This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New Warriors (TV pilot) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Per his Tweets (which are verified and can be used) he does seem to definitely be on board, contrary to THR's report that he was only nearing a deal to join. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 19:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
As of today, when the cast was announced, Biegel was also stated as the showrunner.-- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 01:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
We're still treating this show as if it's in active development, and maybe they'll suddenly make a surprise announcement, but that would have to be one big sudden announcement to get a pilot finished that doesn't even sound finished to be aired this year. This sounds more hopeful than Krypton, and that page used to be based solely on the pilot. This page is setting up things beyond that, of course because of what has been announced, but should we maybe pull back some stuff like removing the episode guide, and find anything else more up to date. Nothing sounds positive about this show that sounds half done at the pilot stage. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible ( talk) 19:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Two months left of 2018. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible ( talk) 16:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Please can we do something with this page. Unless there's a surprise announcement for December, I don't see this happening. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible ( talk) 12:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
If it was going to air this year in this month, I imagine they'd be some announcement. This isn't like when Kevin Feige gave a specific timing that it would be released by the end of the year about Avengers 4. So by the end of this month, we know that this is going to happen. This is the complete opposite of what we've got about New Warriors, just that it's planned to be aired in 2018, and since it wasn't given a specified time frame, because they're being overly optimistic about a series that lost its home and is now scrawling around for a new one, telling our readers that this will air in 2018, a year that is in its last month, doesn't make it sound at all credible. Yes, tomorrow they could make a surprise announcement, and if that were to happen (not that this seems at all likely), we can just easily put that up as new, updated info that would be more credible than the dated info we have now. Yes, congrats you found a credible source before, but we are just adding this for the sake of some bonafide resource that doesn't amount to anything anymore. Why exactly is so important to have this WRONG AND OUTDATED still up? I held out to this month, just for the sake of going by that source of 2018, but like I said this is December, and we have to face reality. This isn't stone Wikipedia, we can remove things, add things, but whatever we add has to have some common sense behind it as well. There is no common sense in claiming to our readers that is happening in a year that is in its last month. It's misleading and confusing. That's what doesn't make sense. If anything this page shouldn't even be here until, since we're basing everything on a semi-filmed pilot episode, because that's what we describing to our readers. This would be different if it had a home and further episodes were being filmed, but this is not the case. It's on an indefinite "We might air, maybe in 2019 on Disney+" to "At some point, maybe, whoever will take us." This just isn't really professional. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible ( talk) 21:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
A source that is obviously invalid now.How? How could it possibly be invalid if what it says has not been contradicted in any way, not by a more up-to-date source or by common sense? If it was not possible for the source to be true then you would be correct, but that is obviously not the case here. - adamstom97 ( talk) 19:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:Common Sense, this series is not airing in 2018. It does not matter that this contradicts other Wikipedia policies. Common Sense trumps all other. It also appears that everyone is in agreement aside from User:Adamstom.97, so this is probably an article for you to read.
"Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. "
MarioFan78 ( talk) 18:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there an update with a premiere date that is this year in 2018? If not, it is safe to say is definitely not going to premiere this year. I am sure the network is not going to announce a premiere date in less than a month. WP:UCS — Lbtocth talk 19:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Once 2018 passes, if it still hasn't premiered, then that info can be changed, but until then it should stay per WP:NORUSH. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 19:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Hopes are not commitments, plans were conditional on stuff happening that hasn't. The original wording in the sources was about stuff they hoped would happen. Nothing wrong with reporting what the sources actually stated along with the caveats . The problem is with inaccurate reporting. An {{
as of}}
statement that things haven't happened as hoped for would be appropriate. As for common sense see
WP:NOCOMMON for why appeal to that is normally unpersuasive.
Geraldo Perez (
talk) 19:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it should be mentioned that it is due to air in 2018. From what I understand about this series it has had quite the troubling time what with the lack of networks willing to pick it up and air it. I'd imagine the cast options have probably expired too, which means It'll probably be one and done unless it does well and they sign them up to new contracts. Esuka323 ( talk) 21:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
As has been consistently stated here, once 2018 comes and goes, then adjustments can be made here, WP:NORUSH. Also as been stated, yes everyone knows the series isn't releasing this year. But we are going by the sourced content we have. Additionally, the proposed changes are not great, adding the troublesome statement "as of now" (when is now? where's the source for this?). So again, the info will be adjusted come the new year, and honestly we only need to indicate how the series had been planned for release in 2018, and from that statement and not including any further updated info, and the info on it still being presented to other networks, it is known to now have a release date. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Since this has become a much greater issue than intended, here is a proposal for new wording in the article ( diff, article). This is the wording I personally would use/implement come January 1, 2019, but if it will appease others, let's implement it now. Alternatively with this edit, the "Release" section could be removed altogether if others deem, as all the info is in the development section. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 05:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that no one actually commented on the proposed wording I have suggested to solve the issue presented, most importantly as noted above, to not have "as of" as that is definitely not appropriate here. Please comment on this, or suggest an alternative, but do not re-insert changes on the article per WP:STATUSQUO. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The Original air date on the Episode Table should be set to TBD (leaving it blank) in terms of wording as it is certainly not airing in 2018. No network is going to pick up the series and air it in less than a week before 2019. — Lbtocth talk 21:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I've requested full protection of the page until the New Year, I can't imagine either of you want to see yourselves hit with WP:3RR over something like this. Esuka323 ( talk) 17:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Your version is fine, I don't have a problem with it, I think we all would have avoided much of this. I was trying to follow proper discussion procedure, even if the information that was the status quo was incorrect (which I fully acknowledged). That's why I wanted to present my wording, get opinion, and implement quickly so we could removed the wording everyone had issue with. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems the show isn't going to air, so... Why is there even an article any more? Undead Herle King ( talk) 00:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if it ever airs or not, to be honest. There are many articles for cancelled projects, unaired pilot episodes, etc. It's a notable series (that will almost certainly air eventually) and the article is well made and sourced. MARIO Fan78 17:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
some acknowledgement must be given that the show didn't air last year-> Directly in the "Release" section:
It was originally planned to premiere in 2018.Secondarily, in "Development" section:
Marvel wanted the series to air in 2018... In June 2018, Loeb said Marvel was still looking for a network to air the series.which all equate to, with no other confirmation of an air date in the article, that it didn't air in 2018. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
GWW, which has the "exclusive" on New Warriors being dead, is an unreliable source. While I personally believe the writing's been on the wall for this series, I think we should evaluate using this to source its ultimate demise. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Adamstom.97: Can't say I agree with your revert of this edit. My changes were good to the lede - see WP:OFTHESAMENAME (it's less clear and weirdly meta to say that). The old lead also weirdly bounces back between topics - the old second paragraph starts by talking about the actual pilot, then pivots to a long sentence about the business side. I put all the date / business stuff in the first paragraph, and left the second paragraph to solely describe the pilot, so that paragraphs have a consistent topic. (Plus things like the date should probably be in the first paragraph anyway.) "Abilities very different" doesn't actually say much - *how* were they different? And I presume the "changes to the standard layout" was removing the Guest subsection, but does that really need any explanation? It's obvious, isn't it? There's only a single entry there. There is absolutely no need for a pointless section bloating up the table of contents that is so short. The standard layout is a fine start, but it clearly doesn't make sense in such a circumstance as this. Finally, yes, the Wikipedia article talks about the potential spinoffs, but as a matter of editorial judgment, I'd argue it over-focuses the issue. I looked at the main source [2]: it has a single sentence that says "New Warriors, sources say, could be Marvel TV 2.0, with the ability to feature multiple spinoffs similar to the company’s Netflix arrangement." The other source [3] is just an interview with a vice president where it's a single hypey question. Anyway, the article over-focuses on these minor, passing sentences of wild guesses ("we like our product so much, we think it'll make spinoffs!"). It makes about as much sense as picking on any other single sentence similarly - something in the lede that says that said "Dan Buckley, president of Marvel Entertainment, said that he was 'extremely excited about Marvel’s New Warriors'." It's just corporate promotion.
Can you explain your issues? I'd like to restore my version, but maybe there's a compromise version. SnowFire ( talk) 10:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Favre1fan93: This isn't a huge deal, as the precise wording of a rarely-viewed article is not a huge deal. I stand by my lead changes because "no room in the schedule" is something that should be qualified as "said by XYZ" - it's not a "fact" (of course there's always room in the schedule, just take something else out... what the studio really meant is that they didn't like the project enough anymore to make room for it in their schedule.) However, the real reason I'm pinging you is that since I know you're a heavy editor of TV articles, so let me strongly argue against "of the same name" as a general principle elsewhere. See the essay at WP:OFTHESAMENAME (not written by me). It's a horrible anti-pattern that has spread through Wikipedia but really shouldn't have. You wrote in your edit summary that "'same name' in the lead is acceptable"; do you just mean that you don't think it's a problem and don't get why I changed it? Or do you think that 'of the same name' is Actually Better? If you don't feel strongly about it, then I would want to restore my phrasing. Having blue links that clearly indicate to which article they're going is helpful; "of the same name" is like a piped "click here" as far as useful links. If there's worry that it'll look like a circular link, then add in an extra word or two in the link to make it clear. "Of the same name" just makes the wording less clear and isn't a way that authors write in normal contexts. SnowFire ( talk) 05:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New Warriors (TV pilot) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Per his Tweets (which are verified and can be used) he does seem to definitely be on board, contrary to THR's report that he was only nearing a deal to join. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 19:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
As of today, when the cast was announced, Biegel was also stated as the showrunner.-- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 01:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
We're still treating this show as if it's in active development, and maybe they'll suddenly make a surprise announcement, but that would have to be one big sudden announcement to get a pilot finished that doesn't even sound finished to be aired this year. This sounds more hopeful than Krypton, and that page used to be based solely on the pilot. This page is setting up things beyond that, of course because of what has been announced, but should we maybe pull back some stuff like removing the episode guide, and find anything else more up to date. Nothing sounds positive about this show that sounds half done at the pilot stage. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible ( talk) 19:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Two months left of 2018. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible ( talk) 16:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Please can we do something with this page. Unless there's a surprise announcement for December, I don't see this happening. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible ( talk) 12:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
If it was going to air this year in this month, I imagine they'd be some announcement. This isn't like when Kevin Feige gave a specific timing that it would be released by the end of the year about Avengers 4. So by the end of this month, we know that this is going to happen. This is the complete opposite of what we've got about New Warriors, just that it's planned to be aired in 2018, and since it wasn't given a specified time frame, because they're being overly optimistic about a series that lost its home and is now scrawling around for a new one, telling our readers that this will air in 2018, a year that is in its last month, doesn't make it sound at all credible. Yes, tomorrow they could make a surprise announcement, and if that were to happen (not that this seems at all likely), we can just easily put that up as new, updated info that would be more credible than the dated info we have now. Yes, congrats you found a credible source before, but we are just adding this for the sake of some bonafide resource that doesn't amount to anything anymore. Why exactly is so important to have this WRONG AND OUTDATED still up? I held out to this month, just for the sake of going by that source of 2018, but like I said this is December, and we have to face reality. This isn't stone Wikipedia, we can remove things, add things, but whatever we add has to have some common sense behind it as well. There is no common sense in claiming to our readers that is happening in a year that is in its last month. It's misleading and confusing. That's what doesn't make sense. If anything this page shouldn't even be here until, since we're basing everything on a semi-filmed pilot episode, because that's what we describing to our readers. This would be different if it had a home and further episodes were being filmed, but this is not the case. It's on an indefinite "We might air, maybe in 2019 on Disney+" to "At some point, maybe, whoever will take us." This just isn't really professional. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible ( talk) 21:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
A source that is obviously invalid now.How? How could it possibly be invalid if what it says has not been contradicted in any way, not by a more up-to-date source or by common sense? If it was not possible for the source to be true then you would be correct, but that is obviously not the case here. - adamstom97 ( talk) 19:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:Common Sense, this series is not airing in 2018. It does not matter that this contradicts other Wikipedia policies. Common Sense trumps all other. It also appears that everyone is in agreement aside from User:Adamstom.97, so this is probably an article for you to read.
"Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. "
MarioFan78 ( talk) 18:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there an update with a premiere date that is this year in 2018? If not, it is safe to say is definitely not going to premiere this year. I am sure the network is not going to announce a premiere date in less than a month. WP:UCS — Lbtocth talk 19:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Once 2018 passes, if it still hasn't premiered, then that info can be changed, but until then it should stay per WP:NORUSH. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 19:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Hopes are not commitments, plans were conditional on stuff happening that hasn't. The original wording in the sources was about stuff they hoped would happen. Nothing wrong with reporting what the sources actually stated along with the caveats . The problem is with inaccurate reporting. An {{
as of}}
statement that things haven't happened as hoped for would be appropriate. As for common sense see
WP:NOCOMMON for why appeal to that is normally unpersuasive.
Geraldo Perez (
talk) 19:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it should be mentioned that it is due to air in 2018. From what I understand about this series it has had quite the troubling time what with the lack of networks willing to pick it up and air it. I'd imagine the cast options have probably expired too, which means It'll probably be one and done unless it does well and they sign them up to new contracts. Esuka323 ( talk) 21:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
As has been consistently stated here, once 2018 comes and goes, then adjustments can be made here, WP:NORUSH. Also as been stated, yes everyone knows the series isn't releasing this year. But we are going by the sourced content we have. Additionally, the proposed changes are not great, adding the troublesome statement "as of now" (when is now? where's the source for this?). So again, the info will be adjusted come the new year, and honestly we only need to indicate how the series had been planned for release in 2018, and from that statement and not including any further updated info, and the info on it still being presented to other networks, it is known to now have a release date. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Since this has become a much greater issue than intended, here is a proposal for new wording in the article ( diff, article). This is the wording I personally would use/implement come January 1, 2019, but if it will appease others, let's implement it now. Alternatively with this edit, the "Release" section could be removed altogether if others deem, as all the info is in the development section. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 05:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that no one actually commented on the proposed wording I have suggested to solve the issue presented, most importantly as noted above, to not have "as of" as that is definitely not appropriate here. Please comment on this, or suggest an alternative, but do not re-insert changes on the article per WP:STATUSQUO. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The Original air date on the Episode Table should be set to TBD (leaving it blank) in terms of wording as it is certainly not airing in 2018. No network is going to pick up the series and air it in less than a week before 2019. — Lbtocth talk 21:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I've requested full protection of the page until the New Year, I can't imagine either of you want to see yourselves hit with WP:3RR over something like this. Esuka323 ( talk) 17:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Your version is fine, I don't have a problem with it, I think we all would have avoided much of this. I was trying to follow proper discussion procedure, even if the information that was the status quo was incorrect (which I fully acknowledged). That's why I wanted to present my wording, get opinion, and implement quickly so we could removed the wording everyone had issue with. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems the show isn't going to air, so... Why is there even an article any more? Undead Herle King ( talk) 00:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if it ever airs or not, to be honest. There are many articles for cancelled projects, unaired pilot episodes, etc. It's a notable series (that will almost certainly air eventually) and the article is well made and sourced. MARIO Fan78 17:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
some acknowledgement must be given that the show didn't air last year-> Directly in the "Release" section:
It was originally planned to premiere in 2018.Secondarily, in "Development" section:
Marvel wanted the series to air in 2018... In June 2018, Loeb said Marvel was still looking for a network to air the series.which all equate to, with no other confirmation of an air date in the article, that it didn't air in 2018. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
GWW, which has the "exclusive" on New Warriors being dead, is an unreliable source. While I personally believe the writing's been on the wall for this series, I think we should evaluate using this to source its ultimate demise. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Adamstom.97: Can't say I agree with your revert of this edit. My changes were good to the lede - see WP:OFTHESAMENAME (it's less clear and weirdly meta to say that). The old lead also weirdly bounces back between topics - the old second paragraph starts by talking about the actual pilot, then pivots to a long sentence about the business side. I put all the date / business stuff in the first paragraph, and left the second paragraph to solely describe the pilot, so that paragraphs have a consistent topic. (Plus things like the date should probably be in the first paragraph anyway.) "Abilities very different" doesn't actually say much - *how* were they different? And I presume the "changes to the standard layout" was removing the Guest subsection, but does that really need any explanation? It's obvious, isn't it? There's only a single entry there. There is absolutely no need for a pointless section bloating up the table of contents that is so short. The standard layout is a fine start, but it clearly doesn't make sense in such a circumstance as this. Finally, yes, the Wikipedia article talks about the potential spinoffs, but as a matter of editorial judgment, I'd argue it over-focuses the issue. I looked at the main source [2]: it has a single sentence that says "New Warriors, sources say, could be Marvel TV 2.0, with the ability to feature multiple spinoffs similar to the company’s Netflix arrangement." The other source [3] is just an interview with a vice president where it's a single hypey question. Anyway, the article over-focuses on these minor, passing sentences of wild guesses ("we like our product so much, we think it'll make spinoffs!"). It makes about as much sense as picking on any other single sentence similarly - something in the lede that says that said "Dan Buckley, president of Marvel Entertainment, said that he was 'extremely excited about Marvel’s New Warriors'." It's just corporate promotion.
Can you explain your issues? I'd like to restore my version, but maybe there's a compromise version. SnowFire ( talk) 10:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Favre1fan93: This isn't a huge deal, as the precise wording of a rarely-viewed article is not a huge deal. I stand by my lead changes because "no room in the schedule" is something that should be qualified as "said by XYZ" - it's not a "fact" (of course there's always room in the schedule, just take something else out... what the studio really meant is that they didn't like the project enough anymore to make room for it in their schedule.) However, the real reason I'm pinging you is that since I know you're a heavy editor of TV articles, so let me strongly argue against "of the same name" as a general principle elsewhere. See the essay at WP:OFTHESAMENAME (not written by me). It's a horrible anti-pattern that has spread through Wikipedia but really shouldn't have. You wrote in your edit summary that "'same name' in the lead is acceptable"; do you just mean that you don't think it's a problem and don't get why I changed it? Or do you think that 'of the same name' is Actually Better? If you don't feel strongly about it, then I would want to restore my phrasing. Having blue links that clearly indicate to which article they're going is helpful; "of the same name" is like a piped "click here" as far as useful links. If there's worry that it'll look like a circular link, then add in an extra word or two in the link to make it clear. "Of the same name" just makes the wording less clear and isn't a way that authors write in normal contexts. SnowFire ( talk) 05:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)