Jump to content

Talk:ReBoot: The Guardian Code

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.14.236.193 (talk) at 07:20, 9 October 2018 (→Number of seasons: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

References

Here are some source ideas for when this is converted into an actual article:

Mostly waiting on some sort of a scheduling confirmation (per WP:TVSHOW) to unredirect and create. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sitcom elements

Though this is probably action primariy, it fits in some comedy elements. Any sources cal it a sitcom? ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ScratchMarshall: Sitcoms tend to go for comedy more frequently and reliably. There are many examples of every genre that include comedic elements (e.g. as a reprieve from tension), but that doesn’t make comedy a main focus. This show is certainly cheesy, but it’s no sitcom. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship and motive

I’ve removed a claim that critical comments were “censored” from YouTube “in an attempt to downplay the negative response” that was cited to a Reddit thread. Like any suer-generated content, Reddit comments are seldom a reliable source of information, and any motive ascribed to the action by internet commenters is no more than speculation. Also, “censoring” is entirely the wrong word to use for the moderation of comments on one’s own content; we’re not here to be alarmist. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this even noteworthy? Highly visible entities moderate their comments all the time, especially when flooded with hate. It would be odder if they didn’t. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above, I have removed the censorship/moderation claims. All it was saying was that they used the commumity tools provided to them by their promotional platforms, and in a way one might reasonably expect them to be used. If there are reliable sources that say otherwise or even discuss it in any meaningful way, I’ll happily self-revert and expand on the matter. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

With the sources given here (which reflect only their own opinions), the only claim we can make is something along the lines of, Reception was overwhelmdingly negative among the commenters in a Facebook group and these two YouTubers. Unless we have a (reliable!) source that claims to have analyzed overall reception, we cannot say it was “overwhelmingly negative” or any such statement, no matter how many individual opinions we cite. We could do our own original research and synthesize a prevailing opinion ourselves, but we have policies that tell us to avoid doing exactly that. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I adored ReBoot growing up, and if not for that pedigree, TGC would just be a charmingly bad show like Superhuman Samurai Syber-Squad. Tying this show to ReBoot is nothing short of insulting. But we need reliable sources if we want to gauge public reaction.
Do I believe that the trailer was overwhelmingly met with opinions like mine? Easily. But if we’re going to source such a claim (and it should be sourced, if we’re going to say that), we need to do better than an anonymously run fansite (I could find no staff credits) that’s already critical of TGC itself. There’s no guarantee that whoever runs the site didn’t cherry-pick comments that they agreed with (not that I’d believe it necessary). That’s why we have guidelines for identifying reliable sources. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

Please note that I have removed all references to RebootRevival.com because that website appears to be anonymously self-published. I’ve also removed a Facebook-using fan as a source for the Hefferon cameos. If anyone disagrees with these removals, please explain what gives these sources any credibility, and I’ll self-revert if desired. Thank you. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloud S: Please explain what makes David Strugger’s Facebook post a reliable source for the cameos, or why the information should remain if our only source is unreliable, —67.14.236.193 (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From some quick Googling, David Strugger has nothing to do with either series; in fact, someone claiming to be one of the animators believes that Strugger “has quite a personal vendetta against our show”. Who is he (and can we verify it), and why should we take him at his word regarding these cameos or, frankly, anything? How do we know his information is good? If the “sole source of this information” is not credible, we simply do not have a source for this information. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve just learned from Talk:ReBoot that Strugger is the rebootrevival.com guy. Not that there’s any mention of his name to be found on his site. Weird, that. So that’s the “who is he” question answered. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve gone ahead and removed the cameo trivia, which I could not verify outside of Wikipedia mirrors and Facebook posts. If anyone can, feel free to add it back in. Assuming the cameos are legit, I’m pretty surprised I can’t find anything, since the episodes aired in Canada a couple months ago; maybe someone will report it when a wider audience sees it next week? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number of seasons

Netflix files episodes 11–20 under “Season 2.” Do any RSes say otherwise? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Helper208 offers this link to a website that appears to be down at the moment, but checking in the Wayback Machine I’m not seeing anything relevant in there; three years ago, they had planned on 26 episodes, which is not what we got no matter how you slice it (and there’s no mention of how many seasons they’d be spread across, either). Any sources on how the 20 episodes are counted? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reboot.com website lists all 20 episodes without any distinction between the episodes 1-10 and 11-20, compounding the fact that there is one season. The episode guide on Zap2it lists one season for all 20. If that isn't enough, the ReBoot: The Guardian Code's official Facebook page has an "about" tab and under "seasons" it clearly says "1". On a final note of there only being one season, the official TGC account responded to someone asking if YTV would have the second season with: "Netflix split up Season 1 into two parts (10 episodes each season). YTV came out with all 20 episodes in one go!". Therefore, there is only one season. If it is renewed then, and only then, will there be two seasons. User:Helper208 04:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Helper208: There are also multiple RSes (some primary) claiming two seasons or a ten-episode first season, including other sources cited in the article, some of which are quoted as such. What do we do in case of source conflict over how a series is structured? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@67.14.236.193:Sources that claim there are ten episodes in the first season, are simply incorrect. There's conflict because the articles were written without proper fact-checking with the company producing it. Corus Entertainment ordered one season of 26 which was later reduced to 20 episodes. The channel they own, YTV, has aired it as one season. This does not have to be as difficult as it's being made to be. User:Helper208 06:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It kind of is that difficult; an official distributor (Corus actually called it “Netflix's Reboot: TGC”) released it as two seasons—it’s not “incorrect,” it’s how it was released worldwide. It’s both a twenty-episode season and two ten-episode seasons. If you don’t see it that way, fair enough, but that doesn’t mean both views aren’t valid. So what do we do in a situation like this? No disrespect, but your answer sounds like we’re to just pick a side and call the other one wrong, and just let non-Canadian readers be confused. There has to be a better way. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the sites I've listed are incorrect, then by definition, so are the sites listing it as two seasons. The only corrective action would be to list the facts: There are 20 episodes produced. There is no season definition. You appear to appreciate factual information, I only attempted to provide the correct information on how many seasons there were. If anything is causing confusion, it is not this article, but Netflix's decision to split a single season into two halves. The article does state "Netflix released the remaining 10 episodes in the United States on September 28, 2018 as a second season.", which should alleviate any confusion. If we wish to dig into what does or does not make a season, note that at the end of 1x20, Black Hole, the credits have "REBOOT 1 PRODUCTIONS". If that episode were to be part of a second season it would have read "REBOOT 2 PRODUCTIONS". Other than Netflix, two other online distributors; Google Play and iTunes, both list all twenty episodes as one season. User:Helper208 07:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve made an attempt to accommodate both audiences; I imagine future seasons will be titled along the lines of “Season 3 (YTV)/4 (Netflix) (2020),” assuming they don’t split them again. I’m sure there’s still a better way than this, so if anyone has a better idea, please do better. Thank you. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ReBoot:_The_Guardian_Code&oldid=863188964"