Talk:The Last of Us (TV series)

Considering Ellie as anything but a "girl"/"female"

First, I know very well Bella expresses non-normative gender preferences, but what Bella has done in real-life has no affect on the show.

Ellie is pretty much treated as a girl on the show, and there's no indication that she is questioning her gender. (eg: she's thrilled to find tampons in one episode) Other characters clearly treat her as a girl. She's at minimum non-normative in her sexual preference, but that's not the same as gender preference. Without a clear indication that the show gives in the direction that her gender is in question, we should not treat her anything else than a young female or a girl. --Masem (t) 23:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Details around HBO's greenlit

I suggest adding that HBO greenlit the project because they "were betting on Craig", rather on the video game itself. Details on the momentum he gathered from Chernobyl could be added as well.

See around the 2 minute mark : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28XuDgWmeOU

Thanks guys! 26Belhanda (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

"the series is set in 2023"?

According to this article, 2023 is 20 years into a fungal pandemic. So it would have started in 2003. I'm sure I would have remembered it. I haven't seen this series, but is this statement really correct? David Spector (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The bulk of what we see as "present" is in 2023, so hence set there. The events we see in 2003, or the flashbacks in Ep3, are just that, flashbacks. Masem (t) 14:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so this is not actually set in 2023, but an alternate-history 2023, with an alternate-history 2003, is that what you mean? Since this is a basic fact needed to avoid confusion, I think the article needs to be edited to explain this before the year is mentioned. David Spector (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a fictional post-apocalyptic television series; I don't think we need to explain that its events didn't actually happen. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You are certainly correct. It is obvious that the events didn't happen. My point is that it is set in the current time, yet refers to a fictional past. This is confusing to the reader at this point in the article. I intend to edit the article to make clear that this is historical fiction, not just fantasy set in the current time. The proper name of this genre is Alternate history fiction. David Spector (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's confusing at all, nor does it need clarifying—and I'd hesitate to call it "historical fiction" or "alternate history" as far as genres go—but I've removed 2023 from the lead as I don't think it's particularly important for readers' understanding. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rhain:@Masem:@David spector: Perhaps this issue could be resolved by adding a Synopsis section to the article. The premise is now only in the lead; it would be good to have it in the body of the article. Fiction with flashbacks is not historical fiction, just flashbacks, FWIW. I have not seen the shows or the video game, so I will not write the synopsis. I hope one of you might. - - Prairieplant (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The premise is discussed in § Episodes, so I don't think an additional section is necessary for the time being. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

insignificant reviews

Some of the reviews, as part of reception section, in this article are cited from insignificant critics, they are not top critics at Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic approved. We can do the job with fewer significant critics why cite these insignificant ones. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, always should use notable and reliable stuff. Other editor's opinion needed. Fitzwilliams (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Concerning they are not top critics at Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic approved, this is not a guideline or policy on Wikipedia to be acceptable of being included. If you quote the essay Wikipedia:Review aggregators again, in no way does it state that The "Top Critics" at Rotten Tomatoes and the critics at Metacritic are the only generally considered reliable and authoritative sources are ideal for sampling, but rather The "Top Critics" at Rotten Tomatoes and the critics at Metacritic are generally considered reliable and authoritative sources are ideal for sampling: idea, not only. That essay literally goes on to say However, other usable reviews exist outside these websites. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

yes, I agree they exist, but you missed the whole part. they say : "However, other usable reviews exist outside these websites; they may be found in academic journals or publications that do not provide online access to their reviews". Kindly visit good television articles, you will see they don't use insignificant reviewers. these reviewers barely have a proper reliability. I am saying it because when you type Alan Sepinwall or Ann Hornaday on google, you will see many significant publications they worked for, their experience also. Fitzwilliams (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Further more, as far as I can tell, you removed four reviews, named "CNET Review", "Evening Standard Review", "Inverse Review", and "Push Square Review 1". The first two of those particular websites are used on 6,000+ and 11,000+ sites over the entire encyclopedia (with the third and fourth still in use on over a thousand apiece). Absolutely none of those quality as "insignificant", outside of your own personal opinion. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I, not for once said "Evening Standard" is an insignificant source. My only concern is with the "Reviewer" or the "author", they are not significant. Fitzwilliams (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm replying to both paragraphs with one reply. Kindly visit good television articles, you will see they don't use insignificant reviewers. Thank you for the suggestion, I'll be sure to do what I've been doing for ten years. I quote again, there is no guideline or policy on Wikipedia on what it takes for a singular reviews to be acceptable of being included. This is based solely on your own opinion. Do you have any community-vetted and -approved measure for "significance" outside of your own views? -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

well, no, Wikipedia indeed doesn't have any parameter to qualify "significance", still it encourages to use "The top critics at R.T." or "Metacritic approved critics". And another Editor said RT and Metacritic are irrelevant, if they were why Wikipedia prefers them then to identify reliable critics? Fitzwilliams (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No "it" doesn't, "it" is an essay that doesn't constitute removing content. The article does use top critics, as well as other acceptable critics. The editor said they're irrelevant in the determination of how acceptable they are; if you quote your essay again, that is just the opinion of another editor, not an approved page to quote. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

okay then. Just answer, Why Do good film and tv articles on Wikipedia almost always use the aforementioned critics rather than mixing "Top" with "acceptable"? I will drop the discussion if you give any proper reasoning. Fitzwilliams (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Textbook WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

okay... they ruined it all now. Let's see if any editor wants to nominate this article with these reviews still the same, only then it will be clear if the article gets a pass as a good one. Have a good day. Fitzwilliams (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, happy editing! -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Episodes one, two, and five are all good articles, and all three use several of these relevant reviews. I'm sure the section isn't perfect, but I'm confident in the reputation of these particular sources. Thanks for your suggestions and for starting a discussion appropriately. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You were right, I have discovered more good articles that use "acceptable critics" too. Maybe it's like the reviews are just opinions, so we can ignore the significance of being a Pulitzer nominee or RT, Metacritic approved etc etc. But I still do prefer the latter ones while editing biography of a living person. Thanks! Fitzwilliams (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)