Talk:Star Trek: Discovery/Archive 2

Netflix original programming?
Netfix brands the series a "Netflix Original" in their website and airs it worldwide except the US and Canada. Do we need a copy of the contract to see if they have a say in the production? DGtal (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No contract needed - do you have a reliable source stating that they produce the series instead of just distribute it? "Netflix Original" is just a marketing term. Category:Netflix original programming states "Content original or first aired on Netflix video streaming" - it is neither original to Netflix, not aired on it first. If there's no source, it doesn't get added. --  Alex TW 10:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For this purpose, Netflix is acting as a television network. WP:TVCATS says "TV series should avoid network categories when they were not originally produced for that network. Exceptions to this include co-productions (such as The 4400), or when a show changes networks during its original run." It's my understanding that Netflix did not co-produce this series, it was simply licensed to them for international distribution. Therefore we don't put it in the Netflix category, just as we don't put it the Space category. Reach Out to the Truth 15:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Netflix Original is in the credits for the show for all non-North American releases. Like it or not, as long as it’s in the credits and as long as the category exists, this article is appropriate to be put into the Netflix Originals category. And it did air first on Netflix in every non-North American country. Canterbury Tail talk 07:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, it is a marketing term. Can you provide a source that the series was produced by Netflix? It doesn't matter where it was first released outside of North America - it is a North American produced series, and therefore we only categorize the series by its origin country. Also, good idea on deciding to self-revert and not edit-war. --  Alex TW 09:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But that’s not the point of the category. It isn’t based on whether or not Netflix produced the series. They are acting as distributor abroad in this case. I think the problem people are having here is actually with the category. If the category exists as it stands then it’s perfectly valid based on the defined reach of that category. If we don’t think that the category should then we should take it to discussion, the category that is. The individual article pages aren’t really the place for that discussion. P.S. I don’t like it being categorized as Netflix Original, but based on the category I have a hard time arguing against it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that it is the point, and it always has been the point that it's for production. It's your personal view that it isn't the point, but you need to gain a consensus to use that in articles. --  Alex TW 11:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we may be talking at cross purposes here and confusing each other. When I mean that’s the point of the category I mean the category has always been about original content or first airings on Netflix every since it was created over 6 years ago, not just about Netflix produced shows. The purpose of the category, based on its description, hasn’t changed since it was created. Canterbury Tail talk 11:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And when I talk about the point of the category, I mean that the category has always been connected to production. Category:Netflix original programming does indeed state "Content original or first aired on Netflix video streaming" - it is neither original to Netflix via production, not was any episode released in the first instance on Netflix. Given that it is a U.S. series, we don't give an extreme amount of important to releases outside of the U.S., else we would be listing every airing date around the world in episode tables, have whole tables for releases in every country, and detailing the lead with every release. --  Alex TW 11:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Spock
https://www.empireonline.com/people/alex-kurtzman/star-trek-discovery-ethan-peck-play-spock/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.41.95 (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He has been added to the season two article, but should not be added here unless he is a series regular. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Why Was This Category Removed?
I see where some person removed a category I had added. The message I saw was that this category did not exist, nor was it needed. Now, I ask you, what is the difference between the category "American Straight-related television shows" and the category "American LGBT-related television shows?" Why is one needed, while the other is not needed? This smacks of an agenda somewhere, not in the spirit of fair play or accuracy. Does Wikipedia strive to not be as accurate as it should and could be? Should I have created the category first before attempting to use it? HaarFager (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not needed because the majority of televisions shows are straight-related by default. DonQuixote (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The category you added does not exist and should not exist. If you were to create it, it would not survive CfD. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why it would not survive? That definitely smacks of agenda and not good reference technique.  If gays can get singled out, I think straights should be able to receive the same treatment.  Aren't they, after all, totally equal?  Or are some genders more equal than others?  HaarFager (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As has already been explained, we do not have categories that would cover the majority of things, they should identify groups of more specialised stuff. A TV show about "gays" is a noteworthy thing compared to all the shows that are not, which is why a category exists for them. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't happen to agree with your statement: "A TV show about "gays" is a noteworthy thing compared to all the shows that are not...."  So, what is the exact number of gays that have to come out of the closet before they are no longer "noteworthy?"  HaarFager (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A rough estimate is when 50% of TV shows are about gays, then it will cease to be noteworthy. DonQuixote (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing lawsuit/plagiarism
Is anyone able to format a category for the lawsuit between an inde game developer (Tardigrades) and Netflix if I type it up and source it for you? I am terrible at wiki formatting, but don't mind typing the text out out and finding the required sources (such as the legal documents, news on the legal proceedings, similarities between Season 1 and the (little known) Video Game "Tardigrades") between the series and a video game made a year prior to the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.206.72 (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can provide reliable sources for others to go through then we could let you know whether it is worth adding / show you an example of it being added properly. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not vouching for the RS:ness of these, but metro, mediaplaynews and pcgamesn. FWIW, they all have WP-articles. I noticed this when I was looking for better sources for Tardigrade, a most important topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Might as well give up. This page is being carefully "baby-sat" so that negative information stays out.2604:2D80:C408:8F0C:30D8:4EB:1AB1:2F84 (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing is stopping you from adding anything about the lawsuit (which has about zero chance of success from what I can tell: tardigrades are not made-up creatures and therefore not subject to one person's (or video game's) IP) from reliable sources, which I found just now.  It's an interesting side note. We added the lawsuit concerning Timeless on its page, I don't see why we can't do the same here. Just don't rely on anything posted on YouTube for it or the blog of the plaintiff or the supporting comments, none of which is notable or reliable. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a Heads Up
Noticed that the reception article was unfairly biased towards Discovery, mentioning only critical reviews (which were favourable). In accordance with the format of other reception sections of other articles on this website, I have added the audience ratings from the sites cited in the original text. If anyone removes this new edit, they're suppressing important information, so no removals please!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy Minh (talk • contribs) 11:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am reluctant to respond to this obvious trolling, but just to be clear if you intend to add the audience rating from Rotten Tomatoes then it will be removed. We don't include it because it is not an accurate representation of the whole audience. The closest we can get to an audience response is viewership data, which is included. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In accordance with the format of other reception sections of what other articles? --  Alex TW 11:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This wiki article is incredibly biased towards STD. Anyone reading it would believe that the show is praised and loved. It is vilified by fans. I strongly suggest that the critic fan divide is addressed, or at least negative articles highlighted. To say that this show is controversial is an understatement. If wiki editors are unaware of this divide then they have been living in a cave and should a) leave the editing to to those in the know, b) stop calling themselves Trekkies. Even my 8 year old son is aware of the controversy, and he hates Star Trek. So seriously, add the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:1833:AE00:5D23:DEB1:CA2B:4BF4 (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion is noted. Nothing's changing. Cheers to you and your kid. -- / Alex /21  15:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

While I will not deny that the critic rating is important, it is also important to denote the audience score when the difference of the two is large. Many people use wikipedia to look at the details of a movie or show prior to watching it. The article currently shows that Star Trek Discovery has an 85% critic rating. This would tell the user that the show must be really good, but it leaves out the fact that only 51% of the audience liked it. This disparity is important to note due to the fact that that audience rating is based from over seven thousand reviews. It should be mentioned that the ratings given by the actual audience of the show is significantly lower than the critic ratings. Not including the fact that the audience liked it far less than the critics would jeopardize the article's neutrality.129.130.18.192 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted, and there is no consensus to include audience ratings. That's not just here; that's across almost every article with audience ratings. You stated "Actually, many articles include both" - which articles are those? The number of critics listed compared to the number of critics available is a much higher proportion than 7,000 audience ratings out seven billion people. Has a great number of reliable secondary sources commented on this? If not, user ratings just by themselves aren't noteworthy as they are not based on controlled sampling. -- / Alex /21  02:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The only real difference is that critics get paid to write reviews and the audience does not. So far 3 people have said it needs to be added while only 2 are against it. As the article stands, it violates neutrality by leaving out the information that indicates that the series is not doing so well. In fact, the show did so poorly that Netflix, who basically funded almost the entire budget for season one, pulled all of its funding and support for the series due to its poor reception. Also, the viewership is not actually all that high. The only real viewership data I could find is not on the series itself, but rather the number of CBS All Access subscriptions. Tthe actual number dropped after the first two episodes of STD, only increasing in number afterwards due to other popular sporting events being aired on the platform. In conclusion, if the show is so well liked, why did Netflix dump it for the reason of it having a poor reception? 129.130.18.192 (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Correction: three people have wanted it here, while hundreds of editors have advocated for its lack of inclusion across Wikipedia and formed a consensus to not include it. The article does not violate neutrality - it's your opinion that it's not doing so well, as user-generated content is not a reliable source and thus cannot be included. Why we're talking about viewership data, which has nothing to do with critical reception, I've no idea. Also, for all of that Netflix stuff: . -- / Alex /21  03:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you somehow think user-generated reviews and scores are not approved sources or information and want examples of where else it is being used on Wikipedia... How about another controversial science fiction entry which has had hundreds if not thousands of editors pouring over the content in light of the controversy and seem PERFECTLY OKAY with user-generated content? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Last_Jedi#Audience_reception Oh. Look there. "Rotten Tomato user-generated scores." Well... That's awkward. You'd think with the amount of editors sitting on that page and debating over any edit and striving to achieve the best page possible would result in such "low-brow" content that you seem to deride being removed. Yet it hasn't. For months. Now color me reactionary, but I think that something that flies on such a high profile article as that probably is okay, despite your claims to the contrary. This isn't even touching upon the problems with WP:RS and Wikipedia in general and the slow sliding standards and bias that the site has had for some time now. I'm reminded of an incident with journalist Tim Pool and him being accused of going to Iran (where he's never been) to give a talk with Holocaust deniers (which he never attended) and it being in his Wikipedia article. Tim Pool himself tried to set the record straight only for him to be rebuffed - by editors like you that game the system - and have his "source" rejected because it was user-generated... Only to later have it approved. Once a "reliable source" reported on it... And used Tim Pool's own words that were earlier rejected by Wikipedia as the source. The irony. I'm sorry, but no. It appears that mass swaths of even your fellow editors don't care - and I can't blame them. Because this is willful omission and confirmation bias and using the rules as excuses. If such a heavily policed and high profile article like that of "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" keeps it on the page, I don't give a damn about WP:RS (which is terrible standards to begin with) says and what you cite. Because other editors, including even some admins, do not. This isn't even touching on other such things like the inclusion of Steam reviews and Steam "review bombing" by consumers to protest things done by developers and/or publishers. It's high time Wikipedia stop engaging in this confirmation bias nonsense and joins the rest of society in 2019 where yes, LIKE IT OR NOT USER-GENERATED CONTENT IS A SOURCE WORTH QUOTING. 64.150.137.54 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mmm, but it's still not. Luckily, Tim Pool has nothing to do with this article. TLJ's audience score was reported by multiple reliable sources and discussed upon; the section itself does not comprise simply of the audience scores, it comprises discussions about them, given its widely-reported controversial nature. "Well... That's awkward." Keep adding it, we'll keep reverting you. Try again. (And stop shouting.) -- / Alex /21  21:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "But it's still not."
 * Except people with more clout than yourself on Wikipedia overruled those like DonQuixote and yourself and allowed it. So... You're demonstrably wrong and disputing reality. I don't know what to tell you.
 * "Luckily, Tim Pool has nothing to do with this article."
 * If you took my example of the embarrassing standards of Wikipedia as of late because of terrible confirmation bias prone editors like yourself as being dependent on being on the same subject matter, then all the more to prove my point for me. The fact that you even THINK this was a viable argument is... disturbing.
 * "TLJ's audience score was reported by multiple reliable sources and discussed upon"
 * Can we use you as an example on the cognitive dissonance page where we show you coming to terms that user-generated reviews are not viable sources, but they are viable sources once reported upon? This is fascinating to watch, frankly. It's like Schrodinger's Source. Also, nice job agreeing with exactly what I said ("like it or not user-generated content is a source worth quoting") in the end without even realizing it.
 * "it comprises discussions about them, given its widely-reported controversial nature"
 * Well then! Lucky for you that Star Trek: Discovery hasn't been widely discussed and isn't widely-reported and contro- Oh... Oh dear. I think that there might be a flaw in that argument somewhere.
 * "Keep adding it, we'll keep reverting you."
 * Yeah, that doesn't sound like mafia-esque threats with community gate-keeping behavior and being a petulant child throwing a fit until you get your way AT ALL. Nosireebob.
 * "Try again." (And stop shouting.)
 * Considering you do half my effort for me by torpedoing your own arguments, I don't really feel like i have to try very hard to refute you. (And no.) 64.150.137.54 (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Only to later have it approved. Once a "reliable source" reported on it.
 * That's the bottom line, actually. It'll be approved once reliable sources report on it. DonQuixote (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The "reliable source" was the exact same source that was rebutted. That's nonsense. You can't say Tim Pool isn't a source about himself and then say News Place X is a reliable source because it quotes Tim Pool (on the same exact issue you disregarded). That's not standards. That's confirmation bias bordering on mental insanity. 64.150.137.54 (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then that discrepancy needs to be discussed at the talk page where that occurred. On this talk page we use reliable sources correctly. DonQuixote (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Then that discrepancy needs to be discussed at the talk page where that occurred." And looking at the talk page of The Last Jedi, YOU TRIED DOING JUST THAT and roundly got BTFO'd by multiple editors that showcased why you were wrong and were overruled. Sour grapes, much? Perhaps tone down your "muh user-generated scores is bad" personal crusade and stop engaging in confirmation bias. Editors like yourself are why Wikipedia has slowly, but surely, become a cesspool. 64.150.137.54 (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to change Wikipedia's policy on user generated content, then you can start at the village pump. However, be advised that you probably won't get far because giving undue weight to user generated content is poor scholarship and giving any significance to the user scores is just poor science. DonQuixote (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am calling you out on that. 'Hundreds' of editors have not done that. according to wikipedia's own definition of a neutral article, this article does not qualify and in fact presents an incorrect illusion that the show is well liked by the fans. https://www.wired.com/2017/12/geeks-guide-star-trek-discovery/ has an article on why the fans of Star Trek have been giving it a lot of hate. https://www.nscreenmedia.com/cbs-all-access-star-trek-discovery-growth-slows/ indicates that Star Trek Discovery is the least watched Star Trek series to date (a fact that actually could be put in one of the other existing sections). https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/13/star-trek-discovery-season-one-editorial/ talks about how STD failed. https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2017/09/25/cbs-badly-misplayed-their-hand-by-making-star-trek-discovery-a-paid-streaming-exclusive/#285db1111318 also talks about CBS' poor decisions on STD. These articles show that STD is not doing as well as thought, though I admit those could 'stand on their own' in another section not about the critical responses due to their relevency, but they do prove my point. 129.130.18.192 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can "call me out" all you want. Your personal opinion is noted, but it does not change consensus formed Wikipedia-wide. Cite all the sources that you want, but as I said, user ratings just by themselves aren't noteworthy as they are not based on controlled sampling. They do not prove your point, in the faintest, on why audience ratings should be included. Still curious as to what other articles include audience ratings. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  04:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * CBS All Access much like Netflix data is kept secret by the companies themselves. No one has a clue how well or badly a show is doing on there, so stop talking nonsense by claiming the show is doing badly because we have no idea if it is or not. Also Netflix haven't "dumped" Star Trek Discovery because their license fee money basically funds the show. We would have had a cancelation announcement by now if that were the case. Esuka (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can not get the viewership data directly, but you can track their CBS All Access subscription count, which outside of surges from major sporting events being added, is mostly slow to gain any subscribers and is even losing some. 129.130.18.192 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you're admitting that the only source there is WP:OR. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  04:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, that's nonsense. CBS doesn't release viewership data for CBS All Access. Also please be aware that Netflix remains a partner with CBS on the show, they wouldn't have even gone ahead with the production of Season 2 without the Netflix cash. I'm not sure where you're getting all of this fantastical speculation from that Netflix are somehow unhappy with the show, because it simply isn't true. But back ontopic, there's simply no consensus for the audience numbers to be included in the reception area. Please respect that or seek a consensus for the changes. Esuka (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not what I said. The data already exist, so it is not original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.18.192 (talk • contribs)
 * It doesn't exist to support what you're saying. The reported CBS All Access subscriber numbers have been steadily increasing since it launched and stands at a reported 2.5 million, projected to reach 4 million by the end of this year. CBS have released these numbers by press release or at the TCAs. If you wouldn't mind though, please remain ontopic. If you can't get a consensus for your changes don't edit war. Esuka (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Assigning any meaning to raw data is the very definition of original research. In fact, what you're doing is a big no-no in research--correlation does not mean causation. DonQuixote (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ownership behavior.
I would ask all contributors refrain from WP:OWNERSHIP behavior. I would also ask that all contributors refrain from excising changes by ONE user, especially if said user removes excessive prose, quotes, or remove and repairs citations, per WP:HARASS. I would also ask that all contributors refrain from attempting to justify returning any edited prose to "standard" by claiming such changes are somehow superior. Happy editing! Wanderer0 (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Valiant. But waste of time. The fellas who edit this article refuse to allow any thinning or fixing. Even if you call them out. User:Rdzogschen does good work, but there are also a few fellas who revert most of his edits on Star Wars articles, too. 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:55 (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTNEWS seems to have been lost on these fellas, as you call them. Also, WP:NOTCHANGELOG Wanderer0 (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You’re right. This article reads like a change log. On This-Date, so-and-so did stuff and said "(long quotes)". So-and-so explained "(text block quote)". And then on This-Date, the other so-and-so explained that "(long quote)". Streamlining or even removing some of this dribble is impossible because of the fellas who own this article. So their voice, their prose style, must remain. Must! Speaking other necessary changes: the citation style used on this article, with its endless naming scheme and the endless archive links, is a black hole. This very thing was removed from Star Trek a few days ago by Rdz and a few others. They’ve shaved 16kb of unnecessary from that article, and it’s looking much better. Thank the prophets! Let’s see if that sort of WP:BOLD happens here and isn’t reverted. 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:55 (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Repairing and converting the citations is one of the many necessaries on this article. But, I agree, it would be nearly impossible to do so given how quickly edits are reverted, removed, or replaced. Rdzogschen (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was a bold split and clean-up. And it wasn't reverted. Even if myself and others disagreed *with how quickly it occurred. I doubt that rapidity of change will occur with this article. Wanderer0 (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Reversion is a dish best served cold. Rdzogschen (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * _Reversion_ triumphs over death. Wanderer0 (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * A man that studieth reversion keeps his own wounds green. Rdzogschen (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're getting at--my reversion was heavy-handed. Studying the history of this article proves, to me at least, that the most frequent contributors have a consistent behavior regarding the "revert, remove, or replace", as you said above. Wanderer0 (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Anything, short of edit warring, is acceptable IMV. The open nature of this platform means no one person has ultimate control over the content. Rdzogschen (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you would like to get to the topic at hand, you're more than welcome to. General conversation that does not concern the reversion itself should be taken to user talk pages. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  10:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , can you state which of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR you believe is being violated? The revert in question gave you no less than six reasons for the revert. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  10:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , the editor made massive changes and none of their edit summary explanations justified them. I gave very clear reasons for why I was reverting them, and ignoring my reasons to support their lax ones is tantamount to "claim[ing], whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article" which is OWNERSHIP from you. You don't get to overrule common sense just because you don't like that I reverted someone. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This matriculation speaks to the complaint Wander filed above, if I am not mistaken. The overwhelming disapproval of any contribution which does not meet your standard, whichever if may be, is exceptionally unwelcoming. And intensely offensive. If your intention is to prevent me from contributing further, you've succeeded. I shall leave this article, and you, be. Best of luck. Rdzogschen (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you are trying to apply "matriculation" to this context, but the rest of your comment indicates to me that you have completely ignored everything I have been saying. If you don't want to have a constructive discussion then good riddance. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Question : are you attacking Alex for contributing, or are you attacking him for misunderstanding you? Unfortunately, it reads like both. More so the former. If you own this article fine. Happy editing. Wanderer0 (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Adam was replying to Rdzogschen. As for you, it is interesting that you have not answered my question. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  23:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As Alex says, I was replying to Rdzogschen, and I wasn't attacking anyone since I am clearly the one being attacked here. Reverting bad edits is not a crime. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Audience data
I just reverted a edit about Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic audience data before seeing that the discussion was already developed above. Still, I honestly miss the point. Wikipedia is based on source reliability, and here the sources are the very same than for critic receiving. Can anybody please explain me - by pointing to specific rules - why one set of data is reliable and the other one would not? Thanks.Ferdinando Scala (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's user generated content, which is neither reliable or notable. If you follow the wikilink, it even specifically says Although review aggregator sites such as Rotten Tomatoes are used across the site, audience ratings based on the reviews of site members from the public are not.
 * As to why user generated content is unreliable, it lacks any oversight (such as fact-checking or, more appropriately in this situation, any method of reducing statistical errors). Given that it lacks such oversight, assigning any significance to the user scores (outside of the user base) lacks any meaning, hence why it's not notable. DonQuixote (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Per what DonQuixote said. Though purely as an observation it doesn't matter a huge deal if critics/audience love or hate something on these aggregation sites. There are countless examples of shows that are critically acclaimed but with really low Nielsen ratings, it's all subjective. Esuka (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Considering the feedback from Trek/sci-fi fans (et al) has been significant and pronounced, it does seem insufficient that no negative feedback is mentioned in this article, given that comparable pages relating to other TV series mention negative reactions, even if that negative reaction has been relatively minor. Reading this article, one would be given the false impression that this series has met with a response akin to almost universal acclaim, which it certainly has not. Some mention of the negative feedback should be included to provide a more accurate record. The suggestion that viewer response is neither reliable nor notable is a disingenuous and erroneous argument given that not only is it inconsistent with other wiki articles for television shows, movies, games, etc, but other articles make note of disparities when critical reviews run at sharp variance with audience responses. Also, the statement in reference to user reviews: "Given that it lacks such oversight, assigning any significance to the user scores (outside of the user base) lacks any meaning, hence why it's not notable.", whilst having some merit, is also an inaccurate yardstick, particularly where articles mention negative feedback even when that response is not precisely quantified, yet remains significant. I'm not at all suggesting that authors of this page are 'cherry picking' or practising deception by omission by not including negative feedback, but as it currently exists, this page is an outlier in the lack of reference to any negative feedback given the controversial nature of the response that has surrounded this show. (14.2.82.20 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC))
 * Tertiary sources, such as encyclopaedias, work by citing and summarising reliable sources. If you can cite a reliable source talking about any negative feedback, then please add that to the article. DonQuixote (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia is the last place to be hearing that kind of argument -- it is practically the very definition of the Wikipedia, itself! Therefore, this argument must be rejected on principle alone. The Wisdom of Crowds. The audience scores need to go back.
 * In fact, it's the critics' reviews that are subject to this criticism, and it may be time to consider whether they should be removed (especially given how far out of kilter they are with the general audience reviews). This matter was discussed here as well https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-solid-proof-that-Disney-has-paid-off-critics-to-give-positive-reviews-for-Star-Wars-The-Last-Jedi . They lacks the independent oversight that is afforded by The Wisdom of Crowds making them vulnerable to insider Groupthink and other forms of manipulation, direct or indirect, that smaller groups are more vulnerable to than large groups. The matter of reliability of critics reviews was discussed in further depth here in Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2018/03/16/star-wars-last-jedi-science-movie-reviews/#45fbaae474e6 To quote the study cited therein: "the average agreement between critics and moviegoers is nearly zero". Continuing on, the discussion reiterates the point: "Wallisch's research reflects a broader question in society: who should make decisions: a judge or jury? Critics are effectively judges, perceived as experts with the authority and credibility to assess whether a movie is 'good'. But the collective opinion of a group instead of a single individual -- the wisdom of the crowd -- can also produce reliable judgements."
 * The question of whether / how critics are, themselves, in a conflict of interest situation (and which types of critics, where so) is discussed in some depth here; and here particularly with respect to the relation between Disney and Rotten Tomatoes: https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-solid-proof-that-Disney-has-paid-off-critics-to-give-positive-reviews-for-Star-Wars-The-Last-Jedi
 * The audience reviews at Rotten Tomatoes is such a source which, in light of the points made above, must be granted equal or greater reliability that the critics' reviews. If the former is removed, then the latter must be removed, as well, on the same grounds. Either the former should be restored, or the latter should be removed.
 * As the research cited in the Forbes article above pointed out: critics reviews show no correlation with those of moviegoers; whose decisions are always the final verdict. Remember what the spirit of the Wikipedia is: the collective opinion of the masses outweighs the idiosyncrasies of a smaller set of elites. Were it not for that, this very encyclopedia would not even exist in its present form. unsigned
 * If you want to change Wikipedia's policy on user generated content, then you can start at the village pump. However, be advised that you probably won't get far because giving undue weight to user generated content is poor scholarship. DonQuixote (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

..."based on Star Trek"?
A quick scan of every other ST series doesn't call it anything but a science fiction series. Stating that is "based" on ST suggests it isn't really Trek.

It is, and folks best start getting on board with that. As I'm editing via mobile, I can't edit that bit to more accurately reflect it as a Trek series. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is based on the credits for this series. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You can call "STD" canon all you want however, I will decide for myself "What is" and "What is NOT" Canon. Alex Kurtzman, CBS, and Hollywood are not going to tell me what is canon. I can decide that for myself and I can tell you right now "Discovery" IS NOT Canon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.160.19 (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Luckily for us, you are not a reliable source per WP:RS. Please keep your opinions to yourself - this is not a forum per WP:NOTFORUM. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  01:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * A quick scan of every other ST series, from the Animated Series to Enterprise, all state "Based on ST by Gene Roddenberry" in the infobox, ? So I'm not really seeing your problem. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been away without a laptop for over a year (yeah, ouch). Anyhoo, the point was that it felt like a not-too-subtle dig at Discovery, saying it was "based upon Star Trek", like it wasn't just as Trek as Enterprise, DS9 or Voyager. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see what you mean by that, but it is based on the credits and is actually pretty standard for sequels or spin-offs to be "based on" the original work or characters. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Rewording lede
Hi all. Just wanted to raise some concerns about the style of the lede, stemming from two of my recent edits to it which have been reverted by Adamstom.97 (here and here). There's a lot of good stuff in the lede at present, so I don't mean to attack those who have contributed thus far, but I can't help feeling that the lede isn't as concise and clear as the lede paragraphs for Star Trek: The Animated Series, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, and Star Trek: Enterprise. I think that my underlying concern is that the lede assumes a little too much foreknowledge on the part of the reader; i.e. it expects the reader to be a Star Trek fan. At Wikipedia, we mustn't do that. There's a few points in particular where I think we can improve:
 * "Beginning roughly a decade before the events of the original Star Trek series" - well, when exactly is that? I think that it's really important to clarify for the reader that this series is set in the 23rd century. Otherwise, the reader might assume that it's set in the contemporary period, as many other sci-fi shows are, or 'a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away' or something. Best to be precise.
 * The reader has to wait until the third paragraph to learn when this show actually began airing. That's far too late; information about the date of the show should be right there in the opening few sentences.
 * Star Trek is mentioned, but it is not explicitly identified as a franchise. Again, this is assuming too much knowledge on the part of the reader.
 * In all the lede, the editor isn't actually told that this is the seventh series in the Star Trek franchise. That seems like a basic point that is being missed. It would be easy enough to deal with both this point and the above by stating something like "The seventh series in the Star Trek franchise,[…]" in that opening paragraph.
 * "follows the crew of the USS Discovery on various adventures." The "various adventures" wording doesn't really come across as being very encyclopaedic; we could probably come up with something better.

Are there any serious objections to changes being made on these fronts? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that starting it out with, "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" would be a non-starter? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Humor aside, I think you make some valid points, and I've reinstated some of them, if for no other reason that I like them and doing so will have the added benefit of bringing Adamstom to the discussion page, to argue his point of view. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think mentioning the 23rd century setting is a good suggestion, but I do not really agree with the other suggestions. We can't pretend that the reader doesn't know anything at all, otherwise we would have to explain everything: what is a showrunner? What is an anthology series?! What is a CBS?!!! We have to assume some basic knowledge here, and having a general understanding of what the term Star Trek refers to is indeed basic knowledge. If, for some reason, a reader was to come here and have no idea at all about what it means then a couple added words here aren't going to do any good anyway. And besides, there is a link in the opening paragraph that will give them more information. I think that adding more references to the "Star Trek franchise" than there are of the series that this article is about in the opening paragraph is just ridiculous. Likewise, the fact that this is the seventh Star Trek isn't really important information—at this point, Star Trek series are coming at us from all directions. Perhaps it made sense when there were only a few and it was clear which order they came out in, but I do not think it makes sense now. As for the "various adventures" wording, you are free to suggest any better alternative, but I think it is a fine way to get across the idea of different stories each season in few words. Finally, I am very strongly opposed to stating when the series was originally released as early as you have suggested. While I agree that this is information a reader would want to know and including it in the lead is important, the fact is that the original release dates for a series means very little in the full scope of the series. This show exists on the internet and can be watched by anyone at any time, it is not bound to any dates and they provide no other information outside of some small context for when the series was created and when the seasons were made in relation to one another. This is similar to a film: we note when it first came out to provide that bit of context, but I would strongly argue against any more prominent release dates as giving them significantly WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've reverted it back. The only back and forth happening here is you editing to a preferred version. So stop doing that and focusing on building a consensus that will keep the article stable. Your post above is a really good step in the right direction; keep following your feet and avoid the growing perception of edit-warring. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think most of those changes are good and obvious improvements to the article. There's a little ownership and Reductio ad absurdum evident in the opposition. None of the proposed changes are "ridiculous". <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding another voice to this... I think it's important to have the year of first release included early as that is something people would likely want to know.. especially as more of these series come out. The other note I have is that the Christopher Pike spin-off concept isn't anything the showrunners have talked about.. Fans wanted it and the actor commented but all the producers said is "anything is possible" which doesn't really count as confirmation that anyone is considering it so it shouldn't be treated as a real thing that is happening. Also suggest changing "first series developed for the service" with "first drama series" or "first scripted series" as Big Brother: Over the Top was actually the first series on CBS All Access. Spanneraol (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent points all, @Spanneraol. I have no horse in this race, but those seem like excellent suggestions. I hope more people weigh in on this, as it will make the resulting article that much closer to GA nomination. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comment here, but I am pretty much going to drop out of this discussion for now due to my treatment at the hands of certain other editors involved here. Good luck everyone. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Lorca
How come no mention in "Capt. Lorca"s paragraph under "Jason Isaacs" that Lorca is from the Mirror Universe?

Or that he was killed there and there is now no Lorca in either universe?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a spoiler that Lorca is from the mirror universe. Having spoilers is part of the article but it should not be in the cast list. Also, it is possible that Prime Universe Lorca is alive, the show and tie-in content don't say what happened to the original. I assume he is dead but it is not a fact. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not filter spoilers anywhere per WP:SPOILER. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  20:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Episode ratings etc.
I notice that List of Star Trek: Discovery episodes has no ratings from various groups (e.g., Rotten Tomatoes, etc.) for Star Trek: Discovery whereas such information is on-wiki for Star Trek: Picard. Also, the sysnopsi are extremely light.

Why the difference? Is there some prior discussion where editors agreed to keep all the episode info extremely high-level and undetailed? N2e (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Discovery and Picard have been approached the same way here. Critical information such as Rotten Tomatoes is in the Critical response section for each series and season, and the episode synopses for both series are all under the 200 word limit per MOS:TVPLOT. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks adamstom97. I see now that I was looking on that "List of ... Discovery episodes" page and not on the per-season articles, which have the fuller synopsi.  I guess the reason I was seeing it differently is I was only seeing the main Picard page which has the synopsi, whereas the Discovery one has been split into multiple articles.  Working for me now.  N2e (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Could“ Discovery spaceship”（USS-1031）been created as an independent entry ？（Just like Enterprise）
I found that if you search “Discovery（USS-1031）”，it will be redirected to “Star Trek: Discovery ” Should we create a independent entry to describe the details of this starship？Feynman02 (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2020
 * I would think so.. most of the other key ships have articles. Spanneraol (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I kinda think that it's like making a page "Cheers (fictional bar)", it's not really like the Enterprise. However, within the context that Star Trek fans have already established pages for Deep Space Nine and USS Voyager, the precedent certainly seems like there would be a Discovery page too.  To me, right now, it seems a bit premature, there doesn't seem to be much to say about Discovery itself, but I'm sure that the fans already have the blueprints and know all the specs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.201.237 (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

What "universe" is ST:D in?
I have trouble with ST:D being in the ST:TOS universe.

The Discovery is more technologically advanced than the TOS Enterprise. How can that be if Discovery is ten years before?

Also, the last episode of the first season and the very first episode of the second season show a different shaped Enterprise; one more like the ship in the 2009 reboot movie --- slanted nacelle struts ! ! !

Plus, there are Federation starship HUDs and holograms as regular equipment. Neither existed in TOS.

And on the transporter console, where are the three control 'sticks'? What's shown is a touchscreen version not scene until ST:TNG --- which, timeline-wise is around 80-100 years after TOS.

There are too many things that don't add up to have ST:D in the same universe as ST:TOS (especially the "Dark Drive" and spinning[?] hull).

Or am I missing something?

And as for something being "canon" --
 * It's canon if the Creators, Producers, Executives, and (in this case) the Network says it's canon.
 * I disagree with that because things have come into ST:TOU {Star Trek: The Original Universe} from non-canon sources and become canon; like Sulu's and Uhura's first names. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ladies and gents, this is the sort of question best left for Quora.com and fansquishy sites. As Wikipedia editors, ouR position is any such speculative matters is as follows:

We now return this page to your regularly-scheduled editing and editing discussions. Carry on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree - - - there is a need to  because the very first paragraph states that "Discovery begins roughly a decade before the events of the original Star Trek series" (my bold emphasis). By stating that 'historical' fact, it automatically puts ST:D in the exact same universe as ST:TOS.

But because both the ST:D Discovery and Enterprise are portrayed as being technologically more advanced when compared to just about any starship technology in ST:TOS --- especially the Enterprise herself, then ST:D cannot be in the exact same universe as ST:TOS which makes that part of the intro paragraph wrong.

As for my observations/comments being speculative - - - how can something that can be visually compared and the differences so factually obvious be speculation?

I thought Wikipedia strived to be accurate; but, by ignoring or not caring about accuracy, I guess I was wrong. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia strives to cite and summarise secondary sources with due weight. So, unless any of this is noticed and/or discussed by a reliable source, we don't care. DonQuixote (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't the best forum but the answer to the questions is that Discovery is canon and is in the TOS universe. The ship is described as brand new in the beginning of s01e03 so naturally it is more advanced than the Enterprise. Some of the problems are dealt with in the season, some are not. I guess some of the advances are there because it looks better even if a bit off canon. DGtal (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Minor characters
I noticed minor characters are missing and tried adding Jett Reno, but maybe I was wrong in adding a website as a reference. The bot then canceled my entry. Can I add it again? Do you think it is correct to insert the minor characters, I saw that Adira Tall has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen kleckner (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The character list in this article is for series regulars (those credited as starring in the opening credits) not guest stars like Reno. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Source mistake
Hi. The source you've quoted for Nhan is wrong. She was not "Enterprise" security chief. She was Engineer Division officer, and Pike took her to "Discovery" because he needed an engineer specialist. When "Discovery" searched for a new security chief she decided to take the job, presumably because her past in security. So, the current description is not correct. I couldn't find a proper secondary source, otherwise I would fix this by myself, only primery source in the second season of the series. IKhitron (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have given it a c/e to align with this without contradicting our source. Does that work better? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A bit better, but now there is no mention of beeing her security chief of "Discovery" at all. IKhitron (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the source we have supports that, but feel free to add a better one. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is much easier, Adamstom97. How about this one? IKhitron (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. IKhitron (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Award nomination
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 32nd GLAAD Media Awards
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

CBS Censorship
Rumour goes that CBS is paying Wikipedia people to suppress negative commentary on talk pages about Star Trek issues. Therefor the bias that Crazy Minh is talking about. Stark financial interests determine what and how topics are discussed: Wikipedia as an independent source of information is severely compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:A2B5:5E00:1C2:3AAB:266B:F4F5 (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's also a rumour that the earth is flat. DonQuixote (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen evidence of censorship. DGtal (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am betting Elvis and Jim Morrison are behind this.
 * Or a time traveler. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Now you're just being ridiculous. Everyone know Elvis wasn't real! <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)e
 * I don't think that there is CBS censorship at work. It's just pissed off Star Trek fandom that intervenes, when there are comments written that they feel inapproriate. If this is o.k. i don't know. You can ask yourself: Is this a talk page or not? E.g. to delete comment that says that this show or that is silly like "Star Trek: Insipid" with an ugly ship etc. could be seen as censoring. That is the bias Crazy Minh is talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.140.138 (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Except, this talk page is to discuss how to improve the article and not to air your grievances against a show that we have no control over. Also, anything in the main article requires the citation of a reliable source so as to bypass personal biases. DonQuixote (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * He is coompletely right. Everybody who says sth denigrating about these new shows is a bad personm with a weak character and should be punished. I hope this commentary helped to improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.223.148.73 (talk • contribs)
 * You would need to cite a reliable source saying anything like that, otherwise your commentary isn't very helpful. DonQuixote (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Still sounds like a PR piece written by their interns. They got what they wanted already out of it already so their drones will stop editing the article. Go ahead and remove all the PR BS. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.251.195.241 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.192.112.49 (talk)
 * How is it like a PR piece? What, specifically, do you have an issue with? Whether or not it sounds like a PR piece to you really is inconsequential. The content is sourced and you need to provide justification for your claim and a a specific solution. If you refuse to answer these questions and don't provide a solution, nothing can be done to address your issues. Of course, I don't expect anything productive as you posted the same thing back in 2017, and never provided any clarification or suggested a solution. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

My edit that added more mixed reviews was removed despite direct source material from reviewers that have literally one million plus subscribers. PoliticalEconomist (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason we use the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for that is that they synthesis the critical consensus.. You wanted to add a specific negative review from a Red Letter Media... which is run by two guys who tend to have a rather biased perspective... they aren't established critics they just have a you tube channel... that created a undue weight issue and a reliable sources issue. Spanneraol (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As a variety of different outlets have documented, those sources do not provide an accurate picture of the critical consensus for a given show or movie. Here's an article from Columbia Journalism Review for you to check out if you'd like: https://www.cjr.org/special_report/rotten-tomatoes-movie-review.php. Another question, who exactly do you think most of the reviewers in the RT and Metacritic averages are exactly? They are, very literally, "some guy" or "some girl." Anyone who can start a movie review youtube channel can start a movie review website. Read down the list of reviewers included in the RT average, and don't pretend you recognize the sites after the first or second page. And RLM aren't established critics? They have almost 650 million combined views on youtube, and over one million subscribers. What exactly do you mean by established? PoliticalEconomist (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It would help if you cite sources that have reputations. Being self published on YouTube doesn't cut it, unfortunately. DonQuixote (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the guidelines is very narrow. The RLM creators are literally filmmakers with IMDB pages. Who, exactly, is a qualified source to review films if not them? Must one have a degree in film criticism from Columbia to be cited on Wikipedia? Clearly not, given that most of the reviewers included in the RT and metacritic averages have no significant qualification for the job aside from experience in the field. Just google their names. Also, most of those reviewers ARE self-published cites. Pages with a significant following like NYT, Vox, etc. make up a minority of the sources in those averages. This seems to be a kind of bias against video reviews compared to print. In terms of cost of production video is likely more costly in almost every instance. And you've made no argument that video reviews are, per se, inferior in quality to print reviews. The guidelines are very explicit about NOT removing significant minority views, I am once again reinstating my edit.PoliticalEconomist (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are wrong... RT weights established critics over non notable ones.. the Hollywood Reporter, Variety, NY Times, etc... all reviewers with reputations and history. Also, you need to pay attention to policy.. if you have been reverted you are supposed to discuss and establish consensus.. continuing to reinsert your content after it has been challenged is a violation of policy and could lead to you being blocked. Spanneraol (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you are incorrect. Read Rotten Tomatoes own website (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/about#:~:text=The%20Tomatometer%20score%20represents%20the,given%20film%20or%20television%20show.&text=When%20at%20least%2060%25%20of,to%20indicate%20its%20Fresh%20status.), it clearly states: "The Tomatometer score – based on the opinions of hundreds of film and television critics – is a trusted measurement of critical recommendation for millions of fans." What you're describing is their "Top Critics" score, which is completely different. Read RT's application page for becoming a critic (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics/), it clearly states that self-published video content reviewers ARE ALLOWED and should be: "Video: Consistent output for a minimum of two years. A minimum of 200K subscribers on a video publishing platform qualifies for broad audience reach. Video channels reaching underrepresented groups will also be considered on a case-by-case basis. The show should feature multiple critics. Demonstrated social media presence and engagement (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, and/or Instagram)." RLM exceeds all of these qualifications by far. "Consensus" is not clearly defined on Wiki's guideline page, there is no system by which we vote or reach majority consensus. Using this policy to exclude minority held viewpoints is wrong, and I'm sure if an editor reviews this discussion he will see this. PoliticalEconomist (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The RT score takes all critics into account and doesnt elevate one over others which is what you are doing. You are also directly violating policy by continuing to restore disputed content without consensus. please see BRD. Spanneraol (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the guidelines is very narrow.
 * ...or, and bear with me on this one, your interpretation is too wide. If the only critics that you can find fall under self-published sources, then your interpretation probably doesn't hold much weight.
 * Who, exactly, is a qualified source to review films if not them?
 * If you have to ask that rather than citing an independent secondary source showing that they're notable critics, then they're probably not notable and unsuitable for a tertiary source like wikipedia.
 * The guidelines are very explicit about NOT removing significant minority views
 * From WP:DUE: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all....
 * And it's not a question of "video reviews" vs "print reviews"...it's the fact that the authors of the review in question haven't built up a reputation outside of a YouTube fanbase. That is, if you can provided either a video review or a print review (or even an audio review) from a reputable source, then it would be acceptable. DonQuixote (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a silly conversation to re-start. We obviously will not be entertaining the view point of random youtubers whose whole schtick is to give negative reviews for things. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The supposed "rumor" that CBS is paying editors on Wikipedia to fake Discovery's reviews is patently absurd. The Reptilians pay much better, so they call the shots.

Yeah, it seems there's a dispute here.

Step one: WP:BRD. If you make a bold change to an article and someone reverts you, discuss the issue. Do not restore your preferred version (absent WP:BLP or copyright issues). That doesn't resolve anything.

No one here seems to agree on where the source is reliable for the material. If only we had a noticeboard where people could take questions about a source's reliability to work toward a consensus... Maybe we'll add that to Wikipedia 2.0. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a **Serious** problem with the "critical reception" sections. People mention Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, but the audience score is being completely ignored on those websites. Also criticism from several other sources, which is here being completely ignored. The way the many wikipedia editors these days are using the "reliable sources" argument arbitrarily to exclude what they don't like is why wikipedia had a clear drop in quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.183.252 (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, note the current version of The Orville here and compare with the present version of this article here...103.77.137.211 (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to cite TV Guide, or any other equally reliable source, whenever they discuss the audience score for Discovery. Also, review WP:RS and WP:NPOV. DonQuixote (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are user reviews being ignored on this article? Metacritic shows 3.7/10 for this show. You would think an unbiased encyclopedia would show that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmoledMan (talk • contribs) 07:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not use user reviews from sites like that, per WP:USERGENERATED. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * User reviews have no way of verifying their authenticity. Literally anyone can make as many accounts as they want on a site with user generated content and give the same opinion many times over or give varying opinions. The very nature of it makes it an unreliable metric. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

DVDs
Am curious as to why no mention of the DVD sets or release dates when many other series' entries have such sections/charts. 2600:8800:22C:F700:A0B2:361F:5973:10D4 (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the home media table in the release section. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Continuity Issue.
At the risk of starting a war I want to point out that the Character of Adira Tal is NOT the first Human to bond with a Trill Symbiant. That title temporarily went to Commander Riker in Star Trek The Next Generations Episode "The Host" where the Trill race were introduced in the first place in 1991. Furthermore, Adira Tal is also not the first Gender Binary character as in TNG Episode "The Outcast" there was an entire planet of people who were "Gender Binary" in 1992.

I had earlier attempted to correct this error slightly to a more correct statement, and was told and i quote: "this is sourced information, and even with a source for those examples they don't really seem to count".

It's this same line of thinking that has people like Disney for example take credit for the first CGI animated feature in an effort to Cancel ReBoot on the ABC Network.

Wikipedia I had thought was more interested in Truth than Opinion especially where credit was due. Just because we don't like those old episodes doesn't mean they don't count or didn't come first. You can't just pretend they didn't happen!

What do we do when a source however official is wrong/mistaken?

It's more appropriate to say that Adira Tal is the first Human (However ludicrous) to "Permanently" bond with a Symbiant and is the first Gender Binary "Main" character or actor.

It's the truth especially if Kurtzman claims his show is canonical with the original history and not JJ Abrams Kelvin Timeline.

Maxcardun (talk) 2:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is interested in what is verifiable, not what you think is true, so that's why I said this was sourced information. As for if we should make the changes, if Riker was only temporarily bonded then that means Adira is still the first human to actually bond, and the fact that they are the first main/proper character to be non-binary doesn't need to be explained. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No, Riker is the first to be bonded even if it was temporary. You could argue that Adira is the first series regular human to be bonded but not the first human.

That's the key word isn't it, "Bonded"? Just be glad that I'm not trying to explain how that used to not be impossible or how contemporary directors and producers are breaking the rules to tell whatever the heck they want. I have said what I said, nothing is going to make me think that it's not true, I don't expect anyone to change it just because I've said it. Especially when seasoned editors who seem to be keeping an eye on me for some reason try to push me around about it. That's all I'm going to say.

Maxcardun (talk) 4:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The key word is actually real world emphasis. "Bonded" is in-universe jargon and isn't as important as what reliable sources are talking about. If you want to read/write in in-universe style, there's the Star Trek wikis or even your own fansite. DonQuixote (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The cited source does not state that Adira is the first human to bond with a Trill symbiont. AJD (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

In a similar vein, Gray is not the first trans character in Star Trek. Dax had previously lived as both men and women prior to its two female incarnations in DS9. I'm assuming we'll disregard Quark's brief sex change, various other Trill, any number of shapeshifters, possessions, body swaps, hive minds, Q, computers, wild-west-holodeck-gone-wrong versions, weird mask probe versions, women pretending to be various male devil figures, androids created gender-neutral and then choosing a gender, transporters, transponders, transceivers, transtators, translocators, transwarp conduits, Trans Francisco and transparent aluminum Dybeck (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Out of all of those, Dax is the strongest example of a transgender main character. In fact Sisko would always refer to them as "old man", due to their interactions in a previous host. One of those examples of a concept existing before obtaining its modern definition, but I question the reliability of the source claiming firsts. -- sarysa (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Rottentomatoes Average audience score
It should be noted, that wiki is giving tomatometer scores, which are rarely low for any show, but unlike with other shows, Star Trek: Discovery has 2x lower "average audience score", which looks like AN ANOMALY. That anomaly should be noted. Apparently, most of the actual people who were watching(or stopped watching, because why bother) ST:D actually does not share the same opinions as reviews are sharing. I came here to see how the 4th season was doing, but oh well... PS I stopped watching this show, because the main genre of ST:D is not sci-fi anymore, but belongs to the same genre, that Bible belongs to(it also is a fiction but nothing to do with a science). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.27.15 (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to cite a reliable source that talks about any of this. DonQuixote (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The lower scores is because of review bombing.. and we never list RT audience scores. Spanneraol (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The genre is called fantasy. @Spanneraol: What is strange, RT cited as a reliable source while also an unreliable one. Just looking at this talk page shows there is something fishy about the whole situation, also, RT has anti review bombing measures, so it's very unlikely, that the audience score was bombed and the critic was not. Unless, of course, you can cite a reliable source that there was a review bombing on RT. See how loopy these ways of thinking sound? A source can be reliable and unreliable at the same time, the reviews are bombed and not bombed, but only one of them needs a citation... 80.99.156.192 (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, The Times is considered a reliable source but the Letters to the Editor published in The Times is not. It's not that hard to understand. DonQuixote (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it very unfortunate that there is this determination to shut down negative response to this series. Someone else had cited the low ratings of viewers on RT contrasted against reviewer scores. While supporters of the show want to ignore that number and call it review bombing reading through those reviews it's easy to see that's not the case. Balance is the key to Wikipedia and not providing a balanced view diminishes any positive benefit Wikipedia has as a reference source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you're not bringing anything new to the table. WP:USERG specifically says not to use user reviews. Again, to be completely blunt, if you can't cite a single reliable secondary source with a reputation for fact checking and/or peer review, then it's probably because you're a fringe minory viewpoint that shouldn't be given more voice then present (see WP:DUE -- specifically articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint -- and WP:false balance -- specifically Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity).
 * On a side note, I think it's time for a FAQ at the top. DonQuixote (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed FAQ
Q1: Why isn't there any negative criticism or mention of the fan backlash?

A1: Wikipedia policy requires that all material be verifiable to reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally, sources must be reliable for the topic at hand and their viewpoints must be given appropriate weight in proportion to their prominence among all others. The article reflects the viewpoints represented in reliable sources.

Q2: Why aren't user reviews or audience ratings used?

A2: Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. User reviews are user-generated content. And although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes) may be reliable, their audience ratings based on the reviews of their users are not.

DonQuixote (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I get the intent but how would it be implemented? In the top collapsible template?--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * See template:FAQ. DonQuixote (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I support this move, we've been getting the same questions here for years. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I support it too. I imagine that a lot of regressive/anti-progressive people push such content through in the name of fairness, when they just want to give their cruelty a platform. Hopefully this repels it--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's very funny actually. You are pushing your own agenda here by denying very real negative reaction to the series. Just to see what was the reaction on IMDB in terms of user reviews it skewed out as this:
 * 1/10 1,167
 * 2/10 371
 * 3/10 298
 * 4/10 224
 * 5/10 215
 * 6/10 162
 * 7/10 194
 * 8/10 362
 * 9/10 345
 * 10/10 660
 * I understand the idea some want to drape this as ‘regressive’ response because it may not agree with someone's personal viewpoint but there is validity when you look at the reviews across the spectrum. There is a very clear negative response to the franchise and it has more to do with bad writing than anything else but the intransigent stance is just a form of denial. It's really very disappointing honestly more than anything else that wikipedia will not report in an unbiased manner. There is a very clear response to this franchise across the spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, dude, user-generated content is explictly unacceptable per WP:USERG. That was half the FAQ right there. The other half is that you need to cite a reliable source saying that there actually is a "real" negative reaction--otherwise it's just your anecdote which in-and-of-itself isn't going to be taken seriously by any tertiary source like Wikipedia. The more you refuse to cite reliable sources known for fact-checking, the more you paint yourself as a fringe minory viewpoint who's no more credible than flat-earthers. DonQuixote (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, gee, I wonder why the reactions peaked with the first episode? Because that’s all the negative energy they could muster to reviewbomb. They couldn’t keep it up the entire season because in order to keep any levity to it they’d actually have to watch. That such tantrums should be given a platform is ludicrous--CreecregofLife (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you’re showing your own ignorance, those ratings are of the franchise overall not a single episode so as far as your speculation that it’s review bombing that’s far from the case. You made the mistake in thinking that each of the reviews were by episode and they were not. Rather, the intention was to provide a spectrum of the reviews the franchise has received and obviously it has been trending differently than you would like. It’s the same case on other sites as well but you choose to ignore that for your own reasons and again it’s somewhat disappointing that Wikipedia is showing bias rather than giving a balanced viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless you publish your observations and analysis in a reliable source known for fact-checking and/or peer review, tertiary sources like Wikipedia can't do anything with your original research. DonQuixote (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, to understand this clearly... reviews, which are opinion and not factual in any way - just a subjective judgment of a work of art, are not valid unless you ‘feel’ they should be recognized? Audience response across a variety of sources is going to be totally ignored because you don't agree with that viewpoint. Wow, that sounds really factual (well, maybe not factual as much as farcical). Got it. See the earlier comment regarding presenting unbiased view on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviews by professionally published critics are included. Review bomb attempts by random anonymous internet users are not. It's not a hard concept, and is the same across Wikipedia. Especially since the bitching of haters is irrelevant to the fact that the show is well generally well-received and a commercial success, which is a plain fact evidenced by its multiple seasons and continued renewals. Loud whiners don't count, and YouTube is full of lying clickbait seekers. oknazevad (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s a nice lie you want to tell yourself. Variety has run articles on this: https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/big-brother-abc-game-shows-star-trek-discovery-tv-ratings-1234783699/ the ratings for season 1 on broadcast have come in: https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/star-trek-discovery-season-one-ratings/ and when articles such as this are written you choose to ignore them because they are negative: https://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/2020/09/26/star-trek-discovery-low-ratings-cbs/ so it's not review bombing at all regardless of how you want to paint it and this just proves how biased this article is. If you're telling me this is normal for Wikipedia then in one fell swoop you have just condemned Wikipedia as any kind of useful reference source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Reruns of episodes already streamed by millions don't mean jack and you know it. Already renewed for a fifth season. Keep whining while the rest of the world actually watches the show. oknazevad (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m curious... where is the actual DATA to back this statement up? I don’t see anything that actually gives viewership numbers outside of you flapping your gums on this. Do you have a source you can point to that gives us the actual numbers for streaming? I haven’t found any outside of the data that we have for the broadcast ratings.
 * If you want to cite those sources for low TV ratings for reruns of a pay service show, feel free to do so, although reruns aren't generally noteworthy so you probably won't get a consensus on that. DonQuixote (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha, see... I’ve given you sources and reviews clearly laying out a different narrative than the one you present here on this page but you keep changing the rules at each go round. First you indicate it’s only reviews from established sources and I’ve given you that as well as the Variety article and the actual numbers for the broadcasts of Season 1. You just don’t like the fact it proves what you are trying so desperately to ignore. The show is a hot mess. The writing is bad. Now, that’s my own subjective opinion granted but you are ignoring every indicator there is a mass of folks out there who are not receiving this well. Also, since Paramount+ chooses not to release viewership the way other streaming services do, we only have the ratings for broadcast to go on and they are horrendous. The page needs major cleanup if only to present a more balanced view of the reception but again if the mods here are so very determined to ignore that you are only indicting the validity of Wikipedia as an unbiased reference source. The show and it’s direction has been a problem from the beginning as indicated by incredible turnover in production on it. Mind you, I think people REALLY wanted to like this but it’s just not good. The ratings numbers we do have for it are just more proof of that. Let’s take it one step further... in terms of overall viewership Paramount Plus comes in 12th of 12 for streaming services (https://screenrant.com/ten-most-popular-streaming-services-ranked-subscriber-numbers/) this is not a major hit in anyone’s book and if it was when it did hit broadcast it would have generated a lot more eyeballs because the streaming service just doesn’t reach the viewers other streaming services do. But, look... you guys win. If you don’t want to push a balanced view that’s your business again, it speak volumes to what Wikipedia has become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Not a major hit by any means" And your metric is reruns. You lack context. The only bias here is yours--CreecregofLife (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated earlier, Paramount does not release viewer or ratings on any of the shows on its streaming service. It is ranked 12th in a listing of the 12 most popular streaming services and the numbers that have been released include Showtime and BET+ so( https://screenrant.com/ten-most-popular-streaming-services-ranked-subscriber-numbers/ ) it is impossible at this juncture to actually gauge how popular the series is on streaming aside from the fact that with a sizeable fanbase when the first season ran on broadcast there were still many people who hadn’t seen the show and the numbers were abysmal. If the show was as good as is made out, it would have garnered higher ratings and driven traffic to the streaming service which it appears it did not. While you want to position these numbers as numbers for reruns you presuppose that Paramount+ has huge market penetration which it does not. Characterizing ‘whining’ is a bit childish. You wanted verification and you have been given such verification. Further, the show has not received any recognition for acting, directing or writing by either the Emmys or the Golden Globes. What mainstream awards it has won have been for visual effects and makeup. But, again I will not change the page to reflect reality when it is obvious there is a concerted effort to shut down any objectivity by a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Mr IP 71, you are reaching SO MUCH it is embarrassing for you. It’s not childish to call your whining whining because you keep crawling back trying to get every whine out there. The only reason you don’t want us calling it such is because softer language would help legitimize your ludicrous stance. The flaws in your data are very apparent, now please, don’t touch anyone on your way out.--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @71.190.233.44 You need to cite reliable sources stating how any of that is important, otherwise no one's going to take your original research seriously. DonQuixote (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * CreecregofLife, I see there's been talk about bouncing you as an editor and now I can see why. Your behavior here is the same behavior that continues to get you into trouble. As far as citing reliable sources, I've given a bunch of links I really can't see how they are any less valuable than some of the other sources cited on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're going to need reliable sources on that too. Just because youve shared a bunch of links doesn't mean they were shared in a context that actually pertains to what you seek to prove--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're going to need reliable sources that directly say something like If the show was as good as is made out, it would have garnered higher ratings and driven traffic to the streaming service which it appears it did not, etc. because right now it's just you, which in-and-of-itself constitutes original research from an anonymous internet person without any verifiable reputation or credibility. Wikipedia works by reflecting the views of reuptable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't even understand why he chooses to lie. He's not looking for evidence regarding its P+ performance, otherwise he would've found this: Paramount+: ‘Star Trek: Discovery’, ‘iCarly’, ‘Infinite’ & ‘A Quiet Place 2’ Top Most Watched Originals List. He's being completely disingenuous and pretending things are a certain way when they're not--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Funny, I don’t see any actual numbers posted in that article.Do you have a site that actually provides that data and the only viewership numbers we have is for broadcast again which can be found here: https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/star-trek-discovery-season-one-ratings/ and which is not self published.
 * Ratings aren’t even an indicator of quality, or else the cratering of non-sports ratings would mean every show on network and most of cable sucks now. And because of all the different types of shows, that means claims of “nobody’s into wokeness” would be disproven because such would prove nobody’s into anything anymore--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Now that it’s up, why are they both marked at 1?--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That error was already fixed, perhaps you need to WP:PURGE? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, between two separate devices and several hours passing, it's showing up fine now--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Changes in templates sometimes takes an hour or so to update. DonQuixote (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

So what makes critics on Rotten Tomatoes realiable source, when every, single audience score place Discovery as total junk? Same as Batwoman? Kanikosen (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Gee I wonder what Discovery and Batwoman have in common? Stop giving audience scores the same weight as critics--CreecregofLife (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * High critical acclaim for being deverse and catastrophic user ratings and reviews. Same how with Joker is other way around. So mind telling me why is every single site where public can vote, Discovery score abysmal? Kanikosen (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take an introductory statistics class to learn why self-selection polls are unreliable. DonQuixote (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently racism and sexism don't cross his mind as a reason why the user ratings are so poor. That it has nothing to do with show quality--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, racism and sexism? Really? Seems as if you’re bringing your own biases to the table here. Let’s put this into context then... Dominique Tipper in The Expanse does a far better job than Sonequa Martin-Green in Discovery. It’s better writing and better acting. Now, that’s my OPINION and doesn’t belong up on a Wikipedia article anymore than your claims of racism and sexism do because you don’t appreciate the reception for Discovery. It’s not the entire property either that’s bad because there are elements of it that I do believe are being received quite well. However, overall there have been things like the tenet that the Burnham character is a Mary Sue ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-iux27wT8A ) and the funny thing about your earlier comment here is that the article you cite states the following: "THERE ARE NO HARD NUMBERS as no streamer besides Netflix has released viewership stats yet but there is a list of some of Paramount+’s top performers" but as stated we DO have hard numbers for the broadcast of Season 1. Again, you’ve gotten more than enough references showing that the property is NOT being well received but choose to ignore that. Again, I’m not editing the page here. The thing is that that is not being reflected on the page and IT SHOULD BE. That’s the only thing I’m saying. I’ll make this easier for you... you win. Again, it’s more about presenting an unbiased source and ignoring that there has been significant negative reaction from fans is putting a finger on the scale.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Every single site on Internet where people can vote is infiltrated by racist and sexim? Every single one? And introductory statistics will explain why say, youtube reviews of discovery are 95% negative, and 4% mixed with only 1% positive? So all those people are racists and sexist? Why is not same for DS9 (black captain, transgender crewmembers) and Voyager (woman captain, usa minority in command crew)? Kanikosen (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You two are being utterly ridiculous and your tantrums here show this discuss ion is no longer worth advancing--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, your aspersions about racism and sexism are shown to be false and consequently your argument proves to be ridiculous. Again, it’s not a question about anything other than presenting things in an unbiased light and the overall fan reaction is a part of that and it has been largely negative. When the series aired on broadcast it didn’t draw eyes, it’s as simple as that. Those are hard numbers and much more valid than the article you cited which doesn’t give us anything to back up the claims. I apologize to others for even engaging in this discussion as I can see it’s gone far afield of the original intent which was to get a more balanced presentation on the page of the response to the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, your intent was bias towards audiences who aren't actually the audience and to give them undue weight--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That statement is just a mind boggling display of logic, "bias towards audiences who aren't actually the audience" so what you are in essence stating is anyone who comes away with a negative view of the work should be ignored - "we" only want to acknowledge the people who like it. Priceless. Further, I guess there is just this one or a few very racist/sexist person(s) who appear to be going around posting all these responses. At least that’s my takeaway from the continued and purposeful lack of acknowledgement about fan response across the spectrum. I call that denial and again, I’ve provided a variety of sources regarding, this including the data we have actual numbers on. You have yet to show any actual data on what the viewership is on the 12th ranked streaming service because Paramount doesn’t release those numbers. Reading the article here I would come away with a very different idea of Discovery.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless you guys start citing reliable sources, none of what you guys say or claim will make it into the article proper per WP:CITE and WP:RS. And whether or not you learn that self-selection polls are unreliable (for example, from a statistics class), Wikipedia will not accept user generated content per WP:USERG. Also, read WP:DUE and WP:false balance--that is, there will be no "balancing" if you don't start citing reputable reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And also, viewership of a season on broadcast released 3 years prior on streaming isn’t an indicator of quality or fan reaction in any way. Some great movies have been box office flops.--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What is a reliable source, as so far if I post critic who say that the discovery is bad show I will be labeled sexist, racist will be to quote who aren't actually the audience and to give them undue weight? So where do you get who is the audience? Reading this article in this form you would think Discovery is a great show, and not bad. Same as Batwoman. Kanikosen (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The people who actually watch the show are the audience. If you haven't watched a show since season one and the show has much more content than that, then leaving a non-substantial review holds no weight. Please sit down and listen.--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Self-published sources aren't considered reliable sources (also see WP:RSPYT). You can get a general idea of what constitutes a reliable source by starting at WP:RS. DonQuixote (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The people who actually watch the show are the audience." (LOL) Maybe you should simply add the sentence that the show is popular with people who like the show. I’ve watched all four seasons and truthfully it’s gotten to the point where I can simply fast forward through certain scenes because they don’t advance the plot at all and it’s just chewing scenery. As far as self-published sourcing goes, the majority of the links I have provided you are not from self-published sources, you choose to ignore them but again don’t mind me or all the other folks who apparently aren’t all that happy with it. It’s just a sad commentary on the effort to shut down balanced views.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What you lack is context, and your lack of context means your sources have no relevance here. It does not sufficiently make your point.--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not so much a question of any of the sources lacking context, it’s more a question of choosing desperately to ignore them because it doesn’t agree with your viewpoint. At various times you have accused people of being racist or sexist, you’ve said that the only actual numbers we have are for reruns although it’s the only actual numbers that are available for the show (since Paramount+ doesn’t give actual numbers on viewership). We’ve got info from Variety and other sources but you are desperate in your attempts to try and spin this. Honestly, I’m past the point of caring as much as it’s fun to watch you keep trying to justify your position. Feel free to continue to flail it’s fun to watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's safe to close this thread, since there is no more productive discussion happening about improving the FAQ with reliable sources. <span style="background: linear-gradient(gray, #111111); color: white; font-family: Times New Roman, Georgia;">Politanvm talk 16:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do think it's best. Their case got ridiculous pretty quickly--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Star Trek:Discovery
The pilot of USS Discovery is not listed as part of the cast. Emily Coutts as Lt. Keyla Detmer 75.118.145.231 (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * She's one of the "Also staring" cast members listed in the closing credits. The infobox only contains people from the opening credits. oknazevad (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Emperor's New Clothes situation
I've been following the increasingly complex and convoluted arguments for ignoring or omitting the overwhelmingly negative fan response to Star Trek: Discovery. It's certainly a valiant effort, like frantically plugging holes in a leaking boat. I'm just curious how long it's going to go on, before we can just speak openly about what is plainly obvious at this point: Many, many Star Trek fans do not like this show. (For example, referring to the Metacritic user score as "review bombing" and therefore unworthy of inclusion in this article.) There are recent examples of media that have generated the same sort of fan response (Ex: Ghostbusters), and the fan response was noted in the article. At the very least, wouldn't a concerted fan effort to register displeasure about the show be significant and worth of inclusion in itself? We have precedents where such a negative fan response is at least mentioned without overwhelming the rest of the article. This can't go on forever. My fellow Wikipedians need to relent and allow at least some mention of the negative fan response in this article. 172.58.37.112 (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Per the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of this page and the numerous existing/previous discussions about this topic that you are apparently aware of, please provide reliable sources to support the content that you wish to add. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Background
To fill a slot in the CBS schedule, season 1 of Star Trek: Discovery was shown on Thursday, at 10pm Eastern. Meanwhile, season 3 had begun streaming. Unlike the first episode of the show, the episodes shown on CBS had previously been released on CBS All Access.

Summary
Since I inadvertently overran the original discussion (below), here is a summary on why I think including the Nielsen ratings for season 1 is suitable and concerns from (primarily) adamstom97 on why they should not (excluding reasons given for reverting to remove). -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

For context, the original specific line, is: "Three years after premiering on CBS, the network began airing season 1 of Discovery, on Thursdays from September 24; these broadcast episodes averaged 1.712 million viewers and a 0.21 rating."

Remove

 * Reruns are not typically included (too long after original release)
 * Should only be on season 1 page, subject to separate discussion
 * Source inadequate to use
 * Separate source for notability needed
 * Misleading to include TV viewership

Points on removal are how I perceived points mentioned in the below discussion, at the time of adding this and should be subject to further additions on discussion. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Include

 * Television audience is not the same as subscription CBS All Access
 * First TV run on network CBS is standard notability, compared to local or cable syndication (typical rerun)
 * The source is reliable, although, indirect for the industry-standard Nielsen; there are other unrelated sources (not included), also citing Nielsen, with comparable individual figures
 * Other top 30 shows were in the same time slot, on other networks
 * Suitable, easily amendable, context, clearly stating it was not first release
 * Collected data is non-selective and independent
 * Average/high/low season ratings are often included in series lead pages
 * Limited other examples of streaming-to-broadcast series, to emphasise precedence
 * TV statistics are the only firm/specific fully public viewership numbers
 * Does not disregard, replace, or de-emphasise other included streaming figures

Points paraphrased from below, mostly stated by me. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
"Three years after premiering on CBS, the network began airing season 1 of Discovery, on Thursdays from September 24; these broadcast episodes averaged 1.712 million viewers and a 0.21 rating."

Although I can appreciate your desire to keep the page focused, your removal of new referenced information, under a relevant (and not newly-added) section, simply because of your own view, is not a positive contribution and I disagree with your choice to remove the single sentence about how many measured viewers actually watched through a TV channel.

"[...] Ratings for reruns aren't usually noteworthy and can be misleading" is your opinion, added onto the fact of the statistics. It is a perfectly valid viewpoint, however, it is that - your opinion. If you didn't want to come across as you have, the right thing would have been to add a clarification that episodes had already been streamed, and to identify a source to cite, which includes analysis on whether the viewership of Discovery were high/low in relation to this (the top Google result on "Star Trek Discovery CBS ratings" includes analysis on possible reasons and comparisons: Giant Freakin' Robot). The audacity in simply removing it because you appear to want to take lead on the page is impolite, to say the least.

Neglecting the only completely public viewership statistics for the entire show does not make sense, simply because of minor considerations, which can be easily addressed. There is more relevance in Nielsen being a non-selective, figures not being direct opinion, it was the first broadcast of an entire season, the free-to-air CBS audience is distinct from the subscription-based CBS All Access, and offering an insight into reception for seasons 1 and 3 as a result of being simultaneously shown on the different platforms; not being the first showing does not invalidate this, but was still noted.

If you still disagree, which you are free to, then state your reasons as to why it should not be mentioned or why you didn't have the decency to transfer it to another page you felt was relevant. If your point is indeed purely organisational, there are other sections where relocating would help achieve whatever you feel is ideal.

It is my intention, to revert the page, so that the Nielsen statistics are included because I feel they objectively contribute to the page's wider information on viewership; so, please, do not blindly revert without a valid reason to, as it is not a sign of good faith. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don’t think the information is bad to include, but I have seen TV Series Finale described as unreliable, but maybe it’s just the general news reporting part than the ratings reporting. I was able to find StarTrek.com’s article about that those airings would be happening, it can at least verify that they were scheduled/happening, if you so wish. I think the actual reception in the audience reaction way would be colored by being acquired programming used to bide time to get their original programs going again during that phase of the pandemic, not unlike The CW’s continued reliance on such even into 2022-23. CreecregofLife (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * firstly, your behaviour here is out of line. Adding the same WP:BOLD change to an article three times and ignoring clear explanations from an experienced editor who disagrees with them, not to mention good faith guidelines such as WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, is edit warring. Just because you "feel" that your change is good does not mean you get to force it upon the article before consensus to make the change is found at the talk page. The onus is on you to justify your change here and get support for it, not on me to get support for having it removed. Please revert your latest edit until this discussion is complete.
 * I disagree that "Ratings for reruns aren't usually noteworthy and can be misleading" is just my opinion, I was making an objective statement. It is definitely my experience working on TV articles that we only include the first run ratings for the day of release plus the next week or month if available. I have never seen rerun ratings added to an article and I don't think it is difficult to work out why that would be the case. It is also definitely the case that presenting rerun ratings as the only actual ratings for the season like this is misleading, and once again the onus is on you to alleviate that by providing further context and analysis yourself. You can't add bad data to an article and demand that other users put in the work for you. If you think this data is noteworthy and not misleading then you need to provide the sources to support that.
 * Finally, even if you do provide the necessary sources to support the inclusion of this data, it 100% should not be in this article. The viewership section here is a summary of all of the viewership data that we have at each season article and is meant to give readers an overview of the series' performance. Putting this rerun ratings information at the same level as the actual streaming viewership data that we have is WP:UNDUE, and mentioning the reruns at all at this level is trivial. If you can provide the sources that discuss this data, to put it into the correct context and confirm that it is noteworthy, then I will probably support having it in the reception section of Star Trek: Discovery (season 1) (which does already mention the CBS reruns, by the way). But it does not belong here. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s true, the context of the CBS airings is so different, a completely different headspace incompatible with that of when it’s actually first received. Minds are already made up, and fans of the show probably already have it at their disposal and did not need the CBS airings to satiate. Granted not everyone consistently keeps a subscription but these factors say a lot to the unclear picture of what the CBS audience is supposed to represent CreecregofLife (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Using a the number of edits you have, to justify the control of content and repeated removal of one sentence, which I don't think is particularly WP:BOLD is egregious. Your continued argument that any season-specific information should be relegated to the respective page and simply ignored, does not make sense, either, given the other considerations available. Attempting to misuse policies, to continue your overwatch is also not an attribute to your apparent expertise: WP:STATUSQUO is intended for where conflicting wording on the same point should revert to the previous norm, not where new information is added, which does not interfere with original sections, and removed based on one individual's decision. Despite what you are trying to say as an "expert editor," you are not the WP:KING.
 * "Instead of reverting, insert an appropriate tag indicating the text is under discussion."


 * Although you may have edited other shows' pages, content inclusion is WP:CBC, and the background of a limited number of other shows first being streamed, then broadcast on network TV means there are few pages to create direct comparisons - even if you look for almost analogous events (such as cable to broadcast). Despite your repeated point that episodes had already been streamed, the fact that it was on CBS, in the same time slot as several top 30 shows is not the equivalent of being rerun in a local market or basic cable at 5pm. While not the same as being the exclusive premiere, which is of course a consideration when analysing or comparing, it is still noteworthy as the only, so far, continuous airing and industry-standard measured viewership for the entire series.


 * It is implied by your decision to remove the Nielsen ratings, that you find it likely to be "misleading," which would be more reasonable to say, had no mention of being "three years after premiering" or had it displaced other analytic methods. Neither does it state, in the article, that the TV ratings are the exclusive ratings - that is your reading, hence derived viewpoint, which does not necessarily automatically transfer to every reader. It is considerably more WP:UNDUE to regard two select streaming guides, with an arbitrary "20 million users" mention, and no direct connection that can WP:VERIFY a WP:PRECISE viewership or the general standing on CBS All Access/Paramount+.


 * To say including one line on season 1's broadcast performance is WP:TOOMUCH is just unbelievable, and to say there cannot be any series and season overlap, is just as wrong. It has not been prominently placed, does not contradict other information, and does not prioritise broadcast over streaming premiere. It is the rule, rather than the exception, to include firm overview/average statistics, where available; this is the case for Discovery and these season 1 figures, unless Paramount+ begin sharing more data, as opposed to an unknown number that constitute "Parrot Analytics's 15th most in-demand from 20 million users." I'll say it once more, you are not WP:KING and should not WP:BITE by asserting how many edits you have. There is now a WP:DISCUSSION, which is how it should be, when you have a concern, especially over something practically WP:MINOR. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 20:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You're right about the source and editorial posts; in the context of the CBS ratings, it's more of an indirect source for Nielsen because the raw data is more of a niche publication for insiders, compared to the weekly top-10 on their website. There were a few other websites, along similar styles (TV blogs, Trek stuff, etc.) that stated the same statistics and source, but it was the least commentary-heavy and most data-rich of the most prominent sources I could see. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 20:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You may want to take a read of WP:WALLOFTEXT, massive posts like this are not helpful when trying to have a discussion. Throwing as many policy and guideline links as you can at me is also not doing what you think it is, and accusing me of WP:OWNERSHIP to justify getting your own way without consensus is not how Wikipedia works. The fact that you think moving season-specific content to the season-specific article is ignoring the content is very confusing, the whole point of that article is to have all the information on the first season. If it is also noteworthy enough to apply to the series as a whole or to fit into a summary of the seasons then it can also go at this article, but you have not provided the sources to justify that notability. Once again, you are the one who wants to add this to the article so you are the one who needs to justify its inclusion with sources and commentary. You don't just get to add trivial, misleading data to an article and force it to stay by edit warring and text dumping. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI I have also started a discussion about rerun ratings for streaming shows at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television since our guidelines there don't cover this situation and it applies to more than just this series. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Update, we have added a line to MOS:TVRECEPTION to clarify that ratings data for reruns is not noteworthy by default and needs reliable sources supporting why it should be included (which should be discussed there if there are any concerns). Since there has been no response here in a reasonable amount of time, I am going to follow WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO and restore the article. This discussion can continue if needed, but there won't be any progress here until the user provides the reliable sources needed to support this inclusion. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Rather than personally modifying MOS:TVRECEPTION, so you can use it to override the discussion, including feigning a complete ignorance to the multiple reasons I and others have discussed, in the above, as to how including a single line on TV ratings for the series is not a simple precedence to run an argument on default, I would suggest finding a more valid reason to counter inclusion, that is not based on a position appearing to be WP:KING. Blindly using headline shortcuts, ignoring the content of the pages you link, e.g. WP:BRD-NOT... a reason for reverting., goes against one of the most important principles WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:DISCUSS. If you want to clarify your explanations on how your choice of policies apply, do so, without such petty WP:WAR attempts. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just how I write, but I do appreciate chunky text being OTT, so I'll reiterate the points concisely. In your multiple reversions, repeatedly misusing WP:STATUSQUO and your subjective viewpoint on WP:BOLD is inappropriate for one sentence on ratings, which has been given an appropriate source and context; this is the sign of you feeling WP:KING, hence you acting like WP:OWNER. The central point is you asserting your own viewpoints, into blindly washing the average ratings for the CBS run as somehow "misleading," while having a lack of similar concerns to sections, in my view, are more actually speculative and misleading, i.e. "Parrot Analytics top-15 of 20 million stream guide users". Finally, the best way to voice your concerns is not to simply revert to your will, when an edit is non-disruptive, is referenced and has been justified; at that point, you should discuss removing it (above), on an argument other than a supposed superiority, based on edit count. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's silly to continue accusing me of WP:OWNERSHIP when you are the one who keeps adding disputed content to an article without consensus, trying to force your preferred version of the article. We don't add ratings for reruns of one season, especially without appropriate context and sourcing, and especially especially not at an article where the scope is the overall series / multiple seasons. That, plus the fact that you have reverted multiple times despite knowing that your addition is controversial, is why WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD applies. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your blanket reversions are signs of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR because the prime policy is to WP:PRESERVE to discuss, particularly at your choice to use WP:WEAKSILENCE as your own determination of consensus. And, as it clearly states, if you had read it, WP:BRD is not policy, but a method to induce discussion. So long as you want to continually link it, also consider reading WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING on abuse of WP:STATUSQUO. Rather than continue to use an argument of technicality and aesthetic to obfuscate the information, it would be better to state why you deem the contextual considerations and references I have included as invalid, and how this should not be treated as WP:Case-by-case. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I want to point that there is a general consensus that it is inappropriate to add ratings of secondary networks when they are just reruns without commentary nor coverage about at all. We cannot include ratings of every single reruns. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   03:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In general, it wouldn't make sense to include figures for every rerun, given how numerous and varied showings can be. However, the specific context of Discovery, in my opinion, merits a mention of a whole season being shown in prime time on CBS, particularly in the scope of viewership, where there's a lack of complete public streaming statistics. Not every streaming show receives a broadcast run, so there isn't a wealth of precedents to compare articles, hence a better reason to discuss it. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see any differences with this TV series at all. The ratings on CBS of the reruns did not even make an impact in renewals. It maybe a different story if the ratings actually made difference in renewals. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   13:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an alternative commentary, if it was relevant, because as an intended stopgap, assessing it for renewal (e.g. emphasising it was not shown the next year) would be undue; in this case, the notability is that a full season Discovery was shown at prime time on CBS, which is not standard procedure for streaming shows. The inclusion of Nielsen ratings add to the context, compared to other shows in a similar position - one of the references, although not added to the article, talks about a comparison with prime time rerun of Bull, which was not a streaming show, two weeks before Discoverys run. The fact that it was only the first season is incidental, if it was ongoing, it would then have more of a potential to separate it into the individual seasons' pages. -- Bacon Noodles'  (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that CBS was missing content because of Covid and used content they had for their streaming service is not notable. Gonnym (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you actually put the bare minimum effort in and provided the necessary sources to support the data, however we are now giving a huge amount of WP:UNDUE weight to the ratings for reruns. They make up almost a third of all the viewership data we have on the series in total, which is giving way too much importance to something that means literally nothing for this series as a whole (as multiple editors have pointed out now). There is no justification for doing this in the context of the series as a whole, and very little for doing it in the context of just the first season. All this data tells us is how many people were willing to watch reruns of a three-year-old show on CBS during the pandemic, and I would argue that the only people truly interested in that information are CBS. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I get you still feel like the owner, but don't begin insulting me because I questioned your decision to blindly erase a point you disliked without discussing it, then when you went as far as changing a manual to get your own way. The fact that giving context, an average and consequences of both, takes up a third of the section in three sentences says much more about the other parts of the section being lacking - don't complain on it being WP:UNDUE, when the only other two sources are random streaming guides that are not easily WP:VERIFIABLE. Perhaps you should petition Paramount+ to release more statistics to add, rather than attempt to reject and ignore the various separate sources who commented on the low, albeit rerun, ratings, as they found it notable enough to mention. Not to say 1.7m isn't more than "how many people were willing to watch reruns of a three-year-old show on CBS during the pandemic" because that is the exact commentary. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 21:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the background and, on its own, that's more of a notability for the 2020–21 TV season and consequences of COVID-19 on television production. However, in the context of viewership, which is where the addition is placed, it's my view that the notability comes from being prime time on a Thursday and being illustrative of the broadcast audience interest; including the average rating quantitatively defines that point with what may be the most objective and reliable source (Nielsen). -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 22:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you need to cut it with the ownership accusations. It is just ridiculous at this point. Almost every editor who has discussed this issue has disagreed with you, and actually we can see that someone else proposed including this data in the section above and multiple experienced television editors were against including it then as well. So it is not just me who is opposing it, but it is just you who is trying to force your own preferred changes into the article (and out of MOS:TV). There is no consensus for adding rerun ratings to articles, and my WP:UNDUE concerns are completely valid. Yes, it would be nice if Paramount+ provided more concrete viewership data, but they don't, so we have to go off what analytics companies can tell us. It isn't great, but it is something that pretty much all articles about streaming series have to deal with. And since that is the case, we have to ensure that the data we do have is presented with appropriate detail, context, and weighting. Including a whole paragraph on ratings for reruns that nobody watched makes it seem like that is noteworthy and significant, and that just isn't the case. You say the notability comes from "being prime time on a Thursday and being illustrative of the broadcast audience interest", but "prime time on a Thursday" is much less important than it was in the past, especially when talking about a streaming series, and the "broadcast audience interest" in three-year-old reruns is just not noteworthy. The standing consensus is that this sort of information should not be included, and you have yet to gain support for overturning that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are clearly beating a dead horse. There is a general consensus to not include ratings of reruns on secondary networks without commentary nor coverage and you are refusing to acknowledge it. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   22:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

As others have noted, it is the general consensus among the Television project to not include viewership data for reruns/airings on a different platform, without significant notability or commentary on those ratings. Per Gonnym, I took agree CBS simply using the series to fill its COVID-ridden schedule is not the notability I would feel warrants listing these ratings since it had no impact on helping (or hurting) the series' future. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Likewise concur with removal. It had zero effect on wether the series would continue in the future. The reason it keeps getting dragged up at blogs is because it's used by opponents as supposed proof of the series failure. It's not. And it doesn't need to be here as it's not notable. Hell, if anything, one can easily spin it the other way: A rerun season of a three-year-old episode that was used as schedule filler due to the pandemic still managed to average over a million viewers an episode. It's all insignificant interpretation of something with zero actual impact on the series. So it doesn't need to be here at all. oknazevad (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding my two cents to this discussion... I feel that the fact that CBS ran the series during COVID can probably be mentioned briefly in the release section... but the ratings for these reruns are not particularly notable and should not be included. Spanneraol (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We do make note of the reruns at Star Trek: Discovery (season 1), I don't feel it is necessary to also mention them at this article since all the other details in this article's release section are about the series as a whole or multiple seasons where this rerun stuff is just applicable to the first season. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It's now been almost two weeks since this content was added and almost one week since there was a response at the talk page. It seems clear to me that there is consensus for removing it at WP:TV/MOS:TV and in this discussion, so it's about time that it was removed. Any further objections to me doing so? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * (Uninvolved editor who's a Star Trek fan) Upon reviewing the past discussion, and in line with the recently changed MOS:TV I believe there is consensus to remove. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now the paragraph per the consensus here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I object, I’ve always objected and continue to object. There is owner behavior going on here and has been for a long time now as is often the case in many discussions about these shows and their reception. Paramount Plus pointedly doesn’t provide viewership numbers and the only thing available are the Neilsen ratings which are valid because the assumption by folks against posting them is that Paramount Plus has a huge audience which it doesn’t. The franchise (Star Trek) has enough fans having been around for 50 plus years to still generate interest when new content arrives and CBS placed the show in its primetime schedule in an attempt to drive people to the subscription service. I’m not really clear why some editors apparently feel threatened there is negative backlash to something but I’ve seen that be the case here as elsewhere. There is no reason NOT to include the ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You need cite reliable sources that state any of that, otherwise you just come off as a crackpot. DonQuixote (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You want to cut it with the insults? Try and maintain WP:CIV, you’ve been here long enough I shouldn’t have to remind you of that. If anything, with that comment you’re proving my point. 71.190.233.44 (talk)
 * Or...you can start citing reliable sources to back up your claims as otherwise it is what it is. Frankly, your lack of reliable sources and any attempts to cite one says more about you than anything. DonQuixote (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again WP:CIV learn it, live it. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are hardly being civil yourself in these comments, and I think DonQuixote's responses have been completely fair. Time to drop it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not time to drop it. I’ve been exceedingly civil. Learn to behave. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A word of advice, accusing others of ownership when the reliable sources don't support you appears as if you're being uncivil and throwing a temper tantrum. As I've advised above, the way to avoid coming off as such is to cite reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve been down this road with you before. If you weren’t behaving in the manner being discussed it wouldn’t sting as much. Using words such as ‘temper tantrum’ or ‘crackpot’ are not even in the realm of WP:CIV unless you are telling me that you are welcoming of people calling you names when they disagree with you. The fact is people come to the page, are surprised by the whitewashing and find the same editors shutting down the discussion regardless of what they cite in support of their arguments, if that’s not WP:OWNER behavior I don’t know what is. I am trying very much to assume WP:GF but the name calling makes it very difficult. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, there's clear consensus against inclusion. At this point, it's a WP:DROPTHESTICK issue, and that's on you. oknazevad (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Nielsen ratings are not all that we have, we have data from analytics companies that is actually about the streaming viewership, not some reruns from years after the episodes premiered. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you have it can you point to it? Is it in the article already referenced (honestly I haven’t checked) and if you do have it, I would say put it up at the top of the talk page in the FAQ there to preclude the topic coming up again and again and again. Two reasons for that, one you point to actual numbers on the show and you impress upon folks they need equally valid citations to push forward the argument about negative reaction. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The viewership data I mentioned is in the viewership sections that we have here and at the season articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of plot
The article states, "Commander Michael Burnham's recklessness starts a war between the United Federation of Planets and the Klingon Empire." That does not accurately represent the plot of the show. T'Kuvma was determine to start a war to unify the Klingon Empire. If Burnham had captured T'Kuvma instead of killing him that may have stopped the war but that was not a certainty. 70.23.16.228 (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * She commits mutiny and is blamed for starting the war, even if it potentially would have started without her actions. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove the word "recklessness" as that is a POV term that doesn't really match the actual events. Probably better to just say her "actions" or something of that sort. Spanneraol (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made that update. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

White washed article?
Where is the negative criticism in this article? Why is there only the biased review from rt and meta? No audience rating? No sign of the intense negative backlash from a lot of Star Trek fans worldwide? Whats wrong with WP? KhlavKhalash (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See above discussions which address this issue. Spanneraol (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * While I do agree there may be an unintentional bias towards positive reception, that is representative of the general critical consensus; even though Rotten Tomatoes isn't perfect, it is the go-to for an aggregated critics' response, which is why it's mentioned on practically every major film's article. Simply adding the audience-equivalent may lead to more of an actual bias (WP:UGC), rather than perceived, because viewers are more likely to be polarised, than a critic who is likely to face scrutiny over a review.
 * It's the case with any long-time franchise where the background influences response: for example, a critic not aware of continuity is less likely to consider it, over a fan aware of any conflicts. However, I do think there may be room to include a mention of some complaints, particularly given the fandom that is Trek and how certain aspects of the show have been included/modified to appeal to that demographic, because it certainly hasn't been universal acclaim from critics or every viewer. If you can find a suitable source, which addresses your concerns, and can stand the scrutiny (i.e. probably not a Star Trek fansite blog), you should propose the additions. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 21:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In agreement; furthermore, this article represents a more positive bias than the usual build up of reception articles. Often, there are some examples of noteworthy statements made by highly regarded critics, both for a representative positive and a representative negative review. This however isn't done here. It just cites the numbers but no examples of why it has those numbers are provided. I give an example of the page on Die Another Day, which literally cites a critic saying: "This is a train wreck of an action film – a stupefying attempt by the filmmakers to force-feed James Bond into ....". You get the gist. Few critics of STD are this vocal, but I feel it's difficult to argue that wikipedia is purely fact based. It's evidently not. 84.241.186.5 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you can cite some of those from reputable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Corrected geographical nomenclature, edit was reverted
The Canadian geographical nomenclature/format is exactly the same as American, i.e. "Chicago, Illinois" or "Chicago, Illinois, USA". In two places where it said "Toronto, Canada", I corrected them to say "Toronto, Ontario, Canada", which is the proper way of formatting the geographical locale. If Los Angeles is written "Los Angeles, California, USA" or "Los Angeles, CA", then Toronto is written "Toronto, Ontario, Canada" or "Toronto, ON". The US and Canadian written geographical formats are exactly the same. Do not remove the name of the province again. The way it's written now, with the name of the province after the name of the city, is the correct way, and it does not negatively affect the article in any way that the edit needs reverting. If all other Wiki articles with American locales use "City, State, Country", then this one with a Canadian locale must use "City, Province, Country", because, again, Canadian geographical formatting is exactly the same as American formatting. It makes no sense for an editor from outside North America to dictate a completely different, non-existent geographical format just for Canadian locales, but not American ones. Kubrickrules (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have a guideline or policy to support this? -- Alex_ 21 TALK 23:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a guideline or policy that dictates this format I don't see why it needs to be enforced. "Toronto, Canada" conveys everything that someone from outside of Toronto should need to know. We do state Ontario in the filming section where it is relevant, but up top it is not. For another example, see Star Trek: Picard. We only say "Santa Clarita, California" because that is all someone from outside California needs to know, we don't say "Santa Clarita, California, USA". "Toronto, Ontario" or "Toronto, ON" would not necessarily be as easily understood outside of North America. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're being serious here or not. You do understand that this is the World Wide Web and not a country, right? In what way would "Toronto, Ontario, Canada" (my edit you keep reverting) not be as easily understood outside of North America as "Toronto, Canada"? 1. The words "Toronto" and "Canada" are still there. How does adding the name of the province make it less easily understood by anyone at all, anywhere at all? 2. The show was literally filmed in Toronto, Ontario. Why do you feel the need to omit "Ontario", especially in an article about a Star Trek show, whose fans are particularly demanding about detail? 3. Why should an article posted on the World Wide Web, accessible and read by an international audience, be specifically dumbed-down or be purposely rendered vague for a specific audience in one country. Who is anyone to be the arbiter of what people outside a specific location do or do not "need to know"? Is the location of Ontario wrong? If not, then why does it need to be removed? If you say "Santa Clarita, California", then you must say "Toronto, Ontario", because it's exactly the same format. Again, this is the World Wide Web, accessible to anyone in the world with an internet connection. Every single article should be written as broadly and as neutral as possible to be understood by as many people worldwide as possible. "Toronto, Ontario, Canada" is actually more accurate and understandable than "Toronto, Canada" (which is the wrong written geographical format anyway). Since people here are taking issue with a proper geographical format, the onus is actually on them to provide a concrete reason as to why the word "Ontario" should be removed. Demonstrate how the word "Ontario" is in any way way "wrong". Failing that, explain why it should be removed when that same edit in every other article I've placed it in has never been challenged or removed by anyone else, ever, and the name of all US states get to stay. Kubrickrules (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said "Toronto, Ontario, Canada" would be less easily understood, I said it is unnecessary because "Toronto, Canada" would be understood fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why are you not removing the names of US states in other articles that list those that use the exact same written geographical format (City/State or City/State/Country)? You haven't given any reasonable argument as to why the word "Ontario" should be removed from the article, why Canadian province names should never get a pass, but US state names always get a pass, and why you, a person who lives nowhere near North America, became a sole, self-appointed arbiter of this. In what way is this naming convention wrong, or affecting the article in a negative way? Why are you personally investing this much time and energy battling a naming convention that is 100% correct and accurate in every conceivable way? How or why does this personally affect you? Kubrickrules (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to calm down and get some perspective. I am not going around deleting Canadian provinces, you are the one who insists that it is necessary here but have provided no guideline or policy to support your position. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliable, Reputable, Serious
Could someone please supply a source for the arbiters of "Reliable" or, "Reputable", or "serious"? Those terms could all too easily devolve into "weasel-words" suited to the views of one, or a few particular editors and reduce overall objectivity. Sochwa (talk)
 * You just have to read WP:RS to understand reliable sources in Wikipedia. Robynthehode (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There's more than a professional critic's perspective of any television show or movie, any work of art. Noting the public reception of especially controversial art is useful in any reference work, including wikipedia. An average person would read this page and not know much that is relevant in not only the overall evaluation of the art but in it's production history. A blurb would do, and there are many reputable sources that mention the full scope of public response to this artistic work. I haven't the time or the inclination to attempt to fight with potentially heavy-handed editors, but partisan evaluation of art is not the vision of wikipedia that I hold dear as a disinterested general reader. I'm not interested in star trek, but I've heard from enough people complaining about this interpretation that I thought to see what is mentioned on wikipedia. Nothing at all is mentioned. Though a cursory internet search demonstrates heated and ongoing conversation. This disconnect between what is presented in a public reference work and what is actually the case is concerning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.127.52.235 (talk • contribs)
 * You're not bringing anything new to the table, so I'm just going to be blunt. If you can't cite a single reliable source that talks about any of this, then it's probably because you're a fringe minority viewpoint. DonQuixote (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean it has a reader score of 38% on Rotten Tomatoes, and an IMDB rating of 7.2, which makes it the lowest rated Star Trek series ever. Anecdotally speaking I don't know anyone who actually likes Discovery. This article represents a fringe view as far as Star Trek audiences are concerned. If it represents the general consensus of "reliable sources" then wikipedia must be broken on a fundamental level. 2607:FEA8:54E2:1D00:217D:5176:6F39:CA3F (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey there, buddy - you should probably pump the brakes a bit on presenting your opinion here. You don't speak for Star Trek or ST audiences, so perhaps clue in on the fact that your opinion doesn't equal fact or a Reliable Source. If you need help in understanding how this all works, just ask. Tantrums are a very poor way to ask for assistance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there little pal - you should probably take a step back and wipe that foam off your mouth, as I was doing no such thing (unlike this sad and dishonest article). The audience ratings that I mentioned, as well as the show's pathetic viewership says a lot more than I ever could in the most elaborate of opinion pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:54E2:1D00:A4AF:F540:CD98:6A99 (talk • contribs)
 * The streaming viewership is speculative because companies can choose whether or not to share the real numbers and, with a little intuition, you could assume that it must have a decent enough appeal to Paramount+ (therefore people still paying to watch it) for it to keep being renewed, even with an apparent negative audience score. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 21:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in and feel free to delete, but I subscribed to Paramount+ only because it has TOS and TNG, in fact Current ownership means I simply cannot watch any Trek in UK without subscribing to Paramount+ online. I've watched first three seasons of Discovery along with Strange New Worlds, Lower Decks etc but cannot bring myself to watch Season 4 of Discovery because of "bad taste" it left in my mouth due to what I saw as "unmanaged storyline" despite good enough acting including the lead characters.
 * Having said that, I agree with Bacon Noodles, I'm but one such Paramount+ subscriber who's forced into Paramount+ subscription and perhaps there are a few more. So unless Paramount+ releases its own metrics on how many times Discovery was clicked on its streaming platform and give the world that number, we simply have to go with Rotten Tomatoes and other reputable sources. Fwd079 (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that audience reviews might be deemed unreliable, but the enormous disparity between critic and user reviews for Discovery is notable and not meaningless. Further, a simple Google search on Star Trek:Discovery unpopular yields reams of articles in many mainstream publications discussing this known issue. The problem with this Wikipedia article is it presents Prodigy as universally praised. That is not accurate. A simple paragraph at least noting significant audience criticism would improve this substantially. Cuchulain9 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Then provide sources that detail this "disparity" and why it's actually notable to the series, all I'm hearing is just disagreement and no action. And Prodigy? This isn't the article for Prodigy, I'm not sure what you're on about there. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Audience scores on RT or IMDB are not reliable as only a very small amount of the audience uses either website... and your not knowing anyone in your friend group that likes it is also not notable... I actually enjoy the show, but that's not notable ether and why we only use reliable sources. Spanneraol (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally disagree with this. Audience scores on RT and IMDB have a much larger sample size than critics' scores. Therefore, the latter are less reliable. Also, TV series are made for the public and not for critics. From this statistical review, you can see that critics and general audience are drifting farther apart, especially for productions with low audience scores. --Rocator (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How is an easily manipulated metric more reliable than a stable metric? CreecregofLife (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone who watches 5 minutes, then posts a comment "it's trash" probably wouldn't face the same scrutiny as a critic, who is being paid to give their review, also writing the same. That's a hypothetical, to be clear. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 21:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If only you could see the irony in such a reply... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:54E2:1D00:A4AF:F540:CD98:6A99 (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless you provide a citation of a reliable source known for fact checking and/or peer review, nothing can be done. DonQuixote (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That (probably) old saying "quality over quantity." We can't WP:VERIFY every audience review/rating, but we can check a handful of well-known critics. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 21:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Still there is bias here; this is an extreme example but there is an entire paragraph in the page on The Shawshank Redemption about audience scores. There is obviously a lot of different sources of evidence here. However fundamentally it breaks down the argument of the editors here that user-generated scores are not viable wikipedia content. This is fundamentally untrue as audience scores are widely cited on other pages. The only thing that matters is source reliability. 84.241.186.5 (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's literally stated at WP:USERG that Rotten Tomatoes user scores are unreliable. DonQuixote (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 84.241, if you're referring to how audience reviews are included and/or discussed at articles such as The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (season 1) and Velma (TV series), I would recommend that you read the discussion at Talk:Velma (TV series). You may find yourself having a clearer understanding on the difference between just including user-generated scores, and including audience reception as critically discussed by/from secondary and reliable sources. If you cannot provide detailed quotes from authors from reliable sources citing public commentary, then it cannot be included, as it is, by definition, not notable. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 20:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Michelle Yeoh
Why is Michelle Yeoh not mentioned as cast member in the header part? She is a famous actor and important in the story? 2001:8A0:F94E:4400:5C79:A924:156:96FA (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * She is a guest actor, not part of the main cast, which is what the cast list is based on here. We don’t just add guest actors to the main cast because they are "famous" or "important in the story". She is listed in the articles for the seasons in which she appears. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)