Talk:Stranger Things season 3

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2019
Mention that Netflix has agreed to cut back depictions of characters smoking after criticism? https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/05/health/netflix-smoking-stranger-things/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by StewBrewer (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This was out before S3 aired, and only looks to have S1 and S2, and in general is about Netflix's original programming, so likely better on Netflix's article. --M asem (t) 03:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are indeed quite correct - and I apologize for my inobservance. I will propose this addition where you have recommended. StewBrewer (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies
The night in the 7th episode is the 4th of July but back to the future1 Didn't get out till aug 5 '85 Nuttrpuckr69 (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is original research to point these out. (Also, some of the movie posters had "sneak peak" on them, so that would explain that timing). --M asem (t) 02:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, Back to the Future was released to 1200 screens on July 3, 1985, so your original research checks out (and would explain why the theater was nearly full). I noticed Cocoon and (I think?) Fletch were also showing at the theater, and both of those were released before July 4.  Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight given to negative criticism
Given that in 'Reception' it refers to "generally favorable reviews", it seems unbalanced to follow this only with critically negative comments, indeed several. Inpeacebase (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's clearly positive commentary about the season to be added. I had previously cautioned about including commentary w/o inline cites as well as just putting in negative comments. The reception should be developed with both positive and negative concerns, since many sources will have comments both ways. --M asem  (t) 01:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, I provided inline attribution as you asked. Add positive reviews and quotations if you need them, instead of removing the quotations that I provided. Mikus (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't provide enough. These are not recognized names, you have to give their work they write for too. Also, their commentary is all past tense. Also, you used rather strong words in Wikivoice about their opinions. We cannot go that far in some cases. But moreso, you're WP:QUOTEFARMing here. At the end of the day, the core idea is that several reviewers found that the amount of 80s references in the season was pandering and weakened the experience. That doesn't need all those separate quotes from 8-some different people that are saying essentially the same thing. Its not a point to ignore, no question, but it needs to be in balance with the remaining critical review of the series, and that's why I said before that positive and negative criticism should be written in conjunction, not one then the other. We're to find the balance here. --M asem  (t) 05:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with, so the recent re-edit by has again given undue weight to negative reviews; surely his would only be justified if Season 3 had received generally unfavourable reviews. Inpeacebase (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Reception
Some interesting data: https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/stranger-things-3-scores-svod-record-says-nielsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.162.95.223 (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)