This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Star Trek: Prodigy 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: nice work.
North8000 ( talk) 01:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Has animation work actually begun on the series? That is, is it actually out of the pre-production phase? The Animation section doesn't talk of this. -- / Alex/ 21 03:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding adamstom97's comment, "We generally don't list those types of producers, especially if they are just writers who will be credited appropriately elsewhere," if you read the articles, it seems they are as much creative producers as the others listed in the infobox, and not "just writers" -- the article cited doesn't list Macgregor Middleton as a writer at all. I would err on the side of including them both rather than not, especially if there are reputable sources provided and they are important parts of the creative team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalShadows123 ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Highly doubt Nickelodeon Animation Studio's gonna be involved with the project. It's Pony wasn't produced by Nickelodeon, just broadcast.
Where is the rule about only including country of origin distributor in the infobox?? Template:Infobox television says to include the original distributors of the series. As the series hasn't aired yet, I'm pretty sure ViacomCBS Global Distribution Group would be considered an original distributor. Heartfox ( talk) 03:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The article lead says that Mulgrew "reprises" her role from Star Trek Voyager. This seems incorrect to me. She is playing the role of the hologram Janeway, which is based on the actual human Janeway but clearly not the same person. (Presumably, the original Janeway is still alive at the time the series is set (2383) and living in the Alpha Quadrant, while this hologram Janeway is in the Delta Quadrant.) In a similar way, the Voyager character of The Doctor was based on Dr Lewis Zimmerman, but they are considered two separate characters and even interacted with each other (such as in the episode "Life Line"). Kidburla ( talk) 20:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Please note that as usually happens with tv shows the Reception section is dominated by reviews of the first episode. It may make sense to replace them later with reviews that cover the whole 10 episodes of the season if and when they become available, but those were the sources available at the time, and no one else had done it so I went ahead and included them. (Some reviewers may have also previewed the second episode, not sure.) So while Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores are presented as a score for all of season 1, please remember that they are skewed in favor of the first episode and continue to maintain a healthy level of scepticism. -- 109.77.207.230 ( talk) 18:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Keeping track of the cast to help determine who is recurring as well as credit order: - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
No other cast
There seems to be an edit war brewing over whether this series is a joint production of both Paramount+ and Nickelodeon or just one of them. In edit descriptions, one editor compares the series history with that of Big Nate. I understand that Prodigy is much more of a joint production than the other series. How about some actual sourced data on the situation, or at least some more detailed discussion? — ADavidB 16:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems MOS:COLON was cited incorrectly in an edit summary as justification for using a capital letter after a colon. The text there states, "When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter, but otherwise do not capitalize after a colon". The text that immediately follows colons in this article's "Cast and characters" section does not include complete sentences and no other reason for capitalization is evident. — ADavidB 04:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
To me, while the specific source used says such, is disingenuous. We know The Animated Series was first. I think the most comparable situation is Disney touting Frozen II as the highest-grossing animated film of all time when it’s actually The Lion King 2019, but Disney treats it as a live action remake. Wikipedia gives the title to The Lion King 2019. I don’t understand letting PR speak get in the way of facts-- CreecregofLife ( talk) 07:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
And yet the animated series won an emmy for children's programming Aaron Bruce ( talk) 21:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, @ Piotrus. How about a press-release of CBS? IKhitron ( talk) 11:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
In my reading of the opening section, not having previously edited the page, it seemed a miswording to describe Prodigy as "the first to use 3D animaton" because there have been countless examples of 3D computer-generated animations, dating back to the 'Genesis' sequence in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, to the Crystalline Entity in TNG and every studio model in Enterprise.
[...] Prodigy is the first Star Trek series to target younger audiences and is also the first to use 3D animation. [...]
— Extract from the current opening paragraph on Star Trek: Prodigy
Albeit very minor, I think makes more sense when changed to "the first to be animated in 3D". In my opinion, the difference is to state it merely uses 3D is not specific and overstates how CGI has been used in Star Trek. Whereas, I think describing it as being animated in 3D implies it being wholly non-live action and is in line with phrases like " traditionally animated" in the context of Star Trek: Lower Decks (computer generated in that computers are used) and Star Trek: The Animated Series.
It's not my intention to start an edit war over such a small change, for example Adamstom.97 did not read it in the same way, hence suggesting it here to gauge general interpretation of that sentence. -- Bacon Noodles ( talk • contribs • uploads) 00:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Is this a good source for all the episodes titles? IKhitron ( talk) 14:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Surprisingly, looks like the rest of the season premieres today and next week on Nickelodeon CEE. IKhitron ( talk) 20:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
There is in the written by a part 1 amd another brownish bar that says part 2 , it's still all on season 1 there is no parts ... can someone please fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.204.185 ( talk) 19:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Multiple sources reporting as of two days ago the show js being canceled and removed from Paramount+. Should be mentioned in the article. Alx rms ( talk) 11:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Just to confirm, did Nickelodeon cancel its broadcast before the second half of the season aired? It's implied that after the first portion of Season 1 that only Paramount+ aired it after; and the recent cancellation news has only mentioned Paramount+, not Nickelodeon (in Canada it aired on CTV Sci-Fi for the whole run). 136.159.160.121 ( talk) 20:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Smeagol 17: Please stop edit warring, you have made the same edit four times now. Websites are italicized, pointing to articles where that isn't the case is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not valid justification for continuing to edit war. - adamstom97 ( talk) 21:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The guideline involved is MOS:MAJORWORKS. Per that, web sites are only italicized if they're web versions of the sorts of works that would be italicized if they were print sources. As france.tv is the streaming service of France's national broadcaster, it wouldn't be italicized any more than Netflix or Paramount+. Smeagol is correct. oknazevad ( talk) 15:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Star Trek: Prodigy 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: nice work.
North8000 ( talk) 01:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Has animation work actually begun on the series? That is, is it actually out of the pre-production phase? The Animation section doesn't talk of this. -- / Alex/ 21 03:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding adamstom97's comment, "We generally don't list those types of producers, especially if they are just writers who will be credited appropriately elsewhere," if you read the articles, it seems they are as much creative producers as the others listed in the infobox, and not "just writers" -- the article cited doesn't list Macgregor Middleton as a writer at all. I would err on the side of including them both rather than not, especially if there are reputable sources provided and they are important parts of the creative team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalShadows123 ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Highly doubt Nickelodeon Animation Studio's gonna be involved with the project. It's Pony wasn't produced by Nickelodeon, just broadcast.
Where is the rule about only including country of origin distributor in the infobox?? Template:Infobox television says to include the original distributors of the series. As the series hasn't aired yet, I'm pretty sure ViacomCBS Global Distribution Group would be considered an original distributor. Heartfox ( talk) 03:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The article lead says that Mulgrew "reprises" her role from Star Trek Voyager. This seems incorrect to me. She is playing the role of the hologram Janeway, which is based on the actual human Janeway but clearly not the same person. (Presumably, the original Janeway is still alive at the time the series is set (2383) and living in the Alpha Quadrant, while this hologram Janeway is in the Delta Quadrant.) In a similar way, the Voyager character of The Doctor was based on Dr Lewis Zimmerman, but they are considered two separate characters and even interacted with each other (such as in the episode "Life Line"). Kidburla ( talk) 20:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Please note that as usually happens with tv shows the Reception section is dominated by reviews of the first episode. It may make sense to replace them later with reviews that cover the whole 10 episodes of the season if and when they become available, but those were the sources available at the time, and no one else had done it so I went ahead and included them. (Some reviewers may have also previewed the second episode, not sure.) So while Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores are presented as a score for all of season 1, please remember that they are skewed in favor of the first episode and continue to maintain a healthy level of scepticism. -- 109.77.207.230 ( talk) 18:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Keeping track of the cast to help determine who is recurring as well as credit order: - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
No other cast
There seems to be an edit war brewing over whether this series is a joint production of both Paramount+ and Nickelodeon or just one of them. In edit descriptions, one editor compares the series history with that of Big Nate. I understand that Prodigy is much more of a joint production than the other series. How about some actual sourced data on the situation, or at least some more detailed discussion? — ADavidB 16:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems MOS:COLON was cited incorrectly in an edit summary as justification for using a capital letter after a colon. The text there states, "When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter, but otherwise do not capitalize after a colon". The text that immediately follows colons in this article's "Cast and characters" section does not include complete sentences and no other reason for capitalization is evident. — ADavidB 04:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
To me, while the specific source used says such, is disingenuous. We know The Animated Series was first. I think the most comparable situation is Disney touting Frozen II as the highest-grossing animated film of all time when it’s actually The Lion King 2019, but Disney treats it as a live action remake. Wikipedia gives the title to The Lion King 2019. I don’t understand letting PR speak get in the way of facts-- CreecregofLife ( talk) 07:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
And yet the animated series won an emmy for children's programming Aaron Bruce ( talk) 21:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, @ Piotrus. How about a press-release of CBS? IKhitron ( talk) 11:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
In my reading of the opening section, not having previously edited the page, it seemed a miswording to describe Prodigy as "the first to use 3D animaton" because there have been countless examples of 3D computer-generated animations, dating back to the 'Genesis' sequence in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, to the Crystalline Entity in TNG and every studio model in Enterprise.
[...] Prodigy is the first Star Trek series to target younger audiences and is also the first to use 3D animation. [...]
— Extract from the current opening paragraph on Star Trek: Prodigy
Albeit very minor, I think makes more sense when changed to "the first to be animated in 3D". In my opinion, the difference is to state it merely uses 3D is not specific and overstates how CGI has been used in Star Trek. Whereas, I think describing it as being animated in 3D implies it being wholly non-live action and is in line with phrases like " traditionally animated" in the context of Star Trek: Lower Decks (computer generated in that computers are used) and Star Trek: The Animated Series.
It's not my intention to start an edit war over such a small change, for example Adamstom.97 did not read it in the same way, hence suggesting it here to gauge general interpretation of that sentence. -- Bacon Noodles ( talk • contribs • uploads) 00:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Is this a good source for all the episodes titles? IKhitron ( talk) 14:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Surprisingly, looks like the rest of the season premieres today and next week on Nickelodeon CEE. IKhitron ( talk) 20:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
There is in the written by a part 1 amd another brownish bar that says part 2 , it's still all on season 1 there is no parts ... can someone please fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.204.185 ( talk) 19:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Multiple sources reporting as of two days ago the show js being canceled and removed from Paramount+. Should be mentioned in the article. Alx rms ( talk) 11:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Just to confirm, did Nickelodeon cancel its broadcast before the second half of the season aired? It's implied that after the first portion of Season 1 that only Paramount+ aired it after; and the recent cancellation news has only mentioned Paramount+, not Nickelodeon (in Canada it aired on CTV Sci-Fi for the whole run). 136.159.160.121 ( talk) 20:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Smeagol 17: Please stop edit warring, you have made the same edit four times now. Websites are italicized, pointing to articles where that isn't the case is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not valid justification for continuing to edit war. - adamstom97 ( talk) 21:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The guideline involved is MOS:MAJORWORKS. Per that, web sites are only italicized if they're web versions of the sorts of works that would be italicized if they were print sources. As france.tv is the streaming service of France's national broadcaster, it wouldn't be italicized any more than Netflix or Paramount+. Smeagol is correct. oknazevad ( talk) 15:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)