Talk:Masters of the Universe: Revelation

Move to main space

Hey, so, even though the page has been updated with the announcement of the cast, it still has not been moved over to main space yet. Can we move it to main space now? FilmLover72 (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, is anybody even here? FilmLover72 (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose to merge Masters of the Universe: Revelation (TV series) into Masters of the Universe: Revelation. I think that the content in the Masters of the Universe: Revelation (TV series) article can easily be explained in the context of Masters of the Universe: Revelation, and the Masters of the Universe: Revelation article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Masters of the Universe: Revelation (TV series) will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Chucheraya20 (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've redirected the article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC).

Audience reception

I'm going to copy-paste the Reception comment here, for the anonymous editors that will come here now that the page is protected. The relevant guideline is WP:USERGEN.

AUDIENCE RECEPTION AND RATINGS: Do not include them! Wikipedia does not support user-generated content in its articles, and thus audience ratings cannot be included. Please refer to the talk page before proceeding to edit this section, and view the multiple discussions raised on the topic. No consensus has been formed to allow this article to differ from Wikipedia's guidelines and policies by including such content. Additions of audience ratings will be reverted.

-- /Alex/₂₁ 04:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Audience reception is notable when WP:RELIABLESOURCES agree they are, for example in the case of review-bombs, of which we have several cases across Wikipedia describing them. See for example Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Audience_reception, Watchmen (TV_series)#Reception and The Last of Us Part II#Audience_response. Loganmac (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Even though it might not be the ordinary procedure to include the audience rating, the audience response (including the alleged 'review bombing') has been notable and covered by multiple media outlets and some of the creators themselves. There is plenty of precedent for discussing the audience response in this context, and it does not make sense to suppress it, by any standards.

The wiki architect (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

References

If it's been covered by reliable and notable sources in a notable manner, then yes. However, my first post concerned edits that disregarded this; for example: [1][2][3][4]. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So if any "journalist" writes an article about anything being review-bombed, then it becomes a "reliable source"? I thought wikipedia articles were supposed not to be biased. It has an Audience Score of 30%. Period. No way to prove it was "review-bombed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.43.15 (talk)

Dude, I bet that if you quote journalists who openly defend or understand fans, those sources will immediately be dismissed as biased. It always works like this. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I recommend that you both look up what makes a reliable source; it seems like you're going to need to, to be able to continue editing Wikipedia in a contributive manner. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we remove reference to reviews being "review bombed" as there is no way to know with any degree of certainty this is actually happening and show is not just receiving negative reviews. Not every negative reception means something is review bombed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feniks PL (talk • contribs)

Totally agreed about the review bombing but we do need to have a section indicating the strong negative reaction from fans. I can clearly see that many of you are publicists for Netflix but ignoring the Average Audience score on Rotten Tomato simply serves to distort the truth and damages the integrity of Wikipedia Petermcelwee (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Petermcelwee, already included. Problem solved. Distorting integrity would be included useless fan views and, again, violating Wikipedia guidelines. You seem to have a tendency for that. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Then we should change the line from The show was review bombed on on Rotten Tomatoes, with a 25% positive fan reaction. to Some made accusations that show has been review bombed on on Rotten Tomatoes, with a 25% positive fan reaction. One states review bombin as ultimate truth other is more reflective of disputed situation where some claim it is some it isn't.

Clownfish TV

Clownfish TV received backlash from Kevin Smith for their intel of the show's main focus, that being the character Teela and barely any focus on He-Man himself. He insisted that the show is about He-Man, stated that Clownfish was lying about such information. This information turned out to be true and many people are accusing the show of baiting them with the character of He-Man. Does this sound like something worth mentioning? --Traptor12 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It depends if WP:RELIABLE SOURCES have covered this, and no, other youTubers would not be sufficient. Please see WP:YOUTUBE as to why.--65.92.161.147 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are now quite outright breaking the spirit of the rules by overly literal following their letter. It doesn't take much effort to compare the resource's information with the actual story, and then combine that with the words of Mr. Smith. This was objectively a lie, and a deliberate one. If you read his answer, you will literally see how Kevin outright denies all the changes that literally appeared on the show a year later. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

And that is your personal opinion, and we thank you for it. Now, find reliable sources that cover it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

So far, the most reliable sources in existence that even acknowledge that Clownfish TV exists is a study published by Rewriting Ripley, and the site Transparency Tube, which both pin them down as a right wing false rumour mill. If the only notable thing about a youtube channel is that they peddle rage-bait for views, then I fail to see why anything they say would meet wikipedia's standards. The complaints about the show have always been "feminist agenda" and "forced diversity", the usual comicsgate talking points. Kevin Smith has been targetted by these people from the moment the first screenshots of Teela have made it to the internet and these people saw that she has muscles, and her skin tone is a shade darker. Everything that came afterwards was intended to fuel the fire. I expect reliable sources to confirm this within a week. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

"This information turned out to be true" No it didn't. It's just a bunch of culture war manbabies on the internet losing their shit at something they wouldn't have even cared about if they couldn't grift off it. The first word in his name is basically all you need to know about the guy. --Hawkatana (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Spot on. Though slightly off topic, Clownfish TV are two people, not "the guy". A married couple (I believe) who formerly worked in the comic book industry until they were blacklisted because nobody could put up with working with them. They seem to be front and center in every pop culture "controversy" of the past four years. They push a different debunked conspiracy theory every week, incuding trying to make the "ginger erasure" conspiracy theory go mainstream. I wouldn't put it past Kevin Smith to go out of his way to troll people like them, though. That would be awesome if it's true. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Spoilers

I noticed there was some edit-warring over a major spoiler in the reception section. I'm not for any one side here but I'd say WP:SPOILERS is pretty clear on this. This major plot point is the one criticism the review bombing and fan backlash focused on. The "He-Man lacking screentime" sentence might be too broad. Curious if people have alternatives for this --Loganmac (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You are completely correct. Wikipedia simply does not filter spoilers per WP:SPOILER; if anyone disagree with that, they are welcome to discuss it here, but this article is no different to any other article with spoilers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Review bombing

The part about the show's review bombing doesn't strike me as accurate. Comicsgate was behing the review bombs and their reasons are, as always, "forced diversity", "feminist agenda" and other buzzwords, not what the article currently claims. Kevin Smith specifically named one of the main actors behind it in an interview, a youtube channel called "ClownfishTV". That's a comicsgate affiliated gossip channel, and the people behind it also run the disinfo site Pirates and Princesses. These are the same people behind the review bombing of The Last Jedi, Captain Marvel, Batwoman and a whole bunch of other films and shows released in the past few years. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence for any of the claims you have made here. Additionally, you're missing basic facts too, it's 'ClownfishTV', not 'GoldfishTV'. No changes should be made on the basis of mere rumour. 2404:4404:271C:5400:5172:E9B6:E3D2:4C9F (talk)

Reliable sources are beginning to pick up on the story. The review bombing was nothing more than a Comicsgate raid, done by culture was manbabies who want to grift off Kevin Smith's name. The audience score has been steadily climbing as more and more people who actually watched the show started rating it. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

"Clownfish TV" is not a Comicsgate channel and your history of using weasel words to attack people and cherrypick facts to suit your narrative in other articles is well documented.

Cast

If you are going to merge the pages then you need to indicate the change in narrative direction of the storyline away from He-Man to Teela, not doing at the very least is misleading and factually incorrect Petermcelwee (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Petermcelwee, how does this have anything to do with the merge of the above pages, or did you just post in a random discussion? You are clearly not here to contribute to Wikipedia, given the multiple warnings for edit-warring. A report against your edits will likely be filed.

As for the cast, I can double down on you not being here to contribute to Wikipedia, given that I can guarantee you haven't read MOS:TVCAST, even though I linked you to it twice. Read it. The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Here's some more: Please keep in mind that though "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally have a set order in the credits. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Solaire the knight See above on how you violated Wikipedia guidelines. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Controversy

Yes this is 7curator78 and I want to know why I can't write a "Controversy" section? 7curator78 (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Have renamed it to trivia. TBH I'm not sure it really rises to the level of inclusion. Artw (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Some people being upset about a show's direction is barely worth about trivia, if that. If so, only because of the review bombing. Nor are the sources 'news,' they're just rumor sites who make drama. Just disliking something isn't a controversy. ZeroSD (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I first of all want to acknowledge that the user Fri74eodo was me. I logged onto the wrong account and undid the edit. Sorry for that and I sincerely pledge by the rules of Wikipedia and the reasoning for my new account was based on WP:SOCKLEGIT that states a user can get a "Clean start under a new name." I won't use my alternate account for anything malicious such as 1)Creating an illusion of support 2)Internal discussions 3)Circumventing policies etc as stated in WP:ILLEGIT. This is simply me, 7curator78.

Second, of all two users have already reverted my section called "Controversy." Instead of completely deleting the section, feel free to edit the sentences. I want to know based on what reasoning it is unencyclopedic. I have used verifiable citations that aren't deprecated. There are countless film articles in Wikipedia that have controversy sections such as Watership Down (film), Valley of the Wolves: Iraq, Beauty and the Beast (2017 film), The Witches (2020 film) etc. The main premise of the controversy is not the fan outrage. It is the flip-flopping of Kevin Smith on the main character of the story from 2019 to 2021 that became the biggest controversy of the show. To change the story line caused an ancillary reaction among the grassroots fans whom are unfortunately labelled as review-bombers by the mainstream media.7curator78 (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean, he literally didn't. He's been clear about this from the very beginning. --Hawkatana (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The controversy came after this post, when he denied multiple times the fact that Teela was at the center of the story. The controversy chapter articles show a pretty good timeline..Archireveur (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Cherrypicking his words isn't a controversy. Heck, if he'd said that Battlecat was the sole lead that still wouldn't be a controversy! This is just so exceedingly minor in all respects, and posting an outrage-generator site link just shows they're the only ones who care.ZeroSD (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Removed the entire review bombing mess, since rotten tomatoes user ratings are not consequential in any way and devoting a wall of text to them is WP:UNDUE. If angry nerds online were enough to get a show a controversy" section every show would have one. Artw (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement. If you happen to look at the film articles I provided, the users there were allowed to write a controversy section without their edits being reverted. Artw you just labelled me and everybody who writes a controversy section as "angry nerd." This is a personal attack that violates Wikipedia principle WP:NPA. Furthermore, the principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. That is why I have based my section on the the principles of WP:IGNORE and WP:BOLD. These principles have given me the boldness in writing a controversy section like all the users of the past article by using verified, non-deprecated citations such as Variety and Screenrant. On a side note, if you compare this controversy section with the articles all over Wikipedia that have very controversial topics and pictures such as those singles by Nicki Minaj pages, you will find this controversy section to be nothing. I myself tried to stop letting them post nudity but they just continue to do it... 7curator78 (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

To have a controversy section you need to have a controversy. Permanently upset troll sites like Bounding into Comics being upset about a thing do not constitute a controversy, as it is expected behavior. If your section stays (and it probably shouldn't) it should be much smaller to reflect its minimal importance and have a title other than "controversy". Something like "online campaigns" or "culture wars" or something. Possibly it actually should be off in some other article like the comics gate one? Artw (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I would note there is heavy, heavy WP:SYNTH in the allegedly sourced portion of your essay also. Artw (talk)

Please stop readding this content without engaging any of the multiple points raised, it is no longer BOLDness and now constitutes disruptive editing. Artw (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I added some citations to the development section. Does anyone object to what I wrote? 7curator78 (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say that what I said about disruprtive editing also includes sneaking the same material back in piecemeal and you should revert it in the spirit of WP:BRD, yes. Artw (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't sneaking in anything. All I added was citations in good spirit. I developed the section stating the show will be authentic to the source material after a confusion arose from a Screenrant article. Does anyone object to what I have written. All I am saying is paraphrasing non-deprecated citations. 7curator78 (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

A fair amount of what is written is still misleading at best. A lot of it is weasel wording and presenting false conflicts. Teela's a major character in the original, Smith saying he's basing things on canon is not a denial that she's a main character. It's pretty clearly written by someone who's not very familiar with He-Man/MotU to begin with. And He-Man is both very central to the plot and really obviously coming back. It shouldn't be in to begin with since it's just not very notable, but it just smacks of someone not knowing the original series and using that to try and stir things up. ZeroSD (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't believe what I am seeing right now. I am being denied to edit in Wikipedia! The first sentence I wrote was: "In 2020, Screenrant reported that the Netflix reboot of He-Man will relegate the main character He-Man to a background role while the main character will become a woman character called Teela. The reports were confirmed when the show was marketed at the 2019 Power-Con in Anaheim featuring Teela as the main character.". This was an article I read that I clearly remember the article stating Teela will be the main character. Does anybody object to this sentence? 7curator78 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure a blow by blow account of wether or not the show has a woman in it really has a place here, no. Artw (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion. I am basing the sentence on the principles of Wikipedia. Does this sentence violate any principles of Wikipedia? 7curator78 (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

At this point I would consider it further contentious editing, an attempt to reintroduce WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH material piecemeal, probably a violation in spirit if not in actuality of 3RR and I'd probably refer the matter to an admin noticeboard. Artw (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

All I did was state a fact from the citation. How can that be WP:UNDUE? Then all other facts in the development section merit WP:UNDUE or any fact I write is considered WP:UNDUE? A can't even add a single sentence without castigating it as WP:UNDUE. As if I am not allowed to edit this article at all? 7curator78 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Also as a side note, this whole thing is about He-Man. When I read the article and it stated Teela would be the main character, that has high weight and merits to be mentioned. So I am adding that sentence. 7curator78 (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The next sentence that was reverted was: Kevin Smith on Twitter denied these statements immediately noting the show will be based on canon. Smith also debunked an insider story that revealed Teela will have a girlfriend. Smith asserted the show will be authentic to the source material by Mattel featuring the main character He-Man and Teela as the wife of King He-Man.

Does this sentence violate any Wikipedia principle? I am directly seguing into the next topic after the first sentence which is Screenrant reported the show will be based on Teela and the creator of the show denied the claims. Feel free to critique this sentence.7curator78 (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, 7curator78, please stop marking all of your edits as 'minor'; adding entire sections like that is assuredly not a minor edit, which instead would be a thing like fixing a typo or other minor things, as denoted by the previously-linked help page. — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 22:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes sorry for that. I will now consider the minor and major edits more seriously. Since no one is objecting to the second sentence above I will add it. 7curator78 (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The third sentence that was reverted was: Screenrant retracted their original article and stated "He-Man [will be] the main protagonist." Does anyone object this this third sentence? Does it violate any Wikipedia policies? This has high weight because on one day it reported Teela will be the main character but on the other day it retracted by stating it will be indeed He-Man. 7curator78 (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

References

I have placed an edit war waring on your talk page, I would urge you to take a look at it and stop this nonsense. Artw (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Alex 21 told me in the history section that after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. If you see above I am discussing each sentence piece by piece with you. You did not object or stated each of my sentences was WP:UNDUE. Do you not want to discuss or what should be the next step? 7curator78 (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Artw aren't you the one who is against what I write. So please discuss whether the third sentence violates any Wikipedia principles. I am here for constructive criticism, because apparently you did not like any of the paragraphs I wrote. So I want to know which sentence specifically I got wrong. 7curator78 (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

What you are doing (replacing the contested content one sentence at a time whilst pestering people on talk, not taking into consideration a single thing you've heard from them previously) does not actually constitute a good faith effort at establishing WP:CONSENSUS, and you are absolutely not doing as advised by Alex 21 or any other user. Artw (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

NoobMiester96 please tell me why the two sentences I wrote that I defended above does not merit to be added to Wikipedia? 7curator78 (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

"I am being denied to edit in Wikipedia!" well yes, because it doesn't seem relevant or important and wikipedia edits get deleted all the time if they don't matter. Is there a reason you're emphasizing woman so much? Also it's false to say He-Man's been relegated to a background role, his role in the universe is what the plot revolves around even if he personally isn't physically present in the first half aside from common flashbacks. Teela also was a very major character in the original, so no, Smith saying the show was based on canon is not saying that Teela won't be a main character. Nor, mind, is people getting a wrong idea about the roles the various main characters in the old show will play in the new particularly major either. Basically it's all trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, none of this particularly matters, so it's not worth including in the page.ZeroSD (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the two sentences above. You might be mistaken here. According to the citation by Screenrant, "One major difference is that though He-Man will certainly be around, he won't be the main protagonist anymore. Instead, the focus will be on Teela." This is such a major development that it needs to be mentioned in the article. Changing the main role of a character meets weight. That is the first sentence. The second sentence was based on two citations from twitter from the creator of the show stating, " our series is LITERALLY all about He-Man. " and " " Teela has no girlfriend in our show." Please tell me how these 'TWO SENTENCES' and its citations violate Wikipedia principles. 7curator78 (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User ZeroSD, Alex 21, Artw, NoobMiester96 still haven't talked about the two sentences that I added and per consensus looks like I don't have any supporters yet. Are you guys going to just revert my two sentences or are you trying to resolve the issue of edit warring by telling me what I did wrong in the two sentences I wrote? 7curator78 (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

One, there still doesn't seem to be anything that justifies the inclusion of a whole separate section- there's already a plot summery, who does what is already very obvious and present on the page, redundant at best. Two, starting an edit war report on everyone who didn't disagree with you? Very transparent and very questionable. Just stop trying to make this happen, it's not a significant thing, and it's on you to convince others, not push it through as you have already done so. ZeroSD (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I still haven't gotten an answer why I can't write two sentences in the development section. Instead of me trying to add a whole paragraphs I tried doing it one small step at a time, and they still won't start a dialogue. 7curator78 (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, the information that's important is already in the plot section. You've gotten your answer and a dialog, you just don't like the answer people are giving you. You aren't owed an addition if it doesn't add anything to the article/isn't significant, it doesn't matter whether it's one step or all at once. The fact you're aiming to step by step add back in deleted stuff is an argument against if anything.ZeroSD (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

So you are telling me your opinion is that adding that sentence isn't needed because the plot section is already finished, and nothing needs to be added and if any user adds anything to that section from now on they will be reverted. What kind of logic is this? Did I add something controversial that doesn't fit the section "Development"? What I added was a fact from a citation to try to develop the section. Anyway I added all of this in edit warring section to see if anyone can add their input there. 7curator78 (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I am saying your specific edits don't add anything. Not that anyone can't, not that there's anything that can't be added, but the plot summeries already cover the material better than your edit does. And edits don't have to be controversial to be deleted, redundant or unimportant or so on are all reasons for deleting. ZeroSD (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, That went wild. The deletion of the controversy chapter is unnecessary. As long as statements are verifiable by sources and written from a neutral position, they should be present. The author doesn't take position, he is explaining a series of event from one perpective and it is up to the reader to decide if he adheres or disagree to those facts. Trying to erase those facts does no one service. It was one of the best neutral explanations of the events surrounding the He-man release and however minor, should be present for readers to know about. If you have a problem with those informations, write another paragraphe or give better depth to other chapters with verifiable sources to show your version of events to the public to make an informed decision.Archireveur (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

As a very new user (these are your first few edits) I would ask you to familiarize yourself with WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and WP:OWN. Artw (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, I went through the articles. For me, WP:RSdoesn't work for cinema and video games.There is close to no real reliable and serious source of informations, the best we have are magazines on the subject of controversies (numbers don't lie for the rest) and most film analysis that go into details are from youtube (for better and worst). I agree with WP:SYNTH but I didn't have the impression this article was infringing on it (at worst it was sifting through a lot of different articles to found those who had a different opinion). WP:UNDUE was present, it was the most neutral explanation of these events and WP:OWN relates to all participants as each one of you desires to put your opinion on this articleArchireveur (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Archireveur: I personally think the information in the controversy section is relevant in the same way the review bombing of Captain Marvel and the Last Jedi by culture war grifters has been relevant. That being said, this is not a controversy, this is just a known internet hate group trying to start trouble because some pop culture franchise had the audacity to acknowledge that women are human beings. Multiple outlets are covering this. I would recomend citing sites like Kotaku or The Mary Sue for more accurate coverage of the review bombing and the social media harrassment of Kevin Smith, as well as the involvement of Comicsgate. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, it's one thing to name your movement after a known hate-group, but to do so years after it fizzles out is just a mask-off moment. Honestly, I'm just gonna say it: this guy is clearly not here in good faith. Especially after the edit-bombing attempted on this page. Hawkatana (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Considering that he used Bounding Into Comics, Comicsgate's number one false rumour mill as a source, I'm inclined to rule out good faith as well, though I prefer not to throw around accusations and personal attacks again. I'm not sure what you mean by "naming your movement after a known hate-group" and "doing so years after it fizzles out". Comicsgate, also known sometimes as The Fandom Menace IS an known hate group and a direct continuation of Gamergate, made up mostly of the same members. But we're going off topic here. We should stick to what the sources say. Rewriting Rippley had a very informative article about the workings and tactics of this group, but I doubt this is the right place to cover it. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

He-man's "Wife."

An editor is repeatedly trying to assert that Kevin Smith confirmed Teela was to be He-Man's wife. This is being sourced by Kevin Smith tweets that do not say this at all. It was originally in the since-deleted "Controversies" section, but the editor is apparently trying to fit it in just... wherever. I want to assume good faith here, but this is a weird hill to die on and unsupported.Rosicrucian^Talk 15:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

"Audience reaction" / Rotten Tomatoes User Scores

I've deleted the section on Rotten Tomatoes user scores, since user generated content is not a sueful indicator of anything and is not generally considered notable here. The review bombing that occured *might* be worth noting, but since it repeatedly gets stacked up with qualifiers like "alleged" or indications that only particular sites talked about it I'm inclined to take that as an admision it isn't. My suggestion would be that if the section is re-added (we have a persistent IP user who is almost certainly a banned former user with an interest in that) we just delete it again, as it has no place here. Artw (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

(They reverted it. They really need to get some daylight.) Artw (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should probably request page protection again if he keeps this up. [5] Artw (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the recently added Second Season section, which appeared to be the same nonsense with the heading "second season" erroneously added. No bias against creating a second season section that's actually about a second season. Artw (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Audience Reception as reported by a third party and qualified by scientific methods is not UGC. A Review Made by a fan would be, but a grade obtained by an audience score is not. In that case Metacritic would not be allowed in WP. Even The Last Jedi article has an audience Reception section. Are You petting this article? Kronnang Dunn (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

right but how many times is this now you've added essentially the same content bigging up some dull non-controversy? Artw (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The fan criticism exists and the creator of the show himself has acknowledged it and has Made Revelations about the second seasons of the series because of ir. In the context of the section the info is necessary. Stop petting Kronnang Dunn (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Also Cinemascore grades scientifically obtained from moviegoers and reported by trusted impartial third party publications is not UGC. Kronnang Dunn (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Ergo, the Audience Score at RT should be added. Kronnang Dunn (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The so called "fan criticism" comes entirely from a small number of known internet trolls, and the audience score on RT is low because of review bombing. Yes, Kevin Smith acknowledged the troll-outrage, in fact, he anticipated it, as the behavior of Fandumb Menace trolls is woefully predictable.

Media that are targetted by the Fandom Menace typically get review bombed in the first week, then the audience score slowly begins rising as reviews from people who actually watched these films/shows start trickling in. It then typically jumps up as RT removes ratings from bots, and eventually settles around 60%. Hence why audience scores are unreliable and should not be cited on wikipedia. Now if reliable sources cover the review bombing and other troll-ops targetting Kevin Smith, then it would be worth mentioning. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources like Forbes and the NYpost have now referenced the controversy and review bombing. I have added a couple. I recommend others do the same and this segment of the page be fleshed out.

You seem to have an odd takeaway from that Forbes article you cited. Review-bombing isn't evidence of consensus or genuine backlash, it's an attempt to create false consensus.--Rosicrucian^Talk 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rosicrucian:While I agree that review bombing is not evidence of a genuine backlash, does this mean it should not be covered at all? If the forbes article does indeed have information about the review-bombing and Forbes is indeed a reliable source, maybe it's time for wikipedia to actually acknowledge what these people are doing and debunk the narrative they're trying to push. The fake controversy surrounding this show, the engineered outrage over She-Ra not being sexy enough in the reboot, the fake casting controversy around the upcoming Little Mermaid movie, the review bombing of Captain Marvel, the racist harrassment of John Boyega and Kelly Marie Tran, and many, many more such incidents are all originating from the same group of Comicsgate-adjacent right wing outrage-merchants on youtube, masquerading as "true fans" (of a bunch of media they probably never even heard of until a reboot was announced). It's actually depressing how little coverage there is of this issue. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The removal of all sources that highlight any negative response to the show whatever makes this page into little more than a press release for Netflix, and cannot possibly be the purpose of wikipedia to provide balanced and newsworthy sources about events they catalogue. Sources from the NYtimes or Forbes surely deserve a mention, even if the article provides viewpoints other than the ones critics push. By not reporting on those newsworthy sources at all the article has no neutrality whatever. It is an ad for the show, and nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1D19:B301:B51B:2CC:6443:72A7 (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is specifically about including Audience scores from Rotten Tomatoes and it has repeatedly and clearly been stated over and over again that the Rotten Tomatoes audience scores are not acceptable, see WP:UGC and WP:TVRECEPTION. It seems unlikely that editors would be willing to make an exception in this case.

If you have any reliable sources WP:RS of negative response we can discuss those, but it would be better if you started another section for that. If you have a source from Forbes then please show it and discuss, but please note WP:FORBESCON not all contributors to the Forbes.com website are considered reliable. If you have a source from Nytimes again please show it, but if you meant NYPost then we have problems because it is not considered a reliable source either please note WP:NYPOST.

It is possible to work towards including more criticism of the show in the article but it requires reliable sources and must be written with a neutral point of view. It would be a good idea to post a draft of your proposed changes on the Talk page first. I believe there was some fan criticism but I don't think it is as significant as you seem to think it is. We need to keep it in perspective, that's why we need reliable sources to make sure we are not putting undue emphasis on the latest clickbait or twitter-storm that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. -- 109.76.209.117 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Variety interviewed Kevin Smith et al[6] after part 1 was released. The article repeatedly acknowledges that some fans were not happy. There shouldn't be any complaints about using Variety magazine as a source so now someone would need to write something in a way that is neutral WP:NPOV and that doesn't put WP:UNDUE excessive emphasis on it.     And I am definitely not volunteering. -- 109.76.209.117 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The negative response from some fans has been briefly mentioned in the article and the Variety article used as a reference. Long after almost everyone else had moved on The Washington Times decided to flog the dead horse.[7] But it is one the very few secondary sources that bothered to comment on the show at all, and might be useful. (Someone might think it was worth pointing out that MotU:Rev dropped precipitously out of the Netflix top 10 but since that happens with so many Netflix shows anyway, I think the speed of the drop is too subjective for anyone to be able to call it significant). It is really difficult to know if the outcry should be given any WP:WEIGHT, if was from a only a tiny minority or if it reflected wider dissatisfaction with the show. It seems if we will only really known when they eventually renew or cancel the show. Netflix has all the viewership information and they aren't telling. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Acceptable Reviewers/Critics

This is more of a general query regarding reviews. I am aware of WP:RS However, it seems to me that a lot of comics/graphic novels/anime/western animation etc listed on this site use citations that are not strictly based on this criteria but instead, use pop culture sites and podcasts (of acknowledged critics) as sources. Is this is allowed? Or isn't it? I added 2 reviewers who were included in the critic section of Rotten Tomatoes. I would welcome clarification as this expansion of the Reception section was removed by admin, restored by admin, removed by someone else. I'm going to leave it but I would appreciate clarification when it comes to adding citations etc to pop culture articles.WooHead (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's the relevant diff (or possibly this earlier diff) and the 2 critics in questions were Grace Randolph from Beyond The Trailer and Kevin Carr, of Fat Guys At The Movies. Both critics are listed on Rotten Tomatoes (they are at least somewhat established) but both are less well know Internet based critics (Youtube, and podcasts primarily). I would not necessarily exclude them -- especially if they were saying something particularly insightful that other critics were not already saying -- but I would be cautious prefer better known critics (ie reviews from top critics) from more reputable organisations. Some editors would argue in favor of include Randolph but not Carr as a critic or publication that is at least established enough to have their own Wikipedia page. So while I would say they were acceptable I would not say they were necessarily the best choice when other critics are available. The editor that removed these two critics already said something similar: "Both of these reviews are self-published and please read WP:TV for their guidance on writing TV reception sections - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Reception " Reviews should preferably come from global media outlets (such as the Associated Press, Reuters, Canadian Press), major newspapers (such as USA Today, Toronto Star, The Times) and major entertainment pubs"[8]

I would apply the same level of caution to other critics. Not long after those 2 critics were removed another editor added a critic from The Indian Express and it was not reverted. I'm skeptical too of using The Daily Beast as a preferred source of television reviews. (There are certainly times when I'd like to include UK critics but unless it is a British show then there is not usually a good reason to include a British critic.) I would say that reasonable efforts should be made to explain why this critic? What point are we trying to make, what are we trying to say to readers that hasn't already been said? Why not pick from any of the 8 critics listed at Metacritic?

So again to summarize, I would maybe accept those two critics if there was first a discussion to establish that they are saying something special or making some point that could not be established using some other better known critic. -- 109.79.172.92 (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Other Media

Should this section be expanded? I have the details of the creative teams and the critical reception to the comics (along with citations) but am not sure if this is relevant to an article mainly about the show. WooHead (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Show your sources. I guess it depends. If the comic are part of the same continuity as the Netflix show then it might be worth mentioning but otherwise I would not think this article is the best place for it. -- 109.79.172.92 (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

“Second Season”

Can we stop adding sections titled “second season” that are barely, if at all, about a second season and are all about inflating dumb internet troll gripes? Artw (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

diff [9] I agree it was not really about the second season, it was about criticism of the first block of episodes. I also agree it was in the wrong place and there was no need for that separate subsection WP:OVERSECTION. Critics did notice that the story "starts out with more Teela and less He-Man" and expected that might annoy some fans.[10] So there is some justification to mention it briefly in in the Reception section. Kevin Smith's response acknowledging those complaints makes them noteworthy, so we should not dismiss them entirely, but it would need to be better written, more concise, and not put WP:UNDUE emphasis on it. (I am not volunteering to do it not anytime soon) -- 109.79.172.92 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Audience scores again

Audience scores again. An anonymous editor added Rotten Tomatoes audience scores to the article again, this edit should be reverted.diff Per MOS:TVRECEPTION and WP:UGC audience scores are not allowed.

There are sometimes rare exceptions, but this is not one of them. The reference Variety article mentions that fans were displeased but it does not mention the Rotten Tomatoes audience score. The scores have not been reported by a WP:SECONDARY source. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I hate to say this since you are an IP, but maybe we should just Ip protect the page? Artw (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the disruptive edit. I can understand why you might prefer to just have the article locked as it is now. I think the response should be directed at the one disruptive editor not the encyclopedia article, but that's just my opinion. The article is be locked for 30 days in any case. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably worth re-visiting with a full historical breakdown once they start up again so it can't just be dismissed as an honest mistake or some leap of logic made as to be some reasonable edit that we should set aside policy for. You'd think the situation would be glaringly obvious given the edit history but sometimes people can be willfully obtuse. Artw (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I really do not believe the anon editors were making their edits in good faith, as they made no effort whatsoever to discuss the changes, not even an edit summary. Exceptions have been made past and audience scores included, but only when they were reported by reliable sources. (Sometimes I even agree that including audience scores is a justifiable exception, but not often). Even then the scores are not important in and of themselves, only as an way to illustrate the point that audiences did not like a show as much as critics did. For most show Nielsen ratings are a much better way to do that, but unfortunately we do not usually have access to that kind of information about Netflix shows.

We cannot know for sure yet, but it seems to me as if the future lies with the other show: He-Man and the Masters of the Universe (2021 TV series). -- 109.78.203.101 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Audience scores are still not allowed. MOS:TVRECEPTION WP:UGC etc. Manually reverted[11]. -- 109.76.139.189 (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Title

Since Masters of the Universe: Revolution exists as a second season, should we move the page to Masters of the Universe (2021 TV series)? Something else? Of course the hatnote would remain the same. I’m asking before moving in case someone has something better--CreecregofLife (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

All three parts of Transformers: War for Cybertron Trilogy - another Netflix series that gave different names to each season - are all on the one page but they called that a trilogy from the start. What are reliable sources saying is the name for this series? I thought it was (and still is) Masters of the Universe: Revelation even if they decided to be weird and give season 2 another name. Keep the page name as it is including the keyword Revelation unless and until reliable sources make it clear that the series as a whole has some other official name. (I expect MOTU Revelation will remain the common name.) -- 109.76.194.186 (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess it could stay at the title. When The Haunting of Hill House got Bly Manor a season 2, a The Haunting (TV series) page was made to encompass both seasons while each season had their own page. I think this page needs to move away from a series tone and structure and into a season-toned page, as it is now a season 1. CreecregofLife (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

When an actual release date is announced we will probably get to see what mainstream sources are calling the show and the series as a whole and change things then. Too soon to say. -- 109.79.163.199 (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"Spiritual Sequel"?

The lede refers to this show as a "spiritual sequel to the 1983–1985 series" [emphasis added]. Is it really, though? That implies that it doesn't continue the events of the original, but merely takes inspiration from its themes. I think anyone who watched the original cartoon would very easily recognize this as being more of a "direct sequel". Neither of the article references to that sentence even use the term "spiritual sequel". 70.29.86.59 (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The article body says "direct sequel", the WP:LEAD section is supposed to summarize what is actually in the article. It makes no sense that this wording is not the same and is not supported by sources. Editors seem to not a understand WP:LEAD and frequently make things uptake liberties and add new things instead of summarizing. -- 00:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.139.189 (talk)

So, do we change it or what? Added by IP here, and reference #1 already has a quote designed to be reused as corroboration. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Good fix.[12] The showrunner called it a sequel. The lead section is not the place to debate discuss or expand on that and it is best left to the article body. -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Same diff, another day. (No explanation was given, so reverted.) -- 109.79.160.188 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not a direct sequel: Duncan is Teela's biological father, Adam is physically different from He-Man, there is no She-Ra, among other things that differ from the original, there are things that came from other sources, like the 2002 series , the film, etc...Hyju (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

How direct or indirect it might be is subjective WP:POV. In any case there is no need to highlight it in the lead section.[13] -- 109.79.64.118 (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)