional coverage, and hence more reliable sources will be added in as well. Historyday01 (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

"Edward Bosco" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Edward Bosco 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/2023 November 14 § Edward Bosco until a consensus is reached. Blubewwy (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Why does Elsie Lovelock redirect to this page

Elsie Lovelock, who has voiced characters from other indie shows such as The Amazing Digit Circus and Murder Drones, but redirects to Hazbin Hotel for some reason. Why is that? 2600:1002:B055:CEFB:71FD:6FBF:8A22:F888 (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I meant The Amazing Digital Circus 2600:1002:B055:CEFB:71FD:6FBF:8A22:F888 (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Because she voiced Charlie before she voiced the characters in those shows, and Charlie is the main character of Hazbin Hotel, whereas her roles in the other shows may not have been the main character. If you want to discuss the purpose of this redirect, take it to redirects for discussion to get a few more opinions on it. Blubewwy (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. And there was a page for her back in April, but it was completely unsourced. Historyday01 (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

She also voices Uzi, the main character in Murder Drones 2600:1002:B03D:60B3:E890:52D2:7145:6989 (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, Hazbin Hotel came out long before Murder Drones. Blubewwy (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Murder drones has been out for two years, and while Hazbin is more popular, it still only has one episode (I think) with more on the way in Jan 2024 but only on prime video. Murder drones has six episodes. 2600:1002:B03D:60B3:28E2:A7A6:3FA9:5A07 (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I'd be open to having a page for her, provided that there were enough reliable sources for the page. Historyday01 (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay. We should add Elsie Lovelock to redirects for discussion or something 24.115.255.37 (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

can someone pls do it 24.115.255.37 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Please 2600:1002:B152:1418:3834:8FCF:7B40:E3FE (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Political reception

A subsection was added to Reception which talked about brigading by, to directly quote the paragraph, "Conservatives (including those falsely fighting for Christianity)". While I find the idea the show was brigaded plausible this was poorly written, unsourced and felt more like a politically motivated move than reporting. I have also failed to find any source past a single blog post from 2019 so it happening is dubious (or my search skills are). Reverted the edit but opening this to raise some eyes on if anyone has sources supporting the claim that the show was brigaded by right-wing individuals. KnifePie (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I saw somebody mocking one of the notorious online doofuses, who was performatively howling that the show encourages demon worship, so clearly there is an attempt by some far-right types to turn this into an outrage circus. The question is whether this will gain enough traction to receive RS coverage before they move on to something else. We don't want to cover it unless there are RS sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree. I remember a similar issue with High Guardian Spice#Reception, some time ago, where people kept trying to add in certain sources (like videos from "well-known" YouTubers), but that "criticism" never received enough RS coverage to ever include. Historyday01 (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

About a month ago I saw a post on r/atheism that linked a news article about ppl cancelling prime video over hazbin hotel but idk. I'm only 13, I don't know everything. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the amount of people who have watched the series is pretty high, by all accounts. I suppose it is possible some people are cancelling Prime Video over the series. I went through about five or six subreddits on /r/atheism before writing this comment and didn't see any news articles about anyone cancelling Prime Video over the series. Historyday01 (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

don't think subreddits is the right word, but u prob won't find it, I saw it on January 20th in the top upvoted of the past day. I do have a few screenshots of the reddit post so I can tell you the post was created by u/G8BigCongrats7_30, but I don't have the link to the post. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I meant, I went through five or six posts on /r/atheism. In any case, screenshots from a Reddit post would be self-published and not acceptable as a source anyhow.Historyday01 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2024

In the "Episodes" section, under Season 1 Episode 7, one sentence in the summary fundamentally misconstrues an important plot point. Currently, the sentence reads "Alastor, in an attempt to cheer Charlie up, tells her that there is a way to kill exterminators, and that Carmilla Carmine knows how." It should be changed to something like "After convincing Charlie to strike a demonic deal with him in return for information, Alastor tells her that there is a way to kill exterminators, and that Carmilla Carmine knows how." This is not just an attempt to cheer Charlie up, Alastor is taking advantage of her state to convince her to agree to this deal. As is pictured numerous times in this show, deals with demons are dangerous. See: the aforementioned scene in Episode 7, as well as Alastor's penultimate appearance in Episode 8 (near the end) where he frantically tries to think of a loophole or other way to exploit his deal. Dmx0987654321 (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dmx0987654321 You're right, thanks for pointing this out. I've fixed it. Blubewwy (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Files Nominated For Deletion

There is an ongoing discussion about deleting the cover-images used in Poison (Hazbin Hotel song), Loser, Baby, Stayed Gone, Hell's Greatest Dad, and Lucifer Morningstar (Hazbin Hotel), which are all sub-articles of this article and topic. You can participate in the discussion here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Search byline - "Porn Series"?

Hello, just happened to notice that the byline that appears when someone searches for Hazbin Hotel in wikipedia is "American adult animated porn series". I suspect this is vandalism but am not sure where to change it. Can someone help? Thanks! 2600:100E:B080:DC5F:7CD5:C635:D139:AFED (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! Just fixed it. It was vandalism. I think we need to request semi-protection AGAIN, per WP:RFPP and WP:PPLIST. I think these edits are coming through because previous semi-protection, requested last month, expired: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2024/02#02 February 2024

Semi-protection was also requested back in 2021, but it only lasted two weeks: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2021/07#13 July 2021. It was also protected back in 2020, although I'm not sure how long that lasted. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2020/07#29 July 2020 Historyday01 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Reception of Masquerade

I don't know if this warrants a place on the article but would it be worth adding a subheading to reception about the controversies surrounding the 4th episode? FizzleDrunk (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The episode is controversial on Twitter and Tumblr only. Outside of those social media sites the episode has been met with very positive feedback and near-praise from critics and reviewers. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, unless you can find a good handful of actual articles from reviewers and news sources talking about the backlash, I'd keep it out of the Wikipedia page. Blubewwy (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm with that as well. Links to Twitter and Tumblr would fall under self-published sources as well, so they wouldn't be acceptable regardless. Historyday01 (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I’ll have a look and see if I can find anything, but if not then I agree that tumblr blog posts don’t really have a place as Wikipedia sources. FizzleDrunk (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Right. Its my understanding that under very limited circumstances self-published sources are acceptable (like if a creator confirms a character as LGBTQ+ on their Twitter or in a Tumblr, for instance), but generally they shouldn't be used. WP:RSPSOURCES is always a good quick guide to which sources are acceptable (I use it often if I'm not sure), and people have discussed it on the noticeboard too (can search it from WP:RSPMISSING) Historyday01 (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Is "That's Entertainment" (the Pilot) notable enouth to have its own article?

Hi, I was wondering, since quite a few episodes got their own articles, I was wondering if the pilot deserves one. It's not uncommon for pilots to have their articles on Wikipedia, and I would argue that this specific pilot is notable, as there is plenty of sources talking about, especially that it was reliesed as stand alone thing long before the seires were picked up, and was notable for becoming so huge as a privetly-animated project. What do you guys think?Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If you can find enough credible sources referring specifically to the pilot, then go ahead. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I second Turtletennisfogwheat. Blubewwy (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Updated view count

105 million as of April 2024 BurrritoIsAUsername (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Why Is "Thank You And Goodnight" Included Here?

Why is the song "Thank You And Goodnight" listed here despite the fact that it is not an official song and was made by the pilot cast as a farewell song from them and that Vivziepop had no involvement in it? 69.94.81.184 (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It was added during a push to expand all the Hazbin-related articles. It doesn't seem to have any mention in reliable sources, so I'll remove it. Blubewwy (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)