Talk:Love, Death & Robots

Plot summary

The plot summary for ep. 2, "Three Robots", added in this edit by Zugzwang55 seems to have an excessive level of WP:DETAIL. See WP:PLOTSUMNOT: A plot summary is not a recap. It should not cover every scene and every moment of a story. Umimmak (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, it does not exceed the 200 word limit and it does not cover every moment of a story while highlighting the most important elements. As stated in WP:DETAIL, only lead section should include "quick summary", while the other ones can have moderate or very detailed summaries. Sebastian James (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It was more than double the 200 word limit with 419 words. It also gave WP:UNDUE weight to one episode out of 18. The summary had other issues such as WP:OR (the triangular robot speaks in a similar way to Alexa and a modem-like technology resembling the XBOX). If this were the plot summary in an article about the episode perhaps it could be this detailed (ideally with references to secondary sources giving plot summaries as well), but as you said yourself it should be limited to 200 words. Umimmak (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I use a tool and if summaries are excessively over, it would says they are way too long. I don't tagged ones that are only few words over. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

In addition, each episode is 17 minutes or less, clocking excessively over 200 words, is ridiculous. It is unnecessary to include scene by scene details as it states on {{Long plot}}, it is not to reproduce the experience of reading or watching the story, nor to cover every detail. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly this, it's a short series without overly complex plots. Summaries should be well under the 200 word guideline as episodes don't need to be transcribed word for word onto Wikipedia. Esuka (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Plot length

Pinging Esuka, YoungForever, Sebastian James and Umimmak. This is getting a little out of hand, where each editor is accusing others of tagging without fixing (and I'm just as much at fault here). To clarify a few things, WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE suggests but does not require. It says The TV style guideline recommends "no more than 200 words" for television episodes in episode lists [...] However, particularly complex plots may need a more lengthy summary than the general guidance. At the same time, over-tagging an article (especially where nobody bothers to fix the issue at hand) weakens the page's credibility. I would agree that the episode with more than 400 words should be trimmed. The ones in the 200-250 range could be as well, but they certainly do not need to be unnecessarily tagged. I'm going to revert these tags for now, except for the Hitler episode. Any discussion on the issue is welcome here. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Broccoli and Coffee: See above of what I said. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with YoungForever. Every episode had a synopsis until this edit then it went downhill. Sebastian James what's the T? 22:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@YoungForever:, The conversation above began from a different version of this page. Yes, every episode plot that's excessively over 200 words is ridiculous. Since that initial conversation above, most of those were trimmed. I did some of those here, and other editors helped as well. I'm not against trimming the plots -- in fact, I fully agree that they should be condensed. What I am against is hit-and-run tagging that makes a page look less credible to readers. It's why I have a problem with what I called ticky-tacky tagging by including long plot banners when the plot is a couple sentences over the recommended but not required guide. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Best of luck convincing anyone that a series with such a short runtime has plots so complex that they need to be over 200 words to summarize. Especially editors that may frequent more cerebral shows like Westworld. Esuka (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Esuka, You must have not even read my post. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't even need to give the full plot layout. we just need to give the premise. and most of these can be summarized with one or two sentences. Anymore is just being generous.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Episode 17 is only 7 minutes long and it is clocking at more than 400 words. Mind you, it is only 7 minutes long. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

My comment above was specifically in reference to this version of the Article. I undid that lengthy plot summary, made a note of it in the Talk Page, and moved on; I haven't been following subsequent developments. But since I was tagged, most of the present plot summaries seem to be an acceptable length to me, personally; I'd just want "Alternate Histories" to be shorter to be more in line with the others. Umimmak (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

How is a summary that's 219 words for ten minutes of content(Episode 14) acceptable? I'd be more inclined to look the other way if these were 42-45 minute episodes or premium cable 60 minute length episodes but they're not and its ludicrous to have such lengthy summaries for these episodes. They ideally should be around 100 words given each episodes length. Esuka (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Esuka, You won't receive any flack from me for trimming the plot description lengths, only for tagging and complaining about it without attempting to fix it. By all means, let's get these to 100 words. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 23:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure some editors may think differently but as long as the summaries comply with guidelines they deserve to exist. But if someone wants to come along and make them more concise that would be great too. I just don't believe there's a need to do much more than that until new guidelines for episode summaries that take into account runtime are made. Esuka (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Esuka and YoungForever, here's a proposal that hopefully won't sound too radical. Let's restore the episode summaries from back in this version. After this is where the summaries started getting out of hand. Again, our disagreement (I think) is more about needlessly tagging the article, not about the actual merits of a short vs. long plot. If you both agree with this version, I can take care of this. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 23:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a need to go beyond trimming the summaries to around the 200 word guideline length. Esuka (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm really not sure how else to placate you. I thought plots just slightly over 200 words didn't need to be tagged, but you disagreed. Another editor above, Blue Pumpkin Pie suggested using just a couple of sentences. Umimmak pointed out that these plot summaries actually did used to be a reasonable length. I've thus suggested going back to this version, but you seem to disagree. So, can you please explain to me why keeping the plot summaries over 200 words and also keeping Long Plot templates is your preferred version?– Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 00:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow you like completely missed my point. Where did I say that I wanted to keep summaries over 200 words around? I said as long as they complied with guidelines there's not a problem. Yes they are hideously bloated but I'm not going to demand that anyone trim them beyond acceptable levels. I think that would be unreasonable if there's no guidelines stating that it has to be done, but whatever. Esuka (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think they are fine now (with the exception of episode 17, it is still way too long) since Broccoli and Coffee and I were condensing them. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Flag icons for studio

Seeking a consensus here about an IP's's continual addition of flag icons (and related country changes) to the episode table under studio. I'd rather not engage in an edit war about this. I'm not aware of any other article where this occurs, so I'm thinking flags should not be listed. For starters, a studio is more than the country its headquartered in; there's no American flag next to studios in other articles. On the other hand, even though the episodes are produced by different studios from different countries, the show is still American as its central production is in the US. Thoughts? – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The ip address has been also changed column names. He or she is disruptive editing. I think the article should be temporary semi-page protected. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Putting flags next to the animation studios is not appropriate in this case. Per MOS:FLAG. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG says Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams. These animation studios don't represent their respective nations; flags shouldn't be used. Umimmak (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The icons should definitely not be added, however, if every episode being produced by a different studio from a different country is part of the essence of the show, then the correct way to handle this would be adding another column after studio. --Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Table Help

Some edit messed up the table of the episode summaries, and I can't find how to fix it with a look-through now. How do I request help with that? Elfabet (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Plot summary for Suits

I'm a bit confused by the edit reversion for my clearing up the ending of Suits. The ending shot is supposed to provide the context that the humans are the invading force. The whole episode is a twist on an alien invasion story. Is it unclear to other editors what the episode is showing, or do I need to references sources that the ending is saying what it's saying? I'm asking as I've never been super involved in wikipedia and don't want to just start reverting stuff.

Here is what Screenrant and Polygon have to say about what the ending of the episode is if we need to source that the twist is in fact the twist:

https://screenrant.com/love-death-robots-netflix-endings-explained/ "Most of Love, Death & Robots hinges on final shots that send chills through the viewer. "Suits" is a great example of why these endings don't need to be particularly deep to still be effective. After the main battalion of farmers in the titular mecha suits have successfully beaten back an alien invasion, there's a standard Hollywood ending of the community returning to normal following near devastation. Then the camera pulls back and viewers see the invaders are actually the planet's native species and the farmers are part of a colony on another planet, with many other force-fielded colonies shown on the surface. How they got there and for how long is anyone's guess, but rather than an alien species trying to infest Earth, it seems "Suits" turns the tables and has humans as an unwanted infestation on another planet."

https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/love-death-and-robots-netflix-best-worst-episodes.html "The best of the many action stories in Love, Death & Robots is “Suits,” which follows a team of farmers using mech suits to defend their homesteads against alien invaders emerging through portals. It’s a silly-sounding premise, but “Suits” is uncommonly good at getting you to genuinely care about these characters in the span of a single short. It’s well-paced, handsomely animated, and thrilling to watch, with a clever final shot that completely re-contextualizes everything you think you’ve seen." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron Ehteshami (talk • contribs)

Man, I'm glad you got sources for that, cause I didn't see it that way at all. It just looked to me like they were humanity's final bastions on a world otherwise overrun. I guess it makes more sense as a 'big reveal' that way, but I'm not seeing it as 'better.' I'm not oppossed to seeing it reinstated. Also, WP is not censored, so our plots can include spoilers like that.

(Finally, we request that you sign your post with four '~' tildes, so we can better track who's talking in discussions.) Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

My bad, I'll make sure to do that from now on, thank you! Cameron Ehteshami (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Episode numbering

Currently the article shows them this way (which seems to match IMDB):

1. Sonnie's Edge
2. Three Robots
3. The Witness
4. Suits
5. Sucker of Souls
6. When the Yogurt Took Over
7. Beyond the Aquila Rift
8. Good Hunting
9. The Dump
10. Shape-Shifters
11. Helping Hand
12. Fish Night
13. Lucky 13
14. Zima Blue
15. Blindspot
16. Ice Age
17. Alternate Histories
18. The Secret War

However, I clearly see them numbered this way on Netflix:

1. Three Robots
2. Beyond the Aquila Rift
3. Ice Age
4. Sonnie's Edge
5. When the Yogurt Took Over
6. The Secret War
7. Sucker of Souls
8. The Witness
9. Suits
10. Good Hunting
11. The Dump
12. Shape-Shifters
13. Fish Night
14. Helping Hand
15. Alternate Histories
16. Lucky 13
17. Blindspot
18. Zima Blue

Looking around online I see some others reporting the following orderings:

1. When the Yogurt Took Over
2. Ice Age
3. Three Robots
4. Fish Night
5. Sonnie's Edge
6. The Witness
7. Suits
8. Sucker of Souls
9. Beyond the Aquila Rift
10. Good Hunting
11. The Dump
12. Shape-Shifters
13. Helping Hand
14. Lucky 13
15. Zima Blue
16. Blindspot
17. Alternate Histories
18. The Secret War

Should we document in the article the other orderings? Supposedly there are only four. 50.53.21.2 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Episode order should be in the way how Netflix displayed the episode order. Netflix is the primary source. IMDb is not even a reliable source. Per this archived url: [1], the current episodes order is correct as it was how Netflix originally displayed. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that Netflix had four different episode sequences, assigned to users randomly. Apparently they were doing as some sort of statistical experiment, but didn't provide any details beyond that (other than that the episode order was not based on their subscriber's sexual orientation. Nope, not making this up). [2][3] - wolf 02:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

While getting a good source for this could be difficult, I believe we should in some way note the alternative orders, as otherwise people will be confused as to why the order displayed here does not align with their own version. At the very least, there should be a note atop of the "Episodes" section. --181.115.61.86 (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I added a note. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Individual episode articles

I know that episodes from Netflix series don't have individual articles, but I feel that in the case of this show we might make an exception. Each episode have it's own style which I believe it would be easier to find the making of each episode, despite the fact that Netflix released all the episodes the same day. I mean even Black Mirror has it's own episode articles, depite the fact that the last seasons were released in Netflix, but of course is not about comparing. I think it's worth a shot to give the series it's own episodes article, beacuse I really feel that there is alot of information about the series that needs to be added, but I feel that some of them would be better in the episodes articles than the show's main article.Ulises1126 (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately this is about how each one of the episodes in Black Mirror got individual coverage. While there might be some case to be made that this coverage grew thinner in Series 4 and especially 5 and thus they were partially grandfathered in, there is still quite a bit of discussion regarding each episode individually. This was not really the case for the bulk of LDR. On a case by case basis articles might be made of each episode which does meet the requirements for a freestanding article on a TV episode, but for most of the series this (low) threshold will probably not be met. --181.115.61.40 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that none of the individual episode articles would pass WP:GNG at the moment. Please see WP:NTVEP. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

"Jíbaro" and "Bad Travelling" (and perhaps a few others who don't benefit from recency in remembering their coverage) may have a case to scrape by the minimum, but it's hardly an open and shut one as I don't think any major outlet reviewed episodes invidiually, with the most dedicated critical coverage being those ranking listicles - which obviously don't meet the threshold. However, those episodes did get non-trivial discussion in different press articles ("Jíbaro" in particular lead to plenty of interviews for Mielgo and even had a sizable portion of a David Fincher interview discussing it).--181.115.61.24 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)