Jump to content

Talk:The Orville/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Perhaps a little merging?

Not even counting the infobox, the cast list is given three times in the article -- twice nearly identically.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

U.S.S. Orville ECV-197 physical filming model

Description: U.S.S. Orville ECV-197 physical filming model from The Orville 2017 TV FOX show

URL:

License: 

{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = U.S.S. Orville ECV-197 physical filming model from [[The Orville]] 2017 TV FOX show
| Source            = https://twitter.com/SethMacFarlane/status/866341973896044544
| Article           = The Orville
| Portion           = whole
| Low resolution    = 
| Purpose           = Illustrates the primary setting of the TV show
| Replaceability    = No, all imagery related to the TV show is copyrighted by FOX Television
| Other information = 
}}

Link To License Information: {{Non-free fair use}}

Author/Copyright Holder's Name:

Article To Be Used On/Reason For Upload: The Orville

-- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Moclan Gender Identity

I noticed that AussieLegend changed a description of the Moclans from "all-male" to "single-sex," with the edit summary "Moclans are a single-sex. Use of "female" was at best peculiar. How would they know what a female looks like?" Now, from a real-world viewpoint, I totally agree. If a species is single-sex, then it must either be all-female (and reproduce via parthenogenesis, like the New Mexico whiptail) or individuals must be hermaphroditic (and reproduce via self-fertilization like a lot of plants, or via mutual fertilization like garden snails). But that's only because of how chromosomes and DNA worked in the progenitor of all life on Earth, resulting in specific biological definitions for male and female. In reality, a non-Earth organism that reproduced sexually would quite possibly not have a male/female biological identification (let alone gender roles), and a single-sex organism would quite possibly defy any effort to identify in terms of male and female. And so the only way to describe Moclans would be "single-sex." However, this isn't the real world; this is a work of fiction, in which the single-sex Moclans are explicitly identified as "male." In the first episode, Ed mentioned that Moclans are "single-gender," and asked Bortus if the "entire species is male," to which Bortus responded "That is correct." And in the second episode, Bortus identifies his offspring as "female," which Klyden deems "impossible." So, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to us, it is verifiably established in the work that this species is "all-male," and that they nevertheless have a concept of what a "female" is. And, technically, the Moclans are not established as "single-sex," but rather as "single-gender." So I think it would be more appropriate to retain the description as "all-male," rather than changing it to "single-sex." --DavidK93 (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at the episode again and you are correct. Moclans are a single-gender race that identifies as all-male. However, I don't see an issue with stating that they are a single-gender race. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the main reason to use "all-male" instead of "single-gender" here is because the implication in the episode is that the reason for the offspring's "impossibility" is that she is female instead of male, rather than that she has a binary gender instead of conforming to the single gender. So the summary is clearer for the reader if we use a description for the Moclans that refers as clearly and specifically as possible to the characteristic that is violated. But perhaps the next episode will shed more light on the storyline significance of this development, which might clarify the best way to characterize this in the summary. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
"All-male" implies "single-sex" though, as would "all-female", while "single-gender" is not that ambiguous. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I am fine leaving it that way for now; I believe it would require a greater depth of in-universe context that is not yet available, either for me to coherently argue any position, or to be convinced of any position. Hopefully, that information will eventually exist. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
After I saw the next episode, I significantly changed this section of the summary of episode 2; episode 3 makes it clear that female Moclans are known to be born on rare occasions, so I avoided contradicting that, despite the characters' use of "impossible." --DavidK93 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Pending Revisions Protection

Does anyone know why the article has Pending Revisions Protection? I've been editing Wikipedia for a decade, and this is the first time I've encountered it. It seems really clunky, and if there's a problem with edits to this page, maybe a different form of protection could address it? --DavidK93 (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Click on the lock icon to get a generic explanation. It really doesn't take much more than someone requesting it for an article to get locked, or semi protected. I'm surprised you haven't seen it before if you've been using English language Wikipedia for a long time. Flagged edits are preferable to an article being completely locked, which to my mind goes against "the Encyclopedia anyone can edit" but the usual reasons are persistent vandalism or even just well intentioned edits that go against established wikipedia policy (like providing proper reliable sources). I'm not entirely sure why the article was locked but I do know this article is receiving a lot of edits from MacFarlane fans who annoyed that the critics panned the show. -- 109.79.55.12 (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Checked the history and the article was locked by User:Oshwah due to unsourced or poorly sourced content. There was a lot of back and forth over what genre this show actually is so it could just as easily have been about that. -- 109.79.55.12 (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
That is correct. This is why I threw a silver lock on this article. However, this does not restrict any kind of editing to its content - it only requires that changes from anonymous users and non-confirmed accounts be reviewed before they are visible to the general audience. Other than that, there are no restrictions applied toward anybody regarding the ability to edit the article and its content. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Pending changes was introduced about 5 years ago as an alternative to semi-protection to allow newly registered and anonymous editors to make productive changes to articles while stopping vandalism and other undesirable edits. Semi-protection stops all newly registered and anonymous editors from editing so it's not a better option. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Genre

Can someone clarify that this is a genuine 'comedy drama'? I checked FOX website (https://www.fox.com/the-orville/article/about-the-show-59728d82ef528f0026dc02d0#article-59728dab84bfd30022f94f7c) and I don't really see them putting in that genre, instead, they put it on space adventure genre. Xerophytes (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The Futon Critic classifies it as a drama. Some websites claim it has comedic elements. Editors have used that as justification for calling it a comedy-drama. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Should Orville have 'space adventure' as its genre since FOX classified this as 'space adventure' show? Xerophytes (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
How about light-hearted space adventure? This isn't rocket science, you know...137.205.101.55 (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Numerous sites refer to this show as a comedy. FYI - theWOLFchild 21:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. We follow RS. Calling this "drama" alone is misleading. Bondegezou (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I've come across this two or three times doing recent changes patrolling. I looked into it, and apparently (not having watched it myself), it's not particularly a comedy. It just has a larger-than-usual helping of comedic elements for a sci-fi show. This review seems to sum it up:
"This is the part that will immediately perplex most viewers, who will undoubtedly tune in to The Orville — a heavily advertised show from the creator of Family Guy — expecting a comedy that sends up space show tropes and lets MacFarlane do his dick-joke thing. But The Orville isn’t interested in being that at all, instead swerving between plodding sincerity and sporadic MacFarlane-style snark so aimlessly that the show might as well be walking in drunken circles. " and;
"The Orville is not, as it turns out, the Galaxy Quest-style spoof Fox has been selling in its ads. In fact, The Orville isn’t particularly funny at all, both by design and accidental ineptitude. Instead, it’s a bizarrely straight-up homage to Star Trek that can’t seem to admit as much."
So I can see where the anons taking the comedy genre out if it are coming from, assuming the reviews are on the spot (there's more reviews saying the same thing, including one linked in that one). I'm not saying the issue is settled (I'd have to watch an episode or two and do a thorough analysis of the reviews, instead of just the quick read I've done so far before I pick a side), but the claim "this is not a comedy" seems to be a defensible position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Having watched the first episode I can now say with complete confidence that I have no fucking clue what genre this is supposed to be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Has this been resolved? I thought we'd settled on sci-fi drama, and that although it contained some elements of comedy that didn't make it a comedy. Since the article was unlocked recent anon edits have already changed the genre to sci-fi comedy drama.
In the words of the MacFarlane himself: “We really do see it as a sci-fi comedic drama,” MacFarlane told reporters at the Television Critics Association press tour.
That seems like a reasonable source but the opinion of the author isn't an absolute answer. Then again actually being funny isn't an absolute requirement for something to be in the comedy genre either.
I'm happy to go along with whatever the consensus might be but I'm not clear if there actually is any consensus. -- 109.78.200.56 (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure MacFarlane thinks it's "sci-fi comedic drama" but then he probably thinks Family Guy is funny. To be fair, The Orville is funnier than Family Guy but to me it's more sci-fi drama with comedic elements, which seems to be what third party sources are saying. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ship name

In the article, it says that the name of the ship is "U.S.S. Orville". Are you sure it isn't "USS Orville"? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

USS has always referred to the abbreviation United States Ship. Here is a Fox website showing it with the "."s as "U.S.S. Orville" https://www.fox.com/the-orville/. --Catagris (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not always. It certainly did not mean that in Star Trek. Spiny Norman (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The ship is from the Planetary Union, so it could easily mean Union Space Ship ; In Star Trek, it was United Space Ship or United Star Ship for the UFP (United Federation of Planets; "the Federation") depending on if it was a Space Ship or a Star Ship (see the episode "Bread and Circuses" of TOS for the difference between a Space Ship and a Star Ship) -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

In reference to the Wright brothers Orville and Wilbur who flew the first airplane at Kitty Hawk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:b146:ef06:8f9:d545:c77c:deba (talk • contribs) 09:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"Admiral Halsey"

Is this a reference to the Paul & Linda McCartney song? I ask because it could probably be added to the article. 98.20.133.88 (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It could also be a reference to American admiral William Halsey Jr. associated with the CV-6 USS Enterprise from WWII, but unless a reliable source says anything definitive, everything — including your suggestion — is speculation. — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
As this is a Star Trek homage, the USS Enterprise CV-6 would seem a more likely reference; also all the shipnames being aviators, and Enterprise being an aircraft carrier, that is also in keeping. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

referants

Episode #4 is reimagining story of
Dimension X radio theatre - 1950-11-26 episode #31 "Universe"
Dimension_X_1950-11-26__31_Universe.mp3
that was itself based on Robert A. Heinlein novel "Orphans of the Sky"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.59.211 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I was reminded of For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky and The Return of the Archons from TOS -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
It is unlikely that details specific to episode 4 will be included on this page. It doesn't look like there is enough interest in this show for Wikipedia editors to create pages for individual episodes, where such details might be appropriate. Your comments are interesting but they are original research and if you wanted to include them you would need to find some third party reviews that compare the episode to existing science fiction. There isn't much point listing other possible references. -- 109.78.252.53 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Ratings

The article currently says the first episode got adjusted up to a 2.7 rating according to TVbyTheNumbers, date Sept 13. Deadline says the show rating was adjusted up to 2.8, also dated Sept 13. Do we have final fixed ratings for the first episode yet? How can we know which is right or wrong? -- 109.76.196.129 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Why a certain editor changed the original ShowbuzzDaily rating to TVbyTheNumbers was stupid given the former does NOT impose any stupid rounding on their finals and the former states complete share demo figures that can be correctly averaged unlike the later that incorrectly averages them. TVbyTheNumbers is an unreliable source and does not provide accurate figures unlike ShowbuzzDaily and should NOT be used. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The raw ratings numbers don't mean much to me, I'm hoping someone will dig deeper and add more prose explaining it better but I'll probably have to do it myself eventually. I've got a vague idea that the show seems to be doing well enough with the target audience, but I'm trying to read a bit more to make sure I'm not misinterpreting. (I think it is an interesting and important counterpoint to the critics who most likely saw only saw the first 3 episodes I was interested to see the ratings bump for episode 7 attributed to heavy promotion from Fox, and the article also explains the early ratings peak having the NFL as a lead in, and also the predictable drop when it moved to a different timeslot. I think it will be interesting to see how it all settles down when the season is over, and if someone else hasn't expanded the Ratings section by then maybe I'll give it a shot. -- 109.79.136.54 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

verifiable, but notable? relation to Star Trek

The article names Brannon Braga as one of the Executive producers, one of the Directors, and one of the Writers, with Jonathan Frakes and Robert Duncan McNeill also among the Directors. All three have prior ties to Star Trek (as The_Orville#Filming section mentions and i will augment). Should this article point that out?

from The Orville article intro:

Inspired by the television series Star Trek

from Brannon Braga article intro:

Best known for his work in the Star Trek franchise

from Jonathan Frakes article intro:

best known for his portrayal of Commander William T. Riker in the television series Star Trek: The Next Generation and subsequent films

from Robert Duncan McNeill article intro:

best known for his role as Lieutenant Tom Paris on the television series Star Trek: Voyager

71.121.143.245 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I added the bit about Frakes and McNeill, the source after it (despite being harshly critical of the show) goes on at length about the many connections the Oville has to Star Trek (and that insight is why I picked it over the many other reviews harshly critical of the show). At the time only the first episode had been broadcast and they were not yet listed in the article, but since episodes have aired that they directed the sentence looks a little odd and unfinished (because it is). I didn't get around to adding more sources or paraphrasing the text to go into more detail about the links to Trek, but that was always my intention. I'd certainly like if you or anyone else had time to improve and expand the article in that direction. -- 109.77.203.235 (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Episode 13

It is said that the thirteenth episode (so I guess the Season finale) has been removed from Season 1 and transferred to the 2018 season. But from the production codes in the table, the episode removed appears to be 1LAB12, while the season finale is now 1LAB13. From the codes it seems that Episode 12 has been removed and the Season finale has been kept. Hektor (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

RT and Metacritic audience scores

We've included them on a number of other pages. If anyone other than the IP wants them removed, it's time to speak up. Or if the IP or anyone else has a good reason why they should be excluded, I'm all ears. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read the usual ABC, FOX, NBC, CW, CBS TV show pages. Also, it's two different people who care enough to keep this page in order. 82.15.11.92 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:SELFPUB and WP:DUE. Now that we've both made suggestions of dubious merit, try making an actual argument. The edits you keep making won't go live until someone approves them. I'm a pending changes reviewer and I will be quite happy to approve them as soon as someone makes a decent case for why we should exclude them. Point me to an noticeboard discussion, or hell, even a discussion on an article where the participants concluded that the audience scores were undue. That's all I'm asking for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm giving you valid advice. Read the reception sections for shows on these networks. You'll notice any well maintained page does not include audience scores. Since this is a FOX show take a glance at Lethal Weapon, Lucifer and Gotham. If you would please stop obstructing my attempts to keep the reception area in order it would be greatly appreciated. 82.15.11.92 (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I haven't obstructed anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, there's this which also assigns a positive audience reception. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile this on-wiki search shows that there are quite a few film/television shows that document audience reception. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

First I'd be totally okay with you including the IndieWire article, it is a reliable source and it is using the ratings information (another reliable source) to comment. You could even include prose explanation of the ratings without using Indiewire so long as you are careful to avoid original research or synthesis, that's a reasonable way to show audience response too. I've been waiting for someone to actually do that but a 50% drop in the key demographic made me think the ratings indicated the audiences response wasn't all that positive once viewers got past the first few episodes (most critics would have done their reviews based on having seen 3 episodes).
At the moment I think this article with one negative review and one positive review gives undue weight to the positive when this show was panned by critics.
I don't think WP:SELFPUB applies and other stuff exists is not a very convincing argument. (Audience response in film articles definitely excludes user voted web polls and generally relies on information from polling companies such as Cinemascore, similar to how TV articles rely on Nielsen ratings.) I'm in agreement with the IP Editor 82.* and I don't think any properly maintained TV article actually allows user voted web polls but I don't mind going to Project TV for confirmation. -- 109.76.159.233 (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how I failed to see this earlier but WP:TVRECEPTION states: This means that IMDb, TV.com, and the other similar websites that give "fan polls" are not reliable sources of information.
Maybe you still think that is trumped by WP:SELFPUB? Please clarify.
Also the specific edit you approved recently is particularly bad bad not good, as it fails to even make clear that it is talking about the user votes and not the critic scores, so even if you do keep the user scores it needs to be rewritten to make it clear what the editor was attempting to say. -- 109.76.159.233 (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, yes; policy trumps the manual of style every time, no question. But it doesn't matter, because an MOS is good enough reason for me to get behind excluding, and you'll notice I haven't reverted. In the future, you should not continue to revert, even a second time when a discussion is ongoing. Instead, the change being discussed should be left alone until the discussion is complete. You might find this surprising, but many editors tend to make a point of allowing themselves to be swayed by persuasive arguments.
P.S. Don't critique an "other stuff exists" argument after you repeated an "other pages don't do it, so this one shouldn't" argument twice. They're the same damn argument, just from different directions. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Can someone fix the reception section. When your critics are at 18% and your audience is at 94%, its time to get new critics. I get that its not done on other pages, but the massive difference here sort of warrants it being mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.220.192.228 (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised to see such a big divergence in scores on RT. Perhaps it merits mention simply due to the unusualness of the situation? 2A02:587:B903:B100:5C46:6775:537D:C69A (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I've held my tongue for a while on this issue. I've never seen a TV page on Wikipedia with so many IPs with just one edit to their name trying to force this information onto a reception section before. A lot of the information in question uses similar wording, and some are made by newly registered accounts with just one edit to their name. I don't want to throw accusations around as I can't prove it but if people take the time to read through the revisions adding the information you'll see my point. It's either someone IP hopping or a fan group of the show trying to force this issue. Just look at how there's two users with one edit to their name above this comment using that edit to speak about this. It just seems really suspicious to me. I've acted in good faith to try and maintain the reception section per Wikipedia policy but I don't think it's worth the effort anymore. 82.15.11.92 (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Well I'd just like to say that I'm just a person, no conspiracy or anything (at least on my part). I *genuinely* found it weird that the viewer score wasn't here. I don't know anything about policy so I made no edits apart from my reply here. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I acted alone? :) 2A02:587:B906:CD00:F014:F582:513D:DCAE (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't want to mention it earlier but there are exceptions to most every rule on Wikipedia. The article now includes an Audience response section, which does address the disparity between the audience and the critics. This is possible because someone actually found reliable sources that reviewed the reviewers, and didn't just crowbar the web voted scores into the article. More reputable sources would be better, but it is now good enough that the section does actually meet standards and should survive.
The section still doesn't adequately address the many problems with Rotten Tomatoes scores (such as tv reviewers scores in this case being based on 3 or less preview episodes but being presented as representing the whole season). The audience scores are deeply flawed too, for one thing I've seen things get big scores before they were even released and audience could not possibly have seen the show. There's also confirmation bias, only people who really love or really hate a show will bother to vote.
I want to make it clear though that the people who added the audience scores before were very wrong to do so, and it all comes down to reliable sources. -- 109.79.127.153 (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
User:DurtyWilly made good faith efforts to change the section and questioned the if The Angry Joe Show was a reliable[notable] source, but also deleted TV Guide which was a reliable source. He then replaced the section so that it only listed the user voted scores, which as explained before repeatedly are not good enough on their own, they like any other random web poll are unreliable user generated content. Only with reliable third party sources to indicate that anyone is paying any attention to the discrepancy between critic scores and a dubious web poll, do we have an exceptional reason to actually include them.
For the time being I have reverted to the last acceptable version, restoring both TV Guide and the Angry Joe Show, but I accept that we need more information to show if the Angry Joe show is an acceptable source or not. -- 109.79.172.121 (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
He didn't write non-reliable, he wrote non-notable. The Angry Joe Show is covered on Wikipedia, so it's obviously notable enough. And seriously: Such removals need to be discussed here first. To read the Talk page and participate in this discussion is something we can expect from a Wikipedia editor active since 12 years. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought a yet another video blog was particularly good source but as you say it did seem to be notable enough to have (part of) a Wikipedia page, which is why I was reluctant to delete it. The TV Guide article is a good source though. I would much prefer if the audience response section had more than 2 sources but it is good enough to meet the rules and requirements of Wikipedia as far as I understand them. I will say again I do think User:DurtyWilly made edits in good faith but made an honest mistake, as there are an almost impossible amount of rules and guidelines in Wikipedia. (The account is long established but the edit count isn't huge, several hundred or so.)
Since editors are determined to keep making edits about the discrepancy between Rotten Tomatoes interpretation of professional critics and a web voters, I think it is worth keeping the version that actually has sources showing it is notable. Maybe it can even be improved, I honestly looked suitable sources before, and tried to find more sources after the section was created but it is rare that anyone from the mainstream media takes Rotten Tomatoes seriously anyway, let alone the web user votes.
The section is tricky, and despite the fact that the user voted web polls are garbage, we have an unusual exception where were allowed to include the garbage because reliable sources have bothered to discuss it, making it notable garbage. -- 109.79.172.121 (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

USS Orville ships stats

Where would the stats on the ship be added?
For example the ship is 386.08 meters long
[1600 scale, 9.5 inch model].
(http://fantastic-plastic.com/orville_model.html)
50.70.234.111 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere. It's non-notable trivia. The figure you've provided is also incorrect. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I would not expect that level detail in Wikipedia but I figure there is probably a Wikia specific to The Orville ... and there is http://orville.wikia.com/wiki/The_Orville_Wiki -- 109.79.184.125 (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Trival or Precedent ship lengths?

Your flippant dismissal isn't of me, I was quoting the official model maker's measurements, so your flippant dismissal is of the official model makers. Also your arrogant presumption that it's trivial is negated by the precedent made by other famous starships like the USS Enterprise - "Length 288.646 metres (947.00 ft)". You have a lot of editing to do if your going to vandalize all those other articles to remove the "trivial" lengths quoted there in.
50.70.234.111 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a List of fictional spacecraft and perhaps it would be appropriate to add more information about The USS Orville to that page.
Wikipedia makes it very easy to delete things, but much harder to add things. It is deeply flawed in many ways. (Like people deleting comments on a talk page expressing sympathy with your frustration. I'm reposting a rephrased version of what I wrote before, even though for the most part it is not specifically about the Orville, it is a relevant response to your comment and an honest attempt to explain how you might get the changes you want into this article or another relevant article.) In general if you are unhappy about a deletion you can at least force editors to follow their own simple rules and insist they explain the deletion with an edit summary or on the Talk page.
Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia, and things should be added based on merit but popularity is still a factor. For example Star Trek is very popular and has many articles, articles about the tv show, the movies, the franchise the individual characters and the fictional worlds and technologies, so there are many places where it is entirely appropriate to add details. The Orville is not so popular yet, and as this article is essentially an article about just another tv show that happens to have a space ship, it doesn't seem entirely appropriate to add details about the ship yet. Wikipedia has many rules and selective enforcement is a problem but Wikipedia is also inconsistent and no one is likely to go on a campaign deleting technical details about star ships from Wikipedia even though they were quick to revert your attempt to add them here.
Wikipedia tries to have reliable sources. Even if it is official as you say, it is difficult to know if the reference you gave is a reliable source, and checking it requires more effort than removing it but the bigger problem and I think main reason your change was rejected was probably that it didn't seem particularly notable. If the article had a larger production section that went into greater detail about the world and the technology then specific details about the size of the ship would seem more relevant in that context. Or if there was an article for USS Orville (currently a redirect back to this page) it would be appropriate there, but starting a whole new page for it could be difficult.
So yeah, it is difficult to add things to Wikipedia. It is difficult to fight against the tide that makes it so easy for other editors to push back against changes. It probably shouldn't be so difficult but if you keep working at it and create a larger context you can probably get those details included if you want to make the effort, but it will require a lot of work to find the most appropriate place or create the necessary context for those details it to become more relevant. -- 109.79.120.129 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Trivial - Mention of the ship length in this article would be trivial. The figure quoted is dubious, coming from a site that seems to be selling the models and not from the program's official website. I'll also note that the length provided is incorrect. The website specifies a model length of 9.5" at 1:1400 scale, not 1:1600 scale, so the actual length would be 337.82m, not 386.08m as specified by the IP editor. However, at such a scale, a very trivial difference in actual length of the model could result in a full scale difference of several metres from that once scaled up. We'd need a full scale size from the studio before it could be considered to be a credible value. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Trivial - I would wait to see if the show make it to a second season and maybe even a third, before worring about creating pages of the ship, the characters like Star Trek has, (however, I do like the show :) ). The Orville is not famous yet, in short. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter how popular or how well established the show is, obscure British tv show Hyperdrive (TV series) (another space ship run by fairly ordinary people) only ran for 12 episodes and it includes a small subsection explaining details about the ship. The problem is finding good sources and making a big enough edit that others won't rush to revert the changes. It would take a lot of work to do a proper section or a whole article on the ship, but you could create a sub-page from your userpage and gradually build it there without interference. You'd need to find sources talking about the design (it is only CGI not a model or a mix of both as far as I know I was wrong the ship both model and CGI (short video)) and who designed it, there must be something saying what inspired the shape etc. Getting images approved is always a hassle too, but maybe you can find a press release pack or something (now that I think of it an image of the ship, and images of the cast would be a good improvement to this article if anyone is familiar with how to get through that system). -- 109.79.120.129 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The promotional image at the top of this spoilertv article shows both the ship and the cast. It might even be a suitable image for the Infobox. An image of the cast from a convention would be ideal (since they are often Creative Commons licensed to begin with) but it might be possible to get one of the early promotional press release images of the Orville cast[1] through the approval process.
You hardly ever see it used in articles but Template:External media might be another way to indirectly add important images such as an image of the cast to the article until such time as freely licensed images become available.
I'm getting further offtopic but I do think an image of the ship would substantially improve the article and make it easier to then have a section describing the ship. -- 109.79.120.129 (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Better information about the ship from FX guide.
The process (and this quote will need to be paraphrased): "The practical model work was done for the season in one initial major models shoot. The material was then used and reused throughout the 13 part series in much the way it was in the original Star Trek: The Next Generation."
Various names are mentioned, not sure if "Favreau's senior collaborators" are important or if the names of the VFX people should be mentioned, or if the previs specialist should be mentioned.
The Offical Youtube channel for The Orville includes a short video where MacFarlane talks briefly about the production design and about not wanting things to be dark. The Production Design which was done by Stephen J. Lineweaver, the video is called Designing the Future]. If I understand correctly Lineweaver designed the set, so essentially the ship interiors. An article from USA Today briefly quotes Lineweaver saying "the future can't be all dark and noir"
The ship is based on a sketch by MacFarlane.
Hopefully we can avoid too much discussion and instead improve the article, and maybe my comments will encourage someone to expand the production section and write more about the ship design, the model work, the CGI, and the set design. I'm not going to do it though (not anytime soon at least), I've spent enough time on it already. -- 109.79.120.129 (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This is all great for production but the OP is concerned about the length of the ship, hence the title "Trival or Precedent ship lengths?", not that he's been clear about what he expects from this RfC. The production aspect, which is reasonably important, is not the subject of the RfC. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay so, to directly respond to the RFC, until there is a section of the article that actually talks about the ship then the dimensions of the ship are not relevant or "trivial" if you want to phrase it that way.
I think it is all beside the point of making a better encyclopedia and that's why I think it would better to avoid the problem and instead improve the article to the point where it the information could be included. (but as Aussie said the source is not good either.) Very often good presentation and proper context is the only difference between what is so often dismissed as "trivia" and any other production information. To label something as trivia is POV. -- 109.76.241.81 (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The show Star Trek has a ship called the USS Enterprise. Orville has a ship called USS Orville. There's a bit of lunacy to the idea/suggestion that this ship is not significant as it bares the title of the show and is practically a character of the show, and yet it's relegated to almost no mention in this article. Encyclopedic minded people shooting themselves in foot, way to go. 50.70.234.111 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The suggestion is not that the ship is not significant, it is that the poorly sourced, original research ship lengths are trivial. You need to remember that in the first season of Star Trek, the ship itself wasn't significant. The story was about the crew and the ship became important much later. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Redundant references

The Cast section is littered with redundant references. Due to WP:CRYSTAL these references are needed before a show or film is released. When a show is aired the cast and character names are easily verified directly from the source itself and the references are no longer needed. The references were gradually added as the cast members were confirmed, then more were added as the character names were added, then more references were added as the character descriptions became available, and as a result there are three or more references where none, or only one is actually needed. This is very cluttered and very unnecessary. The unnecessary references can safely be removed.

In many cases Wikipedia editors do not know or care why references have been added, or even if they do it isn't worth the effort of removing them. Even if someone knows the WP:TVCAST guidelines and makes the good faith effort to and takes the time to check the sources and can see how unnecessary all those outdated references actually are, and carefully removes them, there are still some editors out of habit revert edits because they don't ever want to remove any sources. There are times where it is fine to remove sources and this is that time. (Film articles used to remove these outdated references when a film was released but again I've experienced some editors who didn't seem the benefit to decluttering redundant links).

For comparison look at the article for Star Trek: The Next Generation, where the cast list include very few references. They are simply not necessary to verify a cast list once a show has been released.

Also using Template:Plainlist and Template:Plain list is a matter of personal choice, both are allowed and I prefer the second choice as it means I get to see one less spelling mistake. There might be other reasons to use one version or the other but you cannot assert that one version if "correct" without explanation. See also WP:DONOTFIXIT and WP:DWAP -- 109.77.238.61 (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping references in articles. WP:V is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. As for your preference for "plain list", we don't arbitrarily change article content based on individual personal preferences. If we did that then every article would be in a state of flux. Your reference to WP:DONOTFIXIT is irrelevant and, I have to say, rather hypocritical. WP:DONOTFIXIT works both ways; you don't need to "fix" perceived spelling errors by replacing a direct link to the template with a link to a redirect. Leave the content alone if it works. I've made further comment on your talk page.[2] Please ensure that you respect WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO until you have gained consensus for your proposed changes. Note that I currently don't have an issue with the "rephrasing" but because it was made in the middle of the contested changes, it had to be reverted as well in order to return to the status quo. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:V is one thing by why insist on triple verification when WP:TVCAST requires no verification at all? None of the references are needed, not even one but this article includes a silly amount of redundant outdated references and you are simply saying that old outdated referenes are should be kept. I'm saying that no burden should be put on editors to remove old outdated references but that when some makes the good faith effort to declutter and remove old outdated references that effort should not be rejected out of habit but that you should actually accept it since in theory clarity improves the encyclopedia and that is what this is supposed to be about.
I made lots of small edits, and of all the changes you could have easily kept the change to the character description, or the rephrase of the warning to show some good faith but your reverted all of it without any consideration, even if you disagree on which guidelines matter most you could show some accomodation. (My IP moves, and anyway it makes no sense to make comments about the article anywhere but on the article talk page since personal comments are irrelevant.) Why are you so determined to keep unnecessary redundant junk? -- 01:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed if people are going to continue to revert and simply say discussion is needed but without making any effort to start a discussion. If your reasons to revert are so obvious it should be very easy to elaborate why the revert is more consistent with the many many rules of Wikipedia, that even a knowledgeable editor acting in good faith find it difficult to keep track of let alone anonymous or new users of the encyclopedia anyone can edit.
If a discussion needs to be started, then start it! Reverting is easy and lazy, even trying to improve an article is excessively difficult and often speedily reverted. Wikipedia and the inconsistent application of vague rules continues to disappoint me on the most fundamental levels, it doesn't surprise me at all that others don't even try to contribute and I keep wondering why I bother. It amazes me that Wikipedia continues to survive and isn't taking so long to suffocate under the vast bloat. -- 109.76.154.208 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with removing the cites for the actors playing the main cast, per WP:TVPLOT, but the ones for recurring and guest stars should be kept. Nightscream (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
That was exactly what I was trying to do but I gave up wasting any further time on it because too many people don't seem to understand the guidelines and insist on keeping outdated cruft.
Also in keeping with the guidelines I was trying to make the character descriptions more succint, just enough to introduce the characters, and leave plot to the episode summaries but was also reverted. I explained my edits but either Nightscreem did not see it or thought further explanation was needed when he wrote "no valid rationale" had been given for the changes and restored bloated excessively long blow-by-blow character descriptions, that go far beyond the introduction and overview that a mature article would have. It might be valid content but it is not well written or even necessary, editors of this article should look at the Star Trek: The Next Generation article and take it as an example of how this article should be.
The article should still clear out all the cruft from the cast section but I wont be attempting it again. -- 109.79.143.220 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add "Reception"

As far as it goes for now, critics have panned the show's pilot episodes, as there are mostly negative reviews on RottenTomatoes and other websites. This needs to be addressed in the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.125.213 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I added it recently, It would be great if people can check the metacritic and rotten tomatoes pages as the critic rating seems to be changing daily. 82.15.11.92 (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

What is considered these days as "negative"? What medium does the review have to be in to be considered noteworthy? In Facebook offical and fan groups many people welcome this series with a positive note, praising the familiar surroundings and realistic dialogue. --85.253.83.11 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Basically avoid things like user reviews and social media reactions from fans, these aren't considered notable for Wikipedia. Anything else like critic websites are fine. Wikipedia has to be impartial so don't be afraid to cover positive and negative reviews. 82.15.11.92 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Most sources of fan reaction are not reliable sources, things like user voted web polls are notoriously easy to cheat and ballot stuff and there's no guarantee voters have even watched the show. (So in theory they could be notable but they're almost always not verifiable or reliable.) In most case the best available indicator of viewers opinions is the ratings, but it may be possible to find other surveys that are reliable.
To put it bluntly that means NONE of IMDB user voted scores, Rotten Tomatoes user voted scores, and Metacrtitic user voted scores are acceptable. -- 109.78.248.181 (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I understand now. The critics are always objective and not biased towards, let's say, the creator of the show. Also they are physically not capable to accept money or favours for writing either a positive or negative review. Much better source than fan reactions. --85.253.83.11 (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Typical sanctimonious WP commandos. I think if fans are willing to cheat for a TV show by flooding polls and review sites - maybe that in itself is an indication of a show's popularity. eh. 198.161.4.63 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Another well intentioned editor using unreliable web polls and their own original research and quotes from some random poster on a forum. Fails WP:RS and WP:OR and what's worse is another editor actually approved it too.
The article as it stands has the only negative review from a critic despite the overwhelming negative reviews, and one positive review that make a fair point that the critics dont get MacFarlane. It isn't even clear if Eric Kain is a regular critic at Forbes. If anything this article is giving undue weight to the very small amount of positive commentary.
Even so after three episodes it would be good to get some prose to explain if the Ratings are good, average or bad. As I understand it the first episode got good ratings. If editors are careful to avoid original research and can find some good explanation of the ratings there is still room to interpret the ratings as an indication of audience reaction. -- 109.78.206.252 (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe not. 50% drop in the key demographic doesn't sound good at all. -- 109.78.206.252 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Eric Kain review was removed. It would have been better to address WP:UNDUE by adding more reviews, not removing the rare positive review. -- 109.77.196.139 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Watching the preview for episode 7 Majority Rule there was a quote from USA today calling The Orville "must see TV". I found the article by Anna J Stewart on The Orville. While other critics I read thought the 3rd episode was awful, she thought it was great and urges audiences to keep watching saying "it’s found its footing in the space genre and earned me as a fan."
I don't want to give undue weight by cherry picking individual critics but I know how badly flawed Rotten Tomatoes can be especially since TV show ratings are often based only the first few episodes (or less often skew the other way by reviews from when the whole season is reviewed). As more episodes are broadcast there is a good argument to be made for including more reviews from positive critics so long as it is made clear that these critics have watched more of the series. (Then again I don't much trust the reviewer because she goes on to write about Star Trek Discovery and thinks it is in the JJ Abrahms rebooted universe, which is not.)
The show clearly has an audience that likes it but who knows what requirements Fox have set for it to be considered successful enough to keep making it. We will have to wait and see. -- 109.79.168.244 (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"The Orville" Season One DVD cover

Description: The Orville season 1 DVD cover

URL: https://www.covercity.net/cover/dvd-covers-the-orville-season-1-102880

License: {{Non-free video cover}}

Link To License Information: {{Non-free use rationale video cover}} 

{{Non-free use rationale video cover
| Format            = Full 
| Article           = The Orville
| Use               = section 
<!-- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -->
| Type              = DVD Cover
| Title             = The Orville - The Complete First Season
| Volume            = 1
| Season            = 1
| Distributor       = [[20th Television]]
| Publisher         = [[20th Century Fox Television]]
| Studio            = [[Fox Broadcasting Company]]
| Website           = 
| Owner             = Fox
}}

Author/Copyright Holder's Name: Fox Television

Article To Be Used On/Reason For Upload: The Orville

-- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Screenshots

Can someone add an ensemble cast photo, and a photo of the spaceship, and a representative photo of the ship interior architectural/interior-design style ?

  • Illustrate the wardrobe of the show, and the cast
  • Illustrate the primary setting of the show

-- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Instead of just the logo it might be better if the Infobox used an image that includes the cast, ship, and logo. Or as I previously suggested above the [https://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Orville_group_build_ss12.jpg promotional image of the crew might be good to include in the cast section, but I still have no desire to try and figure out the image approval process to use a non-free images in Wikipedia despite some people claiming it isn't that difficult. I wasn't only able to find one Creative Commons image of the cast (signing autographs) at a convention, and it is at an unusual angle. -- 109.76.138.75 (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Separate episode page

It is my experience that there is generally a seperate article for a list of episodes. How come this isn't the case here? -Arpunk9 (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't normally create an LoE article for a series with a single season. Generally, two seasons are required and even then there must be justification to split the article in accordance with WP:SIZESPLIT. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand. My confusion was due to me checking the article on Star Trek: Discovery for verification, but upon checking other pages I see it is an exception (probably due to the amount of info on production etc). Thank you for the clarification -Arpunk9 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
There are rules and then there's popularity. There is simply an overwhelming number of people willing to create articles about anything Star Trek. -- 109.76.154.208 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Per the SIZESPLIT 'established practice' info page – it's not a policy or guideline – splitting should be considered around 50kB and probably done around 60kB. The article is now at about 67kB, so likely due. I'm kind of neutral about it, myself. If the episode list is split off, as long as there are clear links between both articles, I don't see a problem.—ADavidB 19:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Are you counting the references in the 67kB total? They're not considered part of the article size, so just checking to be sure they're not included. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
ADavidB is actually confusing readable prose with filesize. The article's filesize is 67kB but the readable prose count is just under 7kB doing a strict count so it's nowhere near even the "May need to be divided" 50kB limit. If you look at Wikipedia:Article size, which is a guideline, it says that the readable prose size is "the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sections". --AussieLegend (✉) 21:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. That should end this discussion, and we can all adjourn to the mess hall to be entertained by Worf. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
You may want to do a WP:BOLD split before the third season premieres should it be renewed. I know of several articles that have around the same episode counts as The Orville that split around this time. Esuka323 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The content that was split to the season subpages is back to the main article. The subpages remain as they were for now. Is there support to redirect them to the main article's season sections? —ADavidB 04:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
If we keep the season pages we should keep the LoE page. If there is no LoE pages we shouldn't keep the season subpages. We normally split to an LoE page before creating season pages. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The only LoE page I see is a redirect created in November 2017 that points to this article's "Episodes" section. I've set the season pages to redirect here as well. —ADavidB 13:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
My mistake. I assumed that the splitter (a bit of a problem child) had split the article correctly. He hadn't. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Really? I've seen a precedent for all cases; having LoE and separate season articles, having just an LoE, or having just season articles. As for articles that have no LoE page but season subpages: Jessica Jones, Legion, The Crown, The Gifted, The Punisher, Westworld, Agent Carter, Daredevil, Iron Fist, Luke Cage, Sense8, Cloak & Dagger. (Stranger Things is in the process of it.) There's definitely a precedent for it. -- /Alex/21 02:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Until relatively recently we've always followed the same procedure when splitting out the episode lists - once the list in the main series article was too big the LoE page was created. The season articles were created after that, not before. Of course there were series that didn't follow established norms, mainly reality TV series. As years have passed we've tightened up the MOS to provide more consistency but in recent years there have been series that, for some reason, have virtually ignored what we have had in place for many years. Looking at the premiere dates for the series you've listed you'll see this:
All of those date from 2015 onwards. There has just been a decision by some editors that we don't need an LoE page for whatever reason. Agent Carter was a special case in that it only ran for two seasons so there was never enough content for a LoE page.[3] If you create season articles for every season (which often doesn't happen) you're never going to be able to justify creating a separate LoE page. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
In all of those examples, there's not enough for a separate episodes article. It'd be a lead, an overview, and two to three transcluded tables. There will certainly be enough to create a separate LoE article; for example, List of Castle episodes, where there's enough tables to actually warrant the article. I could list a multitude of others as well. However, I don't believe that there's anything in the MoS that supports that we have to have the LoE article before the season articles. -- /Alex/21 11:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it's not in the MOS but it is the way that we have always done it, certainly for the 10.5+ years that I've been editing TV articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
"We"? TV isn't what it used to be ten years ago. Articles adapt, articles change. Anyways, the articles were split, and I support how they're currently listed. -- /Alex/21 09:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The article was split again overnight, apparently withouth further discussion or consensus. There has to be a better way of dealing with this. Meanwhile, is there support for putting the content back into this article? —ADavidB 12:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Both season articles were recreated virtually straight after you redirected them on 7 February by TVBuff90 not bothering to join this discussion. I suspect this is why 2600:387:8:11::9c deleted the content from this article today. Even Alex seems to be against creating an LoE page. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn't even know there was a discussion. Clearly, you and I have conflicting views on whether TV shows should have episode lists and/or episode sublists on Wikipedia. --TVBuff90 (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
How about a compromise or mix of things: leaving the season articles as a separate place for the content, though displaying episode summaries in the series article (for now), as the discussion here has been in favor of that. —ADavidB 22:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Poster of The Orville

Why you don't put a poster of the Orville? Don't tell me again for copyrights ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:810d:ad00:a916:eab9:24a:22c (talk • contribs) 04:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright is the very reason that non-free posters can't be used. Per WP:NFCC#1, non-free content can only be used where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. As the infobox uses a free image, that can't be replaced with a non-free poster. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orville_(season_2) has no problem with copyright for poster or photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:810d:ad00:a916:eab9:24a:22c (talk • contribs) 09:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
If there were a free image available that depicted season 2 it would not be permissible to use the non-free image. Once a non-free image has been replaced by a free image, a non-free image cannot replace the free image. Also, please sign your posts and note that it is not necessary to create a new heading every time you wish to post. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate capitalisation of job descriptions

There have been edits to some job titles in the article recently that have restored inappropriate capitalisation. Per MOS:CAPS#Titles of people, job titles are capitalised when they are the subject but not when they are the jb description. The very first point of MOS:CAPS#Titles of people says: 

* Apply lower case to titles when used to describe a position, such as: (de Gaulle was a French president; Louis XVI was a French king; Three prime ministers attended the conference).

In the two examples, "de Gaulle" and "Louis XVI" are the subjects while "president" and "king" are descriptions of their jobs. In the article we have, for example, in the "Cast" section: 

* Adrianne Palicki as Commander Kelly Grayson, the first officer

In this case, "Adrianne Palicki" is the subject of the sentence while "first officer" is the description of the job that her character performs and therfore should not be capitalised per MOS:CAPS. I have tried to explain this to an anonymous editor who insists on capitalising job descriptions to no avail. Having opened this discussion I have aso reverted the section to this revision, which was the version of the article immediately prior to the changes with which the anonymous editor disagrees per WP:STATUSQUO. Please note that MOS:JOBTITLES is also applicable. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct. I believe the reversions to the edits stem from user 109.76.155.122 lacking understanding of grammar/style, rather than any malicious intent. Hopefully the editor sees this discussion and desists from further reversions Newzild (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The changes stem from user 109.76.155.122 not seeing why this article wasn't done the same as the Star Trek: The Next Generation article. -- 109.78.201.10 (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
User:AussieLegend wrong MOS section for this and some MOS debate. The changes to the MOS a few months ago are in contention at the moment, so there seems some further phrasing or revert to prior in order. Here you seem to be dealing with a case NOT of the cited MOS section titles of people, which is done at “Commander”, but of whether a use unassociated to the person should have “First Officer” or “first officer”. Some positions seem inherently due capitals, e.g. “President of France”, but while I note that your Australian usage at SBS.com.au for similar phrasing used capitalised First Officer, that seems unusual among RS. You might try looking at guidelines further, but if your contention is this is not written as a title of a person then pointing at the MOS for titles of people seems a bit off. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring over distributor

Hi. There has been a slow, low-key, but continuing battle going on here for the past several weeks over the distributor, production company, categorization, etc. I realize some of this flux may be understandable, owing to legitimately changing information, but it seems better to me if people can discuss things (here on the article's talk page) and come to a consensus, rather than having one editor after another keep changing stuff back and forth in a misguided effort to "correct" the "mistakes" of others. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-primary source for Teleya's grudge against Mercer?

The article currently cites "'Krill', The Orville, Season 1, Episode 7." for the statement a Krill teacher serving on Krill destroyer Yakar, who has developed a particular focus on Mercer after he destroyed her ship, but the destruction of said ship actually takes place at end of said episode (actually, the ship is not destroyed; all the adults except Teleya are killed and the ship is commandeered). The season 2 episode "Nothing Left on Earth Excepting Fishes" is the one that develops on her hatred of Mercer, but said episode contains a continuity error in that it conflates Teleya's own ship (commandeered at the end of "Krill") with that of her brother (destroyed at the start of "Krill"), as Mercer says that it was her brother who was planning to destroy a Union colony of 100,000 people. Unless I'm missing somewhere it was stated that the captain of the Krill ship that was the primary setting of "Krill" was also her brother, the two incidents seem to be separate, and she seemed to have already made peace with her brother's death, so it was probably just a goof to imply that that was why she held a grudge against Mercer, but such guess-work is OR and is not allowed in the article space. Better just use a secondary source that says Teleya has a grudge against Mercer for such-and-such reason. Alternatively, we could remove the in-universe character bios that are subject to interpretation and just give the actor and character names, which was presumably the original intent (as simple information like that can be cited to primary sources). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

11th episode

Hy @Adavidb. Please check again. Noone counts episodes in the listing, I think. See the result at the right side, "CURRENT SEASON:
3 (11 episodes)" IKhitron (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I've updated the count and provided another source. —ADavidB 11:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

New Horizons

This is the first case I have seen where a TV show changes its name and network and it is counted as a new season of the original. Why is this not being treated as a separate TV show, with a separate Wikipedia article? Rp2006 (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, start with this. And also, there is such a show in MCU. IKhitron (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok then… Looking at some of those examples of shows with changed names on Wikipedia it seems the articles have the current or final name of the show (Seinfeld, not the Seinfeld Chronicles). So shouldn’t this article name have New Horizons then to be consistent? Rp2006 (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily. DreamWorks Dragons changed to DreamWorks Dragons: Race to the Edge for six out of its eight seasons; at the episodes article, the season numbers reset for the tables after it moved to Netflix, but continue consecutively in the series overview. Same with its spinoff, DreamWorks Dragons: Rescue Riders, later DreamWorks Dragons: Rescue Riders: Heroes of the Sky. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane released a video recently about the shows move to Disney+ in the U.S. where he says all THREE seasons of The Orville would be on the service. He also speaks with many different TV media outlets often who ask him about the fourth season chances where he states he's up for it if theres demand from fans. He doesn't at any point refer to the New Horizons as a new series. 2A00:23C8:5228:1601:449D:3D8B:E35:CC8A (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The name change to "Orville: New Horizons" immediately reminded me of Little House on the Prairie. It ran for almost a decade, but in its 9th and final season the show was renamed "Little House: A New Beginning". I thought Seth MacFarlane was actually referencing it in some way, especially considering season 3, like New Beginning, maybe be its last. At any rate, if you look at the Little House article, it doesn't segregate them into two shows, nor should the Orville and Orville: New Horizons. Now...on the flip side there are two separate articles for All in the Family and Archie Bunker's Place mind you, even though the latter is basically a continuation of the first show. Though the difference there are some major changes, especially by its second season which drastically departs from All in the Family by changing the personality of the main character and switching out all the original cast members. Season 3 of the Orville, despite some minor changes (toning down the humor, more political stories) I wouldn't split it into a new article. Anymore than "Enterprise" and the retitled Star Trek: Enterprise (remember it originally did not carry the Star Trek name until season 3).--Apple2gs (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a very thin line between continuation and spin-off. I still can't decide for myself which one is Girl Meets World for Boy Meets World. IKhitron (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Orville/Archive_1&oldid=1240690386"