Talk:The Acolyte (TV series)

Referencing

References should be defined in-text like they are for most Wikipedia articles and this should be no exception. It doesn't make sense for references that are only to be used once to be defined in a long list. It makes referencing properly more difficult for less experienced editors. It is a lot more time-consuming to write a reference name in text and then write a full definition at the end of the article in the correct order with its exact preceding and succeeding references between it. Secondly, when references are invoked multiple times, they should be given names that actually make sense by following the standardised Harvard author-date naming system rather than using generic names like "VanityFairMay2022Acolyte". Using odd and vague names like "FilmingLocation" may describe specific information but that it's only useful when the reference is only being utilised for that specific purpose. For example, a reference in this article named "FilmingLocation" has also been used when discussing things completely unrelated to filming locations. This can make it hard to follow references and understand what they are. Xselant (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Putting full references as in-line citations makes it incredibly difficult for anybody to edit the article. This formatting is used at almost every article I have worked on for the 10 years that I have been on Wikipedia so it is not rare or unusual. There is nothing wrong with the naming conventions either, as long as the ref name is accurate to the source. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Full references as in-line citations are much more easy to understand as the source is placed beside the corresponding information rather than being placed at the end of the page that has to be searched for among the bizarrely named and ordered reference list. You also didn't seem to read what I said about the problems with giving random names to sources. The problem with using names like "FilmingLocation" is that, yes it describes what is in the source, but the source may not be exclusively about filming locations and may be invoked elsewhere in the article where filming locations is not being discussed. Your objection seems to be purely based in opinion and personal anecdotes rather than addressing the many problems raised. Asserting that this bizarre referencing system is the norm simply isn't true. In-line citations are used on the overwhelming majority of Wiki pages and some Star Wars and Marvel pages should not follow their own unique referencing system just to be special. You just need to look at any page for any actors, journalists, politicians, movies, etc. and you will see that they all use in-line citations. Whether you like it or not, the system used on this article is the extreme minority and is being justified for no specific reason other than being used on a select few related pages controlled by the same insular community of editors. Xselant (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope, this is not some "bizarre" new thing that a small group of editors decided to do just for the Marvel and Star Wars pages. See WP:LDR, it is an option for all Wikipedia articles to choose which has been around for more than 10 years, longer than I have even been on Wikipedia. It makes no difference for readers of articles, but it significantly improves the ability to edit articles: we can edit the text without having to try read between citations which can be extremely difficult and confusing, and we can maintain the references in one section without having to search through all the prose. Full references as in-line citations are much more easy to understand as the source is placed beside the corresponding information rather than being placed at the end of the page that has to be searched for we still put in-line ref tags beside the information, all you have to do is put the name into your browser's "find" function and you get the full citation. This is also the case on articles that do not use LDR but have one source supporting multiple pieces of content, but in this formatting we are consistent with all references plus you have the benefits of actually be able to read the text and the references as stated above. You also didn't seem to read what I said about the problems with giving random names to sources this is clearly not true since I responded to this point already. The naming system is fine, we just give each one an appropriate name based on the content and differentiate with dates and/or websites where needed. If a citation has ended up with a less accurate name then it can easily be updated, but it doesn't always need to be since you can still find the reference no matter the name. In your example, "FilmingLocation" is what the source was primarily used for. Just because we got other information from it doesn't change that.

Regardless of your own opinion, this is a completely normal approach to referencing and being used for this article and many others. You don't get to decide to change it just because you don't like it. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about my opinion and you seem to be completely unaware of your own deep biases and personal feelings or being malicious in choosing to not recognise them. It's about being consistent with other articles rather than wanting to use a unique referencing system. You may have an unnatural attachment to your weird references called "SquiresVanityFairAcolyteLocation" and "WorkingEp9TwitterConfirmedApr2020" rather than using a consistent naming style like author-date across all references.

Even in the LDR page you cited, it states that "A drawback of the approach is that these references can be harder to insert into the source because they are separated from the text." It's much harder to add new references with your extremely minoritarian style because you have to write the in-line ref tag, know what exact references, weird names and all, that come before and after the reference you added, scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page, and then add the full citation which is not practical. LDR is not easier to edit with because "The editor must either open the entire document to see the source for both the text and the reference list". It's impossible to simply edit one section of the page because you will have to add ref tags, publish the page, and then edit the page source again to be able to edit the reference list manually rather than having the full in-line citation automatically appear. Saying that this isn't a problem because you can ctrl+F is a genuinely childish way of thinking. Just because LDR is an option doesn't mean that it should be given preference. There's a reason why Wikipedia's own referencing template uses in-line full citations. It's because it is simpler and less time-consuming to use.

Citing WP:FOOTNOTES like whipping out a Pokemon card doesn't make the point you think it does because on that page, it assumes that in-line citations be used as it is the most basic and universal form of referencing that most pages would use. You simply can't deny the fact that in-line citations are used way more commonly because they can be automatically generated and organised using reflist. Xselant (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

You are just making up problems, there is nothing difficult about adding the in-line ref tag then scrolling down to the bottom of the article and adding the full citation there. I agree that it is slightly inconvenient if you want to just edit one section of the article, but that does not outweigh all the positive of the approach. Anyway, you are just resorting to personal attacks and ridiculous statements now so there isn't much point continuing this discussion. LDR exists, people use it, get over it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

In-line citations have more advantages. More people use it, get over it. You are just saying "aNyOne WhO CriTciSeS mE iS UsInG pErSoNAl AtTacKs" Xselant (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. WP:LDR formatting has been chosen for this draft/eventual article. I see no strong reason to change from that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Xselant: You are edit warring. Again, please see CITEVAR I quoted above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Bob Iger confirms Star Wars: The Acolyte will release on Disney+ in 2024

Bob Iger during his conference interview with Morgan Stanley that Star Wars: The Acolyte will hit Disney+ in 2024. He said it at 21:44 to 21:54 in this portion of his interview: https://event.webcasts.com/viewer/event.jsp?ei=1599361&tp_key=1311d36648. MarvelDisney20 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a question here? Nemov (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Because of this information, can we put the 2024 release date into the show's wiki page? MarvelDisney20 (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Episode writing credits available

Not sure if these credits can be added just yet, but all 8 episodes have been added to the WGA directory: https://directories.wga.org/project/1246372/the-acolyte -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) 23:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

We could start the table with that info, for sure, but we typically keep the table hidden until at least one more column can be populated. Maybe you could just use “2024” as a release date, but worth getting other’s input there as well. -2pou (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Added. Yes, it's better to have another piece of info, but just from the stand point of displaying the info, since we have all 8 credits, going to the table now just makes sense. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Release date

Until there's an official announcement or reporting by a reliable source, this article shouldn't state a release date like it's a fact. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 please find consensus and stop reverting. You can find a list of reliable sources here so I'm perplexed at your claim that Collider is a reliable source. Please provide an explanation. Nemov (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: Please see WP:VNT. Collider is a reliable source (no idea why that's being questioned) and just because Lucasfilm has yet to announce a release date doesn't mean we should discount this nor remove it from the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Pointing me to a link about verifiability doesn't mean Collider is reliable. I don't think they're reliable and they have a pretty hit or miss record when it comes to Star Wars news. This needs to be better sourced. Nemov (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Your personal thoughts on the site doesn't mean that's reflected or aligned with the site's. Wikipedia considers Collider a reliable source, so the info, per WP:VNT, can stay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Where's this discussion of reliability? I'm questioning it, because it's not a good source on this topic and it's not listed at WP:RSPSS. Nemov (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Collider is widely considered to be reliable across film and TV articles. Your personal opinion does not change that. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I am asking a very simple question, you as an experienced editor should be able to point me in the direction of "why this is considered reliable" when I'm pointing out it's not listed as a reliable source in the place most people look. Nemov (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSPSS does not list every source, only the ones that have been significantly discussed. See WP:RSPMISSING for more. But it is a reliable source and you saying "it's not a good source on this topic" isn't going to change that. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 Consensus can change. I guess I'll look for a discussion about this since apparently neither of you are interested in providing a link to one. Nemov (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_334#Collider. As has been stated, it is considered a reliable source, even for scoops/exclusives. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Primary topic

I moved The Acolyte to The Acolyte (fanzine) and cleaned up the topics titled The Acolyte at acolyte (disambiguation). There are three: the 1940s fanzine, the 1976 novel, and the 2024 Star Wars series. In the last 20 days, the series has had about 61K views while the other two topics have had 200 views combined. This article should be the primary topic for The Acolyte. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I am happy for us to make this move as long as we don't think there will be any controversy about recentism. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It may be best to move it once it starts airing. I agree about the possibility of concerns regarding recentism, but the other topics are so minimally visited. Any Star Wars film or series will have staying power in terms of visits. Even the Star Wars Holiday Special gets hundreds of views daily. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Per WP:LEAD, the most noteworthy context should be established upfront. Leslye Headland is not more noteworthy context than Star Wars itself. Doing a quick WP:SET proves this: acolyte 2024 tv intitle:headland shows 930 results (at least on my end) compared to 163K results for acolyte 2024 tv intitle:star wars. Here's an example, Variety doesn't even mention Headland until the fifth paragraph. In contrast, that would never happen for a Christopher Nolan film. It's essentially WP:UNDUE weight to prioritize Headland at the very top, and there are no "standard" rules. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

All of the new Star Wars TV show articles have similar formatting, that is what I meant when I said "standard". Consistency is good when dealing with a single topic, though it does not trump the needs of the individual articles. In this case, the creator of the show is very important and definitely deserves to be one of the first things mentioned. For the research done, I think it is obvious that more headlines are going to mention that this is a Star Wars show over including the name of the creator, that doesn't mean that she is less noteworthy in the context of this article than other series creators are. In fact, her role in conceiving the series, publicly discussing all elements of production, marketing it, and likely being called out by a lot of the reception to the show (even beyond the target of internet trolls that she already is now) makes her role key to the article. I think this being a Leslye Headland show and a Star Wars show are both similarly important, and both are mentioned in the first two sentences of the lead so I feel they are both being established "upfront". Not every key detail needs to be in the first sentence, and I personally don't feel the suggested alternative wording is an improvement because of how much in-universe detail it crams into the first sentence. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It is POV to assert that the creator is always more important than the franchise to mention in the opening sentence, in contrast with the evidence I have shared so far. At WP:FILM1STSENTENCE, I highlighted the relevant policies and guidelines that indicate putting the noteworthy context upfront. We cannot be worshipful of the creator/director in every single instance; it always depends on the topic. With this being the case, a de-facto standard of always placing a creator or director upfront across all Star Wars works is inappropriate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I never said the creator is always more important than the franchise. I feel like you have just ignored my entire argument. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Dude! You're making your own personal assertion about this, contrary to the evidence. It's an easy head-check, do readers know what they're about to read when they see that it is a show created by Leslye Headland, compared to when they see that it is a Star Wars show? This bears out in the coverage about the show, as I mentioned. I have cited policies and guidelines accordingly. You have claimed a standard, which despite your claim that they are similarly important, that the creator will be named in the first sentence, and Star Wars named in the second sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You keep putting words in my mouth, I have not made any of the arguments that you seem to be responding to. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. This is a Star Wars series that's created by Leslye Headland. Just like Seinfeld was created by Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David. The showrunner of a series is generally one of the most important aspects of the project. The fact that the IP of Star Wars notability dwarfs Headland is kind of irrelevant. Nemov (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant. See WP:FILM1STSENTENCE for why it matters to put the more noteworthy context upfront. This series is known for the Star Wars association, not the Headland association. The search-engine-test result and the Variety show how Headland is lesser for mentioning compared to Star Wars. It doesn't mean that Headland should not be mentioned upfront. They are a notable figure, but they are not why this topic is noteworthy. It is the Star Wars franchise, as seen in the results and the coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

As I stated above, the series is known for both and both are introduced upfront. The only difference between the two versions is which has the best wording, and that is not the version which tries to cram too much detail into the first sentence. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not about the wording. Star Wars needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence. Headland doesn't. That meets the policies and guidelines. Doing things they way they've always been done isn't an answer. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that says what should go in what sentence. The one that you linked to is a personal essay. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Erik please refrain from making more changes to the lead until there's a consensus. Nemov (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  My change of "science fiction" to "Star Wars" was a distinct change than switching mentions of Headland and Star Wars. Are you saying you oppose this? I don't know if Adam would be fine with that since it mentions both in the opening sentence. The priority is to mention Star Wars upfront per the policies and guidelines, which you haven't responded to. Does it not make sense for you to at least mention Star Wars in the opening sentence as the most noteworthy context? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  My statement stands... Quit making changes to the opening sentence until there's consensus to do so. That said, I don't object to removing science fiction from the first sentence. The 2nd change isn't necessary. Nemov (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not super keen on replacing the genre with the franchise, I know you seem to have something against being generally consistent across topics but I'm going to say it: we never do that with any film or TV articles, readers expect us to put the genre there and I think it is asking for trouble to make such a big deviation from the norm, especially when there is nothing particularly unique about this series to justify the change.

  You keep saying that we must state that this is a Star Wars series in the first sentence because of policies and guidelines, but that just isn't true. I agree that guidelines suggest we should have the most important information listed upfront, and I agree that this being a Star Wars series is one of the most important facts to be upfront about, but I disagree that we need any wording changes to do that. The lead of this article states upfront that this is a Star Wars series created by Headland, just because Star Wars comes after the first period doesn't mean we aren't being upfront about it.

  I also find it curious that you think it is so important to de-prioritize Headland in this article and seemingly not do the same for Favreau, Filoni, Gilroy, etc. at the other Star Wars TV articles. I don't want to make any bad faith suggestions about your reasoning for that, but without any other explanation it is not a great look. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  That is indeed a bad-faith assumption. I saw the trailer and was curious what showed up on Wikipedia, and I engaged in cleanup at acolyte (disambiguation) and thought this article should be the primary topic and suggested that. I made a similar change to Return of the Jedi recently based on visiting it following a WT:FILM discussion. The opening-sentence problem is prevalent across film and TV articles, and I will only fix that problem in articles I visit. I don't want to look for the problem, but I will fix it in the process of visiting as a reader. I did that with the superhero films when I saw that editors wanted to name three companies before even linking to the superhero and identifying who is playing them. To go looking for the problem is just plain overwhelming, and I don't feel like with dealing with many fronts. Here, I am saying that Star Wars should be prioritized over Headland, and it should be done elsewhere too.

  Below are the policies and guidelines from WP:FILM1STSENTENCE because no one has even argued against them directly:

• MOS:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." Star Wars is the more appropriate context than Headland. To say "The Acolyte is a Star Wars series" is more definitive than "The Acolyte is a series by Headland".
• MOS:FIRST:

• "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." I know that you said that Headland did a lot as creator, and I agree with that, but that's not what nonspecialist readers know. It's Star Wars that better tells the subject in this case.
• "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." Again, it's Star Wars. There are other notable entities tied to or working on the series, but Star Wars is essentially why this series is known.

• MOS:CONTEXTLINK: "The first sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable." Star Wars is the broader topic here. Think about World War II battles, do you think it ever makes sense to have the opening sentence that said so-and-so won the battle, and not mention World War II in it? If a topic falls under a broader topic, it's likely that the broader topic should be mentioned and linked.
• WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." (emphasis mine) With films, a lot of editors think that directors should always be mentioned in the opening sentence. For some films, that is true, but it is not a universal truth. It's possible to have an undue focus on lesser entities when greater entities are the ones worth identifying first.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

None of those quotes support the idea that the franchise must be mentioned in the literal first sentence of the lead. However, it seems clear that you aren't going to change your mind about this and I am losing interest in this discussion. I don't love this wording, but I much prefer it to the previous updates that have been suggested, so how about this?

The Acolyte is an upcoming American science fiction television series in the Star Wars franchise that was created by Leslye Headland for the streaming service Disney+. It is set at the end of the High Republic era, before the events of the main Star Wars films, and follows a Jedi investigation into a series of crimes. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I prefer the status quo for consistency. I'm not sure about "science fiction" as it relates to Star Wars since it's more on the fantasy side of things, but without seeing the series it can stay for now. Nemov (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI if we changed to my new proposed wording, I would be recommending we make a similar change at the other Star Wars TV articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, just keep the status quo. It's worked for a variety of articles with no issue. Nemov (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that wording, but I am also wondering, is Star Wars: The Acolyte a valid alternative title? The core issue is not identifying the Star Wars element upfront as part of the topic's definition. I explored the other media, and most media already mention it as part of the title or at least the first sentence.

I saw that Ahsoka (TV series) has, "Ahsoka, also known as Star Wars: Ahsoka, is an American science fiction television series created and written by Dave Filoni for the streaming service Disney+." Similar for Andor (TV series). In contrast, I also saw that The Book of Boba Fett opens, "The Book of Boba Fett is an American space Western television miniseries created by Jon Favreau for the streaming service Disney+," not mentioning Star Wars in any of that. Same with The Mandalorian and Obi-Wan Kenobi (TV series).

The Book of Boba Fett and Obi-Wan Kenobi have "Star Wars" above their logos, but The Mandalorian does not, not sure why that inconsistency. I do see Star Wars: Skeleton Crew as a rare series in having it in the title itself. As JDDJS suggested below, I can propose at least mentioning Star Wars in the first sentence if the title or its variant does not already mention it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Skeleton Crew was announced as actually having Star Wars in the title, which is different from all the other shows. Enough sources saying Star Wars: Andor and Star Wars: Ahsoka were found that led to those alternate names being added, or at least that is the idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to offer my 2 cents on the matter, I agree with the argument that the association with Star Wars is generally more notable than it's creator, but I think that some people are a bit over valuing the importance of the first sentence. I really don't think that it really make a significant difference between whether we mention Star Wars in the first or second sentence. I think sentence flow is more important, and I think how it is now flows perfectly fine. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEAD has a whole section devoted to the first sentence, so it is important. Leaving Star Wars out here (and other such topics) is an omission. Even just Googling the acolyte, the result for this article shows, "The Acolyte is an upcoming American science fiction television series created by Leslye Headland for the streaming service Disney+. It is part of the Star ..." literally stopping before it says Star Wars. Sentence flow is not in conflict with noteworthy-context primacy and should not override the latter. Even just calling it a "Star Wars series" instead of just generic genre labels is in line with reliable sources covering this series. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If you feel this strongly about this, then I highly recommend that you start an RFC and/or ask the relevant WikiProjects (Star Wars and television) to weigh in on the matter to see if a consensus to change the lead can form. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Another filming location

I’ve not edited Wikipedia before so thought I would leave a note here. During April 2023 for about a month the forest opposite me was used as a film location for the Acolyte forest scenes. The location is called Benyons enclosure between Silchester and pamber heath. This is not far from the film studios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.209.117 (talk • contribs) 10:49, April 1, 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source to support this information. We cannot take your word for it. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Dislikes

I'm removing this recent addition by @Andykatib until there's some better reporting.[1] YouTube doesn't show dislikes and this "dislike" data comes from a browser extension that estimates dislikes based on the people who install it.[2] In other words, it way over estimates dislikes. It's not accessing an API. Google removed that back in 2021.[3] Nemov (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nemov:, no worries. Thanks for explaining the methodology behind the MovieWeb article and the reliability issues. Will wait for better sources on the topic. Thanks for getting in touch. Andykatib (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)