Talk:Locke & Key (TV series)

location. locationS...

Nova Scotia business website states that (at least *some* of) the Locke & Key series is being filmed there. There is possibly some confusion between the 2011 Locke & Key Pilot for FOX (filmed in Pittsburgh PA), a 2017 Locke & Key Pilot for Hulu (filmed in Nova Scotia), and now the new Locke & Key TV series for Netflix... The IMDb page for this 2020 Netflix series mentions all of the above locations except for Pittsburgh. Shearonink (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Locke and Key (Season 1)

{short description|Season of television series}} {{Infobox television season | season_number = 1 | bgcolour = #771C23 | image = Stranger Things season 1.jpg | caption = Promotional poster Luanteen (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Positive reviews

It is bad to equivocate, it shouldn't be that difficult to decide if reviews are either negative, mixed, or positive. Pick one. Editors should be able to pick just one, don't equivocate, don't try to have it both ways.

An editor keeps insisting that the reviews were "mixed to positive" despite the fact that Metacritic literally says the reviews were "generally favorable" and any Rotten Tomatoes score over 60% is considered fresh (ie positive). He is ignoring the sources and then claiming my edits are disruptive. The fact that some reviews were not positive does not prevent us from repeating what the sources RT and MC have already said: the reviews were generally positive.

If you truly believe the reviews were mixed then at least have the conviction to say they were mixed, but stop equivocating. -- 109.76.217.83 (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not the only critical reviews. Other critical reviews on the section include: USA Today, IGN, and Polygon. You chose to ignore 3 other critical reviews. I am fine with "mixed" or "mostly positive" because claiming just "positive" is misleading as there are clear criticisms on the section as well on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Also, I am woman so, my pronouns are she/her. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the IP here. These are oranges to apples. IGN, Polygon, USA Today are just individual reviews, not review aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. Review aggregators usually collect all those individual critical reviews from different sites/critics, get the average and then provide the weighted score. You will find some of the reviews from those sites are already included in the rotten tomatoes score. Positive/mostly positive means the average is positive. It doesn't mean there are no negative reviews.

You can question whether 66% (mostly positive) is "positive" or "mixed to positive" but don't compare RT and MC averages to individual reviews from IGN, Polygon etc. — Starforce¹³ 05:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Starforce13: Mostly positive is generally favorable. Positive implies there are only positive reviews which is misleading. The series isn't near 90% range for the critical reviews. — YoungForever^(talk) 09:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever:, by your definition, "positive" would mean getting 100% score and "negative" would mean 0% on RT but that almost never happens; yet a lot of critically acclaimed movies are considered positive without a 100% score. Even a movie with 99%, wouldn't be considered positive by your definition because 1% of the reviews are negative. But that's not how it works - take a look at the other movies and shows.

That being said, I think 66% is too low to be just "positive". So, I'm fine with "generally positive" or "generally favorable". (The points I needed to make clear are that "positive" doesn't mean only 100% and RT and MC can't be compared to individual reviews. Those were the arguments being used to revert the IP and they're both incorrect.) — Starforce¹³ 12:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Starforce13: My point here is the that just positive doesn't include negative critical reviews. While "generally positive", "generally favorable", and "mostly positive", includes some negative reviews. Anywhere in the 60% percent range is low to be just "positive". I never said or implied that "positive" would mean getting 100% score and "negative" would mean 0% on RT nor 99%, wouldn't be considered positive by your definition because 1% of the reviews are negative. IP address is insisting that it is just "positive". — YoungForever^(talk) 13:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Just as a comment in general, the language "mixed to positive" or "mixed to negative" *anywhere* on WP to summarized critical reviews is nonsensical, both equate to "mixed". The usual way is to adapt the language from Metacritic (here "generally positive") to describe the reviews, as it does not eliminate that there were negative reviews, but also affirms that it wasn't highly praised either. You usually would include the numerical values from both RT and MC to give an idea , and the 60-ish numbers here are a good sign where the season fell. --Masem (t) 13:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: You make a very good point. But "60-ish numbers" aren't just "positive" though. "60-ish numbers" are "generally positive", "generally favorable", and "mostly positive". — YoungForever^(talk) 14:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Er, I mean, to me, and to most average readers aware of these scoring systems, they'll see a 60-ish number and know that's in the "positive" range. Absolutely, by WP's standards, we can't use that language, we should quote MC "generally positive" in addition to adding the MC and RT scores. --Masem (t) 14:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

YoungForever We're not saying this is just "positive" since it's only 60s. We're just saying "mixed to positive" is misleading since there's almost always both positive and negative reviews, it's just a matter of percentage; and secondly, "positive" doesn't mean no negative reviews. Using that argument sets the wrong precedent for other articles, so, that's why I want that to be clear. Roughly on a negative-positive scale, 60-75 are "generally positive", 75-90 are "mostly positive" and 90-100 are "positive." Not the exact scale but you get the point.

I think the IP was open to "generally favorable" or "generally positive"; so we should just use that.— Starforce¹³ 14:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Starforce13: I admit "mixed to positive" is misleading, but just "positive" is misleading as well. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

YoungForever, Based on the IP's mention of MC's "generally favorable" rating, I don't think they're persistent on having it as just "positive". As for why I said, you're implying "positive" means 100% on RT, here's how Rotten Tomatoes calculates their score: They classify every review as positive or negative. Then they calculate the percentage score based on the number of positive reviews/total review count. So, if there are no negative reviews, you would have 100% score. If you have 99%, it means there are negative reviews.— Starforce¹³ 14:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Starforce13: Again, not what I said nor implied. I said/implied that 90-100% range would be just "positive" range. My quote:The series isn't near 90% range for the critical reviews. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This IP address' edit and edit summary says otherwise page difference. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

What the IP address said above:

It is bad to equivocate, it shouldn't be that difficult to decide if reviews are either negative, mixed, or positive. Pick one. Editors should be able to pick just one, don't equivocate, don't try to have it both ways. The ip address is pretty persistent to just "positive". — YoungForever^(talk) 15:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I missed that first paragraph. In that context, I disagree with the IP - this is a spectrum, not black and white; so, we don't have to pick a side. Since everyone else seems in favor of "generally favorable" or "generally positive", I would say that's the consensus. — Starforce¹³ 15:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree that "generally positive" or "generally favorable" is the best wording. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Cast box request for input

I think the cast-box created by Cheezknight was helpful and should be retained. It was just removed by YoungForever due to it being redundant to the Main cast-list, which is true. However, I think the box should be retained, and we can lose the cast-list. Mainly because the cast-box does a better job of visually showing who the Dodge entity is possessing at various times and in various seasons. Thoughts? GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:TVCAST, Cast tables can be used as a visual representation of cast duration for multi-season programs but should not be used for programs with fewer than three seasons or where cast changes are minimal. It does not add anything new. The series ended with the third season. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you watch it? I maintain that my point about character Dodge is pertinent, and I believe this is a reasonable case of IAR. Let's see what others have to say here. GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course I watched the TV series. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree with YoungForever: cast tables are nearly never warranted, and certainly not for a 3-season series. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It does make sense to remove the cast table for a series with only three seasons. Also it was the unregistered user 2001:BB6:5255:E200:5126:0:191A:E6FE who created the cast table. I just changed a few things. Cheezknight (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)