Jump to content

Talk:Reunion (Westworld)

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

Move into main space

[edit]

@AlexTheWhovian: Please move this article back into the main space. Stubs can be improved there. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because stubs are acceptable to a degree, doesn't mean we should deliberately be creating them. Do I really need to repeat myself so often? -- AlexTW 14:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I'm starting a separate discussion for a separate draft. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And you're getting the exact same answer for the exact same case. -- AlexTW 14:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but we're discussing this draft specifically, not episode drafts across the board. Editors can discuss whether or not this specific draft should be moved into main space. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They can, and should. Especially if they learn the issue with the first exact same case. Which they don't appear to have. -- AlexTW 14:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide your reasons for moving this page from main space to draft space. There are multiple sources, and the topic is notable. In my opinion, improvements to the article should be made in the main space. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already have. You know, on the other talk page of the exact same discussion. -- AlexTW 15:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem and Galobtter: Pinging you both here, given discussion on user talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And not the other editor who disagreed with the move. Interesting. Why not? -- AlexTW 15:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: Didn't intentionally overlook anyone. Please extend invitation. I assume you're referring to Esuka323? Let this ping serve as an invite. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is very clearly more than those editors who contributed to that discussion. Why did you not include them? Not Esuka323 either? Because they disagreed with you? Editing posts and adding pings to it does not send the ping. -- AlexTW 15:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making accusations and please just invite people to the discussion. You're not assuming good faith. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that I myself am not too much of a fan of every episode gets an articleitis, but this looks vaguely notable, and much more importantly, it should be discussed at AfD, or if draftified for other reason and considered notable, kept in mainspace since it is a perfectly acceptable article, content-wise Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Vaguely". Duly noted. -- AlexTW 15:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: Thank you for moving back into main space. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very disappointing, the article is underdeveloped. I don't agree with articles being created for the sake of doing so and being left in such a poor state like this one. I think no article is better than a poor one. We still have the season articles which are enough for most shows. But I'll go with what has been decided for this article as you have consensus for the moment. Esuka323 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor who agrees with this poor stub of an article. I have tagged it accordingly. But the entire basis of this article is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- AlexTW 22:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a balance here. I agree that if we're talking a show that might get one or two reviews per episode, creating an episode article off the bat is not helpful. On the other hand, each ep of Westworld (at least right now) gets a huge amount of attention and numerous reviews. Given that there is clear potential for a standalone article for each episode, there's no reason not to create one as to have a place for editors to come and add information to fill it out over time. This only extends to a few current TV series, not to all. --Masem (t) 22:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this show may get a lot of reviews per episode. But that doesn't mean that this article lists them. It gives a few sentences, that's it, and that does not qualify for an article. You say as to have a place for editors to come and add information to fill it out over time? That's the exact reason that the draft space exists. -- AlexTW 22:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Draft space is good when one or more editors know they have a potential topic but know they don't have it at a state that it would survive AFD, or that it is not accommodating for new editors to add. When you have an article like a current episode that will draw more than a handful of editors, people aren't going to know to look for draft space to find the working article, so main space is fine. Key is that draft space is not compulsory, and its troubling to try to force that use. --Masem (t) 23:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this article was minus its plot and its real-world information was presented, it would definitely not support AFD. The only thing supporting this article is its bloated plot. Mainspace is not a place for articles in progress. Hidden notes in articles and posts on talk pages are how you alert editors as to the existence of drafts, so that equally as many editors are aware of it. -- AlexTW 23:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is never finished, every article is one that is considered in progress. Its meant to be collaborative efforts. And right now, if you take away the plot, there's some basic production details and reviews. I don't know how much the production can be expanded - not every TV episode gains extensive production coverage, but the reception certainly can and we know we'll have ratings in a bit. That's a minimum amount of information that the episode passes basic notability guidelines. And we're not supposed to use hidden notes to hide information from new users, they will not know where to look for it. --Masem (t) 23:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is, I definitely agree there. Every article is considered in progress, but when we deliberately create stubs and have them as articles without any indication of improving them, that's when it becomes disruptive. If the article can't have a good deal of its own separate real-world information, then it should be included in the Season 2 article. Episode articles cannot be based on reviews and ratings alone. -- AlexTW 23:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Episode articles cannot be based on reviews and ratings alone. Why? As long as we're talking in-depth reviews from RSes, that meets the GNG for coverage; I agree there should be more from those reviews brought into the article, but that's not required for GNG/AFD. I know we would like more production details, but that's just not required and often not possible. I've been dealing with television episodes for year, the idea that an episode with only reviews (but being many, in-depth reviews) not being appropriate doesn't match consensus. --Masem (t) 23:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed among the Television WikiProject before and agreed upon that it does not mean the required notability if the article contains just (or mostly) plot and some reviews. Every show gets episode reviews, you can find dozens for each episode all over the net. That doesn't mean it needs episode articles. Episode articles should exist if there is too much real world information to not include it all in the season article. -- AlexTW 23:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the episode article into the season articles means there's no place to leave individual episode reviews. That's a problem, as that should be included with the episode when there is a lot of RS critical coverage (some episodes may stand out as critically acclaimed but lack any type of production details, for example). Whereas when only one or two reviews exist per episode, that's a fair reason to omit individual episode articles if there's no production details to be written. I see there was a discussion that went nowhere in May 2017 at the talk for MOS:TV and WP:EPISODE doesn't say anything regarding the approach you suggest, and I do consider that I try to keep up to date on these changes for the TV project. --Masem (t) 23:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point, yes. Individual episode reviews do not make up an episode article. I don't particularly have the time at the moment to find them due to RL, but I know of a lot of episode articles that have failed a keep vote at AFD due to only consisting of a plot and reviews, or have been redirected without any issues or opposition. I'm just presenting what I've seen in the Television WikiProject. -- AlexTW 04:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we may want to reopen that discussion at WT:TV (not here), because I don't get the same feeling that "Plot + multiple reviews" are not considered appropriate content for episode articles, and that goes against longstanding operation of TV series that I've seen. --Masem (t) 04:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've already posted {{please see}} links on WT:TV and WT:MOSTV to this discussion. -- AlexTW 05:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone here just needs to chill out. Its clear that individual episodes of this series are going to be notable enough for standalone articles (based on the fact that all of season 1 already does). As such, it is both inappropriate and disruptive to move this article to the Draft: space. The Draft: process is optional, not mandatory, and is generally not for articles we know are going to be on the Main space - regardless of their current state. This episode aired last night, so the article issues header spam is likewise disruptive - even if the individual reasons are technically correct, spamming them seems to be WP:POINTy. We KNOW the reviews will come, in time, and so will ratings numbers, etc. You all just need to relax and let the editing process happen. -- Netoholic @ 05:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That can be said perhaps for this article, but it's been a week since the premiere episode and that article is in no better shape either, after a week of allowing it to be updated accordingly. If that article won't be updated, then how will this one be? -- AlexTW 05:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A trout to you, sir, for speaking of "allowing" the article time to be updated. Totally wrong frame of mind for a wiki editor, as it implies ownership. -- Netoholic @ 05:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know exactly what I meant, and it wasn't that. A trout to you, sir, for trying to be amusing and failing miserably. -- AlexTW 05:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A trout was an appropriate fish-based blunt weapon, considering how much you are WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion page. -- Netoholic @ 05:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you owning the talk page and declaring what I can and cannot say? -- AlexTW 05:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to some Comments

" Every article is considered in progress, but when we deliberately create stubs and have them as articles without any indication of improving them"
1/There is no reason to think that this article cannot be improved--not only will the plot here be further clarified (or confused) by later episodes, but there will presumably be further ratings and discussion
2/there is repeated and consistent consensus over many years that stubs even if they can never be expanded are satisfactory in article space if are verifiable and can show notability
"a week is enough time to allow for it to be updated" It's one of our basic principles that there is no time limit.
"It's been discussed among the Television WikiProject before and agreed upon that it does not mean the required notability if the article contains just (or mostly) plot and some reviews. " No project owns an article. Only the community as a whole can decide what should be kept in WP.
"but I know of a lot of episode articles that have failed a keep vote at AFD due to only consisting of a plot and reviews," And many have been kept. It depends on the show. I would make an argument that for this show in particular, only the detailed episode plot summaries can give any understanding of the series. Not all shows are like that. In practice it also depends on the importance of the show and also on whether there are enough WPedians interested to work on the articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah point 2 is basically why I moved it into article space. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't think anyone here was against these articles existing, but rather we wanted to see a good standard of article and not stub class articles repeatedly created. If going forward someone could make the effort when producing these episode pages to not create stub pages and actually invest the time to get the page in question to a good standard before submitting to mainspace, I won't have an issue. After reading through the heated discussion, let's not get personal with each other, we all want whats best for the page, and let's all move past this and get along. Esuka323 (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of an antithesis to how WP is meant to work. We know most TV episodes are individually non-notable, and we definitely don't want users creating stubs of basic plot and no reviews or other information that can very much unlikely to be expanded. That's a good practice to try to enforce. But we have a series that is receiving a great deal of attention, each episode discussed and reviewed at length, and we have a reasonable history of one season to know one episode is not a fluke. To that end, a stub created to capture the plot (after the episode airs) is not unreasonable: it's not just potential to expand but demonstrated sourcing that it very much can expand. So starting it as a stub to encourage editors to contribute is exactly how WP is meant to work. Mainspace has zero standard requirements outside of meeting the basic core policies, and the only one that really applies to new episode articles is WP:V, we can't verify the episode until it actually airs, hence why waiting until airing to create it. --Masem (t) 14:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but both episode pages were in a very poor state, which caused this disagreement among editors. If an editor would just invest the time, maybe an hour or two into gathering the relevant information, they could achieve a good standard of article before submitting to mainspace. There's always room for improvement, I agree, but let's not create messy pages which require other editors to clean up to get to that standard. Episode pages after all aren't mandatory, season pages work fine for plenty of shows. Esuka323 (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be sent to AfD. The fact that it was positively reviewed doesn't mean it's a notable episode that needs its own article. This looks like just an excuse to write a really lengthy fanboi plot summary. Westworld has its own wiki for that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been long the standard across most TV series that as long as there's a fair number (more than a handful) of in-depth reviews, along with neilsen ratings, an episode can be broken out. Nearly every ep of Westworld gets at least a dozen reviews from RSes, if not more. More of these should be in the reception section, but in terms of notability, that's what drives it. --Masem (t) 17:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- this article should be kept. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Harris" should be "Hopkins."

[edit]

There's a paragraph under Production that reads:

"...Esposito contacted Joy and Nolan, and after their pitch and knowing he would be acting opposite Harris, Esposito took the role...."

I don't know to whom " Harris" refers; I think it's supposed to be "Hopkins" for Anthony Hopkins. 24.128.50.93 (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reunion_(Westworld)&oldid=1210024736"