Talk:Invincible (TV series)

Should this be classified as a Canadian-American animated series?

A lot of the production was done in Canada, albeit by American-owned companies, and it even received tax credit by the government of British Columbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:153:600:B9B0:C13D:A1A4:5BAD:D9F3 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about plot details

At the end of episode 4, I wondered who Robot was meeting, as I never read the comic. The plot summary here states it's "his real self, the deformed Rudy Connors", but that's not clear from anything in the episode. Is the person's identify something that readers of the comic book are presuming, or is it known from previews/interviews, or something else? Should the episode summary just reflect what was told in the episode, or is it OK to include details like this? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources for loosely based on?

Do we need sources for the statements that claim "this Invincible character is loosely based on this/these DC/Marvel character(s)"? GoingBatty (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

On this same topic, I would argue that Damien Darkblood is a character loosely based on Jason Blood/Etrigen.Daneonwayne (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I think "loosely based on the JLA" is from the end notes of the hardcover edition. All the rest... such as Damien Darkblood, etc.... is OR. tahc ^chat 15:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Spoilers in voice cast character listings

There are MAJOR spoilers in the voice cast section describing each of the main characters, stuff that's only revealed in the last episodes, stuff a reader shouldn't have to stumble upon when skimming who's the voice cast in the series. I edited the voice cast entries to remove the spoilers. Some user (id'd only by IP address) reverted my edits. I think the edits should stand. Thoughts? Protocol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seankreynolds (talk • contribs) 17:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

From a personal standpoint, I think it's terrible that Wikipedia has spoilers on it. From an encyclopedic standpoint, WP:SPOIL goes over everything you need to know about it. The best ways to fight against spoilers can be found on MOS:WAF (but be sure to edit responsibly). Painting17 (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This is somewhat belated, but I'm inclined to agree with Seankreynolds. Plot spoilers can be in the episode listings. The cast section isn't the place to stick every little bit of what happens to a character eventually - it should just be basic overview material. Sometimes this will involve plot information, but it shouldn't attempt to be a record of everything important that happens to a character. SnowFire (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with Seankreynolds. There shouldn't be any spoilers... episode listings should talk about what happens in that episode (not future ones) and voice cast descriptions of characters should just give basic descriptions of the characters (things that are obvious from when you first meet them, not what happens to them later in the series). There's no value in spoiling plot for somebody that's just trying to find an actor's name (or recap episodes they've already seen). 92.14.3.116 (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

let me rephrase that last sentence: there's no encyclopedic purpose in spoiling plot for somebody that's just trying to find an actor's name (or recap episodes they've already seen). 92.14.3.116 (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

If you go to an ENCYCLOPAEDIC entry about a subject and dont expect spoilers I don’t know how you survive day to day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.172.162 (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

I added File:Invincible title card.jpg to the infobox (the title card as seen in the first episode) per MOS:TVIMAGE, which states "For a show's main article, an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself should be used." User:Sincereduck replaced it with File:Invincible comic series logo.png. I think the title card would be better than the comic series, and the article could even be improved with a discussion of how the title card gets a new spray of bool added to it each episode. What do others think? GoingBatty (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the title card would be better. But also some form of a screenshot of the series would be more beneficial.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The comic series logo is not appropriate as this is the TV series article and not the comic series article. The official title card is definitely more appropriate for this TV series article. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the above, the official title card is more appropriate. If discussion about the addition of blood in every episode's title card, a different one should be used, one with clear sprays of blood. —El Millo (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Found this article about the progression of blood splatter on the title card. Could the image in that article be used on Wikipedia as fair use, or does Mashable own the copyright to the combination of title cards? GoingBatty (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how those two images in the article appear to you, but in my computer there's a slide you can move to reveal more or less of each one of the two title cards. I'm pretty sure we can't have that in Wikipedia. I think that just choosing one title card from around the mid-point of the series with some amount of blood is enough to illustrate it (episode six as shown in that article can do). If we were able to pick more than one, one and six (as shown in the article) would be good. If we were able to pick more, probably episodes one, four, and eight would be the best choices, so we get first, mid-point, and last title cards. I don't know how many we can justify including in accordance with fair use. —El Millo (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: I didn't even think of using the arrows in the middle of the image as a slider! Agree with your comments. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"Think Mark, Think" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Think Mark, Think. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 30#Think Mark, Think until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: American Cinema History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caleb Oden (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Caleb Oden (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of North Korea bit

I've now been twice reverted on the North Korea bit. I'm confused that this is not seen as notable; per WP:GNG the bit I added ticks every bullet. Nor did I simply argue the notability was all about quantity of sources; each source discussed the topic in detail, with relation to Invincible in particular.

The counter arguments did not specify anything but "not notable". I'm unconvinced. I may not pursue this topic that much as I just added it on a whim, but noting my displeasure with the reversions here. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:GNG is about whether articles should exist, not part of articles. This seems like such minor information it's not noteworthy of inclusion. WP:VNOT says "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" so stop edit warring and get consensus, as you say you've been reverted by two users. Indagate (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree it's a "minor bit of information", again a repeated assertion of non-notability without anything other than that. What exactly about it gives you the impression of it being minor? Chocolate brands (note: plural, often multiple are accused in single articles) get accused of having child labor in their supply chains and that gets put in their articles. Would you advocate for removing that in their articles? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems more appropriate for the Skybound article, assuming consensus is gained there. (Hohum ^@) 17:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems very minor in the context of the series, may be more appropriate in the future if any developments. Chocolate articles are completely irrelevant to this, please stay on topic. Indagate (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The mention of chocolate is a hypothetical for a similar principle, not "completely irrelevant".

Displeased with how this discussion went. I had to pry to get more of a response, and even then I still disagree with it. Not going to pursue further. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Animation Studios

Invincible was animated by Maven Image Platform, NE4U, and Tiger Animation (1 episode). This has been removed from the infobox 4 times, most recently for the following reasons.

1. "These are not notable inclusions" The animation studios that worked on a series is important information. Just like producers, editors, and production companies which are all included in the same place.
2. "These are all unsourced in the article and not mentioned" The source is the show's credits, but just as each each episode isn't sourced for the episode summaries, I did not include them here.
3. "The infobox summarizes the article, not introduce new info not already in it." Help:Infobox#What infoboxes do "Infobox templates contain important facts and statistics of a type which are common to related articles." Again, the animation studio is an important part of an animated series. It is also common to animated tv series; all animated tv series have animation studios. I'd be happy to add the studios to the Animation and title sequence section but it should be included in the infobox either way.
4. "None of these companies have articles or are proven to be noteworthy here" The writers, editors, and various producers also don't have their own pages. They might not meet Wikipedia:Notability but they're important to include here.
5. "just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not mean it is useful here." This, like notability, is a standard for getting their own article, not for getting included here.

(edit: the animation studios were previously removed because it was believed wrong (it was not wrong) and because it was in the wrong place)

As I put in my initial reversion: The animation studios that made an animated tv series is notable information and included in other pages' infoboxes. It should be included here. DA39A3 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

All content added to Wikipedia need to be cited with sources that can be verified. Saying it "is the show's credits" is not enough justification for verification. There has been no proven benefit to include these animation studios, which do not seem relevant or notable in their own right, to this article or how it would be beneficial to the content already established. We are not a WP:TVGUIDE, we don't just list something in the credits because it is there. We already have the main production studios, anyway, which can be argued as more important than the animation vendors that are used. Maybe if something is removed more than once, there is a good reason for it to not be included. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can watch the show's credits to verify. I'm not sure what "justification for verification" means. I can add a reference pointing to each episode but it would look quite cluttered (perhaps a single reference to each season).

I'm not sure how I would prove it's beneficial to include the animation studios. I can't show that there has been proven benefit to something that hasn't happened. I could point to other pages on animated tv series that include animation studios--they clearly think it's worth having. You could imagine someone who likes the animation finding the studio and watching other things they've worked on. You could also imagine someone noticing a change in the animation and checking to see that they brought on new studios in season two.

Of course we shouldn't include everything listed in the credits. We shouldn't include every animator, storyboard artist, Production assistant, or coordinator. However the animation studio is important, it's an animated tv series. Maybe you can argue that the five production companies are more important, but I'd struggle to.

Maven in particular animated the "Think Mark, Think!" scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsu6Doty4nY as well as the Guardians' fight at the end of the first episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJtXHMq4hto DA39A3 (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Those instances could be added to the article in relevant sections. You would just need to add a WP:Third-party sources (such as websites) that include this for it to be properly cited. You could bring this up at Template talk:Infobox television to see if a proper parameter for animation studios could be added, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)