This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Forgive me if this has been discussed before, but is it really correct to list Grogu under a "Starring" heading for cast and characters? It implies that the puppet is playing himself(?). Is "Grogu" actually listed in the on-screen credits? He's certainly a character in the series, but an actor? I realize we've done it this way for every season, but it seems odd to me.
Can we list the voice actor (and/or puppeteer(s)) for the role, or come up with a different heading for Grogu (maybe "Other characters")? Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section is "Cast and characters". Puppeteers or voice actors aren't really appropriate for him and while he has no other "formal" credit, he is a starring character since the series is centered on him and Din Djarin. There is no implication of him playing himself because we not doing "as himself" or similar wording. Other headings would also not be appropriate in this instance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look at the episode articles for this season and was surprised how poor they are. They all just have the bare minimum details copy-and-pasted and are nowhere close to meeting the WP:NTVEP guidelines. They all need to be sent to draftspace or redirected here, but I'm not sure what the best approach is. This is a similar situation to The Book of Boba Fett where I have proposed redirecting the episode articles, but I feel like there may be more interest in working on these ones considering the work that has been done on the first season's episode articles (the second season's episode articles are not as good as the first, but they're slightly better than these ones). But also, it's been a year since this season was released so maybe that is an argument for just redirecting these ones as well? Thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The episode articles for The Book of Boba Fett have been redirected to that article. If there isn't any interest in working on this season's episode articles in draftspace then I will go ahead and redirect those to this article as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough reviews of these individual episodes to meet notability. I looked through the Rotten Tomatoes page for Chapter 17, and Rolling Stone, El País, Forbes, etc. are all reliable sources writing complete reviews of this episode. I have not checked the others yet, but I would be surprised if they were not notable with how much coverage this one has gotten. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they are notable is not in question. Just because something is notable enough for an article does not mean a stub article should be created for it and left without improvement. There has been no interest in improving the quality of these articles in a year since the season was released, they either need to be merged here so future work can focus on improving just one article instead of nine, or they need to be moved to the draftspace until they have been improved to the point where they can be moved back into the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a merge. I thought maybe Chapter 17 might be a one-off as the series premiere, so I checked Chapters 21 and 24 and found plenty of coverage to show notability, which is indirectly pointed at in the articles with the Rotten Tomatoes link. Merging does nothing to progress us towards complete coverage of this topic. Instead the articles need to be improved one by one, with careful use of review commentary, and then with production details if they exist. There's no consensus among our community that no article is better than a stub, when the topic is notable. — Bilorv (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, notability is not the concern here. The issue is that there has been no interest in improving the articles for over a year. If others agree with you that these should be kept and improved rather than redirected then I am fine with moving them to the draftspace until they are improved to the standard that we expect. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a merge. As I have seen while doing a Re-Watch of ALL of the existing Star Trek shows & films, and concurrently reading those Episode Articles, there is MUCH add'l info of interest to readers. Better to Improve existing Articles in the Future, no matter when the Last Edit occurred... after all, Star Trek has been around 55 Years, much LONGER than Wikipedia itself, and yet the public is still re-watching & re-reviewing & adding info about Production, Cultural Impact, and other important info, long after the original airing, not to mention New Ep's yet to be aired. It shouldn't matter that there has been no improvement within the last Year. It's short-sighted to dump existing, add'l info, to merge back to a Episode List that only has a Summary of the Plot, and none of the other info that's already been added to the episode articles. Give the new Mandalorian epi-articles a chance to grow. Just like a Newly opened bottle of Wine needs a chance to Breath to improve its flavor, so too do Wiki Articles. Anyway, My 2¢ and hope that helps. ~<}:^> --GreyElfGT (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response, I would say that they have been given a chance to grow and it hasn't happened. If there was consensus to merge, that doesn't mean they would be gone forever. The merge could be reversed if someone was actually interested in expanding on the episode articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support a merge. As adam pointed out above, each episode has not had much expansion beyond their initial creations and the vast majority of the article contents is WP:CONTENTFORK of existing info elsewhere (or could easily be integrated into the season or main article if appropriate). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The minority of episode specific content that would fit nowhere else and be lost in any merge, that's the problem not the majority repeated content. Starting an article is easy, digging deep to find good sources about episode specific production details and casting is hard. I made the effort on some of the season 1 and 2 articles but season 3 was more contentious. I expect any episode good enough to be Emmy nominated has a lot of potential Production and background details that could be expanded upon eventually, but that level of detail would not be appropriate in the Season 3 overview article. e.g. Chapter 22: Guns for Hire was Emmy nominated for prosthetics but that episode article doesn't yet include any information on the makeup and prosethetics that make it particularly noteworthy. -- 109.77.195.129 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support a merge. - Nobody seems to really care about the season's episodes. I'd like to suggest WP:BEBOLD to the editors who see sources and coverage that establish individual notability - Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia not only lets you add and edit articles: it wants you to do it. If you really want to keep these articles and improve them, I suggest drafting them, then merging each episode to the Season article until (or if) the episode articles are developed to make a case for their existence. - User:BarntToust (talk) 05:22 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I don't understand this mentality to delete articles that are making little progress. So long as they have the potential to progress (which editors already admit they do) the articles should be left alone until editors interested in doing it come around (and editors reluctant to allow people to change things to move on). You should see the sorry state of most of the Star Trek Voyager episode articles, and it is not for lack of potential sources but as I am not interested in doing that work I edit other things instead and do not propose those articles be deleted either. Wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED and people will come back around to these articles eventually. What's the hurry? It is difficult to know the importance of these episode of the Bo Katan show Mandalorian season 3 until the spin-off movie or season 4 comes out, season 2 episode Chapter 11: The Heiress became more important in hindsight, it is too soon to tell. Season 3 was contentious, it shouldn't be a surprise that editors was less active as a result, give it time. Unlike Boba Fett, the Mandalorian series is still ongoing. "The merge could be reversed if someone was actually interested in expanding on the episode articles." easier said than done, that does not align with my experience of editing Wikipedia. Out of sight is out of mind and if these articles are deleted the consensus will have been established and there will be a huge barrier to ever restoring them. With the looming threat of deletion hanging over TV episode articles (not just this case but any TV episode article for many years now) you should not be surprised that editors are less interested to invest time and effort to improve articles. I will not be surprised if deleting season 3 episode articles leads to less important season 2 articles getting deleted, and so on. (Yes whole other wiki's exist for franchises and tv shows but the quality just isn't the same, they are more lists than articles, and deleting these Wikipedia articles would be a loss.)
I suggest you rephrase the proposal and say specifically which episode articles from season 3 you propose to keep, if any? Which specific articles do you think most badly need improvement or should be deleted first? Why do those articles lack the potential to be improved if interested editors were to come back to them later? -- 109.77.195.129 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is proposing that any articles be deleted. The proposal is to redirect all of the episode articles for this season to this article. If an interested editor wants to work on these articles then the history will still be available at the redirect and they would be more than welcome to revert the merge and expand from there. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Wikipedia Deletion discussions frequently result in redirects or merges, but it is still fundamentally a deletion discussion. It is semantics and you know it.) Redirect/merge/delete, call it what you want but the end result is effectively the same. "more than welcome to revert the merge" Even if you make that promise I simply don't buy that other editors will see the consensus to redirect as something to be easily reverted. Restoring the article to make small improvements will be rejected, interested editors will be forced to copy the article into draftspace and do a huge rewrite in the hope that maybe a substantial improvement will be enough to justify getting the article reestablished. I know this because it happened (Rogue Planet (Star Trek: Enterprise)) and that was a case where only one episode from an entire season had been deleted, and in that case editors didn't believe sources existed because they hadn't found them. If multiple episodes are deleted or "redirected" as you say the barrier to restore any one episode article will be much higher. I don't think an open proposal is entirely fair, so I say again, pick the worst quality episode article from season 3 and tell me why it doesn't have the potential to be improved and should be merged now rather than wait until the whole series concludes. If you're not interested in editing these episodes articles now it is no burden on you to leave them and do something else, but redirecting them will absolutely be a barrier to anyone else improving them later. I've thought about the fundamental units of this encyclopedia, articles based on one person, one film, one show, one episode. I blame the season articles for the redundancy not the episode specific articles. This is an episodic show, it is not a show based on a book, the season is not core unit, the episode articles are, and it fundamentally makes more sense to me to keep work from the bottom up of the episode articles than from the top down of the season overview articles. If you fundamentally believe they cannot be improved and don't have the potential to become good articles that would be a different matter and I might even agree with you. But if you aren't interested in improving the episodes articles then please just leave them alone. Again tell me what is the worst episode article of season 3, maybe I can improve it. -- 109.77.195.129 (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep deploying straw man arguments. I never said the articles cannot be improved, I am saying that they have not been improved and there is no sign that they will be. So unless someone actually intends to improve them, they should be redirected. If an editor decides that they do want to make improvements but they don't improve the articles enough to justify them existing then yes, that would be challenged based on this discussion. The fact that this is an episodic series is irrelevant if the articles do not meet the standards for being in the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I never said the articles cannot be improved" and I never said you did, I noticed that you accept these articles pass the standards of notability, and I don't understand why the discussion doesn't end there and we move on to something else. This is Wikipedia, articles not improving fast enough is a non-problem. there is no sign that they will be the people saying they Oppose this proposal are a sign. Not a strong sign, but a sign. You've thought about this enough and were annoyed enough by the lack of progress to feel need to propose this merge, it really shouldn't that be difficult for you to point to the worst season 3 episode article, you could be encouraging me to improve a page instead. -- 109.77.195.129 (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting WP:GNG does not mean an article is automatically accepted, it just means that the information is noteworthy enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Information can pass GNG but consensus can find that it is best presented within an existing article rather than its own. That is what the standards at WP:NTVEP are for, and what this discussion is about. If you are serious about stopping this merger by improving the articles then go ahead. I don't have a preference on which one should be worked on first. If you genuinely want to work on these articles then I am happy to end this discussion and leave you to it, but I am not yet convinced that anyone is going to make substantive enough changes to warrant these articles not being merged. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously trying to say that Emmy nominated episodes don't pass WP:NTVEP? That's too high a bar. The articles have been slow to improve, don't worry about it, it's a non-problem. -- 109.77.195.129 (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being Emmy nominated does not mean there is enough production or reception information to justify an entire article. That is one short sentence that will also be included in the series and season articles already. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
