Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:04, 1 January 2020

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Star Wars High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Star Wars To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the {{WikiProject Star Wars}} banner. Update the classification of articles in Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles and Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles. Citing sources : Jedi, Sith Cleanup : Remove any In-universe information at Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. Copyedit : Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..." Stubs : Category:Star Wars stubs Other : * See the things to do page Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television Low‑importance 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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 7 times. The weeks in which this happened: November 10 to 16, 2019 (1st) November 17 to 23, 2019 (1st) November 24 to 30, 2019 (4th) December 1 to 7, 2019 (4th) December 8 to 14, 2019 (4th) December 15 to 21, 2019 (6th) December 22 to 28, 2019 (3rd)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JesusOrozco1 (article contribs).

Werner Herzog's character's name revealed

Werner Herzog is playing The Client: https://comicbook.com/starwars/2019/10/29/star-wars-the-mandalorian-spoilers-werner-herzog-character-trailer-2/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.44.184 (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nick Nolte's character confirmed as an Ugnaught

EW has confirmed Nick Nolte's character is an Ugnauht named Kuill: https://ew.com/tv/2019/10/28/the-mandalorian-new-character-posters/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.44.184 (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Bill Burrs character on this page

It appears to be incorrect. I don’t think this character name has been revealed yet. I was going to correct it but the page is locked now. Ndurell (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Instead of individual episode articles...

...why not just a reception column in the episode list table? There's not much else to put on individual episode articles other than snippets of quotes from reviewers. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added {{Television Rotten Tomatoes scores}} to the reception section so we can merge back all the individual episode articles since they only contain the plot and the Rotten Tomatoes score for that episode. - Brojam (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"Baby Yoda" redirect

Currently Baby Yoda redirects here, but the article has no mention of Baby Yoda. Either the redirect should be removed, or the article should explain what Baby Yoda is and mention Baby Yoda in the intro. Mgnbar (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source that apparently discusses Baby Yoda: Ars Technica/Wired. Disclaimer: I haven't read it. Mgnbar (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Baby Yoda is a meme that has arisen due to the series. Its pertinent. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Any edit not providing a reliable source for verification will be removed. Please do not add information without providing evidence in the form of a reliable source. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Um, why would sources be required for character names *after* an episode airs? It would fall under WP:COMMONSENSE then. Rusted AutoParts 05:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

In those instances when someone adds a name of some minor character who's identity wasn't provided in the episode or credits. SW fans are infamous for doing this sort of thing. Locke Cole is absolutely right; source everything. In the case of plot summaries, it depends largely upon consensus; everything else requires reliable sourcing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is being made up though. I’m looking at the end credits on the Disney+ app right now. Horatio Sanz is credited as Mythrol. Brian Posehn is credited as Speeder Pilot, and Emily Swallow is credited as Armorer. Those are not fan created names. Rusted AutoParts 05:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Perfect. So it shouldn't be a problem to add a source for those before adding the names. I'm not doing the work for editors blindly adding content without sources, WP:SOFIXIT. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

What a rude response. You honestly expect a source to exist to solely confirm a character name? It’s why we refer to the end credits, because as I said it enters COMMONSENSE. The issue was with random editors adding unconfirmed names to characters that haven’t debuted yet, most notably with Bill Burr. However it has been demonstrated the names can be proven with the end credits, a source is not required. Rusted AutoParts 06:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Maybe I am just guessing, but I think its a fair bet that the pilot's name is not Speeder Pilot, right? Anyhoo, a lot of the non-main cast doesn't need to be in the article; only three eps have aired and we don't even delineate who's main cast and who's recurring until after several (read: four) episodes. There are a lot of unknowns, ans we all know there are folk willing to fill in the blanks. Remember the first ep, and how fanboyz went apeshit because they thought Boba Fett was alive based on a 1-second view of yet another Mandalorian in the shadowy background?

That's what we're trying to avoid here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

That’s what needs sourcing, not a guest spot character name that is easily found in the end credits. And I don’t think it really matters whether the speeders name is Speeder Pilot, it’s how he was credited. Rusted AutoParts 06:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're resisting having sources. It's not like WP:V is a policy or anything. In recent times I've adopted a "kill on sight" attitude when it comes to unsourced additions. I used to take the time to try and find a source, but it's far easier to remove it and have it omitted until someone is willing to actually add it properly. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

“Misplaced Pages 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”. All I’m saying, I’ve sourced the known names now, so this shouldn’t continue being an issue. Rusted AutoParts 06:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

From the linked in-a-nutshell: Editing Misplaced Pages is all about making improvements, not following rules. However, WP:IAR should not be used as a reason to make unhelpful edits. Adding names with no proof in the form of a source is unhelpful. My choices as someone who has this watchlisted boil down to: 1) Do nothing. 2) Remove it. 3) Go and try and find a source for the addition, and in some cases, waste my time because it was some made-up name/cast member. I used to do 3, I don't really see 1 as an option, and now I do 2. Thank you for finding a source. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

One could say that’s just as unhelpful as editors adding fake names. Didn’t take me long to cite those three at all. Rusted AutoParts 15:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I am sure that someone has brought this up before, but how important is that speeder pilot going to be, six episodes from now? Can we cite it? Sure. Should we include it in the article? Probably not, as their role wasn't all that important, either in the plot for the episode and the likely trajectory of the season or series. Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we should do a thing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The point remains that film and television episode credits are valid primary sources for plain facts like the names of roles in that work. No other outside source is ever needed. Period.

That said, do we need to include a list of every single guest star? No, that's trivial overkill. But that's an editorial decision about content, not one based on a misreading of sourcing policy. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You're half right, and half wrong. While primary sources are acceptable under very specific circumstances, secondary sources are still preferred because it shows just how relevant the actual information is that a third party would bother reporting on it. Which circles back to your concern over every guest star being listed: as it will likely be harder to find reliable secondary sources that list every crufty guest star, these should be omitted. Also, to bring it all together: when I wrote what I wrote above, none of the guest stars had a source provided, not even the episode credits. Now we're at least seeing some sourcing, even if it's not ideal IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No, primary sources are preferred for facts of cast and credits, same as the plot summary. The work itself, which can be verified just by viewing the work, is the source for those items and doesn't need any outside source.

Again, this isn't a sourcing issue. It's an issue of due weight given to minor details. That is purely an editorial call, not a matter of sourcing. Now, you are right, that seeing something commented on in outside writings does inform that editorial decision as to whether or not it should be included. But we don't need to cite those writings as sources as they're not being used to eatablish the facts, the credits are. oknazevad (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, there was NO sourcing before (not even episode number). Now there is, which is a significant improvement over what we had before (names and actors being dropped in with no easy way to go about verifying them). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Episode titles

I'm not sure we should have the subtitles used on here... like "The Child" for Chapter 2 and "The Sin" for Chapter 3. Yes, they are shown in the episodes once they begin playing, but in reality, Disney+ does just label them as "Chapter 1", "Chapter 2", etc, on the selection screen. Futon Critic also labels them this way. Should those titles be removed? Magitroopa (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Since subtitles are commissioned at the very end of post, there is little in the way of oversight. We can't use them as primary sourcee, imo. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

If they appear on screen in the episode (and they do), then that is a valid primary source to establish them as the episode titles. No need to remove them. oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, I believe you might be misunderstanding the discussion. We are not discussing the title of the episode; they are provided at the very beginning of the episode.

We are discussing the subtitles for each of the episodes, which are added at the end of post-production and occasionally render mistakes. They are almost always created by third-party contractors for the production studio using software. Therefore, they aren't reliable as a source of information as to the showrunner's intent. Because of that, we determine what was said via consensus editing; if the consensus agrees that 'a' was said, then it goes in the article. If there is no consensus, there it remains outside the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No, Jack Sebastian, I think you're the one confused. The original question was talking about the episode title/name. That's why they gave examples like "Chapter 2: The Child." This has nothing to do with subtitles/closed captions.

That said, I think we should keep the full title ("Chapter 3: The Sin") as it appears on the screen because that's clearly the intended title by the producers regardless of how they're listed elsewhere. Starforce 21:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, that being the case, we use the name of the episode as listed. Full stop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the list should acknowledge that Chapter 1 is "The Bounty." It seems unfair that the first chapter doesn't have a title and the rest do. And I remember Chapter 1 having a title while starting the show like everyone else. TVBuff90 (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Is that how the episode is listed on Disney+? -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Disney+ menu right now on my Apple TV and it says "Chapter 1: The Mandalorian".— TAnthony 21:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Moved and updated. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I should note that though it's clear in the selection menu, the first episode does not seem to have a chapter card after the series title card, as subsequent episodes do.— TAnthony 06:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Lone Wolf and Cub

The series reminded me of Lone Wolf and Cub. IGN published an article How The Mandalorian's Plot Twist Evokes a Classic Manga Series saying as much. Also CBR . Might be worth adding to the article. -- 109.79.181.75 (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't make that connection at first, but that is so spot on. Thanks for providing sources. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Intro

In opening paragraph, should read "The show stars Pedro Pascal in titular role" , instead of "The show stars Pedro Pascal." 02:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Newsworthyfacts (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Lun Esex (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

space Western

I think you should lower case Western because it's kinda weird to have a capital W with a lower case s for space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.151.27.25 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the word "Western" is properly capitalized. It's used this way for other Western subgenres and in the wikilinked Space Western article. Lun Esex (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Mandalorian allegedly took place 5 years after The Return of the Jedi although it does not have any on-screen dialogue that states anything other than it happened after the fall of the empire. MandalorianDidNotHappen5YearsAfter (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"Favreau has said that The Mandalorian is set five years after the fall of the Empire in Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983) and 25 years before the rise of the First Order, the authoritarian regime that is firmly in control of the galaxy when Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015) begins."(source) The creator of the show said this. End of story.--TheVampire (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Melmann 22:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it was after I did it. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Merging of individual episodes

Brojam (talk · contribs) has recently bold redirected individual episodes into the main page stating "notability not established". Notability is established through secondary reliable sources which each individual episode article has multiple of. These are article with multiple secondary reliable sources. This is the flagship series of Disney+ with overwhelming hype and coverage. This is the first live action Star Wars series and is therefore notable, regardless, notability has been established through reliable sources per WP:GNG. I understand the bold redirect, however now that it has been contested the best path if any editor wishes to redirect is through AfD. Valoem 08:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editor, whose words I'd summarize that notability is inherited. Debresser (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I certainly did not say notability is inherited. I said these episodes are notable because of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources therefore passes WP:GNG. Given the significant number of reviews focusing on individual episodes and not the series as a whole, a standalone article is necessary. Valoem 13:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree to switching it back, although the sourcing for the more recent episodes was a little light, so i'm guessing that's where the decisions came in. However, the first 3 episodes have enough sources to warrant notability. The first episode definitely shouldnt be a redirect as it has a lot of coverage. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why every episode needs it's own article!?– Vilnisr 07:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor and Brojam. The episodes do not require their own articles; there is nothing in those articles that cannot be included in this parent article. A singular indivudual "Reception" section in each article does not make an article. The articles are solely being created for a plot dump and to have a "complete set". -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not know why you are ignoring WP:GNG. Most of the singular episode articles pass under WP:GNG. The pages are specific, detailed, and well-sourced. As the first season of most popular shows, the episodes of the first season tend to generate episode pages that have extra details. I suggest following the model outlined and enforced with other pages that follow WP:GNG. The first season's episodes get their own pages, BUT for every following season, only create pages for the 1st and last episode of the seasons. This format has been followed for most television/streaming service series pages. I suggest we look, read, and evaluate WP:GNG and follow the generally accepted format of most television series pages. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that GNG is only a guideline. This format has been followed for most television/streaming service series pages. Can you back that up at all? Years of editing television articles, and I've never heard of this. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:Television Episodes, "Note: Stubs are allowed on Misplaced Pages and many articles are stubs. It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub. Before executing a merge, ask yourself:

Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article?

Are more sources available? (Do some basic looking for additional source material that could be used to improve the article.)

If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", it is probably better to avoid merging or redirecting. Instead, consider improving it, or offer suggestions for its improvement on the talk page."

Now, for each episode article page, there are many sources available to flesh out the content. Doing basic research, I found more sources. The merge also has a probability of reducing the quality and coherence of the target article. Too much info of developing, casting, writing, and directing for each episode on the Mandalorian page could cause some bloated sections. Deleting and merging tend to be the easier routes of Misplaced Pages editing, rather than generous, hard work to flesh out each episode page. All the episode pages need is a few Misplaced Pages volunteers to do some searching online for development information. Some of the episodes may be considered stubs for now, but there is infornation online to improve each page. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please indent your replies correctly. You also didn't answer my question at all; Can you back that up at all? If you've found content, then expand the articles; as of now, nothing exists in those articles that cannot exist in this article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Its Misplaced Pages, I shouldn't be the only editor adding content to many of the episode articles. Yes, I can add more, plenty more, but why just me? Can I get more editors to help out? Cardei012597 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please indent your replies correctly. And please answer my question and provide examples. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Your replies are leaning towards WP:Bludgeon, twice berating my formatting and indenting. Second, in response to your question, even if I gave an example, you'll probably brush it off, as you have done with a few of my replies. Third, as proof that you brushed off a reply of mine, you didn't seem to notice when I listed the reasons why the episodes should not be merged. Fourth, since few are willing to help flesh out these episode articles, I must add all of the forthcoming information, by myself, which, in total, will take me about a month to complete. I am just one editor, so the adding of information will take longer than a large group of dedicated wiki volunteers. You can't expect practically one editor to create seven outstanding articles in a couple of days. Give me the proper time, respect, and patience to make the articles as fleshed out as possible. One month. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Then work on them in draft until they are ready for the mainspace (which they are clearly not now). There's absolutely no rush in needing to have these 7 articles in the mainspace now when they are adding absolutely nothing new except for longer plots that are over the limit per WP:TVPLOT anyway. As for your point about not being able to merge all this extra production info into this article, with this article currently having 11kB of readable prose size, it is very far from being "bloated" and if that day does come when the article is too big then it can be split to season articles per MOS:TVSPLIT. As for your statement: The first season's episodes get their own pages, BUT for every following season, only create pages for the 1st and last episode of the seasons. This format has been followed for most television/streaming service series pages. Like Alex, I've also been editing tv articles for many years, following and participating in discussions at WP:TV and WP:MOSTV, and this is definitely not true at all and makes no sense. Your time would be much better spent on trying to improve the production (development, writing, casting, filming) sections of this main article instead. - Brojam (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, you only have to see how Episode 3 is a page with nothing but Plot and content copy pasted from the main article. There are plenty of articles and reviews about each of the episodes but this page is sorely lacking. I expressed the same sort of concern back when Westworld Season 2 aired but another more experienced editor did a lot of the heavy lifting and got the episode articles up to scratch. I'm not seeing that here. Esuka (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Cardei012597, without giving him proper time or certainly helping him to create a fully flushed articles we are questioning him. All the major Series like GOT etc even Watchmen which recently concluded its run have separate episode pages. The only thing is there should citations for the individual episodes to be notable enough so that we can flush them out properly. Lastly everyone contributing voluntarily so it would be nice if all the editors work in Harmony and not showing the attitude of bossing around. Saichaitanya4496 (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Valoem:, may we have your opinion on this recent development? Cardei012597 (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks:, I would also like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Cardei012597 (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The above pings were clear violations of WP:CANVAS; canvassing has happened here. Very disruptive; this will be noted in future interactions with the above editor. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

In all honesty, I believe that some of the editors in this discussion are ignoring certain Misplaced Pages rules, specifically because the WPs deflate their stance on the episode article pages. I feel that WP:Television Episodes is being ignored. I may be wrong, but I am not noticing a thorough debate on this aspect of the discussion. Personally, I think this discussion needs other editors to fully evaluate this situation, from a non-biased point of view. Cardei012597 (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• It is clear these individual episodes pass WP:GNG. Regardless, it is also important to look at precedence set from previous shows such as Game of Thrones and Homeland. Each episode had individual articles, this is because when a show gets this popular reviews will be focused not just on the entire series, but individual episodes, therefore allowing each episode to garner significant coverage. This is a live action Star Wars series and it has already received more coverage than GoT or Homeland did at the time those articles were created, therefore articles on individual Mandalorian episodes are preferred if not required. Valoem 15:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you cite what rules are being ignored? By rules, you clearly mean policies; essays and guidelines are not rules. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't make this issue about me. Your comments lean towards WP:Bludgeon and I personally do not feel safe or comfortable discussing this issue with you. You provided questionable reasons to delete these episode pages and you continue to berate and criticize editors on the other side of the argument. I am done discussing this matter with you. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

So, you cannot answer my question at all. So, no rules are being ignored at all, and the articles are not noteworthy enough to exist by themselves. Thank you, for the confirmation. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Title Card /Logo of the show

There been an issue going on with the logo. As per MOS:TV we can use the logo from promotional art. There are many series pages which uses logo of the logo in the infobox. But Alex for some reason is against using the official logo shared by Disney plus on their websites. You people can compare both of them and decide what's better for the page. Attaching both of them for reference. Alex wants to use this File:The Mandalorian logo.jpg I have edited to this which he revertedFile:The Mandalorian Logo.png. Kindly share your thoughts. Saichaitanya4496 (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I side with using the official logo. I am not sure why this user doesn't want to use the logo. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Title cards are preferred per MOS:TV by WP:TV. Earlier this month, the logo was updated to the actual title card, and has been in use since. There are many articles that use the logo, sure, but there are tens of thousands more that use the title card.

Is there also a reason as to why you uploaded another version of the logo at an almost-identical title, instead of uploading it to a sufficiently disambiguated title? Why the almost-identical file name? Why did you also not upload it to the original location as a reupload, instead of a separate upload? -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Alex I have tried to upload in the title card image which you kept reverting, still the extensions of the both files are different and I haven't noticed that I have created a new file for that image. Anyhow I think now you are fine with why I'm using the logo instead of the Title card you were using. So reverting to Logo and per MOS:TV also we can use promotional material which represents the show. Disney+ everywhere using the same logo including the app. So it made sense to use it Misplaced Pages too. Saichaitanya 8:26, 20 December 2019(IST).

Please do not edit-war over the content, and allow the discussion here to continue this. It may make sense for you, but the status quo is to use the title card as it has for a while now. Given that both are supported by MOS:TV, there exists no reason on why we need to change from the existing version. What Disney+ do is irrelevant; we have our own guidelines, and there is nothing that supports a logo over the existing title card, as thousands of other television articles currently use and have for years. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Alex Engaging on the editing wars is not my intent in any way. I understand why you are insisting on using the title card. However in all the marketing material the series is marketed as Star Wars:The Mandalorian and I feel I like the logo will make more sense in this case than the Title card as even Star wars will be displayed separately. The official logo gives the way the creators are intended to use in promotional/ Informational usage. As in Misplaced Pages agenda is to provide info to the people and I feel using the official logo makes sense much more sense for this show. Saichaitanya4496 (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Disney+ has been adding the "hubs/section/company" logos on top of almost all its originals and library contents to help people associate the different titles with their appropriate hubs on the service, but we should be following the logo/titlecard that actually appears in the show. Also, Disney has consistently been calling this show The Mandalorian not Star Wars: The Mandalorian. I've actually yet to see Disney themselves ever call it Star Wars: The Mandalorian. And actually, tv creators usually have very little say in the marketing/promotional material for their shows and if Favreau wanted it to be called Star Wars: The Mandalorian then it would have been clearly named that in the show's titlecard and the Disney sites. - Brojam (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Disney+ may be listing them on the preview posters, however in none of the originals other than The Mandalorian,has the Brand/Segment name's separate card in the episodes. Where as in this case Star Wars card is displayed after Lucasfilm. Saichaitanya4496 (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As I addressed on Alex's talk page, articles such as The Simpsons and Friends (television series) use vectors in place of title cards. If WP:TV "prefers" title cards, why is this rule not enforced consistently? What sense does a rule even make at that point? If a high quality vector is available, why not use it? In my opinion, it uses infobox space more efficiently and is more legible. -throast (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Keeping Star Wars lore and fancruft out

I've had to remove references to the special TIE fighter and sword used by the Mof, and I have noticed other content being added to the plot summaries that have not been presented within the episodes themselves. That needs to be curbed, as it is Synthesis. If you happen to find sources that explicitly speak to the nature of the sword or the craft and how they are intrinsic to the understanding of the subject (in this case, the episode itself), then make a case for it. As neither of these things are a substantial part of the plot, they are unnecessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I've seen your reversion of this edit earlier, but there's a strong case for identifying The Darksaber. Its existence is canon, and it's a recognizable item in the Star Wars Universe. Just as tie fighters or storm troopers or droids or Twi'leks don't need to be verbally identified as such to merit their description in the summary articles, this particular item is identified in multiple sources. I think it merits inclusion.

Forbes article re: Darksaber in Mandalorian --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

What it is adds precisely zero understanding of the episode. I am sure it might come into play next season, but it has no place here, as it is unexplained within the episode. The Mof escaped from the downed TIE fighter. Nuf said. I won't even get into the de-canoned novel of the same name, because specialized knowledge of the SW universe is unnecessary; it's a black sword crackling with energy. For all we know, it could be Stormbringer. And none of it matters any more than a can opener. It does not contribute to a better understanding of the episode. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think there are merits for both keeping or removing this reference. By the logic in your argument, should we also remove "a member of the same unnamed species as the Jedi Master Yoda" from the description of the Child, since it relies purely on synthesis and on visual recognition of a character in a previous work?

Let's look for a majority consensus among editors. So far at least 3 registered editors have attempted make this weapon reference specific, but their input here on the Talk page would be important for the record. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Call a spade a spade. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, then you should probably call it a duck. That's not synthesis. That's common sense. If it looks like the darksaber and sounds like the darksaber, then we should call it the darksaber. Pure and simple. --Bold Clone 00:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Explain to me how it is not synthesis, please. You are taking pre-existing knowledge of a Darksaber, adding on info from another series about it being a Mandalorian artifact and then - upon seeing an unnamed item in a completely different series - you decide that the unnamed thing must be the Darksaber. That, my friend, is the definition of Synthesis. Prove to me it is not.

Furthermore, prove to me that is had any bearing in the episode more than, say, a can opener. Because that there would be OR, to impart some special meaning to the fact that someone has what could easily be the sword of Elric of Melniboné, Stormbringer. In fact, if you click on that link, you will see the cover art, which is a dead ringer for the sword we saw in the episode. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We have both official and third party sources identifying it. Why would we keep Star Wars lore out if a Star Wars plot summary? That makes no sense. oknazevad (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Tell me - precisely how it affects the episode. Tell me how it is not trivial without using any Synthesis.

Additionally, to answer your question about we can't use Star Wars "lore" of a Star Wars plot summary; it is because we are an encyclopedia, and not a fansite. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Again. Call a spade a spade, Jack. If the item in question looks like the darksaber and sounds like the darksaber, then we should recognize it as the darksaber. Pure and simple. That isn't original research or synthesis. It's common sense. We can get an admin involved in this, if you want. --Bold Clone 03:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, "calling a spade a spade" involves YOU making the assertion that something is a spade based upon something else that looks like a spade. We call that Synthesis. I'm pointing out that you are seeking to reason away your synthesis as okey-dokey. I'm clarifying that, according to Misplaced Pages, we cannot.

Additionally, nowhere in the episide is this thing named, not is it important to ANY part of understanding of the episode. Until it does, its trivial - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe someone needs to produce these reliable sources calling it a darksaber and incorporate them into the article.— TAnthony 04:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We would, except that plot summaries are one of the few exceptions from the sourcing rule. Episode summaries use the primary source ONLY.

Now, if someone were to write an article about the episode, it would be fine and dandy to include sourcing about where reviewers suggested it was the Darkblade. However, I would point out - yet again, that unless the episode content, the showrunners or the studio names it, its speculative. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The identification of the Darksaber ties to the plot by (1) connecting to the Mandalorian's assertion in Ep.8 that Moff Gideon was involved with previous Mandalorian conflicts, and (2) connecting to the Mandalorian history described by members of the enclave.

The inclusion of recognizable elements from the Star Wars universe is already present in the unchallenged description of the Child as "belonging to same species as Yoda", who is also not mentioned by name or direct inference in the script but is recognizable nonetheless. Listing the item by name is not excessive/fansite worthy. It has direct implications to this series which is literally named for the race whose history is explored as part of its narrative. And giving it a name reduces the word count, too.

References have been made to the item in Time, Polygon, Hollywood Reporter, as well as the Forbes article I cited earlier.

Let's determine the consensus of the editors participating in this discussion as per WP:CONS. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if sources have noted it; I believe I have stated that clearly before. They are speculating, much like you are doing here.

Now, before you think I am attacking you, let me point out why you are speculating:

• You assert that the Moff was involved in "previous Mandalorian conflicts". The episode notes only one.
• Your assertion that the Darkblade's presence in Mandalorian history comes from a (now) non-canon novel of the same name, and from an animated SW series. The Darkblade has never once been mentioned in this series.
• You are taking those two pieces of disparate information to create an amalgamation of information that has not been noted in the primary source material.

THAT IS, BY DEFINITION, SYNTHESIS. We don't do that here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I am going to repeat this again, because in the heat of wanting to stuff the article with as much fancruft as possible, I think some folks are missing the point. The Darkblade was not mentioned in the episode. The Darkblade was not mentioned by the actors, the production staff, the studio or anyone else related to the writing or creation of the episode. Reviewers - as well as many editors here - are speculating. The only reason why anyone is even Sherlocking the identity of what could just as easily be Stormbringer or some fancy-ass vibroblade as Star Wars trivia is because they are using their pre-existing fancruft to fill int he blanks. That, my friends and colleagues, is what we call Original Research. That is also Synthesis, in that we are taking knowledge from one place and using to connect it to something else without a shred of legitimate proof.

I apologize if I was somehow unclear on that before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you're pretty clear on that point. I appreciate the clarification, though. Simply put, you are arguing that we cannot identify the sword because the cast and crew don't identify it. I disagree. There is only one item in all of the entirety of the Star Wars franchise which matches the sword in question. I do not need the cast and crew to identify the sword. Your argument works the same for Baby Yoda. We are using pre-existing fan knowledge to fill in the blanks as far as the Child's species. My vote is to keep the reference to the darksaber. --Bold Clone 05:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Allow me to stop you right there. You note that "here is only one item in all of the entirety of the Star Wars franchise which matches the sword in question". You are using YOUR knowledge to draw a comparison between that knowledge and what you are seeing in an episode. You are arriving at a conclusion that the thing you saw must be the thing you read about in other SW media. You have just defined synthesis. And we don't do synthesis here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian your argument has been thoroughly presented. Ultimately, we need to abide by consensus, so let's see what the other editors of this page have to add over the next several days. WP:CONS

Your enthusiasm for your point is also clear, even without all caps. You haven't addressed how this logic would apply to the Child reference mentioned earlier.GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, could you point out where consensus trumps our policies regarding NOR and SYN? I mean, I could easily garner a consensus that a certain US politician is a giant poopyhead, but that would not overcome the fact that it is a violation of one of our policies (namely WP:BIO). I eagerly await your links. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am one of the editors who made an edit restoring the Darksaber reference. It is being discussed in RS already, which is enough reason to have it. In addition I think it is relevant to the plot of the first season, as it strengthens the reference to Mof having taken part in the formative phase of the Mandalorian. Lastly, I see no problem adding details that will be elaborated upon in a following season in the plot section of this season, and even think it is the logical think to do. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that - for plot summaries - we use the primary source as the basis for the summary. If an article were to be created about the episode, then you could include every RS under the sun. However, for plot summaries, you have to have explicit info from the primary source itself. If you don't have it, you don't get to say it. Consensus does not EVER trump policy, unless the Wiki-EN has gone off the rails at some point.

"It is being discussed in RS already" When I first read that, I thought you had broached the matter at RSN; then i realized that you are talking about the accumulated speculation from review sources. In addition to the above caveat about consensus not trumping policy, you failed to point out that no onbe - that bears repeating: NO ONE associated with the cast, crew or studio have even hinted at the sword's place in the SW universe. For all we know, this could be Stormbringer. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Jack's concerns are 100% valid. Plot summaries must not use interpretation like this; the plot should be written to the level that a non-fan viewer or the work . It would be one thing if it was an iconic object throughout the series - such as the general idea of a lightsaber for SW , in which case even if the show never calls the weapon as a lightsaber, that term can be used by the plot summary. But if we're talking a specific object or character that has a limited appearance in the franchise, it is wholly inappropriate to make that connection under SYNTH. Even if writers for RS suggest a connection but not officially confirmed by those in production, that should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, and with attribution. ("So and so from Variety suggested the lightsaber seen in this episode was the same as the Darksaber from the film") . --Masem (t) 02:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

And again, no one is at all saying that someone industrious soul cannot create and write the article for the episode and note what the sources are calling it. I am certain that if the sword has any story to add, it will turn up again in the second season, and get talked about a lot by everyone associated with the production. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

For a work of fiction that draws on a previously established group of narrative works, what is the criteria for recognition? Does every machine or character race need to be verbally identified by dialogue in a work such as this?

Blasters, tie fighters, storm troopers, scout troopers, AT-STs, Imperials, children that "look like Yoda"... things like this are and will continue to be common in Star Wars based fiction, but shouldn't be generalized to a first-time reader.

Without getting all caps about it, I think this is a topic worthy of discussion as it is likely to come up again for another moment in this series or another. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

In a franchise series, imagine if you had to put down a 500 word summary of the overall setting and work. Any elements that is so essential that needs to be included in such, such as the concepts of Jedi, the Force, the Empire, the Dark Side, lightsabers, the Death Star, and stormtroopers would likely be included and as such, identifying such concepts in a Star Wars work where the element is not specifically named in-show is "fair game" to include this way. But less critical elements like the idea of tie fighters, scout troopers, AT-ST, etc. would never be in such a brief summary. --Masem (t) 06:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

GimmeChoco44: First of all, I appreciate you not "getting all caps about it."

Secondly, I think we're all aware of what a blaster is, or the other things you have named. However, none of them are presumably a fabled items. There is no famous "Dancing AT-ST of Viltvodle VI", or the "Overly Persistent Blaster of Destiny", or whatever. And it bears noting that none of these things are major plot points in the article, except maybe for the beskar steel, because part of the episode plot is built around it. You will also note that nowhere in the article is The Child called a 'Baby Yoda', though practically every source in the world is calling it that. It is identified as it has been by the people making the series, a child of the same race as Yoda. I know you meant meant that to be a semantic argument, but I thought I'd help you out and note that its an empty argument.

Lastly, I am in complete agreement with you about how this subject will probably come up again before the second season; we will deal with it the right way: until it is identified within the series, we aren't going to be naming it. Go ahead and write the article that notes how sources speculate that it is the Darksaber. It can't be in the plot summary of the series article until it is noted within the series. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian -- The Child's connection to Yoda is listed in the character description in the article for this series as: "The Child (performed by various puppeteers), a member of the same unnamed species as the Jedi Master Yoda who can also wield the Force." -- neither Yoda nor the Force are mentioned by name in the series, so the question I keep returning to is: how is this identification in the series article different from identifying the Darksaber? --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, I see what you mean. Well, heck, Gimme - just remove anything that says anything other than "a child of the same race as Yoda". If you want, I can reword tht for you, if you wish. But your point is clear; that Jedi Master Yoda stuff, or any mention of the Force has gots to go. Only the Madalorian Armorer knows anything about the Jedi and instead refers to them as 'sorcerers'. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That's the same point I'm trying to make. At a certain point, some things are so obvious that we simply do not need the hand-holding of expliciting naming something. Even if they never uttered the word "Mandalorian" on the show, we would still recognize the main character as a Mandalorian. We can still recognize the Mandalorian soldiers who rescued Dyn as part of the Death Watch faction. We can still recognize the child as from the same species as Yoda, and we can still recognize the weapon in question as the Darksaber.

In other words: at a certain point, under certain circumstances, it becomes self-evident. Original research and synthesis are irrelevant here, because the weapon is self-evidently the one and only Darksaber. --Bold Clone 07:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a stumbling bock for you, Clone. Its a different sort of writing in Misplaced Pages than say, a fan forum. You don't get to make those intuitive connections in Misplaced Pages that you would elsewhere (part of that whole encyclopedic thang).

See, you are coming from a place when you probably know so much about Star Wars that you know crufty little details about the SW universe, like Alderaanian recipes and whatnot. And that you know these things is okay. However, that info is next to useless here. What seems obvious to you is less so to someone who is relying solely upon the primary source material, ie. the episode itself. Myself, not knowing what this Dorksaber was, I honestly thought it was a vibro-blade, or the fabled Black Sword, Stormbringer. What is evident to you is not evident to others.

Synthesis and Original Research - and I cannot stress this enough - is never irrelevant anywhere in Misplaced Pages. I know you replied so quickly that you missed my reply to GimmeChoco (or the several responses I've noted before); the child has already been identified from the showrunners as belonging to the same race as Yoda.

That's the difference, Clone. Jon Favreau specifically identified the child as being of Yoda's race, and their abilities are an intrinsic part of the plot. Some naughty man in black armor using icky black sowrds to carve up spaceships is not. Not yet, at least.

You are going to have to wait until it actually becomes part of the story, or is explicitly identified by the showrunners by name. There is no hurry. Wait for the next season to explore what is - at this point - speculative OR and Synthesis. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

In this case, there is a high number of credible media sources who say this item "is" the Darksaber, not "might be". In the interests of setting a standard for the multi-season future of this article, I think we should use this example as a standard bar for the number of credible citations and amount of editorial consensus needed.

Jack Sebastian's argument has merit, but the sarcasm is unwarranted. No editor in this discussion is showing off minute trivia. We are reflecting observations that are supported by knowledge of franchise history and numerous media articles by reputable authors. The Darksaber in question has made multiple appearances in 2 canonical series and functioned as a major point of previous plots directly related to the Mandalorian race. Though the arguments for inclusion or exclusion of this identifier are both valid, one side so far seems to have more support.

We're not just debating this one item, but a standard for inclusion of previously-established fiction.GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware that this is not a fan forum, Jack. However, I am equally well aware that the item in question perfectly matches the Darksaber. It is not a matter of intuition. It's logic. Occam's Razor. If it looks like a dodo bird, walks like a dodo bird, sounds like a dodo bird, and there is only one dodo bird on the planet, the most logical thing to do is consider the animal in question a dodo. The same thing applies here. I know what the Darksaber is, and I know this item matches the Darksaber's appearance and description. The irrational position to take is yours: denying the patently obvious while rules-lawyering.

I am well aware that Favreau has identified the child as from the same species as Yoda. I have been aware of that for weeks. What I am saying is that Favreau's confirmation is irrelevant. If he had never commented on the child, I would still be able to recognize the child as matching the appearance of Yoda, and make the logical conclusion that they are from the same species. However, I have to ask you this: if Favreau hadn't confirmed the child as part of Yoda's species, would you argue against including that fact? Would you be making the same sort of claim? If your answer is no, you would include the "Yoda's species" reference even without official confirmation, then all you've done is simply agree with me. If your answer is yes, you would argue against the reference to "Yoda's species," then there's your problem. You illogically deny the obvious. You say we can't know if the sword is the Darksaber unless Favreau confirms it. I say it's self-evident to anyone with the knowledge. --Bold Clone 08:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

To begin with, if you felt I was being sarcastic towards you, please accept my apologies; such was not my intent. I got a bit loopy over the deja vu of saying the same thing at least a dozen times, I was jazzing it up a bit. If you took offense, I offer my apologies. Mea culpa

That said, the Darksaber is indeed minute trivia to just about everyone not immersed in the Star Wars universe. Whether it becomes an explicitly-named plot point in season 2 is anyone's guess. Until it does, the nature of plot summaries do not change. It doesn't matter what the sources speculate - unless (as I have said at least 5 times now) someone writes an article about the episode. That's the place to use all those sources (not in the plot, but instead in the Reception section).

I totally get that you are having trouble accepting this reasoning. Its policy. We don't get to connect separate pieces of information to create a connection that is not explicitly made, as that is WP:SYN. Beyond that, the sword had zero participation in the plot, and wasn't even discussed in the episode. That makes - for now - WP:TRIVIAL. Suggesting it had any deeper meaning than as a can opener in this episode is WP:OR.

At the risk of sounding rude, perhaps it is now time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that is precisely what you should do. Many editors do not agree with you that there is even the least problem with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. The information is true and can be sourced (although we don't usually add sources to plot sections). Resistance is futile. :) Debresser (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There are editors calling on the "obvious" factor, but you have to remember that we are not writing plot summaries for fans of Star Wars but for people that are likely wholly unfamiliar with it, and thus who have may not seen all the major works, etc. (I will state that we know this show is in the same continuity as the movie series, there's definitely sourcing on that post Disney acquisition). We can't stop to re-introduce the SW universe in every plot summary, hence why some facets like Jedi and lightsabers should be taken as core knowledge that a premise section in a Star Wars franchise section would cover. But like this Darksaber is definitely not part of the core knowledge of Star Wars, and given its limited appeaances to date, it is definitely not appropriate for WP editor to make the connection, even if to nearly all fans, it is the same item. You need to step out of the fan mindset and look at it from the viewpoint of the casual viewer. --Masem (t) 14:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I have not seen The Mandalorian, I don't know what a Darksaber is, and I agree with this. "As Misplaced Pages's policy on primary sources says, "... a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge ... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The thing is like this. It is mentioned in RS, so we should have it. See e.g. . Debresser (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the thing is - literally - is that outside the SW fan community, the item is largely unknown. Additionally, sources aren't used in plot summaries (they are used in episode articles - hint, hint). Also, the neither the item or its significance is identified within the primary source.

All of that adds up to no, the bit doesn't belong in a plot summary here until it comes up within the primary source material. Until then, use all the sources you keep adding to populate an episode article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If a point needs clarification in a plot summary, then a citation to that can absolutely be used. Plot summaries are not required to be devoid of sourcing, just that anything not sources is assumed to be a non-interpretive summary of the primary work. That said... (see below). --Masem (t) 16:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, those are not awful sources, especially IW makes a big deal of it. Of course, they could be wrong, but I sense that their geek-force is strong and we can deal with that if it happens. Still, to this reader, "Gideon cuts himself out of his downed fighter with the Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact" seems slightly out of WP:PROPORTION for this article, but fitting for Chapter 8: Redemption (with cite). But that is on a editorial discretion level. Of course, how people can spend time discussing minor plotpoints like this is completely beyond me ;-). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Why people like you can get so hung up on something as insignificant as this is utterly beyond me. --Bold Clone 19:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly! It's not like you've added 5,674 bytes on the the topic to this thread. Possibly it keeps us distracted from doing really stupid things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Btw, per IW "darksaber" should be lower case, but not per USA Today. This requires vigorous discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe "Darksaber" should be capitalized, but of course I doubt you would accept any sort of fancruft

A point connecting two disparate works by third-party sources that are not directly involved with either work should still be seen as non-factual, and should not written into the plot summary. A section, such as in reception or analysis, can include the speculation of these sources about the connection. But as these sources do not have insight into the actual plans for either work, they cannot assume to be the expert source to make the connection factual. Again, this is coming from the standpoint of the non-fan viewer. --Masem (t) 16:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Should we assume that these sources do not have insight into the actual plans for either work? Maybe they called Jon Favreau and asked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Unless they specifically say something like "According to Favreau...", we must assume they are making the same wild guesses fans are. --Masem (t) 18:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Again. This is not "wild guesses." This is logic. The item in question matches the appearance of the darksaber seen elsewhere in Star Wars. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and there is only one duck in existence, then the most rational action to take is to accept it as the duck. It is self-evident. I am aware that there is no official source confirming this. My argument is that we do not need an official source to confirm this. If OR nd SYN are going to interfere with logic, then OR and SYN are fundamentally illogical and should not be followed here. --Bold Clone 19:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

We could also assume, until other roughly equal sources differ, that IW, USA Today etc checked their fact. Or, that they are most likely correct. This isn't MEDRS or BLP-stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

...I thought you were just now citing the movie Infinity War and I was so confused. I'm assuming that the third-party sources discussing the item in question (IW and USA Today) probably did fact-check their summaries, but my impression has been that you guys (or at least Jack) didn't consider these sources reliable enough for use. Would these sites be acceptable? --Bold Clone 19:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

We do have a cited creator reference to the Child being the same race as Yoda. We do not have a cited creator reference for the Darksaber. Following this debate, I'm now in agreement that the Darksaber reference should not be included in this summary until a direct mention in the series or a creator interview names it as such. Saying the Moff escapes is concise enough for the series summary. The Darksaber references and (many) citations are better kept in the episode page until there's clear confirmation.

We're likely to run into this type of visual reference in future episodes, so a clear guideline like this has value moving forward. However, participants in this discussion should be wary of sarcasm, all-caps shouting, and WP:OWN. That stuff just makes it harder to reach consensus. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in on the discussion, GimmeChoco. I think you nailed the essence of the matter pretty well. At the end of the day, I'm simply arguing that we do not need a cited creator reference for the Darksaber. --Bold Clone 19:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitary break

Okay, the issues on each side of the argument appear to be as follows:

For inclusion

• sources note the name of the item.
• editors with a substantial knowledge of the SW universe think its obvious

Against inclusion

• WP:SYN, in that editors are using their outside personal knowledge and/or experience to name and add weight to a thing
• WP:OR, in that the same editors are implying that a trivial event is of momentous importance
• the episode didn't mention the Darksaber
• the cast or crew have not mentioned the Darksaber
• the studio has not mentioned the Darksaber
• the mere mentioning of the item is trivial, as it had zero impact on the episode or the series
• the aforementioned sources do not get used in plot summaries, as per policy
• the aforementioned sources are speculative (ie, they are guessing)
• consensus does not override policy.

If I have missed anything, please feel free to point out what I missed. Please avoid any argument about your you personally feel the bit should be in because its obvious to you - you are not a usable source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It's mostly on-point. My argument is that it is irrelevant whether the episode didn't mention the Darksaber. It is irrelevant whether the cast or crew have not mentioned the Darksaber. It is irrelevant whether the studio has not mentioned the Darksaber. Neither you nor I need official sources to logically recognize what has already been established within the context of the franchise. For that reason, it is not SYN to use Star Wars sources to clarify an scene in Star Wars. If viewers want to know what the item in question is, then it is your responsibility as an encyclopedia to clarify just what it is. We don't need a paragraph, any more than we need a paragraph to clarify what a Twi'lek is (assuming of course that policy allows us to even identify a Twi'lek). All we need is to provide a name for the item, and leave it at that. If policy forbids this sort of addition, then the policy itself ought to be re-evaluated and potentially modified. --Bold Clone 20:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

As I have noted previously, you are misapprehending Synthesis, Clone; your use of Twi'lek as an example indicates as much. I think it is your best interest to re-read that policy, so as to better understand what is/isn't Synthesis.

You cannot use a source (even a SW-specific source, like a blog, fansite or even other tv show) to make a connection between that source and this source. The reason you cannot is that you are the one melding the two ideas into something not intended by the primary source. If the showrunners had wanted us to call the can opener a darksaber (or The Darksaber), they would have had soooo many opportunities to do so. But yet, naught but the chirping of crickets.

Btw, giving it the importance of even a mention is Undue Weight; it had no importance in the plot of the episode or the series to date. Maybe it will be more important in the second season, I don't know and neither do you. You are speculating as to its importance in the series, and we cannot cite you.

Lastly, if you think a policy is out of whack, the Village Pump is over there, yonder. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow, just a little non-neutral of a summary there Jack. Here the point you're missing: WP:IAR. If a rule makes an article worse, ignore it. Leaving out a franchise-significant plot point because it's not specifically verbally referenced on screen is being pedantic to the rules for the sake of rules instead of for the sake a having a more complete article. It's a totally misplaced priority and frankly is pointless. Poise, regarding your edits, as an involved editor in this discussion where there is no clear consensus you should not be making the edits without finding an admin or other third opinion to chime is is inappropriate. Oh, and as pointed out above, your seventh point is plain incorrect, strike it out please. oknazevad (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

501st Legion

I have put a reference to the fan club 501st Legion's role as extras in the first season. I wasn't sure if it belongs to this article. I think they appear the seventh and eighth episodes. Any advice on where I should place that information? Andykatib 22:27, December 31, 2019 (UTC)

when the series takes place

I have recently removed twice a bit (in bold) about how the series takes place before the third trilogy:

"The Mandalorian, also known as Star Wars: The Mandalorian, is an American space Western web television series that premiered on Disney+ on November 12, 2019. Set in the Star Wars universe, the series takes place five years after the events of Return of the Jedi and 25 years prior to the events of Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

To my understanding, the series is set in the post Return of the Jedi sequence. Everything from the series draws upon it. There is no apparent connection between the series and the third trilogy set decades after the events of the series (and, as the trilogy has concluded, it would appear to not have any connection at all). This article is about the Mandalorian series, not the film series.
I guess I could see if the user was seeking to bookend Mandalorian in between the two, but while it feels organic to connect it to the first trilogy, its seems a lot less so to do that for the third. Maybe I am reading too much into the assertion, and so I thought I'd bring it here to discuss the matter.
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

As the editor who restored this information (although I was not the one to first add it), I would like to pick up the handkerchief and explain why I think this sentence should include chronological information connecting this article to both trilogies. It is rather simple, actually, IMHO. When providing a time-reference, it is always helpful to be as complete as possibly, stating what came before and what came after. Since the lead makes it clear that this series is set in the Star Wars universe, it is perfectly acceptable to reference the third trilogy as well, even if it for obvious reasons of internal chronological consistency it is not mentioned in the series itself. Jack Sebastian seems to suggest in his comment above that we can use only in-series information, while the opposite is true and in writing this encyclopedia we should present broader information, placing the subject of the article in context. That context is the Star Wars universe, including events that took place in it before as well as after the events of this series. The article indeed provides this context, but in this specific case Jack Sebastian opposes that, strangely so and incorrectly IMHO. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser. If the show takes place between Episodes 6 and 7, then it only makes sense to include this within the article. We don't need to have this explicitly spelled out within the context of the show. This comes down to the limitations of OR and SYN. An overly-literal interpretation of OR probably precludes including this fact. After all, the show itself makes no reference to the sequel trilogy. Nobody mentions Snoke, Kylo, the First Order or Phasma. Using only the show itself, we cannot establish when the events occur before Episode 7. It would be OR to perform simple math and connect the dots. The problem here is ultimately the interpretation and application of OR and SYN. --Bold Clone 00:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Point of order, simple calculations are not OR per WP:CALC. oknazevad (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

My concern has nothing to do with either OR or SYN. This series is a natural outgrowth of the results of Return of the Jedi; its effects are seen throughout the first season. Apart from the connection to the SW universe via setting, I am not seeing the connection between TM and TFA.

That said, I am not entirely against noting its placement within the strucutre of the films, I guess. Your mileage may vary with others. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Star Wars articles
• High-importance Star Wars articles
• WikiProject Star Wars articles
• B-Class television articles
• Low-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class American television articles
• Unknown-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report