Talk:Star Trek: Discovery

CBS Censorship

Rumour goes that CBS is paying Wikipedia people to suppress negative commentary on talk pages about Star Trek issues. Therefor the bias that Crazy Minh is talking about. Stark financial interests determine what and how topics are discussed: Wikipedia as an independent source of information is severely compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:A2B5:5E00:1C2:3AAB:266B:F4F5 (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

There's also a rumour that the earth is flat. DonQuixote (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence of censorship. DGtal (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I am betting Elvis and Jim Morrison are behind this.

Or a time traveler. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Now you're just being ridiculous. Everyone know Elvis wasn't real! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)e

I don't think that there is CBS censorship at work. It's just pissed off Star Trek fandom that intervenes, when there are comments written that they feel inapproriate. If this is o.k. i don't know. You can ask yourself: Is this a talk page or not? E.g. to delete comment that says that this show or that is silly like "Star Trek: Insipid" with an ugly ship etc. could be seen as censoring. That is the bias Crazy Minh is talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.140.138 (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Except, this talk page is to discuss how to improve the article and not to air your grievances against a show that we have no control over. Also, anything in the main article requires the citation of a reliable source so as to bypass personal biases. DonQuixote (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

He is coompletely right. Everybody who says sth denigrating about these new shows is a bad personm with a weak character and should be punished. I hope this commentary helped to improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.223.148.73 (talk • contribs)

You would need to cite a reliable source saying anything like that, otherwise your commentary isn't very helpful. DonQuixote (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Still sounds like a PR piece written by their interns. They got what they wanted already out of it already so their drones will stop editing the article. Go ahead and remove all the PR BS. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.251.195.241 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.192.112.49 (talk)

How is it like a PR piece? What, specifically, do you have an issue with? Whether or not it sounds like a PR piece to you really is inconsequential. The content is sourced and you need to provide justification for your claim and a a specific solution. If you refuse to answer these questions and don't provide a solution, nothing can be done to address your issues. Of course, I don't expect anything productive as you posted the same thing back in 2017,[1] and never provided any clarification or suggested a solution. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

My edit that added more mixed reviews was removed despite direct source material from reviewers that have literally one million plus subscribers. PoliticalEconomist (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason we use the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for that is that they synthesis the critical consensus.. You wanted to add a specific negative review from a Red Letter Media... which is run by two guys who tend to have a rather biased perspective... they aren't established critics they just have a you tube channel... that created a undue weight issue and a reliable sources issue. Spanneraol (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

As a variety of different outlets have documented, those sources do not provide an accurate picture of the critical consensus for a given show or movie. Here's an article from Columbia Journalism Review for you to check out if you'd like: https://www.cjr.org/special_report/rotten-tomatoes-movie-review.php. Another question, who exactly do you think most of the reviewers in the RT and Metacritic averages are exactly? They are, very literally, "some guy" or "some girl." Anyone who can start a movie review youtube channel can start a movie review website. Read down the list of reviewers included in the RT average, and don't pretend you recognize the sites after the first or second page. And RLM aren't established critics? They have almost 650 million combined views on youtube, and over one million subscribers. What exactly do you mean by established? PoliticalEconomist (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It would help if you cite sources that have reputations. Being self published on YouTube doesn't cut it, unfortunately. DonQuixote (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the guidelines is very narrow. The RLM creators are literally filmmakers with IMDB pages. Who, exactly, is a qualified source to review films if not them? Must one have a degree in film criticism from Columbia to be cited on Wikipedia? Clearly not, given that most of the reviewers included in the RT and metacritic averages have no significant qualification for the job aside from experience in the field. Just google their names. Also, most of those reviewers ARE self-published cites. Pages with a significant following like NYT, Vox, etc. make up a minority of the sources in those averages. This seems to be a kind of bias against video reviews compared to print. In terms of cost of production video is likely more costly in almost every instance. And you've made no argument that video reviews are, per se, inferior in quality to print reviews. The guidelines are very explicit about NOT removing significant minority views, I am once again reinstating my edit.PoliticalEconomist (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong... RT weights established critics over non notable ones.. the Hollywood Reporter, Variety, NY Times, etc... all reviewers with reputations and history. Also, you need to pay attention to policy.. if you have been reverted you are supposed to discuss and establish consensus.. continuing to reinsert your content after it has been challenged is a violation of policy and could lead to you being blocked. Spanneraol (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. Read Rotten Tomatoes own website (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/about#:~:text=The%20Tomatometer%20score%20represents%20the,given%20film%20or%20television%20show.&text=When%20at%20least%2060%25%20of,to%20indicate%20its%20Fresh%20status.), it clearly states: "The Tomatometer score – based on the opinions of hundreds of film and television critics – is a trusted measurement of critical recommendation for millions of fans." What you're describing is their "Top Critics" score, which is completely different. Read RT's application page for becoming a critic (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics/), it clearly states that self-published video content reviewers ARE ALLOWED and should be: "Video: Consistent output for a minimum of two years. A minimum of 200K subscribers on a video publishing platform qualifies for broad audience reach. Video channels reaching underrepresented groups will also be considered on a case-by-case basis. The show should feature multiple critics. Demonstrated social media presence and engagement (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, and/or Instagram)." RLM exceeds all of these qualifications by far. "Consensus" is not clearly defined on Wiki's guideline page, there is no system by which we vote or reach majority consensus. Using this policy to exclude minority held viewpoints is wrong, and I'm sure if an editor reviews this discussion he will see this. PoliticalEconomist (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The RT score takes all critics into account and doesnt elevate one over others which is what you are doing. You are also directly violating policy by continuing to restore disputed content without consensus. please see Wikipedia:BRD. Spanneraol (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your interpretation of the guidelines is very narrow.

...or, and bear with me on this one, your interpretation is too wide. If the only critics that you can find fall under self-published sources, then your interpretation probably doesn't hold much weight.

Who, exactly, is a qualified source to review films if not them?

If you have to ask that rather than citing an independent secondary source showing that they're notable critics, then they're probably not notable and unsuitable for a tertiary source like wikipedia.

The guidelines are very explicit about NOT removing significant minority views

From WP:DUE: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all....

And it's not a question of "video reviews" vs "print reviews"...it's the fact that the authors of the review in question haven't built up a reputation outside of a YouTube fanbase. That is, if you can provided either a video review or a print review (or even an audio review) from a reputable source, then it would be acceptable. DonQuixote (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a silly conversation to re-start. We obviously will not be entertaining the view point of random youtubers whose whole schtick is to give negative reviews for things. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The supposed "rumor" that CBS is paying editors on Wikipedia to fake Discovery's reviews is patently absurd. The Reptilians pay much better, so they call the shots.

Yeah, it seems there's a dispute here.

Step one: WP:BRD. If you make a bold change to an article and someone reverts you, discuss the issue. Do not restore your preferred version (absent WP:BLP or copyright issues). That doesn't resolve anything.

No one here seems to agree on where the source is reliable for the material. If only we had a noticeboard where people could take questions about a source's reliability to work toward a consensus... Maybe we'll add that to Wikipedia 2.0. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a **Serious** problem with the "critical reception" sections. People mention Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, but the audience score is being completely ignored on those websites. Also criticism from several other sources, which is here being completely ignored. The way the many wikipedia editors these days are using the "reliable sources" argument arbitrarily to exclude what they don't like is why wikipedia had a clear drop in quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.183.252 (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Interestingly, note the current version of The Orville here and compare with the present version of this article here...103.77.137.211 (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to cite TV Guide, or any other equally reliable source, whenever they discuss the audience score for Discovery. Also, review WP:RS and WP:NPOV. DonQuixote (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are user reviews being ignored on this article? Metacritic shows 3.7/10 for this show. You would think an unbiased encyclopedia would show that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmoledMan (talk • contribs) 07:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use user reviews from sites like that, per WP:USERGENERATED. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User reviews have no way of verifying their authenticity. Literally anyone can make as many accounts as they want on a site with user generated content and give the same opinion many times over or give varying opinions. The very nature of it makes it an unreliable metric. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable, Reputable, Serious

Could someone please supply a source for the arbiters of "Reliable" or, "Reputable", or "serious"? Those terms could all too easily devolve into "weasel-words" suited to the views of one, or a few particular editors and reduce overall objectivity. Sochwa (talk)

@Sochwa: You just have to read WP:RS to understand reliable sources in Wikipedia. Robynthehode (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There's more than a professional critic's perspective of any television show or movie, any work of art. Noting the public reception of especially controversial art is useful in any reference work, including wikipedia. An average person would read this page and not know much that is relevant in not only the overall evaluation of the art but in it's production history. A blurb would do, and there are many reputable sources that mention the full scope of public response to this artistic work. I haven't the time or the inclination to attempt to fight with potentially heavy-handed editors, but partisan evaluation of art is not the vision of wikipedia that I hold dear as a disinterested general reader. I'm not interested in star trek, but I've heard from enough people complaining about this interpretation that I thought to see what is mentioned on wikipedia. Nothing at all is mentioned. Though a cursory internet search demonstrates heated and ongoing conversation. This disconnect between what is presented in a public reference work and what is actually the case is concerning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.127.52.235 (talk • contribs)

You're not bringing anything new to the table, so I'm just going to be blunt. If you can't cite a single reliable source that talks about any of this, then it's probably because you're a fringe minority viewpoint. DonQuixote (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean it has a reader score of 38% on Rotten Tomatoes, and an IMDB rating of 7.2, which makes it the lowest rated Star Trek series ever. Anecdotally speaking I don't know anyone who actually likes Discovery. This article represents a fringe view as far as Star Trek audiences are concerned. If it represents the general consensus of "reliable sources" then wikipedia must be broken on a fundamental level. 2607:FEA8:54E2:1D00:217D:5176:6F39:CA3F (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Award nomination

• 32nd GLAAD Media Awards

---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Added - adamstom97 (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Continuity Issue.

At the risk of starting a war I want to point out that the Character of Adira Tal is NOT the first Human to bond with a Trill Symbiant. That title temporarily went to Commander Riker in Star Trek The Next Generations Episode "The Host" where the Trill race were introduced in the first place in 1991. Furthermore, Adira Tal is also not the first Gender Binary character as in TNG Episode "The Outcast" there was an entire planet of people who were "Gender Binary" in 1992.

I had earlier attempted to correct this error slightly to a more correct statement, and was told and i quote: "this is sourced information, and even with a source for those examples they don't really seem to count".

It's this same line of thinking that has people like Disney for example take credit for the first CGI animated feature in an effort to Cancel ReBoot on the ABC Network.

Wikipedia I had thought was more interested in Truth than Opinion especially where credit was due. Just because we don't like those old episodes doesn't mean they don't count or didn't come first. You can't just pretend they didn't happen!

What do we do when a source however official is wrong/mistaken?

It's more appropriate to say that Adira Tal is the first Human (However ludicrous) to "Permanently" bond with a Symbiant and is the first Gender Binary "Main" character or actor.

It's the truth especially if Kurtzman claims his show is canonical with the original history and not JJ Abrams Kelvin Timeline.

Maxcardun (talk) 2:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is interested in what is verifiable, not what you think is true, so that's why I said this was sourced information. As for if we should make the changes, if Riker was only temporarily bonded then that means Adira is still the first human to actually bond, and the fact that they are the first main/proper character to be non-binary doesn't need to be explained. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No, Riker is the first to be bonded even if it was temporary. You could argue that Adira is the first series regular human to be bonded but not the first human.

That's the key word isn't it, "Bonded"? Just be glad that I'm not trying to explain how that used to not be impossible or how contemporary directors and producers are breaking the rules to tell whatever the heck they want. I have said what I said, nothing is going to make me think that it's not true, I don't expect anyone to change it just because I've said it. Especially when seasoned editors who seem to be keeping an eye on me for some reason try to push me around about it. That's all I'm going to say.

Maxcardun (talk) 4:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The key word is actually real world emphasis. "Bonded" is in-universe jargon and isn't as important as what reliable sources are talking about. If you want to read/write in in-universe style, there's the Star Trek wikis or even your own fansite. DonQuixote (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The cited source does not state that Adira is the first human to bond with a Trill symbiont. AJD (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

In a similar vein, Gray is not the first trans character in Star Trek. Dax had previously lived as both men and women prior to its two female incarnations in DS9. I'm assuming we'll disregard Quark's brief sex change, various other Trill, any number of shapeshifters, possessions, body swaps, hive minds, Q, computers, wild-west-holodeck-gone-wrong versions, weird mask probe versions, women pretending to be various male devil figures, androids created gender-neutral and then choosing a gender, transporters, transponders, transceivers, transtators, translocators, transwarp conduits, Trans Francisco and transparent aluminum Dybeck (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

DVDs

Am curious as to why no mention of the DVD sets or release dates when many other series' entries have such sections/charts. 2600:8800:22C:F700:A0B2:361F:5973:10D4 (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see the home media table in the release section. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)