Talk:Star Trek: Discovery/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit: Citation Added

Hello-

I modified some of the text on this page to specify that first-run episodes of the new series will be available via CBS's streaming service. Episodes may very well become available on demand through cable providers, or be shown as re-runs on the CBS channel. I included a citation from a New York Times article which made the "first run" distinction, and I thought it was worth including here. This is my first time editing an article for Wikipedia, please let me know if you think this change was unnecessary or if there are any additional things I can do to improve.

Smputnam (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Star Trek: Prime

@Kiraroshi1976: Is this title legit?–Totie (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, yes. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a hoax. I haven't found anything in reliable sources.–Totie (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe so. I suppose move it back. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I requested an expedited page move (WP:RMT).–Totie (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've moved it back to the original name until this is sorted out. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Would it be best to delete the redirects also as they my have little or nothing to do with the final location ? Mlpearc (open channel) 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Collated references

@Mike Peel: Please don't collate all the references into a reflist. This makes it difficult to work with the visual editor on this article.–Totie (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It makes it a lot easier to use the standard editor to edit the article, though! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that. But now you are changing it unilaterally. You could have suggested this here first before moving everything around.–Totie (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

173.22.111.240 (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)This seems like a set of messages that should not be publicly view able because the argument is between the two of you and I would suggest that you finish it privately and refrain from editing the wiki until you can come to an agreement privately.173.22.111.240 (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kiraroshi1976, Miyagawa, and Totie: why did you effectively undo my edits with regards the references? IMDB isn't an unreliable source, and it's better to have references rather than external links - see e.g. Wikipedia:External_links#References_and_citation. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. All other Star Trek articles have IMDb as external links. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages/Links states External links for IMDb. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to support, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Questionable resources - the majority of IMDB is not considered a reliable source. Miyagawa (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, Memory Alpha is not a reliable source either - it's purely user submitted information. Miyagawa (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's conventional to leave an IMDb link in the external links section anyway, even if it is used a reference elsewhere.–Totie (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

My partial revert.

@Totie: Partial revert means not a complete revert, only part of the edit reverted, which is exactly what I did. A series broadcast network (or platform) is always one of the first things we mention in the lead, and then its connection to a series or something like that. Plus, the title already notes that it is a Star Trek series, so there is still no need to change those lines around. Also, the series is the first specifically CBS All Access series, not the first specifically on demand series. There is a big difference, so stop trying to say that. And yes, "exclusively in the US" is something wording often used for promotional purposes, but it is also a very normal and valid phrase to use when explaining that something is happening (in a certain way) only within the US, which is something that many people may not realise if we don't say it. Remember, Wikipedia is for everyone, not just Americans, so if we are making a big deal about how this is the first CBS All Access original series, which we should, then saying that the series will be distributed in other ways around the rest of the world, a few words clarifying that CBS All Access is not available outside of the US do not go amiss. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think parts of both of your edits are correct. The announcement does say its the first series developed for CBS All Access, not that it's the first series for video on demand in general. On the other hand, I have to agree that the article should first say it is the first Star Trek series since Enterprise, before noting that it's the first series produced for CBS's VOD service.

Also, "exclusively in the United States" part could be worded better, as it might be construed to mean the series will not be released outside the United States, whereas the announcement also states the series will be released concurrently internationally on other platforms besides CBS All Access.—Laoris (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This was my thought as well. I does not make much sense to me to point that out when we are talking about an American broadcaster, who operates their own VOD service to an American audience. It makes sense for CBS to say that they have exclusive access to it, but it isn't so important to mention it in the lead section of international encyclopedia. As for the generic VOD, my thought was that the VOD announcement is a more interesting contrast to the fact that previous Star Trek series were always broadcast on TV, but I concede at that point that the novelty is more specific to CBS.–Totie (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: First, you virtually reverted everything in my last two edits, including small character changes as well as the inclusion of the "production company", which I added because it isn't exactly clear from the context what Secret Hideout specifically is (there is no article for it either and I had no idea what it is). Secondly, this article in its present shape appears like an advertisement to me in the way it highlights CBS, CBS All Access and its exclusive rights. I am not opposed to mentioning it, but it is most certainly not necessary or appropriate to do that on the first line of the article. Perhaps I am more sensitive to this because I am not from the United States, but I want this article to be a bit more neutral, despite the fact that it is an American production. After all, the rest of the article is already devoted to the production and release.–Totie (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I did mean to keep the minor character changes and the production company add, I just forgot, so sorry about that. I agree that the article as it currently is sounds like a CBS promotion, but I think that is more to do with the fact that our only source, apart from a couple of lines, is essentially a CBS promotion, so that will fix itself over time as we get more information beyond what is really still just an announcement. Some rewording for the exclusive to the US parts could help, and I think that bit could be removed from the lead, but talking about production companies and broadcast networks is pretty important for these articles.

I would like to point out that I am also not American and also want to approach the page with some neutrality in that sense, but it is an American series and so there is some focus that we have to put on that. Also, the lead is a summary of the rest of the article, so the fact that the rest of it is devoted to the production and release of the series is why we mention it in the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring that. I am still of the opinion that the second sentence should start with mentioning the relation to the previous Star Trek series first before mentioning CBS All Access, but I am open to more input from others on this.–Totie (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Has there been any updates since the annoucements?

Its been two months already and the only information available derives from the initial announcement. Any Chance of more information coming out soon?—The Winter of Steppes (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There have been no new announcements. My guess is this was a flop, and that there will be no new series.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.198.6 (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Name needs a better source

Currently the only source for this show being titled simply "Star Trek" is a video that does not actually say that's the title. It shows the words on the screen, but that is not at all proof it's the title. Wikipedia claiming to know the show's title right now seems like original research. Earthscent (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't need a source to literally say what the title is, we just need a source to give the title, like any other show or media project. What is original research, however, is editors claiming that this is a placeholder title, which they couldn't possibly know and verify without an additional reliable source (that has not been provided). All we know is that CBS is currently and formally referring to the series as Star Trek, and so that is all we can say for now. If this does turn out to be a placeholder, then the page can be updated accordingly then, but we don't know that is the case at the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't called it a placeholder title, just that we have no idea what the title is. If CBS is referring to the series as Star Trek can we have an additional source where they do so? If that was their intention with this video they were very unclear. Earthscent (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Well...you literally added "as a placeholder for the still-unnamed series" to the article. Anyway, we don't add additional sources because some editors don't like the one we have. CBS has released an official teaser stating the title, or at least what the title is for now. If this was a film, there would be no issue, so I don't understand why this has to be any different. You saying "we have no idea what the title is" and "if that was their intention with this video they were very unclear" sounds like a whole lot of opinion and OR etc. rather than objectively looking at the reliable source that we do have and stating the verifiable facts that we do know. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem is they didn't state it! The title you are claiming is original research, your opinion, your guess, etc. Earthscent (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that's not true. You're are just being silly and pedantic in an attempt to be right, when you are the one using opinion and original research. I have no interest in continuing this conversation if this is how you intend to act, but if you attempt to claim this is a placeholder title, or anything other than what it actually is, again without a source to back up your claim, I will report you for disruptive editing. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The article currently reads 'confirming that the series would simply be titled Star Trek'. That is an assertion for which there is no source. If we are not sure whether this is the title, why not just say so? No need to speculate.–Totie (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The only speculation is those editors claiming that this is a placeholder title, of which there is no proof. CBS has released a trailer in which they literally call the series Star Trek. Obviously this could change at some point, and if it does then we can simply update the article, but we have been given no indication that it will change, and it is OR to say otherwise. So, that is what the article says: CBS released a teaser calling the series Star Trek. Because they did. If you think that the article could say that better than it currently does, then by all means have a go at rewriting the line. Otherwise, the article stays as it is until new information actually surfaces, rather than just new editor’s opinions. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not what the article says. It says "confirming that the series would simply be titled Star Trek". That is an unequivocal statement of fact. What CBS presented was a logo, but there is no clear statement that this is in fact the series' title. If you look at http://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek-2017/, you can see that they call it "Star Trek 2017". On http://www.startrek.com/article/watch-teaser-trailer-for-new-star-trek-series, they avoid calling it anything else than "the new Star Trek series". The video itself has a description that says the same: "the new STAR TREK television series". The referenced article on http://deadline.com/2016/05/star-trek-cbs-all-access-1201759184/ has just one sentence that might establish this as the title, but it is an ambiguous sentence: "when Star Trek debuts on CBS All Access in January". This still leaves open the possibility that this is just a reference to the franchise and not the actual title. Even IMDb avoids calling it just Star Trek and calls it "Star Trek: All Access" instead. It really does not confirm anything. All things considered, I think that the page move was premature, but I would not propose another name change at this point, as long as we return to the previous lead sentence. For the record, I don't claim that this is a placeholder title either, I agree with you on that point, I am just saying that there really is not much to go on for choosing either side. The correct approach would be to say that CBS released a trailer that shows the logo and leave the question about the series title open until we have a reliable source. Finally, I am annoyed by your last sentences. You don't get to decide unilaterally when changes are made.–Totie (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry if you are annoyed, but I never said anything about deciding unilaterally when changes are made. Wikipedia has rules for a reason, and I have an extremely reliable source that not only has an embedded video in which the series is referred to as Star Trek (which is the truth, no matter how you guys try to spin it) but which also itself directly calls Star Trek (in the sentence that you quoted, which is absolutely not ambiguous in the least, despite what you are trying to claim), while the only evidence you have to back up your position that we shouldn't, for now, refer to the series as simply Star Trek is personal feelings and opinions (IMDb is not reliable, StarTrek.com can be interpreted either way—but doesn't trump more reliable sources anyway—and CBS.com backs up my position, because if you actually look at it, it calls the series Star Trek (2017), which is exactly what I am doing). I am not saying that we should keep the article as is because that is the way I want it, I am saying that we should keep the article as is because you have still failed to provide evidence to support your argument, and so this is the way that Wikipedia wants it. And again, if you take issue with my wording of that line, then have a go at re-writing it! - adamstom97 (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with personal feelings. You do not have a reliable source for that statement of fact, that was my point. You are misconstruing a source to support your very own view and you seem to believe that just because the source itself is reliable, you are allowed to make assumptions based upon it. None of the sources I mentioned make it absolutely clear that this is the title and the fact that we have this discussion demonstrates that the interpretation of the source can vary. Accordingly, we need something more tangible. I do not need any evidence to disprove your assertion, because there is no evidence for your assertion in the first place, aside from your own interpretation of that one source. Nevertheless, one edit just referenced this article http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/cbs-trailers-star-trek-macgyver-training-day-bull-doubt-video-1201778077 where the author claims to know that the title is to be determined at a later date. Whether that means that we can say for sure that it is the title, is still debatable, but it still supports my view that we should not write about this without a good source.–Totie (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, your interpretation of what must be sourced, and how sources should be worded for us to use, is wildly off-base. However, that doesn't really matter now, since MegaZeroX7 has kindly provided us with a reliable source that backs up your guys' claim for you, so there is no need for this discussion to continue. I am in favour of not moving the article back to where it was, and just adjusting our wording here, but if that doesn't work out, I'm sure we can discuss other options. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Premise

@Adamstom.97: If quoting one sentence is a copyright violation, then virtually all quotations in Wikipedia are copyright violations. But they're not, of course. Read WP:COPYVIO again, and search for the word "quotation".

And my intention was to "show how much info has been released", because that one sentence is apparently all there is. The previous text left open the possibility that there was more. – Smyth\^talk 21:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

What you wrote there was incredibly unencyclopaedic and something that crops up far too often: 'We know this but not that' may be fine for a news site, but on Wikipedia only 'We know this' is generally appropriate. As for copyvio, I understand that it doesn't prohibit quotations (I have added several to this article myself) but it is my experience that we shouldn't copy premises and plot summaries, which is why I paraphrased the info instead. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

on Wikipedia only 'We know this' is generally appropriate: Why? We could easily find a reference supporting the lack of information.

it is my experience that we shouldn't copy premises and plot summaries: When a show is publicly available, of course editors should watch it and describe it in their own words. But when the producer's "blurb" is all we have to go on, then we should be honest about that. We have no way of verifying how accurate their description is, so we should attribute it to the source. Changing and deleting a few words and removing the quotation marks, presenting the description in Wikipedia's voice, is a violation of the POV policy. – Smyth\^talk 10:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I never said that it wasn't sourceable, I said it wasn't appropriate. Should every article have a list of potential facts that are missing? Or a list of irrelevant facts that could potentially become relevant? And then should it be our job to look for reliable sources to back up the removing of items from this list? No! That is obviously ridiculous. We add information that is relevant, with reliable sources, and that way everyone knows that anything missing either doesn't exist yet, or hasn't been found yet. And what you wrote is the extreme of that: Who decides that "little information has been released about the series"? You? Because somebody could look at this article and feel like we already know quite a lot for the point we are at. And subsequently, who decides when there is enough information to remove that statement? You again? All we should be doing is presenting the known facts, and letting the reader form their own opinions on the subject. This is the same as saying something like "This film isn't very good..."; it is a clear violation of WP:POV.

If you are referring to "Avoid stating opinions as facts" in that we shouldn't be pretending that this is on the same level as a normal plot summary, I'm afraid you must have an extremely poor opinion of our readers. We have been told that the series will feature new characters, and that the intention for it is (without all the unnecessary adjectives and peacocking) to "seek new worlds and civilizations, while exploring the franchise's signature contemporary themes", so that is what we have written. This would only be dishonest, in the way that you are suggesting, if we assumed that readers are too dumb to figure out that a premise section for a yet to be released show is not the same as an accurate plot summary. But we don't assume that, because we have a bit more faith in our readers and their common sense. Your concerns would make sense if the series had been released and it would make sense for a proper plot summary to have already been written, but that is not the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

We have been told that the series will do XYZ, so (leaving aside the question of whether to use a quotation) what we should write is "the producers say the series will do XYZ". We shouldn't write "the series will do XYZ", because we're unable to verify that. I don't think you'll find anything in the POV policy which says "never mind, the readers will know what we mean". – Smyth\^talk 19:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

That isn't what I said. I said that a premise section for a yet to be released show must have come from the producers which is why we never go out of our way to do what you have done here. Where else would the info come from, fan predictions? That would never be allowed on Wikipedia. Giving our readers a bit of credit in a situation like this is perfectly fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

So do you have any objection to me inserting "According to a CBS press release" or similar in front of the existing text? – Smyth\^talk 21:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I just don't see why this page should be different to any other. Whenever we get a premise for an upcoming film or series, we never say that it came from a press release. It's just seems unnecessary. If the readers are really that concerned about the validity of the premise, then they can check the source themselves. Also, this line of thinking seems to lead to statements such as "The Hollywood Reporter discovered..." or "Deadline.com reported...", which we also want to avoid. Again, the readers can check those details themselves if they really want to know them. In general, we and the readers should be assuming that everything is reliable here (and all we can do for instances that are not is correct them as we find them). - adamstom97 (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

In other words, "never mind, the readers will know what we mean".

Sentences starting "The Hollywood Reporter discovered..." are a red flag, not because the reader doesn't need to know what the source is, but because the source is in itself unreliable and the entire statement should probably be removed. I see you're active on entertainment-related topics, so you must have seen many cases where people inserted unreliable rumors into an article without giving such a qualification, resulting in text very similar to what we have here. Unless the article is being watched by a conscientious editor such as yourself, such text can remain for a long time and be seen by hundreds of readers, who will, as you say, "be assuming that everything is reliable here".

But when I come across an article I haven't seen before, I have no immediate way of knowing how well it's being maintained. If I see a piece of information about something unreleased, I have no idea whether it's from the producers or from media gossip. By stating the source up-front, we save the reader from having to follow the ref links to learn which is which. – Smyth\^talk 12:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, The Hollywood Reporter is actually one of our most used, reliable sources. But anyway, we are stating the source upfront, as we usually do, we just aren't writing it out in prose, as we only do that in certain cases. You haven't convinced me that this should be one of those cases; 'some articles aren't good, so we have to dumb down ours in case readers think it is bad as well' just doesn't fly for me, especially since, as I just mentioned, we do provide our sources, and in the most appropriate format (in-line, and filled out with all the relevant info). - adamstom97 (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If we didn't have an official premise (however brief or vague) and Fuller gave a brief description along these lines in an interview, or an actor had been hired and gave away some basic plot info that belonged in the premise section, then it would be a different story. Those sorts of off the cuff thoughts snd statements are not necessarily a reliable indicator of the final plot, and you are correct in that we may not want to present them in a way that comes across as definitive to the reader. Then, saying that "Fuller intends for the series..." or something like that may be a more appropriate format. But in this case, we have some (vague) standard details about the intended direction of the series that were confidently included in the official announcement press release. We have included those details in a premise section rather than a plot section, and the series has clearly not been released yet, so there should be no confusion on the readers' part as to what this information is, but if there is, or if the validity of the information is called into question, then the source has been provided. Hopefully, seeing the first few sources in the article will convince sceptical readers that this article is well-maintained and trustworthy. If not, then that shouldn't really be our problem, and the article shouldn't be affected by the issues of those few. I understand where you are coming from, but I don't feel that this situation warrants this action. We get countless additions of unconfirmed castings with unreliable sources for most film and TV articles. Does that mean that we make special note when we add a reliably confirmed casting to make sure readers don't mistake it for the other crap? No, we treat the information as it should be treated, and just hope that we caught the poor edits fast enough, and readers are seeing the highest quality version of our articles possible. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Speculation

I get this is an upcoming show but Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. An article saying someone implied something is not a good source, it is speculation. The text:

Fuller also implied that, unlike previous Star Trek series, this one would feature LGBTQ characters.

More importantly Star Trek has featured LGBTQ characters and storylines before and it wrong to say otherwise. At best that sentence is very poorly written and it is actually trying to say that one of the main or recurring cast will be LGBTQ (unlike previous Trek where an episode or guest character). The preceding sentence already talks about casting and diversity but the source isn't good enough to get Fuller to say anything specific so we don't have a good enough source to paraphrase what the write was actually trying to say. The sentence should be removed until we have an actual source and not some vague suggestion about what may or may not make it through the production process and end up in the show. -- 109.77.189.141 (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I am aware that gay characters have appeared in Star Trek before (some of us have watched every episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine). That's neither here nor there, however. There is no reason Wikipedia cannot repeat Fuller's comments, even if the comments are technically incorrect. I see no reason the content should be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Quote Fuller please. Remove the sentence or rephrase it even. If you look again at the lines in the article where he is directly quoted Fuller doesn't actually say anything so misleading as what we've copied from the article, the problem is that what little Fuller does say isn't very detailed and the article author is wildy speculating and desperately trying to say it implies something we cannot know. The author of the article gave a very leading question to Fuller and took the answer about diversity to imply something that may or my not be the case. On top of that the article author phrased it so badly it sounds very misleading like the author doesn't even remember old Trek episodes. There isn't enough information to support what the article author claims Fuller implied, and an encyclopedia shouldn't be overreaching to include such a poorly substantiated implication. Article author is trying to make the most of what little information he got out of Fuller but it isn't anywhere near enough information for an encyclopedia to repeat that claim.

When more information comes out about cast then it will probably be clearer, or if you can find another source but it is very misleading to repeat the speculation of the article author at this early stage. -- 109.77.189.141 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't need a direct quote for this sort of statement, from a reliable source. If clarifying statements are given later on then the article can be updated, but for now this is reasonably noteworthy and should be included, regardless of whether it is actually true or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could find someone else notable enough to cite that says the same thing about without the factual gaffe about it being the first series to feature such. Heather Kadin's comments at San Diego CominCon - where she simply notes that the series will feature not only LGDTQ characters but minorities and women as well - would seem to resolve that problem. If Fuller makes such a foolish comment again, I am fairly certain that a reviewer will bonk him him over the head with his mistake. At that point, we can cite the bonking. Until then, its best to seek a path around the factual error. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. This isn't the 1970s anymore, so the inclusion of an LGBTQ character on a cable/streaming show is hardly notable, but if we are going to nonetheless note it rather than waiting three or four months and there's some real information that's readily available (such as "Character X, played by y, is $preference), then let's at least do it with a decent quote rather than a fumbled inference. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You removed the material "per talk", but it doesn't seem to me that agreement has yet been reached to remove it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If you can show where Fuller (or anyone) actually says that there will be an LGBTQ character (as opposed to an interviewer drawing an inference), then great. Right now, it's unreferenced. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I did, in the premise bit that IU've just reverted back in. Kaden said it at the press conference at San Diego ComicCon, so we don't have to add Fuller's vague - and completely inaccurate - phrasing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Kaden's comments are better than Fuller's, regardless of the latter's accuracy, so I have replaced Fuller's comments with Kaden's in the casting section, where they belong. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

They also belong in the premise or, alternatively, the Lede I'm not sure edit-warring to move a sentence is the smartest way to go about collaborative editing, Adamstom. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Kaden's comments are clear and unambiguous, much better than the previous wording in the Casting section, thanks for that improvement. (But I wouldn't add them anywhere except the Casting section.) I don't think WP:STATUSQUO was a valid excuse to keep such a misleading and poorly worded sentence, but it's fixed now. -- 109.76.152.84 (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I could have left the article as it was, after you lot decided to edit sections that we are supposed to be discussing first, and waited till the discussion was over before attempting to clean up the mess, but because I am interested in the quality of Wikipedia and didn't want to leave it in that state while this discussion dragged on I gave the article a quick clean up before continuing here. That is not edit warring, but changing and reverting edits to your preferred new versions (as opposed to the WP:STATUSQUO) before a discussion is finished, is edit warring. And your right, it isn't the smartest way to go about collaborative editing, so I suggest you guys stop it.

As for you, Jack, adding Kaden's comments to the premise, and wanting to add them to the lead ... no. Casting info, especially vague, generic statements about potential, future casting, do not belong in the premise section. Because the premise section is for the premise. The producers wanting a diverse cast is not the premise. And the lead is a summary of the entire article. Adding a line about wanting a diverse cast in the lead in addition to having it in the casting section gives that line too much weight in the summary. Once we know the cast, and if its diverseness does become a reasonably significant aspect of the show, then it would make sense to add mention of it to the lead. But we aren't at that point yet. Again, we are in WP:NORUSH. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Following the discussion I removed Category:American LGBT-related television programs from the category list as there is no proof yet this is going to be a major issue in the program. DGtal (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Adamstom on removal of Kaden's (and Fuller's) comments from the premise (and not adding them to the lead). Premise: "an idea or theory on which a statement or action is based" - in this case, the basis of the show. The premise of Star Trek: TOS (and TNG): famously, "Wagon Train in space." The premise of DS9: Diplomacy, conflict and eventually war on the Federation's border. The premise of Voyager: "Foes must work together to find their way home after being stranded." The premise of Discovery is not to "feature minority, female, and LGBTQ characters." Truth is, we really don't know much at all about the premise as yet. Really, WP:NORUSH. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I think I agree that we should probably nowiki the comments by Fuller and Kaden - as they might come in handy in the future, and having to reinvent the wheel to find them all over again seems wasteful. Alternatively, we could put the links for said comments here. CBS has been disturbingly tight-lipped about the series, which suggests to me that they have very little of the show put together as of yet. They might be playing a longer game with all the "secrecy", but we need to remember that this is CBS we're talking about - they actually thought AfterMASH was a good idea. The consensus is correct here; we should wait for more info. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Using quotation marks for quotes

Recently, I added quotation marks around what seemed to be a fairly word-for-word quote from an article. The text from the article:

"New characters to the Star Trek universe seek new worlds and civilizations, while exploring the franchise's signature contemporary themes."

seemed pretty darn similar to the source material:

"The brand-new Star Trek will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966."

It was reverted, noting it wasn't a quote. I guess they are right. It isn't an exact quote, but then, Melania Trump didn't exactly copy Michelle Obama's 2008 speech either. It is a piss-poor job of rephrasing. Instead of reverting, the party in question should have fixed the offending phrasing. Since they are too fucking lazy to do it, I will. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

That tone and language is completely unnecessary. There is currently not a lot of information to go off of, so it is difficult to produce a paraphrased premise that is different enough from the original source. Case in point, this "piss-poor" attempt at an English sentence: "A new cast of characters Star Trek will explore the Star Trek "prime" universe while telling stories in a non-episodic, "chapter by chapter way" while still reflecting the essentially progressive themes and philosophy of Star Trek while "pushing boundaries".." There is nothing wrong with trying to improve this, but make sure you actually do improve it, not ruin an otherwise decent encyclopaedic article. And if that isn't manageable, then you can just wait for more information to come out; we are in WP:NORUSH. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that we aren't in a rush. I also agree that there is very little in the way of actual, solid information about this. If I were a betting man, I would guess that CBS is legally sorting through a lot of legal issues in not stepping on the dicks of other series and movies.

That said, we should actually try to include information that is out there about the series, as opposed to doing a [[1]]poorly-constructed paraphrasery. The reason why you were trout-slapped was because instead of paying attention to the comment in the edit summary, you simply reverted it back to the problematic version. The revert did not fix the problem, and actually exacerbated it by not even addressing the failings my edit was seeking to fix.

Instead of fixing a minor readability issue, you simply reverted. So that's just lazy editing to my reckoning. So, yeah, that taste in your mouth was from the trout you were slapped with.

Now, I've addressed your issue as to readability. See, that's how collaborative editing is supposed to work. We work off each other's input, like masonry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I have to assume you aren't done yet because the sentence doesn't make sense, read it out loud if you haven't already:

 A new cast of characters Star Trek will explore the Star Trek "prime" universe

Possibly if you said "A new cast of Star Trek characters" the sentence would make sense, but the paragraph needs more work for sure. Shorter sentences might help too. -- 109.77.189.141 (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in wasting my time trying to work in with you and your abhorrent behaviour, and I have no intention of changing the premise myself until we get more information. Of course, you can continue to try and improve the sentence on your own. Just know that if you produce some unreadable crap like that again, you will be reverted, regardless of how big and superior you feel after writing it. And I'd suggest not lecturing others on collaborative editing and working together until you figure out how to talk to someone like a grown-up. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

See Adamstom, that's (yet again) the problem. You keep reverting out information without providing alternatives. Its what got you trout-slapped. If you're feeling the taste of fish too much and don't want to contribute, that's on you. Just don't blame the rest of us for trying to make it better. You can go off and pout now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't providing alternatives because there was nothing wrong with the original version. And seriously, what is your problem? What the hell is all this trout nonsense? I have no interest in going and pouting anywhere, especially while you continue to ruin this article. Stop adding non-premise information to the premise section. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: If you seriously believe that your new version is better than mine, then let's discuss it here. This is yours...

Featuring a new cast of Star Trek characters aboard the U.S.S Discovery, the series explores the Star Trek "prime" universe. Fuller notes that the series will tell stories in a non-episodic, "chapter by chapter way". He also emphasized that the series would still reflect the essentially progressive themes and philosophy of the Star Trek franchise while "pushing boundaries". Executive producer Heather Kadin noted during a press conference at San Diego Comic Con that the series would feature minority, female and LGBTQ characters.

...and this is mine...

Introducing new characters to the "Prime Timeline" of the Star Trek franchise, the series follows the crew of the USS Discovery as they discover new worlds and civilizations, while exploring the franchise's signature contemporary themes.

Firstly, you saying that yours is more concise than mine is just not true. Concise literally means in fewer words, which yours is clearly not. As for being more informative, the extra information that your version has is that the series will be told "in a non-episodic, 'chapter by chapter way'", which is an oxymoron by the way; that Fuller believes the show will be "pushing boundaries"; and Kaden's quote about the cast. The bit about the series being serialized rather than a procedural is already in the writing section, where it belongs, and is told there in a way that actually makes sense. The bit about "pushing boundaries" is Fuller's opinion, and doesn't add anything to article at all, while having nothing to do with the premise. And Kaden's quote obviously belongs in the casting section, where I have already put it.
Seriously, just because you think the premise should be bigger doesn't mean you can cram in non-premise information to pad it out. If you really want to expand the section, then you will just have to be patient while we wait for more information about it. And by the way, the next time you consider attacking me personally at my talk page, I would seriously suggest reconsidering before you get yourself into trouble. You clearly have a penchant for being rude and vulgar, and it isn't conducive to a healthy community environment. To be clear, if you speak to me that way again, and/or continue to edit war rather than working in with others by discussing at the talk page, you will be reported. And you can consider that your only warning. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding the actual meaning of the word concise, which is 'to confer the greatest amount of information with the fewest words.' I think you are perhaps confusing that word with abbreviated, which more closely approximates what you were trying to suggest.

Secondly, I must admit that perhaps I should have put the information in the Lede, since the amount of information in the premise (which by wiki definition is part of the body of the article) becomes redundant. So own that error. In short, I don't think the premise needs to be that long, but characterizing it as bring crammed together is both incorrect and largely an ass hat contortion.

The phrase, "in a non-episodic, 'chapter by chapter way" is a direct lift fromt he article (hence the quotation marks). Recall that the information being cited comes from a press conference in which people might be speaking ad libitum or off the cuff, and essentially framing their answers in the moment. This differs consiberably from a carefully constructed press release, where all the info is arranged for easier media and reader consumption. Just putting that out there, becuase it seemed like you were saying that I wrote the redundant info, which would probably earn you another trout slap.

Lastly, you might want to learn about the difference between NPA and being called on handling things stupidly. If you feel the itching, burning need to report me for doing so, knock yourself out and do so. NPA would be me suggesting that you couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the sole.' I simply said that something you did was dumb, and why it was dumb. You're welcome. Now, move on from the pity party and get back to work. You've clearly already moved past your hurt feelings on the matter; no need to rehash it here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"No need to rehash it here"; well, you should have thought of that before you started up this discussion again. I completely understand what concise means, and adding extra information in a poorly worded way is not "more concise" in the least. I'm not sure what the point you are trying to make about the "non-episodic" line is, but the fact remains that the showrunner discussing that general structure of the series, unless it is something that has a particularly noteworthy effect on the contents of the show like with 24, does not belong in the premise of the series. It is writing information, and so that is where it has been put. And you need to have a serious rethink about the way you say things if you honestly believe that coming to my talk page and telling me to "go the fuck away" was the same as you calling me on "handling things stupidly". You did not say that something I did was dumb, nor did you say why it was dumb. And that isn't just my opinion—go read what you wrote on my talk page again. There is literally no way that it can be interpreted in the way that you are trying to now. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me put things in perspective for you. What I wrote on your talk page was regarding your personal handling of matters. I didn't spread the drama to the article talk page (to no doubt drum up sympathy for your edit); I kept it on your talk page, so you and I could hash it out. That's kinda how we do things here in Wikipedia. The article and talk pages are meant for discussion regarding the article. When you went off on it, I took the problem to your talk page. I guess you didn't get that instruction. Ask around. Personal problems with other users belong on the user talk page. Learn. No kindly move along; your drama is getting othing done. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

If only that were true. I am happy to move on from this if that is what you intend on doing. Hopefully things go better next time. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Horatio Hornblower/Honor Harrington

As soon as I read that they're focusing on a Lieutenant rather than a Captain character, I immediately went to thinking that the basis for this would be Horatio Hornblower in the works by C. S. Forester. This would be a good comparison, as Hornblower was set admist the Wars with Napoleon which could be a good mirror for a Starfleet/Klingon war. A similar female character based on this premise already exists - Honor Harrington in the books by David Weber. If this is what they're going for then I wouldn't be surprised if we see Weber turn up at some point as a co-writer or at least a consultant. Another thing to remember that according to the chronology of the prime timeline, if Discovery is set ten years before The Original Series then the Enterprise is already around - just under the captancy of Christopher Pike. However, if they mean ten years prior to "The Cage", as I think they probably do, then the Enterprise is around but under the captancy of Robert T. April. I personally think that would be a primary setting, as then the series could have the Enterprise make appearances with a different Captain and crew, but ones that haven't been seen in live-action before and so wouldn't pose any issues with re-casting etc. It also wouldn't tread on the toes at all of the film franchise, since in that universe April never captained the Enterprise since it went straight to Pike. It would also avoid the possibility of The Original Series main cast needing to be re-cast to appear, thus conflicting with the film franchise once more, since they'd mostly be under 10 years old at the time. Of course, at least we know why they went straight for Axanar now.

If they do follow the Hornblower route, then I imagine that the entire series won't be set on the Discovery itself, as the main character spends time on other vessels and interacts with a wider range of main characters than seen in previous Star Trek shows. Eventually the character will be promoted to Captain after several seasons and will end up posted to the Discovery at her request. I doubt that in a time of war, that the Harry Kim-type scenario where promotion is never achieved will recur.

But to drag this from speculation back to something wiki-worthy, we should keep our eyes open for the inevitable Axanar/Discovery comparison pieces, as well as the articles suggesting comparisons between the main character and Hornblower/Harrington. The latter might be only in academic journals and books post-series though. But they'll come. Miyagawa (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Miyagawa, I would never have known any of this. I will keep an eye out from now on. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternate logo pictures out there or is this the main one?

In my holy opinion, this logo seems really old and outdated (Star Trek logo currently featured in infobox (on 09-02-2016)):

I guess I'm just trying to discuss, whether this really will be the final logo? :| WinterSpw (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess we'll see when the series starts to broadcast. Only then can we be sure what the logo will be on the title card. Miyagawa (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not the official logo, it is a derivative work, mostly with different textures. This image is also not a vector image and the uploader ignores requests to have them renamed. I would prefer to just have a proper vector image.–Totie (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

McQuarrie

The new ship design seems to owe a lot to McQuarrie's design work for Star Trek.137.205.183.31 (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Which is why the article says that. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Designs that were rejected when they were first created. Does the article say that? 74.216.13.145 (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

They weren't rejected. Production on Planet of the Titans never got past the concept/writing stage. The designs simply were never used. Miyagawa (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

On a different note, I just added some background moved over from the Planet of the Titans article I worked up a while back - McQuarrie didn't invent the concept, it was actually Ken Adam. McQuarrie did artwork based on Adam's idea. Miyagawa (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I hoped to find a "criticism" section

Because according to an awful amount of fans, the ship's horrible design and the fact that it's a prequel is drawing criticism from whoever watched the teaser footage. Citations: 99% of the comments on youtube, below the teaser. PUNISH THEM! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.207.201 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if this is serious or not, but we aren't making a criticism section for a show that hasn't even started filming yet, based on YouTube comments for a rough, conceptual teaser. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, critisicm in such an early stage is natural but premature. DGtal (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Plus, why would anyone care what a random bunch of fan comments on a couple of YouTube videos? The only point where that would become viable as a source is if a third party reliable source then reported on them. Even then, in the context of the eventual article once this starts broadcasting, it would be a throw away line akin to "The fan response following the initial trailer was positive/neutral/negative." - and that'd be it. Sticking a section in at the moment with a whole paragraph or two based on the reception of the trailer would give it massive undue weight. Miyagawa (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

okay first of all it isn't just a random bunch of fan comments on only a couple of Youtube videos, it's actually everywhere, and the fans who think is a big mistake to use a rejected concept for a Federation ship that really looks far more Klingon than anything else, these people are actually in the majority. Every article on the subject I go to where people can leave comments at the end people are complaining: http://www.startrek.com/article/introducing-the-u-s-s-discovery
http://trekmovie.com/2016/07/23/breaking-fuller-announces-new-series-titled-star-trek-discovery/ (1023 NO votes)
"The use of concept art that was rejected for the first Star Trek movie was highly criticized by fans both pre-production and after airing" is not (will not be) an unfair statement, though wording of the time frame would change as they cross that line. I don't think a "Reception" section is unwarranted by any stretch of the imagination regardless of when the actual show airs, as the first paragraph would start with "Initially, post production," and the then next paragraph would continue "Reception after airing..." and then maybe continue with "Popularity of the first season..." or something similar, not really taking up much space if the 2 paragraphs are brief, 1 to start with. In any case, I doubt it would be difficult to find a reliable source that reflects the current sentiment on the rejected design of the show's primary vessel, if you actually take the time to look, instead of just sitting in apathetic/judgmental denial mode. 74.216.13.145 (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You're using a logo in the article (previous topic) that you don't even know will be final, how ironic is that. 74.216.13.145 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You have 6 start-class category links in the category section below, and that you want to treat this as otherwise is somewhat comical. You have an article about a show that is not going to air for another 8 months and you're pretending it already has by they way you are judging potential content.74.216.13.145 (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. WP:CRYSTAL. WP:DEADHORSE. /yawn Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

To add - "I doubt it would be difficult to find a reliable source that reflects the current sentiment on the rejected design of the show's primary vessel" - then find one. Miyagawa (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Grammar Problem

What does the sentence, "The new series was announced in November 2015, with Fuller joining the next February" mean? I was going to edit it, but that last clause just makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladist (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. The series was announced in November 2015, and Fuller joined it as showrunner in February 2016. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"with" is ambiguous headline-speak: it could mean that in November '15 it was announced that Fuller would be joining the next February, or that an announcement was made, but the undertaking became more tangible and definitive only the next February (when Fuller in point of fact joined). In other words, it is not clear from the sentence as written what actually happened in February '16.137.205.100.185 (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that makes no sense. "Fuller joining the next February" clearly means that Fuller joined the next February. If that doesn't make sense to you then I think you are the problem here. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I changed it. It read a little weirdly IMO. No need to have long discussions about this.–Totie (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've changed it to something else, as there isn't really enough there for two sentences. If you guys don't like this version either, then we should discuss before further edits are made. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Yeoh on cast

It's important to note that Michelle Yeoh has been mentioned as a cast member, but we cannot put her down as "lead" yet. From the original reporting:

"Although it is unconfirmed at this time, Michelle Yeoh’s role is potentially the series’ lead, a female Lieutenant Commander [2]

Please don't add her as lead unless there is more information. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The page doesn't say she is the lead anywhere. In fact, she is listed separately from the lead in the cast section. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: - That's right, it does now after I removed it from the article. [3] - Fuzheado | Talk 20:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It didn't already, which is why I restored the page. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

All of the other Star Trek shows (except Enterprise) have a section called "Cast", but for some reason STD has "Cast and characters", it might be better to change the section to "Cast" and do something like this >>>

* Michelle Yeoh as Unknown [5]

* Unknown as Number One, the series' lead character, a female minority character serving as a lieutenant commander aboard the Discovery. The decision to not make the character a starship captain, like previous Star Trek series' protagonists, was made "to see a character from a different perspective on the starship—one who has a different dynamic relationships with a captain, with subordinates, it gave us richer context".[2] The decision to call her 'Number One' was made in honor of the character of the same name portrayed by Majel Barrett in the original Star Trek pilot "The Cage". When the character was first pitched to CBS, she was to only be called Number One in the series, but her real name will ultimately be revealed before the end of the first season.[6]

Damiantgordon (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

We should not say "unknown". If there is nothing listed, then it is unknown. We do not say that we don't know something. Also, how do you know that Yeoh isn't playing Number One. If we worded it like you suggest, then we would be stating that she is playing someone that we don't know, and then someone else we don't know is playing Number One. None of the sources we have back that up. And I used "Cast and characters" because we can use either that or "Cast", per MOS:TV; all the other TV articles I work on use the former; and TV cast lists are a summary of, or placeholder for, separate character lists (down the line), so this wording indicates that transition and avoids some unnecessary confusion. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

cast and characters formatting / bullet-breaking and MOS

Though it seems a petty thing to edit war over, I want to express my preference for the version of the "cast and characters" listing that Stismail (talk · contribs) added. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand having a preference in aesthetics, as I personally prefer this other version. But the reason I have used this format and not yours, and the reason I have seen it so much in other places, is that it is the formatting suggested at MOS:TVCAST. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Instead of linking to a lengthy article, please copy or summarize the relevant formatting suggestion here. What is the substance of what you're suggesting specifically? What should it look like? I will reserve my opinion until any reasonable arguments are made here. As it stands, certain editors are reverting to keep that section in an inconsistent state until this issue is resolved. JimsMaher (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I see it now. fourthords is doing the right thing here by adhering to MOS. JimsMaher (talk) 09:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Two discussions on the same topic? Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm just curious, not to object to what you're implying, but where does it say there should only be one discussion per topic? JimsMaher (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"Eh" ... WP:TPYES ... isn't it nice when there are rules/guidelines to quote, for instance, "Ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic". Still looking for where it even so much as suggests that extra line-break that keeps getting reverted to. Meanwhile, I'm merging this discussion with the following one ... JimsMaher (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

(sections merged)JimsMaher (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

A day ago, I edited the article with an edit summary that explained "- bulleted list break IAW WP:BULLETS & MOS:TVCAST". Forty-five minutes later, AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs) reverted that change saying, "Restore correct format". I asked him about this "correct format" that contradicted the guidelines I mentioned, but he said only, "If the description for a cast member or character wraps around onto a new line, then it is placed into its own paragraph. This method has been used on multiple and many television articles".

If we desire to have the cast and characters section formatted as a bulleted list, the Manual of Style guideline on such says "do not double-space the lines of the list by leaving blank lines or extra HTML <br> tags after them". The way the section is currently formatted actually has, under "Main", one one-item list and one two-item list. Furthermore, while the Manual of Style guideline on cast and characters information doesn't say anything about bulleting specifically, for the formatting we're using here (CAST as CHARACTER) it says, "In a section labeled "Cast" or "Cast and characters", we indicate the name of the cast member and his or her noteworthy role(s), followed by a brief description of the character." (e.g. "Harrison Ford as Han Solo: the pilot of the Millennium Falcon")

The current formatting appears to be a mistake where somebody used a colon to indicate further information forthcoming, but then… forgot? it was deleted as vandalism? This is especially as all the other "cast and characters" list items have the pertinent information immediately following their colons. As to AlexTheWhovian's personal formatting preference of when it "wraps around onto a new line", this is entirely dependent on readers' screen resolutions and browser preferences; who is to say that Ms. Martin-Green's line does't wrap on my screen, or that Ms. Yeoh's does? — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no mistake, and this is hardly Alex's personal formatting preference, as it is the formatting used on every film and TV article that is styled correctly per their respective MOS, that I have seen. If you have an issue with that, then you should take it up at the MOS rather than here, seeing as how any new consensus is going to affect a lot of articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a mistake (far from it, it's evidentially intentional), but that it "appears to be a mistake" to readers.

I mentioned "AlexTheWhovian's personal formatting preference" only in conjunction with his claim that "If the description for a cast member or character wraps around onto a new line, then it is placed into its own paragraph." I've found neither a policy, guideline, nor essay that offers such guidance. Granted, it was my assumption that AlexTheWhovian personally prefers that formatting when perhaps he was arguing from some other basis; I think it's a fair assumption to make, though.

As for the bullet-breaking format currently in place being supposedly widely implemented: I disagree. The articles for The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., Animaniacs, Blue's Clues, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons, Carnivàle, Cold Feet (though it's in contravention of MOS:BOLD), Degrassi: The Next Generation, Ed, Edd n Eddy, House, Joking Apart (though it's in contravention of MOS:BOLD), Last of the Summer Wine, Making Waves, Our Friends in the North, Press Gang (though it's in contravention of MOS:BOLD), 1995's Pride and Prejudice, The Quatermass Experiment, Quatermass II, Quatermass and the Pit, The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest, Sesame Street, The Simpsons, Temperatures Rising, Thunderbirds, and The Wire all describe cast and characters (or sometimes one or the other) in paragraphed prose. For the articles on Firefly and Love, Inc., they use the bulleting recommended by MOS:TVCAST (e.g. "Harrison Ford as Han Solo: the pilot of the Millennium Falcon" all kept within the same bullet). Only the article for 2009's Horrible Histories eschews any sort of established formatting. Saying that this article is following any sort of SOP for its "cast and characters" listing is incorrect.

I don't need to "take it up at the MOS" because I cited the appropriate Manuals of Style (MOS:BULLETLIST & MOS:TVCAST). I'm not arguing that they should be changed; I'm saying they should be adhered to. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

When posting a discussion about disputed content or layouts, you should assume good faith, and not go in with comments such as "he said only" and "AlexTheWhovian's personal formatting preference", which adds a negative tone of attach simply because you disagree with them. Makes people assume bad faith. And as Adam said, this is per the MOS - you're discussing this in the wrong place if you disagree with it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Our guideline on assuming good faith says, in a nutshell, "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence." I always comply with the former, and I do not see where I ascribed "harmful motives" to your words.

"He said only" accurately describes the words you used with regard to my initial inquiry. Any "negative tone" is your inference. As for describing your character-description-line-wrapping claim as "[your] personal formatting preference", that was a fair assumption on my part as I've found neither a policy, guideline, nor essay that offers such guidance. Again though, my assuming your formatting preference is not an accusation of malice aforethought in any way, shape, or form; it's purely descriptive.

Lastly, as I replied to adamstom97 above, I cited the appropriate Manuals of Style (MOS:BULLETLIST & MOS:TVCAST). I don't disagree with them; I'm trying to implement them. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the nature of- and cases made for- the edits in question, fourthords presents a strong argument for adhering to MOS. All that is accomplished by arguing against it, by pointing out some inconsistency with other pages, is to highlight that there are other places where MOS needs to be applied. I'm with fourthords on this.

If MOS is changed, then pages consequently follow suit. Not the other way around.

Therefore, if you believe the added line-break is or is not in MOS, please quote that specific passage here and be done with it. If it is not mentioned in any relevant manual, then it is not a part of MOS and should be removed for being superfluous. JimsMaher (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Obviously a bit has happened here since I last commented, but I am just going to reiterate what I have said previously. This formatting is consistent with what I have seen used at many articles, by experienced editors who follow the MOS (and often have a hand in writing it). If you are interpreting the MOS differently, and think this practise should be changed, then a discussion about that needs to be held at the MOS so that any resulting consensus can be applied to all "offending" articles. Going around and having arguments at lots of individual talk pages is not going to be helpful at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The gist of what I'm hearing from you is that there are simply too many pages following a similar format (additional line-breaking after the colon when more than X number of characters follow in the description of a character). You cannot, however, offer any guideline as a citation other than "seen used at many articles". As already mentioned by fourthords above, there are many more articles that have completely different formatting. Since those articles were pointed out to you, have any of them been corrected to the consensus that you're asserting here? You're defending (with reverts) a standard that exists only because it is defended (with reverts). Please clarify if your position is stronger than that. JimsMaher (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please move all further comments, along with any vote to the RfC section below.JimsMaher (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

latest premiere date delay

@Adamstom.97: so vis-a-vis this edit, and to prevent edit warring, can I ask what part of the series is no longer going to premiere in May as previously announced does not parse as "it is not set for May 2017 any longer?" Even the title of that source says the premiere date has been pushed. The source clearly says it will not premiere in May 2017. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and so does our article. I don't see what the problem is here. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree @Joeyconnick:. The article clearly states the series will not premier in May and is being pushed back. That should be reflected in the article. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you clarify what articles you are referring to? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This one.

So what you are saying is, "The [EW] article clearly states the series will not premier in May and is being pushed back. That should be reflected in [this Wikipedia] article." In that case, I repeat that this article here already reflects this news. I still don't see what the problem is. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the problem: the article (the lead, specifically) currently reflects the opposite. Star Trek: Discovery is set to debut on CBS in May 2017 is in direct opposition to the statement in the source that the series is no longer going to premiere in May. Even if you weaken the current statement by following it with though this is expected to be postponed, "expected to be" still implies that it may not be. The end result is the current wording makes it seem that, while it is likely to be changed, the premiere is still set for May 2017. It is not: according to current information, it is "no longer going to premiere in May." That means the premiere is decidedly not set to debut in May 2017. It was set to debut in May 2017, yes, but it is no longer. I really don't know how to be any clearer. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

No, CBS has still has the premiere set for May. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that we know the series won't actually come out then, so we can expect this date to be changed at some point. But for now, CBS still has Discovery set for release in May. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Where does CBS still have the premiere set for May? It's not on their website. And there are several articles that verify the delay: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/star-trek-discovery-delayed-again-as-spocks-father-is-cast-965494 , https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/18/star-trek-discovery-delayed-again/ , http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2017/01/star-trek-discovery-gets-stuck-in-spacedock-for-at-least-a-little-longer/ . What is the source that CBS still has the premiere set for May? SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The source for CBS having not changed the premiere was that they hadn't said they had changed it. EW said that it wouldn't come out in May, and CBS acknowledged that it was going to be flexible, but no one said that CBS had officially pushed the date. However, the HR source you have provided here does say that, so that can be used to source what you are saying in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't really effectively scream here, so I will just point to WP:COMMON and say that, when a reliable source says the premiere date will not happen as previously announced, the notion that we have to wait for a source that explicitly says "CBS has said this" is nonsensical and insane. If the premiere is not happening in May, as was stated in EW, then by pure logic that means the premiere is not being released in May by CBS or anyone else for that matter. And, if you want to get even more ridiculous about it, the HR article says as sources confirm that the show's planned May debut has been pushed—it doesn't say "CBS sources confirm." Why would we possibly assume these are legit CBS sources?! Oh right... because HR, like EW, is considered a reliable source, so we assume if they imply the source of information is indeed official, they are telling the truth. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Look, I do know how all this works. HR says that the planned debut has been pushed, but EW only said that the show wouldn't make the May debut, not that the date had actually been pushed yet. There is a difference. Regardless, the issue has been sorted now. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on "Cast and character" formatting

The following discussion 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.

---

There is a dispute in the "Cast and characters" section over the addition of a line-break after the colon whenever the description that follows is longer than (some amount). MOS:TVCAST (the primary style guideline for the dispute) has no use or mention of hard line-breaks for the middle of any character's entry (just at the end).

In summary of the above discussion: those in favor of the added line-break argue that other article's having similar formatting is sufficient reason for their use; while those against added line-breaks argue that it is not a part of any formatting guideline. Is use elsewhere sufficient defense here, or is adherence to manuals reason enough to change it? Please add your vote and any additional arguments in this section now. (For perspective, please remember that this is literally one character (a line-break) that we are talking about.) 07:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Against line-breaks. They are unncessary and not included in the manual. It promotes the discarding of guidelines for ad hoc personal preference of formatting. The line-breaks do not provide the same formatting benefit on all screen resolutions and, indeed, make some look out of place, leading to their repeated removal. I would be for a move to a table formatting before keeping the line-break. (FYI, I wrote the RfC above. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any comments about its neutrality or other concerns along those lines.) JimsMaher (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Against the line breaks. They interrupt the flow and are not in line with other articles. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

For the line breaks. Nothing about it is personal preference; if the proposing editor in question were to have edited more television-related articles, they might know the typical procedure. "Guidelines" are specified by the proposing editor as a need-to-follow basis, rather than to adapt it as necessary, but their own edits have not even followed the guidelines and were based on other article; the linked edit is clearly in opposition of WP:TVCAST itself, and based entirely upon another article per the provided edit summary, which the editors claims is the incorrect manner in which to edit; seems to me that guidelines only suit them when it is necessary as well. I also find the idea of the editor jumping straight into an RfC without giving editors much of a chance to continue and contribute to the not-yet-concluded discussion in quite bad faith. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

"bad faith" ... I still believe that two weeks was sufficient time for discussion before bringing in other voices. What's wrong with an RfC when the discussion was at an impasse? JimsMaher (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that you followed just that point, and ignored the rest. Especially the parts where you exhibited the same behaviour as that that you're condemning. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"ignored the rest" ... WP:BAIT ... I was only commenting on the part being personally directed at me. I had no comment on the rest of what you said beyond what has already been pointed out in this broader discussion. JimsMaher (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Who's bating who? Not me. I'm just asking why you think it's alright and acceptable to exhibit the same behaviour as that which you created an RfC against. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what you're asking now. JimsMaher (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Against line breaks in favor of compliance with MOS:BULLETLIST and MOS:TVCAST. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Against the line breaks; by having one line beginning with a colon part-way through a sequence of lines that begin with an asterisk, the result is that three lists are yielded where only one is desired, and as such, this is an accessibility issue. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Against line breaks. I do not see where in the MOS or any similar style guides for television, or even film, that dictates that a line break must be used or suggesting that no line break is against MOS. Additionally, I think the claim that a line break is widespread in television related articles in good-standing is dubious, as I've never seen such before this RfC. I can see a concern arising if a character has a particularly massive, but in a properly written cast listing, that is unlikely, and a bullet of several lines is hardly something that needs to be paragraphed out. A line break is unnecessary. (Arrived via a notice posted to WikiProject Television) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Just pointing out that the argument was never to keep this formatting because other articles use it, as that would violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All I have said in the above discussion is that this issue applies to more than just this article, and so having this RfC here where next to nobody knows about it is just not helpful. I have tried to fix this by putting notices at some other pages to try direct other editors who may be interested this way. Regardless, if there is consensus to not use this formatting per specific guidelines then I will be happy to make the appropriate changes where necessary. However, I'm sure there must be a good reason for so many experienced editors using this formatting at other pages that should not be dismissed lightly by you who are personally against this. All I have been trying to say is that this is bigger than the small discussion we have been having here. Also, is there a chance that this issue could be addressed as part of the MOS:TV overhaul that is currently underway? If so, then I suggest that this RfC be closed and we move this discussion over there. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"next to nobody knows about it" and "there must be a good reason for so many experienced editors using this formatting at other pages" ... What are you saying then? Anyway, I will go so far as to say that all similar 'cast and character' lists should be uniformly swept with a faithful application of the proper formatting. And, yes, this should be brought up at the next update discussion, when the topic rolls around. But we are here now and edit warring needs to be resolved when it appears with the rules that are in play. JimsMaher (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

What I am saying is that I haven't made any argument regarding this issue, all I have discussed is my belief that this discussion should be moved to a more appropriate article. That is why Alex and I feel that this RfC was a bit premature, seeing as how we haven't actually had a simple discussion about the issue yet. Also, there was no edit warring, and RexxS's disruptive editing accusations are just ridiculous. All we want is to have a proper discussion about this so it can be sorted out, but you lot refused to read what we were writing and blew everything out of proportion. Regardless, we are here now. Obviously there is clear consensus here that the current formatting violates important accessibility guidelines, so its a good thing this issue has been raised and discussed, isn't it? On this basis, I'm happy to remove the line breaks here and at all the other pages I frequent which use this formatting, unless we get some input from more editors on the other side with a logical argument—like I said, it seems odd that experienced editors would insist on this formatting at so many articles without reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring to go against MOS:ACCESS is not disruptive? Oh please. It has been established for some years now that accessibility guidelines are not something that you can ignore, opt out of, or trample over roughshod. We must consider all our readers, potential and established. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I agree that edit warring against ACCESS would be dusruptive, but if you were paying attention you would notice that there has been no edit war! And you are making it out as if we intentionally have gone out of our way to make life suck for certain readers, which is just not true. You guys need to WP:DROPTHESTICK regarding this unnecessary nonsense and let the RfC play out—as you can see, it is going in your favour, and I have agreed with your position, so I suggest you stop with the rude accusations. All we want is the best for the articles, which can not neccessarily be said for other editors who refuse to discuss, or use courtesy or common sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Accessibility is not "unnecessary nonsense". I will not "drop the stick" when it comes to accessibility issues: whenever I find a page with accessibility problems, I will do something about it. End of. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The "unnecessary nonsense" is not in relation to accessibility, it's on concern to your false accusations and lack of civility to those you disagree with. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"stop with the rude accusations"(Adamstom.97) & "your false accusations and lack of civility" (AlexTheWhovian) ... WP:NPA2 ... JimsMaher (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"WP:NPA2" (JimsMaher) ... WP:NPA. Nice to be able to link to an actual policy instead of some essay. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Last Word ... JimsMaher (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian recently reverted two different editors [4], [5], with no better reasoning than the laughably incorrect "Restore correct format". In fact, each of those two editors was making the article compliant with the MOS. That's edit-warring, not to mention ownership behaviour. There is nothing ridiculous about my concerns over this sort of behaviour, nor do I find it acceptable that the article languishes in the current state. I'll restore it to MOS-compliance now. --RexxS (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

These accusations are getting out of hand now, especially that of WP:OWN, which, should it continue, I will take further. "Restore correct format" was based on the content that I have seen in multiple articles, including many of which have been promoted to Good Article status. I would also note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility is a guideline, not a forcible policy. No such edit-warring has occurred, except for those that are forcing against the status quo while this discussion is still in place and has not yet concluded. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to take it wherever you want. If you want to turn a spotlight on your behaviour at this article, you'll soon find my concerns will be shared by lots of other uninvolved editors. You can note all you like the status of Wikipedia guidelines, but they are not optional, and they enjoy project-wide consensus. It requires more than just your whim or personal preference to justify editing against that consensus, as you'll soon find if you continue to attempt that. "Status quo" is a completely worthless argument when you've been notified that you're breaching accessibility guidelines. You're simply trying to stonewall and waste everybody's time over an issue where you're clearly in the wrong. You've been warned now, so you won't have the excuse of "I didn't know better" the next time. --RexxS (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The same editors that found no issue with the content when promoting the articles, so many of them? I'm sure they won't find many concerns. This is not just a whim or personal preference. This layout too was based on consensus (It's alright, I understand you, you simply "didn't know better"), and I find your uncivil tongue turning me off of complying with any of your discussions, or even continuing it with you. And you have been warned that this can be taken further if you continue such actions, refuse to discuss with other editors in at least a civil tongue, cease your false accusations, and/or continue to edit-war yourself. Now. We digress, so back to the actual topic at hand, yes? Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You'll find that any support for your tenaciously held position will quickly evaporate when others realise the errors you've been making. The topic in hand is your behaviour at this article, which has included edit-warring against two other editors and against the clear guidance of the MOS. There's nothing false about my observation that you were edit-warring or displaying ownership behaviour. The version that you twice insisted on restoring yourself is nothing more than your own personal preference – there is no consensus for it – and breaches our accessibility guidelines, as has now been clearly explained to you. Now, you can either try to understand why your edits were wrong and how you can avoid making the same mistake in future, in the same way that most other editors do, or you can continue to insist that you know better and that your preferences overrule the MOS. My advice is to take the former route, but it's your call. --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. The topic at hand is that for which the RfC was created - should the content be indented on a new line or not? If you wish to change this topic to my behaviour, you are entirely more than welcome to do so in another location, like my talk page. The accusations continue to remain entirely false. Simply because you disagree with it, that does not mean that there is no consensus for it: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. There has been clear consensus for the layout across multiple articles; you just simply weren't a part of those conversations, but yes, they exist. It was not just my personal preference. And now again: you can either stick back to the topic of the layout, and whether or not it should remain how it is or change - though the consensus so far is obvious - or you can take the alternate topic to my talk page. It's entirely up to you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You claim "there has been clear consensus for the layout across multiple articles" - maybe there was, but this is an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. But I suspect that those who did seek to put that colon-indented line between two items of a bulleted lists were not aware of the accessibility problems that it causes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Against: This is an accessibility issue. See the first "Don't do this" at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Lists for an explicit injunction against the sort of list formatting used in the "Cast and characters" section. At present, there are three separate lists: (1) an unordered list (<ul>...</ul>) with one item; (2) a definition list (<dl>...</dl>) with no definition term and one item; and (3) another unordered list (<ul>...</ul>) with two items. Anyone listening to that via a screen reader will hear that the unordered list starting "Sonequa Martin-Green ..." is completely disconnected from the separate definition list item starting "The lieutenant commander ...". We really should not be subjecting visually impaired visitors to that. Editors need to understand that not everybody sees (or hears) what they write in the same limited way that they do; we have a Manual of Style giving good guidance on these sort of issues and we should not have to have an RfC simply to affirm what we already know: that the MOS should be followed unless there is a very strong reason not to. The section in dispute should be restored to MOS-compliance immediately, and those trying to impose their personal preference over the MOS guidance should be sanctioned for disruptive editing. --RexxS (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Against: Can't comment on the accessibility issue (although sounds convincing) but certainly against its current implementation as a) done with different lists and b) done inconsistently in the same section. (a) if it were to be done (and I'm not saying it should be) shouldn't it be done with <br /> instead? (b) if it were to be done (and again, not saying it should), it should be done for all cast entries, not just ones whose descriptions are above some arbitrary number of words. That is, it should be done based on the nature of the content (i.e. cast member and character name vs. description), not the size of the content, since whether the description spans two lines or not is completely dependent on how wide someone's browser is. For instance, if you make your browser window narrow enough, both Doug Jones' and Anthony Rapp's character descriptions also span more than one line. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Against: I was going to raise the accessibility issue, but I see RexxS has already explained the issue quite well. This, to me, is the most important issue but I concur with the arguments against stated by other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Against: RexxS explained the problem well. I use a screen reader and misuse of HTML semantics like that discussed here makes articles more difficult to read for me. Graham87 08:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Against: for the Access reasons already given. - The Bounder (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Against: based on review of the guidelines and comments posted so far. This looks like a good, old-fashioned edit war. Rawlangs (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:RFCEND? JimsMaher (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of what Alex and I feel about our treatment here, I think it is pretty clear what the consensus of this discussion is, so I think we should go ahead and close this RfC, and move on. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Applicability in other TV articles

So based on the discussion here, I made edits to bring the The Flash, Supergirl, and Legends of Tomorrow TV articles into alignment with the accessibility arguments made. Those changes were reverted (here, here, and here) on the basis that the discussion here was only relevant to this particular article and that this discussion must be redone at MOS:TV or WT:TV if it is to apply to all TV articles.

My understanding of accessibility issues and especially WP:CONLEVEL is that that shouldn't be necessary, since accessibility is a fundamental goal/policy of Wikipedia and would supersede the more local consensus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television or its editors—where the problematic linebreaks are not, from what I can tell, at all standardized i.e. there are plenty of cast sections that don't have them or that don't even use the format of this and the Flash, Supergirl, and Legends articles. Am I missing something? Because it seems redundant to rehash now that it's been dissected here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that there are a lot of editors who didn't even get a chance to discuss this, which is why Alex and I asked multiple times that this discussion be taken somewhere where every relevant editor could have a say. Since everyone else refused to let that happen, we now have a situation where there is clear consensus here, but it is only the consensus of a small group, not of the whole community. This is simply an issue of courtesy and formality, which I would have thought was common sense.

I suggest you go to a more appropriate forum where the rest of the community can see this issue and have their say about it (TVMOS or the TV project or something). Just explain the clear consensus here, say you want to apply the change to all other TV articles, and ask if there is any opposition. If there is, then it will be good that we used some manners and asked. If not (which I think is likely) then we can go ahead and apply the change across the project. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: You claim "it is only the consensus of a small group, not of the whole community"; but it was set up as an WP:RFC (which is still open) by JimsMaher (talk · contribs), and so was advertised to the whole community - at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming because of Legobot (talk · contribs) acting upon the |media|style parameters in the {{rfc}} template; also at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Articles and of course Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All (twice each) because of automatic transclusions of the first two lists. It's still in those four lists, and unless closed early, will be removed from them after just over thirty days - at 08:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC) to be precise.

Moreover, notifications were left by yourself at Manual of Style/Television and WikiProject Television, so when you say "I suggest you go to a more appropriate forum where the rest of the community can see this issue and have their say about it (TVMOS or the TV project or something).", all I can say is - you already did that. AAlertBot (talk · contribs) also left notifications for several WikiProjects through the Article Alerts system: Science Fiction; Star Trek; Television; and United States. A notification was left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility by myself. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If this discussion were to apply to the entirety of all television articles, and not a singular article, it should have been held at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, and not on the talk page of the aforementioned singular article. Mere notifications do not suffice for this. After this discussion happened at either/both of the linked talk pages, the Method of Style should have been updated as a result. Neither of these instances occurred. Given that, as you yourself mentioned, the RfC is still open, there obviously as not been a sufficient conclusion to open it, and therefore the results of the discussion should apply only to the article that this talk page – the talk page that the discussion was held entirely on – belongs to, and not unrelated articles. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of where the discussion is held, the edits that Joeyconnick made simply made the article compliant with MOS:ACCESS, which does not actually require any discussion. A discussion is really only necessary when we decide NOT to comply with the MOS. The formatting used in the other articles should never have been used in the first place. Arguments that some editors didn't get to join in don't fly. The discussion was advertised widely, and editors often miss out on involving themselves in discussions. The fact is that we have a pretty overwhelming consensus here and there is no reason why other articles should not comply with the MOS. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note this discussion has been referenced at the newly-opened discussion on the MOS:TV for cast and characters sections that can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Cast and characters section § Line breaks. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Listed at WP:AN/RFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

MOS:LISTGAP, accessibility, and Cast/Character list formatting being discussed yet again

People who participated in the discussions above may be interested to know that Cast/Character list formatting is once again being rehashed, this time in relation to WikiProject Film at WT:WikiProject Film#Cast list gaps but with reference to the fairly recent discussions here and to the discussions to do with revamping the MOS:TV guidelines. Comments from everyone are welcome. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Burnham character clarification.

In the cast and characters section it states that Burnham is a human raised by Vulcans and links a reference source but the Variety article it's using as a source is not definitive proof as it's speculation from the latest trailer for the series and is pulled from a quote that reads: "In the new trailer, we get our first look at Martin-Green as the first officer of The Discovery, who appears to be a human raised by Vulcans, as evidenced by conversations she has with Sarek (James Frain)."

It's not definitive clarification that the character is fully human and is just speculative information. I just thought there may be a better way to phrase this in the article on the series itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.3.149 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Another thing is the first name: Michael. It`s a male name, so why has a female character a male name? Is this a remnant of earlier plans for a male character and they forgot to change it?Maxvorstadt (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you never looked at the Waltons ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Learned Also Bryan Fuller likes giving his characters names more commonly associated with the opposite gender. Damiantgordon (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Poster

Here is the first poster for the show, in case we need it in the future. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

And the second. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

overridden image sizes?

I don't see any discussion(s) here about this, so I'm inquiring. Per this edit by adamstom.97 (talk · contribs), for what reason are smaller-than-Wikipedia-default image thumbnails specifically "appropriate" to be used on this article? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:IMAGESIZE, the default upright setting can be used "for an image with little detail, which can be adequately displayed "25% smaller than the user generally specified". Users do not need to be seeing people's faces in HD, they can see what they look like fine with it being a bit smaller. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A portrait is not "an image with little detail", though; these images aren't exceptional in either direction (being especially low- or high-detail). Given there's no special, specific reason that these portraits should be smaller than usual, they should be left at what's been determined as Wikipedia's optimal size for all readers. As for whether readers "can see what they look like fine with it [sic] being a bit smaller", on what is this based? If it's your personal eyesight (corrected or not), you aren't the archetype on which our software is set for optimal readability. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I still disagree, but I'm not going to argue with you over it. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I just realised that my user preferences had default image size much larger than normal, which is why the images were appearing ridiculously large to me before. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Standard WP precedent has left justified images to be in the 150-225 pixels wide range (usually 200), with right justified pictures and graphics to be in the range of 225-350 max (most usually 250). Remember, graphics can be clicked on to enlarge detail. See MoS for more. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 01:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Shenzhou or Discovery?

I'm confused here. Was the ship originally named Shenzhou and then renamed Discovery? Or are there two separate Federation ships involved? Samer (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

There are two separate ships. We should be able to make that more clear when we have a better idea of what actually happens in the show. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Under Wikimedia guidline rules, my edit on 06/09/17 should not have been removed

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Summary_style, I do not need to cite sources on my edit. As well as this, the addition should of been editted to maintain neutrality, not totally deleted. I would like to petition to have my edit reenstated, as it is a true opinion. I do realise that fan sites and forums are not proper sources, however my edit was about the fan opinion, and that cannot be sourced by anything (to my knowledge) other than what the fans actually say. Hence, I used information gathered from fan sites AND several articles including https://trekmovie.com/2017/07/21/whats-the-deal-with-star-trek-discovery-klingons-and-fire/, http://screenrant.com/star-trek-discovery-reasons-will-fail-succeed/, and http://sciencefiction.com/2017/08/02/star-trek-discovery-doug-jones-why-klingons-bad-guys/. I can also confirm that my statement about the series not being avalaible in some nations is entirely correct, and can be found already in the article. As for the Gene Roddenberry statement, have a look at https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/06/new-star-trek-series-will-abandon-gene-roddenberrys-cardinal-rule/, http://nerdist.com/star-trek-discovery-will-change-a-key-roddenberry-mandate/ and http://comicbook.com/tv-shows/2017/06/26/star-trek-discovery-gene-roddenberry-rules/. Thanks!!!

I'm not the one that reverted, but I'll reply anyway, please take a look at Wikipedia:Lead section

"Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

"As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

Also see Wikipedia:No original research, the information you're adding falls under this categorization.

You said you collected the information from fan sites and forums. I myself would be considered a fan and I don't agree with your unsourced statements. You can't just cherry pick a few comments and say that a considerable number of fans think the same way. It seems a bit too early for criticism since the show hasn't even aired. How can someone criticize a show they have not seen? If you're going to add information you need reliable sources to back up your content. Offnfopt^(talk) 04:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Crazy Minh: I agree with you that the content you tried to add belongs somewhere in the article! But not in the way you attempted. There are many rules governing neutrality, undue weight, and Wikipedia Manual of style that we need to obey. For example, search the article for every mention of the word "Klingon". You will realize the criticism you are trying to add to the lead is not yet mentioned in the body, a very important requirement. The lead cannot summarize something that is not yet included in the rest of the article.

I have worked on many articles like this. This is only the beginning of an article that will go through thousands of edits over the next month. Every such article will eventually include a Reception section, See: Star Trek (film)#Reception. This is a very crucial section in which we discuss how the audience reacted to the article. We can start that section right now, if you would like. I can help you. But please be patient. Slow down. The show has not even aired yet. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Shenzhou vs. Discovery

Having just watched the first episode (apparently the first part of two), many of the crew members as listed here don't jive with the episode; i.e., we haven't seen any U.S.S. Discovery. Anybody who's seen an advance of the second episode know if this is right by the end of that one? I suspect there's going to be some sort of major switcharoo. Alden Loveshade (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In the broadcast of the first episode of After Trek, writer Aaron Harberts refers to these first two episodes (and more?) as a prologue. That should get worked into this somehow - rather than this chapter 1, chapter 2 thing. Nfitz (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

There was never a ship called The Next Generation either. According to the article Discovery appears in episode 3. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That's clear from the episode 3 preview (unless it's some bizarre dream sequence). Nfitz (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Episode summary

User:AlexTheWhovianI'm not seeing the issue here.WP:COPYVIO says copying material without the permission of the copyright holder ... is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation. Not only did I translate from a different language, I then completely rewrote it; so how is this a copyright violation? The original text said Quand l'USS Shenzhou découvre une mystérieuse relique, l'officier Burnham se trouve tiraillée entre sa loyauté envers le capitaine et son devoir envers son équipage. Début de la série. This can be tranlsated as When USS Shenzhou discovers a mysterious relic, Officer Burnham finds himself torn between his loyalty to his captain and his duty to his crew. Beginning of the series. The discovery of a puzzling object by the starship Shenzhou leaves First Officer Michael Burnham torn between captain and crew. Maybe I should have gone a bit further with something like Coming across a puzzling object leaves Federation First Officer Michael Burnham between captain and crew. Does that suffice? Though I think we are over-interpreting here. Nfitz (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your latest revert of me, I never told you to go to the talk page, I told you that you need to wait longer than two days before making an executive decision on whether consensus has formed. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

And yet you still won't discuss the issue, and are more interested in enforcing rules that only seem to exist in your own mind. Nfitz (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Cool your jets, Nfitz. Being a dick is going to get you nowhere fast. The episoide doesn't air in the regular market until this evening. We don't interfere with the company's ability to make a buck without having the plot played out here before its even broadcast. Look around to other series' articles: we don't offer episode summaries before they air. THIS is what we are referring to when we mention copyvio. So it isn't just in Adam's headspace. It's in everyone's, and it should be in yours, too, if you wish to keep editing entertainment articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Jack Sebastian Do not violate WP:CIVIL and WP:5P4 - it's paramount, and trumps whatever non-existent rule you you are enforcing. Please point to guidance that says not to publish a dozen or two word episode episode summary before the episode - you won't do this, because there is no such guidance. The most recent guidance I could find was WT:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3#Requesting clarification about episode synopses and copyrights which indicates that it's fine to put description in advace, and even fine to quote a short one directly, if in advance. I don't see how what I did violates this. Yes, Copying text is copywrite vio. WP:Close paraphrasing is questionable. But check the source I used - I did neither. The summary is completely rewritten, and no where near as specific. Not sure what this has to do with anyone making a buck - the production company wouldn't provide even more detailed descriptions to the public if it stopped them making a buck. Nfitz (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Everyone needs to calm down. Nfitz, I do not have an issue with this, seeing as how I can't find anywhere that says we should not do this. I don't know why you keep insisting on me coming to discuss here. The reason this discussion is needed is because several other editors have also removed your early summaries, so obviously there is an issue here that needs to be dealt with (and waiting less than two days before claiming "consensus" isn't going to cut it). - adamstom97 (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The editor who insisted on coming here, kept removing summary based on copyvio, but never actually appeared here, and then did further edits. Though they did actually stop removing summary. Hopefully all can agree the episode 3 summary is suitably vague ... and accurately describes the preview in 7 words. Nfitz (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion regarding this here, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television#Early_episode_summaries. But the general gist, the preview summaries for future episodes should not be added, given the actual plot for the episodes proper will be known in due time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that being said in that discussion. And the concerns are around OR and CopyVio. I drew a very short and obvious summary from the preview that's been broadcast. One that simply answers the question that I keep seeing all over the place today ... "where the heck is Discovery" (and is Orville better Trek ... but that's not for here. :) ). As the information is out there, and is sourced and referencable, there is no reason not to add it. Particularly as the discussion at WP has already established that there is no blanked prohibition on summaries in advance. And why not, if a producer makes a public comment that in episode 12, Twain meets the Gargleblasters - I see no reason that weeks ahead, there can't be a brief summary that "Twain meets the Gargleblasters". Nfitz (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of for non-reoccurring non-noteworthy characters that appear once or twice

I can't believe that User:Adamstom.97 thinks we need to discuss this, but I've removed the entries for non-noteworthy guests Terry Serpico who had a couple of scenes before he was killed off. And also Maulik Pancholy and Sam Vartholomeos who I've seen no indication he will appear again (they were credited only as guests). They are already listed in List of Star Trek: Discovery cast members; surely the whole idea of making sub-pages is to get material off this bloated page. As non-noteworthy guests I'm not even sure why they should be listed anywhere, except perhaps on the episode cast lists. Doesn't WP:TVCAST require they be noteworthy characters? Nfitz (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

See also Draft: List of Star Trek: Discovery characters. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

So an editor has decided to randomly remove characters that in their personal opinion are not notable enough for inclusion, and has made these decisions after seeing only two episodes of the show. Surely you can see why that is a big problem. If you think that some characters are not noteworthy, then we need to discuss a guide for what we should consider to be noteworthy so that can be applied here without personal feelings getting in the way.

The reason for having the full cast list in this article is because it is way too early to be splitting that sort of thing off to its own page, but given the obvious concerns regarding the amount of content in the article I am no longer against such a move. As I have noted previously on this talk page, I am going to sit down, as soon as I have time, and work through this article and all of the content and try divvying up everything better. That will include some work on Draft:List of Star Trek: Discovery characters as well, and we may potentially get that to a point where we are happy to move it to the mainspace earlier than usual.

On a related note, does anyone know why List of Star Trek: Discovery cast members exits? I have never seen something like that created for a TV series before, and can see no good reason for it. I have posed this question at the talk page for that article as well, but received no reply. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to go for other stuff doesn't exist, can you point out another TV show where every guest star is listed on the front page. We know they aren't regulars - heck, one was a minor character who is dead; and there's no indication the other two will appear either. Meanwhile all 3 are listed on 3 other pages. If you want a list (not paragraphs, but a list) of notable guest appearances ala TOS (which looks way too long, compared to STV) or a paragraph like TNG then you've simply got 5 words for STD - Michelle Yeoh as Philippa Georgiou. Use some common sense here. Just because Variety screwed up an article during filming of the pilot, calling them co-stars is no reason to mess with the article now; clearly they were holding information very close to their chest. Nfitz (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have not said that we have to list every guest star in this article! And what does some article from variety have to do with it? Are you going to act so childishly every time you get reverted for making a bold and unsuported edit? Or are you going to be a helpful member of the community and DISCUSS THE ISSUE?! I have very clearly said that we need to discuss the criteria for conclusion, so that it is not just different editor's opinions altering the cast listing all the time. So do you have a suggestion on what that criteria should be, or are you going to continue nonsensically complaining about irrelevant things? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I am discussing the issue. The edit is pretty obvious. You can't possibly with a straight face tell me that you expect any of these 3 actors will appear on such a list in this article (unless one becomes very famous perhaps, but that's obviously not a reason to keep now). Apparently, the only reason not to remove them now, despite being listed on 3 other pages, is so you can do it later? WP:OWN. Nfitz (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Formatting of this article

The formatting structure of this article, especially the citation structure, makes it close to impossible to edit for newer users. The archaic format is almost inaccessible to anyone that uses the Visual Editor. And this article is due to become one of the most popular articles on this project. Making it difficult to edit unless someone has very good knowledge of Wikicode, in a way, establishes a group ownership of the page. It discourages collaboration. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Bastun since you reverted the edits, you should list the problems you had with the changes made. - Offnfopt^(talk) 19:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

We edit for the benefit of readers, not editors. If this is going to become one of the most popular pages for readers (most of whom obviously aren't or won't become editors), then let them have material here to read; much of the material removed, e.g., character outlines, is perfectly proper for the main article on the series. And certainly removing no less than 15 references in one edit - without even an edit summary - could be considered vandalism.

As to the Visual Editor - it's still experimental, not on general release, and not used by the majority of editors. And it will never replace standard wiki markup: "Even after the eventual anticipated full-feature release of VisualEditor, experienced editors still may prefer editing wikitext because they find it faster and more precise. Editing articles purely in wikitext is and will remain an option that the Wikimedia Foundation has no plans to remove." So yeah, we're not changing millions of articles to suit people who can't be bothered learning some markup for references that takes literally five minutes to learn. One could almost say that making it difficult to edit unless someone is willing to use Visual Editor, in a way, establishes a group ownership of the page - it discourages collaboration.

In short - you can be bold, sure, but if you're going to remove almost 16k of text in a single series of edits, don't be surprised if it's reverted. You might to want to announce what you're planning on the talk page first, get some consensus, etc. Just as an idea. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I also am against the bold edits made by Janweh64. It is far too early to split off the cast and characters section to a separate article—the show isn't even out yet, and we don't know much about the characters at all. As for moving all the references into the body of the article, that is just silly. Every single article I edit on Wikipedia uses this formatting, and it makes editing far easier as well as being far more logical. It is nearly impossible to edit an article with the references in the body, because that makes it extremely difficult to actually find the content you want to edit among all the wikicode and URLs. It also makes it difficult to find specific references, if needed. In short, I believe you were acting in good faith, but you are just making things more difficult for those of us who are actively working to maintain and improve this article. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

My foolhardy bold move was simply stupid. I should have come here first. My apologies. But I stand by my statement that the reference style will be difficult to manage and eventually lead to a mixed format. You seriously underestimate the prevalence of Visual Editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges?hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&limit=500&days=7&urlversion=2&tagfilter=visualeditor

 —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I have to support Janweh64's point on the endnote citations. Since Adamstom.97 chimed in with WP:OTHER, I will note I edit many TV articles and this is the only one I know of that uses that format for how citations are done. I wasn't aware it made using the Visual Editor harder—that seems like a legitimate concern and it's a good point that it's potentially a way to gatekeep. I can see how having all the citation data in one location has a certain appeal to a type of... formulaic elegance but it will definitely make editing by section more difficult (not to say that multiply-referenced citations don't already do that as their contents aren't always in the same section as where they are cited but in my experience, at least, there are more one-off citations than multiply-used ones). I definitely find it useful to have the entire citation inline and there's an elegance to that, too, in that the underlying information then matches its presentation. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what this Visual editor is, but this change isn't going to solve the issue you guys are having when a reference is used multiple times and in different sections, which applies to this article as well. On the other hand, you would make life extremely difficult for those of us who edit normally. This isn't about being formulaic or elegant, it is a matter of practicality. I have tried to edit some of those other TV articles you speak of Joey, and it is almost impossible to find the actual content you want to edit among all the citations. I have often had to literally go through character-by-character to find where a reference ends and the content begins, and that requires looking at the published version of the article at the same time as well. With the article as it is, you can clearly see the content and can edit it easily, and can also clearly see which citation goes with which prose without having everything filled with the actual citation. If you feel the need to edit the citation then, for whatever reason, a simple search for that citation name will bring up its position in the references section, where it is also easier to see the individual citations. This is the reason that we have this formatting, per WP:INCITE and WP:LDR. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, to Janweh64, it is still too early to split off the list of characters. The show isn't even out yet! If you have edits that you want to make to the list, then do them here, and when it is time we can move everything over to the separate list. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No thanks. You have successfully discouraged me from editing this page. The template Cast list break break also makes using Visual Editor close to impossible. Editing in only wikitext, which I am also very good at, is very cumbersome especially in the style you use. In order to swap out one bad reference for a good reliable secondary source, I have to go find every mention of the random name you chose for it. This same task would take seconds on Visual Editor if it were not for your insistence to bury the citation in Reflist.

Have fun with the little kingdom you guys have built <--- This list of articles that use Cast list break is really funny to see. A perfect demonstration of gatekeep. And on many of them, one of biggest contributors (if not the biggest) is none other than... nevermind. I will let it be a surprise.

 —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Haha, wow. Super mature. You refused to discuss a contentious issue instead of edit warring, but I'm the bad guy because I was involved (tangentially) in the creation of a solution to a completely separate problem? And I don't know what "gatekeep" is, but if you mean WP:OWN, then I would love to refute those claims (in a more appropriate location if you so wish). As for the issue with the references again, if they were in the body of the article you would still have to "go find every mention of the random name [I] chose for it". There is no true "solution" to the "problem" that you are having, I'm afraid. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a solution. It is called the Visual Editor. Like you said, you "don't know what this Visual editor is." Please give it a try so you can understand what I am talking about.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I have set up the Visual Editor and it honestly works exactly the same as normal editing as far as I can tell, so I'm not sure what you are on about. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

We obviously can not be talking about the same visual editor. See picture below and compare to how easy it is to edit an article like Game of Thrones.

 —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I understand what you mean. But as I have explained, there is no blanket fix for the problem you are facing. Even if the references were with their first use, you would still get this issue when editing a different section that uses that reference. Anyway, it is not the end of the world if you have to go find the reference like everybody else. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

False that was my secondary concern. My main concern is that i cannot edit the reference. In fact in visual editor I cannot even see what the reference even is. There is a clear and simple solution you are choosing to ignore. Go to Game of Thrones and edit it using the Visual Editor. Click on a CITENOTE in the body, then hit the edit button and be awed. Then close that pop-up and again highlight a citation and hit CTRL+C and CTRL+V any where else and watch in awe again. If you do not then realize the power of the Visual Editor I give up. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

Overlink is a simple and easy to understand policy. Too many links is not a good thing, less is more. There is no benefit to linking many words in the one sentence, in fact it is detrimental, a distraction competing for attention. So you might think it is harmless (and I too thought that in the past) but please do reread WP:OVERLINK it makes a lot of sense. You are probably linking more than you should be linking. (Much like Wikipedia used to use far too much bold formatting, once you think about it you'll just know it makes sense.)

One very clear example of overlink is redundantly linking to the term review aggregator when either Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic is already linked in the same sentence.

I have pointed this out and made the necessary changes, and followed the simple rules and explained in my edit summaries. My changes were reverted. I think any editor who has read WP:OVERLINK recently would see that delinking review aggregator makes sense. I have other minor grammar concerns, many editors misuse aggregate/aggregator/aggregation but I'm surprised anyone would even argue against WP:OVERLINK. -- 109.79.76.63 (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There is consensus across Wikipedia for this specific wording, including these specific links, as this is used in basically every film and television article that I frequent, and many that I don't. If you think this is a major issue, then I think you should go to a more appropriate place, such as the TV Project, and see if there is agreement with you there so that any change could be made across all of the articles that do this. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think there was any consensus on the wording, maybe the TV project came to some consensus of their own despite the fact that WP:MOSFILM never did, where the suggestions about aggregators are still only an essay not in the guidelines.

WP:OVERLINK already exists, like MOS:BOLD and policy changes over time as people recognize that there is a better way to do things. I think you are incorrect to claim I need to follow this up the chain of wikibeaurocracy. Maybe I should do that too, but if you actually read WP:OVERLINK and give it some consideration you wouldn't block the edit. Wikipedia didn't get where it is by insisting that everything have a detailed guideline and a policy first, things change gradually and inconsistently but that's the way it is.

The other thing is the grammar. Rotten Tomatoes is one review aggregator, Metacritic is another review aggregator. Both are websites that aggregate reviews and interpret them to create scores, they are review aggregation websites. The word aggregator is very much like the word collector, the task they do is aggregation (like collection), so you can either write "review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes" or "review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes" but it is wrong to write "review aggregate Rotten Tomatoes" [sic] or "review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes". -- 109.79.76.63 (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

As I thought there's no wording specified WP:TVRECEPTION. There may be a convention that some editors have followed but there's not enough consensus for a specific wording to actually be standardized and included in either the TV or FILM style guide (there used to be a template for a while years back but it seems to have been killed off). So I would again draw the comparison to MOS:BOLD which caused a gradual but profound change throughout Wikipedia and encourage you and other editors to read WP:OVERLINK and I hope that more editors will realize less is more and think before you link. -- 109.79.76.63 (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, please stop telling me to read WP:OVERLINK. I have read it. Secondly, they are review aggregation websites, yes. But it is also correct to call RT a review aggregator website. To use your example, we could have review collection websites, and also a review collector website. They are both fine to use. And finally, I still stand by my reasoning that there is no point making a big song and dance at this article about how this is done when it is also done everywhere else. It just makes sense for this issue to be discussed where more editors will be able to see it and be involved, and then a decision for all articles, not just this one, can be made. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

A review collector website would be a meta website of several aggregators, Rotten Tomatoes is one site that collects reviews, it doesn't collect review aggregators, and is not a website full of different review collectors which is what the flawed wording "review aggregator website" is saying.

My reminding people (and I'd welcome any other editor to comment) to actually read the guidelines is far less harsh than you blocking a reasonable edit and forcing talk page discussing over a simple change and making unreasonable demands that a project level policy is needed when a simple broad rule already covers it. Baroque hairstyles indeed. -- 109.79.76.63 (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Once again WP:OWN issues are evident. Nfitz (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Episode releases

@Nfitz: Just because you do not like something does not mean I think I WP:OWN the article, and I could throw the same accusations at you considering how you like to make bold edits, without consensus to support them, and then refuse to discuss them at the talk page and instead try and cause arguments with editors who are just trying to help improve the article.

Now, regarding the releases of the episodes, listing the specific times of their release is trivial and violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE, especially since the series debuted in its country of origin, not anywhere else. In terms of some of the individual episodes, may it be notable for them that they are released in Canada before America? Perhaps. But that information is more in scope at an article dedicated to those episodes, not one about the series as a whole. Considering how much you have been complaining about this article and its apparent overabundance of trivial information, I find this particular situation to be ironic. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Adamstom.97 No one is trying to to add a list of when the episodes are broadcast or released on every station or region. All I added was a simple well-sourced sentence that noted the regular weekly timeslot for the series in Canada was 8 pm Eastern, while episodes in the USA aren't released until 8:30 pm Eastern. It's not unusual to list general timeslots. See CBS's NCIS_(TV_series) for example (Tuesday 8:00 PM). And it's very common to note when an "American" series is broadcast somewhere else first (checkout the mess that is CBS's Flashpoint_(TV_series) - which may be overkill). For a similar US science-fiction show filmed in Canada, check out Stargate SG-1. I'm not actually aware of any example where a US show is broadcast first elsewhere, that it isn't mentioned - and if it happens every week, in the main article. WP:NOTTVGUIDE is not relevant, and does say there are exceptions. I certainly have no intention of mentioning when it airs on Z (9 pm Sundays) as it's not notable; nor when it is released to Netflix in various other countries, as it's not notable, and would indeed violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE.

Also I'm not sure why you say that the series debuted in it's country of origin, not anywhere else ... as far as I know, it's debuted everywhere. I'm not even sure what it's country of origin is - with Canadian cast, crew, sets, production offices, and particularly both government of Canada and Ontario funding (but nothing from USA ... perhaps in D.C. they think Klingon is a nation in Africa). Presumably if it meets cancon requirements, then it's a joint production - though I admit that's not what is shown for previous Fuller production in town, such as Wonderfalls or Hannibal (TV series) ... but I haven't looked up how Wikipedia defines "country of origin". And other shows seem to be treated differently, such as Outlander (TV series), Rome (TV series) (3 countries), or The Tudors (4! countries). But that's a different issue, and I don't pretend to know the answer. Perhaps someone can opine. Nfitz (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If that snide comment about Africa was aimed at me, I'll have you know that I am not American and am well aware of basic geography. I still disagree that you going out of your way to point out that some episodes will be shown in Canada "30 minutes before it's streamed in the United States"(!!!) is at all necessary, but I am just not going to argue with you about something so little. Congratulations, your constant jabs are starting to wear me down. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually I thought you were Canadian, so no, it wasn't aimed at you! Someone else has removed - completely missing the point. I'll try a briefer edit that cuts to the chase. Nfitz (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Loooooonnnnnngggggg

Does there really need to be over 4,000 words for just the development and writing sections alone?

I don't think it is exactly a great welcome to learn more about the new series. More an unsubtle way of turning people off even looking TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of words because there is a lot of content. Content will not be removed to be more "welcoming" to readers. If they want to learn more about the series, then having information about the series is good. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That's funny because I though we wrote for our readers. I've been a fan of Star Trek since "The Man Trap" first aired but even I'd say it is a bit longer than it needs to be. It actually turned me off watching a bit. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That's just silly Aussie. Are you seriously advocating for deleting relevant content because it seems too long? That just doesn't make any sense to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It did seem unnecessarily detailed. Nfitz (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Not everything has to be included in such detail. Sometimes, less is more. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"There are a lot of words because there is a lot of content." Yes. But is all of it really noteworthy or relevant, in such detail? TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason this page has more development content than usual is because of the long and widely reported development troubles. I will be doing a bit of work on the article shortly with all the info that has come out since the premiere, so I will see if I can make it more concise / there is anything that could be removed or moved. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the best bet is to move the entire development section out to its own article and then summarise it within this. We're only two episodes in - that development section is going to get long over the course of (hopefully!) several seasons. I've done it a few times previously (several linked from Gene Roddenberry and of course Development of Spock). I think that'd be preferable than losing cited information. Miyagawa (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel there is enough to justify that quite yet, and the thing with multiple seasons is that hopefully means multiple season articles that can take some of the weight, so we would be spreading the info around rather than outright deleting anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Episode list

I strongly feel that the episode list should be edited to clearly show that the first season will comprise of 15 episodes. This information could be moved from the introductory section (paragraph 4). I hesitate to make these edits myself for fear of trampling on other's work. After coming here to look for an episode list I did seriously wonder if there were only four episodes being broadcast! The actual scope of the season should be explained in the part of the page where people are likely to look for that information. Foomandoonian (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd just extend out the episode table, showing no air date, and early 2018 for the final few (not sure it's clear yet whether it's 6 or 7 in 2018). There is other things we know, such as the episode 15 writer (and that it's filming this week ... but I guess that's not a detail for this page). Nfitz (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

What information, exactly, do you feel is missing? I would note that more specific airing information for the show is currently noted in the section about its release. We do not show rows in the episode table until there is a few bits of information in the show already, to avoid having big empty tables for no good reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't? I assume there's a policy you can reference for that? We certainly seem to write overly long trivia here, when that isn't the norm. Nfitz (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Your snarky attitude is not appreciated, and I strongly suggest that you discuss issue in the appropriate sections, not all over the talk page wherever you please. It is very standard practice in the TV WikiProject to not have big empty episode table for no good reason (it is also just common sense). But no, I cannot tell you if that is written somewhere as policy. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a brief paragraph below the episode list. This does repeat info from the intro, but I figure this is okay as it will be replaced soon enough with actual episode information. Foomandoonian (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I have removed that paragraph, you can't just copy and paste unsourced information into random areas of the article. If you guys explain here what you think is missing and why, we can have a discussion about it rather than causing problems with editing. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Adamstom.97 Why are you being rude? I simply asked a question, and for the policy. Which apparently doesn't actually exist. You seem to have ownership issues here, and when challenged on these "rules" that you have apparently made up, you then toss the pillars of this project out the window, and start personally attacking people? I'm also confused ... you don't think we should discuss this at talk, and should then discuss in the appropriate sections. But when someone makes a comment with an edit on an appropriate section, you strike it, and want to talk in talk? Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are the one who is being rude. I have not done anything wrong, and have definitely not been personally attacking anyone. I have just been working on this article, basically by myself, for months now, and a lot of people have suddenly taken interest since the series began airing the other day. That means lots of new opinions showing up at the same time, and the best thing for everyone is to discuss these issues here rather than try and impose personal opinions on top of each other. So once again, if there is an issue here then be specific about it, and we can discuss it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology - but the use of the word "snark" was both unnecessary and rude. That you think it necessary to mention that you've been working on this for months, only demonstrates that you have ownership issues - see WP:OWN. The constant re-addition of minor non-notable characters who only appear in a couple of episodes, and are already listed at all three of List of Star Trek: Discovery cast members, The Vulcan Hello, and Battle at the Binary Stars is also evidence (and how they are on the former I don't know - not being cast members). Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

My use of the word "snark" was describing your rude attitude to me, so I think you are getting way off base here. My point about how long I have been working on the article was to illustrate the mess that is being caused by everyone else suddenly showing up now, which is why it is better to discuss first and edit later. I will discuss the cast issue in the section about the cast issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Democracy is messy - and schools would be so much less messy if they could just get rid of the students. I've certainly meant nothing to be rude, if you see something that way, try reading it as if it wasn't rude, and perhaps a different meaning will appear. The specific issue is there should some indication in the list of episodes table at the bottom that the first block of episodes runs in late 2017, the second block in early (January?) 2018 bringing the total to 15, and with the right reference, that if there's a third block it will air no earlier than 2019 (though perhaps that goes in the production section). This is missing, but I don't have time to add right now. Nfitz (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the 2019 info (which I skimmed through at one point, and am planning to get back to soon) is about a potential second season, so should probably just go in the development section for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The information was already sourced at the top of the article and was added for reasons I stated at the very top of this thread. Honestly, if it takes this much effort and a thread that goes off topic and degenerates into an argument just because I feel that the Episodes section should have a passing mention of how many episodes there will be, then you guys can work that out for yourselves. Seriously, am I wrong? Does such a trivial and temporary edit require ALL THIS? I'm amazed Wikipedia functions at all. Foomandoonian (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

PR

Large parts of the article, read like they were written by the ST PR department. For instance announcing upcoming content for a marginal related video game, does not belong in the article. Announcements should be brief not extending paragraphs. prokaryotes (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The video game information was added because it was clearly influenced by the series, and articles generally note when the content of a show carries over into other media. And you need to be more specific than just stating "Large parts of the article", or we cannot discuss them. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Take the second paragraph from the comics section, way too lengthly, too much detail, and then with quotes like "we can't wait to show you." I came here to read the reviews, and there was 1 sentence about a critical reception, positive reviews are all lengthly. prokaryotes (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, be specific. If there is "too much detail", what exactly do you want removed? And honestly, it sounds like you just don't like the show and came here for some sort of vindication. If that is the case, you should just leave now. Whether you like something or not, it shouldn't matter when editing Wikipedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I concur, some balance would be advisable. Specifics aren't needed. It's an obvious unbalance. Someone who has time can correct, or in the meantime a bias tag is due. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 17:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No, if you think there is a problem then you need to explain it, because not everyone will agree that there is something needing correcting. If there is seriously such an obvious problem with the article, it shouldn't be difficult to come up with some examples for us to discuss. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be obvious to you. There are other's here who can do the edits. You don't own the article. There's at least 2 people here who believe the bias is gratuitous. I recommend you stand back while the edits take place. Articles improve when editors are bold and other editors are inclusive of change, rather than dismissive. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Cut down

As I have mentioned a few times, I have been working to cut down on this article due to concerns expressed regarding its size on this talk page. My approach was to firstly get rid of anything that seemed unnecessary on re-inspection, and then to go ahead and make the splits that I usually would make once multiple seasons of a series are confirmed (split off character list, season articles). We obviously can't have season articles in the mainspace until multiple seasons are actually confirmed, so those are just drafts for now (season 1 and 2). I then changed this article to my cut down series article, plus a couple things back from the season 1 article (episode table and reception section). Now, if anybody thinks I have removed something that can't wait until it is time for the standalone season article, I am happy to discuss moving that back to this article. Also, if there is anything still in this article that others believe should be removed, I am happy to discuss that as well. Finally, in the instance of this series not getting renewed for a second season (which I believe is unlikely), then decisions will have to be made on what should be in this single series article, but I feel like that is a problem to worry about only if that situation occurs. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with cutting down. It does feel quite long for a new series (bearing in mind a lot of readers skip down to reception at this point, though as it's also part of a long running franchise, more than usual number of readers will be interested in production too, so I guess it's about finding the right balance). I'm glad to see the cast list has been sensibly reduced to main, as it should be. It's still a bit confusing to the casual reader (for now) because we've only seen any of the main characters on Shenzhou rather than Discovery, but that will resolve itself in time. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we are getting the full main cast this week. The producers consider the third episode to be closer to a traditional pilot than the first one, since the first two episodes were more of a prologue. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. That preview was ... odd. No uniform. She had no rank. And that was pretty blatant. There's no way what was shown would happen. There's actually no indication (to take things to the extreme) that there is a USS Discovery; though we certainly see actors who are in the credits. One could make a case there's a lot of crystal ballery in the whole article. Are producers reliable sources before airing? We wouldn't consider our own military (who-ever that might be) to be a reliable source, just before a battle; and therefore we wouldn't assume that media embedded with the military are a reliable source just before battle, as they aren't independent. But after all that, I see no need to change anything at this point. Nfitz (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Um, what exactly are you talking about? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I was just replying to your speculation that it's closer to a traditional pilot - though it probably is now it's broadcast. I thought having a non-uniformed no-rank person wandering through engineering was a giveway that this was not reality - but something else (dream, matrix, etc.). Sadly now, I just think it's poor plotting. But this is probably getting off-topic. Nfitz (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Unlike yourself, he wasn't speculating, he said the producers considered it to be closer to a pilot. She had no rank because she was not in Starfleet at the time, but even crewmen don't have visible ranks in SF, going back to TNG, so, not as controversial as you seem to believe. And they clearly called the ship Discovery, so not sure what your objection is. Besides, this is not a forum or a fan page. The talk page is here to discuss the article and how to improve it, not offer personal opinions as to the content of the show, particularly your assessment of the quality of the plot of a given episode, or original research as to whether it was "a dream." ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Update – Season 2!

So, as I mentioned above, I have been preparing a split for when it was appropriate to create a separate season article for this first season. Now that we know that a second season of the show is happening, it is fine to start splitting off season articles, and since we definitely have the content to support the split I am going to go ahead and sort that out. I am happy to discuss any concerns here. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good! - Brojam (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hang on a second... isn't there's a fairly large discussion going on now in the TV project about when to split articles and what to base that on? —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No, that's to do with episode lists which is a big problem. Splitting off season articles is still based on the standard practice, as far as I know. That is, when there is enough content and the situation is appropriate, which it is now that we know there are multiple seasons. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If you take a look at the new article (Star Trek: Discovery (season 1)) I think it is clear that it has the content to support itself. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

IMDB

Is IMDB considered to be mentioned in the reception section? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5171438 The score there is currently 7.3, which means it's watchable, but not really great, and the user reviews over there are in stark contrast to most of what reviewers say, which surprised me. prokaryotes (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No, the number of users isn't really enough to be notable, and there is no way of ensuring users aren't reviewing multiple times, etc. We just can't be sure, unlike with professional critics. Generally the best metric of fan response is considered to be viewership information. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User voted web polls are notoriously unreliable (user generated content WP:UGC includes polls, which are not reliable sources WP:RS) and Wikipedia repeatedly recommends against using them, and specifically WP:TVRECEPTION recommends against them.

Reviews from critics have their own problems* but that is a whole other issue. They are flawed but tolerated, user voted scores are just too unreliable. (* Aggregators do not objectively "report" anything, they subjectively interpret a review and based on rules not explained to the public create a number from those reviews, and then use more rules to average them in certain ways. The reviews of tv shows are particularly flawed since they are often based on only a few preview episodes made available to critics in advance, not based on a review of a complete season. Yet Rotten Tomatoes presents the scores as representing a whole season.)

If you see a Wikipedia article that includes IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, or Metacritic user voted scores it is very likely to be quickly reverted and removed. -- Caveat lector 109.79.133.185 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

PR spin?

I'm concerned about the massive amount of articles this topic is generating in a mere few weeks after opening. It's unsure if the series is even popular yet, or will last more than a season yet there's long articles about every character and every episode.

While I appreciate the polish on the articles (also somewhat concerning in a sense), I believe this extreme overkill is coming from promotional influences and needs to be neutralised. A speedy deletion of all the sub-articles would be a great start. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 17:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No, the reason there are so many sub articles is because Star Trek has such a big fan base, with a lot of people putting the time and effort into creating them. The same has happened for all the other Star Trek series. We do not delete articles, particularly well written and referenced articles, because an editor believes that the series is not popular enough. That is just ridiculous. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for decades. I understand how we do things quite well thanks. The quality of writing in an article is not evidence of the subjects notability or appropriateness. There are plenty of shows just as popular as this 1 month old show that don't have countless sub-articles. The reason isn't because there isn't enough hands on deck to write them. The reason is because it is inappropriate. This isn't a star-trek fan wiki, it is wikipedia. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Decades? You edited for two years, disappeared for a decade worth of guideline and policy updates, and have made seven edits since. I agree with Adam in that there's nothing wrong with this. Are we not meant to promote the growth of Wikipedia? If it can be expanded, it should be, especially when the series is part of a franchise that has spanned half a century. -- Alex^TW 04:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion should not be invoked just because of a time-travelling editor's issues with articles that are--um, "suspiciously" too well-written and "suspicously" well-sourced, apparently, for a new show (Welcome back, by the way, I know it's a bit disorienting how much has changed here since 2007, and trust me, I know it's a lot to take in (there's Wikipedia in Latin and even Old English now! Seriously, articles written in Old English!) but wow, it's an improvement--I was briefly an editor back then too and came back with a new name this decade, so I know what it's like). Half-joking aside, the reality is, Adam and Alex are right on both counts: first, you really can't compare the latest series in a longstanding franchise such as this to Timeless (I would have said "may it rest in peace" but just found out it's been renewed) or Helix. You would expect there to be more material available (backstory and long term production prehistory alone) and (2) that many more people working on it: a community of editors who are fans of long standing TV shows (especially sci-fi shows) tends to have more drive and, being a readerly bunch, so I've noticed, linguistic and technical competence by the palette-load. Not to say there's no fancruft out there but there's less and less of it--thanks to the same community growing increasingly concerned about how such stuff makes us look. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

So, your only complaint is that there's too much content? Isn't this the way all articles should be written? You are relating show's popularity, subjected to your own POV, with the ammount of content in the article. That's unrelateable. You are perfectly fine taking an interest in any subject and write an extensive article by yourself. Article that's covering the most boring thing in the world, but interesting to you. Noone will come any say to you that you've made irrelevant article with too much content. This show has so huge fan base, so that isn't surprising that the article is so extensive. To be frank, I'm on Wikipedia for a long time and I haven't heard of a more ridiculous complaint. Bilseric (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree the article is bloated, and the prose could be improved. It isn't just the popularity of Trek but that popularity did mean that this is article was built with great attention from many small edits, piece by piece as the information became available, and everything needed to be fully sourced in detail to avoid unfounded speculation. Once the show was released it becomes the primary source, same as a book, and many of those early references become redundant and are superseded but better sources. As the show progresses the article will benefit from a rewrite, there is certainly potential to trim some fat already. The back and forth before an actor was ultimately cast is less notable once they are finally cast and the show is released. The delays and cost over run and departure of Fuller could probably be distilled and summarized more succinctly. The broad strokes are notable but the details such as the dates and times of various press releases and public statements probably don't need to be mentioned over and over again. The article has lots of potential for improvement if a few people are motivated to make it happen and a few others are willing to stand back and get out of the way to let it happen.
Also what happened to the reviews from individual critics? Considering how much other else is included in this article it seems bizarre to me that the actual reviews have been deleted and were stuck with only the vague overview from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Seriously, where did the reviews go? -- 109.79.133.185 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

They were moved to Star Trek: Discovery (season 1), as they are season 1 specific. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems premature to (re)move them when the series is still on season 1. It isn't obvious to readers, it seems like an omission.

I'd like to make another point about in the quality of this article and the need for rewriting. It seems very odd that so many of the references are attributed to a Trek Blog, when in most articles blogs are rejected as sources (Maybe the it is a well established enough site to count as a reliable source but it still seems odd.) More than that it is very sloppy to use a blog as a reference when the blog is only adding minimal commentary to another source, the named reference "FullerStory" links to a Trek blog quotes a Entertainment Weekly so heavily it boarders on plagiarism. -- 109.79.71.103 (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If it isn't obvious (which I'd say it is), I've put a hatnote directing to Season 1's Reception section. -- Alex^TW 12:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think current and relevant Season 1 information should have been removed from this article until Season 2 begins, but it is done now. The hatnote is a small improvement but it was pointing at the Release section of the other article so I changed it to point to the Reception section. -- 109.79.183.117 (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hatnote was my bad; thanks for the fix. -- Alex^TW 00:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not plagiarism, it is just reporting on an article that people may not have access to. That is why it is used to verify the information here. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you think those blog sites add sufficient commentary to count as fair use but I don't think those blogs hold themselves to high standards, and that's a lot of copying and very little commentary. Wikipedia links to books and academic journals all the time where the sources are not easily accessible (can't find the guideline, but I've read it before). The convenience is nice but technically it is not required. (People don't have access to the primary source, the show itself, which is behind the paywalls of CBS All Access or Netflix.)

The actual original source should have been linked first and foremost, even if a web version of the article was not available. Maybe there is a good argument to also link the blog as a source as well but the original shouldn't have been omitted, which as I said was sloppy. I am skeptical that this article has been held to the same high standards of other articles would be held to when I see fansites such as TrekMovie.com or TrekCore.com used as references. I'm surprised those sources weren't speedily reverted like so many other changes to this article.

I can understand the rush to add the few sources that were available before the show was released but hopefully such fan sites can be gradually removed in favor of better sources and official publications from CBS. -- 109.79.183.117 (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The named reference "FullerStory" that points to http://trekcore.com/blog/2017/07/new-ew-issue-details-bryan-fullers-discovery-departure/ can probably be replaced by links from Entertainment Weekly, some of the quotes come from this article http://ew.com/tv/2017/07/28/bryan-fuller-star-trek-discovery/ (dated a day after the Trek Core article) and some come from another http://ew.com/tv/2017/08/22/star-trek-discovery-cover-story/ -- 109.79.183.117 (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Original language(s): Klingon

I think Klingon language should be included into infobox. Despite that the Klingon race is fictional, language still exist and is used in series. – Vilnisr ^{T | C} 20:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That can be said for almost any invented language in other works of fiction. The practice has been to omit the invented language. See Game of Thrones for something similar, where the invented languages are listed under Production. DonQuixote (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Only Klingon language have its own grammar and dictionary, it is much more complex, is used on neflix for subtitles and on imdb.com (just an example). Oh and one more thing - it have a language ISO code.– Vilnisr ^{T | C} 21:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You would need to cite a secondary source that says that that makes it special, otherwise it's your opinion. DonQuixote (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality much?

First of all I am back at Wikipedia, this is a new account. I lost my pass word and email due to computer dying sometime back (It took all my data with it when it died)

The discovery article seems to have a problem It reads like a studio promotional propaganda piece. I am hoping Wikipedia has not changed their rules concerning bias & neutrality. If a studio did indeed create this article I think there is some sort of a CONFLICT OF INTEREST there. We get mad when politicians edit their own profiles so they reflect kindly upon themselves (Meaning all the criticism is deleted etc) and thats a big Wikipedia no no.

I was gonna apply the "Check Neutrality" flag to this article but I thought I would see if you all could fix this Science Fiction article first. Please add a criticism section (there are tons of it out there both from professional sources and amateur sources) Thank you. Magnum77777 (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If you have any, then I recommend you suggest it on the talk page and learn how to do things yourself. -- Alex^TW 22:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a critical response section. I don't see any evidence that a studio is involved with this article.. it seems pretty fact based. And i'd be opposed to adding a bunch of "amateur" criticisms... this isnt a blog.. the musings of internet trolls isnt of much interest. Spanneraol (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this is simply a request from a disgruntled watcher of the series that doesn't agree with what is listed. -- Alex^TW 23:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

While there is room for some criticisms to be added, particularly at the season article which is in the process of being updated post-finale, this is not the place for editors who were not happy with the show to express those opinions. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, first off, the article still reads like a promotional literature one would receive during an awards show. Second, how do you know I hate the series and since when does pointing out that an article is not neutral mean I hate the series. In fact I haven't even watched it so I cannot make an opinion of it. Please fix the Neutrality issues. Thank you 02:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Magnum77777 (talk)

It appears to us that you do not like the series because the article is neutral, suggesting you are the one with bias. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please provide an example of which part of the article you feel is not neutral. Most of it is filled with factual information about the cast and production. Spanneraol (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Since the entire thing reads like a promo for the series, lets just say, the parts that glorify the show. Now, where is the Criticism? On Face Book the fans have spoken and they hate the series. One bit of Criticism I will give is that it does NOT stick with Cannon. 1) The war that has no cannon reference in TOS that is said to happen 2257 2258. The Uniforms. etc. (Had a malfunction that destroyed the beautiful reply I had written, due to the limitations of my various disabilities I cannot spend the time to reconstruct my previous statement. I think I come close to highlighting the points of it( a description of the error. I was reading in the preview (I always preview before posting) and suddenly the text begins erasing itsself (Keyboard was to the side at this time. Too heavy for me to hold)) Please fix the neutrality issues by including statements from the fans both pro and con. Thank you Magnum77777 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not include fan reviews, we are not a blog; we only include critical reception. What you've listed is textbook WP:FANCRUFT. -- Alex^TW 17:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, which parts read like a promo? I've read it through and it primarily contains factual information about casting and production... It is clearly not written like a promo so if you have a specific section that bothers you please provide an example. If your only complaint is that we arent including fan gripes from facebook thats nonsense... only reliably sourced information is included. Spanneraol (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Now your bias is even more evident Magnum. Unless you have a specific issue with the article that is not "I don't like the show and you guys are being too nice to it", I think this discussion should end. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"it was reported" feels better here, even if a passive is not ideal

@Adamstom.97: Are you sure? [An event] was planned implies that the event didn't actually come to pass; ideally, we need a new source that verifies that it did happen as planned, but pending that language that is as neutral as possible is probably preferable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I've found it better to try and avoid "it was reported" because it puts emphasis on the reporting rather than the actual facts that we want for the encyclopaedia. Some editors get trapped even further down that rabbit hole and start naming publications from which the information is coming at the start of each sentence. It can become a real problem. I think the wording I changed it to is perfectly fine and natural, of course pending an updated source to allow us to just say it happened. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

But the only "actual facts" (that are verified in the source currently cited) are that it was reported...? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Saying that it was planned/scheduled/intended to happen is not inaccurate from the source we have. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The wording we are currently using makes it look like "...but the plans were cancelled", which would be inaccurate to the source, and would not be relevant information for our article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Honestly, I don't think this is a big deal. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not yet, but if we kept updating this article (or any article on an ongoing television series) with preemptive news sources, then once those sources are out of date updated all of it with "was planned" rather than looking for sources that verified whether anything actually came to pass, eventually the article will be a mess of apparent WP:SPECULATION. Yes, it's a bigger problem when an article's text is simply updated without updating the sources (as was done in the "Sequel" section of our The Force Awakens article, for example, and apparently much of the plot and cast info in our Iron Man 3 article), but neither is ideal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)