Talk:Carnival Row

Please stop adding spoilers to character descriptions

It is really rude of whomever keeps doing it to add major revelations or information about character deaths to the basic descriptions. People are coming here for information about the show or who the actors they like are playing, they should not have to walk into a spoiler minefield filled with information about how important events on the show, including those that occur in the last episode. Docsplice (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Docsplice, Wikipedia does not filter spoilers per WP:SPOILER. Removals of such will be reverted. The show has already been released - they should expect that the article will be up-to-date concerning the events of the series. This is exactly the same as the tens of thousands of other television series to exist. Carnival Row is no different. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Please and go read WP:SPOILER which states It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Wikipedia contains spoilers whether you like it or not. Removing spoilers is considered to be disruptive editing. — YoungForever^(talk) 07:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The spoilers are not being deleted from the article. They are still in the episode summaries, where people can expect to encounter them. They are being deleted from the character descriptions, where someone might not expect to see them. I understand it’s not against the rules; it’s simply rude. Docsplice (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Spoilers" should be expected everywhere in the article. The characters make up the episodes. The episodes section. Response to the series and its events. This discussion happens at every television series with episodes and plot twists. The consensus is the same: no removing the spoilers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of the spoilers in the article are pointless. For example, Fleury being shot and killed happens in the final minutes of the entire season and adds nothing to the plot other than to emphasize the escalation in tensions. It is not a key character trait. That sentence should not mention her death, but should instead describe what she spends 99% of the series as: Another sex worker on Carnival Row. As it stands, that sentence exists for no substantive, encyclopedic reason, and serves nobody's interests. It's purely malicious. -- Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.10.140 (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

As always, spoilers of any kind are acceptable within an article. Readers should expect to see plot details in an article about a film or series, including the character list, though in most cases character lists are meant to introduce characters and not detail their plotlines over the series. That said, it is annoying when, in this and many other TV articles, you have a list of 25+ main and recurring characters, but the only ones with extended descriptions covering more than an intro are those that have died, etc. This is a case of nerds wanting to be the first to add the most titillating factoids about a character using our pro-spoiler guideline as a shield, even though these details are (usually) already covered in the episode summaries a couple of inches down. A character list should be consistent in content as well as format and style. If we are going to explain how a character dies in such a list, we should be adding plot info beyond the pilot for ALL characters. But of course we don't so that because it would make the list unwieldy, and excessively redundant of the episode summaries.— TAnthony^Talk 21:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Spoilers in a Reference Section

It is fair enough that a plot description should have spoilers. No one should read it first if they want to be surprised.

It is quite different with reference sections that people might look at while still watching the series.

This happened with me, though I had seen Episode 2, which strongly indicates the Inspector has a secret.

Removing the other stuff, I saw a few other revelations past those I had watched.

Really, there is absolutely no need for this in character reference guides. It is silly.

And I notice that none of the episode summaries reveal anything that would not be known to someone who had watched that episode.

You could, if you wished, have a new section called "fate of the characters at the end of Series 1". If you see the need to comment.

--GwydionM (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

See above discussion. No such section is needed; the cast and characters section will continue on just like every other cast and characters section in every other television series article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It references "Plot" or "Ending", which is fair enough. This does not apply to list of persons.--GwydionM (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

And that is your personal opinion. You've already been cited on why we don't remove spoilers. Now gain a consensus for your thoughts on the talk page instead of edit-warring. Any further removal of "spoilers" will be reverted. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained that you are applying the rule without thinking about what it means. Time is too short to talk further with people who fail to use their minds. --GwydionM (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you point me to the part where it explicitly says "Spoilers can only be contained in the "Plot" or "Ending" sections", please? I'll wait. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never catered to those who potentially haven't watched a show, if it did there would be no summaries or anything substantial on the page. Spoilers are fair game as long as an episode has aired. If you're unhappy with this, don't read up on a series until you have seen the episodes. Esuka (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You miss the point. It is a show of eight episodes. People could watch one or two and then watch details. Assuming no spoilers except for future episodes.

This is different from an entire show.

Of course you are also inconsistent. There are several more surprises you could ruin for future viewers if you set your minds to it!

I have suggested to the authorities that they could spell it out for people without common sense. But that's down to them.--GwydionM (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

We're not here for the "viewers" to be wrapped up in bubble wrap to protect them. We are here to list details about the show as it is released. Also, don't "yell". No need for the bold. We've already spelled it out for you - now go get a consensus to change a years-old guideline. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to ease up with the attitude, you come across as very rude and even made personal attacks against Alex on your own talkpage. That's no way to behave on a discussion page. If you're unable to behave like a reasonable adult you should consider taking a step back from this page. Esuka (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

My concern is for users who may have had their viewing spoiled by details that should be in a 'Fate of Characters' section.

When an entire season is posted, most viewers will watch it one or two at a time over several days or weeks. And might look at the Wiki to remind themselves. So lists of characters should not give away points that the program makers have been careful to keep hidden.

I tried being polite. All I got was repeated assertions that one little group was wonderfully clever and should not be corrected or treated as less than perfect.--GwydionM (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

A "Fate of Characters" section is not supported by the MoS. And as we've had to repeat before: we are not here to be careful for potential viewers. Details get added as the series gets released. There's no "grace period". What people "might" do or look at is not our concern. We are an encyclopedia, not a viewer's guide. If you want to be polite, don't edit war over the content and ignore guidelines when cited to you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

If your argument is against adding spoilers, your argument is a waste of time and you should stop. Axedel (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You are not going to gain consensus to remove spoilers. Spoilers are in every TV series and movies. Spoilers are inevitable on Wikipedia. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Spoilers for series are unhelpful. I am puzzled as to why you are so intense about denying it.--GwydionM (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Because we have guidelines that everyone must follow. You included. We're not here to be "helpful". We are here to build an encyclopedia, not a viewer's guide. Maybe I consider it a spoiler that Bloom and Delevingne are series leads. Or that Vignette is a fairy. "Spoiers" are just a user-interpretation, and Wikipedia does not base itself off of such things. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The guideline does not say that. It mentions other sections. And there is no compulsion to insert a spoiler in a character description. --GwydionM (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It mentions those as possibilities, not firm sections where spoilers may reside only. As I said, I might consider it a spoiler that Vignette is a fairy. Should I remove that? -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence Arguing that major or minor plot points are in any way on the same level as visual character traits is intolerably absurd. It's blatantly obvious that virtually everyone in the audience will expect that the woman depicted as a faerie in the cover art for the series, in all promotional material, and in the opening scenes of the season, is in fact a faerie. It is not at all reasonable to compare this sort of subject matter to actual plot developments. Most other series' editors are smart enough to keep the early sections of articles relatively clear of spoilers, with the more detailed sections lower down containing them for those who wish to see them. This is common practice all over wikipedia and should be the practice here. It is a binary fallacy to insist that we must choose between being informative and being conscientious. We can, and should, do both, just as countless other similar articles do. Omit careless spoilers in the brief series introduction sections but include them in the synopses. It's that simple. -- Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.10.140 (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Get a consensus for it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Critical Reception issues

Curious that only half of the Rotten Tomatoes score was included. Would seem the Audience reception would be a better account of the reception than critics. If you are going to cite a rating, cite the whole rating rather than cherry pick. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. The audience reception figures are user-generated content created by a self-selected group, so they are neither reflective of the actual audience reception, nor are they suitable sources to use in Wikipedia articles. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

And WP:UGC. Please read up on Wikipedia guidelines before making such incorrect assumptions. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

As if critic reviews are reliable on the reception of the show. Can you be more hypocritical? Critics are just opinions like that audience. It isn't fact it is opinion and therefore just as unreliable. If that is the rule for this sort of content then it is wrong. #facepalm And it sounds more like someone wants to push a narrative of a bad rating for this series.96.31.177.52 (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable." So why didn't you edit all of it out? To be honest whether ANY critics as sources are reliable is questionable. So to cut the audience review out, while keeping them is complete hypocrisy. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

First, cut out the personal attacks. That is a non-negotiable. No-one here claimed that critics were "reliable on the reception of the show" - they obviously aren't. They are, by definition ,reliable sources on the Critical response, which is the section they appear under. No-one is trying to push any narrative; we're following the rules of Wikipedia, I urge you to do the same. While your quote of Perennial Sources is cute, it misses out the key first sentence "Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV." Which is precisely what is quoted in the article. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack it was a criticism of the ridiculous policy. And don't THREATEN me. That is a far worse personal attack. Critics are just as unreliable, so either neither the critics or fans should be on there, or both should be allowed. And no you are interpreting the rules. And the rules are wrong. You are cherry picking the article to suit your interpretation. You cite a rule, then only want to look at the part that suits your interpretation. You can't say look at what the rules says here, and ignore what it says elsewhere. And it states they are unreliable. And if you look at critics reviews in general they are notorious as unreliable as self selected viewer reviews. So the RULE is hypocritical. It says don't use unreliable sources, but then tells you to use a different unreliable source. But again you want it both ways with citing the rules. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"Can you be more hypocritical" is commenting on the person, not the rule. So yes, that is a personal attack. No-one is threatening you, you have been warned that if you continue to break the rules, you will face the consequences. I urge you (as all the editors above have) to actually read WP:RS because you clearly don't yet understand the difference between user generated content and reliable sources, I'm afraid. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"The audience reception figures are user-generated content created by a self-selected group," Self-selected group ... Oh the irony! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:86A1:A300:E85C:EEF0:A888:3FF4 (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER vs WP:FANCRUFT

While I understand that WP:SPOILER allows the usage of spoilers within articles, are the spoiled information notable outside the plot? Are there articles online analyzing the plot that the spoilers concern? If not, then the spoilers fail WP:NOTABILITY and are pure WP:FANCRUFT. Since even non-spoilerous, well-documented pages are being rampantly removed due to WP:FANCRUFT, I see no reason for inclusion of irrelevant information in character list. Much more relevant info on the setting could be added, such as what are the Bourge and the Pact, than some random facts about who had child with whom. SMiki55 (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources discussing the racism and xenophobia that is a main element of the series

Critical Criminology and Literary Criticism, Bristol University Press, Amazon's 'Carnival Row' uses magical 'critch' and fairies to tell a very human story about bigotry, The Urban Zemiology of Carnival Row: Allegory, Racism and Revanchism. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)