Talk:Arcane (TV series)

Heimerdinger as a main character
Heimerdinger should be listed as a main character in the show's cast, rather than a recurring character. I would argue that he is relatively important to the story and makes enough appearances that he should be considered a main character. Does anyone have any objections to this? ― TunakanskiVeni Vidi Vici 15:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree Likeanechointheforest (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, went in and moved Heimerdinger to the new category "Supporting characters." Likeanechointheforest (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why was the supporting characters category removed? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe an edit was made about a month ago that said that it would be simpler to divide characters into only two categories as supporting and recurring was "redundant." --― TunakanskiVeni Vidi Vici 02:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Adult animation?
The intro describes this as "Adult animation" but it is rated TV-14. It is not for children like Disney content but nonetheless it seems misleading to call it "Adult animation". (This is not Heavy Metal (film) or Fritz the Cat (film).)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and is supposed to take a neutral point of view. Have editors done this deliberately or at least based on reliable sources? Or was it done unintentionally due to the cultural bias that animation is for children and that everything else is "adult"? -- 109.79.175.164 (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

JokEobard put it back in after I removed it a while ago, without explanation. Could you chime in and explain your thought process Jok? Simon.marty0 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

MOS:TVGENRE and Template:Infobox_television say genres must be reliably sourced. Let's look at some sources: RT, adventure; MC, Animation, Drama, Action & Adventure, Fantasy; IMDB Animation, Action, Adventure. There may be some sources that call Arcane adult animation but there does not seem to be any good reason to put undue WP:WEIGHT on those instead of emphasizing genres such as Action Adventure that more sources agree on. -- 109.77.194.130 (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * JokEobard put it back in after I removed it too. No explanation, JokEobard does sometimes follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and provides edit summaries but not in this case. -- 109.77.194.130 (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is Arcane not more of a science fantasy series over an action-adventure one, though? This very article's "Reception" section notes that critics have referred to it as primarily being a fantasy steampunk show. Furthermore, the "action" elements consistently take a backseat in favour of developing the characters and expanding the lore through world-building (akin to other fantasy shows such as Game of Thrones which also had action yet were rarely labelled "action-adventure"). Some episodes of Arcane did not even feature full-blown action scenes as emphasis was instead placed on the relationship between the two sisters and the deteriorating political landscape of Piltover and Zaun, further highlighting that this series prioritises exploring its fantasy setting's elements over merely featuring impressive action sequences.--JokEobard (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is best to avoid opinions, that is why I started by asking if editors did this based on opinions or based on sources. I have tried to avoid my own opinions which is why I showed sources and used them to give weight to what seemed to be the most important genres (and based on my own opinion I'd probably say it was Science fantasy and Steampunk but that isn't what the reliable sources seem to be putting the most weight/emphasis on). If other editors want to show various sources and argue that we should give more weight to those genres based on the sources that would also be reasonable. Wikipedia has its rules and guidelines but also it is not good clear writing to list every possible genre in the lead. I think it is acceptable to list some of the secondary genres in the Infobox if they are sourced though, which is why I left the genres Science fantasy and Steampunk there, but again, show some sources and we can work it out. -- 109.76.203.58 (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It is adult animated straight from Netflix: https://www.netflix.com/browse/genre/11881 Taynix (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note that I did not say it was not one of many possible categories in which it can be included (if you continue to brows by genre you will see Netfix also includes it many other genres too) but Netflix itself does not give it WP:WEIGHT either, it isn't mentioned on the actual page for the show Arcane, where instead the highlighted genre is "Action & Adventure Programmes". -- 109.76.203.58 (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Netflix might be showing us different version of the same page:
 * https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.netflix.com/title/81435684
 * https://archive.fo/iAtvo
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20211102103811/https://www.netflix.com/fi-en/title/81435684
 * and depending on where you look it seems as if they emphasize different genres. This isn't anything new though, the authors/producers can call it one thing and reviewers might call it another, the authorial intent is not the only thing, which is why we are supposed to see what reliable source say and give WP:WEIGHT accordingly. -- 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.203.58 (talk)

The Vi & Caitlyn arc is totally ignored
While the main story is about the relationship between Vi and Jinx, there are substantial sub-arcs in the story, chief among them (according to many) is the relationship between Vi & Caitlyn (partners-friends- probable girlfriends). This also plays a significant role in the break-down of Jinx's mental health (the "confirmation" that Vi has abandoned her for Caitlyn, episode 6, 7, 9). This is all the more remarkable as one of the talking points according to the writers is exactly this. The relationship is strongly hinted to by the writers of the show, and in game lore. 158.174.226.96 (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All aspects of what happens are covered in the episode summaries, but the purpose of this article is not to analyze different story arcs. ― Tuna NoSurprises Please  05:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is exactly my point - it isn't covered in the episode summary. Even when it's a major reason for Jinx's breakdown. 158.174.226.96 (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Producers and Editors
I don't think it is standard practice to list dozens of co-producers and editors in the infobox. Surely it can be trimmed to just the key people. Also, worth noting that none of the listed names are sourced. IrishStephen (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * They are sourced, through the episodes that serve as primary sources. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 03:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * An editor agreed with User:IrishStephen and trimmed back the Infobox substantially. This seems appropriate since the WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is to summarize. -- 109.76.195.193 (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Episode template colours

 * I changed the episode template colours to something emblematic of the show, what is the rationale for your reversion? (Hohum @ ) 02:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The formatting of the colours you have chosen do not match WP:TV standards. Header rows and split rows should conform with one another. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 02:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * So, you've reverted it again when it had consistent and contrast friendly colours, with an edit comment of "unnecessary change". That isn't a rationale. Plenty of useful, or presentation choice changes aren't *necessary*. Blue is one of the emblematic colours for Arcane. What is your actual reason for going back to black? Is there any colour other than black you'd accept? This is starting to feel a bit gatekeepery. (Hohum @ ) 17:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:TVOVERVIEW, [o]nce established, colors that meet that guideline should not be changed arbitrarily without discussion. I am simply following WP:TV and WP:COLOR guidelines. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 00:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is that discussion, it has been that discussion since I first started this talk section. I am suggesting using a colour that is emblematic to the show. That is not arbitrary. It has a rationale. What is your rationale against it? Quoting guidelines which I am following isn't a counter rationale in the discussion. (Hohum @ ) 16:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And where exactly has the hex code of #1e69aa been pulled from? A color extraction of a poster, perhaps? Or was it just arbitrarily chosen? -- Alex_ 21 TALK 02:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * #1A5A92 is a contrast friendly shade of blue close to one of the thematic colours of the show. Thematic means not-arbitrary. (Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 17:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Home Media
Is there any news on whether or not Arcane is going to be eventually released on Blu-Ray/DVD?

(Tyrian Watts (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC))
 * Streaming is already a medium of home entertainment. Netflix shows are rarely released on DVD, but it depends on whatever licensing agreements the studio has with Netflix. It seems as if Arcane may be getting a DVD release in Australia There also seems to have been a China Bluray release. I say "seems" because those sources are not necessarily reliable and there would probably need to be better sources before there was anything relevant we could add to improve this encyclopedia article. -- 109.79.163.14 (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Praise in lead section
There is a laundry list of praise in the lead section and at least some of it seems WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. So I tagged it as citation needed. It is clear that the visuals (animation) of the show were praised and that generalization at least is entirely fair. It is less clear that the other items on the laundry list of praise can generalized and highlighted in the lead section for praise. For example the lead claims that the music was praised but the Critical response section doesn't mention music even once, nevermind mentioning it enough times for it to seem like a fair generalization. The IGN review certainly praised many aspects of the show but one reviewer praising all those different elements does not justify presenting it in the lead section as a generalization of what the reviewers were saying as a whole. I suggest trimming down the list of praise in the lead section or expanding the Critical response section to show more clearly that these generalizations are actually valid. -- 109.76.196.149 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again I must advise editors to read WP:LEAD because the lead section is supposed to _summarize_ what is clearly supported by the article body. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and these things need to be clearly shown, they must to be self evident in the body of this article, readers should not need to hunt or be left in any doubt that those claims in the lead were not only made by one review but are actually a fair generalization of several reviews. The lead needs to be trimmed or the Critical response expanded to clearly properly support all those claims. -- 109.76.200.99 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate accusations of edit warring I am disputing the claims made in the lead section. They are not supported by reliable sources. (I also dispute the claim that this TV-14 show is "adult".) I have followed the guidelines and attempted to discuss but editors have not responded, the cycle of WP:BRD allows me to restore the citation request if editors do not discuss, the WP:BURDEN is on on editors to make sure information is properly sourced. -- 109.76.200.99 (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The praise reflects the awards given which are shown in the article and sourced. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 18:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Season 2 release quarter
The article states that season 2 will release in Q4 2024, the problem is that in Chinese, "winter 2024" more commonly means the beginning of 2024, aka january, february and march.

the source tweet assumed the english meaning of winter 2024 without regard to the chinese meaning. Adiliv3007 (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This isn't a Chinese show? The source also literally says "Arcane Season 2 will be released on Netflix in Q4 2024, with a speculated November release date." -- Alex_ 21 TALK 13:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To answer the first question, the show is produced by Riot games, which are owned by Tencent, a Chinese company.
 * And the translation of Q4 2024 is an assumption made by the source, as the OFFICIAL announcement only stated "Winter 2024" in chinese Adiliv3007 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether it is an assumption by the source or not is not for up to decide, see WP:VNT. Do you have any other source to back up your claims that it could be released at any other particular timne? -- Alex_ 21 TALK 00:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Unsourced content
There was clearly a CN tag,, until you removed it, and if one reads the article one will see that in addition to the unsourced info, there is also WP:SYNTH with WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED as references. <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร 17:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The CN tag was for the single item "music". Everything else is sourced. I changed "music" to "sound" since that is sourced in the article. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 17:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, so you admit that you didn't actually revert to the "stable" version. There are FOUR reviews only and you are using them to summarize/generalize all of this: "widespread acclaim [which is WP:SYNTH and a loaded exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources], with praise directed at its animation, story, worldbuilding, action sequences, characters, emotional weight, sound, and voice acting." + There is WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED. <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร 17:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What on earth? You removed a chunk from the stable article. I reverted that because I disagree. I then attended to the CN tag. All of the praise is sourced, so it is not loaded, or synth. It has won exceptional awards. Lets see what other editors think. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 17:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, what I removed was unsourced/WP:SYNTH/cited an unreliable source. I don't know why you are writing misleading comments like this, it is obvious what is correct. FYI, winning "exceptional awards" doesn't mean widespread critical acclaim. Do not take ownership of subjects that you clearly do not know. <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร 12:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is not, "make a change to the stable version, argue, fail to gain consensus, make the change again". So I have reverted back to the stable, sourced content. I will ask for a third opinion at a relevant wikiproject. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 18:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 18:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion
A quick Google search seems to show that the "widespread acclaim" statement is supported by sources and more accurate and useful for a general reader than "positive reviews". Here's perhaps an example of a better source. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is not mandatory, and the discussion was 7 days ago. Need multiple high-quality sources for "acclaim". The other additions need multiple reviews praising them, too. As the previous editor wrote above in May, "The IGN review certainly praised many aspects of the show but one reviewer praising all those different elements does not justify presenting it in the lead section as a generalization of what the reviewers were saying as a whole. I suggest trimming down the list of praise in the lead section or expanding the Critical response section to show more clearly that these generalizations are actually valid." And there is still a persistence in using unreliable sources. <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร 19:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the listing of individual attributes could be moved down, but "widespread acclaim" should stay. It's very easy to find RS to support this. It took me a few seconds. This one and this one and this one and this one should be more than enough to justify "widespread" and "acclaim". Not to mention winning an Emmy. The unusual level of success is an important contextual element for readers. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * RT doesn't include anything about "acclaim" and The Cornell Daily Sun states "critical acclaim for its queer representation", but other than that one of the issues seems to be resolved. (Winning an award ≠ "critical acclaim".) <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร 20:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you try the SYNTH/OR noticeboard or start an RfC about this if the sources don't meet your standards. It seems obvious from the sources to me, but clearly not to you, so try bringing in other opinions (not 3O, though). Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, 3O has not been as helpful in bringing this discussion to a conclusion as I thought it would be. <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร 07:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced praise in lead
An editor has repeatedly removed the previously stable text of the lead. It is supported by sourced article text and the awards the series has been nominated for and awarded. I invite the editor to take part in meaningful discussion here with others so that we can gauge consensus. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 17:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See thread above. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 17:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Was it praised? Yes. Was that praise widespread? Not so clear. There were only a limited numbers of reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes, twenty something reviews, it was praised by the quite limited number of critics who actually reviewed it. The laundry list of praise for "animation, story, worldbuilding, action sequences, characters, emotional weight, sound, and voice acting" is supposed to clearly supported by the critical response section, some of it is, the visual were certainly praised. It not clear that it is is fair generalization to say that all these various elements were generally praised, in particular it wasn't clear that the sound/music was particularly praised, and the story seems to have been both praised and criticized. -- 109.76.197.251 (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We just follow the sources. Even though I provided plenty of examples, I'll provide another example (my bolding: the sky-high user reviews have not budged and inch since the series was release, and Netflix has rarely seen anything this universally beloved by viewers.
 * Arcane is still boasting a perfect 100% score among critics, but even more impressively, a 98% score from audiences, which has remained consistently for two weeks, and higher than any other major Netflix series you can find.
 * Source Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree that the people who like the show, really really like the show. I agree that everyone unequivocally praised the visuals. Judged by the standard of video game adaptations this show is remarkable but it is being graded on a curve by relatively few critics. Nonetheless I disagree that narrowly targeted praise for a show from a self selected group of only 29 critics can be described as "widespread" or that the increasingly long laundry list of items praised in the lead are all fair generalizations. Television critics who don't like the idea of a show based on a video game wouldn't even bother to consider it, there is a self selection bias among critics who are primed to like the show. Show like Arcane and Cyberpunk Edgerunners are praised but they are niche. Shows based on video games are getting more and more popular but they aren't mainstream yet, and they aren't being judged at the same level as a more mainstream network tv show would be. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a neutral high level view (WP:NPOV) should be taken and undue praise or puffery (WP:PUFF) should be avoided. While sources like Variety do say acclaim, they certainly do not say "widespread".
 * Meanwhile other editors strongly argue that the same Paul Tassi at Forbes you use to make your point, is not an acceptable source for this article. not even his review of the episode -- 109.76.201.77 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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


 * Related, what's the citation for this line "It also set the record as Netflix's highest-rated series at the time within a week of its premiere, ranked first on the Netflix Top 10 Chart in 52 countries, and ranked second on the chart in the United States." Top 10 in 52 countries is not a record. 2603:8001:9D00:4066:ECF2:9B02:687C:B7DC (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * " Several critics and publications considered it one of the best video game adaptations ever made" This is just one publication, and one that I doubt is considered highly by Wikipedia. 2603:8001:9D00:4066:ECF2:9B02:687C:B7DC (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, that second paragraph seems to violate Wiki style guides. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television 2603:8001:9D00:4066:ECF2:9B02:687C:B7DC (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say it was "universally" praised. Everything else you mentioned has a source already in the article. Please be more specific about what text you think violates what specific point made in the MOS. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 00:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant "widespread acclaim" (and I think you know that. Re-read the second paragraph.)
 * It's hard to say the show has "widespread acclaim" if it doesn't have enough reviews to get a Metacritic score. 2603:8001:9D00:4066:ECF2:9B02:687C:B7DC (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)