This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
So it's confirmed that the Swordfish II appears in Spielberg's adaptation of Ready Player One. Is that worth inclusion in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
"there are reviews in existence which consider this anime overrated or mediocre" lol I'm sure you're talking about MAL reviews. Can you at least cite a reliable source that says bebop is overrated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
For anyone arriving hereafter, the matter IP 37 is referencing was discussed between the two of us in the following edit summaries: , , & . To summarize, someone added the phrase "[Cowboy Bebop] has received universal acclaim." to the lead. This was obviously a mistaken application of the common English idiom "near universal acclaim"; the mistake is pretty transparent, seeing as the idiom is never used in English without the "near", for obvious reasons: no narrative or other work of art in the entire history of human expression has impressed everyone, so the claim of "universal acclaim" is always per se inaccurate. I therefore corrected to the standard use of this idiom in what I expected to be a non-controversial edit, but IP 37 has reverted twice (he does seem genuine in his belief that everyone in existence enjoys this work as much as he and I do), so I'm going to have to take the time to explain the controlling policies here, despite the triviality of the change. But, fair enough:
37, I am afraid that you are mistaken about the manner in which the burden of proof for WP:Verification works on this project; you've challenged me to aggregate sources to disprove your assertion, but you are the party is who is making the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim here (that every critic ever has celebrated the series with acclaim), so you are the one bears the WP:BURDEN to support your view with a source. Furthermore, you can't do it by looking at a collection of reviews and coming to your own conclusions about what they collectively assert, as this is textbook WP:Original research by way of WP:SYNTHESIS. In fact, it would also be original research if I were to try to settle this matter in the manner you suggested (by providing the easy-to-find examples of critics who didn't consider CB to be the best thing since sliced bread). Instead you need to find a source which supports the contested wording explicitly (that is, using the exact same framing, in this instance). In fact, because the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, not only do you need to find such sources to prevail on this content issue, you need to find a significant number of sources which say "Cowboy Bebop has been universally acclaimed," to support that this extreme claim represents an accurate reading of the WP:WEIGHT of the sources.
I doubt very much that you will find a source which says exactly "Cowboy Bebop has received universal acclaim." -- again, because that's just not how this idiom is used; anyone who uses that phrase will add the "near", pretty much without exception -- and I'm absolutely certain you will not find enough to meet the weight burden. Nevertheless, because this is not a pressing change, I'll give you a decent amount of time to conduct a search, as a matter of good-faith and open-mindedness. However, please do read the policies cited above and consider what I have described about the verification standards here. You need to meet a massive bar here to validate your perspective, and you need to do it without original research or synthesis. Best of luck to you. For what it's worth, I think anyone who doesn't see this series as a standout of the medium cannot possibly be aware what a quantum leap forward it was in its day. But I assure you, there are people that disagree with us about how good it is. And anyway, "near universal acclaim" is still near the extreme edge of high praise. Anyway, adieu for now. Snowlet's rap 23:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Could this be resolved by changing "received universal acclaim" "received wide acclaim"? This would avoid the MOS:PUFFery that "universal" implies. —Farix (t | c) 01:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Personally I think "wide acclaim" is a bit less potent than "near universal acclaim", and I'd rather not water down the statement quite that much. I do agree that as a general rule that even the phrase "near universal acclaim" sounds a bit pufferish, but it might actually be accurate in this instance; the show is a candidate for the single most celebrated work in its entire medium. Still, I suppose "great acclaim" or "celebrated acclaim" might work? Actually, I kind of like that last one. It says the show has well-recognized stature, without taking it to extremes. Eh, I'm open to discussion. I just felt that "universal" was too much, and probably only ended up there as a misapplication of a common idiom. Snowlet's rap 01:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
That's fine by me. I also like the option of "widespread critical acclaim" which you mentioned previously. And I'm still amenable to "near universal acclaim". Should we do a quick strawpoll, maybe? Snowlet's rap 01:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Please select your choices, per the content and sourcing considerations discussed above:
A) "universal acclaim" (current)
B) "near-universal acclaim"
C) "great acclaim"
D) "widespread critical acclaim"
E) "celebrated acclaim"
If you select more than one, please indicate the priority of your preference. Snowlet's rap 01:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I like B or D as first choices, but C or E would work as well. I think A is not accurate enough to be an ideal option. Snowlet's rap 01:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Late reply, but how about ‘garnering heavy’ or ‘considerable’ acclaim’? That way, you can express a show being heavily acclaimed without needing polls or praise aggregators from other countries to express ‘widespread’. ‘Strong acclaim’ may also work, too. Barely made one (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I like (D) a lot. Seems like it works well with the format of the article. RyanG2203 13:05, 03 December 2018