Talk:Devs (TV series)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Devs (TV series) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force.

"has" vs. "had" and date for RT and Meta scores

"On Rotten Tomatoes, the series has an 83% rating with an average score of 7.84 out of 10 based on 60 reviews."

Yes, that is consistent with many other film and TV articles. It is also factually wrong.

While this series is currently getting a lot of attention, what eventually happens is the show ages and fewer people follow the article. Eventually, scores on RT and Metacritic change, but Wikipedia says it "has" the score it had several years prior. Yes, as of the moment you press enter, it is correct. Similarly, we can say a criminal has not been captured "to date", what the population of a country "is", etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As no one seems to have any comments, I am changing it to past tense. The scores were what they were on those dates, they might or might not be those scores now.

As the particular objection mentioned the dates, I will leave those out and see if that satisfies whatever the objection was. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SummerPhDv2.0: I disagree. It should be present tense instead of past tense. Editors continuously update RT and Metacritic scores. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do continuously update scores on articles for current shows/recent albums/films. So, for example, this very current, very popular show was wrong on only one number.[1] Now, it is correct, no matter how much or how quickly the scores change. On older/less popular shows/films/albums, the ratings can be wrong for years, while still claiming the show "holds" or "has" a rating that changed in 2018.

More to the point, given the statement is ever wrong, what is gained by having it present tense? - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SummerPhDv2.0: Currently, it is update to date which is the present. Past tense implied that it is not update to date. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the diff above. Before the edit, it said the show has scores it did not have at that moment. That was simply incorrect. Saying it had those scores would have been correct. Using present tense means the article WILL be wrong whenever the scores change.

I do not know that the scores are current. I only know what they were yesterday when I checked the source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be in present tense. If you click the link and the score is different than you change it. But it should be present because the score (although the exact number might change) will always be present. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Wikipedia reporting incorrect information: "On Rotten Tomatoes, the series has an 82% rating with an average score of 7.69 out of 10 based on 62 reviews. "[2] The version you are arguing we should have had, was factually wrong and was not verifiable.

[Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devs_(miniseries)&type=revision&diff=950066496&oldid=950051425&diffmode=source] I corrected the information. The data is correct and the material is verifiable. Without knowing if the sources have changed their scores or not, that statement is still verifiable and correct. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information is meant to be accurate of the accessdate in the reference. From WP:ACCESSDATE: "The full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article" and "Note that access-date is the date that the URL was checked to not just be working, but to support the assertion being cited (which the current version of the page may not do)". I am in agreement with YoungForever and Bignole here; using past tense implies the current scores are wrong, or at least, that's how it feels when I read it. Using present tense in these instances is fairly common in TV reception sections, so I think something like this should be brought up at the talk pages for MOS:TV or WP:TV if you wish to apply this phrasing to several articles. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS should resolve the issue. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response, "It is also recommended to include the date the data was captured: ('As of May 2015, 50% of the 68 reviews compiled by Rotten Tomatoes are positive, and have an average score of 5.2 out of 10.')." - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SummerPhDv2.0: But, that applies to Film, not television series. MOS:TV and WP:TV are separate from MOS:FILM. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a distinction without a difference. MOS:FILM was updated to conform with MOS:RELTIME: "Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date....When material in an article may become out of date, follow the Wikipedia:As of guideline, which allows information to be written in a less time-dependent way."

Saying the show "has" or "holds" a certain score is little different from saying it "is" the most watched show. Maybe the RT score will never change. Maybe it will remain the most watched show. Saying either one in present tense claims that it is true, which the source cited did not say. As of May 2020, MOS:FILM explicitly addresses this, as does MOS:RELTIME. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SummerPhDv2.0: FYI, the "are" and "have" are still present tenses on the example As of May 2015, 50% of the 68 reviews compiled by Rotten Tomatoes are positive, and have an average score of 5.2 out of 10. provided on MOS:FILM#Critical response. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bignole: & @Drovethrughosts: This discussion has been moved to a more central location over by Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Dating review aggregator info. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon Gender

In the short description for Episode 6 it says: "Lyndon breaks into Stewart's Winnebago and asks him to help her get her Devs job back, as she is unwilling to abandon her work on the project." This suggests Lyndon is female. In all other mentions of Lyndon he is referred to as male (at the beginning even explicitly stating he is male, although being played by a female actor). So this should be corrected. But first one needs to find sources which confirm Lyndons gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.117.4.74 (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I added this source to the article which confirms Lyndon's gender as male. Any instances where the character is referred to as female can be corrected. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either is really relevent. If the character's gender doesn't matter to the story, and isn't a clear information when you've seen the series, then it's irrelevent. I removed the sentence announcing it in the casting section, since it especially wouldn't belong here (even if it were adressed in the story), and the reference went along with it.

The only place it could be added, in my opinion, would be a trivia section. But I don't think it's worth it. Gouvernathor (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obama top ten

I added under Reception that Obama listed Devs as one of his top 10 TV shows of 2020. An editor removed that saying that Obama is not a critic. I'm not arguing, just wondering if others agree that Obama's praise is not noteworthy. Would it belong somewhere else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmtram (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

15-alex-garland.w330.h330.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request and redirect Devs to Dev. Favonian (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Devs → Devs (TV series) – Unlikely primary topic. "Devs" can refer to the plural of Dev or Developer, as well as DEVS. 162 etc. (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and redirect Devs to Dev, and add any relevant entries there. (In addition, it seeks as though a lot of entries at Dev should be split off to a page named Dev (name) (or Dev (surname) and Dev (given name)). Steel1943 (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and the above. This is not a case where the plural form is a distinct primary topic. BD2412 T 00:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I'd likely redirect to dev. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It should be moved to Devs (miniseries) per WP:TVNAME since it's a miniseries. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. TV series, not miniseries, which is ambiguous and should generally be avoided. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and redirect Devs to Dev. I'd assume "devs" would lead me to an article on developers. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support (miniseries) per Drovethrughosts, the article identifies this as a miniseries and that's more specific so more useful. Thanks, 18:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indagate (talk • contribs) [reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misinformation regarding the plot? Maybe?

The last line of the summary of the last episode feels (to me) very ... wrong. "Inside Devs, Lily rejects Sergei and seeks a reconciliation with Jamie." I feel like she stays with him (as he doesn't need to spy anymore on the now-nonexistent Devs section) and in the end only wants to start making amends with Jamie. 84.164.122.131 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]