Jump to content

Talk:Steven Universe/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Voice actors

We need sources for all voice actors. Even screencaps of credits would be fine. I've yet to find any reliable source for Connie's voice actor. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

See Also

currently the see also refers to other shows on CN, but im not sure they belong in the see also section. perhaps a link to the current CN line up. this see also has no relevance to the unforseeable future. 173.64.67.27 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


Genres

I have removed any unsourced genre info and related categories and added sources for remaining genres. Genre info needs to be sourced and not just editors' opinions. Please see this discussion on genre edits in general. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Amazon as a reliable source

Amazon can't be used as an external link per WP:ELNO but there is no restriction listed in WP:RS#E-commerce sources on using commercial websites as sources of information and thus references. Most news sites are commercial and Amazon having info is just as valid. Also a twitter account used as an official outlet is a valid source of info for that outlet (see WP:TWITTER) although it should be a verified account, but impersonation is the only issue there and unlikely in this case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Linking to a site that is a sales page where the book can be ordered is promotional. The guidelines state "Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available." WP:RS#E-commerce sources WordSeventeen (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
"If available" means leave it in until a preferred link can be found to replace it. Also URLs embedded in in-line cites are not considered external links. External links are the links that go the "External links" section of the article and are restricted from being in the main body of the article. Cite links are just aids for verifiability, are not considered external links, and are not considered promotional for that usage. Also some discussion at WT:TV, search for "e-commerce" and "amazon" - some discussion about using Amazon as ref for run-times - conclusion, it's fine. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
To add, clearer explanation at WT:IRS#Sourcing question: Commercial sales sites and WP:ELPOINTS#1 --Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Geraldo is correct. There's no problem in using Amazon as a source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Section: "Reception"

Now, I do not want to write this to sound like I am complaining, but I ran some research onto the 27th sourcelink and with previously running shows. What I discovered was the following shows have female creators, and it should be gone noted they "broke the mold":

- Chowder (2007) by C.H Greenblatt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chowder_(TV_series) )

- My Gym Partner's A Monkey (2005) created by Julie McNally Cahill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Gym_Partner%27s_a_Monkey)

- The Total Drama series (2007 Canada and 2008 U.S) by Jennifer Pertsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Drama)

Note: The last two is co-creatated.

I like the call this source as uncredible. 188.175.127.230 (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

CH Greenblatt is a man, not a woman. i think the fact that the other two were, in fact, co-created and not created solely by a woman distinguishes them from Steven Universe, which is often called CN's first female-created show. Boomur [☎] 19:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This Page Needs An Overhaul

"Steven Universe" has gotten a whole lot more popular thanks to the "Steven Bomb" but the article hasn't really been edited to reflect that. All of the reviews mentioned in the "Reception" section are from before the show introduced many of its major plot elements and adult themes. Additionally, there aren't any articles on some of the most important/talked about episodes like "Mirror Gem"/"Ocean Gem", "The Return"/"Jail Break", and "Alone Together". Finally, I feel like the other crystal gems need pages, especially Garnet, since the character development she got in the season 1 finale got a LOT of people talking.... But I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't really know how to make my own articles yet...

Welcome to Wikipedia! Most of what you're suggesting would first be served by establishing notability, and that would best be accomplished by finding reliable third party sources to that effect (news articles, etc. rather than forum comments or fan sites). So later media reviews of the show would be important to add in the reception section. If the Gems (individually) have also received sufficient coverage and analysis of social impact, that might support individual pages. If not, it may only support a specific section or paragraph about the impact of the characters. My guess is that Garnet is the most likely to warrant a paragraph exploring the attention received over same-gender relationship depictions in the show. There probably hasn't been that much more beyond that. But barring some really varied and extensive third party sources about each character, it probably wouldn't substantiate them having their own pages. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to other editors, such as myself.Luminum (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Request to classify as a LGBT category

one of the lead characters, garnet, is an amalgam of two females gems who are in love. shoud we classify this show an lgbt related? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.246.226 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Gems aren't actually female. 130.18.104.111 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

^thats simply another factor which means the show is lgbt?? featuring nonbinary characters. besides that, a relationship between two nonbinary characters is also still lgbt so. no matter what youre saying this should be added to lgbt related. 92.20.158.130 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Gems are not human. They aren't "nonbinary" in the same way that humans are. They simply have no sex, like robots. They don't have organic corporeal forms and are shape-shifting beings centered at their gemstones. They only choose to appear female. 130.18.104.111 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
They may not have sexes, but the Gems clearly have gender, and go by gendered terminology. Since the show is a product of the real world, showcasing same-gender relationships, these specific plot elements are arguably "LGBT" thematic.Luminum (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The tricky part comes when you remember that they only have one gender, and thus are excluded from LGBT because they only have one option, even if the relationship may remind the viewer of true lesbian relationships. 130.18.104.111 (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
But let's not forget that Rose Quartz had the option of choosing Greg, a human man, and did so, even if it wouldn't normally be something a Gem would encounter. The idea behind categorizing the thematic material of the show doesn't depend on the "in-universe" logic of the show, but rather on the real world concepts/impact of the show. Otherwise, we wouldn't categorize the show as a fantasy or sci-fi genre, because these things are "reality" for the characters in the show. But it's categorized as such because from the perspective of the real world, the show deals with themes in the fantasy/sci-fi genre: magical powers, magical objects, interstellar societies, space travel, advanced scientific technology, etc., i.e. based on the perspective of the real world (things that the real world does not consider to be realistic). From the perspective of the real world, choosing to portray a all female-gender society with its inhabitants forming romantic relationships with one another is choosing to portray what the real world considers to be LGBT relationships. So whether the Gems themselves only have a single gender, and form relationships with one another by default as a part of their in-universe fictitional society doesn't determine whether the themes of the show are or are not LGBT by technicality; it's whether the depiction of same-gender relationships indicates a LGBT theme for the show with regard to its development and impact. The same categorization is reflected in various forms of fantasy/sci-fi genres that deal with LGBT themes in this manner: Venus Plus X, a 1960's piece of fiction about a single-gender planet, The_Outcast_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation), a Star Trek episode about a gender-ambiguous society and their taboos, Rejoined, another Star Trek episode about fictional societies that drew controversy for having two female actors kiss (more examples at LGBT_themes_in_speculative_fiction).Luminum (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
we can't just slap on the lgbt tag without explaining the reason for its inclusion. I think the themes should be relevant enough to be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.246.226 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I added the categories based on the critical commentary mentioned in the reworked "reception" section, which mention the relative prominence of LGBT topics in the series. Other related sources are [1] and [2].  Sandstein  22:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It is true that there are some signs of Homosexuality and bisexuality elements, in the show. But the thing is, when the writers and the people running the official Wiki state that the Gems and their species are technically all gender-less and only take the form of feminine humanoids, people have tended to just brush it off, not thinking much of the elements. Unless of course they were the extremely homophobic type of individuals who like to stress on the issue. In my personal opinion it isn't really a matter. And also there are now a lot of animations where the presence of LGBT elements are prominent, and being accepted, so there really isn't anything wrong with categorizing this as an LGBT Animation, whether the elements of it are very prominent or very little.110.159.185.167 (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

But wait, don't they technically identify themselves as females, you know calling each other she, her? Well if that is true then technically in spite of lack of reproductive organs, the Gems basically Female or male when they choose to be. So that technically means that the use of LGBT to categories this show, is actually correct. Right?S. John Warrynn (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Well when you put it that way it sound pretty much correct. But still it is more of how others see it.110.159.185.167 (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikis, even "official" ones, aren't reliable sources, because anyone can edit them, see WP:RS. The same goes for fan theories about the gender of Gems and so forth. The only thing that matters for Wikipedia content is how the series is covered in reliable sources, and the ones cited in the article do identify the series as particularly associated with LGBT topics. See also this article, though I don't know which newspaper that is from.  Sandstein  18:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes but the Official Wikis like the one for Steven Universe all use reliable sources, and even citations. Also the interview with the creator was real, She really did say that the Gems are genderless.110.159.185.167 (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Yet she acknowledges that the show is gendered, specifically that the strong female presence of the cast was an intentional means of exploring gender and the way that cartoons are targeted and produced differently for boys and girls and directly challenging that. (http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/15/steven-universe-creator-growing-gender-politics-her-brother) Regardless, the Stephen Universe Wiki is not "official". It is community run, not run by the crew working on the series (as opposed to, say the actual official Tumblr http://stevencrewniverse.tumblr.com/). That the wiki uses official resources is great, but have no direct bearing on content here. Wikipedia may use the same reliable sources, but it can't use the specific conclusions drawn by the SU WIki as support for edits in and of themselves (SU Wiki says THIS, therefore Wikipedia says THIS). Those conclusions would need to be supported by the sources and that would be reason enough.Luminum (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Besides, the gender (or lack thereof) of Gems in the series's lore does not change how the series is perceived by viewers and critics. It is their perception of LGBT themes in the series, as described in reliable sources, that is the basis of the article and its categorization. Wikipedia is written from an out-of-universe point of view, so any gender or romantic preference the Gems themselves may have in the world of the series matters to us only insofar as it is reflected in real-world reliable sources.  Sandstein  14:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The Guys got a point there, As long as the characters who are identify by others or identify themselves as a certain gender, whether it is he or she, and if they have a relationship with another person of the same gender they identify themselves with, then it is justifiable that people will qualify the show as an LGBT Show.110.159.185.167 (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Overseas studios

Here, Luigi1090 (talk · contribs) asserts: "In every Wikipedia's page about animated series or films, the "overseas" studios (Rough Draft, Saerom, etc) should never be inserted". Is there any style guide for that? I don't see why we should omit pertinent information.  Sandstein  15:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Because those that produce entirely the series in question (Cartoon Network Studios for this title), are the ones that count. Luigi1090 (talk)
I see no reason to exclude this information. The animating studio is important info. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It is an important info, but only to insert on the paragraph "Development" and not on the official infobox table. Luigi1090 (talk)
"Count" according to which standard? The animation studios are also companies producing the series, or not? They are generally notable companies that have an appreciable impact on the quality and style of the work.  Sandstein  17:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The Return and Jailbreak as separate article?

Can we have The Return and Jailbreak as a separate article? It is both important to the series and important to the LGBT community, since it is the first episode that features the lesbian couple, Ruby and Sapphire. -SlipsSnaggle — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlipsSnaggle (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

it is fine to create an article for specific episodes of a TV series, but the notability needs to be proven by citations to reliable third-party sources. i'm interested in the topic, personally, so i will probably do some research in a bit to see how much coverage the episode has received. however, it's important to note that coverage needs to come from established sources, and not just blog posts or the episodes themselves. Boomur [☎] 01:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
i just went ahead and started an article for "Jail Break". cheers Boomur [☎] 03:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary changes

There has been a somewhat fruitless back-and-forth for some time now between me and an IP editor about changes to the plot summary. I'd like to explain here why I think that these are not a good idea:

  • "the 'Crystal Gems'" → "'Crystal Gems'": That makes it sound as though this is a type or class of Gem rather than the name of this specific group of persons.
  • "protecting the world from evil" → "posses the main job of protecting the world from evil": Apart from the typo ("possess"), the Crystal Gems do not have a "job" (as in, a paid employment) but rather, a vocation. One also does not "possess" a job, but "have" it. Finally, the wording is unnecessarily long-winded; summary prose should be a concise as possible.
  • "The Crystal Gems are" → "The Crystal Gems currently consist of": This implies that we know or assume that the composition of the group will change, which we have no idea about. Besides, in a TV series that runs for a long time and includes flashbacks, "currently" is a rather meaningless term.
  • "to form a new and more powerful personality" → "to form new, bigger, stronger Gems": This is misleading because in the process of fusion the actual gemstones do not change or grow; rather, it is the projected body that is bigger and stronger. And the more significant point, in terms of the story, is that fusion results in a new, distinct personality, rather than only in a stronger body.

I'd appreciate comments by other editors and the IP editor.  Sandstein  07:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following Steven Universe, but in general, I agree with your points. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Since nobody else, including that IP editor, has commented here in support of their changes, I'm reverting them again.  Sandstein  20:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Episode pages creation request

How exactly do we decide which episodes get their own pages? Seems odd to me that plot irrelevant Say Uncle has its own page while major episodes like, let's say, Monster Buddies, Mirror Gem, Ocean Gem, Fusion Cuisine, Lion 3 - which was nominated for an Emmy award -, Alone Together, Rose's Scabbard, Story for Steven, Sworn to the Sword, Cry for Help - just to name a few - don't. Arielslytherin (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody decides that, as such, it's just that people decide individually to write an article about a certain episode. All articles must meet WP:GNG, that is, there must be reliable sources about the episode.  Sandstein  05:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

synopsis issues

@Diana Darcangelo: if your work is reverted (especially if it is reverted on three occasions by three different editors!), please open a discussion on the talk page about why you think your changes are preferable instead of continuing to make those changes. this process is really important on wikipedia; more info is available here. since it didn't look like this edit "battle" was going in that direction, i figured i'd start a thread myself. for the sake of avoiding edit war territory, i'm not going to revert again until we have some proper communication, but if someone else thinks it would be appropriate then go ahead.

@general audience: it seems like the general consensus is that the original synopsis/setting section is better for now. personally, i think it gives a good overview of the events of the series and not just the background story leading up to it. it's concise enough—the whole setting/background story and two seasons fit into two paragraphs. D.D.'s version, while more brief, seems to focus more on the Gem War, which isn't actually the focus of the show, and is only shown in short vignettes. plus, i don't really see the benefit of removing the information about the setting. Diana Darcangelo, feel free to justify your changes here and maybe we can come to a compromise? Boomur [☎] 23:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

for posterity, here is the change in question Boomur [☎] 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hindu mythology category

Does SU have enough refrences to Hindu mythology that I can add a "Indian mythology based television series" category? Or is that too much, but still needs a more appropriate category for the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artheartsoul1 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If you can source that, sure... but that seems like a stretch to me. -- JeffJonez (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


rbNEXUS6-->

Absolutely. You won't find many "official" sources on this, but SU is RIGIDLY based on Hindi and "New Age" philosophy, specifically the relationship between the Gems and the Chakras. Amethyst, the "Gem of the Infinite," was recently revealed to be a shadow of a far more powerful and important figure, reflecting a position at the holy Crown Chakra. Pearl and Lapis Lazuli likely stand in for the Third Eye/Mental, and Throat/Emotional chakras, respectively. Peridot, always in an unstable state of overburdened technical creation and knowledge, would be the green Heart/Astral Chakra (and looks to be moving into a sigfnificant relationship, emotionally and spiritually, with Amethyst). Then we have Yellow Diamond, the "Dictator" of the series, occupying the Solar Willpower Chakra. She is followed by Jasper, of the orange, vibrant, animalistic Sacral Chakra. And second to last, Steven and Rose Quartz, occupying the low-vibrational, yet calming, Root Chakra. On the next level, complementing the Crown, is the Base Chakra(s), at the hands and feet, (The Crown contributes to the temples and shoulder bones/"Wings"), represented by the dualistic Garnet through her two hand gems. And every one of the 512 potential fusions between different gems is equally significant, being placed energetically on combined parts of the visible light spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RbNEXUS6 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@RbNEXUS6: As a huge SU fan myself, this is pretty interesting and heavy stuff. As a Wikipedian, see WP:UNDUE - if there aren't sources on it, it's a WP:VERIFY issue. I'm all for theorising (/r/stevenuniverse on reddit is great for this) but Wikipedia isn't the right place to do it if there aren't verifiable sources published on the topic. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 11:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Mistitled Fandom Section

This is ridiculous. There is no discussion of the fandom as a whole, only one unnoteworthy incident. It certainly does not deserve placement so high in the article. Some argument might be made for including a cyberbullying section in or below the Reception section, but I'm at a loss for why this incident keeps returning to the article, and haven't seen any convincing arguments for doing so. - JeffJonez (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the incident bears mention because it has received coverage by multiple reliable sources, which is rare for events related to a children's TV series. We can certainly discuss where to place it. "Cyberbullying", I think, would not be a good section title because the word makes no sense if one looks at the ToC, it has no apparent relation to the series.  Sandstein  07:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Controversy" be more appropriate for that section. I agree with Jeffjonez that titling it fandom makes it sound like the WHOLE fandom is a bunch of insane SJWs out to get fanartists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.133.70 (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not a controversy. Neither source indicates that the events at issue were controversial, in the sense of people having differing opinions about something.  Sandstein  15:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

43rd Annie Awards

The show has received 4 Annie Award nominations for Best Animated TV/Broadcast Production For Children’s Audience, Outstanding Achievement, Directing in an Animated TV/Broadcast Production, Outstanding Achievement, Storyboarding in an Animated TV/Broadcast Production at the 43rd Annie Awards.[1] 86.40.130.253 (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC) This Semi-Edit Request needs to have a location on where it can be place in the article. Place the Annie awards in the Awards and Nominations section.

References

  1. ^ http://annieawards.org/nominees/

Television controversies?

Should we add that category because of the show's fandom and the harassment of Zamii070 who drew fanart of the show and caused her to be accused of racism? --73.240.105.185 (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not significant enough. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A sub-heading for Steven Universe Censorship?

I feel that this page should go into more depth on the censorship it receives worldwide, its already happened in places such as Russia, France, and the UK and its bound to happen again in the future. This is just a suggestion so that one sub category doesn't get over crowded with unrelated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rascal55555 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The topic is already appropriately addressed, I think, in the "fandom" and "reception" sections.  Sandstein  14:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Steven Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


Wikidata

Hi everyone ! I created some items on Wikidata (mainly the gem characters). So if you create new articles, don't forget to add the link or warn me :) Léna (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Specify leitmotifs

Under "music", change "Garnet is given a more modern sound," to, "Garnet is represented by synth bass sounds," or something of the same meaning, and add that Amethyst is represented by drum machine. Source: https://noisey.vice.com/en_us/article/steven-universe-composers-aivi-surrashu-interview

Madmanacrossthewater02 (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Paine  u/c 03:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the Steven Universe page Fandom section

If you're going to talk about the bad you should talk about the good too. Only mentioning the drama in the Steven Universe fandom well turn people away from it and possibly the show too. It will also make the entire fandom look bad even though the majority depises these people's actions. Here's an entire article about the saner fans calling out the people on their behavior. http://homemadegalaxies.tumblr.com/post/133607242074/tenaflyviper-you-know-who-you-are-youre-not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.184.201 (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to be able to write more about the fandom, but we can do that only if there are reliable sources about it. Self-published sources such as Tumblr posts are not allowed, see WP:SPS. Do you know of any reliable sources?  Sandstein  21:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of new to wikipedia so I apologize for that. Basically while some fans did harass an artist and possibly bring her to attempt suicide or at least encouraged it and I do agree you should mention that but you should also mention the many cases of people within the fandom being highly against the harassment and supporting the person who sent the threats. While it's good to bring attention to the bad parts you should also mention some of the good parts so people aren't completely turned away or become convinced that the entire fandom as a whole is rather hostile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.184.201 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm copying this thread from my talk page to Talk:Steven Universe and will reply there.  Sandstein  08:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, now, I' would really like to write more about the fandom, but I need reliable sources for that. Please read WP:RS, and if possible tell me which sources we could use.  Sandstein  08:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what resources would be considered reliable but here's some things talking about the good of the SU fandom that I hope will work. https://www.reddit.com/r/stevenuniverse/comments/3dlmk2/the_steven_universe_fandom_isnt_that_bad/ (this is some fans pointing out the bad of the SU fandom) https://www.reddit.com/r/stevenuniverse/comments/2lw908/is_the_fandom_getting_too_ugly_and_hostile/ (once again some more fans talking about the bad within the fandom) http://www.themarysue.com/steven-universe-and-fandom/ (a critic who by the sounds of the article seems to genuinely enjoy the show calling out some of the fans)

If you can explain to me what exactly you'd like me to link you I can look for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.184.201 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see our policy pages WP:V and WP:RS. They explain what kind of sources we are looking for. Now, anything on Reddit is user-posted so we can't use it. The Mary Sue article seems reliable enough, but what specifically do you suggest we use from it for our Wikipedia article?  Sandstein  10:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay I think I get it now. Probably talk about how the article creator talks about about the development of the show but also talks about the flaws of the fandom. Also here's some other articles of people talking about the good of the show while also calling out the fans on their behavior. http://fusion.net/story/223425/zamii-steven-universe-fandom/ http://theodysseyonline.com/monmouth/why-am-no-longer-steven-universe-fan/204442 The person even admits to very much liking the show in this one. http://steven-universe.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:78922 I'm not sure if this one counts since it's on the Steven Universe wiki itself but here's this, I doubt it counts though. http://www.dailydot.com/geek/steven-universe-fanartist-bullied-controversy/ here's this which mentions how even the creators of the show themselves are against this behavior I could search for more if you want — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.184.201 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well, the Daily Dot piece is already cited, and the Fusion piece is about the same bullying incident. Anything from a wiki is not a reliable source, and I'm not sure what "The Odyssey" is, but with a title of "Why The Steven Universe Fandom Is The Worst Ever" I don't think that it gives much of a different perspective? Do you have specific ideas about text that we could put in the article based on these sources?  Sandstein  15:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well my personal suggestion for the article from my own experience with the drama within the fandom, since I'm rather active in the fandom, could be something like "Despite the harassment towards the artist many fans of Steven Universe jumped to her side to defend her against the harassers and even the crew behind the show stood beside her(I can link some twitter comments by some of the crew if you want)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.184.201 (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No, we'd need reliable published sources that make this statement before we can add it to the article, and Twitter isn't one of them.  Sandstein  11:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd question whether the fandom section is all that notable in the first place. It's three sentences talking about an incident that quickly left the headlines, and as this discussion is revealing, there's nothing else notable about the fandom. That could easily be merged into another part of the article, because right now it looks ridiculous to have such a tiny little footnote as if the entirety of a show's fandom consists of a single incident. Rebochan (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, sections within an article don't need to be notable. But where would you merge it to?  Sandstein  22:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey, by the way, Zamii was not driven to suicide by Steven universe fans. She was being abused by her mother and really does not want to be roped into discourse over the fatphobic art she did anymore. She would certainly disagree with her being mentioned at all on this page. 2601:196:8501:8100:74E6:3806:8A2F:F8FC (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I mean it's still a well-documented and notable incident in the history of Steven Universe fandom. Would it be more accurate if it just said "was bullied" instead of "attempted suicide after being bullied"? But I don't know what the Wikipedia etiquette and standards are surrounding mentioning notable incidents involving anonymous and private individuals who would rather put them behind them. AJD (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, we do have a reliable source that the person (who is not named) attempted suicide. We do not have a source for what the IP writes. So, no basis for a change.  Sandstein  20:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Slice of Life?

I believe Slice of Life should be removed from the genre section as it is a matter of opinion and not fact. Plus there is no official citation for it. The definition for slice of life is as follows "a realistic representation of everyday experience in a movie, play, or book." It does not include anything relating to television. --2607:FCC8:6880:800:AD8E:F25E:E928:B77E (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Genres must be sourced so I removed it EvergreenFir (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Steven Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Character pages creation request

Some of the characters, like Steven, Garnet, and Pearl do have their own separate pages, but many of the characters are missing. Even Amethyst, a main character, doesn't have a page. This is becoming a larger problem as the show adds more characters and further develops those that already exist. With the creation of new character pages there should also be the inclusion of a character list on this Wikipedia page. Even if it just contains their name and either a brief description or when they first appear it would be really useful. Aearlim (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

People have tried making pages for Amethyst, but they've all been deleted due to lack of sources. Harryhenry1 (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Matt Burnett's tweet

The tweet, "God forbid a piece of media not include super masculine self-insert super powered hero characters for straight males to identify with.", is not an official stance of the show and is a deliberately inflammatory statement from Burnett's personal twitter account, where he is known for making these inflammatory comments as a form of entertainment and venting. Some other examples of tweets that arent meant to be taken seriously:

There are further examples on his twitter. None of these belong in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.165.115 (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it as particularly significant either, unless it has been covered by reliable sources, there's no reason to include this. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Eh, add such quotes to the article if they ever get reported on by reliable sources. Otherwise, it's not important. ~Mable (chat) 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As of May 2017 there is a broken reference to MattBurnettTweet that needs to be fixed. See the error in the References section. -- 109.79.113.3 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Smalley characterized Steven Universe as a prominent part of a growing trend of intergenerational U.S. animation (i.e., cartoons that appeal to people of all ages)

I'd like to request a rephrase. If a word needs to be explained and repeated it might be better to avoid using it entirely. Anything statements in parentheses should be carefully considered for relevance, in many cases they are best omitted entirely, or are relevant enough to be included without parentheses.

Suggested wording: 

Smalley characterized Steven Universe as a prominent part of a growing trend in the cartoons that appeal to people of all ages,

If the article was not completely locked and instead allowed flagged edits it would have been a lot simpler to suggest this change. I would urge admins to change the article to allow flagged edits (you know, the edits that require approval, so that the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, can actually be edited by anyone). -- 109.79.113.3 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Zuke pronoun

Someone changed Lauren Zuke's pronouns to "they", on the grounds that the artist has come out as non-binary. Someone else reverted it to "she", on the grounds that "we have no source for pronoun preference". Without taking a position on which is correct: Why is the lack of a source for pronoun preference an argument that "she" is better than "they"? AJD (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure Wikipedia recommends rephrasing to avoid the need for pronouns when it can be done so easily. The referenced article says "Lauren Zuke quit Twitter" or "Lauren Zuke left Twitter" would cover it, there's no pressing need to specify that the Twitter account was deleted.
That's assuming you think the negative aspects of fandom meet the encyclopedic requirements of notability and don't think there is a downside to repeating the negative attention Lauren Zuke received. Looking at it from a distance I would guess that Zuke would want to be mentioned positively for contributing to the productiong of show or positively in the context of various members cast or crew reaching out and interacting with fans (even if that did come to a bad ending). Does the show have a lot of interaction with fans?
I would urge you to reconsider the whole section and not give undue weight to the negativity. If the article covered more of these details the negative counterpoint might seem more relevant. The paragraph starts off dubiously with "According to io9", rather than directly attributing the article to Beth Elderkin of io9, but frankly I think the whole paragraph is a stretch and it would be better to delete it and not give it undue attention. -- 109.79.113.3 (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the recommended rephrase. I have very little opinion on whether that paragraph is encyclopedic to include, but as long as it's there I want it to avoid misgendering somebody. AJD (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I think having your name prominently featured for deleting a Twitter account instead of something significant like your artistic work is more offensive than someone not using your preferred pronoun. If it was me I wouldn't want to give the topic any more air that it already got. In the context of a popular animated show with over a hundred episodes, it is way out of proportion to give it a paragraph. The Production section that actually talks about what storyboard artists do is only a few short paragraphs, shorter than the Fandom section. It is difficult to believe that it isn't giving undue weight to mention this incident at all. I would strongly support anyone who deleted it. -- 109.79.146.68 (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Leader

Current text says "Garnet, the leader of the Crystal Gems" but although Garnet is an important character it seems to me that is impossible to declare any character the leader of the gems based on season 1. -- 01:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.86.84 (talk)

Having watched all the episodes I still think it is incorrect for the article text to declare any one character the leader, and the text describing Garnet as the leader of the Gems should be rephrased.
I'd fix it myself but the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is locked, preventing me from editing it. -- 109.79.82.112 (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
She is the leader, though? She gives commands and decides who goes on which missions; she "has heightened perception that guides us towards our mission objective"; she's the boss. AJD (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You phrase that as a question, if you have any doubts then you are making my point for me again. There is no clearly defined leader in the group, and since it isn't clearly defined and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia it shouldn't be mentioned. The article should stick to what is clearly evident and avoid trying to guess or imply or presume.
Pearl leads as often as Garnet does, she seemed more like the leader to me from watching season 1. Garnet can see the the future so it does seem like she is leading but it isn't like the series ever calls her the leader. Rose Quartz was clearly their leader before, but after that I'd say they don't have a clear leader. I'd just like the article to be cleaned up to avoid an unnecessary ambiguous claim that was more than a little distracting when I read it. -- 109.79.113.3 (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Full sentence for context:
Garnet, the leader of the Crystal Gems, is voiced by Estelle, a noted British singer, songwriter and actress.
It is irrelevant in the context of the sentence, which is part of the section the voice cast section.
I'd suggest merging with the next sentence and using the following more succinct wording:
Garnet is voiced by Estelle, a British singer, songwriter and actress, in her first voice acting role.
If it were a different section it might make sense to mention character details but the rest of the section talks about the voice actors, and otherwise avoids any character descriptions. -- 16:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.113.3 (talk)
(1) That Garnet is the leader of the Crystal Gems is verified by reliable sources about the characters, such as the Guide to the Crystal Gems companion book (see page 8).
(2) It's not true that no other character details are mentioned in that section; Greg and Connie are described as "Steven's father" and "Steven's friend" respectively, which is a comparable level of detail.
AJD (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It isn't evident from the series. I'm disappointed you aren't going to hold the article to a higher standard and avoid unnecessary ambiguous statements.
You point to a source, but I'll have to take your word that the text of the book actually says she is the leader.
Characters, Garnet image, click to reveal text: "Garnet is the unofficial leader of the Crystal Gems" http://www.cartoonnetwork.co.uk/show/steven-universe/videos
There you go, the official website equivocates, I'd still suggest you drop the mention of her being the leader and tighten up the prose (read it out loud a few times if you believe it is well written as is) or at least change the text to say she is the "unofficial leader". -- 109.79.146.68 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it's fine as it is. (I also don't think the statement in question is "ambiguous" or that the website "equivocates".) AJD (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Season two table?

Should we add season two to the overview tables? Thanks! Jakecartoon345 (talk)

Why?

Is this page protected? Why is the grammar so atrocious? Why aren't we allowed to fix these problems. "BECAUSE THE SERIES IS STORYBOARD DRIVEN THE ARTISTS AND THE STORYBOARDS HAS TO WORK TOGETHER..." My god this is a badly written article. Please unprotect so we can fix it and ask for citations on the personal anecdotes and presumably made up information included in it. How do we know anything about the shows process? How do we know how many hours voice actors record for? This article is a damn disgrace. --Anymouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:B:9:0:0:0:55 (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Type the changes here. I (or someone) will transfer to the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if you haven't noticed, but everything I typed up is properly cited, if you bothered to thoroughly check. Bibliography (offline) sources are allowed here. If you want to verify the info, buy the book (there's a references section to tell you); otherwise, don't make accusations without evidence. 1989 21:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, don't judge a book by its cover. If you bothered to read the article instead of after reading the introduction, you would know that the info you mentioned is already in the article and properly cited. It doesn't need citations if the content is already told and referenced after the introduction per WP:LEADCITE. 1989 00:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There are no citations in the introduction and the grammar is bad. I feel like I already suggested these changes. A bunch of unsourced claims and horrible writing is a great argument for NOT wasting time by reading the rest of the article. --Anymouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:3F0C:A600:5915:1631:DEDC:38B0 (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:WHENNOTCITE, there is no requirement to have citations on the lead unless the specific content is not referenced in the article; "the show's process" and "how many hours voice actors record for" is referenced in the article, if you actually read the article instead of wasting people's time by complaining. The opinions after your second sentence will not help your case at all, as this talk page is about improvement to the article, not a rant fest. -- 1989 02:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Crewniverse

Please add a description of what "Crewniverse" means to the article. It is used without explanation. It may have to be removed from most uses in the article per WP:JARGON. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"Staff" "crew" seems more appropriate so I changed it. -- 1989 22:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks, but if the term is part of the fandom culture we might add a sentence about it somewhere. Now or later, does not matter. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fandom Section

Hey folks, I was reading through the fandom section when I noticed something. The last paragraph about an ugly underside to the fandom seems really out of place for an encyclopedic page. The fans standing up to censorship is great because it is directly about the show and how it is presented. The other stuff seems like the author of that statement wanted to knock down the fandom a bit after building it up. Every fandom has an ugly side and it is not included in their wiki pages because it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. For these reasons I plan to remove that last paragraph, but before doing so I thought I would open the floor to discussion as to if anyone believes it should be kept. ButterflyNebula (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should be kept. We are not a fan wiki, but an encyclopedia; we cover all relevant aspects of notable topics, whether or not such coverage is favorable or disfavorable to its subjects. This follows from our policy WP:Neutral point of view. In this case, the information about the fandom has been covered by reliable sources, which is very unusual for fandom issues, and it is therefore relevant in the article.  Sandstein  17:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I said above that I thought the comments about Zuke give undue weight to a very small incident and I strongly support removing it. IIRC Zuke isn't even working on the show anymore. It seems odd to me that the only mention Zuke gets in this whole site is about quitting twitter, not about working as an artist. -- 109.76.235.3 (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
No, the harassment is notably. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


"Rebecca"

Why does this article refer to Rebecca Sugar by her first name rather than her last name, which is conventional for encyclopedias? It seems to rob her of her status, she's not our buddy, she created this damn show. Is there a reason for this, like did she request to be referred to only in this way (I would understand if she had a single stage name like Estelle but I have never heard of that from her)? Because if not it should say "Sugar" instead of "Rebecca".

We do use first names in articles. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Per MOS:SURNAME normally people are referred to by their last name. At Rebecca Sugar's article she is refereed to by her last name and never by her first name alone. It should be changed. I will attend to it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Themes

The themes section says, "Love is also the primary theme because Rebecca Sugar worked on it with Ian Jones-Quartey since its development." It's not clear what this means - why would Sugar working with Jones-Quartey make love the "primary theme" of the series? Does the source ('Steven Universe: Art & Origins' by Chris McDonnell) expand on this in a way that makes more sense? Sadiemonster (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

In Rebecca Sugar#Personal life it mentions that Sugar and Jones-Quartey have been in a romantic relationship for over eight years. Doing a little Google search I found this podcast highlights from "The Geekiary" that states "The characters of Ruby and Sapphire weren’t fleshed out until collaboration happened–they sort of “became” Ian Jones-Quartey and Rebecca, since they were in a relationship, running the show, and being together all the time. “Stronger Than You” is semi-autobiographical in that regard as well." Perhaps we could rephrase the sentence and add the Geekiary as a citation. It would be wise to move the current citation back a sentence. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Steven Universe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 14:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm excited to see this here! I should be able to tackle this article in the coming weeks (if for some reason I get caught up in other matters and forget, feel free to ping me).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Intro
  • "When the series is on hiatus, several episodes usually air after it concludes." I get what this is alluding to (that is, after a really long hiatus, there are generally stevenbombs), but it is kind of nonsensical, as the first part of the sentence leads the reader to think we're talking about when the show is not airing, but the latter part of the sentence focuses on the show when it is airing. It also reads as obvious ("After a hiatus, the show airs episodes"). I'd recommend re-writing this sentence, modelling it after a slimmed down version of the third paragraph in the "Broadcast" section.
  • "The series is storyboard-driven; storyboarders write the plot and draw an episode during its development stage." -> "The series is storyboard-driven, meaning that when episodes are being produced the show's storyboard artists are responsible for writing the dialogue and blocking out the action."
  • "The writers played homemade games during the writing phase, which helped them conceive new stories for the plot." Production is still going on, isn't it? This should probably be in present tense, then. I'd reword it to, "To develop new stories for the show, the show's crew often play homemade games during the writing phase of production."
  • "The series has been critical acclaimed for its design, music, voice acting, characterization, promotion of LGBTQ themes and science fantasy worldbuilding, and has a broad fan base." -> "The series—which has developed a broad fan base—has been critical acclaimed for its design, music, voice acting, characterization, promotion of LGBTQ themes and science fantasy worldbuilding."
  • I feel like the lede is sort of all over the place, with no real flow to the prose. It jumps from one idea to the next. I'd recommend trying to streamline it, making each sentence/section flow from one to the next.
  • The lede is much better. If you take this to FA, though, I'd still try to smooth it out a bit.
Synopsis
  • "Ageless alien warriors, they project..." -> "Ageless alien warriors, the Gems project..."
  • "The Crystal Gems are..." -> "The Crystal Gems comprise..."
  • "...his mother, former Crystal Gem leader Rose Quartz..." -> "...his mother, the former Crystal Gem leader Rose Quartz" (so as to avoid a false title, which seems to generally be frowned upon on WP).
  • "he spends his days ... in Beach City and the Gems" -> "he spends his days with his father, Greg; his friend, Connie; his magical pet lion; the other people in Beach City; and the Gems"
  • "...are Gems who (corrupted by a Gem weapon of mass destruction) can no..." -> ditch the parentheses and use commas, since this info is pretty important
  • "the history of Rose Quartz and her relationships" Relationships with whom?
Conception
  • "Rebecca Sugar described..." Perhaps use this space to explain who Sugar is, why she was at CN, etc.
  • Italicize Adventure Time
  • "Sugar worked on the project while she was working on Adventure Time." Not necessarily a requirement, but it might be a good idea to bulk this part up a bit. I know that there's info about her working on Steven Universe while she was boarding a number of AT eps, and in interviews, she talked about how stressful this period of develop was. If you don't have the sources, I can get them to you. Never mind!
  • "The series was inspired by Sugar's 'Ballad of Margo and Dread'..." Could you expand on this? What is it? A song? a short story? A play?
  • "...after the crew's art presentation, and Sugar is the first woman..." -> "...after the crew's art presentation, which made Sugar the first woman..."
  • "The pilot was a slice-of-life type episode" Might be a good idea to expand upon this. Explain it as if I don't know what that means.
  • "Although she planned to include art in the pilot to make the setting more realistic, she was unable to due to limited time and resources." What exactly does that mean? Like artwork? Music?
  • I'm still not sure what this means. It's a cartoon so it's already a type of art. What did she want to include that she couldn't?
  • If you're not clear as to what it means, it might be best to remove it. As it stands, I don't know what it's trying to get across. Should it be more like, "Sugar strove to go above and beyond to make her pilot distinctive, in terms of its artistic and aesthetic detail, but the time limit imposed upon her by Cartoon Network hampered her capabilities to do just that."
  • "...with the show's concept: "[...] to know that..." -> "...with the show's concept "to know that..."
  • "Storyboard artist Lamar Abrams praised" Was Abrams working on the show at this time, or were they saying this to secure a job on the show?
    It's not said in the book, it says his name and his role of the crew as he says what he says. – 1989 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be best to excise this, since it doesn't really add anything to the section, and comes across as kind of puffery (in that, of course a crew member is going to say good things about the series they are working on)
  • "When the pilot was presented to Cartoon Network executives, they prompted the crew about their art presentation" Who is the 'they' in this sentence (CN execs? Morris and Abrams?) Also—and perhaps it is just me—I feel like 'prompted' is not the right word here. Are you trying to say that they helped them out?
  • "...since the show was described as different..." Who described it? Where was it described?
  • "It was popular when it was released, with forum discussions and hopes to see it on the air soon, and those who knew Rebecca Sugar from Adventure Time were also interested" -> "It was popular when it was released, engendering forum discussions in which people expressed their hopes of seeing it on the air soon. Those who knew Rebecca Sugar from Adventure Time were also interested."
  • "Since Cartoon Network executives ... to impress the Cartoon Network executives" I feel like this can be worded a bit better. I'd think that someone in Sugar's position would take the job seriously. Perhaps something like, "Wanting to impress the Cartoon Network executives who supported her pilot, Sugar began to build a production crew with the utmost care." Or something
  • I feel like "Cartoon Network executives supported her pilot as Sugar took it seriously from the beginning just in case they picked it up" is better, but still quite awkward.
  • "Jackie Buscarino was hired as producer in September 2012 to hire people and supervise the crew" -> "Jackie Buscarino, who was brought on as producer in September 2012, was tasked with hiring people and supervising the show's crew."
  • I'm confused by the line "Sugar and her crew were once moved to a "black building" behind the Cartoon Network studios during development". Should this be "Sugar and her crew were moved to a "black building" behind the Cartoon Network studios during development"? Why is the color of the building important?
  • "They found colorist Tiffany Ford and art directors Kevin Dart, Ellie Michalka and Jasmin Lai, who joined the Steven Universe crew after The Powerpuff Girls concluded" -> "After The Powerpuff Girls concluded, artists who had formerly worked on the program, such as the colorist Tiffany Ford and the art directors Kevin Dart, Ellie Michalka and Jasmin Lai, joined the Steven Universe crew."
  • "When Sugar saw Ben Levin and Matt Burnett (former writers for Level Up) on the list, she chose them as fellow fantasy nerds" Some issues with this: first, how did she know they were into fantasy by looking at the list? Second, the way it's worded suggests that she chose them to become fantasy nerds? The latter part of the sentence should probably be, "she chose them because they were fellow fantasy enthusiasts."
  • "Steven Sugar (Rebecca's brother) continued his role as background designer after the pilot" The fact that Steven did backgrounds isn't mentioned until this sentence, making the "continued" part confusing (it might lead a reader to think that they missed something)
  • This is still an issue. Also, "and appreciated the contributions of Dart, Michalka, Lai, background painter Amanda Winterston and others" comes across as awkward. Was he helped by these individuals during production? If so, just replace "appreciated the contributions of" with "was assisted by" or something.
  • "Paul Villeco (writer and storyboard artist)" -> "Paul Villeco (a writer and storyboard artist)"
  • "The a coming-of-age series explores children as they grow up, when their world becomes riskier and more complex" -> "The coming-of-age series explores the process of growing up—a time in which a child's world becomes riskier and more complex."
  • "Love is also a primary theme, because she worked on it with Jones-Quartey since its development" I know that Sugar and Jones-Quartey are together, but a new reader doesn't necessarily know this. Explain why Jones-Quartey being there made love a main theme.
  • "The series' messages are about love and acceptance" I feel like saying that love is both a theme and message, while not wrong by any means, is a bit clunky, especially with them one after another
    A writer from the show says that's what the message was, while the themes were said by the creator. – 1989 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I get that, but I think it can be integrated better. Right now it reads "Love is a theme. Love is a message."
  • "According to Kat Morris, the series' concepts are organic instead of "overly calculated"" I guess I don't really know what that means. Does this mean that the show's thematic ideas develop on their own?
  • I think this can still be made clearer.
  • "During the art presentation, ... and they were criticized at the presentation" This sentence seems really out of place; I feel like it belongs in an art section more so than a thematic section
  • The third paragraph in "Themes" is sort of three different ideas all smashed together. I'd try to reorganize this a bit so that it all flows better.
  • "After the series was greenlit, Sugar's goal was to redesign everything from the pilot to make it look "flexible and simple" for her future crew to add ideas of their own to the production design" Drop the "to the production design" and add "into the show" or something like that.
  • Didn't Tom Herpich do some designs for the pilot?
    Yes. – 1989 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I swear I remember him posting designs of the temple on his blogspot or something. Anyway, I could be off.
  • "...actual location, and drew the..." -> "...actual location, and he drew the..."
  • "Sugar conceived the characters as similar to her and Steven Sugar's involvement in "fantasy, lore-heavy worlds" they had seen on TV..." I'm not sure I understand this. Should it be something more like "Sugar conceived the characters as similar to those that she and Steven Sugar had seen in the "fantasy, lore-heavy worlds" of their favorite TV programs" or something?
  • First part looks much better now, but there is currently an odd fragment ("were interested in and acted out (drawing the setting when they were together)") about which I'm not sure what to do.
  • "...influenced by Mickey Mouse's design by Disney artists..." -> "...influenced by the design of Mickey Mouse made by Disney artists..."
  • "That was.[35]" ? I'm not sure what this is.
  • "Realism was always a character priority" What does this mean?
  • "flexibility and inconsistency" Should that dash be there over the "in"?
  • I'm still unclear about this.
  • "The title character, Steven, is loosely based on Steven Sugar (Rebecca's younger brother,[33] one of the series' background artists)" I feel like this should be mentioned earlier, possibly in the section where Sugar mentions asking her brother if it is OK to name the show after him?
  • "Rebecca, Steven and their friends collaborated on comics when they were growing up" Kind of out of nowhere; this should be integrated into the preceding sentence better or excised. Right now it's sort of just floating with no real point.
Production
  • "... for which Sugar and her crew was well-prepared." -> "...for which Sugar and her crew were well-prepared."
  • "The "Cheeseburger Backpack" and "Together Breakfast"..." -> "The episodes "Cheeseburger Backpack" and "Together Breakfast"...".
  • "...who draw (and write) the episode" -> "...who block out the action for the episode and write its dialogue."
  • "The storyboards are animated, based on paper drawings by one of two Korean studios (Sunmin and Rough Draft) and the production crew's designs" -> "The storyboards are animated, based on paper drawings and the production crew's designs, by one of two Korean studios (Sunmin and Rough Draft)"
  • "The episode concept is then discussed" This doesn't seem right. Surely they discuss the concept of episodes prior to their being animated, correct?
  • "When season production begins, future episodes are discussed" Can this be fleshed out at all?
  • "...ideas on post-it notes which covered the walls, table and boxes in the corners of their conference room" -> "...ideas on post-it notes, which are then attached to the walls, table and boxes in the corners of their conference room"
  • "The Cluster, conceived during a meeting, became official by season two" What is the Cluster?
  • Ok, this is clearer now, but seems completely out of place and better suited to a season two article, rather than the series article itself.
  • I have taken it out of the article. While a season article hasn't been made yet, it really doesn't fit in this section and it disrupts the flow.
  • "The show's initial premise was Steven's human side, (instead of his magic side)..." First, ditch the comma after 'side'. Second, it doesn't make a lot of sense for the show's premise to be "his human side". Perhaps, "The show's initial premise focused mostly on Steven's human side" or something like that.
  • "While Sugar developed the Gems' history, she developed the pilot episode" -> "As Sugar developed the pilot episode, she also began to develop the Gems' history"
  • "She planned plotlines involving the Crystal Gems in season two" Perhaps something like, "She began to plot out and explore plotlines involving the Crystal Gems in season two"
  • "The storyboarders write the episodes with artwork, passing it on to the writers and story editors (formerly Levin and Burnett) to polish and outline the plot and waiting a least a day to meet with the editors." This sentence confuses me. First, how do the artists write the episodes with artwork? I think that needs to be clarified. Second, I thought that the storyboard artists got the plot from the writers and story editors?
  • "...is like an algebraic equation: "[...] where one side..." -> "...is like an algebraic equation "where one side..."
  • "The writers played games to come up with ideas" -> "To develop new ideas for episodes, the writers play writing games"
  • What is the "the Gem-human era"?
  • "...if Steven was not introduced well..." I think this should read more like, "...if Steven was not as well-developed..." or something like that
  • "Levin also emphasized the importance of balancing Steven's human and gem sides" I feel like this is already noted at the beginning of the paragraph
  • "the writers reveal bits of information relevant to a "climactic" episode" Reveal to whom?
  • "they preferred to focus on plot and developed Steven in real time" -> present tense
  • "...the background art begins..." -> "The production of background art beings"
  • "...the backgrounds are modified..." -> "...pre-existing backgrounds are modified..."
  • "...they intentionally made it slightly..." First, present tense. Second, what is 'it'?
  • "Neither Korean studio animates the series digitally; it is animated and inked by paper, scanned and colored digitally" I get what this is saying, but isn't this technically still partially digitally animated? Perhaps it should read something like, "The animation is drawn and inked on paper, before it is scanned and colored digitally."
  • "...who has appeared in several animated series and films..." Unnecessary
  • "...a noted British singer..." Beware of WP:Peacock terms
  • "For actress Michaela Dietz and actress and The Party singer Deedee Magno, the roles of Amethyst and Pearl were also their first animation roles" This is very confusingly ordered; I think it should be reworded, but I'm not entirely sure how to go about this at the moment
  • "...been a voice actress in animated productions age of five or six" -> "...been a voice actress in animated productions since the age of five or six"
  • "Magno enjoys the group sessions' laughter at faces they make while recording lines requiring emotion or movement" Something seems off about this line; I think it needs to be reworded to better convey its meaning
  • The second paragraph of the "Music" section should probably come right after the introduction of Aivi in the previous paragraph
  • "...Steven as a chiptune" -> "...Steven with chiptune tones"
  • "The songs were becoming complex, and production became more difficult since their regular style no longer fit the lyrics" -> "Over time, the songs have become increasingly complex, and production has became more difficult since the show's original musical style no longer fits perfectly with the newer lyrical themes." Or something like that
  • "An example is "Here Comes a Thought", sung by Estelle and AJ Michalka (who voices Stevonnie) without a specific musical style but discussing the song's "feel" with Sugar" -> "An example is "Here Comes a Thought", which was sung by Estelle and AJ Michalka (who voices Stevonnie). The two were less inspired by a specific musical style, but rather by the song's "feel", which had been explained to them by Sugar"
Broadcast
  • "In January 2017 the network briefly released one set of episodes online a few weeks early, leading fans to believe that they had been leaked" This sentence seems kind of oddly placed. It doesn't have much to do with the preceding prose, and (imho) isn't that important to the show itself
Episodes
  • "The episode, which Uncle Grandpa acknowledges is not canonical, contains a plot hole" I think it's probably important to note that it is non-canon, but the mention of the plot hole is better left for the episode page
  • The sentence had some missing info so I changed it to "The episode contains a plot hole in which Uncle Grandpa acknowledges that the episode not canonical." Do tell me if that's not right.
Other media
  • The entirety of the "Short films" section and most of the "Companion books" section is unsourced
Reception
  • "Steven Universe has received critical acclaim, with praise for its art, music, voice performances, storytelling and characterization" -> "Steven Universe has received acclaim, with critics praising its art, music, voice performances, storytelling and characterization"
  • The identification of both Whitbrook and Thurm shouldn't be in parentheses, but should be worked into the main prose
    I don't know what to do right now about that. – 1989 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As it is currently written, I fear that it veers a little close to WP:SYNTHESIS for comfort (in that it sort of implies that Whitbrook and Thurm are commenting on its fan base, when they are really just praising the show).
  • The sentence implies that the show's "equally rewarding" nature and the fact that it is "the stealthiest, smartest, and most beautiful things on the air" are directly responsible for its large fan base. While I think this is probably true, the way the sentence is structured is a synthesis of published material, taking two different authors' assertions and building to an independent answer; if you want to make that point clear and avoid WP:SYNTHESIS, I'd suggest finding a source that specifically and clearly lays out why the show has garnered such a large fandom.
  • "Steven Universe has a range of themes" Not really an appropriate opening line for the section about the themes; perhaps something like "Critics have applauded Steven Universe's diverse range of themes"
    Sandstein revised it. – 1989 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of the themes sections isn't really about themes, but rather the allusions to previous shows
  • "...to acceptance as a Crystal Gem in his own right..." -> "...to an accepted member of the Crystal Gems in his own right..."
  • Adventure Time and Regular Show are linked after they have been introduced
  • The AT one is fixed, but Regular Show isn't linked at all anymore.
  • "...Avatar: The Last Airbender (2005); its sequel, The Legend of Korra (2012); Adventure Time, and Regular Show (both 2010)..." -> "...Avatar: The Last Airbender (2005); its sequel, The Legend of Korra (2012); Adventure Time (2010); and Regular Show (2010)" (Be consistent with semicolon usage, and I'd recommend not having the 'both 2010' parenthetical for aesthetic reasons)
Awards, References, External links
  • Refs 18, 41, and 60 should use pp. instead of p.
Optional suggestions
  • You might want to add periods at the end of the shortened book citations, as this seems to be the style preferred by WP:SRF.
    I don't see a need for it as the example of the harv template didn't have a period. – 1989 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If you have an archive date, you don't really need to have the access date, too, since the archive date is sufficient to convey when the info was 'captured'
  • Is there any info on the show's ratings?
    Not that I know of. – 1989 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The List of Steven Universe episodes has a lot of ratings info that could be integrated into this article nicely (e.g. talk about season premieres and finales). But again, this is optional and a suggestion for perhaps a future FAN.

More to come!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, in addition to the issues noted above (many of which are minor issues with the prose and/or rewordings that can be fixed en masse), there are two big things that are jumping out at me about this article:
  • First, the prose is sort of all over the place. Some paragraphs are totally fine, whereas others are all kind of jumbled together. Paragraphs should ideally be thematically focused (which this article does), and flow from one sentence to another (which this article struggles with).
  • Second, there are a lot of instances of odd grammatical constructions or bits that don't quite mean what I think they're trying to express (e.g. "she chose them as fellow fantasy nerds"). I'd really recommend getting this thoroughly copy-edited for clarity and organization.
These two issues mean that 1a of the GA criteria is not quite yet fulfilled in my eyes. With that said, I can't find much else to fault in the rest of the article. It's well-researched (pulling from a broad range of sources), unbiased, comprehensive, informative, stable, and well-illustrated. I'm going to put this on hold, but unlike many other reviews, I'll leave it open a bit longer than a week, since I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done first.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Gen. Quon: I did my best to resolve all of the concerns except for the ones that have a comment. I did my edits by section so it would be easier (I think) to review. Cheers. – 1989 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@1989: I appreciate the speedy response! I will go through the article tomorrow and see how things are looking (I'll probably also do a little copy-editing as I go this time). Also, I do hope that my comments don't come across as harsh or severe or anything... I'm actually really quite excited to see this show here (as you know, I'm a rather big fan of a certain CN show), and I want this article to be top quality!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@1989: This now much-improved! There are still a few issues I'd like to see ironed out, but your quick work is much appreciated. (Also, I apologize for the typos in the above comments; I ran across a few while striking out issues!)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Gen. Quon: Fixed what I can. – 1989 (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@1989: Nearing the final stretch. I have just a few more minor comments. After those are resolved, I'll do a general copy-edit, and then judge it from there. Good work.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I performed a comprehensive copy-edit, and I think it looks pretty good now. I am going to pass this! Good job with all your hard work.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronouns

Request revert

Article needs to be fixed to avoid unnecessary use of pronouns. The article has been fixed before and needs to be reverted back to politely avoiding the entirely unnecessary use of pronouns. Alternatively information about an artist from the show quitting Twitter could be deleted as non-notable. -- 109.77.194.253 (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

See also Talk:Steven_Universe/Archive_1#Zuke_pronoun -- 109.77.194.253 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Does Steven Universe still air?

I saw it in the promo Too Many Unikitties before the show Unikitty! with other shows. Probably that means there is a new season of the show. The character might appear again in Season 5 or 6. 172.58.6.214 (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the show is still airing. It's currently in the middle of season 5, on a hiatus, with new episodes coming possibly this summer, but there are no concrete announcements as of yet. Godrestsinreason (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Rebecca recently came out as Non-Binary

Rebecca Sugar now identifes as Non-Binary. It means the first female creator of a Cartoon Network show is now a misleading part of a the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.193.27 (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

She described herself as a "non-binary woman", so maybe it's not misleading? But I'm not sure what counts here. AJD (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right. I was just processing through this information and looking through what pronouns Rebecca Sugar prefers in news articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.193.27 (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

What is the reliable source that could be quoted for this? Sandstein 06:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is a source for it. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.193.27 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.newnownext.com/rebecca-sugar-steven-universe-non-binary/07/2018/

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2018

Iagomg04 (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Why can we not edit this page?

Why does wikipedia always try to force us to make a username? Is there identity they want to steal from us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.213.67 (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It is protected to protect the article against vandalism. -- AlexTW 07:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

'Voices of' section

Can Uzo Aduba be included in the 'voices of' section in the box at the top of the page? Her character came back and will probably no doubt be making more appearances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.85.238 (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Who? And was she ever credited as main cast? -- /Alex/21 23:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
She voices Bismuth. It depends what you mean by credited as main cast, -voice credits at the end are separated into two categories, 'Featured Voices' and 'Additional Voices', just checking the episodes it looks like only those actors who voice the main four, Steven/Pearl/Amethyst/Garnet, are listed under the former (with any additional characters they may've voiced in a particular episode noted as well), while everyone else is listed under the latter (which would account for the majority of the 'voices of' list here, even though they are significant recurring main characters). Uzo Aduba is credited in those episodes she appears in. She hasn't been in a large number of episodes (5, but she is slated to be in some upcoming ones) though so there's that, but her character is fairly significant in those episodes, one of the episodes is even named for her character. I don't feel strongly either way though.219.88.68.195 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
In that case, only the voices of Steven, Pearl, Amethyst and Garnet should be listed in the infobox, as they are the only featured voices. For what it's worth, will probably no doubt sounds like WP:OR. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 23:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say 'will probably no doubt' that was the previous person you originally replied to. I think you've jumped the gun there editing the article before this discussion was finished; featured/additional voices in the credits doesn't necessarily denote whether one is or is not part of the main cast.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Apologies, wrong IP editor. Main cast is featured cast. More available at MOS:TVCAST. -- /Alex/21 05:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Looking through the link I'm not seeing anything there that explicitly equates 'featured voices' (not cast) with 'main cast'; those categories aren't necessarily directly equivalent. It does say though that "A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status.", a number of those voice actors definitely go beyond merely being recurring characters or guest stars. Bismuth arguably does not meet that bar, but actors like Grace Rolek who voices Connie Maheswaran, or Tom Scharpling who voices Greg Universe (and Yellowtail), and have done over the entire course of the show should rise to the level of voicing main characters. I also don't see where it defines the infobox 'Voices of' category to strictly 'main cast' either for that matter, an argument could be made for inclusion of those with a significant contribution over the course of a series. Especially those who voice multiple characters.219.88.68.195 (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Grammar problem

"American actor Zach Callison voices Steven; his first lead role on television"

This grammar sucks. It should be something like "American actor Zach Callison voices Steven. The role of Steven is his first lead role on television." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amethyst Facet 5 Cut-8XK (talk • contribs)

 Done Also, please don't forget to sign your posts, by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 01:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Premiere date

For some reason this article claims the show started releasing in May 2013? May 2013 was the pilot. November 2013 is the actual start date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1000:472:978:FED:39D7:F098 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The pilot is part of the series. Regardless of what format it takes, it is still considered part of Steven Universe. The date is therefore correct. -- /Alex/21 03:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alex 21: The pilot was never aired on TV, but online. Does that count as a premiere? -- 1989 (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Certainly. Netflix series are never aired on television, but they all have premiere dates. A premiere date is the first date that any episodic content related to the series was released. Per the documentation at Template:Infobox television for |first_aired=, [i]n the event a program airs a full "preview" episode on TV in advance of a premiere, that date should be used instead. -- /Alex/21 04:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

"Guest appearances" in episode articles

The infobox in all the episode articles has a field for "guest appearances", and someone recently went through and added voice actors' names to all of those fields. But: is there any principle for determining who counts as a "guest appearance"? For instance, some episodes with Peridot have Shelby Rabara listed as a guest (Cry for Help) and some don't (Super Watermelon Island). Erica Luttrell gets listed as a "guest" for episodes with Sapphire or Padparadscha, but Brian Posehn doesn't get listed as a guest for episodes with Sour Cream, even though Posehn is in fewer episodes (and therefore arguably more of a "guest"). Is there any standard or principle we can use to decide who counts for this? AJD (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources should determine cast status; if none exist, then local consensus. More information available at MOS:TVCAST. -- /Alex/21 08:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay so, in the absence of reliable sources, can we try and achieve local consensus? What would be good criteria to consider someone a "guest" role (in contrast to a "recurring" role) on Steven Universe? Or should we just do in on a case-by-case basis? I don't think Kimberley Brooks, Susan Egan, Erica Luttrell, Jennifer Paz, Shelby Rabara, or Charlyne Yi should ever be listed as "guest"; they're clearly "recurring" performers. Nicki Minaj is definitely a guest. Uzo Aduba I think is a guest in "Bismuth", but in season 5 she's recurring. Patti LuPone is a guest in seasons 2 and 4, but perhaps recurring in season 5? Lisa Hannigan is probably the same. ...I dunno, it'd be easier if we had criteria. AJD (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Will Season 5 be the final season?

There is a possibility that Season 5 will be the show's final season.[1][2][3]
Said by Rebecca: "I have big plans for that season! Endgame or not I'm shooting for the moon, I'm going to write us into a serious corner!"[4]

It's very possible, but there's no real indication one way or another, and not really something that should be mentioned in the article until there's clear confirmation. Godrestsinreason (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Rebecca said this back when seasons were 52 episodes long. Taking the conversion into account, this would have Steven Universe running until Season 9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.51.134.114 (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
That's WP:OR. -- AlexTW 12:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, Guess they were rumors after all, as the show's given a sixth season. --2605:6000:120E:E1D3:0:222A:66BC:2530 (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I saw the list of episodes and saw the words "As of August 1, 2018, no sixth season has yet been announced", which made me google "steven universe final season" and I went to this page "Cartoon Network accidentally leaks Steven Universe" on Polygon and at the end of the paragraph, "Cartoon Network has yet to announce whether the show will be renewed for a sixth — but it also hasn’t announced that the show is ending either. Fans are worried that the clips they just saw weren’t just from any episode, but from a season finale — or worse — a series finale."[5], which is giving me a thought that the show could still conclude. 173.175.89.40 (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


Season 5 is over now, still no offical word on a sixth season. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This could mean that the movie's gonna be the finale. But time will tell. 2600:1700:19B0:9850:895D:B7BC:F3F:3774 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.parentherald.com/articles/43952/20160517/steven-universe-ending-after-season-5-rebecca-sugar-teases-big-plans-and-more-on-gem-hierarchy-spoilers.htm
  2. ^ http://us.blastingnews.com/showbiz-tv/2017/04/steven-universe-season-5-may-be-the-shows-last-installment-001657337.html
  3. ^ http://www.hngn.com/articles/214164/20161028/steven-universe-spoilers-news-update-show-extending-till-season-5.htm
  4. ^ http://www.parentherald.com/articles/43952/20160517/steven-universe-ending-after-season-5-rebecca-sugar-teases-big-plans-and-more-on-gem-hierarchy-spoilers.htm
  5. ^ https://www.polygon.com/2018/5/3/17315264/steven-universe-ending-spoilers-cartoon-network

Peabody Award date

The Peabody Award was awarded in 2019, but the Peabody Awards website describes it as a “2018 Winner”. What date should we list it under in this article? AJD (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

”The Peabody Board of Jurors revealed today nine Entertainment winners and a Children’s winner for programs released in 2018.” [3] -- 1989 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2019

Change 1080i to 480P2605:A000:4843:100:79A3:511F:D8E0:23BC (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also please provide a reliable source to support your statement. Masum Reza📞 21:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Series concluded in 2019

The all series was concluded on September 2, 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.81.17 (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Provide a reliable source. -- /Alex/21 06:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2019

Should this article made by the TV Guide staff be included in the "Critical reception"? 2A02:2F0D:202:7C00:E9EB:423A:D992:B107 (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. AJD (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Soundtrack Article

I noticed my soundtrack contribution was reverted with the implication that it would be better suited to its own article. I think that makes sense since the soundtrack is certainly relevant considering how much it charted and sold. What are everyone else's thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagaluv1 (talk • contribs)

New series

Looks like the show is returning for a limited run under the title "Steven Universe Future". [4] --ERAGON (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

We know--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
One of the writers, Ian JQ said this isn't a Season 6 but a separate series. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"Steven Universe: Future" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Steven Universe: Future. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1989 (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

End date

Looks like this series (the original SU) is over. Future seems to be not unlike Ben 10: Alien Force or Naruto: Shippuden, which continues the story of the original series, but is it's own separate series. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Simmerdon3448, where did I say it was part of Season 5? I did not. I stated it was a production of the series. It is not separate from this series. Hence, it is the final entrance of this series. -- /Alex/21 12:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
It was a production of the series, but it is not the series finale. Change Your Mind is--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Can you provide a source that supports that? If it is a production of the series, then it is an entry of the series. You cannot have a series finale and then an entry afterwards that's part of the same series. -- /Alex/21 12:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
You don’t have a source for your claims that it is part of season 5, you made a random unsupported claim that different series have different rules. The Rugrats Movie isn’t part of season 5. Rugrats in Paris isn’t part of season 6. Status quo rules--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
That's because I'm not claiming that it's part of Season 5. I've already told you this, I hope I don't need to do so again. The Movie is a production of this series. It is the final entry of this series. -- /Alex/21 12:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
YOU NEED A SOURCE--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
For what? That it's a production of this series? -- /Alex/21 12:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
YES. The movie is a movie in continuity with the series, but there’s nothing saying it’s a production of the series--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The Futon Critic, a source used by thousands of television articles as a reliable source. The movie is listed as part of the series. Press release: "Cartoon Network's Steven Universe returns this fall with the highly anticipated musical Steven Universe The Movie" - that is, the series returns with a new entry, the movie. -- /Alex/21 12:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Literally invalid, as you’re assuming they’re referring to the series, when it could easily be about the character himself, whose name is Steven Universe--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
A movie is not a series finale. This is pretty basic stuff.Gagaluv1 (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Gagaluv1, [citation needed] -- /Alex/21 13:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Are you serious? Don't be an asshole.Gagaluv1 (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Please remain civil during discussions; further comments such as your previous one may be redacted. Please provide a reliable source to support your opinion. -- /Alex/21 13:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
It is listed as part of the series in the first source. Do you have anything to backup your claim that The Futon Critic is an invalid or unreliable source? -- /Alex/21 13:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
It is NOT listed as part of the series in the first source, no matter how many times you say so. That’s like saying “Barty Goes to School” is the series finale of any PowerPuff Girls series because the Powerpuff Girls appears in it--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Do you see it listed at the top of the article? The entry titled "The Movie" dated "9/2/19 (Mo.) 6:00 PM"? That indicates that it is listed as part of the series. If it wasn't part of the series, then The Futon Critic would not have it in their listing for the series as a whole. -- /Alex/21 13:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Further note how under "Current season", it lists "5 (33 episodes)". Season 5 has 32 episodes. That does indeed confirm that The Movie is considered the 33rd episode of the fifth season. That is, part of the series. -- /Alex/21 13:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Citation needed--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Shows A-Z - steven universe on cartoon | TheFutonCritic.com -- /Alex/21 13:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
But why doesn’t it have a production code like the others? If it did, it certainly would be inline with the series, wouldn’t it?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The numbers listed are not production codes. The actual production codes are available at List of Steven Universe episodes. For example, "Gem Glow" is listed as (#01). It's production code is 1020-003. -- /Alex/21 13:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Any further comments to disprove The Futon Critic as a reliable source, despite being used in almost 6,000 articles? -- /Alex/21 13:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Misrepresenting what I said will do you no favors. I said your source was invalid because it didn’t prove your claims. This sort of dishonesty is why I can’t handle arguing with you--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
That's your opinion on it. TFC includes it as part of the series. Note how it doesn't include SU Future. Because SU Future isn't part of the series. Looking at it otherwise is WP:OR. TFC lists the movie as part of the SU series. It's as simple as that. Disagree? Hold an RFC to dispute TFC as a reliable source; until then, it exists as is. -- /Alex/21 14:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Once again, I never stated that The Futon Critic as a whole is unreliable. Please refrain from making such claim again--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
If you believed it to be reliable, you would accept its contents, and not put your own interpretation on it. Either it's reliable and you accept the source's content, or you don't believe it by not accepting the source's content. TFC lists the movie as part of the SU series. It's as simple as that. -- /Alex/21 08:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Please chill out everyone, thanks. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, the movie is was actually produced as a episode of the show somewhat as storyboards show. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
There you have it. Even more sources. The movie is a production and entry of this series, irrelevant of original research or opinion. -- /Alex/21 22:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that I didn’t say this was a episode of the show. While this was produced technically as a episode of the show, it’s still a stand-alone movie. Change Your Mind is still the series finale. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but we don't do "technically" on Wikipedia, as that constitutes OR. If it is an episode of the series, it is an episode of the series. Multiple sources confirm it is an entry of the series, such as TFC. Can you cite a source or example as to why we cannot accept TFC as a source on this? -- /Alex/21 23:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
You can’t decide it on a “somewhat”! That’s ludicrous! Until there’s definitive proof, the discussion is not over--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
An FA accepts that format? Perfect! FA are the perfect standards for which other articles should strive to be, so clearly such a method is acceptable and has not been disputed there. -- /Alex/21 08:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I never said it was over, and this is proof that it was produced as a part of the series. You need to compare the source I linked to other background design cards from the actual show. I think that until this dispute is solved, the end date should be changed to just "2019". This is because there’s no valid end date to use right now.HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC) I’ve sent a message to Ian JQ about this. Hopefully he responds so we can get a confirmation on what date to use. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Not that I don't respect just being like, we need an answer from someone on the inside; but isn't that like the definition of OR? AJD (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not OR. If the original creator states what's true, since that person works/worked on the show and has inside information, its reliable. That, and there have been sources gathered from staff answering fan questions before in other articles. Original research applies for facts that don't have any reliable sources. Statements from staff on the show are reliable sources, and therefore don't fall under OR. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
If you message Ian and he messages you back and you update the article with his answer, that's OR. If he makes a public statement, it's presumably not. AJD (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that I tweeted to him on Twitter, so it would still be a public statement either way (aka not OR). For example, a retweet. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Not per WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Social media replies and resultant primary sources may only be used as a source about themselves. This is about a piece of work, and not Ian himself. It cannot be used. -- /Alex/21 08:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Whatever Ian says would be a WP:PRIMARY source and not preferable, as they are staff of the series, not the creator, and thus their personal opinion could easily be disputed here. So I agree that we cannot use his statements.
Why not have the article like Doctor Who, and list the final date as January 2019 and list the September 2019 film date beneath it? That way, both dates are acceptable. I see this as a decent compromise. -- /Alex/21 08:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
By that logic, that’s mean we can’t use the source of him saying the show is over either. It CAN be used, whether you like it or not. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Except I've already linked the relevant policy saying it can't be used. Yes, WP:SOCIALMEDIA is a policy. We can't use any source of him saying anything about the show's status, no.
What about the compromise? -- /Alex/21 08:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
It’s clear you haven’t read up on what WP:SOCIALMEDIA actually is. As stated, social media can be used as sources as long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Your doubt isn’t reasonable because you assume that when the staff states something about the show’s status, it’s apparently their "opinion". These are literally the people who make the show. They know when the show ended. We can either wait for him to say something, or not have a traditional end date at all and just have it say 2019. We can’t do both dates, it’s very confusing to people. This just keeps going back and forth. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact, I listed previewed the dual dates you suggested and it didn’t even work, it just says invalid date range. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct. But only if the content is about them, as stated in the very first paragraph (in bold as well!), before the specifying dot points, and thus such a statement from Ian would be automatically disqualified as a reliable source, as it is not about him. If you disagree, then take it to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Until then, policy is not up to a single editor to interpret.
How's it confusing? "Series: May 21, 2013 – January 21, 2019. Film: September 2, 2019". Easy. It's worked for the Doctor Who article for years. -- /Alex/21 09:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
And yet, another article is able to do it. Take a look. -- /Alex/21 09:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

But the content isn’t about them, it’s about the show. I’m ultimately just gonna go through with the ”Doctor Who" date suggestion. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Anything they say about the show is not something about them. So they can't be used as a source about the show. And best to wait for further replies and agreements before implementing anything. -- /Alex/21 09:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
As I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, they can be used. I linked the five rules of WP:SOCIALMEDIA, and not ONE of them refers to the nonsense you’re saying. These statements about the show’s future LITERALLY come from someone who MAKES the show. It can be used, whether you like it or not. We’ve used staff sources before in different articles. There’s no need to change that. By this logic, we can’t even use the source of Ian JQ saying it’s ended, all because it came from somebody who works on the show. They were linked in the article as the source that confirmed the show was ending so they can be used and ARE being used. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Copy the first paragraph of WP:SOCIALMEDIA to me. The first sentence. Better yet, copy the bolded bit. Let me know what it says. -- /Alex/21 12:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, congrats, I overlooked it, you win. But I’m removing the source of him saying the show was over, because we can’t use it. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Good job. We can, however, use WP:SECONDARY sources that state that the series is over. -- /Alex/21 21:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
[5][6] 1989 (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Perfect! We can add those to the article, along with both the final episode date and the film date. -- /Alex/21 10:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Screen Resulution

Change 1080p to 480p2603:6000:9344:B500:6943:9CA9:D2F8:E578 (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Future

Steven Universe Future is disregarded as a separate series, however the page is a redirect. Should it be worked into an actual article now that episode titles and such are known? CrypticalFiery (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

All that is known is that it was announced, and an episode table. What else would there be to add? -- /Alex/21 00:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Small addition request

Inside "Other media" section, under "Video Games", the last statement talks about Brawlhalla. Should be added "...Amethyst as Xull..." For some reason, it is missing.

On December 4, 2019, Brawlhalla released a crossover introducing Amethyst, Pearl as Kaya, Stevonnie as Val, and Garnet as Petra. -Current

On December 4, 2019, Brawlhalla released a crossover introducing Amethyst as Xull, Pearl as Kaya, Stevonnie as Val, and Garnet as Petra. -Suggested edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turhral (talk • contribs) 19:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I felt the sentence gave unneeded detail. Rephrased to read: On December 4, 2019, Brawlhalla, a free-to-play fighting game, added Steven Universe characters. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Annie 2020 awards results

The results for the 2020 Annie awards are in, please change "Pending" to "Nominated" in both categories (Best Commercial and Best Voice Acting - TV/Media). The source with the award results is https://annieawards.org/nominees

Sorry is this message's format is not correct, I'm new around hereand trying my best to understand how to use this feature properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an IP editor 17:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you! WanderingWanda (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

100.40.58.202 (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC) add 2020 American Franchise Endings
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Show's over

Would it be common form to change the "Steven Universe is [...]" to "Steven Universe was [...]" now that the show is officially over, with all it's episodes having aired on March 27th, 7:30pm?

NikoTheEditingFox (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's standard style for TV show articles. AJD (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

As AJD said. The show has finished its run, and not stopped existing.--Refuteku (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

True, the show still exists, people can still watch it, yes i know yall are sad that the show's over, but i dont think that it's necessary to change anything about the show being "in the past". Deadlittlefishy (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

no Deadlittlefishy (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would be on Wikimedia commons, anyway. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

Please replace the template

with

. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

IMDB scores

WP:USERGENERATED web polls such as those from IMDB are not reliable sources, audience scores are not allowed. Please remove the IMDB score from this article. -- 109.79.81.4 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

We commonly report IMDB ratings for shows. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes, perhaps, but IMDB is a user-generated site. See WP:IMDB.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Rebecca Sugar's gender

At the top of the article, it says: " It is Cartoon Network's first animated series to be created solely by a woman." From what I understand, Sugar is a non-binary woman, which means she is fine with being called a woman but does not identify as one, but perhaps this should still be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:7600:7278:2533:5C0F:C75E:A6D4 (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@User:Sandstein, @User:Gen. Quon, @User:BriarRose2020, @User:Mathglot, and @AJD, building off the discussions on Talk:Rebecca Sugar, should the line "It is Cartoon Network's first animated series to be created solely by a woman" be changed to "It is Cartoon Network's first animated series to be created by a femme-presenting and non-binary person"? --Historyday01 (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
No. We don't have to say everything about a person to characterize their "first". In fact, by adding additional description we would dilute her achievement, or even seem to be a suspiciously sideways-criticism of nonbinary women (as in, 'Oh, what was the first animated series created by a real woman?'). Or if that's problematic because of statements she's made, then you could reword slightly to say "she was named as the first woman..." which avoids the problem of her own identification. Mathglot (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense. We could, perhaps do your latter suggestion ("Or if that's problematic because of statements she's made, then you could reword slightly to say "she was named as the first woman..." which avoids the problem of her own identification."). I just know that this issue will come up again at some point as it is inevitable, and it made sense to have a discussion about it here. I'm flexible with wording, so I'm not wedded to the choice I set out in my question. In any case, I'd like to hear what other people have to say on this topic. --Historyday01 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If she’s a non-binary woman doesn’t that still make the series be the first animated series to be created solely by a woman.CycoMa (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If I remember correctly Sugar's most recent public comment on the matter was that she doesn't really identify as a woman. I continue to favor saying that she was "described as" the first woman to create a Cartoon Network series. I don't think we can say she's the first non-binary person to create a show for the network unless we get a reliable source actually verifying that, and I'm definitely against "first femme-presenting" which seems like OR or opinion anyway. AJD (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ajd: source please.CycoMa (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
It's this; she says something like "I didn't feel comfortable telling people that I don't identify as a woman" and "people perceive me as a woman but that's not really true". AJD (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. We write what sources write. In this case, "woman". Everything else is WP:OR. Sandstein 06:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I literally just provided a source that says 'not a woman'. AJD (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Ajd, that's a source about her current self-identification. But at issue is not that, but how to describe her status as the first whatever to create a CN series. And for that, we have sources describing her as a woman, as she presumably then identified as. Otherwise we'd need to omit this statement entirely. Sandstein 11:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it should say something, but I am not not sure about the current sentence construction considering that Sugar does not identify as a woman at this point in time. If Sugar's page could be changed, then it is only logical to make changes to this page as well, which is why I started this discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Sandstein, sure, that's why I think we should say that at the time she "was described as" the first woman to etc. It doesn't make OR claims like "first femme-presenting person"; it doesn't force us to omit something that was a notable claim to fame of Sugar and Steven Universe; and as per MOS:GENDERID it avoids us asserting that she is a woman, which is contradicted by later reliable sources. AJD (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Ajd, that's a possible solution, but it would confuse readers: are they meant to question that description? In my view, because Sugar did then identify as a woman, the current phrase "became the first woman" remains accurate. Sandstein 14:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I like Ajd's "was described"+footnote solution, for this article and Rebecca Sugar. I think there's no reason to diverge from GENDERID here, and "became the first woman" is clearly against the guideline. It would be even without a conclusive past-focused statement, but in this case we have one: "I didn't identify as a woman" in the Paper interview. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Why don't you say it "was the first... by a person who is not a man" and then clarify "Sugar is a non-binary woman" etc. tahc chat 10:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I think that could be problematic, because it would be assuming the gender identity of all the showrunners (that they are all male) before this series. And, that's opening a whole other can of worms. Historyday01 (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I think AJD's "described as" idea is the best for right now. I also think a footnote would help provide context to clear up the confusion. (Something as simple as "Sugar was promoted as 'the first woman to create a show independently for the network' before publicly identifying as non-binary", or the like). I know that that might not be standard practice, but I really do think it is needed here, to avoid confusion and explain the situation. Also, since Rebecca still recognizes she/her pronouns, I don't think it would violate anything on Wikipedia:Gender identity.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I can agree with that, sure, and a footnote could help in this case. Historyday01 (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Antross80.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2022

I would like to add that Steven Universe and Garnet were added to the platform fighting game, Multiversus, by Player First Games on November 18, 2021 Scottfree23 (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (@Scottfree23) lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 13:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't get more reliable than the WB Games tweet I linked last time. https://twitter.com/wbgames/status/1461362919090786323. They're the publisher for the game and this tweet is a video revealing the principal cast which includes both Steven Universe and Garnet. They're in both the character select screen and gameplay. Scottfree23 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Lettherebedarklight Scottfree23 (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Scottfree23: even with that tweet, including that content would probably be undue content, as it is a primary source. if it has been published in a secondary, reliable source, then it can possibly be included. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 15:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Lettherebedarklight Here's an IGN article that lists the starting cast 3 days after the tweet I tried to use as a reference. https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-multiversus-announced-2022-release
I felt the tweet was an acceptable primary source because it is a statement of fact, as their inclusion in the game isn't subject to interpretation, as per the guidelines I read before submitting.
"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
Did I misinterpret that? Scottfree23 (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Scottfree23: with that ign source, it could possibly be added to the video games section with one sentence. so yes, you could add it in.
and about primary sources, they can be used to verify facts, but do not establish due weight in an article. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 12:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022

Please add the following template to the article:

2601:249:9301:D570:E869:1EDF:22EE:5836 (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done by RealAspects --SamX 06:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Universe/Archive_1&oldid=1160064136"