Talk:Euphoria (American TV series)/Archive 1

Request
Please add the episode's run times for "HBO USA". Re:HBO-ASIA.COM sometimes edits out content over here ie. it was 47 minutes till end credits 🌏 🤐--GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴 04:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkouklis(2) (talk • contribs)

Rape Question
While it's been said by some that what occurs in episode one in the motel room scene is statutory rape, that's never actually established as fact in the show, since neither the age of the character nor the state in which it takes place (which would affect age of consent) are ever mentioned. While I don't doubt that many interpret it as such, and don't doubt it may be intended as such, the statement does need a citation from one of the writers / creators / producers as to the intent for verification (a review would not suffice, as reviews are biased interpretations, not a statement of facts about the intent) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.4.201.116 (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still going on the fact it's statutory rape. As the creator of the show says that it was, it can be assumed that Jules is indeed under the age of 18 and that he wrote it to be such a scene. QueerFilmNerd  talk 18:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you've got a source to cite that the creator said that, by all means change it, just cite it. It's just not evident from anything in the actual dialogue. I believe I read somewhere the character is 17, although that may not have been a direct source from the writer, but if that's the case that would be legal in most states. The show appears to be intentionally vague about location. As an example I noticed (I'm totally OCD about spotting inconsistencies in continuity) license plates for what appeared to be California (where it would be unlawful) and either Massachusetts or Illinois (where it would not be) on the Nate's truck in different scenes. UniNoUta (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In this interview, the creator refers to the scene between the two as a statutory rape, and this article from The Hollywood Reporter warns about some scenes for the first couple episodes as it talks about the upcoming infamous penises scene. From everything that I've read, it's definitely meant to be viewed as a rape scene and definitely think it should be noted as such. QueerFilmNerd  talk 21:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * He doesn't actually refer to it as statutory rape in that interview. It's a bit confusing. The only time the word rape is used is: "I’m thinking of Eric [Dane] and Hunter’s [statutory rape scene in the pilot]." - it's placed in brackets, indicating something that wasn't said (i.e. he didn't say Eric Dane's surname, either) - why the THR interviewer edited it this way instead of his actual words, I couldn't say. But it does leave it a bit unclear, and the bracketed words are those of the interviewer or editor, not Levinson himself. Given that it's unsaid (unless there's another interview with him where it's explicitly stated) and that Jules lies to Cal about her age (thus making it, if it is statutory rape, unintentional) I believe it's a bit too grey at the moment to state as a concrete fact of plot. (The second article linked to is irrelevant as it's the interpretation of one viewer, opinion not fact, and clearly this scene has been interpreted differently by different people) UniNoUta (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's statutory rape if the creator of the series says it is with a reliable source; we don't need the established facts of the age of characters within the episode to determine if it is statutory rape or not in this case. — Young Forever (talk)   21:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * California vehicle license plates shown so "CA STATE" laws apply.
 * As was already noted above, there are also Massachusetts or possibly Illinois license plates (red text on white background) on Nate's truck in a different scene.

Are there any further objections to re-adding that Jules was raped? QueerFilmNerd talk 03:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As noted above, it does not appear to be an established fact of plot. I would say if the issue resurfaces in a later episode and it's established, sure, but at this point, whether it was or wasn't may not even be important enough to include in a 200-word general overview that doesn't need to be particularly detailed. UniNoUta (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Why the US version is loosely based on the israeli series.
Good day, everyone!

Two users are objecting the inclusion of the word ‘’loosely’’ when referring to to what extent the US euphoria was influenced by the ISRAELI euphoria.

User @Joeyconnick argues that:‎
 * "based" does not mean "follows word by word", so "loosely based" is redundant.

But I never claimed what he objected. I know that ‘’based’’ doesn’t mean an exact copy or reproduction. "Loosely" is merely a qualifier for "based", not a pleonasm. It is used in many articles and it makes the information more accurate. In the same way that sometimes people say that and adaptation is ‘’faithful to the original’’.

I then presented a reliable source (see here) that states things like:


 * ‘’ In a way it’s a remake, but done in a very different way.’’
 * ‘’ The shows both revolve around teens living without too much oversight from their parents. But the resemblances pretty much end there.’’
 * ‘’ As you can see, Euphoria on HBO is VERY different.’’
 * ‘’ HBO’s version is very different. It’s set in modern-day rather than the 90s’’
 * ‘’ The only thing the two shows share is the title and nothing else.’’
 * ‘’ aside from the name, there’s not a lot to compare between the two series.’’

Then, the user @SnapSnap stated that:


 * ‘’the source given doesn't even mention the word "loosely" […] The problem isn't the expression per se, it's the fact that "loosely based" isn't explicitly used by the source. Stating that "very different" equates to "loosely based" is your own personal interpretation – see WP:SYNTH and WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE.’’

She makes two claims here:

1) I cannot use ‘’loosely based’’ because the exact same term is not used in the source. And she says that I should follow WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE.


 * But WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE says that: ‘’ Source material should be carefully summarized or REPHRASED without changing its meaning or implication.’’-rephrase: to say or write something again in a different and usually clearer way. Synonym: reword (oxford dictionary)
 * Well, that says it very clearly: I can rephrase as long as the original meaning is kept.

2) But she also claims that: equating ‘’very different’’ and ‘’loosely based’’ is my own personal interpretation.


 * But it is not my personal interpretation. It is based on a dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster's): loosely based on: to develop something [...] from something else [....] in a way that many things are different in each.
 * Which is clearly the case here.

--Daveout (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Equating "very different" to "loosely based" is debatable and open to interpretation – one dictionary definition will not change that. Per WP:SYNTH (which I already mentioned), "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." The source you provided makes no explicit use of the expression "loosely based", simple as that. Either provide reliable sources that explicitly state that the American series is "loosely based" on the Israeli series, or leave as is. Also, when your edits have been disputed, the burden is on you to justify your additions on the talk page, and you're not supposed to revert away from the status quo – see WP:STATUSQUO.  snap snap  (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"""Equating "very different" to "loosely based" is debatable and open to interpretation – one dictionary definition will not change that."""

Now it is up to your to provide proof to your claim. Any source corroboting what you just said, or is it just your opinion?

I do not have to use the same words as the source (according to wikipedia guidelines). I may use different expressions that convey the same meaning (paraphrase).

But since your whole argument is that "loosely based" is not explicitly mentioned in the source, lets use the term "very different" and see how you feel about it. Daveout (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While similar, the expressions "very different" and "loosely based" are not direct synonyms. Equating the aforementioned expressions is debatable and open to interpretation (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, huh?). If a casual reader were to access the reference you provided looking for the term "loosely based", how do you expect that reader to reach the same conclusion as you (that the American show is "loosely based" because the source says it's "very different" to the Israeli show)? If you're so adamant about the word "loosely", why not just provide a source that actually uses it? I did a Google search and found at least four reliable sources (1, 2, 3, 4) that make explicit use of the expression "loosely based", so I hope this settles the argument.  snap snap  (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. You think you are more entitled to define expressions than a very influential and respectable dictionary. I choose that source because it explains in details WHY the series differ so much. Other sources do not do it.

I showed proof that both terms are related, now you have to prove that they are not (as you claim). "i think it's open to interpretation despite dictionary definition" is not an answer. Daveout (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless the article discusses the differences between the two shows, it doesn't really matter whether the source explains why they're different – only that the source explicitly says "loosely based". Now that I provided sources that do so, I'm done here.  snap snap  (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

NO! You can not simply make up rules and requirements just bc you feel like it. The source does not have to have the exact same term that is used in the article, just a paraphrase. THIS IS AN EXPLICIT WIKIPEDIA RULE!!!. I showed it to you!. You say that the definition of "loosely based" is debatable yet provide no proof. While I provided credible source and you dismissed it based on personal opinions. You write based on nothing but unsourced personal opinions and deliberate defacement of wikipedia's guidelines.

The original source is back on until you prove your claims: 1) the article must use the exact same words as the source, not paraphrases; 2) "loosely based" is not an equivalent to "very different". Daveout (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I will no longer insist on putting that "loosely" on the lead (even though i think it makes the information more accurate). So, feel free to remove it if you think it will make the article better. Daveout (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Awards and nominations listed by ceremony date
The awards and nominations should be listed in order of ceremony date, not alphabetically. On most other articles that is how it is organized. Ajack15 (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m going to undo the edit that changes it to alphabetical order. If you do not agree with this, please discuss it here before making the change. Ajack15 (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Joeyconnick: I'm not sure if I made much sense in my edit summary so I'll say it here. Because all the awards fall under the same year, they should be listed by ceremony date within that year. That is how it is sorted on all other pages, such as Westworld or The Handmaid's Tale. If you want the award to be listed in alphabetical order, then the award should come first, THEN the year. It is nonsensical to sort them in alphabetical order when the year has been established as the more important column. I'm still not sure if this is making sense, but you can look at the article for Westworld to see what I mean. If you want to add the specific ceremony in front of each award, we could do that. Or we could with the columns so that Award comes first, that way it would make more sense to sort them in alphabetical order. I'm just trying to reason on the talk page first so that the article doesn't keep being edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajack15 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is certainly not how they are sorted on all other pages as I edit quite a few where that is not the case. Also, just because a column is listed first doesn't mean that's how the table is initially sorted (plus, with sorting "by year, then title" it still is sorted by year first, but I digress), but certainly a value that should not be used to sort a table, because a layperson (or even a non-layperson like, say, me) comes to the table and says "huh... that's weird... it's listed by year but then it's apparently random" because that person has NO clue that the order presented is based on the dates of the ceremonies because the dates of the ceremonies are not in the table AT ALL. As in, until you mentioned it, I thought the order of the listed ceremonies was totally random, or at most listed simply in the order people had added them, which is often the "order" these tables end up in). Not sure what's so hard to understand about this... —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I never said I didn't understand, I said it doesn't make sense both ways. I get what you're saying, but the way I look at it is different. As I said before, we can add the specific ceremony to each award, but changing the way it's sorted doesn't make much sense either because the way I look at it, since the year is stated first, I assume each award is sorted by date throughout that year. It struck me as off when I notice that they are sorted in alphabetical order. You said that since there is no visible indicator that they are sorted by ceremony date, it's confusing, then add each specific ceremony in front of the award. And when you click on each award, you are redirected to a page about each specific ceremony anyway, so I don't know why you are so insistent on it being in alphabetical order. Also, referring to you changing the order on all other pages that have it sorted by date, that's a little unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajack15 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I looked at a plethora of other television pages, and whilst you are right for some, for most, that is how they are edited. The year column comes first, then the awards are sorted by ceremony date within that year. And for the ones that are not sorted like that, it is because the award column comes first, which then justifies the awards being sorted by alphabetical order, like Game of Thrones for example. Euphoria does not have enough awards to justify the awards column coming first, so the year column comes first. Don't know what you're not understanding about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajack15 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're not understanding about the complete illogic of sorting a table by a value that isn't present. How is a casual reader meant to come to the table as it is in your version and understand why it is ordered in the way it is ordered? The fact it is sorted by date order is great... but that's not any indication that's what random readers will assume. The article is not written . It is written for a wide audience and needs to follow standards and conventions. If you want the table initially sorted by ceremony dates, then those FULL dates (not just the year)  be present in the table.
 * Otherwise, the standard is year, award, category (alpha)—which, unsurprisingly, follows the columns from left to right. And no, that's not the same thing as having it first sorted by award name... first, we sort by the first column, which is year. Then we sort by the second, which is award name, and so on. Again, not really rocket science. And just to cover ALL the bases, the List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones article is organized completely differently, with the primary sort key by name of ceremony. And even there, it's not sorted by date of ceremony... it's sorted by YEAR of ceremony. Which, if you click on the "Year" column, results in a table sorted by... guest what? That's right: year, then award name. Go on, try it: go to the article, click to sort by "Year", and guess what? The Directors Guild of America Awards from 2012 (ceremony date: Jan 28, 2012) are listed before the Producers Guild of American Awards from 2012 (ceremony date: Jan 21, 2012), even though the date of the ceremony of the Producers Guild awards came the ceremony for the Directors Guild... because the table is being sorted by year, then award (again, once you click the "Year" header), not by "date of ceremony" then award. Which, again, makes sense... because that table does not contain a "date of ceremony" value and having it sort by the completely absent value would be crackerjacks. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the awards and nominations sections on the pages for Succession, The Handmaid's Tale and Pose. All of them are sorted by ceremony date. And by using Game of Thrones you are literally proving my point. On Game of Throne's page, the Awards column is first, then the Year. If you want to sort awards alphabetically, put the Awards column first. By putting the Year first, then awards second, you are showing the reader that each award is sorted by their date in that year. As this show doesn't have enough awards to justify swapping the columns, it is left as it is. This is literally how it's done on most pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajack15 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Some other examples include, This Is Us, Better Call Saul and The Crown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajack15 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

McKay raping Cassie is rape
The sex scene with Cassie and McKay after the hazing after the hazing is rape, period. Obviously she did not press charges and the absence of consent does not actually make this scene a criminal offense per se, but the absence of consent, the clear depiction of Cassie's pain, embarrassment and humiliation makes this rape. Non-consensual sex, any sex, even not aggressive without the absence of enthusiastic consent is not sex, it's rape. Aggressively fucking a woman who is not into it and is crying afterwards is rape. Just because her body is there, they are not "having sex", he is violating her body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NonoSilly (talk • contribs) 10:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've reverted your edit for now, but I think this is a discussion worth having, let's see what others think about it. The current version states they had "aggressive sex", another possibility is something like "forces Cassie, violently, to have sex with him" etc.... —   (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The only reason I removed the word rape is because I think we should be more careful on how we use the word. That scene is up for discussion. She did say that she wanted to have sex with him, which is technically verbal consent. The way he did it upset her, not the fact that he did it. So no, I don't think it's rape, but it's still gross all the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajack15 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is Jules getting sidelined?
I've noticed that the first name listed in both "starring" and "cast and characters" after Zendaya as Rue is Maude Apatow as Lexi. Why? We barley learn anything about her over the course of the series. Jules, on the other hand, is Rue's real best friend, which means Hunter Schafer is Zendaya's main co-star. I honestly feel that the reason Schafer is listed near the bottom of the cast list despite playing the deuteragonist is because she, along with her character, is transgender. This is transphobic and unacceptable, which is why I have moved Hunter's name to be right under Zendaya's name, where it belongs. Please, don't change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascarboro97 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the cast order that appears on-screen at the end of each episode. The producers decided to order them alphabetically, except for Zendaya.  -   (talk)  03:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:TVCAST main cast order is according to the original broadcasting credits starting from the pilot episode, not how you want it to display. Wikipedia contains guidelines and policies to follow. You can't just rearrange credit order to your personal preference. — Young Forever (talk)   17:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"Drama" or "teen drama"
The biggest issue I see with calling it a teen drama. Regardless that the term doesn't appear in any of the provided sources (Though I'm sure that sources could be found) is that given the age rating of the series labelling it "teen drama" could imply that it is a drama FOR teenagers not OF teenagers. Teen drama also has no clear definition to which we can all agree to and no Wikipedia page to direct it to.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of primary and secondary sources that referer to Euphoria as a drama:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8772296/ https://www.hbo.com/hbo-news/euphoria-pilot-drake-zendaya-series https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/euphoria/s01 https://www.vulture.com/2020/09/zendaya-emmy-2020.html

We need to communicate that it is a drama series that it follows teens. SO I propose rewriting the intro paragraph to describe euphoria as:

"an American drama television series that follows a group of high school students through their experiences of sex, drugs, friendships, love, identity and trauma. Euphoria is created and written by Sam Levinson for HBO and is loosely based on the Israeli miniseries of the same name.[1][2][3][4]"

Does anyone take issue with this new description or wish to propose an alternative? Paging

SpaceFan021 (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * According to the wiki link, a teen drama "focuses on teenage characters, especially where a secondary school setting plays a role." That is exactly what this show is about. What we could do is write "Euphoria is an American teen drama television series for mature audiences, created by...". We usually wouldn't specify the rating in the lead but in this case as you said it might be confusing. But the show remains a teen drama, based on another teen drama, whose protagonists are teens attending high school. --TheVampire (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good solution. Solves every issue I had with it while retaining the original genre classification. I support this change. 101.98.135.42 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's WP's role to set audience age recommendations. (that would also be unlike other articles of "emotionally intense" teenage shows, like "skins" or "13 reasons why") -   (talk)  20:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are Skins and 13 Reasons Why rated TV-MA? Because if they aren't, then Euphoria is a more specific case.--TheVampire (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, they're all rated TV-MA. These types of age recomendations vary across countries, what is considered 'mature' in the US may not be regarded as such in the UK and other countries. -   (talk)  00:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * (Thanks for pinging me). I strongly disagree with the proposed change, "teen drama" is simply more precise. Examples of reliable sources calling it "teen drama": The Guardian, BBC, WSJ. That said, I understand that genre classifications have a subjective aspect to them, and that disagreeing on classifications is very common. -   (talk)  12:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding "mature audiences" is a complete non-starter. We don't include ratings on Wikipedia because what one country (or even region) considers "mature audiences" is so very, very subjective. If the preponderance of sources say "drama", we go with drama. The fact that the characters are teenagers can easily be included as per the proposed lead by although I strongly support just saying "based on"; attempting to arbitrate what ranks as "loosely based on" vs. "closely based on" is a stupid waste of time, plus "based on" in and of itself does not, as some people seem to think, equate to "closely based on". —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since several sources say that the Israeli Euphoria and and the American one have almost nothing in common besides the title, I thought it would be "informative" to include the qualifier. But feel free to remove it tho. I don't care that much.
 * Off topic: as SpaceFan021said, the "teen drama" article was recently deleted due to lack of sources. Here is its latest version before being deleted. So any help to expand the current section dealing with the subject at Drama (film and television) is welcome. -   (talk)  16:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Special Episodes
I don’t think the special episodes actually count as episodes 9 and 10 because the listings on the Futon Critic from HBO say that the season premiere is episode nine and on the listings from the HBO schedule, they say that the season premiere is episode nine too. TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

No plot or Premise ... who wrote this article?
How can a page about the show not even feature a logline, plot, premise, etc. Extremely frustrating to find an entire article written without any context. From IMDB: A look at life for a group of high school students as they grapple with issues of drugs, sex, and violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.120.44.40 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * IP editor, Wikipedia is a work in progress so it's likely an editor has not added it yet. --   LuK3      (Talk)   15:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought the IP was referring to the lede, so I added a short synopsis line. As for the article's body, the criticism doesn't make any sense. The plots of each episode is presented at the episodes section. -   (talk)  05:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2019 and 24 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yassinehannin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Schafer as Co-Executive Producer
According to Fandom, Schafer acted as Co-Executive in the 2nd special. Should this be include somewhere\somehow? -  (talk)  22:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The co- credits are usually never listed in the template. If someone is a producer or an executive producer then they are listed as producers or executive producers, but we never list co-producers or co-executive producers because there can be a lot of them and they were not given the full credit.--TheVampire (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hunter S. Thompson is not a source on literature
"The title of the episode is a reference to a stanza from an unknown poem, as quoted by Hunter S. Thompson in his book about the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang.[33] (33 links to the listing for his book)" The title of the episode is a reference to a stanza from an unknown poem, as quoted by Hunter S. Thompson in his book about the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang.[33]

A quick search confirms the episode title is a Breton quote, which fits in with the other title references.

How does a guy known primarily for his anti-intellectual approach, explicitly saying he doesn't know the origin of a quote, get listed as a source for the origin of that quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.148.119 (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Some of those quote aggregating websites say that this passage is in Bretons' Mad Love book. But i couldnt find it in there. -   (talk)  15:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Split?
Time to fork out to Euphoria (season 1) and Euphoria (season 2)? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion but there's precedent for this; the teen drama 'Skins' has an article for each season. -   (talk)  02:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is enough to split into season articles, they would not be able be standalone articles. I would start Drafts first. — Young Forever (talk)   02:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can provide enough unique material per season article(and not just copy paste exclusively from the main article), you should do season articles. 2A00:23C8:5228:1601:959:78C5:7DA4:AA56 (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Individual Pages
I feel like the episodes are plot heavy enough that they could have their own pages, and that each season could have its own page, due to the amount of creative work that can be discussed for each one. See: The Walking Dead pages. Morganflowers8 (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Season articles can only be created when there's enough unique content to justify their existence. That doesn't mean copy pasting from the main article, it means sourcing and writing a bunch of stuff thats both noteworthy and fits within the Wikipedia guidelines. If editors can't do that its encouraged to just use a list of episodes page if the page size reaches a certain point which fits the criteria for page split. 2A00:23C8:5228:1601:8952:C58F:E91A:9A11 (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Rating Response statistics from Media
The supplement will be made for the rating response statistics for this TV series, including IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxanne1012 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The rating idea is great, and maybe more comments from the mainstream could be mentioned here if feasible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketttis4y8 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, we want to add comments about the response from the world, especially the attitude passed from the mainstream paper media.


 * The influence it has on teenagers in gender identity and feminism should also be mentioned here.


 * Could you elaborate on what you mean? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We want to make a supplement on the existing response of this TV series from mainstream online website. Roxanne1012 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP prohibits IMDb as a source so refrain from using it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reminding! We will update other reliable sources except IMDB, such as rotten tomatoes and metacritic. We will also supplement the overseas response for this TV show, as Chinese biggest entertainment rating website Douban, which has a Month Active Use 300 million. Roxanne1012 (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

HBO controversies draft article
Hi, I know that HBO made controversies surrounding it's original programming as a draft, as Draft:HBO controversies. CastJared (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Is Zendaya directing?
IndieWire reported that Zendaya will probably direct. CastJared (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting discussion. I removed that content 2 January right after you inserted it, and you edit-warred to restore the new content, not found in history when it was readded yet but seems disruptive when you know it was contested. "probably" is not good enough to include in Wikipedia, should only be included when official. Indagate (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. CastJared (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See you've edited elsewhere but not replied here so pinging, do you have any reason to include the content? The act IndieWire reported it, doesn't make it encyclopaedic enough for inclusion. "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" per WP:ONUS. Indagate (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:NORUSH? CastJared (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct, linked that in my edit summary, shouldn't include rumour, speculation, etc as there is no rush and we can wait until it's official closer to release. Indagate (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)