Talk:Star Trek: Discovery season 1

Copy

Large parts of this article are the same content already lengthly (wall of text style), from Star Trek: Discovery. I suggest to move content back, cut the content at STD, then AFD this page here. For a well written article example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_Things Btw how many STD articles are there now 10? prokaryotes (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The consensus at the WikiProject Television is to split season articles off if there's enough content that is season-specific. This is certainly the case here. If anything, the content should be trimmed at Star Trek: Discovery, and this article remains. Discussions have already been held about trimming the content at the parent article and how many sub-articles should exist for it. -- Alex^TW 10:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Somehow the Stranger Things article manages to have everything in 1 article while STD has for every trivial season an article. I just looked and it seems that every single season article uses the same content, this is pure spam. prokaryotes (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Your person opinion has been noted, but every article and series is different. Stranger Things is a one (almost two) season series. Star Trek: Discovery is a series that is part of franchise that spans half a century, and the development of the series reflects this. And what do you mean by "every trivial season"? It has one season. This is the only season article for the series. -- Alex^TW 10:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The episode articles this here the main article ... all have the same identical content (Production section). I am sure that the consensus at the WikiProject is not to split season articles off, and to fill those with all the same content to make them appear more important. This is useless content, all fits well into 1 article. Then there are articles for the cast, this is ridiculous. prokaryotes (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you are being ridiculous. There are hardly multiple versions of the same article being created. A little bit of duplication is always going to happen, but there is nothing here out of the ordinary. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

So, you're not talking about separate season articles, you're talking about episode articles. There's only one season article. If you feel that they need a copy-edit, then be bold and do it yourself. Again, your personal opinion has been noted, but you will need consensus to delete these articles. -- Alex^TW 10:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want to have this discussion properly, give us some examples of things that you feel are being unnecessarily duplicated, and we can more ably discuss them then. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

As a WikiProject Television and American Horror Story editor, I offer the similarities between its main article and its first season article. They are very similar in content, as far as the production sections go. It's gonna happen with most television articles that expand into their first season articles. There's no way around it, unless you strip down the main article and have links to all the similar sections in the first season, which goes against the main's purpose. Let it ride, and let the visitors decide on skipping the similar sections. Now, if a future ST:D second season article contains the same info, that will then be unnecessary. (Add: there is a marked difference between ST:TNG's main article and its first season. There is also a draft for Stranger Things (season 1) that has the same pitfalls as ST:D S1). — Wyliepedia 05:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think with the TNG one, the reason for the significant differences is that I wrote the season one article (prior to GA, I'm sure there's several differences by now to that version) almost entirely from scratch without reference to the main article. In fact, the bit I found hard was making sure that information wasn't duplicated from Encounter at Farpoint. Perhaps what needs to happen is the same as when I did a bunch of content splits from Gene Roddenberry out to several other articles - now the content has been moved, great - just now someone needs to go back to the original article and summarise the detail leaving it in the season article. Miyagawa (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: Commendable work on the TNG season article. And, precisely as stated above, a rewrite is in order. — Wyliepedia 09:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

If there is a rewrite, then I have no objections to this article. I do not edit Star trek articles much, but eventually if you have 6 or more articles (Main, seasons, episodes, cast), the status of information will vary, and that is a problem if you really want to read a comprehensive overview. Thus, I would prefer a clear compact overview of all the sub-pages, and leave the meat content at the main article, including the reception section. For instance, the episode 1 article now has only the very positive reviews, yet there were negative reviews too. Somehow those disappeared. prokaryotes (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the idea for TV series is generally to have a more vague overview of the entire series at the main article, with links to sub-articles that go into more detail, such as an article dedicated to characters, and article dedicated to each season, articles for episodes if they warrant it. If you try to create a single, comprehensive, but also "compact" overview article then I feel like you will be unsuccessful; you cannot be both comprehensive and concise. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Rows of TBAs

@T.J. Crowder: I'll start a discussion here for you, since it seems that you have no plans to. You need to follow the suggestions of BRD and STATUSQUO, and leave the article how it is, without the disputed content, until you can gain consensus for it, else an editor may report for you edit-warring, per EW.

The CONSENSUS of the Television WikiProject is to not display rows with only one cell of information; i.e. in this case, simply the dates and no other information. In your first edit, you stated that it was giving the impression there are only 10 eps total; the Episodes section clearly states that "The first chapter of nine episodes finished airing on November 12, 2017, and the second chapter will begin release on January 7, 2018, to complete the 15-episode season." (emphasis mine)

In your second edit, you stated that it wouldn't have bothered if it hadn't misled me in the first place - the contents of an article do not depend upon only one person, but the team-word and consensus of the community, which is why you need to follow the suggestions given in this discussion. -- Alex^TW 09:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Actually I was about to revert my own edit and bring it to talk instead, but you got there first (thanks for that). Going to the Episodes section of the main ST:D article, you'll find the clear impression that there are only 10 eps in the season. That content is generated by this page. While there are 15 episodes mentioned in the text on this page, people don't read, not even on Wikipedia. Showing the full list makes it clear in both places, and gives the airdates of the unaired episodes. -- T.J. Crowder (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

So your issues are with the main article? The lead of that article clearly states that "The rest of the 15-episode first season are streaming weekly on All Access." We do not need to display all content from this article to that one, only the information of the episodes that are available. It's not up to us to duplicate information in multiple places in the hopes that the odd reader does read it. -- Alex^TW 09:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I've already said what my issues are:

1. People don't read, showing the full list makes it clearer than just burying a number in the text.
2. The Episodes section of the main ST:D article is generated by this article's list, and is even more misleading as it doesn't have text with the number buried in it. (We could add that text, of course.)
3. Showing the airdates of the unaired episodes makes sense.

So rather than more text with numbers buried in it, I suggest showing the full episode list. Clear at a glance, simple. -- T.J. Crowder (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I recommend that you start assuming good faith in people, and not stating that everyone doesn't read. You need to gain a consensus elsewhere, then, as the consensus to not displays rows full of TBAs is a WikiProject-wide decision. Simple. -- Alex^TW 10:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith (and if you could tone it down a bit, that would help with having a constructive interaction). If you haven't heard the maxim "People Don't Read," I'm surprised; it's fairly well-established. Re this consensus about not showing the TBAs: Could you point me to it, please? If that's what is, that's what is, and if I had the time to challenge it, presumably I would do so there rather than here. Thanks in advance. -- T.J. Crowder (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that we can't assume that people won't read the articles, that is just unrealistic. Both articles clearly state the number of episodes in multiple places. I don't personally know of a specific discussion that we could point you to for this consensus, but Alex and I are both frequent editors of many television articles, and so we have both got plenty of experience of what happens when someone tries to add multiple empty rows to these tables (the same also applies for the ratings tables on articles for broadcast shows): there is always a clear consensus that we should not be adding rows if they don't have anything in them. We are in WP:NORUSH, the rows will be filled in with information soon enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Chapter 1 and chapter 2

The season seems to be divided into 2 parts not only by the holiday break but also structurally. Episode 9 ends in what is clearly a cliffhanger, a technique used mainly in end of season episodes. Therefore I recommend we do seperate the list of episoded into 2 chapters. It's more than just a PR naming stunt. DGtal (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Chapter" is just another term for the sections of a season around what is essentially just a mid-season break. -- Alex^TW 02:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

My claim is that the sections here are not just a technical result of airing schedules but are substansive. I assume we will see if I am really correct when ch. 2 airs but the cliffhanger is a major hint that I am right. In the worst case we keep the lingo the franchise chose which isn't a bad idea. DGtal (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Either way? Will someone be adding a summary of Episode ten: as it’s now aired? Cuddy2977 (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no rush, it'll be added when someone decides to add it. Why don't you do it yourself? -- Alex^TW 08:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"Si Vis Pacem, Para Gellum" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Si Vis Pacem, Para Gellum. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 16#Si Vis Pacem, Para Gellum until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)