Jump to content

Talk:The Mandalorian/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Created by

Hello, I found on ILM's subpage that they are listing Dave Filoni as co-creator and if we read the development of this series, he was developing the series with Favreau from early on. So he should and could be included. Kind regards, H8149 (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Official credits only put Favreau under "created by", so no Filoni. He's already credited as executive producer.--TheVampire (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
According to original on-screen credits, Jon Favreau is the only one listed under "Created by". Original on-screen credits override secondary sources. — YoungForever(talk) 17:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Other EPs (which Filoni is) can help shape the outcome of the show, but the initial idea and pitch for the series was all Favreau. Yes, Filoni definitely has a huge mark on the series, but based on all I've read up on it, he came aboard after Favreau pitched his idea for the series to Lucasfilm. Thus, Favreau is the sole creator credit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Still not confirmed.

As much as I would love for Ahsoka,Bo-Katan and Boba Fett to appear in Season 2, their involvement has still not officially been confirmed by anyone at Disney or Lucasfilm, or by the actors rumored to play them. Therefore, I have removed them from the cast list. I don't care what the Hollywood Reporter says. A rumor is just a rumor until an official source says otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascarboro97 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTTRUTH. All are sourced from reliable sources, so they are included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
You are not the decider of whats a rumour or not. It is reliably sourced that they will be part of the season so they are included. Rusted AutoParts 18:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Drafts

Both drafts have been moved to the mainspace. Please start a new section for discussing new topics, to help keep everything organised and easily navigable. (non-admin closure) Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I'd say that Draft:The Mandalorian (season 1) and Draft:The Mandalorian (season 2) absolutely pass GNG due to Adamstom.97's efforts, and can be moved into the mainspace. Thoughts? -- /Alex/21 03:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against moving them, though from my perspective I think there is still quite a bit of work that can be done on the season 1 article based on the info that is out there. I also have started work on what this page would look like after the split, but haven't been able to finish that yet due to real life getting in the way. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Both are in a spot that they could be moved and we keep working on them, but yes I agree with Adam, we should have what this article becomes ready before we make those moves. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I have made the moves now, and have updated this article to reflect that plus to make various other improvements that I have been working on at my sandbox. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Why did you leave out the editors and the budget from the infobox? Debresser (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
We shouldn't be listing editors like that, they aren't notable to the scope of the show. And the budget that we know only applies to the first season. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. However, regarding the notability of editors I disagree with you. Debresser (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
You may disagree, but you need to prove why they are noteworthy if you think they should be included. Otherwise they should be left to the episode articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
You removed genre and editors, so it is you who needs to prove consensus for your changes to a longstanding version. Debresser (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that editors should remain. There's only three of them for now and I don't see how this notability criteria is applied to be honest. Either both editors and DOPs are credited or neither.--TheVampire (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd say the amount of editors as it is now is OK, but if they change for season 2 and start piling up then we should not include them in this article anymore, given that we have articles for the individual episodes. El Millo (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Editors should stay, but agree on the thought for season 2. Regarding genre, it shouldn't be in the lead, but it also isn't sourced at all in the article, so I've removed on those grounds first, second being that it shouldn't be listed in the lead either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I know it is only three editors, but none of them are relevant to the series-level. At least with the cinematographers they have received attention / awards etc. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 2 November 2020

Change "The second season is set to premiere on October 30, 2020" to "The second season premiered on October 30, 2020" Cw0323 (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Cw0323, I've already requested that in the above section. Please check previous talk page discussions before filing duplicate requests. -- /Alex/21 01:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 November 2020

  • Restore "The Mandalorian.svg" to "The Mandalorian logo.jpg" after an unexplained change.
  • Remove the reference from {{Series overview}} and its parameter |start2=, given that the second season has commenced.
  • Change "The second season is set to premiere on October 30, 2020." to "The second season premiered on October 30, 2020." -- /Alex/21 03:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment I too have multiple constructive edits I would like to make to the article outside of the content deemed part of the edit war. Is it possible to remove the full protection early? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Terasail[Talk] 14:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Alex 21: I've gotten to these changes, plus the ones I wanted to make. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Editors

As I was going to say in the discussion above, the whole point of splitting into series, season, and episode articles is to only show the things that are relevant at each level so we can have all the appropriate detail for each without being too long and without being repetitive/redundant. The editors make sense at the episode level but not at season or series based on the information/coverage that we have now. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
But there's only three of them for now, so I don't see how that amount makes the template too long in any way. If a different team of editors works on season 2 and the list becomes too long, then we can remove them, but for now, consensus has been reached on keeping them, as the above discussion clearly shows.--TheVampire (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
It is not about the amount, but about the relevance at the appropriate level. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Let it be clear that the discussion above doesn't show a consensus for any of this. The discussion above was closed because it mixed two topics inappropriately, the first of which was already resolved. El Millo (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Precisely. Debresser (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
As someone who has worked as an editor, I take a bit of an offense to the idea that they aren't important to the series.. they are just as important as the cinematographer. Also, Adamstom in the above conversation complains that they have not received "attention or awards"... the editors of Manadorian received three emmy nominations. [1] Spanneraol (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Our personal opinions, experiences, or offenses are not important here. This is about coverage by reliable sources. El Millo (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
They are emmy nominated and have been covered in reliable sources, such as the one I included. Spanneraol (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Let it be clear that this discussion isn't about not including them anywhere, it's about including them only in the articles on the individual episodes. The argument is not that the editors haven't been covered by reliable sources, but not to the extent that the cinematography has been. I think it's got to do mainly with the new technology that was created for the show instead of using green screen, which was said to give back control to the cinematographers. El Millo (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Circling back round to this, the list of editors in the infobox has grown even more and should definitely be removed. Those people just shouldn't be getting that amount of undue weight in terms of the scope of the series. I would also support removing the cinematographers since the list is no longer representative of the series as a whole (different cinematographers working on different seasons). - adamstom97 (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, since this was started, the discussion below is leaning towards redirecting the episode articles back to the season articles, so the editors will not be seen any more in such places. Just some thought as that seemed to be part of your initial reasoning Adamstom.97 in removing them here in the first place, was they were at the episode articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
That's a good point, but I would still lean away from listing them all here now that we are up to five different editors being listed. If they are otherwise noteworthy then they could probably be listed somewhere at the season articles. The cinematographers should definitely be discussed either in prose here or at the season articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Budget $100 million

In 2018 Favreau said the series would cost around $100 million[2] (New York Times), and in 2019 Bob Iger confirmed the first eight episodes cost more than $100.[3] (Vanity Fair) I was surprised this information wasn't included in the article already, I guess it could go somewhere in the Production section but I'm not sure where would be the best place to add it? -- 109.76.149.14 (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I was about to add it myself but I notice the article is locked until next month. I was thinking this might fit under Production/Development, after the sentence that ends with the word "steroids", but before the sentence talking about season 2. -- 109.78.202.253 (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
This is season 1 specific, so it is mentioned on the season 1 article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
That's an "interesting" choice. I would not have expected the main article for a tv show to intentionally omit budget information. -- 109.78.202.253 (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Each year has its own budget. DonQuixote (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I perfectly understood the explanation the first time, but I still think the omission is a strange choice and would have expected the main article for a television show to cover important information like the budget. What editors do on the sub pages for the seasons is another matter entirely. -- 109.78.202.253 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Budgets change all the time, so the information for season 1 can be outdated by season 4. It's not a "strange" choice. If you want budgetary information in the main article, then you would need to cite a reliable source discussing how the history of the show's budget through the years is notable. Given that there's been only two seasons, that's probably not likely at present. DonQuixote (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I got it the first time, and the second time, you really didn't need to say it a third time. Clearly Favre and Don think this is a perfectly acceptable omission, and think readers will accept it as perfectly sensible to hide this detail on a season subpage. I pointed to both Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad both of which do include the cost of season 1 in their main articles. Not knowing what later seasons cost is a bad reason to fail to mention how much it cost to start making the show on the main page for the show. But the articles locked and I'm not changing it so it's moot. -- 109.78.202.253 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
DonQuixote has a perfectly valid response. You have to consider what each piece of information about a show means in terms of it as a whole (to add to the main page), the season (season articles), or an individual episode (episode articles if applicable). A singular piece of budget info that applies solely to the first season should be on the season 1 article. Should the series keep going, and further budget info becomes available for subsequent seasons, then that info as a whole would be good for the series article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The Book of Boba Fett

I have cleared out references to The Book of Boba Fett as a separate series at a number of articles ([4][5][6][7][8][9]) and redirected ([10]) the relevant link back to this article, given the reasoning that this article itself states: it is unclear if the project is a separate spin-off series or the third season itself. -- /Alex/21 00:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This report from Variety appears to confirm that The Book of Boba Fett is indeed a spin-off separate from The Mandalorian season 3. Here is ComicBook.com interpreting Variety's report as such as well. El Millo (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It was just confirmed this morning that it is a spin-off, separate from Mando season 3. Also, it's the only title coming in December 2021, as it is the "next chapter" property Kennedy was referring to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead updates

@Debresser: I made a WP:BOLD but what I thought was a well explained update to the lead, and you reverted without giving a reason. Can you explain your thinking? To recap my change and reasoning: I changed "streaming television series" to "television series ... for the streaming service Disney+" per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#On "streaming television" as there is general consensus there that this is a better format, and it avoids the "streaming television series" term which isn't something our sources are commonly using. I would add that this term was originally added to avoid the uncommon phrase "web television series", but "streaming television series" seems like an equally uncommon term. The proposed wording is more natural for readers and is not significantly wordier or anything like that. I also removed "Space Western" from the lead as it is arbitrary to pick just one genre from the list of genres that we already have in the infobox. There is also precedence for avoiding genres in the first sentence of the lead for major television series as they are often quite complex already.

For the record, Favre1fan93 supported my change with additional reasoning when you reverted me without any reason of your own, and you accused them of edit warring after a single revert which is odd and inaccurate. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Chiming in, I agree with the rephrase to remove "streaming television" per the discussion linked above, but I say leave "space Western" as it is the genre specifically identified as primary by the show's creator. oknazevad (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The "streaming television" wording is changed back, as is the lead premise update. I've retained the genre, though I do agree that it shouldn't be stated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I am fine with the change regarding television series ... for streaming service, per that consensus and the argument provided. I am not okay with removal of the main genre, per MOS:TVGENRE. So my take on this coincides with Oknazevad's. Debresser (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Without a shadow of a doubt, we should retain the primary genre, as we have explicit sourcing as the that genre from the source closest to the series (the showrunner). Secondary genres are for those that are named by RS. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Impact on Disney+

Because of its impact to Disney+ subscription and success, I am proposing to add a new section. I am not sure of the exact best spot for it, but this would be the title "Impact on Disney+" and it would say:

Mandalarion has had a huge impact on subscriptions to Disney+. On December 10, 2020, Disney announced that it had reached 86 million subscribers after a year in its launch and Mandalarion was one of the main reasons of its success. Source 1 It was considered one of the main reasons subsirbers stick around. Source 2 - Source 3Martinvince (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there really enough to have a whole section about this? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
We could reconfigure "Industry impact" to become a level 3 header that is "Impact", with two level 4 subsections "Disney+ subscribers" and "Industry". But the Disney+ thing is so small that I agree it really shouldn't have its own section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I support Favre1fan93's suggestion. I don't believe it is enough to have a whole separate section. — YoungForever(talk) 18:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
It could probably just fit under "Industry impact", or we could do "Impact" but I don't think we would need the subheaders. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd be okay with that. Make it one "Impact" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I am fine with that as well. — YoungForever(talk) 16:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Also of note, the references provided don't state what the editor was trying to say. They don't have any meaningful connection between the series and Disney+ subscribers. So until adequate sources are provided, this shouldn't be added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
If it is WP:SYNTH, it definitely shouldn't be added because it is considered to be WP:OR. — YoungForever(talk) 23:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I think what's being asked is very possible. It's just the sources given don't state that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
My suggested verbiage can be changed. It is variation of what I read, so its not what they say exactly. Here are the exact quotes:
1- Deadline: Pulling out every trick, IP and franchise in the book, the nearly four-hour extravaganza emphasized that Disney is almost all about streaming less than a year after Disney+ launched with The Mandalorian as its marquee offering. Rocketing to more than 86 million subscribers, as was unveiled today
2- TheVerge article shows a spike when it debuted. “The Mandalorian a reason to stick around.”
3- Forbes: Most gave the Jon Favreau-created series, The Mandalorian, credit for the platform’s strong start.

…the big success stories in streaming have each had a major, signature show to highlight, promote and utilize as bait for new customers. For Disney+, that series is The Mandalorian, which exceeded most Star Wars fans’ best expectation

4- Hotnewhiphop:

The Mandalorian was so successful for Disney that they have decided to put full stock back into Star Wars. If you remember, Disney hit the brakes after Solo and The Rise Of Skywalker underperformed in theaters. However, Pedro Pascal's take on the Mando, created by Jonathan Favreau, has been a huge winner for the house of the mouse. The Walt Disney Company’s 2020 Investor Day brought us a ton of good news, none more so than the upcoming Star Wars slate.

5- fool.com : There's no doubt many Disney+ subscribers are signing up to see The Mandalorian, which has been its marquee show.
Martinvince (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
You're still engaging in WP:SYNTH. You're trying to say that because The Mandalorian is popular (A), that is a reason subscribers are staying (B), which resulted in the number of subscribers Disney+ is reporting (C). None of the references you've given say that, you're trying to make them say that. For something like this, we need a source pretty much clear as day saying "The popularity of The Mandalorian has resulted in many Disney+ subscribers staying on the service". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
They all pretty much say that, specially #5! Martinvince (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I was going to say, I have absolutely zero idea how one can read the sources you posted here and think that they say anything other than The Mandalorian is responsible for people signing up for Disney+. I mean, that is literally and exactly what they say! oknazevad (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Episodes articles

I'm looking at the current state of the individual articles created for the episodes, and can't help but feel they should be redirects, or perhaps draftified. Past discussions in the television project have established that simply having plot, non-specific production info, and reviews/ratings, does not make an episode inherently notable, since basically all episodes of television have this in some form. The vast majority of these articles (let's take Chapter 3: The Sin as an example) are just that: a slightly longer plot than at the season article, production info that is duplicate to what's already at the season article, and the Rotten Tomatoes link (which is noted at the season article) and one review. For the episodes that have accolades, those are also noted at the season article. At this point, I don't think the reader is being served any helpful info that they can't get here at the main article and the season articles, and the list of characters. I wanted to start a discussion here before proceeding. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Bumping this discussion. If there are no objections, I'm going to go ahead in a few days are start redirecting episode articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Favre1fan93, I do not object, unless the episode in question got more sourcing than your WP:ROTM weekly writeups, which is all I see in the Chapter 3 article. Other than the Emmy nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: I was not aware of WP:ROTM. That perfectly encapsulates each of these episode articles, as they do not meet inherent notability, at this time, on their own. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Perhaps the only one that's notable on its own is the eighth one, Chapter 8: Redemption, given that it was nominated for four Emmys and won one, but maybe not even that makes it notable enough individually. El Millo (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm also in agreement to redirect them. The episode articles seem to be created only minutes after their release, for what I feel is solely for the novelty of them existing and having a place to have a larger plot, that's all. -- /Alex/21 22:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@Facu-el Millo: Definitely. Perhaps if the article actually went more in depth with the content that got it nominated, but it isn't. And at the moment, we're covering the accolades at the season article, so its not like we are losing that info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I do not watch the show, but I would be careful here, especially ROTM aspects. Putting in "Chapter 3: The Sin review" to google, I get many additional top tier sources for critical reviews (Vulture, USA Today, io9/Gizmodo, etc. ) Now, yes, these appear to be the same sources that review each episode week after week, but we are not talking simple one-two paragraph reviews (of which ROTM would likely apply) but fleshed out articles (these usually mix reviews with recaps). The same that I would find for more prime time shows that have been expanded to have an article per episode (eg The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, etc.) so applying one standard here and not to these other shows could be a problem. That said, usually there is also more on the production side to give reason for TWD/BB's articles to exist (interviews w/ cast and crew to understand episode choices), and that doesn't seem to be much here. Again, I don't watch the show and haven't dedicated any time to looking at reviews for this, but my recollection is that each episode is individually discussed critically well beyond the ROTM factor. --Masem (t) 23:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@Masem the first season came with 8 episodes of documentary. There is definitely potential to write a lot more about the show than has been written. The show airs on Disney+ a relatively new streaming service, and it has a deliberately limited audience and as such a much more limited number of potential article editors. -- 109.76.139.148 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the episodes that we redirect could be draftified, and moved back to mainspace when ready. El Millo (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: There may be many critical sources reviewing the episode, but that still doesn't make it inherently notable from an episode standpoint if there aren't additional production pieces that are not boilerplate/ROTM to supplement aspects being discussed in the reviews. Because at that point, we're no more than just a wikia putting up a slightly longer plot summary than what is in the episode tables. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Facu-el Millo: Draftifying is certainly a possibility, I just don't feel the articles can exist as they currently are. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I do object. Please first tag the articles with a big old Merge discussion warning that people cannot fail to see, a note on the talk page is too subtle. Based on what I've seen before from the TV project and other mass deletes of episode articles I would expect at least the first and last episodes of each season to remain (or be given significantly more chance to show they are notable). I would think any Emmy nominated episode (ie Chapter 3) needs serious consideration. Please make your criteria clearer. From your comments it seems like you intend to delete all season 1 episode articles except Chapter 8!

It might be tangential but the talk pages for many of the episode articles mark them as High importance. Is that claim incorrect? Possibly overenthusiastic fans, but I think it would be better start by identifying which episodes we can agree are important (or less than important) then ask questions about their quality.

I will agree that there is a lot of repeated boilerplate text that could go from the episode articles. (I highly doubt we are ever going to have substantial episode specific info about Music in each article, for example.) -- 109.76.139.148 (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I support redirecting them as well, but keep the first and last episodes articles episode article of the first season. It seems to be the only episode to meet the episode article notability criteria. — YoungForever(talk) 23:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
{{Merge |The Mandalorian|discuss=Talk:The Mandalorian#Merger discussion |date=November 2020}} ... is the template I believe would normally appear on episode articles when a merge is proposed. Have I got the formatting correct before I add it to the episode articles? -- 109.76.139.148 (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I was in favor of redirecting all articles, 8 was not an exception. Yes, some of these have been classified as "C" class when they clearly are not. As I made mention of in my opening post, the vast majority of production info is in regards to the series/seasons as a whole, not individual articles, so I don't see the inherent notability for each individual article from that standpoint.And to the merge templates, you have to update in it to the correct section name here, which is "Episodes articles". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I've added the merge template to each episode article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I am against the redirects. This is a heavily episodic show and the individual articles allow for in-depth description of plot, casting, music (especially the season one releases) and reception. All of this would be drastically summarized or removed with redirects.--TheVampire (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
If it were as drastic as you claim, then you have a point, but the arguments above state that there isn't that much info to begin with, so it wouldn't be that "drastic". Also, if you can write a fully researched article on one of the episodes, please go ahead.DonQuixote (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
TheVampire, "heavily episodic show", as opposed to every other television series made up of episodes? The articles are minimal. How the show is made is irrelevant. -- /Alex/21 22:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Alex 21 Episodic in the sense that each episode has its own story and that the vertical plot of the single episode usually overtakes the horizontal plot of the series. That is also the reason why the cast changes drastically episode to episode. This is not a serial, it's an episodic show. It might sound irrelevant to you, but that is what I was saying.--TheVampire (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
So, we need a section to display how the plot of every single episode is different? |ShortSummary= in {{Episode list}}, that's all that's needed. It being episodic is argument for a plot section, that's not, not a separate article. -- /Alex/21 23:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Support merge per nom. I especially agree with the point that, although there are several lengthy review/recap pieces on each episode, that's not quite the case about production information.—indopug (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I oppose the merge until a plan for it is made! That means that the reception, casting and music sections need to be summarized and drafted for the main article and decisions need to be made on what should remain and what shouldn't on the main page. Specifically, the guest cast is currently not listed in the main page as well as the album releases for season one (eight of them). We need to decide if that info is relevant or not before merging and deleting everything. Moreover, the reception of each episode is largely covered online, so there are grounds for improving the articles without the merge.--TheVampire (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Reception is covered by the Rotten Tomatoes info at the season articles, we don't have to go further in depth by episodes (though some more reception for the season would be welcome). The character article is covering the cast very well, so we are not losing information. Minor guest characters making individual appearances in the episodes are probably not important in the grand scheme of things, nor considering WP:WEIGHT issues (though if they are, they can be integrated to the characters articles). We don't need individual track listings for each episode. That's not the important part about the music. So there's a plan to be implemented. As well, the thought is to draftify each episode so if any editor such as yourself want to build up the quality of each episode, that can be done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I would think they are notable and just need more info. Don’t mean to sound to sound like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES violation but I feel like the articles are a work in progress and can be improved through time. Jhenderson 777 16:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

They can exist as draft articles to be worked on until that time comes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's take a random episode of, say, the biggest show ever, Game of Thrones. Head over to "Second Sons" and tell why that article has more right to exist than The Mandalorian episodes' articles. I know editors shouldn't compare stuff with other articles, but honestly, I really don't see what the problem is here.--TheVampire (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

That article is not very complete, but I think the answer is in the question: it's the biggest show ever. That to me means the episodes have individual notability already, a bar which in the case of The Mandalorian hasn't been met yet. El Millo (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
TheVampire, very poor argument. Read WP:OTHER. The claim of "other stuff exists" most often arises in article deletion debate, where it is often used in the following manner. Examples: Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. Read the whole essay, and then please respond appropriately. -- /Alex/21 13:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Alex 21 I am aware that I can't base my argument on that and I already made that clear in my intervention. I'm just curious on why the notability criteria are not applied to the thousand of episodes' articles which do not currently meet those new criteria. As Some Dude From North Carolina said, The Simpsons and other shows should follow the new notability criteria and that is not done. I'm still against the redirects as I consider the individual episodes as relevant and notable (for reasons of diversified plots, drastic cast changes, weekly distribution with related news coverage and reception, and the fact that this is just a 16-episode show for now), but if everyone agrees that we should move everything to drafts in the meantime I am up for it. But you have to concede that the new criteria are only applied to some articles and not on all of them and that the choice is solely based on consensus where a discussion is opened. I'm clearly not an expert on these new criteria but allow me to express my confusion, at least.--TheVampire (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Then nominate them for redirection, nobody's stopping you. "But what aboutt this article" is OTHER, you've said you can't base your argument on it, so stop making that point. You can't say "I can't base my argument on that, but you have to concede". Thanks.
Diversified plots: Plot summary parameter in the episode table sufficiently details the plots.
Drastic cast changes: barely, it's a few guest cast each week.
Weekly distribution with related news coverage and reception: Episodic reception does not make an article notable, as already discussed.
The fact that this is just a 16-episode show for now: I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. -- /Alex/21 14:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge all except Chapter 1: The Mandalorian as its the only article that actually shows a bit of notability. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I see commenters above saying the proposed merge is vague, with uncertain criteria about which episodes are left as standalones. I support not reinventing the wheel -- if the TV Show wikiproject (which surely exists) has criteria or guidance for stand-alone episode articles "vs." episode summary tables on the season page, we should hew to that (and perhaps that's what other folks above are invoking WRT season openers/closer). Ditto the poster above who requested Mergeto tags to more clearly signpost this proposal. --EEMIV (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging. While the TV project might suggest one thing, what happens in actual practice is far different. Every episode of MASH, Friends and Lost, to name three random examples, have their own articles. Each episode (of this series at least) clearly would pass the WP:GNG so I'm not sure why the rush to get rid of them. -- Calidum 14:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    Calidum, again, WP:OTHER. "This article does it so why not this one?" is not an argument. Can you please state an actual reason? Thanks. -- /Alex/21 23:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Alex, some stuff exists for a reason: "Wikipedia guidelines may be based in part on the established precedents set down in articles by consensus." So if television series a, b, c, d...x and y have articles for individual articles, so should television show z unless there is a strong reason not to (and WP:JDLI isn't one). We also need to consider whether these episodes meet WP:GNG, a point raised above by me but not addressed. -- Calidum 04:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
      This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. First line. Simply because other television series have episode articles which are notable, does not mean these articles will be or are notable. Is this then advocating that all television series have episode articles? Surely that's what you're saying, since "television series a, b, c, d...x and y have articles for individual articles". GNG is also just that: a guideline. WP:TV has already had discussions that articles that are 90% just a plot summary and a few reviews do not meet television notability standards, and a consensus from a specific WikiProject trumpt that of a generic guideline. -- /Alex/21 05:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
      • a consensus from a specific WikiProject trumpt that of a generic guideline. You could not have gotten that anymore wrong. Per this 2017 RFC: "There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline...is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline." See also WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." -- Calidum 15:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think most of the articles are still a work in progress and have potential. They can at least be moved into draftspace until they have been expanded. Spiderpig662 (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    I also agree with draftifying the articles, instead of outright deleting or redirecting them and their content. -- /Alex/21 05:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Draftify. I support draftifying the episodes 2-7 of The Mandalorian, but keeping episode 1 and 8 as they are, in the mainspace. These two episodes are the most detailed and descriptive, including over a dozen of reviews, among the bunch. Cardei012597 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Draftify with a lean towards merge I'm just not sure that each episode has enough notability on their own. That being said, I am always a sucker for potential and some of these are really well written. Kjscotte34 (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Additional comment just wanted to add after more thought that, in their current state, all these articles are WP:REDUNDANTFORKs of the main (this) article, the season articles, or the character list. They aren't WP:SPINOFFs because at the moment, no one episode is creating any undue weight at the main articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Some clearly meet the general notability guidelines. All should get ample reviews. Dream Focus 23:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    • As noted above, all episodes of television series usually have ratings and reviews associated to them. There needs to be more info specifically about them to make them notable, otherwise they're just forking content that exists elsewhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. All episodes of a series as popular as The Mandalorian are notable. If the articles are underwhelming we should focus on working on them instead. SennTink (talk)
  • Oppose: Many episodes are met with guidelines. The way I see it, they have those episode pages because they give you more detailed summary of those episodes and the ratings on them. They also have some BTS stuff with reliable sources, which makes them worthy of episode pages. So there is no harm done. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose These episodes are more than just plot summary. There is plenty of sourced out of universe information. Particularly oppose merging Chapter 1 as it has 25 references and plenty of content, as well as Chapter 13: The Jedi. Between featuring the long awaited live action debut of fan favorite character Ahsoka Tano and finally revealing the true name of The Child, the episode has already received a lot of coverage, and it hasn't even been 24 hours since it debuted. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge . My arguments to oppose merging have already been made by others. I would like to point out that some of the crew holding important responsibilities in filming change from episode to episode. For e.g. the cinematographer for Chapter 13: The Jedi is Barry Idoine who is last credited with that role in Chapter 10: The Passenger. There are few others like this. So for this reason and several others mentioned above I oppose merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.216.214.205 (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it would better to have discussions on each separate episode rather than this kind of group discussion so editors have the time and space to really discuss each individually. Also, notability should not be established based on the "current state" of the articles, but rather if there is enough significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources to improve these articles. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for several reasons. First, above statements that notability wasn't enforced in the early 2010's are, charitably, diverging from reality. Second, look at all the Good Topics and Featured Topics that are based on topics including each episode of particular seasons of genre shows, and compare them to the available sourcing on The Mandalorian episodes: we're in the ball park here, and thus, the community has, through those reviewed content processes, endorsed and maintained the one-article-per-episode for any number of popular shows. Third, sending something on a currently popular topic to draft, or any topic for that matter, is sentencing it to exile and eventual speedy deletion, NOT a place where editors are able to see and improve it; I welcome counterexamples where similar topics to these episodes are improved and returned to mainspace, but I've never seen it happen. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge this is a very popular show with a fairly short number of episodes per season, and imo all of the episodes have received plenty of coverage in reliable sources and are notable in their own right. I also agree with Jclemens that draftifying these articles wouldn't do them any good. Orser67 (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: Energy spent trying to get these articles deleted/merged/draftifyed could more productively be spent improving the articles. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: Per above. --IndexAccount (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge: First, it'd be easier to explicitly state what makes an episode notable enough for an article (i.e. How many reviews there should be, information about the production, etc).

Second, if the episodes are from a big tv show, the articles are bound to vary in quality, and so requested merges or AfD's are more likely to go through if one episode at a time is nominated instead of every episode in a season or show.

If you bundle multiple episodes in one nomination, then some might find the quality of one or two to be fine and assume the other episodes are the same (this is more likely for people who don't have the time to review every article because they have other stuff to do on and off Wikipedia), and/or depending on the nominator's comments, might think of the nomination as overzealous. OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Support merge Having separate articles for individual episodes only makes sense for an episodic series, where each episode is a thing unto itself. This TV program is not that kind of storytelling. Having episodes with titles such as "Chapter 4: Sanctuary" underscores this point, and having Wikipedia articles with that name is frankly absurd. Genesis 2 and Hamlet Act Three are each more notable than any epsidoe of The Mandalorian but we don't have separate article for them: they are covered in articles about the entire narrative of which they are a part. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Which episodes are notable and which ones are not?

Above this sub-section is the major discussion/votes on whether on not the episode articles for The Mandalorian should be merged, draftied, deleted, or kept. However, multiple users have proposed discussing which episode-articles meet and pass WP:GNG, and which ones don't. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that the only episode-article that should stay in the mainspace is Chapter 1: The Mandalorian, but I do feel that the 8th episode can be filled out with more information, as there are tons of articles discussing its key development moments. Cardei012597 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Chapter 1 currently is the closest to being notable, followed by possibly Chapter 8, but I believe all should be draftified to be developed into notable articles, because in their current state (Chapters 1 and 8 included) they do not have anything in their articles that is not already covered at the series or season articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • All the episodes are fine, since they all get ample coverage in reliable sources that review them. Look at the reception section of each article, and all the references. Dream Focus 04:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
    • As commented to you above, that doesn't make them inherently notable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
      • You've made at least a dozen comments in this section. Please walk away from the very dead horse you've been beating and learn to take the L. -- Calidum 01:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
        • What 'L'? Many are opposing a straight merge, which is not what I'm advocating for. Draftyfing these articles is still a very real possibility. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
          • Favre1fan93, putting a more sources needed tag or a plot only tag will be more beneficial than draftifying. (The following is an example) If you think the one thing preventing you from requesting an episode be merged is that the production section is empty or missing, you could instead add this template, and someone will come by to help fix it, whether it's because the page was an article so they could look at the issues themselves, or because someone is checking Special:WhatLinksHere for pages with said issues. If an editor searches a redirect, they might not go back to the redirect and check its history (and thus might not see the flaws that they could've fixed), and not every editor will check the draftspace, and I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to put template like this or this in drafts, and if that is correct, than people who check Special:WhatLinksHere might not notice an article that needs help. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a policy that explains how to decide if a television episode is notable? From what I can tell from WP:GNG referenced above, the answer would depend on what kind of sources have covered the episodes in detail. If there are enough sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria, then I think that should answer it. But I'm curious if there are specific criteria for tv episodes. Sfern824 (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Themes (Section)

The theme section has grown a bit bloated. Any objections to thinning it out so it's not term-paper length? -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Nope. And some can probably be split off to an equivalent section at the season 1 article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the theme section is a little long, would not be opposed to cutting the small details. 1Wexford2 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Audience Viewership

The Mandalorian is one of the most popular series on Disney+. The series broke numerous records for a streaming tv show when season 1 was released. This helped to increase the numbers of subscribers on 2019. Then the season became one of the most anticipated TV shows in 2020. It was also very successful, so the series need a section to show how many viewers records showed and the numbers it have. Alvrix3104 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to add that as long as you cite reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Carano firing

In the context of this article which focuses on the series as a whole, how essential are the details of Carano's firing? Does it merit a full paragraph? Wouldn't these additional details better suit Carano's page instead?
I think the firing and cause are essential (which are covered in the first sentence), but the background of the decision and the assignment of responsibility for the firing are not.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the most appropriate place to discuss this issue across all the Mandalorian articles, and the current wording provides necessary context (that is all in relation to Lucasfilm and this show) for readers. I don't think there is anything in this brief paragraph that should definitely be removed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with User:Adamstom.97. Keep precisely as and where it is. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Also agreed with Adam. Casting is the most relevant section and all the info currently there covers the entire topic: Sentence 1) her being firing, 2) the reason for her being fired, 3-4) backstory leading to the firing, and 5) what it means for the series going forward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for the thoughtful opinions. Even though I think it could be trimmed, there seems to be a clear consensus so I'll withdraw my objection. -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Anyone else feel that combining the soundtrack info for each episode into this one article (The Mandalorian (soundtrack)) is not the best way to go? I thought it was better when they were just at each episode article and not crammed into one article. If you remove all the images (I'm pretty sure we can't justify all of those non-free images in one article like that) and ignore the track listings then I'm not sure there is really enough for this article to exist, and much if not all of the info has just been copied from this article and the season article. I think it would be better to help expand the episode articles with applicable music there since those articles need the expansion, and keep any overview music info at the season article as well as here rather than having a soundtrack article. Any other thoughts on this? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I had similar thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97 and Favre1fan93: any more thoughts on this? Should we just move them to the "Music" section of each episode, as in WandaVision? —El Millo (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Yup. I can help with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirects created, track listings for season 1 restored to episode articles, and on the season 2 season page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning Underworld in lead

I understand the lead is supposed to summarize the article as a whole, but the production of Underworld is only tangentially related to The Mandalorian (being that they both would be the first live-action SW show). Its coverage in the lead is overkill, making it seem like the productions bled into one another, when they didn't. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It is just one sentence, and it provides good context for someone who doesn't know anything about the history of the development of the TV side of Star Wars. It also ties in with the need to have new technology to make the show which is also mentioned in that paragraph. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

AFI Awards 2020 Inclusion for Article

The Mandalorian has become the first Disney+ television production to be recognized as one of the Top 10 TV Programs of the Year from the American Film Institute's annual AFI Awards Ceremony. Thought this might be worth updating to the series' awards categories for 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internet Informant (talk • contribs) 03:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Add images on the episode articles

Currently this series have individual articles for the episodes but there is no image in any of the episodes. And I feel that these articles are very simple despite all the information. I feel that the images are very important to show the most importants parts for each episode of the series. Don't you agree?? Ulises1126 (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

There is plenty of work to be done at the episode articles, including adding images. Remember that images need to be appropriate and meet Wikipedia's copyright rules, they shouldn't just be added willy-nilly because there aren't images there yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I think The Mandalorian is a space opera not a space western.

The Mandalorian is space opera like the rest of Star Wars. I admit it does have western elements but, its still a space opera. Any Objections to this edit? Super m001 (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source that states that. DonQuixote (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Especially when the creators explicitly call it a space western, which is included in the article. oknazevad (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
And most especially when I agree with them. :) Debresser (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Book of Boba Fett

The Book of Boba Fett's last lines is in future tense and Boba Fett is currently streaming. Why was it reverted? Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Mandalorian/Archive_4&oldid=1218775878"