Talk:Arcane (TV series)

Is this original research?

I saw it belongs to LGBT-related category. Is it official Vi and Caitlyn is couple? Music Video 123 (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced content

There was clearly a CN tag, Hohum, until you removed it, and if one reads the article one will see that in addition to the unsourced info, there is also WP:SYNTH with WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED as references. ภץאคгöร 17:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The CN tag was for the single item "music". Everything else is sourced. I changed "music" to "sound" since that is sourced in the article. (Hohum ^@) 17:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, so you admit that you didn't actually revert to the "stable" version. There are FOUR reviews only and you are using them to summarize/generalize all of this: "widespread acclaim [which is WP:SYNTH and a loaded exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources], with praise directed at its animation, story, worldbuilding, action sequences, characters, emotional weight, sound, and voice acting." + There is WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED. ภץאคгöร 17:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

What on earth? You removed a chunk from the stable article. I reverted that because I disagree. I then attended to the CN tag. All of the praise is sourced, so it is not loaded, or synth. It has won exceptional awards. Lets see what other editors think. (Hohum ^@) 17:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

No, what I removed was unsourced/WP:SYNTH/cited an unreliable source. I don't know why you are writing misleading comments like this, it is obvious what is correct. FYI, winning "exceptional awards" doesn't mean widespread critical acclaim. Do not take ownership of subjects that you clearly do not know. ภץאคгöร 12:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not, "make a change to the stable version, argue, fail to gain consensus, make the change again". So I have reverted back to the stable, sourced content. I will ask for a third opinion at a relevant wikiproject. (Hohum ^@) 18:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation. (Hohum ^@) 18:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion

A quick Google search seems to show that the "widespread acclaim" statement is supported by sources and more accurate and useful for a general reader than "positive reviews". Here's perhaps an example of a better source. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not mandatory, and the discussion was 7 days ago. Need multiple high-quality sources for "acclaim". The other additions need multiple reviews praising them, too. As the previous editor wrote above in May, "The IGN review certainly praised many aspects of the show but one reviewer praising all those different elements does not justify presenting it in the lead section as a generalization of what the reviewers were saying as a whole. I suggest trimming down the list of praise in the lead section or expanding the Critical response section to show more clearly that these generalizations are actually valid." And there is still a persistence in using unreliable sources. ภץאคгöร 19:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the listing of individual attributes could be moved down, but "widespread acclaim" should stay. It's very easy to find RS to support this. It took me a few seconds. This one and this one and this one and this one should be more than enough to justify "widespread" and "acclaim". Not to mention winning an Emmy. The unusual level of success is an important contextual element for readers. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

RT doesn't include anything about "acclaim" and The Cornell Daily Sun states "critical acclaim for its queer representation", but other than that one of the issues seems to be resolved. (Winning an award ≠ "critical acclaim".) ภץאคгöร 20:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you try the SYNTH/OR noticeboard or start an RfC about this if the sources don't meet your standards. It seems obvious from the sources to me, but clearly not to you, so try bringing in other opinions (not 3O, though). Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, 3O has not been as helpful in bringing this discussion to a conclusion as I thought it would be. ภץאคгöร 07:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced praise in lead

An editor has repeatedly removed the previously stable text of the lead. It is supported by sourced article text and the awards the series has been nominated for and awarded. I invite the editor to take part in meaningful discussion here with others so that we can gauge consensus. (Hohum ^@) 17:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

See thread above. (Hohum ^@) 17:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Was it praised? Yes. Was that praise widespread? Not so clear. There were only a limited numbers of reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes, twenty something reviews, it was praised by the quite limited number of critics who actually reviewed it. The laundry list of praise for "animation, story, worldbuilding, action sequences, characters, emotional weight, sound, and voice acting" is supposed to clearly supported by the critical response section, some of it is, the visual were certainly praised. It not clear that it is is fair generalization to say that all these various elements were generally praised, in particular it wasn't clear that the sound/music was particularly praised, and the story seems to have been both praised and criticized. -- 109.76.197.251 (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

We just follow the sources. Even though I provided plenty of examples, I'll provide another example (my bolding: the sky-high user reviews have not budged and inch since the series was release, and Netflix has rarely seen anything this universally beloved by viewers.

Arcane is still boasting a perfect 100% score among critics, but even more impressively, a 98% score from audiences, which has remained consistently for two weeks, and higher than any other major Netflix series you can find. Source Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not disagree that the people who like the show, really really like the show. I agree that everyone unequivocally praised the visuals. Judged by the standard of video game adaptations this show is remarkable but it is being graded on a curve by relatively few critics. Nonetheless I disagree that narrowly targeted praise for a show from a self selected group of only 29 critics can be described as "widespread" or that the increasingly long laundry list of items praised in the lead are all fair generalizations. Television critics who don't like the idea of a show based on a video game wouldn't even bother to consider it, there is a self selection bias among critics who are primed to like the show. Show like Arcane and Cyberpunk Edgerunners are praised but they are niche. Shows based on video games are getting more and more popular but they aren't mainstream yet, and they aren't being judged at the same level as a more mainstream network tv show would be. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a neutral high level view (WP:NPOV) should be taken and undue praise or puffery (WP:PUFF) should be avoided. While sources like Variety do say acclaim[1], they certainly do not say "widespread".

Meanwhile other editors strongly argue that the same Paul Tassi at Forbes you use to make your point, is not an acceptable source for this article.[2] not even his review of the episode[3] -- 109.76.201.77 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This show wasn't "universally acclaimed". It doesn't even have enough reviews to merit a Metacritic score. It's a niche show, but fans like it. Say that. If it weren't, it would be getting more than two seasons from Netflix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9D00:4066:ECF2:9B02:687C:B7DC (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Related, what's the citation for this line "It also set the record as Netflix's highest-rated series at the time within a week of its premiere, ranked first on the Netflix Top 10 Chart in 52 countries, and ranked second on the chart in the United States." Top 10 in 52 countries is not a record. 2603:8001:9D00:4066:ECF2:9B02:687C:B7DC (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

" Several critics and publications considered it one of the best video game adaptations ever made" This is just one publication, and one that I doubt is considered highly by Wikipedia. 2603:8001:9D00:4066:ECF2:9B02:687C:B7DC (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that second paragraph seems to violate Wiki style guides. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television 2603:8001:9D00:4066:ECF2:9B02:687C:B7DC (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't say it was "universally" praised. Everything else you mentioned has a source already in the article. Please be more specific about what text you think violates what specific point made in the MOS. (Hohum ^@) 00:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I meant "widespread acclaim" (and I think you know that. Re-read the second paragraph.)

It's hard to say the show has "widespread acclaim" if it doesn't have enough reviews to get a Metacritic score. 2603:8001:9D00:4066:ECF2:9B02:687C:B7DC (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Disproportionally too much attention to voice actors vs no mention of animators

In this article there is no mention of individual contribution like artist, animators working on characters, scenes, it is known that these people playing out characters in real life by themselves shot it on camera and used this as reference material to animate facial expressions and whole scenes. Their contribution is not mentioned at all, but it should be obvious that time and effort spend by French artists is disproportionally more than Hollywood voice actors. MouseInDust (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but without a reliable source covering such information there's not much we can do. If you know of and can provide a link to a source providing coverage of the show's animation department, I'm sure something could be added. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 13:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@MouseInDust WP:SOFIXIT. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)