Talk:The Acolyte (TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Audience reception in lead

Until we have reliable information about what the audience thinks I'd leave it out of the lead. Perhaps something could be said about online review bombing or the online outrage, but it's important to remember that what people are discussing/ranting about online isn't always reflective of the general audience. We need something more than easily manipulated online polls to say what the reaction of audiences are in a wiki voice. Nemov (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I have requested page protection to hopefully stop the repeated adding of this info. We should have a summary of the audience response section in the lead but there is WP:NORUSH. We can see what else comes up over the course of the season. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I requested it a few days ago and @Daniel Case declined. The disruptions have continued. Nemov (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that it's not being review bombed, but bombing and getting bad reviews? I'm not sure this article is representative of audience reception 2600:100A:B038:8F0:804D:75FF:FE7E:4BE9 (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

We have reliable sources who have analysed the audience reviews and determined that review bombing is taken place. Your personal opinion is irrelevant. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Is "Comingsoon.net" a reliable source? I hadn't heard of it until now. John Smith's (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No one is buying it. 2601:4C1:CA80:66C0:2AA0:D3F7:6174:7082 (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Coming Soon is a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

According to what? John Smith's (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there are now published Nielsen ratings where The Acolyte dropped out of the top 10 (it was at seven a while) that quite clearly prove that it was received extremely poorly by the audience. On top of that, the final episode seems to be almost universally destroyed, due to its extremely bad writing, acting and resolution. To blame this on racism and mysogony really borders to a complete disconnection from reality.

Nobody, including me, can understand why Sol is killed off for trying to defend the little girl from a threatening smoke monster, and the fact that he is not even trying to explain his action, plus the complere lack of any emotion on the killer's face while slowly killing him, makes this scene quite objectively some of the worst climaxes I have ever seen. A sociopath slowly killing an innocent person while staring at it emotionless, that should be in a Ted Bundy movie. And anybody defending this scene, because the victim is only an asian male, while the killer is a afro-american queer woman, cannot really be serious.

I think if Wikipedia hold its stance that most critic is only due to "review bombing", racism and sexism, the exact same defense strategy that Disney has been running from the beginning, it loses its credibility of an independent source of information. Timtas (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is you would have to find sources to back that up. And the main media sources pretty much all only report how great the show is because diversity. Forbes actually did have articles describing how poorly written the show is. But then you would have to get that "approved " by the editors who monitor and protect this article. I have seen a certain editor here get into it on the Kathleen Kennedy page because of bias, to the point of it going to some review board thing and accusations of using multiple accounts. So good luck with this page Holydiver82 (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

True, I did a quick Google search on the finale, and the majority of articles actually praise it, using highly adventurous rhetorics to rate that really disgusting killing scene somehow totally good. This is really beyond imaginably hilarious, even Lesley Headlands since somehow admitted how shitty that was. And the acting there is really below most first-grade summer-camp theatre productions. Timtas (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

yes, but it was all done by "queer" black woman, therefore it is inspirational and "important" and most of the media that covers television and would be the required sources for wikipedia cares far far more about the color of someone's skin and how many diversity checkboxes are ticked then the quality of the show. the only real thing you can do is try to take some objective facts, such as viewership numbers and try to find a source willing to cover them and try to get it included on wiki. however what I have seen is most of the access media either ignores the Neilson numbers or uses some other "engagement" number from other 3rd party app type sources and claims it was the most "viewed" star wars show ever. Holydiver82 (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, if it's "not possible" to say that audience reviews were mixed or something similar, it is definitely inappropriate to say that critics were positive given that not all felt that way. John Smith's (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This is apples and oranges. The reviews from critics has been positive. This isn't in dispute and is supported by sources. Every critic doesn't have to agree for it to be described as "positive." As far as audience is concerned we don't have reliable data per WP:USERG. Nemov (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You cannot say "the reviews from critics has been positive" if not all critics have expressed that opinion. You can say that a majority of critics gave positive reviews according to Rotten Tomatoes. That is all. John Smith's (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

On the whole, yes critic reviews have been positive, so that statement can be made by us the editors for the lead. Could counter points that have been made that fall more "negative" be noted? Yes, but because they weren't there previously doesn't mean we have to outright remove the statement that critic response was positive. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

So be accurate, say it's a majority view or a significant majority. Don't pretend that all critics were positive, which is what the text I removed implied. John Smith's (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It's accurate to say the reviews have been positive. Thet step down from that would be mixed. This is fully explained in the sections with due weight given to those who did share a negative criticism. The lead isn't describing "universal acclaim from critics" so it doesn't pretend to be anything than the weight of the reviews. Nemov (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Many or most reviews have been positive. You do not have to say "mixed". What you prefer does imply universal acclaim. John Smith's (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it implied anything other than the reviews have been positive, which is the reality supported by the weight of the sources. Nemov (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

And when you say "the reviews have been positive", that is incorrect - they have mostly been positive. There is an important difference. John Smith's (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Using your logic nothing could be considered "positive" because any TV show or film has some negative reviews. Your argument here is puzzling. Nemov (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

An example from Shōgun (1980 miniseries). "Shōgun received generally positive reviews from critics..." Why can't this article reflect the way critic support was phrased in that case? John Smith's (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Not really moved by WP:OTHERSTUFF, but would "well received by critics" be an improvement? Nemov (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I was just giving an example of what other articles said to show that it's not a question of saying that critic reviews were positive or mixed.

Another example would be The Mandalorian - "The series has received largely positive reviews from critics..." I think that would be fine for this article. Alternatively, "generally well received by critics", which is closer to what you've said, would be ok. John Smith's (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, 84% of reviews on RT are positive and Metacritic says "generally favorable" reviews. That is enough to support the standard "received generally positive reviews from critics" wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. But Nemov was opposed to using the word "generally". John Smith's (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

For avoidance of doubt I wouldn't object to you saying "received generally positive reviews from critics". 18:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC) John Smith's (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I do think that the lede should be updated to say something like "received generally positive reviews from critics but a weaker reception from audiences". It is clear that there is something going on here that goes beyond anti-woke ref-bombing. The disparity should be noted as it is becoming one of the most notable things about the series (which I found ok, but why they can't even achieve the scriptwriting/plot level of the Mandalorian just baffles me). thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:USERGEN. We don't have any reliable audience metrics other than viewership numbers which are discussed in the article. Nemov (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

We have several reliable audience metrics, including Neilsen, which per Screenrant, show that it is one of the weakest of the Starwars tv series spin-offs, and well behind the Mandalorian. This article's lede reads too much like a promotional piece for Amazon, when the reality is that the series reception has been quite underwhelming - not a flop or bomb, but not great. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

None of the Star Wars series have had "weak ratings." That sounds like WP:OR. The Nielsen ratings are in the article and are in context of what's on TV right now. That's how TV ratings work. Andor was watched less apparently and the sources don't indicate that the reception was "quite underwhelming." Nemov (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The neilsen ratings show that The Acolyte was been one of the weakest of the Starwars spinoffs, and way behind the Mandalorian in audience ratings. These are observable facts that are highly notable for the article's lede. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Repeating your argument makes it seem like you are pushing a POV and not really interested in improving this article. Nemov (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

No [personal attacks please. The lead of this article does not reflect the objective facts and attacking me is not going to change that. The Acolyte is a critically well-received series, but while not a bomb/flop, it has not performed as well with audiences as was expected. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that aren't based on unreliable user generated online polls that support the claim that it has not performed as well with audiences as was expected feel free to add them. Nemov (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

would it be nice to reference the Nielsen ratings and how significantly lower they were then other star wars shows? yes. will the editors on wikipedia ever let that very damning info be posted in the lead of this article. absolutely not. those facts put this show in a negative light, which is completely unacceptable when the goal is to protect and promote the show as much as possible. Holydiver82 (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

the info in the article is a couple of cherry picked items, first 5 days and first 2 episodes. the show is done. what logical and good reason would there be to not update the viewership to include the totals for the entire show Holydiver82 (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stick to discussing improvements in the articles and not your personal opinions on the series, as you have been in your most recent comments. There is nothing stopping you from adding viewership data for later episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

An improvement would be to stop reverting the guys edit to include the fact it was no longer top 10 Neilson after week 2 and help him include the sources. Because that's a fact and there are sources that show that. So pick one your willing to accept Holydiver82 (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. If you or he want to add information about Nielsen ratings or other responses to the show then the sources for that information need to be added at the same time. The onus is not on me or anyone else to clean-up after you. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been around long enough to know exactly how this works. which would make it a waste of time to try to include any viewership information that is negative. the talk page makes it quite clear that this page is being protected Holydiver82 (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have now added the Nielsen information that you wanted but were somehow unable to add yourself. You're welcome. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Viewership Figures

If Adamstom97 would actually read the source he listed for the viewership figures, he would know that it does NOT list the viewership minutes for The Acolyte, and in fact, doesn't mention the show at all beyond the headline. He should either find a better source that actually lists the minutes, or that even discusses the show, or he should stop reverting edits to his last piece of work. 24.107.130.86 (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 notification for SA. -2pou (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You need to scroll down, the information is at the bottom of the sourced article. If that is too difficult for you, do a search to find the places in the article that mention The Acolyte. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Expanded section

I read your sources. Did you. How many track viewership and how many source "engagement " based on things that are not people actually viewing the show Holydiver82 (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC) His sources are this " whose streaming charts are calculated by user activity, including clicking on a streaming offer, adding a title to a watchlist, and marking a title as “seen.” which very much are not viewership. They count any type of "engagement " or click about the show and then call that popularity. So the entire part of viewership other than Nielson figures is based on bad sources that when checked are basing their figures in amounts that are not actually people viewing the show. I'll probably edit the entire section tomorrow and see how much they fight it. So Far have not seen a single source other that Nielson that actually tracks real minutes watched and real viewership amounts Holydiver82 (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Your entire argument sounds like WP:OR. If you have questions about sources you should review WP:RS. Nemov (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

0 original research. Apparently I'm the only one who bothered to read the source which at no point has data about viewership. Apparently the editor didn't bother to read his own source before using it for viewership. I'd also like to know if Whip Media is a reliable source per wiki standard in general. Since it's being referenced so often. Since you are a Disney shill who was accused of Multi accounting I won't hold my breath for a informed response Holydiver82 (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend you quit making ill informed WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Nemov (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

did you read the sources yet Holydiver82 (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Per one of the sources used for viewership, copy pasted directly from source ..."whose activity includes clicking on a streaming offer, adding a title to a watchlist Holydiver82 (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources for viewership that I have just expanded the section with are reliable third-party analytics companies that have been used for many big shows on Wikipedia (other SW series, Marvel, DC, etc.) and it is clearly stated how each company calculates their estimates. That includes Nielsen, which you have been pushing strongly and is also just estimating the numbers like the other companies. The only data we have that is not estimated is the initial numbers from Disney. So I'm not sure what the problem is with my new additions, other than the fact that you clearly want only negative data to be added to the article and feel that some of these additions are too positive. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

my problem with posting numbers that are not viewership in the "viewership" category is pretty self explanatory, they are not viewership numbers. they are 3rd party app "engagement" numbers based off of things such as " clicking on a streaming offer, adding a title to a watchlist" which comes directly from your source. the fact that you clearly want to add a lot of BS fluff to viewership using numbers that are not actually viewership to try to portray this show extremely positively is very obvious. Holydiver82 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

As I already explained, the only true viewership data we have is directly from Disney. That is why we supplement the section with estimations from third party analytics companies. The same thing has been done for all big streaming series that I have seen on Wikipedia, this is not anything specific to this show as you suggest. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

so the article should have information about viewership that you know is wrong, and based on extremely bad data. because this is done on other articles on wikipedia. cant remember all of the WP guide things but i know there is a rule that just because it is done on other articles is not a proper reason to do it here. Holydiver82 (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be done because it is done at other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), I'm saying that there is existing consensus for its use at other articles so it is not being added here specifically to "portray this show extremely positively". Especially when the data does not reflect all that positively on the show, nor does most of the other viewership data that I added at the same time. You can't push a narrative that I am somehow trying to make the data look good when I am the one adding a bunch of negative data to the article. You have made it clear throughout this talk page that you want the show to look bad, but you don't seem to know what that looks like in practice. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Reality makes the show look bad. Regardless of what i want. I find it interesting that at no point you disagree that the information your posting is not actually viewership information. The entire argument is whether or not it's standard practice to post non viewership information in the viewership section, while attempting to call it viewership. Even though no one disagrees that it clearly is not. Holydiver82 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly why is your WP:synth of the source better than just taking what the source says directly? It's odd to post something in the article when the linked source makes no mention of it. Thoughts nemov Holydiver82 (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Streamers themselves very rarely release viewership numbers and when they do, they aren't anything like ratings were for network TV. Thus, we have to go off of third-party analytic companys trying to get some sort of pulse as to how the series is performing viewership-wise. Nielsen is very reputable as a company and would be considered the "best" source to note when a series was or was not in the top 10 viewership for the time frame they are reporting on. If a series was not in the top ten for a week when a new episode released, that is also telling. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Very true. Hard to find good data with Neilson being the best. I don't believe a lack of good data is a good reason to add extra paragraphs of bad and misleading information into the viewership section. It belongs in audience responses. Which is where it kept getting moved. I had already removed the whip media from viewership multiple times because the source clearly states its not a viewership figure Holydiver82 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Since this comment, Holydiver82 decided to go ahead and remove the Whip Media data even though there is clearly no consensus to do so. As has already been made clear to you, that is perfectly acceptable viewership data from a reliable analytics company and should not be removed. Also, your second edit, which removed the context for how Whip Media calculates its data, did the exact opposite of what you wanted. Your issue is that it is not "real" viewership data, but removing the context makes it sound more like accurate viewership information. The context makes it clear that this is not necessarily the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

How does your WP:SYNTH of adding the phrase "most watched" which nether the source article or whip media claim. Make it more clear that the whip media information is not viewership data. When you and only you used the phrase most watched. Instead of using the wording directly from the source rather than your opinion of what the source "means" Holydiver82 (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

the unnecessary explanation of Whip Media is also both irrelevant and confusing as it states they have 25 million worldwide users. But then the data you reference from the source and them make claims about US viewership. Not global. So why is global users referenced for a US viewership claim Holydiver82 (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

TV Time, a Whip Media company, is a free TV and movie viewership tracking app with more than 25 million global users. The streaming originals chart rankings are determined by streaming original TV series with the greatest share of views in the given week, among a balanced panel of U.S. users of the TV Time app. This is the explanation of how Whip Media calculates its data, taken directly from the source. Feel free to suggest wording that you think is better. Note that it should not be copied directly from the source as direct quotes should be limited to only when necessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

again why include the irrelevant global user number for information about us viewership. And again why is your WP:synth calling it most watched better than what the source says. Neither the source or Whip claim most watched. So why is your change better than the source. Which is also inconsistent because when you posted the samba information you used top the charts. Per the source. So why do you inconsistently word what the source says between most watched and top the charts in the same paragraph? Why is samba any different Holydiver82 (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

When discussing viewership charts, "most watched" and "top the charts" means the same thing. No need to repeat the same wording within one paragraph. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

if it means the same thing why did you care that I edited it to keep it consistent to the point of getting someone to report me and try to get me blocked. You must feel pretty strongly that it is different to do all that. And if it means the same thing. Again, why not be consistent. Why not have the article consistent with what the source says. It may be because those charts use multiple different not viewership items so the sources are careful to not specifically say most watched as that would not be true. Preferring a more vague term that is not false Holydiver82 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Holydiver82 time to step away from the horse. You haven't changed our mind about this so repeating the same argument over and over isn't productive. Unless there's some new support for your position the content will remain. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Totally unwilling to allow any change to the article even small wording changes. Sounds like WP:ownership. I didn't realize any changes to the article have to be approved by you. Holydiver82 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading WP:CON should clear up your confusion about how Wikipedia policy works regarding finding consensus. Nemov (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

ah I see. That explains your criticism of Adam on Aug 5th for failing to seek concensus and taking ownership of the page. Effectively driving other editors away. Clearly I'm not the first editor that is having problems with him making edits without concensus and not allowing anyone else to make any changes. Perhaps you can explains that to him Holydiver82 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Please quit attempting to change the subject. If you believe there's an editor issue take it to WP:ANI. Nemov (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

the subject you brought up was a lack of consensus for edits made to this article. Which has been an ongoing problem as you have posted about. It would be nice to have some consensus before you declare no changes will be made without your approval Holydiver82 (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I bid you adieu, I will not be responding any further unless you have something real to contribute. Nemov (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 where on the talk page is the consensus for you adding all of the extra items to the viewership part of the article? I do not see any consensus on the changes that you made Holydiver82 (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No consensus was needed for expanding with more viewership data. It was not a bold change and discussions since then have supported what I did. Furthermore, you were the loudest voice calling for more viewership data to be added to the article in the lead up to me doing just that. You are only complaining about it now because you only wanted negative data to be added. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I wanted more viewership data, that is correct. what you added was not that. it was vague "engagement numbers that your own sources were careful not to call viewership. because unlike you they preferred to be accurate with how they represented the data from 3rd parties. so to be clear, you adding entire paragraphs is not a bold change, because you say its not. but someone editing a sentence to improve the grammar, that needs to be reverted and consensus needs to be reached...because its too bold? so you and only you get to decide what changes are made and when consensus is needed? but this definitely isnt a WP:ownership situation. just LOL. the only discussion was nemov throwing every WP rule he could think of at me and 1 other guy making 1 post commenting on the lack of good data available Holydiver82 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

TL;DR, you have decided that any change made to the article, no matter how small. shall be reverted until consensus is reached...except any change you make, which do not require consensus. somehow that does not sound right Holydiver82 (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ownership

it is getting ridiculous how nemov and adam have taken ownership of this article. per the page history every single edit any other editor makes is immediately reverted. that is not how wiki works, other users are allowed to make edits. and rewording a single sentence does not require a formal consensus, that is not a valid excuse to revert every single change made by any other user to the article. Holydiver82 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are unable to find consensus and only come here to edit war and make accusations I'll have no choice but to take you to WP:ANI. This is going to be my last warning. There's already plenty of evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on your behalf. I would recommend rolling back your latest revert, quit POV pushing, and act in good faith. Nemov (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I am sure that recommendation is not because you are unable to revert my edit as you already have made 3 reverts in 24 hours on this page. I am new, and not totally sure how all of these rules work. We will see if I can figure out how that 3RR admin board thing works. Holydiver82 (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Holydiver82, you have made 244 edits and have been editing since January. While you might be less experienced than other editors, I don't think you can call yourself a new editor any longer. BITE no longer applies and if there are policies you are not familiar with that get cited in discussions, it falls on you to read up on them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Whip Media blurb

Sorry, I forgot to put my edit summary. Whip Media's was not a "positive response", so there is no reason to meld it with positice respoinses. Also Wikipedia articles should not add judgements, such as "in contrast to" in Wikipedia voice. - Altenmann >talk 21:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Not to say that there are some other uncombined "positive" pieces, such as the blurb These concerns were dismissed...<etc.>". - Altenmann >talk 21:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The Whip Media data you are talking about is objectively positive and it makes sense to combine it with the other positive audience response details since the rest of the section is about very negative responses. And "in contrast to" is not a judgement, it is completely appropriate (and common) for Wikipedia to have clear narrative flow. Most of the section is about negative fan complaints, so the fact that we have a paragraph which suddenly jumps into positive stuff is something worth pointing out. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, disagreed, "anticipated" is neither positive nor negative statement and not "in contrast to" anything. And not "suddenly jumps" as I wrote already: the previous paragraph includes a bit of positive as well. And there is nothing wrong with the narrative flow now. - Altenmann >talk 21:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the whip media stuff belongs in viewership. How many people watched something doesn't really tell us if they liked it or not. Nemov (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It was moved out of the viewership section because some editors were against it being there. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The Whip Media data is subjectively interpreting all "engagement" as positive "anticipation" and is fundamentally misleading (Parrot analytics does the same) but that isn't even the point I was making. You can "contrast" one sentence with the previous one but there is simply no need to do so, it is verbose and unnecessary, and the two things are not directly connected. (You frequently see this kind of unnecessary contrast or fake connections in the Critical response section when unrelated critics are written up as "similarly" or "conversely" when their reviews are _separately_ making independent points.) Simply put brevity (and I say this is an unintentionally long-winded writer myself) is preferable and there is no need say contrast, it is obvious and redundant that positive things are different from the preceding negative things. -- 109.77.201.136 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. regarding the "flow". The discussion/criticism was not two independent streams, but rather a kind of dialog, which is refleched in the text "These concerns were dismissed...", therefore arrangingb the flow in an approximate accordance with time milestones (pre-release, after release, etc.) is perfectly reasonable. - Altenmann >talk 21:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The wording also reminds me of WP:HOWEVER and the "this then that" wordings that happen to accumulate as articles are developed. I understand why editors add it, I do not understand why editors would fight to keep it when someone trims it away. -- 109.77.201.136 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:HOWEVER only applies if it is not supported by the sources, which is not the case here. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

"Is" Edits

The show has been cancelled. It therefore has gone from "is" to "was" . FACT.

STOP changing it back. Please.

-Tallaussiebloke (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE is quite clear here. A WP:LOCALCON will not be overriding the MOS. If you have a problem with the MOS, I suggest taking it to the talk page for the MOS. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

BOTH you and the MOS have no idea how the English language works.

- Tallaussiebloke (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Most texts discussing existing literature and texts (as the episodes still exist and can be watched) use present tense, such as in all academic articles. Is this the issue at hand or does it relate to an event which definitively occurred in the past? Vileidol (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The series still exists, even if more seasons aren't being made. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The specific MOS for this is MOS:TVNOW. Indagate (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 If you're going to "revert to last good version", perhaps you should look at what you're reverting exactly? What I added is literally given two examples at MOS:TENSE (continue using is and not was and note the time period the content was first made available). What is your objection to that? I'd also warn you about WP:3RR, but your talk page is already plastered in various warnings about edit warring, so it seems like a hat on a hat at this point. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at what was reverted before throwing accusations. I did not restore any instances of "was" that should be "is" or vice versa. I reverted "which streamed for one season in 2024" which is clearly already covered in the third paragraph of the lead and does not need to be repeated. I also reverted the other wording changes in the opening paragraph which are no longer needed for any flow reasons with that part of the opening sentence removed, plus I restored the review bombing wording that is supported by the article, I removed the unnecessary citation needed tags, I removed the unnecessary paragraph break, and I removed the unformatted ref from the lead that is not needed. What part of those changes are you taking issue with, exactly? adamstom97 (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The part where the first paragraph noted the show ran for one season for 2024, which is the example used in MOS:TENSE. The third paragraph includes a deeper explanation of why it was cancelled, but the first paragraph noting the show has ended is not in any way repetitive. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It is repeated information. It is literally repetitive. Besides, the wording in the lead has been agreed upon in previous discussions because there is an expectation that a similar approach be taken for all the different Disney+ Star Wars shows. We don't have this sort of wording for the other one-season shows that did not get a second season. It would be good to have a discussion about whether that is something people think is good idea before implementing it at one of the articles, especially since it is information that is already covered. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE, which already enjoys community wide support, already provides multiple examples from media on how to word this which is the template I used. What you've done is effectively "bury the lead", the show ran for only one season. This is important enough to include in the first sentence/paragraph. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Critical response in lead

@Nemov: can you please explain how you have come up with the wording the writing received mixed appraisal? There are three paragraphs in the section and two of them are very critical of the writing, including the paragraph that is for the whole season vs. the first two episodes. The other paragraph is positive but not specifically about the writing. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I restored the edit by @ImaginesTigers than you removed. I have restored it because I believe it's a better reflection and better worded than your change. Nemov (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. How is it a better reflection? Like I said, the only direct mentions of writing in the section are negative. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Writing goes beyond dialogue -- there is storytelling, pacing, premise, characters, and so on. It was called a "well-wrought detective story" (/Film), "bold and fun" and praised for "giving itself permission to poke at Star Wars mythology" (Consequence). If action sequences are "rooted in the characters" (Variety), writing is part of that. Consequence published a view that the series is "a dream for anyone curious about [...] Star Wars not just as a collection of movies, but as a true storytelling universe able to accomodate a wide range of tales and points of view". This isn't about the wider SW universe -- it is praise for The Acolyte's writing. There is also a lot of praise from the references simply omitted from the article. From The AV Club describes an "intricately woven storyline"; "Headland and her cast and crew create competing and complementary ways of examining what [obedience] can do "; "awe-inspiring flashbacks" (disagree, personally, but whatever). "Mixed" is an accurate reflection of the response.

There is a significantly bigger problem with Critical reception -- it sometimes misleads readers by describing a full series review that was only based on the first 4 episodes. If I were to give it a go, I'd possibly split up early reception from full-season retrospectives. It substantially muddles the section. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I have already done that, the first two paragraphs are from the initial reviews that were based on the first two episodes. The last paragraph is for full series reviews, of which I have only found two. All of the quotes you have used to support positive reviews for the writing are from the first paragraph, whereas the full season reviews are very critical of the writing. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

What confused me is this sentence introducing a whole paragraph — "Alan Sepinwall of Rolling Stone was more critical of the series.", while only being about the first four episodes.

There is a fair amount of positive criticism in this article about the series. That is what makes it mixed. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• There is a fair amount of positive criticism in this article about the [first two episodes]. -

adamstom97 (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I have adjusted the lead wording to be closer to what I was originally trying to say: Initial critic reviews were generally positive, but reviews for the full series were less positive and especially criticized the writing. The action sequences received praise. I feel that is an accurate summary of the section. How do you feel about that? - adamstom97 (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Your reversion is bizarre to me, and the back-and-forth just feels like an editor with article ownership issues. Don't tag me on here again, thanks. I'll stay off the article ;) — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Kind of agree on both counts. Not really in the spirit of building a consensus. Nemov (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't going to respond here since the user decided to throw personal attacks at me and then walk away, but I think I need to since others are pointing here as proof that I have WP:OWNERSHIP issues with this article.

I wrote the summary in the lead when I expanded the reception section, and I went back-and-forth on different wording before settling on the version that I published. A few editors here took issue with that wording and suggested changes, but their suggestions were not accurate to what the section says so I was always going to push for an alternative. I decided to suggest one of the other wordings that I had originally considered which I felt would resolve the editors' concerns while still being accurate to the section. I probably should have suggested it here first, but in the past I have had success in resolving such conflicts by being WP:BOLD and making the new suggested change in the article. If the other editors also took issue with my new suggestion then the appropriate action would be to follow WP:BRD, revert my latest change, and continue the discussion, not make personal accusations. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD is an often-cited and often-misunderstood essay. BRD is never a reason for reversion on its own; the act of reverting should always be supported by policies, guidelines, or common sense. There is a very narrow set of specific use cases where this negotiation tactic is likely to be successful, particularly in situations only involving a few editors with a genuine interest to improve the article, and it would be helpful to read every word of WP:BRD#Use cases to get a better understanding of when it should be relied upon.

Usually when editors cite WP:BRD, they are probably better off citing WP:EP, or more specifically, WP:EPTALK, which is the coverage of the process in policy. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• TBH, attempting to contrast the initial positive reaction of 194 critics (deemed "fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes) with the views of only 2 just seems wild on the surface. Yes, the latter do review the whole season, I get that, but does that justify a "summary" of critical opinion, let alone mentioning it in the lead section? I think not. The only logical conclusion is that a very tiny sample size made it out the tunnel to the other side, and we should not be shining this bright spotlight on their assessment. Doing so gives WP:UNDUE weight to their opinion, and it is misleading to convert two reviews into a statement that seems to imply a larger representative sample: "reviews for the full series were less positive". This should be removed on that basis alone, but I'll give you even more reason.
  Click into the list of reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and you'll find that 6 of the most recent ones were written after the season finale. They review the season as a whole; 4 "fresh", 2 "rotten". Again, not our job to count or assess, but this data could be interpreted differently depending on which reviews are being assessed and who's doing the assessment. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Critic Reception in Lead

"Initial critic reviews were generally negative reviews for the full series were negative and especially criticized the writing. [citation needed]"

Seems like a leftover from vandalisation of the page. Or whatever the previous discussion about this matter landed on. Clear incorrect grammar and nonsensical sentence structure. Also, ~70% on many sites is just "negative" now? Not to mention the ongoing question of 'audience reception'.

I know there's already a topic page discussion about this. But that one seemed to have spiralled a bit out of control and related to a specific edit (why are personal opinions about this show coming up on a WIKIPEDIA article discussion? Who cares if you personally liked or disliked a plot point?). New to Wikipedia discussions so hoping this is okay. Vileidol (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This was already covered. You didn't read the Talk subjects above. It's 11 days old. Tallaussiebloke (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

And yet the terribly written sentence that they bring to attention is still there in the lead. 67.170.89.181 (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The quote I included is from the exact time I made the comment and certainly not "11 days old". Clearly warrants further discussion. Vileidol (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I've responded in that other thread and made changes to the lead for now. There is strong evidence that the number of "full season" reviews out in the wild is unknown, and although we are able to find 8 (at the time of this writing), that doesn't mean we get to become an aggregator like Rotten Tomatoes and do our own assessment. We need a reputable source to do that for us, and until then, we simply state what RT and MC cite as the trend in reviews. At the very least, we should wait until there is consensus on Wikipedia for inclusion now that it has been challenged. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Synthesis and a questionable source

• WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

This RT source explicitly states: "Critics say the latest Disney+ series delivers a refreshing new spin on tried and true Star Wars elements with solid performances and incredible fight scenes. [...] Most reviews point out how different the series is while still Star Wars enough for the fans, but it’s far from perfect."

The information in the article was therefore modified as: Initial reviews praised the series's different take on familiar Star Wars elements, performances, and action scenes, but suggested that it was "far from perfect."

However, this and other additions, were reverted by User:Adamstom.97, claiming that it was unexplained and not an improvement, to Initial reviews praised the series' action sequences but were mixed on whether it was a fresh entry for the franchise or if it overused prior elements.

One positive and one negative review quote is cited as the reason for the removal of the series's new take and the performances part, reverting to "mixed" and "overused" or not claims, which are not explicitly stated by RT.

In addition, The Indiependent is cited, which is a completely dubious source with no evidence that it is reliable and/or notable. The justification is that the reviews for the whole season are actually "mixed" and that WP:DUEWEIGHT should be used to show this "mixed" state, but since there are few reviews for the whole season, such sources should be used even if they are not notable/reliable.

As can be seen, these do not reflect any truth and are personal opinions (that are completely invalid for an encyclopedia).

(I've also added this topic because of concerns about User:Adamstom.97's ownership of the page from the discussion above.) ภץאคгöร 11:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Please stick to the topic and stop your continued personal attacks against me. You and I disagree on our interpretations of the sources but that doesn't make your personal opinions correct and mine "invalid".

I disagree with the suggestion that the wording we take from that RT source can only come from the opening paragraph. The rest of the article has details that are also relevant to the conclusion we are trying to draw. You say "Initial reviews praised the series's different take on familiar Star Wars elements", but later in the article it says "Does it take Star Wars in a new direction [and] Is this a good thing?" and then presents one positive comment and one negative comment from reviewers. So the actual article does not support what you are trying to say. You can't just cherry pick which parts of the article you like and ignore the rest.

The justification is that the reviews for the whole season are actually "mixed" and that WP:DUEWEIGHT should be used to show this "mixed" state, but since there are few reviews for the whole season, such sources should be used even if they are not notable/reliable. This statement is ridiculous, I never said anything like this and the fact that you are trying to make it out that I did is very concerning. What I said is that most of the reviews we have for the series are just for the first few episodes and that is a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue because we are constructing an overview of the reception to the entire series using sources that only apply to the first few episodes. This is a problem that most TV shows have due to the majority of publications only reviewing the initial episodes. To solve that WP:DUEWEIGHT issue and ensure we are providing a more accurate picture of the reception to the entire series, we need to include reviews of the entire series in the section. At the moment we have the IGN series review and the Indiependent series review. If others can find more out there then I would welcome their addition as only having two is still not great. But in the meantime they are the two that we have. If we had a whole bunch of full series reviews from noteworthy outlets then I wouldn't push to include the Indiependent review, but we don't and I think it is better to have a less noteworthy outlet that is a full series review than to have only one series review in the section. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Nothing I added is "my personal opinion". I'm directly quoting WP:SYNTH, RT ref, the additions/reverts, and the questionable source. Please stop acting like I'm attacking you personally. Also what you wrote after "You and I disagree on our interpretations of the sources but that doesn't make your personal opinions correct and mine "invalid"." does not invalidate what I wrote, on the contrary, they prove my points: you ignore RT's explicitly stated "consensus" (in your own words), which is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH (see above), and support the usage of a random source just because there is one review for the entire season and that review from the reliable source cannot be used alone. ภץאคгöร 13:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I support reading the entire source and representing it accurately, and I support the usage of a perfectly fine review of the season because we need it. Neither of those things goes against Wikipedia policies or guidelines. You support ignoring half of a source and having undue weighting on initial reviews. Those are both problems. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Except you haven't accurately represented what is explicitly stated in the source and we definitely don't "need" a review from an unreliable source. Here we go again... ภץאคгöร 14:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the viewership section, you will find a similar issue with WP:synth. where the sources never say "most watched" but he decided to add "context" in his opinion to what the sources meant. it is an inaccurate representation of what the sources carefully avoid saying because it is not true Holydiver82 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see much of a problem with that, the source lists the show at the top of the TV chart for the week ending June 9, but "most watched" can be changed as the list activity includes "clicking on a streaming offer, adding a title to a watchlist, and marking a title as "seen", not just "watching". ภץאคгöร 16:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

That is why I attempted to change it to just "top the charts" and removed the wording of "most watched", which as you said the source clearly states that they count any kind of "engagement" and whip media is not a source for tracking how many people actually watched the show and actual viewership numbers like Neilson does. perhaps you will have better luck editing the page to more accurately reflect the sourced information Holydiver82 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed the obvious synthesis and added "top". It is clearly not the "most watched" data as the source states. ภץאคгöร 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'll just chime in here and note that I dropped a comment in the talk section above related to this. I agree that we should not be concluding "mixed" or "less positive" (or anything else) for the full season reviews. We need a strong, reputable source drawing that conclusion for us. Posting snippets without analysis, which includes an open-ended question within the RT article, is insufficient support for the claim.

"...because we are constructing an overview of the reception to the entire series..."

We need a full stop right there, adamstom97. Perhaps you can explain this in different terms in case I'm misinterpreting you, but we should definitely not be "constructing", compiling, or piecing together an overview of critical reception. If our claim in the article says something that no individual source supports explicitly without question, then either change the claim so that it is quoting the source or leave it out altogether. Otherwise, it will continue to be perceived as original research. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: For discussion sake, we should probably keep future comments in one place. I suggest continuing this in the Critical response in lead section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Series Cancelled.

There are multiple outlets reporting on this.

It is now a confirmed "was" not "is". Fact.

- Tallaussiebloke (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Deadline reported it, all the other outlets are posting off their information. There are no direct sources in their article. Will probably have to wait for an actual announcement from Disney or the showrunner. 71.164.80.75 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, now it suddenly *is* relevant that they all crossreference each other? Oh, the irony... 2A02:908:190:AF80:2500:8D0E:60CC:8234 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because you're talking to different editors here. The removal of Acolyte merchandise from an online Disney store does seem to indicate it's been cancelled, but we can't just use that as 100% proof. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we can't. In the same way we never should have used the self referencing network of IGN and cohorts on the baseless accusations of negative review bombing. Double standards live at work. 2A02:908:190:AF80:74FA:BE6E:9A2E:8346 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed change

I'd like to propose a straightforward change to the lead. I can't do it myself as the page is semi-protected. The relevant part currently reads as follows (I am proposing deleting the marked text):

Due to low ratings and the online response to the series, The Acolyte was canceled after only one season in August 2024.

My reasoning is simple. The body of the article nowhere suggests that the 'online response' was a factor that caused or contributed to the cancellation. Rather, the body says (sources omitted):

In August, the series was canceled after one season when Lucasfilm opted not to continue with the series. This was reportedly due to low viewership, with Disney+ having a "high viewership threshold for renewing high-end, big-budget series".

Accordingly, the claim that the 'online response' played a part in this appears to be unsourced. Eurobleep (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

So far there's not much information on the reasoning other than the trades speculating. The ratings for this series were the lowest for a Star Wars series, but they were far from bad in comparison to everything else. I suppose the trade's reports are good enough to say something like the "The Acolyte was canceled after one season, reportedly due to low ratings and poor response by fans." Nemov (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Poor online response never has cancelled anything in Hollywood. The only reason it got cancelled is it didn't bring the money to justify a second season. Basic economic necessity is returning even to Disney. We may have no Wiki-usable proof yet, but it will come. Just give it some time. 2A02:908:190:AF80:74FA:BE6E:9A2E:8346 (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

agreed with your suggestion, and updated the lead. best to only include what is stated in the sources not extra opinions Holydiver82 (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Holydiver82 I rolled back your change that had zero to do with this discussion. Nemov (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

my second edit has nothing to do with this. it had to do with people removing important wording and context from the article. it is possible to make 2 separate edits to an article that dont involve you. hard to believe i know, but that edit was fixing changes made by a completely different person making completely different edits to the article. the fact that you go out of your way to revert any change i make and try to start an edit war is comical Holydiver82 (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)