Talk:Inhumans premiere

Article title
The title Inhumans: The First Chapter is intended to be temporary until the actual episode title is released. At the time of the article's creation, it was not, so the marketing name Marvel has used in some of the trailers for the IMAX release was chosen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Why The First Chapter? In lack of an actual title shouldn't it be disambiguated to something more descriptive like Inhumans (IMAX episodes) or Inhuman (IMAX release)? Nevermind, you say its the marketing name. In that case it should be mentioned and cited in the article body.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since this post, the actual title for the episodes has been revealed as "The First Chapter" from IGN's review. The url is here, and as of my comment now, it is not live until 7 pm EST. The review was posted prematurely this morning and when I saw it then (and from the url text) the title of the article said "Marvel's Inhumans "The First Chapter" Review", giving us the episode title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Locations in the episode
Beyond the filming locations we have already, the text on screen stated Kualou Ridge (which is at the Kualoa Ranch) and Makapuʻu Beach. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Inhumans: The First Chapter
Hey, I thought the title was agreed upon on this talk page? What gives? Georgina V Hobart (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see this discussion. - DinoSlider (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion DinoSlider linked to if you have not already. The IMAX presentation did not have any official name, marketing or otherwise, from Marvel. It is unclear how or why IGN listed it as such in their review. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * According to said discussion, which I have read several times, yourself and DinoSlider are the only users to disagree with Inhumans: The First Chapter as a title. Georgina V Hobart (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't read as carefully as you thought, because all users participating (TriiipleThreat and FBISD including) agreed that there were not enough reliable sources to support "The First Chapter" as a title of the IMAX release or to consider it a COMMONNAME of the release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I watched the IMAX release of Inhumans and it was called Inhumans: The First Chapter onscreen. 146.164.80.48 (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

UK Ratings
I noticed international ratings were present in other articles so I added them here. I checked Manual of Style/Television and it doesn't mention this issue. I'm not saying we should include UK ratings in the tables, etc but it's useful information. Matt14451 (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting how you dropped by less than an hour after its GA passing. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really the best argument for content. How is it useful? It is only information that sticks out in the article as poorly placed/included, as its about American episodes that premiered in America (and on the same date in other countries). --  Alex TW 07:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * cc:  Not really interesting, if I had noticed the review sooner then I would have included this sooner to get it reviewed officially, you seem to like WP:Casting aspersions anyway. It's a valid argument. Useful to see how foreign markets reacted to content. It's hardly the only information that sticks out. Many other articles, random example is The Good Guy Fluctuation, have ratings from multiple countries. Matt14451 (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's quite interesting, since you've never edited the article beforehand. And how they reacted is different to the ratings and the number of viewers - how did they react? What affect did this have on the series? What affect did the British in general have on an American series? And as I said, WP:OSE. --  Alex TW 07:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE does apply. Ratings show how popular a show is, can include UK reviews but assume you would oppose that as well like everything. The British airing didn't have an effect on the series but neither did the Canadian airing or British airing on the cited example above, among others. Matt14451 (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, it does apply - just because other things exist, doesn't make it correct. As for assume you would oppose that as well like everything, please try to stay on topic. It didn't have an effect, so why include it? It's just WP:TRIVIA then. The Canadian ratings aren't included in this article. What that article does is its own thing and the prerogative of the article's editors. Is that example a GA? --  Alex TW 08:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * pleas try to stay on topic, hypocritical based on our previous discussions. Saying its not correct means you're not properly considering WP:OSE. Ratings are hardly trivia, plus everything I added was properly sourced. Those articles editors don't own that article and it's subject to the same Manual of Style/Television. GA status is irrelevant as this change isn't subject to any policies. Matt14451 (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not discussion past discussions here, we're discussing the ratings. You added ratings - and? What did they do for the series? What did they represent? If you're quoting Manual of Style/Television, then what in the Manual supports the addition of any ratings? --  Alex TW 08:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not quoting that, see my original comment here - I checked Manual of Style/Television and it doesn't mention this issue. GA review shouldn't consider this issue as there's only WP:OSE, no other in policy regarding it. Matt14451 (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Exactly - it doesn't state explicitly whether we should or should not include it. Thus, it is up to the editor including it to support its inclusion once disputed. --  Alex TW 08:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So WP:OSE applies more than other issues and is correct. Matt14451 (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We agree, then. Just because other stuff exists, doesn't mean it's right. --  Alex TW 11:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How do we agree at all? The practice of including broadcast and ratings information exists on other articles, therefore it can be used here according to WP:OSE. Matt14451 (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say the most similar article in this case is Pilot (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.). That contains British broadcast and ratings information in more detail than I included here, do you oppose that? That article is also a GA-class article. Matt14451 (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd say including the broadcast date would be okay per WP:TVINTL (but do note the source provided initially does not support the date for the second episode). However, we tend to only include ratings data for the country of production, in this case the US. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I'll have another look for a source for the second episode before putting it back into the article. I've checked a few examples such as those linked above and they include foreign ratings even though they're also American shows. Any policies to support we tend to only include ratings data for the country of production? Matt14451 (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No policy, but guidelines yes, through multiple discussions on the TV project (that has yet to formally be codified in MOS:TV). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE is a policy that applies and overrules those discussions. Matt14451 (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite opposite actually. WP:OSE is an essay, not policy. The discussions are the guiding factors regarding this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you link to those, please? I can't find any of them. Matt14451 (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you link policies supporting the inclusion of the ratings, please? Mostly since we're apparently needing policies and guidelines here. --  Alex TW 23:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We've already established that the only relevant policy/guideline is WP:OSE which you don't like even though it is relevant.
 * I have already said many other similar pages include international ratings. Matt14451 (talk)
 * Except that OSE is neither a policy nor a guideline. --  Alex TW 09:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It exists for situations like this. It is relevant. I've checked quite a few episode pages and majority have international broadcast and ratings. Matt14451 (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What part of it supports your argument? Note that it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged. Also note the head: It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, although it may be consulted for assistance. This essay may contain opinions that are shared by few or no other editors, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. You need a much stronger argument. If you read WP:CONSENSUS - this is an actual policy - you'll see there is no consensus for its inclusion. --  Alex TW 09:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * agreed in his first comment here that my additions to the broadcast section are okay so there's consensus for that half at least once I find a better reference. Matt14451 (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Date, yes. Ratings, no. --  Alex TW 10:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add the date back to the article then.
 * Do you think international ratings information should be removed from all TV articles? As I said they are in the vast majority of articles I checked so if we want to be consistent then that's going to be difficult. Matt14451 (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Did I say that? No. Do I believe it should be determined per article? Yes. Again: Just stating that other things exist is not a valid argument. --  Alex TW 10:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you said that international ratings information should be removed from all TV articles but asked it as a question. So what makes this case special and part of the minority? Matt14451 (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To answer a question with a question, who says that all articles need to include the same information? --  Alex TW 10:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So that there's consistency across articles within the TV project and Wikipedia. Matt14451 (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox conversion
I have converted the infobox to infobox television episodes from the unique template it has been using per Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 17. All custom fields have been retained. If you have any concerns about this change please let me know and I'll make sure it gets resolved. -- Trialpears (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)