Jump to content

Talk:Westworld season 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Westworld (season 2))

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Westworld (season 1) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Westworld

[edit]

Re: Template:Westworld, since we'll soon be adding more episode articles, I'm wondering if there's a better way to organize this template? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the updates to the template, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Journey into Night"

[edit]
Main pages: Draft:Journey into Night and Draft talk:Journey into Night § Move

I've asked AlexTheWhovian to move Draft:Journey into Night back into the main space, so editors can make further improvements. He does not seem interested. Is someone else willing to move the draft back into main space? There are plenty of sources discussing the episode. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drovethrughosts and Rusted AutoParts: Pinging you as editors who have edited the season article and might be willing to make a few improvements or move the article back. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't seen the episode yet so I'm out. No spoilers pls (In this discussion I mean). Rusted AutoParts 21:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts: Viewing the episode is not required to move the page into main space, but no problem. In the meantime, I've posted a selection of sources on the draft talk page for future expansion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that I am not interested. See Draft talk:Journey into Night#Move. Editors can make just as many improvements with the article where it is as they could if it were in the mainspace. We do not have articles in the mainspace simply so editors are aware of it, we move poor articles to the draft space so that they can be worked on. That's the entire point of the draft space. As I said: Post on article talk pages. Season 2, TV show article. Include a hidden note in the redirect, one next to the episode title in the Season 2 article. That's how you make editors aware. There may be plenty of sources discussing the episode, but are they in the article? No. Is there only one line of real-world information in the article as of now? Yes. -- AlexTW 22:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought hidden notes redirecting folks to the draft space were not allowed. Oh well, I'm not going to argue about this, I just think stubs are better in the main space than draft space, so editors can easily make improvements. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since when? Links in the mainspace pointing to the draftspace are not allowed, but hidden notes are allowed to include (within reason) anything, so long as it's helpful. The article isn't even a stub - it's entirely a plot dump, that's it. If that's the case, stubs being better, then can you explain why we even have the draftspace? -- AlexTW 22:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, I've just seen hidden notes redirecting readers to the draft space removed in my watchlist. I'm not sure what rules there are, if any. Not a big deal. I understand the purpose of the draft space, but just happen to disagree with moving articles about notable topics into draft space when they can be tagged and improved in the main space. Again, let's just agree to disagree and move on. We're wasting time here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It may be notable, but nothing in the article backs this up. If I was just a regular reader and I went to the article, I would see nothing that supports it being notable as a separate entity. That's why it was moved. If I hadn't watched the episode (which personally, I haven't), and wanted to read up on Production but not the Plot, I wouldn't be able to, as nothing else exists. -- AlexTW 22:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, we're talking in circles here. My point is we can simply add tags. There are sources in the article and others posted on the talk page. I'll try to make further improvements later, but would still appreciate an admin moving the draft back into the main space. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No admin requires, if it's in better shaped, it can just be swapped back in. And draft links from the talk page are acceptable, so no requirement to remove mine. Helps if other editors see the other discussion as well. -- AlexTW 22:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexTheWhovian, Another Believer, Drovethrughosts, and Rusted AutoParts: I feel like the article is still a while away from being ready to move. I think there are three things that need attention:

  1. The plot section is probably a little long, even after I cut 1500 characters out of it. There's so much going on in the episode that it's hard to judge what's most relevant for Wikipedia, even after watching it three times.
  2. The reception section is seriously under-developed. Sure, it draws on multiple sources and it's well-referenced, but the section just lists the scores. What are the specific criticisms of each source? At the moment, you could argue that the article consists of a plot summary.
  3. A "production" section would be nice. I've often felt that when it comes to articles for episodes, you need plot, production and reception sections to sustain—or even justify keeping—the article.

Of the three, I'd say the reception section should be the priority. The plot is long, but given the multiple sub-plots and timelines, we can justify a lengthy(-er) plot section. And while a production section might be nice, specific details might be hard to come by. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about notable topics don't need to be expanded to exist. Stubs are not bad. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are we truly having this discussion in two places at once? -- AlexTW 02:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmi Simpson and Ed Harris

[edit]

I noticed than a hidden note has been added to the summary for "Journey into Night" stating that Ed Harris should be referred to as William rather than the Man in Black as Harris' character is referred to (and maybe even credited as) William rather than the Man in Black.

However, I think this potentially presents a problem: both Harris and Jimmi Simpson are scheduled to appear in future episodes. We obviously cannot refer to them both as William (even though the play the same character) as that is confusing even if they never appear in the same episodes together; I even have reservations about referring to them as "young William" and "(old?) William".

That said, I see two potential solutions. The first is to continue to refer to Harris as the Man in Black. I know this is a little in-universe and possibly even goes against policies but it has the advantage of absolute clarity. The second solution is follow the style of the first season of "True Detective" and insert a divider into the episode summaries. "True Detective" had two main plotlines playing out nearly twenty years apart; unlike "Westworld", the temporal shift was obvious from the start. While the split timeline was a big surprise in the first season of "Westworld", there is no further reason to withhold it here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Reunion" (Westworld)‎

[edit]

Now Reunion (Westworld)‎ has been moved to Draft:Reunion (Westworld)‎, unnecessarily, in my opinion. I've asked to have the page moved back into the main space, if any other editors care to weigh in on the discussion, and of course, improvements to the draft are welcome. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, yes, and we seem to be having the same discussion across (now) four separate talk pages. Five, actually. Deliberately creating stubs can be viewed as disruptive. -- AlexTW 14:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to...? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you read up on your guidelines and essays. You seem unfamiliar with them and their relation to creating valid articles. -- AlexTW 14:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're not going to answer the question? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're not going to take on the advice on anyone and keep deliberately creating poor articles to Wikipedia? -- AlexTW 14:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created the redirect, which is appropriate, so spare the lecture, please. You still have not provided a reason for moving this article from main space to draft space, so please do. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're refusing to take on advice from editors about the standard of an article. Lecture required. And, yes, I have. Exactly the same as Journey into Night. -- AlexTW 15:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not refusing anything. Lecture not required. Where is consensus to move content out of main space? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the consensus to have it in the mainspace? -- AlexTW 15:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* OK, this isn't going anywhere... I'll wait for someone else to weigh in. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Best idea. -- AlexTW 15:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving a mainspace article to draft requires explicit or implied consensus. If the article was created by an experienced contributor who objects, the only way to do it without a clear consensus is to bring an AfD, and suggest Draftify as a result. If an article is draftified, and then moved back by an established editor, the only way to remove it is AfD. The only time I would do it without a prior consensus is as an alternative to an otherwise inevitable deletion.
There are thousands of episode articles in WP not being currently watched. Many are for shows I think do not warrant such detailed treatment. I could draftify them all, and hope nobody notices, but this would be an attempt to evade our usual practice. If I think it is really obvious, I could use PROD, but if that fails, I'd need AfD. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur 100% with DGG. Moving an article to Draft space solely because one editor feels it is not up to standards is disruptive to the editing process (and I'm beginning to feel should be a technical ability removed from baseline user rights). Draft is a, largely one-way, optional process designed to allow both new editors to learn and for speculative articles to be worked on ahead of time. It is not a place to store "bad work" unless a clear consensus exists that moving to Draft is in the best way to prevent a full deletion AND when we fully expect the article will eventually be ready. -- Netoholic @ 17:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC) See also WP:DRAFTIFY. -- Netoholic @ 18:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main cast

[edit]

I suggest we should put main cast's names in the order as they're shown in title sequence, as all other articles about seasons do 2601:646:8900:4A21:3C09:F0DB:AE95:B59F (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Westworld_season_2&oldid=1216345596"