Talk:Masters of the Air

Dubious notability. Whole article appears promotional for something "upcoming".

Whole article appears promotional for something "upcoming". How is it any more notable than any other series merely in development? I don't think Wikipedia traditionally makes articles for productions in development unless there's some serious justification and lots of good secondary sources.

Also, we're not allowed to make predictions and "upcoming" does that. Better would be "in development" (if the article is to remain in place at all). A fan magazine of or trade publication might say "upcoming", but it's not an encyclopedic form.

Last, a cast isn't really stateable as a cast until after the production is made. Chances in casts are frequently up to and during production.

142.105.159.178 (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? First off there’s plenty of reliable secondary sources to justify its existence. As per WP:NFF it is able to exist as long as it has begun filming. It has.

Secondly, given its filming and has an expected release timeframe, it is absolutely corrected to say it’s upcoming.

Your last point I don’t really understand. The cast names included are the names that are able to be cited. They appeared in reliable sources.

So overall I fundamentally reject your premise this is of dubious notability. Rusted AutoParts 06:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Relax buddy. Some of what I said above is not up to date. When I found it was in filming, I edited the actual article accordingly.

The way the article was written it looked like it was forgotten in development and/or making no progress and therefore unotable. It's clear to me (from searching elsewhere) that that's not so. So, I attempted to fix that impression, and added a ref for you in the process. You're welcome!  :-)

142.105.159.178 (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Why did you proceed with implementing the removal of “upcoming” when I said you need to have the practice as a whole reviewed at both Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television? The use of “upcoming” is used on every article about an upcoming project. Please restore the previous edits prior to yours and discuss why it shouldn’t be used instead of forcing it in. Rusted AutoParts 15:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@142.105.159.178, as @Rusted AutoParts has stated, there is precedence in well over 1000 pages for in-production film and television to use the "upcoming" phrasing. See Category:Upcoming television series and Category:Upcoming films for many examples, all of which use this wording. A single article is not the place to have these discussions. There is obviously a much larger discussion that needs to happen on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, as it affects a large number of articles, and is an overall style change. Rmaloney3 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't think using "upcoming" is WP:CRYSTALBALL, as this wording is based on current information from reliable secondary sources. If the series ends up getting canceled or never airing, we are luckily on Wikipedia, where the article can be edited to reflect that. The linked WikiProjects have already established that film and television is notable once filming begins, per WP:NTV and WP:NFF. Rmaloney3 (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

It's vague. If you must include it, it would be better to also include specificity. And reliable source ought to have mentioned a timeframe, which should be stated here. Otherwise, the phraseology could mean "tomorrow", or "in 5 years - maybe", or even "maybe not". Super vague.

The phraseology is unencyclopedic, being more gossip-magazine-ish. There are indeed tons of other unencyclopedic phrases used all over Wikipedia. But, the mere fact of their use does not justify their use ("if everyone jumped off a cliff..."). One of our duties is tighten up flaky wording like that, to paraphrase sources encyclopedically, not to repeat the non-encyclopedic forms of sources. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Like we have said before you must first challenge the phrasing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, because this change can’t be randomly imposed on one singular article, all Film and television articles need to follow the same lead section style. This could even be a situation needing to be brought up on WP:MOS. Rusted AutoParts 19:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Not so. In Wikipedia, everyone knows don't have to "you must first" anything. "Upcoming" by itself (without needed clarification) carries a fanboy tone, which is unencyclopedic. You even prevented the inclusion of both clarification and a ref -- by reverting it without any edit summary. It's readily apparent you're just trying to prevent changes you don't like on a page you're pretending to own. Same old same old. Carry on, fanboy. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, this is…embarrassing a tangent. It’s redundant now of course three years later, but only now seeing this whiny response of yours. It’s not “fanboying” to mark a show that isn’t released yet as “upcoming”, it’s an objective reflection of what the case currently is or was. Rusted AutoParts 16:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

"It was reported that"

"It was reported that X" is a undesired form that shows up in a few places in the article. The report is not the subject of the article. The fact that something "was reported" is only very rarely pertinent and notable. Almost everything included/includable in Wikpedia was "reported" -- it's required for inclusion to establish notability. Instead, we need to say the thing that the report said, and give where it was reported in the inline cite.

"It was reported that filming began in Feb 2021" --> "Filming began in Feb 2021.<ref>Reliable secondary source that says that.</ref>"

142.105.159.178 (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

B24s

I hope you include B24 units in this series. Everyone wants the 17s but the 24s were more numerous. My Dad was in the 446th BG ( DDay leaders by the way) out of Flixton Field Station 125. I saw Memphis Belle with my Dad before he died and he was disgusted with the movie due to its horrible inaccuracies. No one could take anything on board that wasn't equipment. Please don't disregard historical accuracies for drama. That is what really made my Dad hate that movie. Although my dad trained on 17s he was assigned 24s. His favorite WW2 movie was Twelve OClock High. He lived it. Can't wait for the series. 138.229.242.33 (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity

Plot section reads like a novel back-cover, full of subjective descriptions: "action scenes are gripping", "unique struggles and bravery", "series doesn't shy away...", "compelling and emotional journey"...

2A02:AA13:8106:8280:151F:8D46:6043:932C (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

why does the article lie about the number of episodes

there are 9 episodes and as of this comment 4 have aired. why does the infobox say 4, why are attempts to correct this reverted? to say there are only 4 is factually incorrect. 110.44.18.224 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

it shouldn't matter how many are aired, the production number is what matters. 110.44.18.224 (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No. It matters how many presently exist. For all we know for whatever reason a network may choose to cancel a series and not release however many they have left. What is it about this particular article bringing out so many complaining IPs about standard practices on all pages like this? Rusted AutoParts 16:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

unreleased episodes exist. 110.44.18.224 (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Not until they air. Rusted AutoParts 01:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The sensible thing would be for the infobox to contain both the number that have screened, and the number that have been made, if known (which it usually is). People visiting the article to find out how many episodes of a topical series there will be, is surely very frequent, and it seems unduly anal not to display this data prominently, for the benefit of our readers. MapReader (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That should be something brought up at WP:MOSTV instead of the IPs trying to enforce a change on this one specific page. As it stands, the format is to include the amount of aired episodes in the infobox, updating each week. The episodes table in the article itself includes info about the planned ninth episode so they aren't being deceived. Rusted AutoParts 00:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the comment in the template for television infoboxes, you’ll see that it’s intended to be “episodes that have aired”. I don’t know why it’s that way, but I’ve asked in the Template talk:Infobox television page. GaryFx (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that many editors - the current consensus - want the ‘episodes’ number to reflect the number of episodes that currently exist, on general release, whereas many casual readers will want to know how many episodes the series will have in total. This is an issue that should be raised on the talk page of MOS TV. MapReader (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS TV? I don’t know what that’s referencing. (I’ve only done a limited amount of localized editing on Wikipedia so don’t know all the jargon.) GaryFx (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Deleted weird off-topic edit

Some obsessive added a shrieky histrionic comment about "the American Empire" and "Israeli genocide", obviously the rant of a mentally unbalanced person and clearly not the place for it. It wasn't published anywhere or in any article, just someone defacing the article with their personal obsessions 2A00:23EE:1140:872E:A133:2644:C6A0:D9A6 (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Historical accuracy and histrionics are two different things. As a historian I am concerned with the former, as should you be, unless you believe that creating an outpost of American hegemony and in Palestine has been something other than an humanitarian outrage. Perhaps you should consider America's own obsessive disposition when condemning my ideas - a disposition that sacrifices moral courage for the sake of amoral material gain. Shows like Masters of the Air are not innocent pieces of entertainment. Open your eyes and decide where you would like to position yourself in the bigger picture. Thanks again for your snide comments 2A02:C7C:BF71:9900:C912:9B70:CE74:FC9E (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Captain Edward Bruce Girochino; U.S. Army Air Force, see The Norwork Hour December 29,1943.

Distinguished Flying Cross and The Air Medal (three times). He was only 23. Son of a Scillian godfather, Fredrick Girochino, Norwalk, Ct, my Maternal Grandfather. (1885-1954). My comments are not snide. 110.78.184.23 (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Historical accuracy - trivia?

The historical accuracy section of this article seems to have filled with a long list of military historical trivia, a list of minor details relating to military insignia and equipment, and lost sight of the fact that - as per MOSTV - what we should be wanting is an overview of the series’s strengths and weaknesses in representing the broad thrust of the real-life wartime experience. Whilst a sentence or two referring to differences in plane type might be appropriate, the long list of minutiae is surely not what a WP article is for? Plus much of it appears to be sourced from a YouTube source where there is no evidence of reliability. It is tempting to delete most of the recent additions, but given the size of it, thought it appropriate to seek other views. MapReader (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted it anyway given the caliber of sources being used (one was straight up just a link to another Wikipedia page). I am not against an historical inaccuracy section so long as it's better sourced, and the inaccuracies listed aren't just minor nitpicks but major, damaging even inaccuracies. For example with Titanic and the controversy around the depiction of First Officer Murdoch. That's worth noting, not so much whether something like the vestibule doors were inaccurate or not. Rusted AutoParts 05:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to me that MOS:TV is missing a section of guidance that does the job of MOS:FILMHIST over at FILM? MapReader (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

They are not nitpicks - they are major flaws in the production. Environmental English (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

They are not trivia - the series is riddled with major mistakes. The You Tube sources are well-known historians who know what they are talking about.

You seem determined to removed any criticism of the show! Environmental English (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)