Talk:She-Hulk: Attorney at Law

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fresheneesz (talk | contribs) at 17:56, 14 October 2023 (→‎Critics versus audience reception). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Critics versus audience reception

are critics a reliable source??? 78.22.53.206 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See critic. DonQuixote (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@78.22.53.206 I hope you have read MOS:TVRECEPTION (like I said on the edit summary) as it answers your questions. Centcom08 (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so thats a NO, got it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.53.206 (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the bottom line. There are so few critics that it's easy to assess their published works to get a general idea of their reactions. On the other hand, there are so many people in the general audience that we would need a reliable secondary source with an accepted statistical methodology that discusses audience reception (something like PostTrak or Cinemascore). If you can find and cite any such source then you can add audience reception. DonQuixote (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why we can report what Rotton Tomatoes is reporting for critics, but not for audience. Its incredibly misleading to do that, since the whole point of rotton tomatoes is to gather audience statistics. Is there a wikipedia policy around not being able to report what Rotton Tomatoes says its audience score is? Its a simple fact what it *reports*. There is no need to claim that we have scientifically discovered what the whole population of earth thinks about a movie. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the whole point of rotton tomatoes is to gather critics's opinions. Their audience percentage is still considered unreliable, because there's no actual verification that those who vote saw the film and people can make more than one account. The reliable metric for audience opinion is CinemaScore, which polls moviegoers that are confirmed to have seen the film. —El Millo (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Facu-el Millo so, how often are movie goers in cinema for watching a series? 🤔 2003:C5:4F39:4D00:8C08:C6AB:CB7C:D93F (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You sort of hit the nail on the head--the point is that there's no reliable audience metric for television as ubiquitous as CinemaScore for film, so it's misleading to pretend that there is one (ie, Rotten Tomatoes audience score). DonQuixote (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fresheneesz: MOS:TVAUDIENCE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its completely false that the "whole point" of rotton tomatoes is to gather critics opinons. That is such a blatatntly false claim I honestly don't understand why you aren't entirely embarrassed to say it.
My edit that was reverted cited not one but TWO audience reviews that both agreed. Regardless of how reliable the audience metrics are, reporting on what particular prominent audience review sites say, especially when they agree is completely valid. If you want to assert that it isn't, you're going to have to show some evidence that such a thing isn't valid to do. I'm going to reinstate my edit. Please present evidence that using this information isn't valid when its published by sites used as reliable sources on wikipedia in other contexts. Fresheneesz (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No use trying to contribute

@Trailblazer101 Great idea reverting my 3 edits at She-Hulk: Attorney at Law without even as much as a hint how to solve the problem. Meanwhile, who Cody Ziglar is remains unknown, and as long as wikipedias syntax rules are followed, you and your ilk are apparently happy with that. But I actually have a life outside wikipedia and don't have the time going through every single rule every time I'm contributing. I'm tired of being berated for trying to help. I've done my last contribution. Good luck DIY. zwaa 18:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealzwaa, you've been here over three years and you think linking to any external link such as IMDB in prose is appropriate? Seriously? That's what you're complaining about? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EXACTLY. In contrast to some, I don't live, breath and eat Wikipedia's syntax. I'm here to contribute, however I can, with information, which is the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place, not it's syntax.
If you have a problem with that, you're free to help me utilizing the proper way to inject the imdb reference instead of wasting my time. Again. zwaa 18:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only "proper way to inject the imdb reference" is in the external links section which already is. If Cody is notable enough for their own article, then you can create it and then wikilink it here. Indagate (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, a constructive reply. Thanks. zwaa 18:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of spending your precious time on a talk page venting and complaining on why you're not allowed to be disruptive with your edits, why don't you try to understand how to contribute to Wikipedia constructively? One thing you've now learned, is that we don't put external links within the text. If the link is appropriate, it goes in the "External link" section. Second lesson? IMDB is not a reliable source. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem to solve. If the actor doesn't have a Wikipedia page, he just doesn't have one and there's nowhere to link. The only possible "solution" is to create the article, but that's a whole lot of work. Finally, you didn't contribute any information by adding those links, and if you don't know and don't want to learn about Wikipedia's syntax, then simply don't do any edits related to Wikipedia's syntax, or at least don't get upset when someone reverts edits you admitted didn't have enough knowledge to make. —El Millo (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I was not expecting a whole ordeal to be made out of this. There is a reason why Cody Ziglar does not have a Wikipedia article, and that is because they probably don't meet the WP:BLP guidelines for one to be made yet. If someone wants to know more about this person outside of their work to this series, they can search for it online. Wikipedia is not a home to all sorts of information at random. An IMDb link is meant for the external links section, not within the contents of the article, let alone being implemented like an internal link, as I explained in my edit. Wikipedia is for everyone to contribute. If you don't feel like that's working, I'm sorry. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PEACOCK

@3vvww661: Starting this discussion because this editor added Template:Peacock for the third time on this article (see 1, 2, and 3), but the editor failed to point out what words under WP:PEACOCK the editor refer to that this article use. Instead, the editor only add a hidden note Excess of description used to describe the cast and characters section inconsistent with other MCU articles. I am not sure what are those words. Centcom08 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@3vvww661: I do not see any "peacock terms" on your reasoning especially since modern-day culture has an obsession with a woman's body and felt the commentary from the series. Kindly engage on this discussion instead of readding the template. Centcom08 (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
example 1: "especially since modern-day culture has an obsession with a woman's body and felt the commentary from the series"
example 2: overuse of CD quotes that are more related to plot in sections they don't belong: "following experimental treatment. He is one of Walters' clients, who becomes the owner of the wellness retreat Summer Twilights after reforming."
Example 3: "... Adding that Phelps "is used to getting whatever he wants, but he's a total creep who starts popping up everywhere". Co-executive producer Wendy Jacobson said the character was social commentary on misogyny, cancel culture, and the "unfair views of women". Bass felt it was "pretty easy" to portray Phelps without any extensive research because it is "right there in our culture".
List continues. 3vvww661 (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All those are citing reliable sources and thus not violating our policy on PEACOCK. The sources themselves might be using peacock words, but you need to discuss it with them as we're only reflecting what reliable sources are stating. DonQuixote (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Example 1 has no PEACOCK words. Example 2 is providing basic character descriptions (which all character sections should) and again, no PEACOCK words used. Example 3, again, no PEACOCK words presented by editors. This is feeling like this user is a WP:TROLL and possibly doesn't agree with the commentary around this series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DonQuixote has said what I intended to add the template there for: The sources and commentary rely on peacock words, which interferes with the commentary of the series through the creator's immediate feelings on the series, which would bias the readers. 3vvww661 (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As they also stated, that's not a violation of our PEACOCK policy, and thus an incorrect use of the template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree or disagree that some concrete details and sections in the article "present the appearance of support for statements but [can] deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint?" Template:Weasel may fit instead of Template:Peacock. I would also like to point out Wikipedia:No original research's policy of "[Not basing] an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." 3vvww661 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this article violates any of those policies. Most of what you're against is from secondary sources. Again, you should discuss it with them as discussing it with a tertiary source, like Wikipedia, won't get you anywhere. DonQuixote (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to state for the record that my feelings on the series' commentary is less that I disagree with the thesis they have— the thesis that men mistreat women is realistic (especially in Southern and Republican areas per account of some other online friends, but that is irrelevant) and I wish they would do the commentary justice, which to my knowledge, the creators of the series have not. I intend to be constructive, and I regret if I have come across as a WP:Troll.
I did make a mistake in that you are both correct, the words are not PEACOCK words, but I feel some guidelines were not followed in the creation and editing of the page per policy, due to an unreliable writer & narrator. 3vvww661 (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "unreliable writer & narrator"? If you mean the sources that are cited, that's got nothing to do with any guideline or policy other than Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. DonQuixote (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The structure and use of concrete details creates an effect that rapidly presents and forces the reader to digest the opinions of the writers of the series consistently in a back-to-back mannerism of impact that doesn't give the reader a lot of time to pause and digest the article linearly, creating an "unreliability effect" in that the narration supersedes the digestibility. That's what I meant, sorry that my wording is unclear and confusing sometimes 3vvww661 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...that doesn't make any sense at all. If there's no violation of acadaemic policy that you can clearly point to, then there's nothing much that can be done here. DonQuixote (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a lot of the article may violate the policy of "Wikipedia:No original research's policy of "[Not basing] an entire article on primary sources, and [being] cautious about basing large passages on them." That's what I mean to say 3vvww661 (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of the article is based on secondary sources and not on primary sources. So, no, doesn't violate that at all. You're clearly grasping at straws here. DonQuixote (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes from the writers, actors and producers in interviews aren’t primary sources? Oh… I didn’t know. I’ll be more mindful in the future then, thank you. 3vvww661 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Context matters. The person being interviewed is the primary source, the interview itself, because of the interviewer, is a secondary source. What would violate the above is basing this article entirely on Twitter or Facebook posts (as well as the most directly related primary source, the show itself). DonQuixote (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand correctly, the source is secondary and therefore not viable as a primary source because of the focus towards the interviewer instead of the interviewee. I was not aware of this nuance, thank you! 3vvww661 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, context matters. The difference between primary source and secondary source is even more nuanced than that and can get quite grey sometimes. A rule of thumb is that secondary sources are things like magazines, journals, etc. that write about subjects of interest while the primary sources are the subjects themselves. I suggest you peruse WP:RS. DonQuixote (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the subjects themselves are the people involved in the making of the show during the interview, are you suggesting this is a grey area between primary and secondary being explored? What would define it as primary or secondary with intense scrutiny for certainty? 3vvww661 (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of repeating myself, context. If the interview is about the interviewee's life, thoughts, opinions, etc., then it can be used as a secondary source for the interviewee's life, thoughts, opinions etc. If the interview topic is about something technical or outside the interviewee's area of expertise, it can only be used for that person's opinion about that topic but not as a secondary source for that topic.
For example, if Albert Einstein gave an interview, that interview can be used as a secondary source for his life, his opinions, his thoughts on the theory of relativity, his thoughts on the theory of evolution, etc., but it cannot be used as a secondary source for the theory of relativity itself (technical) or the theory of evolution itself (outside his field of expertise).
To go back to this article, 'Co-executive producer Wendy Jacobson said the character was social commentary on misogyny, cancel culture, and the "unfair views of women"' is fine because the quote is about her intentions regarding her work. Also, 'Bass felt it was "pretty easy" to portray Phelps without any extensive research because it is "right there in our culture"' is fine because it's about how he prepared for the role. DonQuixote (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs

Critics' graph for this series and other MCU based and probably the rest, is not working due to some technical issues. Please see to it that it is fixed. Is that happening in your web also? JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have nothing to do with this specific article, but with graphs of that nature in general. —El Millo (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All graphs have been temporarily disabled per this discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 205#Graph extension disabled per immediate effect. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:She-Hulk:_Attorney_at_Law&oldid=1180124607"